date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2012/03/03 | 934 | 4,017 | <issue_start>username_0: When you look at a paper, what order to you assume the authors are in? Most important/most work done first or alphabetical? In my group we usually use alphabetic order, but I've been wondering if that might create a misleading impression with lots of people.
On a related note, would you expect the name of a PhD student to be always first on publications related to her/his work?<issue_comment>username_1: The answer is strongly conditional on discipline and, to a lesser extent, country of origin. Conventions vary widely, as does the degree to which they are institutionalized. For instance, in some fields (e.g., Philosophy), co-authorship is not common and there is no convention about attribution, so absent an explicit note people are are likely to think the more senior author is the primary one. In Sociology, co-authorship is common and the convention is that the first author is the lead author unless there is a note indicating equal authorship. In Economics, co-authorship has become increasingly common over the past few decades but the convention is to list authors alphabetically, regardless of degree of contribution. In some fields the primary author may be determined by looking to see if there's a note specifying to whom correspondence should be directed, regardless of order of authorship on the paper.
Meanwhile in many lab-based science disciplines, where it's sole authorship that's rare, author order is governed by different norms. In some fields, the first author is the one who is primarily responsible for the paper (what that means can vary, too), the last author is the lab head or primary grant-holder, and the order of authors in between is sometimes influenced by other norms. But other conventions exist, too. Knowing what they are and how to interpret them is part of one's socialization into a discipline.
To make things more complicated, some fields—or some journals, or some labs, or some individual authors—may have their own rules or conventions designed to clarify things by listing credit more explicitly. Even worse, there may be a kind of hermeneutics of author-order where people parcel out credit to different contributors regardless of order of authorship, as when someone says "Sure, X is the first author and Y helped him write it up but it's obvious the paper was Z's idea".
In your case, if your lab or unit is using a convention that's not standard in your field the most straightforward solution is to make a note of this in your articles. This isn't an *ideal* solution because papers will still be cited or referenced without people paying attention to your clarifying note, but there isn't much you can do about that.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: username_1's answer is correct, it really depends on the field, but I couldn't resist the temptation to link to this [(funny) paper by <NAME>](http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~appel/papers/science.pdf), which tries to study which Computer Science conferences are Maths and which ones are Science, based on the assumption that Math researchers publish using alphabetical order while Science (i.e. more applied research) researchers do not.
I wouldn't say that these are hard facts, but at least, that's quite interesting to read!
For info, it was referenced from this question on CS Theoretical SE: <https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/a/3126/8030>
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: In my field (Epidemiology) I would always assume that the authorship is appearing in the "Most important work first, PI/major senior contributor last, others in the middle" authorship scheme, but it varies dramatically based on field.
Under that scheme, I would expect the papers that emerge from a PhD students dissertation to have them as the first author. Ancillary papers, those where their results/data are published as part a compendium of findings from a larger study, etc. are where I wouldn't necessarily expect their names to show up first.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/03/04 | 944 | 4,133 | <issue_start>username_0: Are they almost always kept confidential? Or is there protocol for sharing them?<issue_comment>username_1: It varies substantially by field and journal. (As I keep saying, this is true of pretty much every question on this board.) Often they are shared not just with the author but the other reviewers, too. The author can show them to whomever they like. Beyond that, there's no formal sharing mechanism, and no real demand for one.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: In my experience, the contents of the comments of other referee reports are only made *indirectly* available. Since the authors are normally expected to provide a response to the reviews, the relevant criticisms and comments of the other referees are typically mentioned or discussed in that document. Outside of that, however, there's often little *direct* sharing of referee reports. None of the eight or nine journals for which I've reviewed (physics, chemistry, chemical engineering) have allowed me to see directly the reviews submitted by the other referees.
At any rate, the results are almost always kept confidential, *unless* it is an "open" referee process by design. (There are a few journals now that make the refereeing process a part of the publication record for a given paper; an example is [*The Cryosphere*](http://www.the-cryosphere.net/).)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Some journals/conferences have explicit guidelines that tell you to treat the reviews confidential. I'm not aware of any journal that makes the reviews and authors' response publically available when a paper is published.
I think publishing reviews for your papers would in general be frowned upon, even if there's no explicit rule saying that you can't. That said, I've been wondering about that myself and we had discussions about it at our school because the quality of some reviews is very bad and making them public might help improve the quality of peer reviewing in the long term.
I personally try to write reviews in a way that I wouldn't object to them being published with my name on it (although all the reviews I've done so far have been anonymous).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: There are a few journals I've encountered where the written reviews are published alongside the paper itself (the BMJ's new open access journal comes to mind). Other than that, generally I've only seen them sent to the other reviewers (usually because they're BCC'd on the decision/review email sent from the journal editor) or kept entirely confidential.
Probably the most common thing that happens? The authors complaining about idiot reviewers to their colleagues.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: In some subset of journals they are openly available. Who was the reviewer and what he/she wrote
BioMedCentral medical journals are often like that.
See example here
<http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/12/147/prepub>
you click on each article's publication history
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: In all journals I have encountered the reviews are kept by the journal through either an electronic submission/review system (digitally) or in paper copy (if they do not have such a system). In the electronic systems it is usually possible to view ones older reviews but not view other's.
The question whether these are confidential or not is far from clear in general. I would, however, venture to state that a review is treated as confidential unless explicitly stated otherwise, i.e. clearly stated to authors, editors and reviewers (remember that the review comments received may include overruling comments by the editor). Such is obviosuly the case with some journals with open discussion formats.
To some extent the confidentiality issue is new to me because in my field everyone pretty much assume reviews are. I have not heard of anyone trying to push for publicising a review (again, in my field). It would probably not go down well if it happened without consent from the parties concerned. It seems this is a sector that is largely unregulated other than in general terms and understanding.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/03/04 | 622 | 2,836 | <issue_start>username_0: I know that a couple of UChicago professors told me that, especially if a graduate student ends up co-advised with two professors. Maybe there's an additional factor too: maybe students actually have the time and flexibility to communicate with other professors, which could possibly help initiate collaborations between them?<issue_comment>username_1: In my experience, this is not the case. I was co-advised by a professor from another university, but no collaborations resulted from this. You could probably facilitate such collaborations if you really wanted to and put in lots of work though.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It happens, but rarely through co-advising. In my experience, co-advisors usually know each other before the student enters the picture, and the student has little effect on how much the faculty collaborate.
More often, students create new connections by becoming active independent researchers and working with a diverse set of collaborators. The various actors' roles as "student" and "professor" are simply irrelevant.
(I'm speaking for theoretical computer science, where PhD students are *expected* to become full-fledged independent researchers before they graduate. Your mileage may vary.)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: In my experience, getting a grad student or postdoc involved is often the best way to kick off a collaboration between two busy PIs (primary investigators). For any researcher with a large lab, their attention is often divided between many ongoing projects. A new collaboration often requires a significant investment of time and energy that may simply not be practical.
In this case, getting a grad student or postdoc involved can be good for everybody. The junior researcher can invest a lot of time and energy, receiving advice from both PIs, and see if the proposed collaboration is productive. If it doesn't work out, it's no worse than trying out a non-collaborative idea that doesn't work. If it does work, then the collaboration expands, benefiting both PIs. The junior researcher benefits even more, as they are now at the center of a growing new cross-disciplinary venture that clearly differentiates their work from both of the PIs involved.
Whether this involves formal co-advising or not is less important and a situational choice. Certainly, no such decision should be made until it is already clear that the collaboration is being productive and successful.
Things are different when you've got professors who have few graduate students and have more time to invest directly in collaborations, e.g., a professor at a primarily undergraduate institution who is still expected to continue doing research. In that case, the professor is likely to have more time available and should probably invest themselves.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/03/04 | 1,213 | 4,825 | <issue_start>username_0: I am often faced with questions in areas which cross my boundaries of knowledge. For instance, as an engineer, sometimes I am needed to study the basics of Anatomy or something like that.
This might be a temporary interest or might be permanent (There is no way of telling beforehand)
During such times, there is an option:
1. Go for the "proper" textbooks used by the students in that field. (Say [this](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0073378097) one :: 960 pages) and study them well.
2. Get a Schaum's series, Demystified or For Dummies sort of book and get over with it. (Say [this](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0070668876) one :: 450 pages). Alternately, use this as an entry point for the "better" books.
My professors have always suggested against such books because they provide no motivation for the development of a certain concept but I see that as a valid point only it is your primary field of interest. If an engineer wants to know Statistics or Anatomy, I am slightly skeptical whether such grinding is necessary.
**Are such books a good resource/entry point for a new subject?**
Note: All of this is under the assumption that the student is within the confines of academia.<issue_comment>username_1: Those books are not only very useful, I would argue they are the *best* option in many cases, as they represent the best use of your time. You will find that, throughout your graduate studies, you will have to learn aspects of many different fields. In most cases, while it would be possible for you to embark on a thorough study I some other discipline, that would take weeks, if not months. These books allow you to quickly learn the basics, giving you a solid foundation of knowledge that you can expand with further study if necessary.
*Edit:* this applies to topics only ancillary to your main field of research; you should *not* use this book on your research topic itself, for the reasons outlined by your professor.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I would advise against the use of "for dummies" books, firstly because they are not of academic quality, second they are too big.
There are 2 strategies that I myself use for rapid acquisition of quality knowledge:
1. a) Start with Wikipedia, identify the basic strands, but most importantly the correct terms for what you want to learn about. So for instance, you probably don't need to study all of anatomy, but from Wikipedia, you would discover that what you need to brush up on, is anatomy of tissues- histology.
b) Now that you have the correct term and a narrow focus, put it into google scholar, and read the abstracts of the top 10 cited journal articles. The oldest articles with 3000 citations are the classics, the newest ones with 500 are the review articles with ideas for further reading and useful summaries. You can read more than the abstracts if it seems relevant, otherwise go with the basics.
2. An even quicker way of cramming in quality information is to use the [Annual review](http://www.annualreviews.org/) series of journals, provided you have institutional access to the journals. These are a comprehensive set of journals in all major fields which have reviews by invited experts on those topics. Not only do you get high quality disciplinary summaries, but also excellent interdisciplinary articles.
The benefit of either of these strategies is focused and quick acquisition of relevant knowledge without having to run around trying to figure out what you need to know in a non-academic book that wasn't written for this purpose. We're talking 50 pages of in-depth reading versus 500 pages of broad but shallow references of minor interest.
Disciplinary dictionaries, like [this one](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1405132884),are also a good place to start, provided they have been around for at least 2 editions,
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: They're a decent starting point. They are aimed at folks who are newbies to the subject and are good at an overview of the subject. From this starting point, you'll get a better idea of where to look.
In one rare case, the author of [Google SketchUp For Dummies](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0470137444) is also the author of most of the other books on the same product, and the dummies book is the one that covers the lastest version of the product.
>
> *If an engineer wants to know Statistics*
>
>
>
Probablistic methods were an important part of electrical engineering when I studied it. Several courses in statistics/probability were part of the required curriculum. In such a case, the "for dummies" series would only be useful as something to read before starting the semester, so that the first week wouldn't be a total surprise/shock.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/04 | 365 | 1,506 | <issue_start>username_0: (A followup for [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/535/order-of-authors-on-publications))
Say your field's convention is to have alphabetical-ordered author list. What should you do when your work is accepted to a (multidisciplinary) journal in which the convention is to order the author by contribution (e.g. Nature)?<issue_comment>username_1: If it's a well-known journal like Nature, then I would follow their convention. Everybody who reads the article will assume that you do.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: My first stop would be checking if the journal has any particular authorship policies. If it does, follow them - if its not the way your field does it, welcome to the perils of interdisciplinary research.
From there, in my mind, it splits into two questions:
* Is it a field-specific paper that *happens* to be going in an interdisciplinary journal. For example, are all the authors from Alphabetical Author List Field? Then put it in that field's ordering.
* Is it *genuinely* interdisciplinary (multiple fields with different traditions)? I'd probably default to the non-alphabetical ordering scheme, as *among people I work with* its the more common ordering scheme, and those who come from other fields that don't do that are generally pretty understanding. Or, if the authorship list is small enough, see if there's a clever ordering of author names that gets everyone what they need (it happens).
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer] |
2012/03/05 | 857 | 3,767 | <issue_start>username_0: Do they discuss the graduate student in meetings with each other? Or do they have any obligations to interact with the graduate student in other ways?<issue_comment>username_1: I think the variations here are national rather than by discipline.
In the U.S., the thesis committee's primary role is that of a review panel when all is going well, and as a neutral arbiter between student and advisor when it isn't. Again, there is no formal obligation on the part of the committee—except when convened by the student or advisor, but this typically occurs on a more frequent basis (every one to two years or so). As individuals, however, committee members may be consulted with on various topics (job placement and career strategies, suggestions for future research directions, and so on); however, this is voluntary and, again, not very frequent—probably one or two times per year.
In Germany, by comparison, the primary obligation occurs at the time of the thesis defense, when they serve as evaluators. Outside of this, you might never meet with the professors on your committee, other than your primary advisor.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: To complement username_1's answer, I would add that in France, there is a committee that evaluates every year or so the progress of your PhD (but it's rather high-level, they are just looking for problems, like someone who would have stopped working), and this committee is chosen by the grad school.
The final PhD committee, who evaluates scientifically the PhD, is decided only at the final stage of the PhD, and it is proposed by the PhD advisor and then validated by the grad school.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: To also complement the answers given, here's how it works at my institution:
Committee 1:
There is a small committee of faculty members, chosen by the student but with particular rules established by the department (Three total, choose one member from List A, two faculty members, two must be tenured professors in the dept. etc) who determine whether you are ready or not to transition from coursework to working on your dissertation proposal, and the dissertation itself. This is often, but not always, a subset of committee #2.
Committee #2:
The dissertation committee. This committee has several formal obligations toward the student:
* They meet with the student when they submit their dissertation proposal, to provide comments, criticism and ideas in order to strengthen the proposal, (theoretically) stop doomed projects from ever being started by the student, and identify any areas they believe the student may need additional coursework or expertise in order to complete their project. They also meet independently without the student during the same meeting to have a candid discussion of said student. This is usually about the project, but can range to cover mentorship concerns, thoughts on their job search, etc.
* The student is obligated to meet with each member of their committee every 6 months or so to keep them updated on their progress, and the committee as a whole meets at ~the midpoint of the dissertation project to make sure any problems are addressed before they have a chance to "go too far" and stall the defense itself.
* They then meet at the dissertation defense, evaluate the student, and make the determination as to whether or not they have successfully completed their program.
Certain members of the committee do have certain roles, beyond the usual advisor/chair role, but these are usually informal. For example, there is often a statistician on the committee, with the informal understanding that this is the person the student can turn to for questions re: statistical methods.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/05 | 702 | 2,853 | <issue_start>username_0: I know that the time greatly varies from professor to professor, but what are some good 25th percentile to 75th percentile estimates? And does the time spent reading/replying to emails generally increase when the professor is teaching a class?
What are some other factors that influence the number of emails a professor receives?<issue_comment>username_1: I'm not sure what the exact percentiles are, but I'd estimate that most faculty members who handle their own emails (more on this below) probably spend on the order of an hour a day or more dealing with emails.
I think that emails don't necessarily increase when one is teaching as opposed to other times of the year—unless there are no TA's for the course. In that case, since the professor is the only contact point, emails will rise, although this depends on the course enrollment.
Other determining factors are more or less obvious: the more active and senior a professor is, the more emails they will get:
* Professors with larger research groups will have more email traffic associated with group management.
* Professors in larger departments will have more email originating at the department and committee level.
* As professors move up the ladder, they are asked to participate in more reviews and external programs, which increases the burden still further.
On the other hand, one advantage that many senior faculty have is that they may have dedicated administrative assistants, whose responsibilities can include filtering out the unimportant messages for them.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: It greatly varies, my adviser replies at lightning speed, if I ask any questions. He never replies if I ask for an appointment though,LOL. If I ask a question, that he already knows, then within next 2 - 5 mins, If I ask some question, that need some thought, a day MAX. But I took courses with people who ignore stupid questions and move on, even though, that is introductory course. Not saying its wrong, kinda grey area though.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: In 2015, a paper was published which gives some numbers based on a survey among academics: "Employees’ perceptions of email communication, volume and management strategies in an Australian university" <https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2015.1019121>.
The paper reports that academics on the Associate Professor/Professor level say that on average they get 84.3 emails per workday (Table 3, D/E column).
The paper displays a few comments about the time it takes to handle email (not specified whether this is professors):
* "Most days I work heavily on email, and start my ‘real’ work at 5pm when the email traffic slows down"
* "Work email takes up over two hours per day ..."
* "... it takes me half a day just to read and respond to them before I can commence my work".
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/03/05 | 521 | 1,928 | <issue_start>username_0: [This blog post](http://scienceblogs.com/catdynamics/2010/09/nrc_the_rankings.php) argues so, but I have my doubts since the author works at a graduate program whose S-rankings are much better than its R-rankings. I have a feeling that R-rankings do capture some things that S-rankings don't capture. Professors who are far ahead of their time, for example, might be recognized as such, but I would expect that their papers probably won't get very high citation counts for some time.<issue_comment>username_1: No, both rankings are basically [nonsense](http://chronicle.com/article/Too-Big-to-Fail/127212/). Even if you agree with the NRC's choice of a single "quality" model across all intellectual disciplines, the rankings are based on horrendously incomplete and incorrect data. This is especially true in [computer](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=466) [science](http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2011/12/142542-doctoral-program-rankings-for-us-computing-programs/fulltext).
Also, the claim in the blog post is an obvious joke. The S-rankings are "better" because writer's home department's S-ranking was better than its R-ranking.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Any ranking that tries to distill a large bunch of heterogeneous statistics into a single number should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism. There is no inherent reason why a particular set of statistics should be weighted with one set of weights instead of another—and the two different weights could lead to widely divergent results.
That said, if you see a large number of rankings, and they all tend to have fairly similar results, there can be some predictive power in the *collective* set of rankings. And I would say it's a "loose" scheme at best: the difference between #1 and #2 on such lists is probably not indicative of much; the difference between #10 and #30 or #50 is much more meaningful.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/03/05 | 748 | 3,131 | <issue_start>username_0: [Here's](http://www.quora.com/Graduate-Advisors-Advising/What-are-the-primary-causes-of-conflict-between-PhD-advisors-and-their-students) a very interesting analysis from a professor's point of view on the primary causes of conflict between PhD advisors and their students:
>
> In my experience, incompatible personalities account for a large
> fraction of the conflicts that I have run across over my 13 years
> since college. Basically, the student has the wrong advisor. No one
> is at fault – it's like a marriage that doesn't work out.
>
>
>
I would like to get some more perspectives on this question though, as graduate students may perceive this question differently.<issue_comment>username_1: The biggest causes of conflict, beyond personality-related issues, I believe stems from a point made in the linked article—lack of communication.
When advisors and advisees are not on the same wavelength, either because goals have not been clearly communicated, or because the frequency or quality of contact and correspondence between the two has broken down, conflicts can result. This is especially true when it comes time to graduate: the advisor may have specific expectations on what the student is required to provide; however, unless this is directly communicated to the student, there will potentially be a lot of conflict in getting to a point where both are satisfied with the final results.
Often, this can be solved by having a direct discussion about the unresolved issues. However, if there is a pathological problem—in other words, one that can't be resolved through communication between the student and advisor—it may become necessary to invoke the thesis committee, graduate officer, department chair, or other authority who can help to resolve the problem.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I've observed three main failure modes:
* **Different research interests.** Even if nominally in the same subfield, it's difficult to work on a years-long project if both advisor and advisee are not really engaged. Both will try to subtly pull the project in a more interesting direction, and it's easy for both to have a different understanding of what the goal is.
* **Different working styles**. If the professor expects 9-5 hours and the student likes to work in the middle of the night, there may be conflict. Or, the professor may be interested in rigorous theory while the student takes an "if it works, it works" attitude. The latter can be a good opportunity for learning, but it can also just lead to conflict.
* **Poor behavior**. Laziness and abusiveness are difficult to negotiate. Note, this goes in both directions - plenty of examples of diligent students with lazy professors.
I agree with @username_1 that basically all of these can be resolved by better communication (and exacerbated by poor communication). It's sort of counter-cultural to do performance reviews and written-down goals, but it's not a bad idea, at least occasionally.
Edit: just realized this was 6 years old. But, the question was recently modified, so I'll leave my answer.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/03/05 | 1,586 | 6,899 | <issue_start>username_0: I have always refrained from making notes from my childhood. But now, my adviser wants me to make notes of what I study saying that it would be very beneficial for me in future. So, following his advice, I started making notes. But it turns out that it is quite boring and time consuming. And I feel that even if I want to look into something later, I can look it directly from a book. So, my questions are:
1. How does making notes help you in your research or possibly teaching?
2. What other pros/cons are there?<issue_comment>username_1: I'm not sure what kind of answer you are expecting, but it should not be surprising for you to learn that people assimilate information in different ways.
Myself, I have a good visual memory and remember a lot by looking at the board/presentation when at a lecture. When the presenter is only speaking without showing anything, I have much harder time remembering everything, and am distracted easier. Note-taking definitely helps, but only when I know I won't be getting any other study materials, or the materials themselves are deficient.
Later on, when I study and read on my own, I can recreate mentally how the board looked like and quickly relate terms and phenomena that I'm reading about with what I heard earlier. This speeds up learning significantly for me.
This is what works for me -- other people have completely different ways of studying. I'd suggest you do it in a way that's comfortable for you. If you don't see the value of taking notes, just don't do it, period. Present your case to your supervisor and explain that you have your own way of organizing information, and you should be able to do so in a way that's comfortable to you. The supervisor should be trusting you enough to let you do so -- in graduate studies, students should have much more freedom to explore their ideas and work on their own without much hand-holding. Otherwise you have a much more important problem to solve -- how to avoid being micromanaged by your superiors.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It's an old adage that "You don't truly understand something unless you can explain it completely to someone else". Writing notes effectively forces you to explain the topic to yourself. Oftentimes, when writing over notes from a class or from what you've read, the simple process of re-explaining it to yourself will clarify points that may have been confusing earlier.
For this purpose, I try not to write notes as I'm reading, but rather I'll read a section and them summarize that in my notes. Having read the full picture, I can then ensure that my understanding of the topic is more complete, and my notes should reflect that.
On a different note entirely, repetition enhances retention, and writing notes is at the very least doubles the number of times you'll see it (once in the book, and once as you write it), which should help your remember it that much better.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I take lots of notes — when I'm reading papers, listening to presentations, preparing for class, writing a paper, preparing a presentation, attending committee meetings, etc. I rarely look at the notes later (in fact, I often take notes on papers I'm reading on a whiteboard), but the act writing them forces a certain kind of organization in my brain that reading/watching/listening/thinking alone doesn't.
(As a graduate student, I was religious about keeping the notes I took in class. 20 years later, I still consult those notes occasionally when I teach the same material.)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: As others have mentioned, notes help some individuals remember things even if they never reference them again. So I won't stress that point anymore, although I agree with it, especially for class notes.
As for notes on your reading, notes on papers are extremely useful. Depending on your field, you might end up reading lots of papers from which the details of methodology don't matter, but the key results do. If you make note of the results, then you can reference them without having to reread the papers.
Sometimes, when I am doing modeling work and doing background reading on experimental results I will take this to the extreme. As I read the paper, I will takes notes (in Mendeley or [a personal wiki](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/112/66)) and at the end include a section called "cite this paper in the following contexts" in which I will proceed to write down contexts where I expect these results to matter in my future work.
When I am writing my own paper, I might remember "there was something I read about the involvement of this in the amygdala". I do a quick search on my wiki, and from my notes have access to the relevant papers in a much faster way than going through the countless papers I might have read looking for the result.
**Note taking makes my research (especially writing) more time efficient down the road**
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I keep notebooks with short notes and references so that I am not stuck saying "umm, I remember reading something close to that several months ago". Instead, I've got them in notebooks with a brief summary of what the article was about. These notebooks are more of my own index of research, yes, you can always look up in "the book" or "the article", but what you need is a memory aid that helps you remember where to look them up. You could probably use something like delicious or mandelay; I'll probably set up my own wiki.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: Taking notes helps me focus attention on a talk or paper. I seldom go back to notes, but **when I do it's very important**, and you can't guess in advance when something you'll need to remember will come up.
I currently keep notes in three different ways:
1. Written notes in chronological order. This was my original mechanism (lab notebooks) and was very useful for me as a graduate student. Currently I do this rarely, mostly at meetings, but have found binding the notes in order is still useful and helps me remember and organise my thoughts.
2. My bibliography file. At meetings & talks where possible I have my laptop out and download citations in real time as they are mentioned & write down keywords & ideas & who recommended what paper. I also do this when browsing social media. I use bibtex so including annotations is easy, and getting the full citation only has to be done once.
3. Electronic notes on my laptop. This lets me search for the notes if I can remember a few key phrases. It also lets me edit papers directly when I have ideas. I have a lot of paper & grant outlines filed neatly on my hard disk in folders with papers related to them. This can be very handy. Again I use latex and make comments cross-referencing between note files, papers/grants under construction & citations.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/05 | 1,097 | 4,567 | <issue_start>username_0: It seems I'm about to have a bad application season, as all schools I'm waiting to hear from have given out offers of admissions to other applicants. I'm trying to come up with a viable plan to turn my application into a successful one for next year's season.
Here are some important things to note:
1. I come from an unknown school, but my reference writers earned their Ph.Ds from well-known schools in the U.S. (top 25 via NRC ranking). They all encouraged me to apply to top 30 programs in the US.
2. I am an international applicant.
3. I am interested in pure mathematics.
Some fall-back plans I have is to actually get involved in research during the summer and fall, and I'm hoping I can get a serious publication out of doing this.
So for the people who have served on admissions committees in the past, what else can I do? Should I not bother to apply to the same programs I applied to this year?<issue_comment>username_1: There's a lot of helpful advice on this front in the thread [How do you get a bad transcript past Ph.D. admissions?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/324/how-do-you-get-a-bad-transcript-past-ph-d-admissions/325#325)
Basically, your situation really isn't all that different from the one discussed in that thread—your credentials don't seem to qualify you for international study. However, you may have some additional possibilities to consider:
* Were your IELTS/TOEFL scores below par?
* How strong were your letters of recommendation? Do they actually attest to personal attributes, or is it merely a recitation of your performance in class? The latter do you essentially no good in admissions to a US-style graduate program.
* Do you have the opportunity to take more classes before you apply in an attempt to improve your standing?
These are some possibilities, but without knowing more about your situation, it's hard to comment further.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: **Publish.** I have seen the following pattern more than once. (1) Applicant X applies to my department's PhD program and is rejected, not for any major flaws, but just for not standing out from the crowd. (2) X joins a MS program at a different university. (3) As a master's student, X publishes one paper and has two more in submission (or at least preparation). (4) X reapplies to my department's PhD program, with a detailed technical discussion of his results in his statement of purpose and stellar letters from his new department. (5) X is admitted in the first round, with a fellowship.
If you haven't done so already, show your complete application to the people who wrote your rec letters, and ask for their **brutally honest** feedback, especially on your statement. Often students who write statements without some faculty feedback write them to the wrong audience. ("I'm smart; hire me." makes a bad statement of purpose. "Here is the mathematics I've worked on and what I'm interested in looking at next." is much better.)
It's a long shot, but if your recommenders know faculty at the schools you applied to, you *might* be able to get some second-hand feedback through them. Maybe.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: To steal a phrase from real estate, "Network, network, and network". At this point, you can't really improve your GPA, you can't write a senior thesis, and you can't do undergraduate research. Your best bet is to talk to as many people as you can in order to (1) improve your letters of recommendation and (2) network with researchers.
Personally, I would recommend against taking more undergraduate classes, *unless* there's a specific deficiency in your academic record. Simply taking a course to raise your GPA will likely not have a large impact or be a good use of your time and money. However, if you're missing a subject area, this is the time to fix it. For example, I graduated as a psychology major, and needed some math courses when applying to biomedical engineering graduate programs, so I took a course on diff eq's and linear algebra. That course ended up being very helpful later on, both on my application and when joining research labs.
You mention that you hope to do research over the summer. Adding publications to your record will significantly help your chances, as it makes your academic record less important... the reviewing committee will often consider publications as proof that you can "do it". You should expect, though, that you will be grilled extremely thoroughly on your work during the interview process.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/03/06 | 477 | 2,045 | <issue_start>username_0: When an academic is invited to give a talk at another university, are their food and travel expenses usually fully reimbursed by the university that invited the professor?<issue_comment>username_1: The short answer is that it depends (no surprise there). If it's to give a talk in a department colloquium or seminar, travel cost are usually covered (at least, that's been my experience in mathematics), though that can vary a bit, especially since smaller departments may have very limited budgets for that kind of thing.
Food expenses vary even more wildly, and they depend heavily on the source of funding. I've been at places that had a standard per diem for visitors, places that did nothing, and places where the faculty would take the speaker to dinner and split the cost among them.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In my experience (as a visiting guest lecturer while a grad student elsewhere) the travel expense and accommodation were covered not by the university that hosted me, but by grant money from the professor that invited me. That being said, these visits were for a few days and included both the guest lecture, and some research/discussion on ongoing projects.
I did not claim a per diem for food, but I am sure that if I had it would have been covered, too.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: When you are an invited guest of a university department, in most cases you will have your travel costs paid by the department, or in the case of an individual institute or professor extending the invitation, by the specific people involved. In the case of a short visit (less than a day, for instance), when a per diem becomes impractical, the cost of the meal after the conference might be split among the attendees.
However, I have been an invited lecturer at conferences that were organized at various schools. In those cases, the conferences were operating on a very limited budget, and the "compensation" was essentially a free registration to the conference.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/06 | 983 | 4,198 | <issue_start>username_0: I am currently applying for research and faculty positions. After an initial phone interview, how can I politely ask for feedback on the status of my application?
What are the necessary, optional, and unwise topics of such a letter?
As a concrete example, here is a quick draft:
>
> I am writing to follow up on our discussion a few weeks ago about the position in (My Field) at (Your Institution). I remain very interested in the position and would appreciate the opportunity to work with you and the (XYZ) group.
>
>
> In particular, have you been able to narrow the list of candidates, and am I included? Is there any additional information that I could provide to support my application?
>
>
> I also appreciate that you sent me a copy of your unpublished manuscript. It promises to make an important contribution to the field by providing the type of robust approach to (The Method) that is required. I would like to learn more - would you be willing to share the supplementary information with me as well?
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: The only *necessary* component is the line "I was wondering about the status of my application".
Asking whether you can provide additional information is unlikely to help, as the question is too open-ended. It would be an excellent question to ask at the end of the interview phone call, as well as in the follow-up "thank you" email, but beyond that it appears desperate, which is typically not a good characteristic of an applicant.
The comment about the unpublished manuscript is unrelated, and therefore pretty neutral. It just as well could be sent in a second email.
It's worth mentioning that inquiring about the status of your application is pretty similar to habanero sauce; use judiciously, and very sparingly, and it's often best not to use it at all.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: As someone who has been participating in more of these hiring discussions recently, and been responsible for filling some of them myself, I would encourage you to use *extreme* caution before sending out such emails.
Faculty search committees usually consist of faculty members who are already quite overworked, and who have to deal with potentially many candidates who may all want to pester them with questions. If somebody starts acting like a nuisance, they might consider that person "not a team player" and reject the application on those grounds alone.
However, there are a few times when it is appropriate to ask about such deadlines:
* *When you have received an offer from another institution, but the institution you're writing to is a higher-perference choice*. Then you are doing two things: you're making sure that you get an informed decision, plus you're also letting the other guys know that if they're interested in you, they'll need to make a move quickly.
* *If you have a major update to announce.* This might include a change in location (new position, new mailing address, etc.) as well as status updates—you've earned a promotion or a major award. Then it would be OK to mention this in an email.
* *It is well past the "standard" deadline, or a promised deadline.* Then you're just following up on an arrangement, and it's hard to argue against this.
However, you should *never* ask if you are included on the list of finalists. That's considered both rude, as well as unfair to everybody else involved. Like username_1, I think the last paragraph in your excerpt is always superfluous, and should not be included in an email requesting a status update. (You *could* and perhaps *should* send it as part of a thank-you note to the interviewer.)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: They'll call you if they want to call you.
In general, the only appropriate times to contact a potential employer following an interview are:
1. Immediately afterwards, to thank the interviewer for their time (and reiterate your interest in the position). **Do this within 24 hours of the interview**.
2. If you have another offer somewhere else. In that case, it's appropriate to ask the status of your application so that you can have the opportunity to consider both.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/06 | 870 | 3,780 | <issue_start>username_0: And does it depend on the type of field? Undergrads in biology can do the menial work, but what about undergrads in the computational sciences?
Are they more or less likely to benefit from undergraduate research in schools/fields where the undergrads tend to be especially self-motivated? (I don't know much about the ratio of self-motivated undergrads to non-self-motivated undergrads, but the professors I talked to at Brown and UChicago said that working with the undergrads at those schools was incredibly rewarding since they tended to be very self-motivated).<issue_comment>username_1: As you suggest in your question, this likely will vary from both field to field, and from lab to lab. In the two research labs I've worked in, one engineering and one neuroscience, undergraduates did a tremendous amount of useful work. In engineering, they would help with circuit design and fabrication, as well as doing background research and presenting their findings to the group as a whole. In the neuroscience lab, they would do cellular recordings and prepare cell cultures, as well as participate in paper writing.
In both cases, the undergraduates benefitted tremendously from the experience in a number of ways; they experienced the life of a researcher, they got to perform actual research work, they published articles and conference papers, and they received excellent letters of recommendation. The lab also benefitted, in that they had a (most of the time) highly motivated student who was interested in doing work performing research, the grad students/professors had more time either prepare other experiments or write papers, and all the benefits of simply having someone else around to bounce ideas off of. All in all, if the lab is organized enough to handle the logistics of providing the students with regular (non-busywork) tasks to perform, it's a win-win situation for everyone.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: There are two major benefits I've encountered for professors sponsoring/hosting undergraduate researchers.
1. Grunt work.Yes it extends outside laboratory sciences - everyone has work that, while it needs to be handled with attention, doesn't necessarily need doctoral-level expertise. Parameter searches. Literature pulling. Programming implementation. All of these are valuable experiences for undergrads, give them exposure not only to the field they're interested in but the "act" of research itself, and save time for grad students, post-docs and faculty who *could* do these things, but instead are able to focus on the tasks undergraduates can't do.
2. Recruitment. Promising undergraduate researchers make for decent graduate student recruits. If they're not terribly interested in pursuing graduate education, but have a knack for research tasks and mesh well with a lab, they're also prime material for lab techs, programmers, and other technical support staff.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: One other (minor) benefit that username_1 and EpiGrad didn't mention is internal brownie points. Faculty in my department are encouraged to collaborate with undergrads, in part because graduate admissions is highly correlated with undergraduate research experience, and in part so that the department can attract a larger pool of potential majors. Working with undergrads makes my chair/dean happy.
That's not a major reason for me, though. As your Brown and UC profs suggest, the enthusiasm that motivated undergrads bring to research can be very refreshing. And (in my experience, in theoretical CS) there's comparatively little pressure for the research to lead to publication, compared to work with graduate students (where unsuccessful research means they don't graduate).
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/03/06 | 3,437 | 14,363 | <issue_start>username_0: I have never written a verbatim script for a talk. I have at times written notes or outlines, but I never read from them when presenting (and rarely when practicing). With enough (weeks) of practice, I can give a pretty good talk. With less practice, I sometimes digress and sometimes omit an important detail. But what I am most interested in is improving my presentation by removing awkward pauses (e.g. while I remember what to say about a slide) and by using appropriate intonation, phrasing, and cadence.
Recently, a friend of mine who is a writing studies doctoral candidate suggested that the first step toward accomplishing these goals is to write out a script for each slide. This is a difficult task, but one that I plan to experiment with. I do not plan to actually read the script during the talk, but to memorize it while practicing.
My questions are:
1. How common is it to write a script for a talk?
2. How does having a script help?
3. How early in the preparation should I have a "final" version?<issue_comment>username_1: I think a script is actually more harmful than good. It tends to produce very rigid talks, and it often forces you to concentrate on the *script* instead of the *content* and *audience*. Usually, you know what you are talking about well enough to not need a script, and just pointers. Below are the tricks I use for different kinds of talks.
### Research talks
For technical talks on my research or guest lectures on topics I am intimately familiar with (these two have been the overwhelming majority of my talks), I do not make scripts or notes and just concentrate on making good slides. In the process of making slides, I produce an outline which I use to mentally check my timing. The day of the talk, I look through my slides carefully (hunting for typos and other minor mistakes), this reminds me of the exact details I was going to discuss. Since I tend to repeat similar talks, I have become very proficient at estimating my timing.
For some big conferences, I practice talks in my lab before heading to the conference. This greatly improves the talk, especially timing issues and comfort.
I find that this is easy to do because you are usually intimately familiar with your own research and unlikely to forget something. It also allows a relatively fluid and natural talk, and lets you answer questions during the talk without fear of losing your pace.
Usually, **I have my final version the day before** unless I rehearse in the lab.
### Teaching talks
I have done a number of talks as reviews for large bodies of students (50 to 300) to prep them for exams, and smaller groups (20 to 30) during weekly tutorial sections. Here I was talking not about my research, but course material that I had taken years ago. The topics were physics/math and my style was one of interactive problem solving at the board of hand-picked problems that illustrated key concepts. To prepare I had to invest time to carefully come up with good questions and I quickly checked that I could solve the questions as I generated them.
I write down the questions one per page with a few bullet points of the main concept/technique I want to show in the question. However, I do not write down solutions and solve the questions on the spot at the board. This puts a certain amount of stress on me (especially if you are teaching first year engineers) but I find it produces much better pacing for the students (since I naturally slow down a little at the harder parts) and actually solving the questions as you present them instead of copying a solution from your notes to the board keeps you in the zone and actually reduces errors. Not having notes in your hand (except to write down the problem statement) also lets you worry about just two things: the board and the students.
The caveat is that you have to very comfortable with the material (but why are you teaching it if you are not?!) and you need to have the confidence to laugh at yourself and recover from occasional mistakes.
Usually, **I have the final questions and plan a few days ahead of time**. However, there is no 'final version' of the actual talk, since it depends completely on the audience.
### Popular talks
My only opportunity to give a popular talk was at [TEDx McGill 2009](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRuE3oP-JT8). This was incredibly different from other talks I am used to. Thankfully, all of the speakers were coached by the organizing committee ahead of time (including a full dry run through). The key message was to treat this not as a presentation, but as a performance. I did not prepare a script (and were were advised against preparing one), but I did make notes on cue-cards that I held during the performance. Except for the very beginning (where I was unusually nervous) I never looked at the cue cards, and mostly held them for comfort.
**I had my final version about a week before the talk** and my ready-for-dry-run version about two weeks before.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I think I have a similar process to the one described by Artem (apart from the popular talk, which I never had the opportunity to do). In any case, I never write a script. Actually, for my first talk in English, during my first year of PhD, I learned the talk by heart, which was terrible, and made me finish the talk in 12 minutes instead of the 20 minutes.
However, I try to carefully prepare my transitions, especially between different parts of the talk. I find it particularly annoying when a speaker finishes a part with a blank, moves to the next slide, and says something like "OK, next section now". Moreover, I usually include in a transition a brief summary of the key points of the previous section, and the motivation to go to the next section, which ensures that I don't forget any important point.
About how early should the preparation be ready, it depends on the kind of talks. For a 20/25 minutes conference talk presenting a paper, I usually already have a pretty clear idea of what I want to present and how to structure it (since I wrote the paper), so I start the slides about a week before the conference, have a decent draft 2 or 3 days before (i.e. the final number of slides, the correct titles), and the final version the day before. As Artem's said, after a while, you can project pretty accurately the duration of a talk from your slides, so there is no need to repeat to make sure you are in time.
For a 45/50 minutes seminar-kind talk, it's a bit trickier, because usually the audience is not the same as the one at a conference, and it's harder not to bore them. So I start preparing the slides about a month before, but only to get the outline, and I start working on the talking part, not so much the slides, to try to find nice ways to present the ideas (such as nice examples, nice analogies).
So, in summary, to answer your questions:
1. It is not very common (I actually don't know anyone who does it).
2. It can help if the speaker is very nervous, and tends to forget a lot of important things (which often disappears with experience).
3. It depends on the experience, and the ability to evaluate your presentation. If you feel very confident, you can start preparing the presentation the night before. But in general, I'd say that something between a week before and the day before is good.
**EDIT:**
As username_3 mentioned, my answer is quite subjective, and just describe what works for me and for some people I know. However, just one point I would add, concerning the "awkward pauses": I think that the quality of my presentations has tremendously increased when I stopped preparing my presentation around my slides, but the other way around. So I dropped all sentences like "this slide presents ...", "on this slide, we have the definition ...", etc. Actually, I even try not to say the words that are on the slides. I don't know if my presentation are better for the audience, but at least, I feel much more comfortable with them.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I think the most important factor to keep in mind is the personal comfort level of the speaker with respect to giving presentations. For some people—particularly people working in a non-native language—having a prepared script allows them to relax sufficiently and be able to get through the talk. For other people, having a prepared script acts more as an encumbrance than an aide. I've seen people rehearse talks to the point of practically being memorized—and then get completely flustered when they accidentally skip past a slide or are faced with a small technical glitch in the presentation itself.
So, I would disagree with Charles and Artem and say that you should find whichever method is most effective *for you*. Personally, I am not able to rehearse talks beyond going over what are the key points I want to address on a slide. If I go through a talk like that more than twice or thrice, I start getting "locked" into certain words and phrases, and then I start falling into the problems that the other posters mentioned regarding the pitfalls of a memorized talk. You may find a memorized speech is the most helpful possibility; if that's the case, then our opinions of what is the "best" approach don't really apply.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Script only the introduction
----------------------------
I can only echo what Artem said about the disadvantages of a script.
That said, I often advise to write out the *introduction* of the talk beforehand in full detail. This way, you have a backup. So far, I have never ended up using the prepared introduction, I’ve always had at least slight variations. But if – for whatever reason – you get stuck, you can recourse to the prepared script. If nothing else, this is extremely comforting and reduces anxiety.
A talk should not feel like a performance
-----------------------------------------
Of the talks that I’ve heard (instead of given), those that were obviously based on a script were among the worst. They were bad performances rather than good talks. A talk (in general) isn’t meant to be a performance – it’s meant to convey information; like you would do in a discussion with friends:
The “chat with friends” should be archetype after which to model a talk, not the “theatre performance”.1
Use cue cards
-------------
>
> I sometimes digress and sometimes omit an important detail.
>
>
>
This can be helped by notes (cue cards). But you have to train yourself to look at these from time to time (I can never remember doing this). I usually end up plastering my slides with huge sticky notes that only show up on the presenter’s display (supported at least by Keynote). Not elegant but effective.
A word on slides
----------------
You said that you want to remove awkward pauses “… while [you] remember what to say about a slide …”.
This may be an indication that your talk needs revising for two reasons:
1. If you cannot remember a detail, is it really important?
2. You should have *nothing* to say “about a slide”. Slides are there to visually support your talk, not the other way round. If you don’t remember what to say about a slide, cut the slide. This sounds like a harsh judgement but it *will* improve the talk.
---
1 Except when it isn’t, of course. TED talks were mentioned. But even here, all the best talks *feel* like a friendly chat rather than a performance, even if they are in reality a well-rehearsed performance.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: I also tend to write out notes, but at an early part of the preparation, I tend to write out something very much like a script. I use this to make sure I'm covering what needs covering, and cut down where I tend to ramble on. This also helps me determine if I'm going to fit inside the time budget, and if not, what to cut down on. A couple practice runs with the polished script and then I reduce it to a single page of notes.
One of my most memorable professors appeared much smarter because she eliminated all those "err" and "umm" from her speech. Instead of an "umm", she'd be silent. I'm not successful in replicating this as most of my coworkers take that pause to be a sign that I am done speaking, so they can now start their turn speaking.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Scripting is **great**. Do it. Write out every single word. And then redraft and edit it, just as you would if it were a journal article ... **except**, remember that the audience is completely different. So redraft and edit it, with the real audience in mind. You are scripting a performance; so redraft and edit it as a script for a performance.
Then rehearse it. Over and over. Until you know about 70%+ off by heart (i.e. word-for-word); and you've got a really strong opening and really strong close, each of which you know 100% off by heart. With each run-through, you'll find yourself doing a bit more editing, re-ordering words, shuffling sentences.
Now put your script away, and do a couple of dress-rehearsal run-throughs without the script at all, so that your performance is close-ish to the script, but by now, it's getting a bit looser, more natural. So you can concentrate on timing, breathing, pitch variations, body language, and saving some resources for picking up continuous feedback from your audience.
And now you're ready to go!
YMMV. It works sometimes for me.
Try it out, at least once, and see if it works for you.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: I really dislike memorising anything word for word as most of that effort will only be useful only for a single occasion. That said - I have to admit that sometimes a talk is important enough to be worth that effort - especially if the talk is one the you will be giving on many occasions.
However, the disadvantage of memorising a talk is that it is hard to sound natural. It's difficult, but not impossible. Actors demonstrate this. Generally it is much better to just us a script as a guide. Practise individual chunks from memory a number of times and play around with the various ways of wording it. Instead of having to remember the exact words, you now only have to remember one out of a number of options. You will become much better at discussing the topic and your ability to improvise will improve.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/06 | 1,461 | 5,517 | <issue_start>username_0: Can anyone suggest sources of online graduate-level education, as well as some criticism of them? Both free and paid are valid. I'm familiar with these sources:
* [Academic Earth](http://academicearth.org/)
* [MIT OpenCourseWare](http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm)
* [Kahn Academy](http://www.khanacademy.org/)
* [NYU Open Education](http://www.nyu.edu/academics/open-education.html)
and I'm curious to know what other resources are available.<issue_comment>username_1: A few points:
1. What subject are you looking at? The answer varies significantly if you are not looking at science/math/engineering.
2. Define 'graduate level' because the Khan Academy (Not Kahn) is far from graduate level.
3. [This](http://www.infocobuild.com/education/education.html) is a very good link. I'll paste an excerpt here:
>
> **MIT OpenCourseWare** : undergraduate and graduate subjects taught at MIT.
>
>
> **Open Yale** Courses : astronomy, biomedical engineering, history, economics, English, philosophy, physics, political science, and
> psychology.
>
>
> **UC Berkeley Webcast** : biology, computer science, electrical engineering, physics, political science, and psychology.
>
>
> **Stanford Engineering Everywhere**
>
>
> **NPTEL** basic undergraduate science and engineering courses. The courses include biotechnology, civil engineering, computer science,
> electrical engineering, electronics and communication, and mechanical
> engineering.
>
>
> **McGill Univ. COurses OnLine (COOL)** : chemistry, biology and computer science.
>
>
> **UCLA BruinCast** offers some free audio/video lectures for certain undergraduate courses from the University of California, Los Angeles
> (UCLA).
>
>
> **Open Learning Initiative | Harvard University Extension School** brings free audio/video lectures on topics in computer science,
> English literature, history, and mathematics.
>
>
> **Video & Audio | University of Cambridge** offers free access to audio and video lectures from the University's institutions including
> the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences and the
> Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy.
>
>
> **Podcasts from the University of Oxford** provides free access to certain course materials and audio/video lectures on a variety of
> subjects, including chemistry, engineering, humanities, life science,
> medical sciences, physics, and social sciences.
>
>
> **YouTube - UHouston's Channel (University of Houston)** contains lots of video lectures on various subjects: anthropology, chemistry,
> English literature, history, philosophy, and psychology.
>
>
> **nanoHUB** Courses contains free educational materials about nanotechnology. The courses cover the following subjects:
> nanoelectronics, NEMS/nanofluidics, nanomedicine/biology, and
> nanophotonics.
>
>
> **Mathematical Sciences Research Institute (MSRI)** provides a large number of free video lectures on a variety of subjects in mathematics
> and mathematical sciences.
>
>
> **CERN Document Server** provides a huge collection of text documents and video lectures in particle physics and related areas.
>
>
> **Department of Mathematics, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs** offers free video lectures on mathematics including
> calculus, discrete mathematics, linear algebra, differential equations
> and mathematical statistics. Registration is required to access the
> lectures.
>
>
> **Indiana Multimedia Distribution System** offers free audio/video courses and lectures in business and management from Kelley School of
> Business, Indiana University Bloomington.
>
>
>
The pasted website has links to all the places, alternately, you could simply google the words in bold.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I've found many interesting & diverse lectures in the [Education section of Apple's podcast directory](http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/apple-education/id334296685) (I can't verify that link at work, I hope it's correct). While most are undergraduate, some are taught at a higher level, and they're a good resource for when you need to learn a new discipline in grad school.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: At the graduate level there is less and less 'standardized' material like in undergrad. You might take a few introductory graduate courses that are pretty similar across universities, but then you tend to take very specialized courses (at least in my experiences with fields like math, computer science, and physics; and my answer should be taken as only relevant to those fields). Further, the number one skill you are suppose to learn in grad school seems to be **independence**.
If some specialized course is not offered at your university then the standard procedure is to look for good lecture notes on the websites of experts in that field. These experts usually teach relevant graduate level courses and post their lecture notes online. In fact, some of these lecture note become rather famous:
[What Lecture Notes (in theoretical computer science) Should Everyone Read?](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/q/4074/1037)
Then you have to do what *every graduate student has to do*, and that is to *motivate and teach yourself* with the guidance of those lecture notes (and maybe Q&A sites like SE or emails to the relevant experts). Some tricks to make this is easier is to form groups with other graduate students and learn the material together through regular meetings and discussions.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/06 | 558 | 2,272 | <issue_start>username_0: For most conferences in my field it seems to be invitation-only, i.e. somebody has to suggest you/remember you. Are there any conferences that have open calls for applications to the programme committee?<issue_comment>username_1: It's rare. I know of one conference though (in theoretical computer science) where the steering committee actively maintains a list of "qualified but has never served", and strongly encourages PC chairs to look over that list when selecting names. Your best strategy might be to approach the steering committee and suggest that they do something like this, so as not to sound like you're shilling for yourself :)
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I agree with username_1, it's rare, I've never seen a call for invitation to a PC in my field (Computer Science). I have actually seen people making fun of emails asking to be in a PC (i.e. if you ask the PC Chair to join the PC, it could be negatively perceived).
From what I understand, there are at least five possibilities to get a PC chair to invite you to join a PC (of course, none of them are automatic, they can just be helpful. In the end, the PC Chair makes his own choices, in order to have a PC that is attractive enough for authors to submit a paper, and serious enough so that the reviewing process can be done effectively):
* if you were in the PC of the previous editions
* if you know the PC Chair, so that he can trust you to do your job,
* if you already are in other PCs of conferences in a related area (i.e. other PC Chairs trusted you)
* if you have published several papers in previous editions of a conference
* if someone you know is invited to join the PC, but he can't and suggests you.
Of course, it's a cycle: the higher reputation you have, the higher are your chances to be invited to join a PC, and the more PC you join, the higher is your reputation.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Talk to members of the current organizing committee? It's tough work, and scientists are always busy, so they'll usually be receptive to having someone else to split the work with, and there's always a chance that somebody is too busy to help with next year's committee, and they're looking for a replacement.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/06 | 2,177 | 9,089 | <issue_start>username_0: How important is web-presence to researchers? How does its importance vary by fields? (My interest is STEM, theory in particular)
I noticed that there is a pretty large variation in amount of web-presence even within a single field (I will use theoretical computer science/related math as an example). There seems to be 3 different levels of web-presence:
* [**High**] Very active member of various internet tools (MathOverflow, cstheory, blogs, G+, etc) usually accompanied by a clear homepage with all the [Medium] info.
* [**Medium**] A clear up-to date website that provides a clean bibliography/CV (usually with links to self-hosted pdfs), a repository of course-notes and teaching information, and list of students.
* [**Low**] No personal website (or extremely outdated website).
Increasing your web-presence usually requires effort. Should you invest this effort? Or are you just wasting research time?
If you enjoy being active on the internet (so it is not a cost for you, but maybe a time-sync) is there any danger to having a high web presence?<issue_comment>username_1: In my opinion having an up-to-date website is very important. This way people will find out about your papers and what you are working on. It can also help to [attract students](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/555/does-a-informative-and-clear-professor-webpage-often-increase-the-number-of-pros). It also helps when you're teaching as you can put frequently requested information there and save yourself the hassle of having to reply to hundreds of emails.
In my experience, maintaing a website is not that much effort either.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: The only presence that the vast majority of researchers give significant thought to is their presence in the literature. Most labs view web presence as a way to inform the community about their work, and as a way to attract new students, but that's about it. This purpose is served by a pretty simple site, which includes:
* Basic info (name, broad research interests, contact info)
* Recent research projects
* Names of lab members (graduate students, postdocs, undergraduates, technicians, etc.)
* Recent publications
For professors who teach often, having a "teaching" section is very helpful, but remember to pull down things like answer keys and test solutions after the semester is over, unless you want future students to see those things.
You can do more and it will look nice, but investing in any site more complex than that has a pretty low payoff.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I think it also depends on the position of the researcher. For instance, a computer scientist who has a permanent research position, publishes one paper a year in a top conference, and doesn't care about the publicity does not *need* to have an important web presence.
On the other hand, a postdoc who is looking for a job knows that every time he sends his CV somewhere, one of the first reflex from the recruiter is to Google his name. So, in this case, it's quite important to have a good presence, and to have an updated webpage, in particular with papers accepted but not published yet.
About the maintenance, as mentioned the other answers, maintaining a website is not particularly demanding, especially if it's quite simple. However, maintaining a blog can be quite complicated, especially because having an non updated blog is probably worse than not having any blog at all. As for G+/SE, I guess the investment is worth the return from the community.
Concerning the danger of a high web-presence, well, obviously there is the risk that some "private" information might be connected to a public profile. For instance, I have a flickr account with pictures that, although not particularly shameful, I wouldn't like a potential employer or a student to see. Of course, my account is under a pseudonym, but that's the same pseudonym that I can use on other services (such as twitter), and maybe at some point I will refer to my twitter account from my G+ account, that maybe I will refer from my SE account, where I use my real name. But I guess that's the risk with the Internet in general: if it's out there, it has to be considered as public. There is a similar argument for opinions or ideas you could have a site such as Academia SE and that could be later on taken out of context and used against you.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: The short answer, at least in theoretical computer science, is **yes**. Especially pre-tenure.
The Coin of the Realm in academia is fame. Hiring and promotion decisions are based primarily on the perceptions of your impact by leaders in the research community. Those intellectual leaders must know who you are, they must know what you do, and they must think that what you do is excellent. This is precisely why it's so important to network, network, network — go to conferences, visit other departments, talk to visitors, ask questions, answer questions, go to lunch, drink beer, play pool/golf/frisbee/Settlers of Catan, race go-karts, exchange business cards, all that stuff. Having a visible online presence is just another form of networking.
Similarly, if you want to attract good students, they have to know who you are, they have to know what you do, and they have to think what you do is interesting.
Similarly, if your work is not freely and easily accessible on the web, it is *much* less likely to be cited than freely accessible work of comparable quality.
To give some personal examples, I have good reason to believe that [these web pages](https://jeffe.cs.illinois.edu/compgeom/) were a significant factor in my academic job search and even my tenure case, and [this stuff](https://jeffe.cs.illinois.edu/teaching/algorithms/) definitely helped me get promoted. I expect that [these pages](http://robotics.stanford.edu/%7Esuresh/theory/) similarly helped Suresh, and [these pages](http://www.ics.uci.edu/%7Eeppstein/geom.html) similarly helped David.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_5: You might find some interesting answers to this question on <NAME>'s UK Web Focus blog — for example one recent post talks about [how links on the web can enhance access to your published papers](http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/how-researchers-can-use-inbound-linking-strategies-to-enhance-access-to-their-papers/).
Another place to look is the [altmetrics](http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/) movement, which is developing new ways to measure the quality of a researcher's work other than just citation counts.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: An Internet presence
* facilitates collaboration (via Google),
* attracts prospective student attention (Google, Twitter), and
* informs their decision about whether to come (Web page. be sure to say where your lab alumni have gone & to give lots of hat tips to everyone who has passed through),
* informs funding agencies / grant reviewers about how well you disseminate, both scientifically and to voters / your community, how many careers you've assisted with your previous grants, etc. (Web page)
* social media lets you share the papers you think are important & to learn what your peers are reading (Twitter is especially good for this.) If you are in a small university this is like extending the size of your group.
* certainly takes time and trades off with research and scientific publication productivity.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: The web is everywhere and if you would like to be known, you need to have a strong presence on it. Anyone who is curious about you, will "Google" you and you must have control over what comes up.
There are four key players in creating a solid web presence: LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, Google+. Each site should link back to your website and your website should link to each service. I suggest maintaining public professional accounts and private personal ones to keep your presence prisitine.
As for the website, a simple 3-4 page site will suffice or you could have one very long page with headings to separate the sections and quality content.
There are many content generation tools to assist with this such as <http://www.layzilla.com/> or <http://www.blended-html.com>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: It's a good question Artem. Establishing a good system such that your research can be known to other researchers in your field (or even in other fields) seems to me the way to go. The main problem I see is for those of us that do not work in fields where the hiring people are themselves interested in having a web presence. Most cancer researchers do not seem to care much about having one. Few have a website for their group and many of those that do don't seem to care much about it. Twitter and blogs are almost unheard of for experimentalists. They don't use them much and don't expect you to have one. I wish I could say that the new generation is a lot more adept but that doesn't seem to be my experience with the biology grad students and postdocs I know.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/03/07 | 1,726 | 6,821 | <issue_start>username_0: A question I have been wondering for a while is if there exists an actual proof that a blind reviewing process (i.e. where the reviewers are anonymous, and the reviews not published) is better than an open one (i.e. where the reviewers are not anonymous and/or the reviews are published along with the accepted papers).
Basically, whenever I question the fact that having a blind reviewing process does not guarantee any quality (which, somehow, usually coincides with receiving a poor review for a paper ...), I'm told that anonymity is crucial for the reviewing process. But is there any proof of that? I don't believe there exists any perfect system, but I'm just not sure why does the blind (or even double-blind) one is considered as the best (or the "least worst").<issue_comment>username_1: The 2008 study entitled [Peer Review in Scholarly Journals - Perspective of the Scholarly Community: An International Study](http://www.publishingresearch.net/PeerReview.htm) aimed "to measure the attitudes and behaviour of the academic community with regard to peer review." Some quotes from the [summary](http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/PRCsummary4Warefinal.pdf):
>
> Double-blind review was preferred. Although the normal experience of researchers in most fields was of single-blind review, when asked which was their preferred option, there was a preference for double-blind review, with 56% selecting this, followed by 25% for single-blind, 13% for open and 5% for post-publication review. Open peer review was an active discouragement for many reviewers, with 49% saying that disclosing their name to the author would make them less likely to review.
>
>
>
and
>
> Double-blind review was seen as the most effective. Double-blind review had the most respondents (71%) who perceived it to be effective, followed (in declining order) by single-blind (52%), post-publication (37%) and open peer review (27%).
>
>
>
A 2008 [article](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7179/full/451605b.html) in *Nature* (and a [correction](http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080604/full/453711c.html)) discusses the above study but the article is about double-blind review versus single-blind review, and not about blind review versus open review.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The more is revealed about the identity of authors and reviewers, the less honest the review process may be. Such openness may favour already-established scientists over newcomers.
In the ideal world a reviewer would raise the same concerns when reviewing papers from a Nobel-prize winner or from an undergraduate student. But as people are even afraid of asking possibly dumb questions in public, I would be really surprised if they could apply the same scrutiny regardless of who they are reviewing.
Even with the standard (single)-blind process, I heard that an already-famous scientist submitted papers under made-up names to receive honest reviews (just can't recall who).
An example from [<NAME> on a birthday speech for <NAME>](http://www.math.upenn.edu/~wilf/website/dek.pdf) (pointed out by <NAME>):
>
> In the 1980's, in the early days of the Journal of Algorithms, I was an Editor-in-Chief, and Don [Donald Knuth] submitted a paper to me, authored by himself under the pseudonym of <NAME>, ostensibly from some small college in some small nonexistent town in Kansas. The reason was that he really wanted to get a tough and substantive referee's report on the paper, and **he had been finding that sometimes referees had pulled their punches because of his name at the top of a paper**.
>
>
>
Double-blind process may be even more beneficial, but at the same time illusory (as topic, references and style may reveal the author). Moreover, the identity of the author may sometimes be beneficial (e.g., to compare if the new submission has something new).
None of it is a proof.
But instead of counting of lines of reviews, one can try to compare how softly (or harshly) are treated contributors, depending on their status (academic title, university name, fame/recognizability).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: One ofhe most convincing argument I have heard in favour of blind reviewing is that it prevents people whose paper has been rejected from taking "revenge" on the reviewer (conciously or unconciously). Consider for example a senior academic who has a paper rejected because of the review of a junior academic. It would be quite easy for the senior academic to hinder the progress of the junior one.
This is similar to the point that Piotr raised about it being a more "honest" process.
I don't know of any specific examples of this though.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: The funny thing is that on this issue, most people mention immediately the "honesty" side of the problem, not the "quality" side.
For the latter, I think that this not blind/open reviews which is the pertinent question, but rather the public/private question. If reviews are always public, then my guess is that the quality will increase, because the general chair/editor in chief will push that way to ensure its conference/journal to have excellent reputation.
Personally, I don't want/need to know who is reviewing my papers, but I want AND need quality reviews, and they are unusual those days. We all know why : too many papers, too many reviews to make, not that much time...
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I don't have any proof either way, but for one data point, you might look at [the HotNets workshop](http://www.sigcomm.org/events/hotnets-workshop).
At several of the early workshops, the program committee published public reviews of the papers. During the reviewing process, program committee members wrote blind reviews, as is the usual process (the reviewers were anonymous). But also, for each published paper, a member of the program committee wrote a fresh review intended for public consumption summarizing the program committee's view on the paper. Many of the public reviews were quite frank, both in identifying reservations about the paper as well as aspects of the paper that the program committee enjoyed.
I don't think HotNets still does that, but you could try to research more about what the HotNets community's experience with public reviews was (public? negative?). Also I think there have been some other computer science workshops and conferences that have also written public reviews, so you could look at them as well.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: I can only share some of my experience.
Once a friend got a paper review request from a top journal. His boss knew that and asked him to reject it because the authors were doing what he and his boss were doing.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/03/07 | 1,621 | 6,813 | <issue_start>username_0: When it comes to reading, there are literally thousands of methods from [Speed Reading](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_reading) to [SQ3R](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQ3R) to Sequential(Word by Word till the end). My question is regarding reading mathematically/theoretically dense books as a graduate student. My question is primarily targeted to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) fields.
I have read [the other question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/50/am-i-reading-enough-of-the-scientific-literature-should-i-read-for-breadth-or-d) on SE and this is designed to act as a question on similar lines but for books (> 400 pages) typically found on Reading Lists for Quals. I believe how one reads a book differs significantly from how one reads a paper.
(This could be a question as well but IMO, the length, intention and structure are sufficient to cause the difference)
In order to make this an objective question rather than a vague and open ended one, I wish to concentrate on the following:
1. Should a book be read from start to finish word by word or through iterations (Skim, Analyse, Summarize)?
2. If I am interested in a particular chapter with a lot of dependencies, is it in my interest to read everything till that chapter or read that chapter > google unknown terms > read chapter again and loop?
3. If one gets stuck for over a certain threshold at something is it wise to continue assuming it as true or to persevere till the end and figure it out. **This is true for research papers, is it true for books?**
4. How much time per (mathematically dense) page is ideal? This will vary a lot with field but not so much with person as it would with fiction (IMO).<issue_comment>username_1: The types of books you refer to are unlike publications, in that they typically detail the results of research that occurred 5+ years ago. As such, if you're reading such a book, it's typically for one of two reasons:
1. To be brought up to speed on a topic with which you're unfamiliar
2. To learn a specific technique which is discussed in the book
In either case, you'll want to typically be interested in only a subset of the book. I would recommend reading through that section slowly, section by section, as you would a paper. It will probably take a while. I have never read an academic book cover-to-cover. Do note that your speed-reading skills will likely be less useful here, as STEM literature typically does not lend itself to speed reading. There is no "ideal time" that can be stated. When you begin, a single page may take you hours. There was one paper I read where a *single equation* took my lab mate four months to work through. As you get more experience, you'll speed up. Time is a commodity, but information is a more precious one. Spend the time necessary to learn the topic, and especially at the beginning, measure your progress over days, not hours.
>
> If I am interested in a particular chapter with a lot of dependencies, is it in my interest to read everything till that chapter or read that chapter > google unknown terms > read chapter again and loop?
>
>
>
There are two approaches here. The one you mention - google unfamiliar concepts - can work well. However, oftentimes the author of the book will mention exactly where the dependency is (e.g., "As we discussed in the previous chapter, ..."), so you can identify which parts of the book you need to read through. That may be more useful, as any terminology will be consistent within the same book. For some topics (math & engineering in particular), other papers will often use different terminology, needlessly complicating the learning process.
>
> If one gets stuck for over a certain threshold at something is it wise to continue assuming it as true or to persevere till the end and figure it out. This is true for research papers, is it true for books?
>
>
>
This is simply a function of how necessary the topic is. When you get stuck, figure out what concept is confusing you, read up on that topic, and then continue. This process can take weeks, or even months. If you really want to learn the topic, persevere. If you can continue without that bit of clarity, move on to something more productive.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: How you read an academic book depends heavily on what you want from it, but one thing that I think is almost universally true is that you generally don't want to bog down on one page/argument/theorem/definition/whatever on a first read. Later content often adds context and motivation to something that may seem mysterious, so if you get stuck for a while on something, it's a good idea to move on and then come back to it later.
My usual experience reading mathematically dense content, which I think is relatively typical, is that as I go along, the level of my understanding steadily decreases, and eventually it gets to the point that I'm learning very little, so I go back to the parts I understood well and start reading again from there, this time understanding a bit more, and I iterate this until I've learned what I set out to learn.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I have never (as far as I can remember) read a technical book cover to cover from start to end. Most of the time, I have a problem in mind that I want to solve, and I'm looking for tools to solve it; more often than not, if I'm trying to learn out of a book, I'm actually reading three or four books at once. I dive into the middle of a book that seems most relevant; if I don't understand something, I'll back up, and if I don't understand that, I'll back up again, and if I get really stuck I'll put the first book down and pick up a more elementary book, and so on until I'm on firm ground again. ("Getting really stuck" only happens after relying to work through/reconstruct details on my own, in addition to trying to understand them from the book's presentation. I have taken months to read through one page, always feeling just close enough to understanding that I never felt "really stuck".) Whenever possible I pop back up the reading stack with my target problem in mind, skipping entire chapters if they don't seem relevant (but backtracking if I discover later than I'm wrong), working forward again until I either find the tool that I'm looking for, conclude that I've been on a wild goose chase, or give up on the book.
Yes, I miss a *lot* this way. Yes, I get a lot of weird ideas that I later have to kill off. But I just don't have the patience to read large volumes of technical material that doesn't seem at least remotely relevant to some problem at hand, and prioritizing often leads me fairly quickly to tools that work.
Your mileage may vary. Caveat lector.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer] |
2012/03/07 | 1,826 | 7,909 | <issue_start>username_0: I received my PhD in 2009 and my adviser will not provide a good recommendation for me. This is mostly because we have fundamentally different approaches to science, and in retrospect I see that I could have avoided a breakdown in our relationship if I had been more deferential.
At this point, I leave his name off of my list of references, but I suspect that a diligent potential employer might call him anyway. I would be willing to discuss any concerns that were brought up in such a call - indeed I think that doing so will help me to find a good fit in a new position - but I do not know if I should, or how to state this fact in my job applications.
I am currently finishing my post doc, and one recommendation has been to take another post-doc so that I at least have two supportive references from postdoc advisers - and that the additional publications will place less weight on recommendations. Still, others have told me that not having a good reference from my adviser is a kiss of death.
How can I most effectively handle this situation?<issue_comment>username_1: Here in Germany, this wouldn't be a problem, as the PhD adviser is normally *excluded* from providing references for hiring processes in academia, since it's assumed the advisor would support the student.
However, while there is reason to be concerned about your advisor not giving you a good letter of recommendation, all is not lost. Since this is not your previous position (you're coming from a postdoc), the PhD advisor's weight will not be as significant. It's still important, and you better have a very good "elevator speech" explanation why he might not support you. But the fact that you have a postdoctoral advisor means that you do have some credentials; if he can write a strong letter in support, it might further give credence to the idea that your there was just dysfunction between you and your PhD advisor.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I've personally seen a few careers survive this exact problem (caveat: I don't necessarily see the ones that don't), but it isn't easy.
The best way to surmount this problem is to be referred into a job in an industry/government/NGO lab - and have someone within the organization pulling for you. If you're doing an academic post-doc right now, that's fine, but you need to start connecting to people who work in the kinds of places you want to work. If you do another post-doc, do one for a company or a government lab. If you've got someone who can pull you into the fold at a company or lab, you've got no issue at all.
Here's my advice if you are sending out cold-call applications:
The issue won't come up in the application stage (don't mention anything negative about your experience in your cover letter, or your application will get trashed). The trick will be how to handle yourself during the interview stage.
You say here:
>
> "in retrospect I see that I could have avoided a breakdown in our
> relationship if I had been more deferential."
>
>
>
You're going to need a much better story than that. Because you are going to have to explain it at some point (probably when someone asks why you haven't listed your old PI as a reference), and that line will throw up red flags about your ability to handle being managed. You'll have to be prepared to talk about it in some detail, but focus everything on *what you learned from it*. How do you handle conflict better now? Have recent examples ready of your excellent interpersonal skills.
Avoid talking about this problem for more than a few minutes in an interview, but don't hide the fact that you've have this issue in the past. Employers will call your references, and chances are good that it will come up. Even if one of your references mentions it with you in the best possible light, if it's the first time the employer has heard of it they will feel like you've withheld information. While companies will generally not call someone you haven't listed as a reference, they will get in touch with everyone they know who may have also worked for your old boss, gotten a degree from your old department, collaborated with your old group. This may be an issue if your field of study is small. If you've changed your research focus somewhat since then, this is less likely to happen.
You can overcome this, but BE PREPARED. And once you get your first non-postdoc job, it'll all be downhill from there.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Falling out with your supervisor is bad, but it's not insurmountable so long as there are other people who like your work and will recommend you. Remember: even if your former supervisor is the leader of their field, there will always be some people that disagree with them!
In the UK you can only list two references anyway, so your postdoctoral supervisor and another committee member other than your supervisor would probably be fine.
The main issue is actually the interview. You need to be *sure* you have a good understanding of where any of your professional relationships have broken down and how you would address similar situations in the future. This may be too scary, but one good person to discuss this with and get ideas from is your former supervisor! Even if you know you will never use them as a reference, both of you will be in the same field for much of your remaining careers, so it's worth burying the hatchet if possible and finding a new, more adult relationship. Students often think their supervisors feel more strongly about them than they do, since students have only one supervisor and obsess about that relationship, but supervisors have many students and other responsibilities and basically just need everything to go as smoothly as possible.
If communication really is no longer possible, it still isn't necessarily the end of your career, but if communication is possible that would be my advice.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: There are some good answers here. I would like to add that this happened to me also. For a long time, I was also apprehensive and worried about prospective employers noticing that I don't list my advisor as reference, how to defend myself in interviews etc. but then I realized the best solution is to be upfront about it. When you are hiding something, people think you are guilty vs. when you are upfront about it - people tend to sympathize, plus most importantly you have no fear.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I also had a falling out with my PhD supervisor but managed to secure a good postdoctoral position in spite of it (I'm told the letter of reference provided by my PhD supervisor was "very concise", but I was lucky that my skillset was rare and urgently needed by the group I joined).
When applying for positions at the end of my postdoc, I did not use my PhD supervisor as a referee, but instead used my postdoctoral advisor and two other senior academics with whom I had worked during my postdoc. **My postdoctotal supervisor said that it might look odd not to have my PhD supervisor as a referee, but in fact, it wasn't a problem**. It did help that my postdoc work was very collaborative, so there were several people who knew me and my work very well and were prepared to speak well of me. If your postdoc has been shoter (mine was a 3 year position) or if you have not been able to develop collaborations with other academics during your postdoc, it may well be that another postdoctoral position would help. If your PhD supervisor is well known and well regarded, it might also count against you if you did not get on (in my case, my PhD supervisor was obscure and was thought odd by most of those who knew him). Regardless of all these considerations, **if I were you, I would apply to both faculty positions and attractive postdoctoral positions, and see how you go in practise**.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/08 | 2,787 | 11,997 | <issue_start>username_0: I understand that in a lot of big-lab fields it is common for the principal investigator to append their name to a paper even if they did not write the paper, design the experiment, or collect data since they spend energy securing funding, and managing the whole lab. What about for small labs?
What are the requirements for a supervisor to be included as an author on a paper, as opposed to just appearing in the acknowledgements? If you are working on your own projects independently of your supervisor, but using funding provided by your supervisor (how does this change when the funding provides resources versus just your salary), are you suppose to add them as authors or just acknowledge the source of funding?<issue_comment>username_1: *The following answer is based on my experience in the fields of Neuroscience, Biology, and to a lesser extent, Electrical Engineering.*
This is often an unnecessarily touchy subject amongst graduate students. To be clear: **As a graduate student, you can expect that your advisor will appear as an author on all of your papers.** He is providing your funding, your resources, and (ostensibly) is the Primary Investigator on whatever project you happen to be working on. Even if he does not contribute, you are working on *his* project, and he wrote the grant for it, not you. There may be situations where you will be the sole author of a paper you published during your graduate career, but those will be unusual circumstances, indeed.
That being said, you can read through the [Wikipedia article on the subject](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_authorship), which discusses conflict. [This Canadian Medical Association Journal article](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1764586/?tool=pmcentrez) (thanks, [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_authorship#cite_note-Reliability_of_disclosure_forms_of_authors.27_contributions-25)) states that authorship ordering conflicts occurred in over 60% of published papers. To help with things, there's a good chance your university has it's own authorship guidelines (e.g., [[1]](http://hms.harvard.edu/public/coi/policy/integritypolicy.html)[[2]](http://rio.msu.edu/authorshipguidelines.htm)); speak with your department.
Most importantly, speak with your advisor. Clear communication early on can help to stave off future problems, or sometimes communication will alert you to the fact that there may be future problems that you should address early on.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: Honestly, as @username_1 has said, the easiest thing to do with this is to speak with your advisor ahead of time and establish a clear policy you both understand and agree to. You should do this even in cases where there doesn't seem to be any clear conflict, everyone's roles are perfectly predictable, and contributions to the paper seem obvious. It's one of those things, like frequent backups, that spares heartache later.
There are many ways such a policy might be made. Your department or university might have rules, your *field* might have rules, etc.
Generally speaking however, here are things that have happened in my experience:
* Major papers that make heavy use of a lab's resources (including you, a grad student funded by the lab) will likely have your supervisors name on the paper.
* More important than does/does not your supervisor's name appear on your papers is (if you field follows the non-alphabetical author ordering scheme) where they appear. They may most often appear in the senior author position, but on a paper where you had a great deal of help and advice from another faculty member? It may be more appropriate to place them in the middle. Again, this should be settled ahead of time.
* If its truly an independent effort that doesn't draw from lab resources, it may be appropriate for your supervisor not to be on the paper. But before you press that, consider whether or not it's particularly *worth* not having them on. Your answer may vary, and if you think you'd benefit particularly from a solo paper, you might wish to bring it up.
* While collaborators who provided data, technical expertise, etc. may be appropriate for authorship, if you can, try your hardest to avoid having "co-authors" who are only distantly connected with the paper. I have never, ever had anything but trouble getting things like draft approval or copyright transfer agreements from people with no stake in the paper other than their name buried in the middle of the authorship list.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I will address only the last questions (just to add to the other answers):
>
> If you are working on your own projects independently of your supervisor, but using funding provided by your supervisor, are you suppose to add them as authors or just acknowledge the source of funding?
>
>
>
Funding is to be mentioned in acknowledgements, not in co-authors.
However:
* In experimental projects often you are supposed to add your supervisor as an author. Actually, I does make sense as setting up lab, collecting equipment and gathering know-how is a (scientific) resource you base on.
* Unless it is a completely independent project, you may be expected to add your supervisor (or rather: (s)he may expect you to add him/her) for relatively small contributions, e.g. comments or revisions of the manuscript. But this may be very discipline- and group-dependent (better discuss it with your supervisor in advance).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: Allow me to strongly disagree with username_1's answer. **There is no universal standard.** You must ask your advisor in advance what her coauthorship policy is.
In theoretical computer science (and mathematics), it is generally considered *unethical* to list someone as a co-author who has not made a novel and significant intellectual contribution to the paper. In particular, merely funding the research is *not* considered an intellectual contribution. Adding a supervisor's name to a paper to which they have not directly, intellectually contributed is **lying**.
In practice, writing a good grant proposal requires at least as much intellectual novelty as writing a good paper. Most of the good ideas that PIs pour into their proposals also appear in papers; as long as those ideas constitute *novel* intellectual contributions, the PI merits co-authorship. But that only works once per idea; once an idea has been published, it's no longer novel, by definition.
To be specific and personal:
* I am not a coauthor on all of my PhD students' papers. (Of course, I still report my students' independent work back to NSF as outcomes on whatever grants supported them. So I still get credit from NSF for having the foresight to fund the student.) The same is true of all the other theoretical computer science faculty in my department.
* My PhD advisor is a co-author on only one of the papers I published as a PhD student.
* My PhD advisor doesn't have a single co-authored paper with *his* advisor.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_5: There are two reasons that authorship is a difficult area for students:
1. Power dynamics make students suspicious of being exploited, but
2. Attribution of ideas is very difficult. Supervisors can spend months or years describing an idea to a student, and when the student finally understands the idea they get the "ah ha!" sensation of discovery and think it's their own.
No one thinks less of you for having your supervisor's name on a paper since everyone knows this is tricky, so I think it makes sense to be generous – at least so long as your supervisor has *agreed* to have their name on the paper. If they feel they have made enough of an investment to deserve to have their name associated with your work, then I would give them the benefit of the doubt. If you can't even trust them on this, why are you taking their academic advice at all? But if your supervisor has specifically asked that you keep their name *off* your paper, you should respect that (and be sure that you understand why!)
In general, authorship on any article with any group of people should be agreed well in advance of submission by all involved parties, in writing (email or recorded chat sessions). The generosity principle works so long as whoever did the most work *and* the most writing is the first author, and efforts by the team should be made to ensure where possible that that is the same person.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_6: After some science fraud scandals, the German Science Foundation published ethical rules which also cover this — here I paste the version from Heidelberg University (which is more or less the same as the original). They talk about "substantial role": that still leaves some space to interpretation. However, they specifically exclude just providing funding.
>
> If multiple authors have contributed to research or in writing a scientific report, those persons are to be
> named as co-authors who played a substantial role in
>
>
> 1. defining the problem, drawing up research plans, conducting research, evaluating or interpreting
> research outcomes, and
> 2. drafting or critical review and revision of manuscript content. Co-authorship does not apply to
> persons who merely technically contribute to the collection of data, or who merely provide funding,
> or who merely serve as the head of the department or institution in which the research is carried out.
> Likewise persons who merely read the manuscript without contributing to its content are not
> considered co-authors.
>
>
>
As other said, different fields have different conventions and different labs have different conventions, both on who's an author, and on the author ordering.
The first author is often who did most work; in biology, some grant programs require >=X papers as first author and >= Y paper as last author (senior author).
But some common practices are indeed unfair/unethical.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: The authorship guidelines of my university says " Acquisition of
funding, the collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, by themselves, DO NOT JUSTIFY authorship."
However my supervisor kills me if I do not mention his name as the second author in my papers in which he did not have any contribution and he even does not know the basics of the work.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: You should of course research the norms for your specific field. However, in order to resolve precisely this ambiguity, it is becoming much more common in certain fields to **have a section of the paper that actually specifies exactly what the author contributions are**. The Cell Press and PLoS journals, among others, actually require the use of a defined vocabulary called the **[CRediT Taxonomy](http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/s/authorship#loc-author-contributions)**, first outlined in [Brand et al., 2015 [pdf]](http://openscholar.mit.edu/sites/default/files/dept/files/lpub28-2_151-155.pdf). Some of the role descriptions include "Supervision", "Project Administration", and "Funding Acquisition" in addition to "Investigation", "Formal Analysis", and others relating more directly to carrying out the research itself. Compared to author order, which is a field-dependent and sometimes low-information indicator, this makes it much more clear why each given author was listed.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: Since your question included the word "lab" the answer is that the supervisor will be on it, regardless of contribution.
The best justification for this is that labs are expensive, and the supervisor's main job is to keep it running, and they need all the kudos they can get. Labs that go broke are in no position to attract students, so you could say that your supervisor earned their keep before you even started.
Is this fair? No, obviously not. If you are looking for fair, get out of academia.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/03/08 | 3,103 | 13,534 | <issue_start>username_0: This is a follow-up question to [Open versus Blind reviewing process](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/625/open-versus-blind-reviewing-process), and is somehow related to [What happens to the reviews that people write for journal articles after they're sent back to the author?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/545/102)
However, my question does not concern the reviews I receive for the papers I submit, but concerns the reviews I write for papers I have been assigned. Since the whole process is done under confidentiality, it is not clear who owns the copyright on a review I wrote, and what does the review include.
For instance, let us assume that X is member of a PC of a conference Y, and assigns to me a review of a paper Z, written by A and B (assuming it's not a double-blind). Can I publish on my blog: "Here is my review for Y, asked by X, on the paper Z, written by A and B"?
I think that there are two points here:
1. Is it legal? (for instance, publishing the camera-ready version of a paper might be illegal due to the copyright transfer, would it be also the care here?).
2. Is it ethical? (who should I ask in order to do so? X? Y? A and B? everybody?).
**EDIT:** There is been several comments/answer wondering **why** I would like to publish a review I wrote. To give a bit of background of this question, I believe that the current reviewing system, created when the academic community was small and there was no Internet (i.e. no easy access to information), might not be the best, although clearly working. This is for me a very interesting debate, but somehow out of the scope the Q&A format of Academia SE, which is why I tried to focus on my question on whether it was possible to do so, not if it was the best thing to do in the current system (and just to be clear, I don't plan to do it, but I just like to know what are my options). Anyway, thanks for the answers bringing a different light on this debate.
**EDIT 2:** After seeing the update in Jeff's answer, I just realised that I didn't make it explicit that I was talking about reviews *after* the reviewing process. Jeff says that it's ok if the paper is accepted, and although I clearly understand the argument of *why* I shouldn't publish a review of a rejected paper, the question still holds: by publishing a review of a rejected paper, I publish the information that these authors submitted this paper to this conf/journal, which is supposed to be confidential between the authors and the editors. Would I break any rule by doing so?<issue_comment>username_1: Some conferences/journals say on their website that reviews should be treated confidentially, although I'm not sure if you're legally obliged to follow this. I would certainly ask everybody involved (i.e. PC and the authors of the paper) before publishing the review.
It's also possible that (part of) the review isn't valid anymore if you're raised concerns that the authors have addressed in the final version.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: To the best of my knowledge, there are no copyright issues related to reviews you write, and I don't see who would own rights on them save you should those be applicable. To be fair though, I would ask at least X and Y whether they have a problem with you making the review public.
That said, I fail to see the point of making them public. Those reviews are of extremely restricted scope; if the paper was rejected, no need to rub it in by letting the rest of the world know how bad it was. Otherwise, as pointed out by Lars, your comments may not be valid anymore if they were addressed by the authors, but even if they weren't, I don't see the point in publishing the review.
... unless you want as many people as possible to know how thorough a reviewer you are so that they can send you more papers to referee?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: The standard rule in my community is that once I finish reviewing a paper, I'm supposed to pretend that I don't know the paper exists. In particular, I am not supposed to use any insights I gained by reading that paper in my own research. I am not supposed to reveal the results to my colleagues. [Some venues](http://s2012.siggraph.org/art-papers/ethics-art-papers-review-process) ask that I destroy any copies of the paper I'm reviewing, along with any programs or data I used to verify the paper's results. This embargo lifts only when the paper is finally published, but I am never supposed to reveal my identity to the authors, even indirectly.
**Under those rules, publishing reviews is completely unethical.** Maybe it would be okay if I had the explicit permission of both the authors and the editor, but I would expect most authors and reviewers to vehemently object. I would feel weird even asking.
But even under less stringent reviewing rules, I think posting reviews is a *very* bad idea. **Criticism is best given privately.** One of the purposes of anonymous reviewing is to give authors brutally honest feedback on their work. Referees can offer direct criticism without worrying that it will harm the authors, and authors are more willing to hear that criticism because they know it will never be public.
Yes, that means authors sometimes get credit for ideas that I suggest in referee reports. (Most authors are nice and thank the anonymous referee.) On the other hand, several referees have offered suggestions that have significantly improved my papers, so it all comes out in the wash.
**Update:** I should add that these ethical constraints attach only to reviews of unpublished papers being considered for publication. Once a paper is actually published, everyone is free, if not encouraged, to publish their own reviews *of the published version*.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: I feel that everyone is entitled to their opinions and their right to share them, and I agree that openly discussing published work is good for the scientific community. But I would tread lightly when it comes to papers you have personally reviewed.
If you have a serious issue with a publication, or have important comments to make after publication, the venue to do that is in letters directly to the journal, which they may choose to publish.
If you're thinking about publishing comments on your blog, consider what the goal of your blog is and who your audience is. Are you trying to open up a dialog about the work? Keep a collection of everything you've done? Advertise your expertise as a reviewer to editors?
If the goal of your blog is discussion of current work in your field, consider writing about papers that you have no connection to (groups you don't collaborate with, papers you haven't reviewed). Then you'll avoid any sense of bias or potential liability/ethical issues.
If the goal is to keep a collection of your work, you can do so privately and share in instances when you are trying to demonstrate your critical thinking skills (editors, job applications, maybe elsewhere?).
I think that overall the review process exists mainly, if not solely, for the benefit of the authors - not for the benefit of the reviewer or the scientific community at large. In the end, everyone gets the benefit of (hopefully) a better paper.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I would never publish a review as a review. I agree with other the other comments that the ethical standard is that you are meant to flush your brain of any insight resulting from what you have reviewed until / if it is published. However, this is certainly not what happens in the real world.
* I've certainly seen and heard about people who actually published on the topic of a paper they reviewed before that paper was accepted anywhere. Some people just cheat.
* Brains are not something you can flush. In fact, your mind is an academic's primary asset.
Personally, I think that if you have learned something or realised something as the result of the reviewing process, you should probably put it in the bottom drawer for a little while to give the author a chance to get it out and for you to be able to cite them, but ultimately it's an academic duty for ideas to be shared, not lost.
There are actually some famous stories of established academics reaching out to bright newbies and helping them publish ideas after seeing a paper in review, e.g. <NAME> and <NAME>. These are sometimes seen as scandals, but provided that the original paper wasn't rejected specifically for the purpose of bagging an authorship, I think that is actually a lot more ethical than going away and doing the work without the author who inspired you, which sadly I think is more common.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: I know answering my own question is a bit weird, but I just came across the website <http://www.reviews.com/>, and since I wasn't aware such sites existed, I thought it would be good to mention it for future references.
I haven't gone through the entire website, but it seems that anybody can register and submit reviews to papers (including conference/journal papers, and not only books), and these reviews are then available. I've just noticed (it's probably not new though) that for instance the ACM Digital Library has a tab "reviews", which references the corresponding reviews.
So, if I try to sum up the other answers, technically, it seems to be legal to publish a review, unless the editor made clear that all reviews must be treated as confidential, but as long as the article is under submission, it's clearly non-ethical, and would be quite damageable. However, once the paper is published, it's perfectly possible to publish a non-anonymous review (for instance using the website I mention above, but I'm sure other solutions must exist), that can of course be based on the actual reviewing process, but it should not be stated that the author of the review was an anonymous reviewer.
Note that it's possible to publish "negative" reviews (for instance: [this one](http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1063979.1064005&coll=DL&dl=GUIDE&CFID=69872432&CFTOKEN=<PASSWORD>), which might be behind a paywall).
Thanks for to all the answers and comments!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: Given recent movements towards open peer review, and that I broadly disagree with previous answers, I thought it worth adding another answer to this question.
Firstly, regarding the legality, you will likely find it completely within your rights to share the review as you please. Most journals mention 'confidentiality' in some respect, but are usually very unclear about what this means. The question of who 'owns' the review is currently being discussed [by COPE](http://publicationethics.org/forum-discussion-topic-comments-please-4), but I would suggest that the answer is obviously the reviewer.
Secondly, regarding the ethics, I think you have a duty to share your reviews wherever possible. There is a trade-off between Wheaton's Rule and your duty to the scientific process (particularly if you are a publicly-funded researcher), and this hasn't previously been raised in this discussion. Where you find the balance will for now be subjective, as no clear consensus has developed. Personally, I believe:
1. Researchers have a duty to expedite the scientific process.
2. A publicly-funded scientific process should be transparent.
3. Authors, reviewers and editors should all be accountable for their actions.
4. Reviewers deserve recognition for their contributions.
These points are particularly relevant if a reviewer makes suggestions that are not heeded by the author, in which case important insights might be buried. The COPE [guidelines for peer reviewers](http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers) suggest the maintenance of confidentiality. However, my interpretation is that this should only apply until the pre-publication peer review process is complete (i.e. until publication).
There are now more formal options for sharing your reviews; for example via [Publons](https://publons.com). This is my preferred option for sharing because reviews are not visible until the article is published (which I think ensures fairness to authors) and publishers have the option to hide the content of your review (which I think ensures fairness to publishers/editors).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: Like elaborated by @username_7 in another answer, I totally support the sharing of provided peer reviews after publication. I believe transparency can only add to speed and quality of scientific research, and most of the major flaws in peer review rely on the fact that it is kept secret behind curtains by most of the community. Likewise I am in favor of signing my reviews -- this is not always easy, and often leads to a backlash, which is halfway gone towards sharing it later.
When one signs a review and plans on sharing it later, immediately a greater sense of responsibility is created. There are websites allowing for this practice which implies that any member journals include editors who are OK with the practice, and authors submitting papers to those journals should be aware of the possibility of greater exposure after their publication.
Minor personal conflicts and egoistic feelings aside, I strongly believe bringing in more light to peer reviews, even of rejected papers, would do far greater good than damage to the working conditions of scientists everywhere.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/03/09 | 1,291 | 5,472 | <issue_start>username_0: There are some clear reasons to decline a review request, such as conflict-of-interests or not enough free time (e.g., going on a vacation..).
But what if you are just not interested in the paper you got (i.e., it is loosely related to what you do, but not entirely irrelevant)?
On which occasions is it appropriate to decline a review request?
Does it matter if the review is for conference vs journal?<issue_comment>username_1: There are a few clear reasons to decline a review request, although in complete honesty, I've never actually declined to review a paper yet, so these are all at least "in theory" for me. Some of them are one's you've mentioned, but there are some others:
1. Conflict of interest. This one's pretty clear, though with the way some reviews are handled - based on recommendations, closely related expertise, etc. what actually constitutes a conflict of interest can get a little vague.
2. Lack of time. This is one that people seem to ignore or discount, but it's a big one. If you can't give a paper the attention it deserves, or your review is going to be late (predictably, not because of unforeseen things), then you should probably decline to review it. You're not doing you, the authors, or the editor any favors by making them chase you down for months to get a review.
3. Lack of expertise. If you read the methods section of a paper and your primary thought is "Huh?" not because the paper is unclear, but because its far afield from your expertise, I'd strongly consider contacting the editor for advice and asking *not* to be a reviewer.
I wouldn't necessarily not be a reviewer due to a failure to find the paper sufficiently interesting. If your expertise is indeed appropriate and the work is not of sufficiently compelling interest, that is a review finding all its own. Additionally, one would hope that you can evaluate the scientific merit of things that - while you are capable of understanding - you might not find directly interesting.
Whether or not it matters if its a conference or a paper likely depends on your field (how important are conferences?) and the *particular* conference or paper. For example, I might make a special effort to "find the time" for a journal I submit to (or would like to submit to) or a conference I frequently attend, but might not for a journal or conference I've never heard of.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I think that it's ok to decline a review request because you don't find the paper interesting if it's a colleague or somebody similarly close who asks you to do it. If they're the one on the PC/editorial board and have already agreed to do the review, it is, put simply, their problem. Of course, that might not be possible if you're a PhD student and your supervisor asks you to do the review :)
If you are approached directly by a member of the PC/editorial board because of your expertise in the area and not because you happen to be working in the same building, I would certainly do the review even if I don't find the paper interesting. The same goes for bidding processes some conferences use where you commit to reviewing a paper based sometimes only on the abstract.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I've had to refuse several reviews in the past, and it was either because I didn't have the time to write a proper review, or because the topic of the paper was beyond my scope of expertise.
I also found myself in the position where I should have refused a review, because there was a conflict-of-interest that, at the time, I didn't perceive. I didn't know the authors, but I had submitted a paper on a similar topic to the same conference, and after a while, I realised that unconsciously, I was thinking that if I reject the paper (I was hesitating between reject and accept), it increases the chances of my paper to be accepted. I still managed to review the paper objectively (and for the record, I accepted the paper, and mine was accepted too). Clearly, this line of thoughts was not correct, and I'm not particularly proud of it, but once you got it, it's hard to understand how objective you will be able to be, since you could actually over compensate and accept the paper just because you're afraid of the bias.
To answer precisely your question, the situation where you don't *want* to review is different than the one where you *can't*. If you can't (because you don't understand, you don't have time, etc), then just say why, and it's fine. If you don't want to, then it's just a matter of how much you want to please the person who asked you to review the paper, compared with how much time it will take you.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Besides the obvious "conflict of interest", the main reason is time. Being an academic requires finding a balance on all the demands on your time. My policy is to accept no more than one major reviewing obligation (e.g. journal article, grant, 3-ish conference papers) per two-week period. When I'm asked, I look at my schedule & tell the solicitor when the next available slot is. Sometimes they take it, sometimes they don't, it depends on their policy, urgency & my schedule.
I'm not sure I have this right: I still sometimes miss review deadlines I've committed to & I don't publish new results as quickly as I think I should. But as I said, it's a matter of trying to find a balance, and I do get quite a lot of reviewing done.
Upvotes: 4 |
2012/03/09 | 1,757 | 5,524 | <issue_start>username_0: This question was written by a friend of mine. I'm helping them by posting it here, with permission.
How should I use the name-year referencing system (loosely speaking, the Harvard system) in such cases where there are multiple works that have the same first author but a different set of coauthors?
In such cases where the maximum number of authors among all articles sharing the same first author is not more than three, or perhaps four, the solution is very simple. Just mention them all inline and use the reference list as usual. E.g. the following:
>
> "... the complex formation was observed by Miller and Nelson (1991)"
>
> "... cf. Miller, Nelson and Byrne (1993)"
>
>
>
However, if there are more authors in any of the articles, this gets quite tricky, since listing a huge number of authors inline is definitely not an option to me. I'd rather change to number references.
Now, making the references unambiguous is not a problem. For instance, the following references could be addressed to inline as "Barton et al." without in any way losing the one-to-one relation between inline citations and reference list entries. That is, the articles are differentiated, as the other is "Barton et al. (1980)" and the other "Barton et al. (1985)".
>
> <NAME>.; <NAME>.; <NAME>. (1985). "On the mechanism of the decarboxylative rearrangement of thiohydroxamic esters". Tetrahedron Lett. 26, 5943.
>
>
> <NAME>.; <NAME>.; <NAME>.; <NAME>. (1980). "A New Radical Decarboxylation Reaction for the Conversion of Carboxylic Acids into Hydrocarbons". J. Chem. Soc. Chem. Commun., p. 732.
>
>
>
What really *is* the problem is the alphabetical order in which the references should be sorted in the reference list. If the articles listed above are referred to just as "Barton et al.", the reader does not know the exact position in the reference list where to find the articles.
One solution might be just ignoring this slight complication.
Other solution is to use "et al" in the reference list, too, if absolutely necessary. Thus, in the example above, the first article would be referred to as "<NAME> (1985)" inline, and the latter as "Barton et al. (1980)".
In the reference list, they would be expressed *and arranged* according to the inline cites:
>
> <NAME>.; <NAME>.; <NAME>. (1985). "On the mechanism of the decarboxylative rearrangement of thiohydroxamic esters". Tetrahedron Lett. 26, 5943.
>
>
> <NAME>. et al. (1980). "A New Radical Decarboxylation Reaction for the Conversion of Carboxylic Acids into Hydrocarbons". J. Chem. Soc. Chem. Commun., p. 732.
>
>
>
Any other recommendations?
Please don't suggest Google, since I did not find an answer after 30 minutes of search. There are perhaps hundreds of "Harvard citation guides" available, but I found none that addressed this problem.<issue_comment>username_1: This will typically be dictated on a journal-by-journal basis. As you suggested, some journals use first mention, some go alphabetically. It varies significantly by journal (e.g., [Nature Neuroscience](http://www.nature.com/neuro/authors/submit/index.html#manuscript), seventh paragraph in linked section; [IEEE](http://www.ieee.org/documents/info_authors_kit.pdf) (pdf), fourth page). Check with the specific journal of interest to see what their guidelines are for article submission.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: As username_1 said, journals usually provide their own formatting, and personally, I use latex/bibtex, so I tend to assume this kind of problems will be solved automatically.
That being said, in the case you describe, I would expect the ordering to be (first name, year), and in the case where there are multiple references with the same first author for the same year, then to use (Barton et al., 1980a) (Barton et al. 1980b). So your example would be:
>
> <NAME>.; <NAME>.; <NAME>.; <NAME>. (1980). "A New Radical Decarboxylation Reaction for the Conversion of Carboxylic Acids into Hydrocarbons". J. Chem. Soc. Chem. Commun., p. 732.
>
>
> <NAME>.; <NAME>.; <NAME>. (1985). "On the mechanism of the decarboxylative rearrangement of thiohydroxamic esters". Tetrahedron Lett. 26, 5943.
>
>
>
and the two references (Barton et al. 1980) and (Barton et al. 1985). That way, when I know I need to look first for the first name, and then to the year. Now, if let's assume that there is another reference by Barton and Alice in 1980, then you would have:
>
> <NAME>.; Alice (1980a). "Bla bla", p2.
>
>
> <NAME>.; <NAME>.; <NAME>.; <NAME>. (1980b). "A New Radical Decarboxylation Reaction for the Conversion of Carboxylic Acids into Hydrocarbons". J. Chem. Soc. Chem. Commun., p. 732.
>
>
> <NAME>.; <NAME>.; <NAME>. (1985). "On the mechanism of the decarboxylative rearrangement of thiohydroxamic esters". Tetrahedron Lett. 26, 5943.
>
>
>
and the references would be (Barton et al., 1980a) and (Barton et al., 1980b).
As for the question whether you should put the one with Alice first or second, it does not really matter, since the reference is unique anyway, but in this case, I would go for the month of publication if you have it, otherwise with the alphabetical order of the second author (and of the third one if the first two authors are the same, and so on).
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer] |
2012/03/09 | 1,070 | 4,192 | <issue_start>username_0: According to [a recent international study on work-life balance within academia](http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/03/09/scientists-are-unhappy-their-work-life-balance)
>
> "a majority of researchers and scientists had conflicts between their work schedules and personal lives at least two to three times a week."
>
>
>
Nevertheless,
>
> "about 60 percent of scientists were happy with their work-life balance. The rates for women were lower, at 52 percent."
>
>
>
I wonder what differentiates these 60 percent 'happy people' from the remaining 40 percent. What do you think are good strategies for a healthy work-life balance? How do *you* balance your academic work/life with your personal life?<issue_comment>username_1: In my experience, there's less distinction between work life and personal life than in other jobs. If you're teaching, you'll get emails from students on the weekend and late at night. A paper deadline at midnight doesn't care that you're supposed to finish at 5. If you're working on an interesting problem, you're going to think about it at home.
I think the way to be happy with that is to simply accept it. If you're counting on having a 9-5 job if you're paid for working 9-5, then you're not going to be happy in academia. If you're uncomfortable with the line between work and personal life being blurred, you should perhaps consider a different job.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Academia, despite talk of positions being "full-time" or "part-time," really doesn't work according to a fixed schedule. It's one of the "perks" of academia—the ability to maintain your own schedule, so long as you get approval from your bosses (if you're a student or postdoc) or from your institute (if you're a professor or higher up).
Of course, the downside is that not everybody is on the same schedule as you are—or cares what your schedule is supposed to be. (Grant agency deadlines, for instance, don't pay any attention to what's going on in your life at the same time!) So, that might mean there will be times when you have to really put the nose to the grindstone.
The key to having a successful balance is to make sure that everybody involves knows what's going on, and so appropriate accommodations can be made.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Disclaimer 1: I know the two worlds : academia and the outside world ;) I worked in public and private universities, and in a consulting firm.
Disclaimer 2: I can only speak about life for people involved in theoretical areas, I know that science involving living things / big experiments has **real** constraints.
I heard a lot of people in academia complaining about the conflicts between their work schedules and personal lives (me included, because I'm grumpy). But we have to face it, most of the time there is nothing to complain about it.
* "I have a deadline today at midnight" : I do that all the time, but the calls for papers are out several months before the deadlines, so the problem here is planning, not the nature of the work.
* "I have to finish this grant application before midnight" : hum, grant applications and conferences deadlines seems to be of the same kind.
* "It's 3 AM, I just got that email that needs an answer" : I don't think this email is **that urgent**. An BTW, if something is really urgent, phone still exists for that matter.
* "Someone (supervisor, head of the team, dean, etc.) wants me to work more/at night/etc." : Slavery has been abolished. If you have good results, the thing is that in academia you are master of your schedule.
* "I cannot stop thinking about that problem" : yep, here this is true, we bring our work everywhere. If a researcher cannot live with that aspect of the work (which can be quite stressful), then he should probably consider finding an other job.
My point is that working in academia is working in one of the most flexible field.
This is where there is a big difference with the "outside world".
This flexibility is the problem: many people have difficulty dealing with it, and thus are giving themselves very strong constraints, so strong that they cannot handle them.
Upvotes: 5 |
2012/03/10 | 639 | 2,403 | <issue_start>username_0: Or is this the exception to the norm? I know that it's allowed at Brown - but I wonder if it's unique.<issue_comment>username_1: At many (most? all?) universities, a committee is **required** to have at least one professor from outside the department (other than the chair, if the chair holds a joint position).
Other requirements are to have at least one professor at rank higher or equal to the rank of the chair (the advisor).
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: As far as I know, there is no international guideline on what is a correct PhD committee, so it might be hard to answer your question, because each university might have different rules.
For instance, the rule of the EDITE (the CS grad school shared by several universities in Paris) for defending a PhD at Paris 6 are ([source, in french](http://edite-de-paris.fr/spip/spip.php?article34&lang=en)):
* the reviewers of the PhD (i.e. those who read and approve or not the manuscript, which is the most crucial part of the process) must have an [habilitation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habilitation) (i.e. they could apply to full professor positions, even if they don't have one) and must be related to a different grad school and university.
* the PhD jury (or defense committee) should:
+ contain between 3 and 8 members (the reviewers might not be included, although they usually are)
+ contain at least one professor from Paris 6, who must be different from the PhD advisor
+ contain at least half of people not related to the grad school or university.
+ contain at least half of professors (or academics with an HDR).
So, to answer your question, in order to defend a PhD in CS at Paris 6, you need to have reviewers not coming from your university, and half of the members of your defense committee needs can't be from your university (although technically, they don't have to be full professor, so you can have Associate professors from another university, or even someone working in a company).
**EDIT:** After reading Jeff's comment, I realized that I understood "department" as in "university", and not as in "physics department" if you're doing a PhD in the "CS department". Then, in this case, there is no rule at the EDITE, in favor or against, but I have never seen it or heard of it, apart in the case of an interdisciplinary PhD (e.g. bioinformatics).
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/10 | 2,220 | 9,501 | <issue_start>username_0: I am an M.Sc. student in mathematics. I was recently invited by some Ph.D. students and Post-Docs (a group of 5 people, including myself) to join their study group. We are reading a specific text, which should get us ready to read some more advanced work. This work is relevant to the research of some of the other people in the group, but my main goal is to experience this learning methodology with the added advantage of getting to know a few aesthetic results in mathematics.
We met around 6 times, and it is not what I'm used to from courses in the sense that we don't completely understand all the details. Nevertheless, we go on reading.
For example:
1. We encounter a definition and we can't find out its exact meaning. In this case we usually know of an example of a mathematical object satisfying this definition (because it's mentioned in the text) and we just try to see how the propositions in the text apply to the specific example.
2. A proof is given with very few details - we manage to fill in some of the gaps, but not all of them, so we just take an example again and simply accept the statement of the theorem so we can use it later.
3. An excercise is given in the text and we only solve part of it.
We allow ourselves to skip some details because this text is only meant to get us ready for some more advanced, but more specific, material. My question is how we can find out whether or not we are gaining anything, and how we can gain more given the fact that we are all busy and don't want to invest much more time in this specific reading (we have a 3 hours meeting every week).
I have a feeling that I'm "getting used" to some ideas and facts while reading this text (in contrast with "completely understanding"), but I'm not sure if I'm really gaining anything or whether it's just an illusion and I'm not sure how to test my gain of knowledge. The exercises in the text allow us to test our understanding of the details, but not of the general ideas.
**EDIT**: I will clarify what the question is, in response to aeismail's comment:
As Charles and Nunoxic say, the question of whether shallow-reading is useful is separate from the fact that we are studying in a group. So, the 2 separate questions are:
>
> 1. When reading without understanding all the details, how can I find out whether or not I'm gaining anything?
> 2. How can we make the process of studying in a group for 3 hours a week most efficient?
>
>
>
These 2 may have better been asked as 2 separate questions, but I did not notice that (in my mind they were related because the group study was the first time I encountered shallow-reading).
To summarize the answers I got so far:
>
> 1. It **is** possible, for some people, to gain knowledge from shallow-reading and one way to test it is to see if you understand **why** each topic is being developed and **why** the text is structured the way it is.
> 2. When studying in a group, one should test his ability to work out the details himself after the group sessions.
>
>
>
I think the answer I got for (1) is excellent and the answer for (2) is somewhat lacking so far.<issue_comment>username_1: My answer may not be completely relevant but I still thought it was worth putting in. I have had a few such sessions and I realized a few things. Not all of them could be true in general and I might have been a bit extreme with what I treat as knowledge. Here goes:
Your level of understanding is directly proportional to a few things:
* Your ability to frame and ask grammatically correct sentences as an individual. This also encompasses communication of ideas/questions to experts of the field. For instance, suppose you are learning Linear Algebra in a group. You have a few gaps which are filled by others in the group. However, unless **you** can form sentences using Linear Algebra "handles", its unlikely you'll get far in research. Literature is way to dense in keywords. Unless you can talk in terms of Column Space, Rank and Eigenvectors (Rather than Linear Combo of all column or *the vector which only scales*) you are far from knowledgeable.
* Your ability to participate in discussions. Its not difficult to lag and be left behind in a group of impatient, overachieving academics. Further, it can be a bit demotivating at times when the senior students who read the same content (owing to their heightened intuition) seem to grasp more. As junior students, it is often necessary to substitute the lack of intuition by more work.
* Your ability to appreciate the nuances of the field. I cannot stress this enough from my experience. If you cannot appreciate the subtleties yourself, you didn't learn much. It doesn't take much to learn Elementary Fluid Mechanics per se. But, IMO, you actually "learn" when you go **OMG** when you see the transport equation and play with it till you are satisfied. An extension of this is motivation. When some concept is developed by an author, he doesn't write in random order. One of the most important aspects is to be able to understand **why** something is being developed. For instance, most Aerodynamics books start off with Euler Angles and then move on to Quaternions. Its simple to understand what Quaternions do and how to solve equations based on them. However, unless you know that they are used to prevent gimbal locks, there is no point of knowing about them.
* The usual: Your ability to write alternate proofs, write codes (if possible), interpret the results of these codes and the usual *other-than-textbook* stuff.
One ending comment : Your level of knowledge is a function of how good you are in the group and how good you are without them. If you are able to develop proofs in those 3 hours together but aren't able to get started on your own later, you need to investigate whats wrong.
*If you want to know how good these group sessions are, find out how good you are getting at that field as an individual*
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_1: If I understand your question correctly, you're asking whether skimming through papers and getting only a "shallow" understanding can be useful? Well, I think the answer depends very much on you, and actually finding it out is an important step for you to understand how you process information.
I don't think there is a global best way to read papers. Some people need to completely a paper, to understand fully, do all the proofs, and then, somehow, they don't need to go back to this paper. I've seen a friend spending several days on the same 10-pages paper, until every tiny detail was clear.
On the contrary, other people (such as myself) prefer to have a global view of many papers, and to process several papers at the same time, which usually implies a lot of go-back-and-forth, and which also means to accept not to understand everything (although of course, sometimes it's needed to go into the details of a proof in order to keep the process going on).
So I would go with Nunoxic's advice and try to find out how good you are getting as an individual (for instance, try to read another related paper on your own, and see how much you can get). But if you're not getting better, it does not necessarily mean that this group is not working, it could also be because you're not working in this way.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: There are two positive points of group reading and shallow reading that I feel were not stressed enough by the existing answers: acclimatization and motivation.
By acclimatization I mean gradually learning as to what is interesting and what to pay attention to in a particular field. When you read by yourself (shallow or deep) you only have your own knowledge and intuition to guide you. As a junior student, you might not know what is considered interesting in a given field. If you read by yourself, it is very difficult to spot what is new and what is interesting, especially for some of the less-than-stellar papers that often comprise the bulk of your reading (sure, if you only read the greats they might make things clear, but usually if you can just stick to the greats you are probably reading something old). This was mentioned in @Nunoxic's answer, by attending the group are you learning how to ask questions? How to use the lingo of the field?
By motivation I mean having the extra commitment that helps you to read more. As graduate students we are highly self-motivated, but that doesn't mean we can't benefit from external motivation. By committing to a group, you force yourself to keep up with your reading and work. Some people can replace group meetings by an equal (or even greater) amount of individual work, but I doubt those are the norm. I always schedule a certain number of group meetings and projects to keep myself committed. This makes sure that even on slow weeks where every proof I try fails, and every idea I have is derivative, I still have something to motivate me: the commitment to the group. Further, when I am the junior student in a group, I usually feel the extra pressure to not "be dumb" and tend to invest more time and effort into understanding the material better. The pressure helps me, but it is definitely not for everyone and you should see what works best for you.
Of course, this shouldn't be taken to the extreme. If it is clear that you can accomplish more in those 3 hours (and associated preparation time) by yourself, then you should stop attending.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/03/10 | 399 | 1,617 | <issue_start>username_0: As in, it's certainly not a standard 8-5 job of 40-50 hours per week. Is it common (and expected) for them to sometimes put in 80 hours a week, and to occasionally put in 10 hours? (say, during times of personal crisis or of particularly intense coursework?)<issue_comment>username_1: It depends on you. If you really want to, you could probably have quite regular working hours (except for the odd deadline). I would say that 80 hours a week is excessive and if your advisor expects you to do that, then you should think about changing your advisor/course.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I believe that most of the students are event-driven. That is, if they have an important deadline, meeting, exam, TA section (agghh...), then they spend more time to prepare and be ready for that event. Whereas **after** an important deadline, (or finals week, etc.) they allow themselves to be more relaxed and spend less time "working".
However it is quite strange to define how much time one spends on "research". Many people get very nice ideas just before the go to sleep, or while taking a shower... The mind is running 24/7.. Even though those people are not "in office" they *do* work on their research.
I agree also with the answer of Lars that it really depends on the student's personality and preferences. I've known students who really need their schedule to be well defined. They showed up to office daily at 9:00 and left at a fixed time (I guess that being married with kids kind of forces you to have a fixed schedule). So there are no fixed rules.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer] |
2012/03/11 | 2,388 | 6,325 | <issue_start>username_0: And are there differences in average income between different types of fields, or different types of schools?
The diagram below says that the average income for grad students is $17k/year. But I'm more commonly seeing incomes in the range of $25k-$30k/year on PhysicsGRE.com...
<issue_comment>username_1: Note that those statistics are often averaged over all possible disciplines, and therefore, since there is such a wide disparity of stipend levels between different schools, and between different disciplines at the same school.
At the institution I attended for graduate school, engineers had stipends approximately 30% higher than the science majors (chemistry, physics, math, etc.). Similarly, at the undergraduate institution I attended, a similar disparity existed between science and humanities graduate students.
It is also important to ask if master's students, who often don't receive a salary at all, are included in that average. (And, since humanities students tend to stay longer, they may skew the statistics even more than one might expect.)
(One final note to directly address the question: competitive national fellowships in the US currently pay between $30,000 and $35,000 per year as a stipend. I would estimate, then, that most stipends are significantly below that amount. I'd say something in the range of $20,000-$30,000 would be appropriate in STEM fields, and probably $15,000-$20,000 for full-time humanities PhD's.)
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: There's a comparison with other jobs that uses current data on [simply hired](http://www.simplyhired.com/a/salary/search/q-college+graduate). You might be able to drill down to what you would be looking at specifically using their search.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: I think I would be surprised if it were $30000$. I, for one, get much closer to $20000$, though it is pretty easy to do a little here or there and get a little extra if I wanted to.
On the other hand, I do work all day, and I don't spend any of it ever. So in a sense, I get too much.
In addition, my school is very willing to fund our grads visits to conferences, so that's not (always or completely, but rather sometimes and/or partially) out-of-pocket.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: I would suggest the major driver of differential graduate student incomes is the varying sources of funding for different research areas. Some funding agencies list the amounts they fund explicitly on their website (e.g., [NIH NRSA grants](http://www.nih.gov/) gives [$22,032 for graduate students](http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-12-033.html), other numbers available on their site), while others require the amounts to be listed by the PI in the grant proposal (e.g., [Air Force Office of Scientific Research grants](http://www.wpafb.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=8981) do not list any specific amounts in the call for proposals).
Given the large number of funding sources across all disciplines, finding actual numbers (beyond anecdotal reporting) would be a major undertaking. If you do research and publish the numbers, though, I'd love to see them.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Here is a [nice list of PhD stipends in different fields and schools in the USA](http://www.symposcium.com/2013/06/phdstipend2013/):
>
> * Brown University – 20500 (Political Sciences in 2013), 27500 (BioMed:Biology in 2013)
> * California Institute of Technology – 21321 (Physics in 2014)
> * Carnegie Mellon University – 27600 (Biological Sciences in 2013)
> * Columbia University – 32447 (GSAS in 2014), 31666 (GSAS in 2012)
> * Cornell University – 36080 (Life Sciences/Physical Sciences/Engineering in 2014), 31293 (Humanities/Art in 2014), 30533
> (Policy in 2013), 30533 (BMCB in 2013), 29067 (MBG in 2010)
> * Duke University - 28773 (Arts & Sciences in 2014), 29420 (Medical Sciences & Nursing in 2014), 27850 (Engineering in 2014), 27934 (Arts
> & Sciences in 2013), 28700 (Medical Sciences & Nursing in 2013), 26910
> (Engineering in 2013)
> * Emory University – 28000 (BCDB in 2014), 28000 (Biomed in 2013)
> * Harvard University – 32232 (SEAS in 2014), 31284 (SEAS in 2012), 32616 (OEB, GSAS in 2012), 26795 (GSAS in 2009),
> * <NAME>ins University – 29218 (Biochemistry, biophysics, cellular, developmental, molecular biology in 2014), 22000 (Political
> Science in 2014), 25000 (Biostats in 2014), 21000 (Political Science
> in 2013), 20000 (Biostats in 2013)
> * MIT – 31968 (Engineering PhD RA in 2014), 30888 (Science/English PhD RA in 2012), 30630 (Chemistry PhD RA in 2012), 28236 (English MS
> RA in 2012), 31644 (Science/English TA in 2012), 28524 (English TA in
> 2012)
> * Northwestern University – 22992 (average in 2014), 22428 (avg. in 2013), 28000 (IBIS in 2013), 21936 (Physics and Astronomy in 2013)
> * Princeton University – 32000 (Molecular Biology in 2014), 26784 (Humanities in 2011), 27504 (Natural sciences in 2011)
> * Rice University – 26000 (Chemistry in 2014), 24720 (Chemistry in 2013), 28000 (Biochemistry and Cell Biology in 2013)
> * Stanford University – 36500 (PhD with SGF in 2014), 29500 (Neuroscience in 2010), 29250 (GSBS in 2010)
> * University of California Berkeley – 31000 (Molecular and Cell biology in 2014), 30500 (PMB in 2013), 30000 (MCB in 2013)
> * University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) – 26000 (Ecology and Evolutionary Bio in 2014)
> * University of California San Francisco (UCSF) – 31000 (Neuroscience in 2014)
> * University of Chicago – 29000 + $500 relocation fee (BSD in 2014), 28500 (BSD in 2013), 28000 (Humanities in 2013), 28000 (BSD in 2012)
> * University of Notre Dame – 25333 (Biological Sciences in 2013)
> * University of Pennsylvania – 30500 (Biochemistry and Biophysics in 2014), 27615 (Art & Sciences in 2013)
> * University of South Carolina – 17500 – 22000 without tuition
> * Vanderbilt University – 25500 (CPB in 2011), 25500 (Biomedical Sciences in 2009), 20000 (Chemistry in 2005)
> * Washington University at St. Louis – 28500 (DBBS in 2014), 28500 (Biology/Biomed Sciences in 2013)
> * Yale University – 32500 (BBS in 2014), 31700 (BBS in 2012), 35700 (BBS with NIH or NSF funding in 2012)
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/12 | 1,797 | 7,683 | <issue_start>username_0: Unfortunately, I did not know where to post this sort of question as it is very ambiguous. So I figured the Academia forum was the best place to ask, but feel free to point me to another direction. That said, this question is more about getting inspiration, rather than getting answers.
Here's my story: I'm currently studying computer science at college, and finally being top of my class in a particular course has given me the confidence to strive for greater things than I originally thought possible for myself. I want to pursue a job in research, because I would rather help mankind with technological/innovative progress than financial/social progress... So my dream is to acquire myself a well-earned Ph.D.
But here's the thing: I've studied computer security most of my life (leisure-study), and always imagined that this would be my main field of research because I'm very good at this specific area of expertise.
However, recently i've started to rethink this career path. My realization was that this field, albeit obviously not wasteful, was not going to prove beneficial for mankind in general/long-term. Unless we could use these defensive information technologies against a synthetic alien invasion, who's *plan A* was to destroy our Internet, hindering communications. But somehow I still think they would succeed.
So I have started to look into other areas of computer science. I kinda always had a dream of working with quantum computers (probably more a physics/engineering field at the moment), but i'm not really one of those extremely hardcore nerd types (God bless you guys.), so I suppose that's out of reach for me.
I'm leaning towards artificial intelligence, because I imagine that the two most prominent areas of research that will cause significiant improvements on our way of life will be either quantum computers, for their theoretical astonomical computational powers, and self-aware "strong AIs" that can help our race with all our physical, philosophical and economical problems (to name a few).
But I would still like to know if you guys think I should try to pursue something different. I'm not all that great at mathematics, but i'm extremely committed to my work once I begin, so I wouldn't mind becoming one of those "hardcore nerd types". I looked abit on <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_science> , and skimmed the theoretical computer science section, but nothing really sticks.
P.S. Please do not provide an answer such as "just learn what you love to learn", but it's not that simple in this case. I love just about everything that has to do with computers, both theory and applied, and computer science isn't a small genre to pick from.
Thank you most sincerely.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't really have an answer for you as it is ultimately your decision, but I think that choosing a subject based on its perceived potential being beneficial to mankind is not a good starting point. I would argue that you cannot judge the benefits society will have from your research until after it has happened. You can have all the best intentions and fail, or do something just for the fun of it and happen to invent something hugely useful. Many of the elements of modern computer interfaces for example were pioneered at Xerox PARC decades ago when nobody was really thinking about the impact their research would ultimately have.
Furthermore it will depend more on your individual contribution than on the field as a whole. Finally, even the most promising research might be not suitable for you because you don't enjoy it/find it too hard/don't like the people you're working with.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: As a researcher in computer security myself, I guess I can try to provide bits of answers to your question.
First of all, I would tend to disagree with your assumption that computer security won't "prove beneficial for mankind in general/long-term". Clearly, you might not find the cure for cancer by working on security, but that's probably true with anything in CS. However, there is a clear increase in global information sharing, that is beneficial to mankind in so many different ways (healthcare, increased scientific communication, reduce travel, etc), and clearly, this information sharing comes with security issues. I'd say that it's the usual deal with research: you might not be the one who makes the huge life-changing discovery, but you contribute to it.
Then, as a general remark, if you're interested in doing research, then you're starting a 45/50 years career in research. If you don't have a clear "passion" (e.g. you want to work exclusively on provable cryptography), then you might as well consider your PhD as the stepping stone to an academic career. So you can just find a subject that you like enough to dedicate the next 3 to 5 years of your life, active enough so that you can get funding and publish, and later on, once you have a PhD (and a bit more of theoretical background), then you can start finding a subject that is more beneficial to mankind (it's even possible that such a subject does not even exist yet, things are moving fast in research).
So, I'm not saying "learn what you love to learn", but rather find a good PhD advisor on a topic that you're interested in *right now*, get some research experience, and then you'll be in a much better position to understand what *you* can do to help mankind. Of course, I'm not saying that you can't be helpful right now, but it's much easier to start your own projects when you have some credentials.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Honestly, you sound like someone who is looking for a Magic Bullet to Save The World, not someone who is really informed about or interested in computer science. You sound like someone in love with the *idea* of computer science research, but with no real idea what computer science research *is*. Computer security against aliens? Quantum computing? Artificial intelligence? These are all dangerously close to science fiction. There's **tons** of good research in all those areas, but nothing — in any of those areas — is close to "saving the world", and everything interesting — in all of those areas — requires a fair bit of mathematical maturity. Sorry, but if you don't like math, you won't like real AI research, or real security research, or real quantum computing research.
If you want to do research, and really do it well, you have to love your tools. You have to love the math; you have to love the code; you have to love the nights in the lab; you have to love the balky experimental equipment. **You have to love feeling stupid**, because researchers spend 99% of their time feeling stupid; they're at the bleeding edge of what mankind understands about Reality, so **of course** they don't really know what they're doing. You have to love to work in the face of almost certain failure. You have to take the world's ignorance, especially your own personal ignorance, as *motivation*, not frustration. You have to get over the idea that you are going to Save to World, because you aren't, but you do the work anyway, because you can't *not* do the work; it's in your blood; it's who you are.
If that's not you, don't bother. There are much better ways to make money. There are much better ways to help people. There are much better ways to be happy than to do something you don't really love because you think it's Cool and Important.
But if you really *can't* live without doing it, then you really have no choice—do it, and do it well. And who knows; you may save the world after all! (But probably not.)
Upvotes: 4 |
2012/03/12 | 735 | 2,864 | <issue_start>username_0: What are some perks that would increase the amount of dollars that people spend on a venture? And what level of transparency would be useful?
[Petridish](http://www.petridish.org/projects/all) is a recent KickStarter-like startup for crowdfunding science.<issue_comment>username_1: These funding mechanisms are in their very infancy, so I don't know if there will *any* "tried and true" techniques for a few months, assuming the funding model proves to work at all. That being said, it will be very similar to that on Kickstarter:
* Advertise in numerous channels. People can only support you if they know about you. Getting the word out is the primary goal in the beginning.
* Provide an engaging, easy-to-understand description of:
1. What you want to research
2. Why you want to research it
3. How humanity will benefit from your having researched it
4. What success will look like
(Note: This last point is often ignored, but it's crucial for the lay-audience. They may expect a particular cancer research project to end with a cancer cure, whereas in reality it will end with the identification of a particular protein responsible for a particular mutation. Stating this will avoid making you as an individual and scientists as a whole from looking stupid in the eyes of the public.)
* Offer a constant (strictly defined, e.g. "weekly" or "biweekly") updates to backers
Regarding useful perks, I've noticed that a few of the successful drives offered things such as:
* Engrave the name of the backer or a loved on the instruments being used
* Paintings of the organisms/landscape/imagery being studied
* Naming a star/organism after the backer/loved one
The final topic, transparency, is more difficult. On the one hand, you will need complete transparency. On the other hand, there is such a thing as *too much* transparency. In brief, your updates should serve to inform the backers about your work, while simultaneously and more subtly serving two other goals as well:
1. Convince your backers that you're actually doing work
2. Maintain their confidence in your ability to do the work
---
tl;dr -
1. Make everything - *everything* - about your proposed project crystal clear for the layperson
2. Make the prizes cutesy and attractive, but not too lavish; they're investing for science, and secondarily maybe a little gift
3. Your updates should, in order: (1) inform about your research, (2) convince the reader of your [scienceness](http://www.sluggy.com/daily.php?date=081027)
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: There's a blog post looking at the results of #SciFund! that might be of interest to you: <http://www.imachordata.com/?p=1156>
It looks, to me, like the predictors of success are probably having a robust social network presence, etc. and modest funding expectations.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/13 | 2,187 | 9,318 | <issue_start>username_0: I have noticed that there is no real workshop or conference in my particular field of research, that tends to be across different fields (for instance, security and risk). There are of course general conferences where I can submit a paper, but they are very general (i.e. either security, or risk), and somehow, I'd sometimes rather gather at the same place and the same time the small community who is working on this particular topic.
So, my question is: how do I create a workshop/conference? In particular, how to define the steering committee/general chair/PC chair/PC Committee? Is it better to be attached with a major conference? (I know some conferences have "call for workshops").
I'm interested both in technical answers and in useful advices (for instance, I guess that technically, you could create PC with only postdocs, but I can imagine that in practice, you need a good ratio of established researchers).<issue_comment>username_1: Creating a conference is a very worthwhile activity—however, even organizing a two-day workshop can be a logistical nightmare that requires a dedicated support staff to pull off efficiently. If you don't have it, you can still get it done, but it still requires a lot of planning and a lot of effort.
I was invited to participate in the scientific committee for a workshop to be held here on campus and hosted by my institute. Even though we had the administrative staff taking care of organizing room reservations, hotel blocks, catering, name badges, preparation of the formal program, and so on, there's still a lot of work involved, particularly if you're the chair. You'll need to contact (and sometimes harass) speakers, look for funding, recruit attendees, advertise like crazy, and so much more.
However, if you can make your workshop a part of someone else's existing conference, then you can remedy many of these problems—the existing conference's infrastructure goes a long way in supporting your workshop and its goals. Frankly, if I was going to try to start a new workshop that would take on its own independent existence, that's the route I'd choose. If the workshop inside of another conference received good feedback, only then would I try to make it an independent event in the future. In that time, you'd also have figured out who the other "major players" are who could serve on future scientific committees.
---
The conference we started was created by our institute, so dividing up the responsibilities was relatively natural: the head of the institute was the head of the conference, and we divided up the work of programming the sessions among the members of the committee.
If you don't have that option available—if, for instance, you're the primary mover and shaker behind the workshop—that puts more work on your plate.
If you're doing a workshop under the aegis of a larger program, then I would think you would be the chair of the program. You could select other people to be on the organizing committee, but as the person doing the recruiting, you're going to be the one the others look to for guidance and decision-making—at least at first.
So I think the "founder" is going to be the general chair or the organizational chair, at least the first time around. Should the conference survive to have a second iteration, then at that point establishing some sort of successorship makes a lot of sense, because nobody really wants to go through the process of organizing all of those details every other year; it's too much work.
But, if you want to know, the order did go something like this:
* Steering committee of institute decided to hold conference
* Steering committee appointed emeritus faculty member as program committee leader.
* Steering committee appointed junior faculty as committee members.
* Program committee came up with several tentative plans.
* Steering committee decided on final overall structure.
* Program committee scrambled to find speakers to fit new structure decided on by SC.
* Program committee puts together advertising, recruits speakers, organizes poster session, organizes conference structure, and performs other duties as needed.
* Organizing team handles payments, attendance and registration issues, travel and accommodation issues, operation of conference, and so on.
The other thing to consider is that the planning for something like this typically requires on the order of 12 to 18 months, even if you're just doing an event locally hosted at your university (like ours was). For something more complicated, you may need even more lead time.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Depending on your field, sources of funding and/or professional organisations can provide a lot of logistic support to organising a workshop. In mathematics for example, the [mathematics institute of Oberwolfach](http://www.mfo.de/scientific-programme/meetings/proposal-guidelines) runs workshops and miniworkshops in all subfields. The organiser propose a workshop, and if it gets approved, the institute takes care of most of the logistics. Other similar opportunities in mathematics include the [Mathematical research communities](http://www.ams.org/programs/research-communities/mrc) program of American Mathematical Society, and the [SQuaRes](http://www.aimath.org/research/squares.html) program of the American Institute of Mathematics, as well as workshops organised by the Clay Mathematical Institute or the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute in Berkeley CA.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I'd like to add some info to the above provided answers, that are, IMHO, very well-explained and helpful.
If your research field is not very mature yet, you could also think about organizing a "summer school", in which you could invite some well-recognized researchers to serve as lecturers, especially with some practical experience (not only from the research env.), for you (and your attendance, as well) to have a broader view on the field.
The environment provided by a summer school is really nice (I've got the experience of organizing a series of summer schools in my research field, for a couple of years), and you may provide your attendance with an opportunity to "keep in touch" with good "names" in the specific research field, most of them that we usually reference in our papers.
Regarding the organization, a summer school is usually not paper-driven, i.e., you don't have to care about steering and program committees, so it may save you some effort. In addition, you don't have to care about proceedings (usually expensive to prepare, and to print... even if you think about publishing it online only, you will have some effort and costs to deal with).
Indeed, you must care about funding, in order to pay for the hotels/airline tickets/food, etc, that, sometimes only counting on the money from registrations is not enough.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Here's some insight on the [behind-the-scenes at NIPS](http://inverseprobability.com/2014/09/13/nips-decision-time):
Inverse Probability. 'NIPS: Decision Time'. Last modified 2014. Accessed September 27, 2014. <http://inverseprobability.com/2014/09/13/nips-decision-time/>.
>
> So the decisions have been out for a few days now, and of course we have had some queries about our processes. Every one has been pretty reasonable, and their frustration is understandable when three reviewers have argued for accept but the final decision is to reject. This is an issue with ‘space-constrained’ conferences. Whether a paper gets through in the end can depend on subjective judgements about the paper’s qualities. In particular, we’ve been looking for three components to this: novelty, clarity and utility. Papers with borderline scores (and borderline here might be that the average score is in the weak accept range) are examined closely. The decision about whether the paper is accepted at this point necessarily must come down to judgement, because for a paper to get scores this high the reviewers won’t have identified a particular problem with the paper. The things that come through are how novel the paper is, how useful the idea is, and how clearly it’s presented. Several authors seem to think that the latter should be downplayed. As program chairs, we don’t necessarily agree. It’s true that it is a great shame when a great idea is buried in poor presentation, but it’s also true that the objective of a conference is communication, and therefore clarity of presentation definitely plays a role. However, it’s clear that all these three criteria are a matter of academic judgement: that of the reviewers, the area chair and the quad groups in the teleconferences. All the evidence we’ve seen is that reviewers and area chairs did weigh these aspects carefully, but that doesn’t mean that all their decisions can be shown to be right, because they are often a matter of perspective. Naturally authors are upset when what feels like a perfectly good paper is rejected on more subjective grounds. Most of the queries are on papers where this is felt to be the case.
>
>
>
Also has some other articles that are relevant, such as on [NIPS Reviewer Recruitment](http://inverseprobability.com/2014/07/24/nips-reviewer-recruitment-and-experience).
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/03/13 | 2,335 | 9,297 | <issue_start>username_0: I am about to get my bachelor degree in computer science. I have applied PhD programs of US universities to earn doctorate degree in computer architecture subject. I kept my hopes high and applied the most of top US schools, but rejected from the most of them (mostly because my GRE, TOEFL grades are not top for these schools, I think). Hopefully I will be admitted some of the schools that I applied.
I know pursuing a PhD and conducting research is not easy, but it is a serious process that requires the one to devote himself or herself to. Luckily I like working on computer architecture and learn about new innovations, techniques, ideas proposed by researchers. I think computer architecture is a field fully open to innovation, research and development. However, at the same time I love spending time on web technologies. I have been developing new applications related with web services, mobile services, social media, content management systems etc.
Do you think would it be really possible to pursue a PhD and simultaneously work on a start-up project?
I am not looking for answers saying that it would be possible as long as you manage your time to work on them both or it is up to your advisor or program etc. I know after some point everything up to you, but I don't know the PhD experience and that's why I am asking this question here.
PS: I hope this question would help others in the sense that it is about the possibility of serious extra activities during PhD process, rather than being an personal issue.<issue_comment>username_1: Unfortunately the answer you don't want to hear is the most plausible one in my opinion. There are plenty of cases where people even start companies while doing a username_4 and then never finish their username_4 (Google being a notable example). People also do both at the same time, or change to a part-time username_4.
If you are serious about getting a username_4, this is only really an option in the later years of your studies. If you start working on a project that is not related to your username_4 right away you will probably run into difficulties with your studies, the project or both.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Honestly, my instinct is "no".
Both startups and username_4 advance in the same way - the massive influx of effort. And that effort is often unpredictable. Both settings have "crunch time" wherein for the next few weeks, you might as well have dropped off the face of the Earth.
Balancing that is, imo, a very tall order for a human being and will probably result in one of them suffering, falling to the side and getting triaged if you try to split the middle.
That being said, there are paths you can try, particularly if you can manage to either consult for a startup in a way that has structured limits on your time, or manage to link your dissertation to the startup's work enough that your effort counts for double. But as entirely unrelated projects? Its begging to have one fall apart.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: It depends the most on how much time and effort you need to pursue your start-up project. If you were able to do it and have a normal job - then probably yes.
However, time management is an issue - both username_4 and start-up are things with unbounded times - so always competing with each other. The thing with devoting oneself may be psychologically harder, as you need constantly to switch attention and evaluate priorities (but sometimes it may be beneficial - serving as an 'intellectual crop rotation').
Moreover, dealing with the pressure from two opposite sites at once may be difficult. And don't underestimate it.
For US, note that first 1-2 years is the coursework, so it may be not the easiest/possible to start your project then.
Anyway, it may be the best not to start both username_4 and star-up exactly at the same time - better to learn how much time & effort is needed for one activity and e.g. what is approach of your professor / graduate school to your other project(s) (actually, sometimes they may be supportive, including in the financial aspect).
Source:
I'm a username_4 student running a sort of a start-up project (Confrenzy).
EDIT: Now failed, or frozen.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Yes, Yes and absolutely Yes! Yes, you **have** to manage and balance your time well and make sure you devote the time to your Ph.D first, if your startup kicks off and you start raking in millions, you may again decide how to distribute your attention :)
Now, what are the benefits of doing a start-up-like project (notice 'like')? You don't really know how/what this project will turn into. So first pursue it as 'passion' or have 'will to do it' to solve a 'pain point' and NOT for *'it's fun to start my company, let's do it!'* kinda attitude.
First, find a pain point and talk it out with your peers, friends etc. Basically anyone whose pain you will relieve :) Get a pulse of the solution and its possible acceptability.
Second: Is this in line with your username_4 focus area? Can you 'put it line' with it? The reason I ask is that'll be all the more worthwhile and you'd be 2x willing to work your a\*\* off :) and time devoted to either will be beneficial to both!
Now if it's not in line and a totally different project here are some benefits:
* Strong honing of skills with a focus on 'value' - you'll HAVE to prioritize the requirements with a focus on the most valuable/risky items first (and not necessarily the easiest ones)
* Understanding who will be your success critical stakeholders and how/what will satisfy their needs (i.e. what are the pain points, whose feeling it and how to relieve it)
* What it takes to run a business or bring an idea to fruition
* How painful is quick and dirty in the long run i.e. if you sacrifice maintainability/readability/adaptability the business will teach a lesson ;)
* Develop a techno-business mindset i.e. along with the development skills you'll also (hopefully) develop some valuation skills. These are those that help you 'sell' your idea to someone (VCs, Angels etc.) to invest in your business - you'll learn to speak the language of 'business' to help them understand the value of your idea.
* Learn to do risk/return tradeoffs
This will make you a 'System Engineer' in a sense - you'll be able to look at a broader picture along with your particular skill set (computer architecture)
Now, assuming your username_4 is purely technical, you will develop (and appreciate) business understanding, complexity and communicability! In the future it'll help you communicate well with the 'other folks' (i.e. marketing, managers, CEOs, bosses, customers etc. etc.)
These skills ARE EXTREMELY VALUABLE in the long run. Working on your start-up project may help you at least get an inkling if not the entire understanding but you WILL definitely have a better understanding of technical + business oriented aspects and I think that's a skill all username_4s ought to have!!
PS: I am in your shoes :)
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_5: It can be great if you learn skills that you can apply in your username_4. Some Universities even encourage it. As long as you communicate this clearly to your professor and still devote enough attention to your username_4 it is OK.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_6: Awesome question.
My answer is - **for sure!** (if it is related to your research as a grad student)
Let me expand. I think grad school is time for couple of things:
1. Widen your knowledge in the field.
2. Deepen your knowledge in the subfield of the subfield of the subfield ... of your field
3. bla bla bla
4. Get to be known by your peers
5. Make new connections
Professor could usually tell you that points 4 and 5 are easily achieved by publishing couple of papers and going to couple of conferences (realistically, how many conferences grad student can go in 5 years? maybe 8).
Of course, also, advisor doesn't want you to spend time on the stuff that will not has his/her (advisor's) name on it. That is understandable, advisor needs a list of stuff to put in the grant/whatever proposal to get funding. However:
1. Advisor pays you a minimum wage (in most of the cases)
2. Makes you work on his/her [spherical cow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow)
3. There are hardly any jobs on the market [1,2]
For at least these reasons my answer is - **for sure**.
Now, usually startup'ers invest time and money into something, and hope to get more money back. In my case, I have decided to invest in myself. So my startup goal is to contribute to a list of the opensource/closed source project in my field and arrive into authors/contributors list. This will accomplish the following:
1. Get to be known by your peers
2. Make new connections
3. Get myself aware of the code
One more thing I'm happy about, only my name will be on the list. In academia people get authorship on the papers for all kind of things, only not for doing research, well, in the software - there is no such issue - as commit history is the judge.
thanks for the attention.
1. <http://cen.acs.org/articles/90/web/2012/03/Unemployment-Data-Worst-40-Years.html>
2. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.caredit.a1300184>
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/03/13 | 1,985 | 8,352 | <issue_start>username_0: I have recently discovered that several of my papers have been plagiarized in order to create one paper, and that this paper has been published at a conference. I informed the organizers of the conference and the editor, and there is now notice of violation attached to the online version of this paper, so this problem has been solved.
However, I came to know this paper only by accident (someone contacted my co-author, and told him that this paper looked a lot like ours), and potentially, we could have missed it. So my question is: are there some techniques I could use to detect such cases?
I don't think that it's possible to detect all cases in general (because sometimes, it can be hard to distinguish between inspiration and plagiarism, and I would actually be quite glad with being a source of inspiration) but can I at least detect the most blatant ones? (in this particular example, 3/4 of the paper was actually a copy/paste from ours, and they were citing some of our other papers).
Note that as a completely childish and probably useless reaction, I've actually stopped putting my papers on my webpage. I doubt it can solve the problem though, but at least I felt like doing something :)<issue_comment>username_1: Unfortunately, this is not really a problem you can solve yourself. There are simply too many journals behind individual paywalls (sometimes even in different languages) for you to be able to monitor this sort of thing by yourself.
On more of a philosophical note, I would argue that it's the responsibility of the journal editors to ensure that the papers they choose to publish are not plagarized from other works. They are the only ones who can really prevent it, as they are the ones who actually publish the papers; you, the author, reader, and sometimes reviewer, are just a consumer of their publication. Teachers and professors have access to resources such as [TurnItIn.com](http://turnitin.com/en_us/home); I'm not familiar with such a resource for academics, but I would definitely argue that it is the *responsibility* of the journals to ensure that every paper they publish is genuinely novel research. (This is not to say that the author has no responsibility; of course every researcher should publish ethically.)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I would even say post your work on some kind of arXiv as soon as you can. My reasons are:
1. You might be lucky, and the reviewer will actually find it, and catch the dishonesty early (I always try to google related works when I get a review request).
2. if your work is there for a while, it has more chance that people saw it and affiliate that result with you, thus recognizing the plagiarizing work as such.
3. You have a date-stamp. With such a time-stamp it'd be easier to claim that your work (publicly) appeared before the time that the other work was submitted/conceived.
The interesting question is, whether you should cite the other work in your "related work" segment, and claim it to be plagiarism?! (:
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: You've handled the conference plagiarism very well.
But then you say you've stopped putting your papers on your website: and I'm afraid that that is completely counter-productive.
It would be far more helpful for editors, reviewers and publishers to have your papers on your website, indexed by all the usual search bots, and clearly copyrighted and time-stamped. That makes it easier for them to spot duplicate content, early on.
The point of publishing your work is to get it disseminated. Very many journals allow authors to host preprints or similar on their own university web pages: do so. Get your stuff circulated as widely as possible. That gives you the best chance of other plagiarism of your work being spotted early on, in the future.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: When reviewing a paper via the [EDAS](https://www.edas.info) portal, you can always look at the similarity score with other papers. in order to compute this similarity score, the use the [iThenticate](http://www.ithenticate.com/) software.
I have also seen the [CrossCheck](http://www.crossref.org/crosscheck/index.html) software, but I cannot remember where or when (note that it is also powered by iThenticate).
I guess all these softwares can be used for individuals. As long as you pay...
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I'd argue that you shouldn't worry too much about preventing plagiarism of your papers. At least in the areas I'm familiar with (math and theoretical CS), it's extremely unlikely to do you much harm.
To be clear, I'm talking about wholesale plagiarism of written text. There can be much trickier situations - for example, if your rival learns an idea from you in a private conversation and then claims you learned it from him - but that's a subject for another question.
Plagiarism happens all the time, on a massive scale, but you don't see it very often because it takes place at the margins: usually in junk journals or conferences, and occasionally in solid but low-prestige venues. This is by design, since plagiarists know that if they attract too much attention, they'll get caught. Nobody submits a plagiarized paper hoping to get lots of citations. Instead, they just want credit for having published something, usually because of some external pressure.
One fear people sometimes have is of being caught in an ambiguous situation, where it's not completely clear who the plagiarist is. In the areas I'm familiar with, this never happens. The community is always quite sure of who is to blame, and as far as I can tell they are always right. This is a valid worry in principle, but it's not worth losing sleep over.
Another fear is that the plagiarist will attract attention and citations that should have gone to your paper. As I mentioned above, that's not likely. These papers are typically almost unnoticed, and if they do get noticed, then that's just a prelude to getting caught.
Plagiarism is still a serious problem, and plagiarists are cheating the system, but in the fields I'm talking about, they are generally not specifically hurting the authors they are copying from.
Putting your papers online makes it slightly easier to plagiarize them, but it's not really contributing much to the problem, since there are so many possible sources. (There has even been a paper plagiarized from an advertisement for a consulting firm! See <http://www.siam.org/journals/plagiary/index.php>. It's amazing how much garbage there is out there, and how unscrupulous some authors are.)
Instead, making your papers as visible and accessible as possible makes it more likely that plagiarists will be caught. And, of course, this is in addition to all the other benefits of making it easy to read your papers.
Vanity googling can also help: I periodically do searches for topics I care about, or to see who is citing my papers, and I've caught several plagiarists that way.
The arXiv flags papers whose text overlaps nontrivially with a previous paper. This means in fields where arXiv use is widespread, plagiarists can't get away with using the arXiv, so they are further marginalized.
Unfortunately, after plagiarism is discovered, there is little or nothing you can do to ensure that the plagiarist is punished. Reputable conferences or journals will investigate the situation and flag or withdraw the paper; less reputable ones will ignore you and hope you quit asking about it, although they will sometimes act if you publicize it enough. The plagiarist's employer probably won't do anything, no matter how serious the case is. What I'd recommend is that you try to correct the literature, and report the incident to the plagiarist's employer (assuming the paper was published as part of their job), but not worry too much about getting any action from the employer. If pursuing the case further would give you some satisfaction, then that's a good reason to do it, but don't do it with the expectation of concrete results. If you're lucky, you'll get a letter explaining that something awkward might or might not have happened, that everyone involved is very sorry for any hurt feelings, that whatever did happen wasn't really anyone's fault, but that it won't happen again. (Sadly, it often does.)
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer] |
2012/03/14 | 738 | 3,261 | <issue_start>username_0: I would like to know how willing would staff in CS department of reputed universities would be to hire doctorates from relevant non-CS departments, for example, say, management science or operations research students. I see a dilemma for the recruiters here: research-wise the new member may be probably better-equipped to span a newer vista of problems that are currently not tackled in the department, but academically, the faculty may not be trained to teach usual CS courses at undergrad level.
A few specific cases, in either case you can assume the applicant is interested in CS research, but does not have publications in top CS journals:
1. The applicant is a CS-graduate and a PhD in MS but has no CS teaching experience.
2. The applicant is NOT a CS-graduate but a PhD in MS who has worked on CS-related problems for his doctorate. Will he be excused for not teaching undergrad? Or will he have the liberty to formulate interdisciplinary courses himself and teach them?<issue_comment>username_1: At least three faculty in my department (including our current head) have PhDs in electrical engineering, at least one has a PhD in mathematics, and at least one has a PhD in operations research. If a faculty candidate is actively publishing good research in computer science conferences and journals, which department gave them their PhD really doesn't matter. (And if they're *not* actively publishing good research in computer science conferences and journals **computer science research**, they won't get hired, period.)
Most junior faculty candidates don't have significant teaching experience anyway, so that aspect really doesn't matter much either. Sometimes it can be a bit tricky to find courses for new faculty with non-standard backgrounds to teach, but if they're really doing CS research, something always fits.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Within research universities, departments are generally interested in hiring faculty who will improve the department's research standing, both within the university and within their research field. The people who are most eligible in this regard typically have extensive research publications in a given field, and will have a clear path down which they plan on doing research for the next 5+ years. If you wish to compete with these indidivuals, you'll have to provide a good argument to the university as to how you will be able to advance their standing through your research. Depending on your experience and publication history, this may not be hard to do, but you'll still need to put forth the argument.
From my experience, within teaching universities, they want people who can (1) teach, and (2) teach the subject at hand, in that order. If you're a great teacher but aren't that knowledgeable about some particular CS subject - but have a broad CS knowledge base in other regards, and are willing to learn - then you're a great candidate. That's my experience, at least.
Finally, it's worth asking why you want to join a CS department without the relevant CS experience. You can always join another department and simply get listed as faculty in a different department; again, from my experience, this happens quite often.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/03/14 | 1,184 | 5,154 | <issue_start>username_0: I recently saw a listing of professor salaries at various departments in Stanford. I found that the folks at GSB earn significantly more than what other Dept. people do. This is the motivation for my question:
1. How different are B-school professors? Many of them work on areas that lie on the intersection of Operations/CS/Economics/Applied Math. But why do they enjoy a greater pay (if at all they do)?
2. Are industry contacts available easier for B-school faculty when compared with engineering or science department professors? What sort of projects do B-school professors work on in collaboration with the industry? How is the pay-sharing deal between the industry, the prof and the university worked out?
3. How different is teaching MBA students from engg. or science undergrad students? Does teaching MBA eat up more time or is more demanding than usual?<issue_comment>username_1: I can address questions 1 and 2 (although for 3, all I know is that my friends say it is very different).
1. When you are negotiating over salary, your leverage is determined by the best alternative you have. To keep from losing you to another employer, your job must offer a better combination of pay and benefits than anyone else (including benefits like job security, having interesting colleagues and students, having flexible hours and the ability to choose your own projects, etc.).
People in the humanities have very little leverage except from other academic jobs. Mathematicans have more, because there are applications in industry or government, so they get paid somewhat more, but this leverage is limited by the fact that many mathematicians don't want non-academic jobs. Computer scientists have a lot of leverage, and business school faculty have even more.
So basically it comes down to this. Business school faculty often have expertise that is in high demand outside academia and could earn them a lot of money, and there's at least a stereotype that they care more about monetary compensation than some professors do (which makes sense, given their interest in business). This means that to attract excellent faculty, business schools have to pay enough that job applicants would rather work there than in the business world.
In principle, this is no different from other departments: literature faculty also have to be paid enough that they don't leave for the business world. It's just a question of how much that is.
2. This really depends on the subfield. Business school faculty are certainly more likely to do outside consulting than scientists are, but there are no universal rules (some business school professors do none at all, and some scientists run their own companies). Occasionally, a company will sponsor a university program according to some negotiated agreement, but consulting generally does not involve a pay-sharing deal. Instead, the faculty member simply consults part-time for the company, without using university resources, and is paid directly by the company. In the US, universities typically allow a certain amount of time to be spent on outside consulting, for example one day per week, with no special approval needed.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Short answer: Business school professors tend to have higher level contacts in industry and government than professors in other fields. So if they are 1) consulting, they are likely reporting to higher level executives who will pay them better, even for similar work.
2) For the same reason, a business school professor who leaves Academia for a full time position in industry is likely to leave for a higher level, higher paying job outside. Some of my finance professors took jobs on Wall St. Some of these jobs are available to mathematics people also, but "finance" and "business" gives one that extra edge. And a large part of this stems from:
3) Teaching MBA students isn't necessarily more demanding that teaching other students. But these graduates tend to rise to positions in corporations with more authority (and often more pay) than non-business engineering and science graduates. If one of your students from twenty years ago becomes CEO of his/her company (and this is more likely with business school than technical students), well, you get the idea.
Some of my own business school professors were either former or future "C" level executives (Chief Operating Officer, Chief Marketing Officer, Chief Financial Officer, even a CEO or two). The ones that left industry became professors because they grew tired of the "grind" and took a pay cut for a quieter life. But if it were too much of a cut, they wouldn't do this. The ones that left Academia and went to industry did so because their pay was a *lot* (not just a little) higher than that of say, a department head in a university with comparable authority and/or prestige.
In this connection, it is noteworthy that <NAME> was one of the ["Whiz Kids"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiz_Kids_(Ford)) who took over Ford Motor Company (he briefly served as President) before he became Dean of Stanford Business School.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/03/14 | 2,746 | 10,142 | <issue_start>username_0: This some kind of follow up question to [How to prevent plagiarism of my papers?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/712/102), since I've been clearly convinced that it was in my best interest to put my own papers on my webpage.
Now, since I need to make the effort to put them, I might as well try to do it in a nice way. Right now, I'm using [bibtex2html](http://www.lri.fr/~filliatr/bibtex2html/), which is a tool I can run locally, taking a bibtex file with my publications (that I create manually), and that outputs the resulting HTML, that I can copy/paste to my webpage.
I like it, but it can sometimes be complicated to use, so I was wondering if there exist some other tools? My ideal tool would be some tool where I could put the bibtex (one for each publication) and the pdf, and that would create a kind of database, such that I could sort my publications easily.
(Note: Right now, my webpage is hosted directly on Wordpress, so I can't host directly a PhP script, but if there were a really good tool, I could try to host my webpage myself.)<issue_comment>username_1: You could consider hosting it via one of the reference / citation managers, such as [CiteULike](http://CiteULike.org/) or [Mendeley](http://www.Mendeley.com/), which can take imports of Bibtex files. Your own university may (should!) have such a [web-front plus publication database available, for you to embed into your university home page](https://iris.ucl.ac.uk/research/publication/index?upi=APSMI28).
Wordpress
---------
If your webpage is hosted directly on wordpress.com, then no, you can't host your own PHP script. If it's Wordpress hosted elsewhere, then you should be able to add your own PHP script, by incorporating into your plugin. There are skeleton plugins available to get you started. It may be that asking on [Wordpress.SE](http://wordpress.stackexchange.com) will give you some useful pointers.
Mendeley
--------
On Mendeley: there is an [embedding plugin for Wordpress](http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/mendeleyplugin/). I haven't used it, but it might be worth looking into. Or, on your Mendeley profile web page, select edit, then embed. Or Share > Embed elsewhere on Mendeley pages (groups or whatever).
There's an [article on Beta Science on embedding Mendeley](http://betascience.blogspot.com/2010/05/use-mendeley-to-list-your-publications.html) that may be useful. It uses the same Share > Embed as above, but recommends creating a "Publications" group in the desktop client first, putting your own papers into that, (in order, from oldest to newest).
Then right-click -> Edit Settings, then under "Collection Access" choose "Public - visible to everyone". Then click "Apply and Sync". Then, from the collection web page, select "embed" to get the appropriate html.
CiteULike
---------
If you prefer CiteULike, they have an excellent [API](http://wiki.citeulike.org/index.php/Importing_and_Exporting#How_can_I_access_my_library_from_application_X.3F), allowing you to [customise](http://www.citeulike.org/groupforum/2394) your own tools. And the staff on the [discussion forum](http://www.citeulike.org/groupfunc/3124/home) are very responsive (a marked contrast with Mendeley).
Academia.edu
------------
If you prefer [Academia.edu](http://Academia.edu), you could always embed your [publications page](http://ucl.academia.edu/AndrewSmith/Papers) (and maybe your talks page too) in an iframe
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I'm super lazy and I just use Mendeley's group widget.
* Make a group for your publications
* Dump all of your publications into the group. Hopefully all of the metadata is determined for you.
* Use the widget to generate the code for you.
Result looks like:
```
[Swartz Lab](http://www.mendeley.com/groups/1281613/swartz-lab/ "Swartz Lab on Mendeley")
```
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: If your paper are on [arXiv](http://arxiv.org/) you can use [myarticles widget](http://arxiv.org/help/myarticles).
It requires obtaining an [arXiv author identifier](http://arxiv.org/help/author_identifiers), which allows you to display your preprints by typing `http://arxiv.org/a/[user]`.
An example of the widget below:
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: You can also try out [Google Scholar Citations](http://scholar.google.com/citations), which is a new service for showing the citation count for all your papers. As an example, [here's my small list](http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=NHu36_oAAAAJ).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: Bibbase
=======
I think that [**BibBase**](http://www.bibbase.org/) would be a perfect solution if you can at least run CGI scripts; instructions can be found [on this page](http://www.bibbase.org/help/) (if you can run PHP then it's even simpler). You need to feed it a Bibtex file, but if you use Mendeley then it can automatically grab it from there.
**Update**: Bibbase now allows you to use just javascript. (h/t ChristianF)
>
> BibBase makes it easy for scientists to maintain their publications pages. As a scientist, you simply maintain a BibTeX-file of your publications, including links to the papers, and BibBase does the rest. When a web user visits your publications page, **BibBase dynamically generates an always up-to-date HTML page from the BibTeX file, and even allows the user to sort the publications** by other than the default ordering (e.g. year, author, keywords, research area, publication type).
>
>
>
[Here is an example of the output.](http://www.cs.toronto.edu/%7Efritz)
A custom alternative
====================
I happen to have a departmental server that doesn't allow PHP or CGI; you can read about what I do to solve this problem [on my blog](http://scienceinthesands.blogspot.com/2011/10/managing-publication-lists-in-html.html) and see the kind of output generated [on my group's site](http://numerics.kaust.edu.sa/publications.html). An even more jazzed-up version, which is searchable and filterable, is [on my own site](http://www.davidketcheson.info/publications.html).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: Just for completeness, I would also mention [ResearcherID](http://www.researcherid.com), a service similar to (but older than) Google Scholar citations, courtesy of <NAME>. They've got badges and similar fancy links that you can put on your homepage.
I just use it as a convenient list and tool for anybody obsessed with h-indices and impact factors.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: An even easier solution that doesn't require anything except the ability to upload a BibTeX file is [Exhibit](http://simile.mit.edu/wiki/Exhibit/For_Authors). It takes your bibtex, does some javascripting on it, and renders the result. It seems CSS-stylable, and even allows for faceted search.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: Just a little follow-up on my own question. I've recently moved my webpage to a server I manage, which allows me to use PHP scripts, and I came across the excellent [Bibtex Browser](http://www.monperrus.net/martin/bibtexbrowser/).
Basically, I just have my own bibtex file on my server, and the publications list is automatically generated from a very simple PHP script. It seems to work as well as [Exhibit](http://simile.mit.edu/wiki/Exhibit/For_Authors), that username_7 mentioned, and although it does not answer exactly my original question (since it requires the ability to run scripts), I thought I would put it here for completeness :)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: I know the topic is old, but I have recently developed a solution that fits the question very well - just in case other people are looking for the same information.
You can try [BibSpace](https://github.com/vikin91/BibSpace). It was created to manage publications of a group and display them automatically on the webpage. It has many fancy features and new features are being developed actively. There is a demo available. The software is free and open source. (Disclaimer: I am the author of this tool).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_10: If you are a user of [Wordpress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WordPress) and [Zotero](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zotero), then you can use the [Zotpress](https://wordpress.org/plugins/zotpress/) plugin to display Zotero citations inside your Wordpress blog.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_11: The [Academic theme](https://themes.gohugo.io/academic/) based on [Hugo](https://gohugo.io/) is a nice theme specifically catered towards academic researchers. For publications, it has an option to directly [import from a list in the BibTex format](https://sourcethemes.com/academic/docs/managing-content/#create-a-publication), which could be exported from a reference manager such as [Zotero](https://www.zotero.org/).
Subsequently, you also have the option to control the format the list is displayed in, add external links (such as to the published paper or code), and create a list of selected publications. The theme also provides visitors to your page the option to filter publications by title, authors, year, and publication type, without needing any manual setup.
Beyond this, the theme can also be used to build an entire personal or laboratory website, with individual pages for lab members. It also provides instructions for hosting with [GitHub Pages](https://pages.github.com/) (free) or [Netlify](https://www.netlify.com/).
Screenshot from the [demo page](https://academic-demo.netlify.app/publication/) for reference:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/jneZd.png)
References:
1. [Theme homepage](https://sourcethemes.com/academic/)
2. [Demo website](https://academic-demo.netlify.app/), and [more examples of individual and group websites in use](https://sourcethemes.com/academic/#expo)
3. [Documentation](https://sourcethemes.com/academic/docs/)
Note: I am not an author and am not affiliated with the creators of this theme.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/03/14 | 1,847 | 7,889 | <issue_start>username_0: This question is mainly about building useful contacts during the course of the doctorate. How does one keep the relevant community in other universities informed about his/her research work? One way is obviously to publish the work in reputable journals, but the volume of work that people do these days means there is every chance that others miss out on your work.
So consider giving talks in other university departments about your work. What is the best way to approach this task? Who will take care of the travel and other expenses? This especially applies to departments which focus mainly on journal publications and do not spend time on conferences.
What are the other ways to popularise or create recognition for oneself in the relevant academic community (read prospective employers)?<issue_comment>username_1: The best way is to be highly active in your field. (Note: this will take work.) Here are my suggestions for accomplishing this, and I hope others will post more in the comments or other answers:
1. **Do awesome work.** It all starts here. As a PhD student, this typically requires being in an awesome lab under an awesome professor, but it is possible to achieve awesome work without that.
2. **Publish in respected journals *in your field*.**
3. **Network within your field.** This includes attending field-specific conferences, talking to other PhD students and professors in other labs, and forming collaborations.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: One minor point to add to username_1's awesome answer: **One of your advisor's jobs is to help you publicize your work.** Take every possible advantage of their existing research network. Ask them to introduce you to people at conferences, workshops, and other meetings; ask them for help arranging invitations at other departments/labs. (Ideally, you shouldn't have to ask, but ask anyway.) Until you're comfortable walking up to or emailing random people and introducing yourself, name-drop your advisor liberally; their names will (or should) open doors that yours won't.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: The PhD students I remember the most are the ones who came up to me and made meaningful comments or suggestions regarding my work. They get extra bonus points if in the middle of the night the next week they offer more meaningful comments or suggestions. This can happen in the context of a faculty visit, a conference, or even online. The most powerful setting is at a **poster session**.
The habit is to camp near your own poster until important people come and ask you questions. Much more effective for becoming a ***"well-known"*** scholar is when you find someone else, have a good conversation, and then follow up on the conversation.
There are also effective and meaningful ways to make a name online. As @Artem suggested, an online presence does a lot. Being an constant contributor to scientific wikis, a curator of archives, and a resource on places like [Academia SE](https://academia.stackexchange.com/) builds your profile. (It also helps if you don't have a psuedoname like [username_3](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/319/username_3).)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: In addition to ekaynal's answer, you can also **run a conference or workshop**. But be careful that this doesn't detract from the quality of your research! **Running department seminars** can help too because you will get to invite & host speakers who will therefore learn your name.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: The single most useful reference I've read on networking in academia is "Networking on the Network" (by Phil Agre):
<http://vlsicad.ucsd.edu/Research/Advice/network.html>
Let me mention a few examples of advice that Phil gives.
* First, the Internet does not *fundamentally* change the way that networking works. You basically walk through the same five or six stages of networking whether you use email and the web or not (and he outlines how each stage works). The exact *form* may differ, but the *substance* is more or less the same.
* Second, networking takes *time*. Phil recommends budgeting *one day per week* for maintaining your network.
* Third, work to ensure that each person in your network *benefits from knowing you*, not just you from knowing them. If you see an article or opportunity that you think may interest them, pass it along.
This essay is long (about 100 pages), but it has much valuable information. I suggest that you return to it every year or two as you progress in your career.
Phil is a great writer, and you may find some of this other thoughts helpful as well. You can read lots of them here:
<http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/>
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: Short answers: Get cited. Present. Show yourself to be a peer.
Long answer:
I have the opposite view about networking: you should not waste any day on it unless it directly helps your research (e.g., potential collaborations, working on grants). While admittedly you need to network and get yourself known, that won't help at all unless you're known for great work. You're not going to be known for great work without having great publications. They don't need to be in the best journals (though it helps), but you need to be pushing out work that answers questions that other scholars have. In my opinion, there is no better way to get your name out there than to be cited.
The single most important thing that I learned from transitioning out of my PhD program is this: Publishing is networking. Publishing is talking with your peers. (Particularly if you publish in conferences, you are literally talking to your peers.) No level of pavement-beating will get you more attention than to win a best paper award or to present on a topic that big people have been looking for a good citation on for years. I know a few relatively young scholars in my field who have just about universal name recognition. Their MO? 1. They answered questions that researchers were interested in knowing the answers to. or 2. They answered questions that people didn't even realize needed asking, but were so important everyone needs to talk about them now.
In the long run, being known doesn't help you much if you're known as "another one of those people who works on topic X." You want to be known as "An expert in topic Y" or "The first person I would go to with a question about Y." If you don't have this, any major researcher will say: "Why would I bother collaborating or recommending this guy?" Obviously, this takes years, but so does a doctorate. Nothing is more important to being well-known than asking the right question at the right time (and then answering it).
Additionally, one secondary route of networking not noted by others from what I have seen: acting as a point of contact who interacts with sponsoring organizations. You know what another great way to get face-time with experts is? Being one member of a small workshop or meeting for people all sponsored by the same funding agency. Usually this responsibility would be taken by your lab head or similar PI. To get this responsibility, you need to basically be the best grad student working with the PI and the PI needs to be unavailable or need a second pair of hands. However, by being there, it says two things: 1. You are the best student in the PI's lab/project and 2. Your PI trusts you enough to act as their proxy. I think this only works with an established (full prof) PI, as non-tenured PI's may need the networking as much or more than you. Networking with program officers is also a good habit to be in. Ultimately, these are the people who control what kinds of work can get funded. This is one of the ways a good advisor can plug you into their network (along with making sure to introduce you to their big-shot friends/rivals).
Upvotes: 4 |
2012/03/15 | 1,084 | 4,138 | <issue_start>username_0: Whenever I write an article, I feel the result is not good enough. Although every theorem is solid and correctly proven, something is always "squeaky".
The main evidence for my feeling shows itself when my co-authors revise theorem I've written. Suddenly everything becomes compact, precise and clear. Properties that were used several times get a name; modular parts of the proof become lemmas; etc. The math remains the same, but the presentation is way more efficient and easy to follow.
How can I improve my technical writing skills?
Any tips and resources would be appreciated.
Comment: I'm not a native English speaker, which is an additional factor.<issue_comment>username_1: The **only way to improve writing (technical or non-technical) is by *writing*** and submitting your work to the criticism of peers. Thankfully, in mathematics there is a culture of blogs. When you learn something new, write it up on your blog and share it with your friends. This will help you better understand what you wrote AND let you practice writing. At first, you won't get much feedback, but as your audience grows you will naturally learn from the feedback they provide.
Another great tool is [math.SE](https://math.stackexchange.com/) and [mathoverflow](https://mathoverflow.net/); on these sites you are guaranteed feedback. Ask and answer technical questions, this will let you practice your writing. As your writing and clarity improves you will also notice an average increase in number of up-votes, etc. This will give you useful positive reinforcement.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I haven't read all of them but may I suggest the following:
* [Manual for research paper/thesis writers](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0226823377)
* [How to Write](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1591477433)
* [Demystifying Dissertation Writing](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1579223133)
* [Professors as writers](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/091350713X)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I was in similar situation than yours during my PhD: my proofs were correct, but tedious to read, and every time one my co-author rewrote them, they looked so much clearer! I wouldn't say that now my proofs are perfect, but they have definitely improved. I would associate this improvement with the following factors:
* my english has improved with time, and I can now use more variations of the "proof vocabulary".
* I have been working with different authors, so I've been exposed to different proof styles.
* I have been writing more proofs, and as Artem's perfectly said, the more you write, the more you get feedback, the better you get.
* I have read and given feedback to other people proofs, so I've started to noticed what I like/don't like on a proof that I haven't written.
So I know it sounds like a dull advice, but I think that it's some skill you acquire with time and experience. Also, there is a wonderful paper from Leslie Lamport: [How to write a proof](http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/lamport/pubs/lamport-how-to-write.pdf). This paper is not so much about how to write an elegant proof, but rather how to structure your proof. However, once you have a nice structure, I believe it's much easier to make it more elegant. Also, I try now as much as possible to encode my proofs in a theorem-prover (such as [Isabelle/Isar](http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/hvg/isabelle/)), as it helps me understanding for instance what proof steps I can extract and generalize as lemmas.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: * <NAME> was a master expositor, and one of my favorite articles on writing is his: [How to Write Mathematics](http://alpha.math.uga.edu/%7Eazoff/courses/halmos.pdf)
* A more detailed collection of advice can be found in: [Mathematical Writing](https://jmlr.csail.mit.edu/reviewing-papers/knuth_mathematical_writing.pdf), by Knuth, Larrabee, and Roberts
* But as other answers have stated, **the only way to improve your writing is to write** (and to get feedback, and take that feedback to heart)
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/15 | 2,066 | 8,378 | <issue_start>username_0: The following might be a slight generalization for all fields but something I've noticed especially in the field of Scientific Computing:
1. Why don't people publish failures? I mean, if they tried some experiment and realized at the end that they tried everything and nothing worked. Why don't they publish this? Is it because such content won't get published or is it because it is shameful to have a failed experiment in a journal alongside prize-winning papers?
2. I spent a better part of a year working on, what now looks like, a dead problem. However, most papers that I read initially took you to the point of feeling optimistic. Now that I re-read the papers, I realize that I can say (with much confidence) that the author is hiding something. For instance, one of the authors who was comparing two systems, gave an excellent theoretical foundation but when he tried to validate the theory with experiments, there were horrible discrepancies in the experiments (which I now realize). If the theory wasn't satisfied by the experiments, why not publish that (clearly pointing out parts of the theory which worked and which didn't) and save the future researchers some time? If not in a journal, why not ArXiv or their own websites?<issue_comment>username_1: It is not completely true that failures are not published. Lack of signals, or lack of correlation are published. The point is that everything that pushes knowledge forward is worthy of publication. That said, there are other factors you have to keep into account
1. some failures are methodological, that is, you are doing something wrong. That is not a scientific signal. it's something you have to solve.
2. knowing what doesn't work gives you a competitive advantage against other research groups.
3. negative signals almost never open new fields. If they do, it's because they steered attention to find a positive signal somewhere else. You don't open a new cancer drug development if a substance is found not to have an effect. You close one. For this reason, negative papers generally don't receive a lot of attention, and attention from peers is a lot in academia.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Sometimes some failures give rise to new theories themselves. For example, there are impossibility theorems in mechanism design (Arrow's or Gibbard-Satterthwaite's) which establish the limitations of implementable mechanisms.
In that sense, failures alone may not be useful in a publication. People are interested to know why things failed or rather what category of experiments/theories would fail. But proceeding in this direction is often fraught with risk: it is easier to state a problem and solve it rather than to derive conditions on when the problem cannot be solved. The former is interesting to a wider class of audience than the latter.
So the bottom line: try to formalise or theorise your failures and see if a result looms; else move on to try and solve a worthier problem.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Null results are hard to publish. They just are. Interestingly enough however, in my field they are not the *hardest* thing to publish. The general order goes:
Well powered (big) studies that find what people expect
Poorly powered (small) studies that find what people expect
Poorly powered studies that find the opposite of what people expect or null findings
Well powered studies that find the opposite of what people expect
Those middle two categories are where you'll find most "failures", at least in terms of finding a statistically meaningful effect. That being said, there's an increasing push to see these types of studies published, because they're an important part of the literature, and several medical journals have made fairly remarkable steps in that direction - for example, if they accept a paper on the *protocol* for an upcoming clinical trial, they also commit to publishing the results of the trial (if they pass peer review) regardless of the finding.
When it comes down to it, I think there's three reasons negative results aren't published more beyond "it's hard":
1. Lack of pay off. It takes time and thought to get a paper into the literature, and effort. And money, by way of time and effort. Most null findings/failures are dead ends - they're not going to be used for new grant proposals, they're not going to be where you make your name. The best you can hope for is they get cited a few times in commentaries or meta-analysis papers. So, in a universe of finite time, why would you chase those results more?
2. Lack of polish. Just finding the result is a middle-step in publishing results, not the "and thus it appears in a journal" step. Often, its easy to tell when something isn't shaping up to be successful well before its ready for publication - those projects tend to get abandoned. So while there are "failed" results, they're not publication ready results, even if we cared about failures.
3. Many failures are methodological. This study design can't really get at the question you want to ask. Your data isn't good enough. This whole line of reasoning is flawed. Its *really* hard to spin that into a paper.
Successful papers can be published on their own success - that *is* interesting. Failed papers have the dual burden of being both hard to publish *and* having had to fail interestingly.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: "Why don't people publish failures?"
Actually, they do.
1. [Journal of Negative Results](http://jnr-eeb.org/index.php/jnr) (ecology and evolutionary biology)
2. [Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine](http://www.jnrbm.com/)
3. [Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results](http://www.pnrjournal.com/addresses.asp)
4. [Journal of Interesting Negative Results](http://jinr.site.uottawa.ca/) (natural language processing and machine learning)
5. [Journal of Negative Results in Environmental Science](http://www.jnres.org/) (no issues yet?)
6. [Journal of Errology](http://bioflukes.com/JoE) (no issues yet?)
and so on...
(You might also want to see the [Negative Results section](http://www.nature.com/jcbfm/journal/v30/n7/full/jcbfm201051a.html) of the Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism.)
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_5: One of the consequences of not reporting failures is publication bias. It is a widely described phenomenon that is usually dealt with using meta-analysis. That is if the research concerns some quantifiable results, say some (linear) regression, usually statistical significance is desirable. If such results are not met, researchers sometimes try to adjust their methodology, models, data or whatever else in order to have more "publishable" results.
The problem of either adjusting of models, or complete withdrawal of the paper (the so called file drawer problem) was (and to a certain extent still is) a problem in medicine, as <NAME> notes in the comment and resulted, as he adds, in registering of trials before publication. His sources may differ, but a paper describing it is e.g. [Krakovsky (2004)](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15597973).
More generally, look at [Stanley (2005)](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0950-0804.2005.00250.x/full) or [Stanley (2008)](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00487.x/full) for more information on publication bias and meta-analysis.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: If you have read a lot of literature and then realized that you are in a dead end, you can at least publish a review on all the methods and techniques you've learned.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: I think this comes down to the time taken. I personally could not be bothered spending 2 days writing up and formatting a paper for negative data. It needs to be really simple to do and I either need to get some credit for it, or need to be mandated to do it.
There is a growing requirement from funders and mandates forcing researchers to make all of their research outputs available are only a matter of time. In the mean time, altmetrics can act as carrots to encourage researchers to share their data, even the negative stuff.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: There is the Journal of unsolved Questions [JunQ](http://junq.info/ "JunQ"). They collect ‘null’-result research and open problems.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/03/15 | 1,140 | 4,703 | <issue_start>username_0: When does a PhD end? I know this is a very general question on this forum, but let us consider a CS-engineering group. What is the usual and primary consideration for letting the student finish officially?
Is it the number of years spent, when the professor feels nothing more useful will come out of working on the problem (or of the student!)?
Is it the logical conclusion of the problem and the thesis? A student works to complete a problem in 3 years and publishes a couple of journal papers, and finds there is no more to the problem. Will he be allowed to finish or forced to work on some tangential problem simply to prolong his PhD?<issue_comment>username_1: Generally speaking, there are well established "mile stones" for the completion of a PhD. This typically comes in the form of writing a dissertation - either in book form or a series of papers - and the presentation (and defense) of those results to a committee of professors (and sometimes a general audience).
It is usually not "years spent" or exhausting a project's potential (or the students).
There are however often some established timelines to prevent students from defending their dissertation too fast - required coursework, certain timing restrictions etc. This is usually intended to keep a student from rushing their studies and meeting the letter of the graduation requirements, but not the spirit - that they be well trained in their field and capable of doing independent work. But if they meet that, and defend their dissertation, no one is going to make them "run out the clock" or the like.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Intuitively, I would say there are two "extreme" ways of seeing a PhD (at least that I know of):
* The point of a PhD is to solve a particular problem (e.g. show that P ≠ NP), and in this case, the PhD ends when the problem is solved, and the dissertation explaining the solution is written. I have known some (brilliant) people who solved some problem hard enough to be considered worth a PhD in 2 years, and who spent the rest of their PhD funding publishing more papers. But technically speaking, the PhD was finished after 2 years, the rest was more like a pre-postdoc.
* The point of a PhD is to train a young scientist to become a (hopefully brilliant) researcher. The topic could then be a just an excuse to work on a sub-field, and as any other training experience, the PhD is over when the advisor believes the young scientist is ready to move on. Of course, writing a dissertation is a good way to convince your advisor, but it could be the case that you have a rather "weak" dissertation (i.e. that won't dramatically change mankind), but a good publication record, external collaborations, etc. In this case, it's even possible to consider writing a [Sandwich/stapler thesis](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/149/102).
I would say that most PhD are a mix of the two approaches (and it probably varies from a field to another, from a university to another, from an advisor to another, etc), and the vision can actually be different between the advisor and the student. Personally, I know that I was seeing my PhD more like in the first case (i.e. I wanted to solve hard problems), while my advisor was encouraging me to be more diverse, saying that I would have my entire career to solve hard problems.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: As a general rule, my PhD students need to do two things to get a PhD:
* Publish 3-4 papers on a coherent topic, mostly in top-tier theoretical computer science conferences, including at least one paper without me as a co-author (and preferably at least one paper that was previously rejected).
* Jump a bunch of administrative hurdles: don't screw up classes, don't screw up TAing, pass quals, gather a committee, propose a thesis, write a thesis, defend a thesis.
That's it. In my experience, most PhD students do way more than this.
A couple of comments on the original question:
* Very few students "finish" their thesis topic. Equivalently: If a research question can be closed in just one or two papers, it's probably not a good thesis topic. Good research opens as many new problems as it solves.
* Reaching the point where further collaboration with a student is unproductive means the student-advisor relationship has **failed**. Sometimes students really do exhaust their research potential, despite their advisors' efforts; in my experience, those students usually don't get PhDs. (Most successful students reach "critical mass" long before they finish.) More often, this happens because the advisor isn't giving the student enough appropriate guidance.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer] |
2012/03/15 | 436 | 1,780 | <issue_start>username_0: A few years ago for every fresh PhD graduate in Management Information System (MIS), there were three open faculty positions. Then the ratio of graduates to positions dwindled to 1: 2, then to 1:1.5, later to 4:1. Finally MIS departments all over started shutting down or being merged into Management, Operations or other departments and today hardly any schools offer a PhD in MIS.
It is possible that there are still many fields where for every PhD graduate there are 2, 3 or more open faculty positions. Are there any areas with faculty shortages these days? Animal Sciences? Genetics? Psychology? Sociology? Wildlife Sciences? Mechanical Engineering? Computer Science? Statistics? Any field at all?<issue_comment>username_1: At least in the US, I can't think of very many fields where there are shortages of applicants for available faculty positions, especially in this day and age with the current economy.
Even when times were booming back in the mid-90's and in the 2000's, you'd still have dozens or even hundreds of applicants for any available faculty position. With the economy still somewhat depressed, you still have lots of people chasing after an even smaller number of positions than before. So I still think that in any viable field of academia, you'll still see applicants outnumbering vacancies. It's only in subdisciplines or departments that probably should not have been separated out in the first place that would end up having gluts of available positions.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: From what I've heard the situtation is really good for statistics in the UK. If you get a PhD and want to stay in academia, you're basically guaranteed a faculty position. This is certainly not the case in general though.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/03/15 | 718 | 3,155 | <issue_start>username_0: When advising students performing research in one's group, what's the best way to make sure that they keep on top of the literature?
* Is it best to forward any article of interest to the student?
* Should we keep a list of journals the student should follow independently of me?
* Are there other practices (reading journal, etc.) to make sure they stay up to date?
* Is this something that can be pursued at a group level instead of on a one-on-one level?<issue_comment>username_1: It depends on the structure of the group, and the research area. I'm in computer science, in a specific subfield, and so I know when the main conference paper lists come out. I try to publicize these lists, and have meetings where we discuss papers that sound interesting - I also point out papers that have done something significant.
This only works well though when the research group is relatively homogeneous. If different students are working in different areas, then the basic principle is the same as above, but the sets of conferences tracked might vary.
The same could be done for journals that tend to release issues on a regular timeline. Or even with the arxiv.
Ultimately, the goal is to instill some good habits, rather than actually keeping the students aware of the literature. They have to learn to do it on their own.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: If you really want them to keep up to date, just forwarding things will not be sufficient. You could organise something like a reading group where people present advances in the field. This would make sure that they not only know of new literature, but have also read and understood it to some extent.
What actually works will depend on your group though. If people can't be persuaded to take part in a reading group, you'll have to do something else.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: As a current student, I find that the constant barrage of requests makes it very hard for me to keep up with the literature unless it is very pertinent to my staying afloat. Thus, reading should be tied to my staying afloat.
The most effective way seems to be a journal club with the advisor with the duty of presenting rotating between the advisees. As a side note, a journal club without the advisor falls apart rather quickly. There should be mechanisms to make sure that attendees actually read the papers as well as the presenter doing a good job with reviewing the prior literature. I've personally learned quite a lot in this format.
The other method would be to set up a system to share papers. Using an RSS feed is pretty effective along with using NCBI's email updates. Internally, Mendeley groups or Google+ work well.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: At the beginning, I require the student to read certain papers and explain them to me, as preparation before starting any research. Afterward, I consider it the student's responsibility to keep up (and even to help me keep up) with the literature related to the thesis topic. To make it easy, we usually establish a Mendeley group and each of us posts relevant papers there.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/16 | 1,045 | 4,537 | <issue_start>username_0: Suppose there is an engineering PhD student who is unsure whether to join academia or the industry after his PhD. He does not want to take chances and applies for internship positions during the course of his PhD. Here is a dilemma: the internship is certain to eat into vital amount of time he could otherwise spend thinking about his research problem. OTOH, when he is not fully into research, he is unlikely to get attractive research-based internship positions.
How should a PhD candidate time his internship in a way that it does not affect his research and is also a very valuable experience on his PhD resume?<issue_comment>username_1: This is a "Goldilocks" problem—you should try to schedule an internship late enough that you have enough experience to be of interest to a potential internship sponsor, but early enough so that it can have an effect on your long-term development (if you feel it was a sufficiently positive or negative experience to sway your sentiments).
As a result, I would say that you should typically do this in the middle of your PhD—probably around your third year or so (assuming that you're in a typical US graduate program that runs five to six years for a PhD). If you're in a European-style system, where the coursework has been done before the PhD starts, then it should be done somewhat earlier—perhaps from the middle of the second year on.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I think you're creating a false dichotomy by saying
>
> the internship is certain to eat into vital amount of time he could
> otherwise spend thinking about research problems
>
>
>
Internships are places where sometimes REALLY interesting problems come up. Especially in engineering, while it's not critical, it's very important to keep a finger on what's happening in industry - the industry/academia divide is a matter of time-horizon rather than fundamental nature of the problem.
Of course you need to have enough experience to recognize interesting problems, which goes back to @username_1's answer. I will also say that doing it late in your career isn't that bad either, because then you get a three-month interview for a job. That's how I got my first one :)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Although the answers above are great, I would like to share a different perspective mainly because I disagree with necessarily waiting until the 3rd year of your Phd.
In a lot of internships, you're exposed to new areas or new perspectives in the same area which can affect your current interests.
Although school is good and working on research is even better, still, you learn work mainly at work.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I think internships are an accessory to research. I believe that the positioning and frequency of internships doesn't matter as long as they are relevant to one's PhD [by relevant I mean that if work done on internships could be written down on the final PhD dissertation and/or lead to meaningful publications]. Finding/Securing the correct internship that could positively propel one's PhD is a challenge, but it is doable.
I believe having the wisdom to decide whether an internship could contribute to one's research depends on where you currently stand in the PhD timeline. There is a distinction between a PhD student and a PhD candidate, which I want to point out as you mentioned both the terms.
A PhD candidate is an advanced PhD student, which means he/she is aware of the fundamental concepts of a particular research area (since a PhD candidate has successfully qualified the core requirements of a dept., which involves getting satisfactory grades in certain key courses for his/her specialization track). So he/she is in a better position (in terms of judgement) to not settle for just any internship (as there are significant amount of internship opportunities for PhD students [this of course depends on country/funding/discipline]), but only the ones that ties well with one's PhD goals. For instance if someone's specialization area is compilers, then doing an internship on quantitative research might not be very useful in the near term.
For PhD students (in first or second year), since they are (relatively) new in the field and learning the ropes (as majority of their time is spent on courses, reviewing/reading papers, and doing research in whatever time is left), seeking counsel from mentors/adviser regarding internship is fruitful. They could help in a multitude of ways.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/03/16 | 1,162 | 5,129 | <issue_start>username_0: Suppose a student applies for PhD at a university and his application is replete with problems: average academic record, poor SOP, so-so recommendations, etc and he is rejected outright. He gets an admit at another university, does very good work and completes his doctorate successfully. Now he deems himself to be a fit for a faculty position at the university which rejected his PhD candidature.
Will his past mistakes come back to haunt him? Will the university dig up his PhD application and count this against his faculty application? Or will he be judged by his work during the course of the doctorate alone?<issue_comment>username_1: I've never heard of this happening at all. Most people don't have that kind of memory, and even if they did, it's irrelevant. I know of at least one person who was
* rejected from high rank school X for UG
* rejected from X for grad school
* got a faculty offer from X (and turned it down) :)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: What was written down on an application years ago will generally not come back to haunt a faculty candidate later. However, actions that might have been taken on a faculty visit—or in later interactions with faculty members at a department—could have repercussions.
If the reputation that someone builds is being a person who "doesn't play well with others," that will be a tag that follows that individual for the rest of the career. It can make life a lot more difficult, because that person will have to work *a lot* harder and be a lot more successful than someone who is able to interact with current and potential future departmental colleagues in a civil and cordial manner.
But what's written in an application? Unless it's fraudulent, it shouldn't have a bearing on future ability to get hired somewhere.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Applicants who apply with poor credentials (low grades, no experience, etc.) are judged at the time of application based on their *current* credentials. Unless either them or the admissions committee does something exceptionally stupid during the interview process, the subsequent rejection/admission is simply a sign of how good of a fit the person is *at that time*. In the same way that a grad school application does not "guarantee" a future professorship post, a grad school rejection does not automatically imply automatic future rejection for other positions.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Speaking from direct, personal experience: **NO**. Once you're admitted to a PhD program, your undergraduate record effectively ceases to exist.(\*)
First, professors' memories are just not that good. It's been five years since you were rejected, and we reject many hundreds of applicants every year. Why would we remember your application?
Second, at least in the US, rejected applications are probably destroyed/deleted a few months after all the decisions are made, to conform with federal privacy laws. So it's unlikely that anyone could dig up your old rejected application even if they wanted to.
Third, hiring decisions are being made by a different committee than admissions decisions, using very different standards. Graduate admissions committees are looking for strong research potential. Faculty recruiting committees are looking for strong research, with the potential for worldwide impact. If you've actually done good research, why should we care whether you looked like you might not have been ready to do good research five years ago?
(\*) With one exception: Since I hit the job market, it's become much more common for deans to request undergraduate transcripts, presumably to check whether the candidate has the right academic experience for teaching. But I've never heard of a faculty candidate being rejected because they had a weak transcript.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: It could - if they learned that you committed fraud on your application, which could potentially reveal character problems down the road (and which is not easily forgivable).
Now, I had some pretty painful rejections from programs that had openly courted me pre-application, and they really hurt not only because I'm in a small field, but also particularly because I'm not the type of person who people easily forget - I was very possibly one of the most unusual applicants in the entire history of earth & planetary science graduate school admissions, and I intentionally made each of my applications extremely risky (stuffing as much information as I could humanely stuff into them, and taking great care to link them to **all** of my social media profiles), because I knew that I was fighting an uphill battle (due to my GPA and Attention Deficit Disorder). While it turned out to really help with Brown (where I got a top student fellowship too), it probably annoyed the hell out of most of the other schools.
But in the end, I think it will all be fine, because at worst - everything I did can be attributed to immaturity or poor judgment - all of which can be improved with time and with actual publications in the future.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/03/16 | 1,338 | 5,419 | <issue_start>username_0: Background: I have the opportunity to pursue a Computer Science graduate degree at a well respected program (around top 20). I spoke with the professors at the university and I feel like I am a good fit with their research program. My ultimate pursuits are to complete a PhD in CS. I've done research as an undergraduate and it has only confirmed my notion that I want to pursue a research track career.
More background: I applied to jobs (in case I was rejected to all the programs I applied for) prior to hearing back from my respective graduate programs. I accepted a position for an industry job (this was to secure I wouldn't be both unemployed & not in school).
Dilemma: Turns out my top graduate school is very interested in me, and I'm very interested in them. I would rather go to graduate school than work in industry forever. The industry job pays very well. I am split between A) working for a maximum of 1 year(It would only be 1 year, seriously I do not care about the money enough to work past a year) and B) going straight to graduate school.
My concerns are as follows, if I choose A):
* Could I potentially defer my admissions?
* If I am not allowed to defer my admissions, would I have a good chance of re-applying and being accepted a year later?
* Would my potential advisers look *down* on me for deciding to work a year?
I already made my mind up it would be a 1 year gig if I decide A). I know some people say once you make money, you may not be able to readjust to the graduate salary pay. But I don't think that will apply to because I'm going to live very frugally with or without industry pay.<issue_comment>username_1: * You could defer admission, but it's a little unusual to defer for a year. Check with the departmental grad advisor and make sure everything is absolutely clear on this front
* It's a risk: admissions pools vary from year to year, and maybe the professor who wanted to take you on doesn't have funding, or already hired another student and doesn't have room for more.
* I doubt any advisor would look down on you for working a year. I don't see why, especially in computer science.
Other questions to ask:
* will the job make your application look stronger next time ?
* are you ok with not being able to get into this university and having to reapply and get in elsewhere ?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: If I were to make an opinion out of whatever you have said in this post, I will say go for B without further thought :)
Reasons: 1) A one year industry job is hardly helpful as an experience anywhere, let alone for a prospective PhD. There is another question on this forum analysing the worth of job before PhD.
2) You have said you are not too much into money and also live frugally. username_2, you are tailor-made for the academia! You could surely earn more in the one year after PhD, and ensure you begin graduate coursework at the earliest.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I will advise exactly the contrary of what bravo just said in another answer : go for A ! If you don't, there is a good probability that you will ask yourself continuously "was my choice to go for a PhD the best one?". With this year of experience, you will know for sure what you want, this is priceless. And this is the best way to be really focused on your thesis, if you finally decide to go for it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I'm afraid I have contradictory advice.
* If you've been offered a funded place, there is no guarantee the funding will still be there in a year. What you know is that you are good enough to get into a grad school, but there is a luck component too. The school I went to told us that 1 in 10 applicants was good enough to get in, but less than 1 of 3 of those "good enough" could have places any particular year. This is both because of funding constraints & because supervisors can only supervise so many people well at one time. So you are very likely really deciding whether to work before going through the application process again.
* Nevertheless, I agree with Sylvain that it is not a good idea to do a PhD always wondering whether you would have liked industry better. I worked for 5 years before doing my PhD, and now I'm an associate professor. Two things make this route hard though: 1) getting used to making money (I addressed this by putting most of my salary in savings) and 2) getting used to being treated as an adult. But there is a big win when you hit the hard parts of your PhD & think "would I be happier in industry? Nah, that was boring." Friends that were academically stronger than but lacked that certainty had a tougher time during the troughs than I did.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: This decision strongly depends on your character and goals, so you should ask yourself what you will gain and loose while working in the industry for a year / going to grad school right away. What skills will you learn while working that will help you with PhD later? Will you have enough motivation to complete your PhD if you do not take a year off school? Will your college wait for you / defer acceptance? Are you a kind of person for who it takes a while to get into a routine (of a job - or of taking classes)?
I guess these are just more questions rather than answers, but I do not think anyone can (or should) give you a definite "A" or "B" answer.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/03/16 | 706 | 2,849 | <issue_start>username_0: One of my advisors suddenly passed away while I was in graduate school. We had some discussions and ideas about future publications, but he passed away before any of the work was completed. When the work was finally completed and published, I and my co-authors were therefore presented with an ethical dilemma about how best to acknowledge his contributions to the ideas behind the paper. Should we list him as a co-author? Put him in the acknowledgements? Listing him as an author would give credit for the original idea, however, we would have no way of knowing if he actually approved of—and would want his name attached to—our methods and writing.
In the end my co-authors and I decided to list him as a co-author with a footnote stating that he passed away before publication.
I’m interested to hear from others who have been in similar situations and/or suggestions on what constitutes “co-authorship” when one of one’s collaborators passes away before the publication or work is complete.<issue_comment>username_1: I had a similar situation. In this case, we did exactly what you did: we indicated that the participant (not a team leader, but a team member in this case) was a co-author, but that he was deceased. I think this is the only fair way to recognize substantial contributions.
Of course, the difficult comes if there is a challenge to the work of the deceased. In our case, however, we had a very substantial paper trail which was audited and reviewed, so the individual work could have been sorted out and dealt with appropriately.
So, I think the best defense is generally to keep good working notes and use version control.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: username_1's answer is definitely good advice, but I'll add two more bits:
* **Check the journal policy** and author guidelines. There may be something in there that can guide your choice, like the *Journal of the American Chemical Society* has:
>
> Deceased persons who meet the criteria for inclusion as coauthors should be so included, with an Author Information note indicating the date of death.
>
>
>
* **Check with the editor**, if in doubt. They have the final say in the matter, and these things are probably best run by them if no official policy is established.
---
In terms of papers with deceased authors, I think the record holder is probably [this one](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ic001137t):
Can you spot it? One author died in 1919, and one had her PhD in 1911: while no date of death is provided for her, I don't think she's still around. (Also, it was probably quite an achievement for a woman to get a PhD at the time.)
As we say: old chemists don't die, they just reach equilibrium!
Upvotes: 5 |
2012/03/17 | 6,288 | 26,682 | <issue_start>username_0: I am most of the way through my freshman year at Washington State University, pursuing a BS in Computer Science. Going away to school has been rough, and I have been pretty depressed for most of the time there. Right now, I am leaning towards not wanting to continue my education, but my parents are strongly opposed.
Why I don't think I need college
--------------------------------
One of the main factors that is pushing me away from school is the fact that I already spend plenty of time working on my own software projects. On my own, I have gained extensive knowledge and experience with web application development, using platforms that are far too new to have a undergraduate class that teaches them. These are platforms used in real workplaces and production software, and I would not gain these skills in school.
Second, I have lost a lot of faith in my school after seeing so much incompetency from people who are meant to be educating me. The professors outsource a majority of their work to their TA's, who I feel I know more than. My Computer Science class is really just an entourage of TA's parroting the words of the professor, with embarrassingly little of their own understanding.
Another big reason is that for 10 weeks this summer, I will be travelling to Silicon Valley to take part in a 'startup accelerator program'. This is a program where already-established tech entrepreneurs and investors help people who are new to the game with building their product and starting their company. At the end of the 10 weeks, investors decide how much they want to put into each company, in exchange for some equity. Of the companies that go through these kinds of programs, a very high amount succeed. I feel that if the developers I am working with and I do well here (no, it is not guaranteed that we will make money), college is pointless for me.
What college is like for me now
-------------------------------
College has been hard for me. Not because I am not capable of understanding the material, and not because I don't have enough time to get all my work done. I have been suffering in my classes because instead of going to class or finishing assignments, I work on my own projects.
Of course, if I forced myself to put time and effort into this work, I would achieve satisfactorily. However, that is much easier said than done.
In order to start caring about school, I would need to drop all my other software side-projects (or at least greatly limit the time I spend on them). Essentially, this is a choice, and right now I will always pick my own projects over school.
Do I really need school?
------------------------
After all that I have seen about the limited job market (even for degree-holders) and all that I have experienced in school, I am really questioning whether I need to stay in school. Convince me whether or not I really need a BS, or any other advice you can give about the subject.
Thank you so much for taking the time to read and answer this. I normally feel bad taking time away from other people for my own benefit, but this is a major life-decision, and I cannot properly come to consensus on my own.<issue_comment>username_1: I know from all too personal experience that it the easiest thing in the world to say "I could totally ace these assignments if I tried, but I can't be bothered to try." Talk is cheap. You may be different, but when I said stuff like that I was completely deluding myself.
You may be being too hard on your profs and TAs. CS departments generally don't cover specific development platforms in their classes because platforms come and go, sometimes in a shockingly short period of time. A good CS department is going to try to educate you in the foundations of CS and software engineering. Stuff that is not in the tech headlines now, but is more likely to still be relevant 10 years from now. Still, it may be that they aren't very good, in which case the solution is not necessarily to drop out, but to find a better department.
That said, if you aren't applying yourself in school, and aren't getting much out of it, then you probably should't be in school. However, if you are not going to be in school, you still have to move forward with your life. You can't just hop on the bus back home and let your parents support you. The accelerator sounds great, but it's a roll of the dice, so you need a backup plan. The obvious choices are joining the military and finding a job. I've never been in the military so I can't advise you about that. If you find a job that pays all your expenses, then your parents may be upset, but they can't really stop you. They probably will be less upset with you if you have a job in hand as you announce that you are leaving school. If you can't find a job that will support you, then that's a pretty critical piece of information, and it means you've either got to suck it up in school or join the military.
My suggestion would be to completely put aside your personal projects for the rest of the year. Focus on your schoolwork, and prove you aren't just blowing smoke, when you say you could excel at it. Prove it. At the end of the school year, start looking for a job. If you find a job that will pay all your living expenses, or if your accelerator works out, then take a leave of absence. If you prosper in your job or startup, great. If it doesn't work out or seems like a dead end you can go back to school. If you really want to pursue your projects as an entrepreneur, then live on Ramen, save every penny, and bankroll yourself for a couple of years.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> Should I stay in school?
>
>
>
No
==
You're a big boy now and can make your own decisions. As condescending as that sounds, it's the simple truth. If you get a job and find a place to live, you will be just like the majority of people in the world who don't have a college degree, but are self sufficient.
American high schools tend to bully students into applying to college because it's The Right Thing To Do™, whether or not you have any interest in learning something that can actually be taught at college. We have a serious lack of skilled labor, and learning to weld is better done as an internship/apprenticeship than as an Associates where you only focus on the *theory* of welders.
Programming can be the same; having a mentor instead of a professor can get you on track to making money sooner, without the large bills associated with a 4-year program. Long term, however, your salary will probably be lower than someone who has a college degree.
But don't quit either
=====================
If your parents are encouraging you to continue college, and are helping you through it financially they should be receptive to the idea of you taking a moment to step back from academia to reassess your abilities, life goals, and options. If they're *not* helping you through it financially, then they don't have the right to decide how you spend your money (beyond paying for rent if you're living with them).
To most graduating highschoolers, I recommend taking some time off from learning. One year flipping burgers turns out to be a really strong motivator to get back into academia, and also gives a sense of perspective that most college freshman tend to lack.
If you decide *yes, I need a degree* you should then focus on finding a college that suits your personality. Don't just go for the big college because they have expensive new equipment; if you can connect with an experienced professor early on in your academic career, you will find yourself on stronger footing. If you don't like your classes, professors and TAs, continuing your college education at that particular school only serves to give away free money.
Unless you want to
==================
If you decide *no, I don't need a degree* you should then focus on building up your skill set while you still have a strong family safety-net. Join a company that's working on stuff that you find interesting. You might need to start as a part-time unpaid intern working 60 hours a week between a job that pays and a job that teaches. Either way, success isn't easy.
If it costs `$20,000/year` for `4` years to earn a BS, you're spending `$80,000`, assuming you complete the degree in 4 years. If you've got the drive, you could start a small business with a small portion of those funds.
And remember that failure is always an option. It's ok to fail. You don't learn from getting things right, you learn from getting them wrong.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Formal education is more and more overrated in the current fast-paced world.
And especially in IT, were they are less traditional and more meritocratic than virtually anywhere else. They care more for you experience that your academic degree (or lack of it). And more years doing coursework means less years gaining real experience (unless the courses are really great *and* you can benefit from them).
<NAME>, <NAME> or <NAME> may be only a few stellar examples. There are many programmers at any levels who dropped out because of their start-ups... or even regular jobs.
However, there are good and bad reasons for leaving studies (there was a list somewhere but someone clearly more competent than me). Good when you see that the university is stealing your valuable time from your job/start-up. When you currently have no, then it may be not the best idea.
Some random links:
* [Turn On, Code In, Drop Out: Tech Programmers Don’t Need College Diplomas](http://www.good.is/post/turn-on-code-in-drop-out/)
* [Higher Education Is Overrated; Skills Aren't](http://blogs.hbr.org/schrage/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove.html)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: (From my iPhone, please excuse typos)
It appears from my position that getting a BS is becoming more important as time goes on. Many large/midsized companies won't even look at candidates without a degree. (I have been around over 30 years working in startups to multinationals.)
It could be that you aren't mature enough yet for college. Maturity can manifest itself in many ways. One in particular is the idea that something long and difficult is not needed. This kind of rationalization needs to be studied long and hard before acting on it.
I would suggest staying in school and getting that degree. If you decide otherwise, then get a leave of absence from school for one year. This saves your place without having to reapply. You should also check a number of companies to determine their entrance criteria. You will see that the industry is maturing and that your competition is jumping through the hoops in order to sustain their careers.
Finally, do as others have suggested, put the side projects away and start getting a good deal of As on tests/homework to be sure that you aren't just competent in CS.
Good luck and keep the faith.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: I worked as a software engineer for a number of years before I decided to pursue a full-time BS in CS. Getting a degree is one of the best decisions I ever made.
Given that it sounds like you already have a fair grasp on the principles of programming, it's not surprising that you haven't learned much in your first year. But that will quickly change! More advanced classes like Artificial Intelligence, Formal Language Theory, and Datastructures & Algorithms are very interesting. In retrospect, the things I learned in those classes would have been immensely useful in both my side projects and my previous professional work as a software engineer. They're also the types of things that would be incredibly hard to teach one's self outside of a classroom setting.
Also, remember that your professors are experts in very deep and specific areas in their sub-disciplines. They're about as interested in teaching intro.-level CS classes as you are in taking them. But once you start taking more advanced classes, you'll notice a much greater interest from the professors because they're teaching the state-of-the-art on the area in which they're specifically interested and expert.
As others have already noted, it also depends on what type of job you ultimately want. If you want to start your own company and you already have all of the skills you need to do that, then a degree might be a waste of time. If your dream is to work at a company like Google or Facebook, though, that will definitely not be the case. I interviewed at a number of companies—including Google—after I graduated, and I can tell you that I would have never passed the technical interviews without what I learned at University.
Therefore, I'd say give it at least another year. Talk to your academic advisors first and explain your situation. Talk to some professors who are teaching more advanced classes and see if you can get them to waive the prerequisites so you can take them earlier. Alternatively, universities often let you audit classes (*i.e.*, sit in on the lectures for little or no credit without having to do the homework or take the exams). I'd recommend sitting in on some of the more advanced classes to get a taste of the light at the end of the tunnel.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_6: >
> I am most of the way through my freshman year.... Going away to school has been rough, and I have been pretty depressed for most of the time there.
>
>
>
This strikes me as the most important part of your question. I strongly encourage you to find help with your depression before you make a decision. Talk with your faculty mentors, with friends, and with family. Take advantage of your university's student counseling services. Transitioning into adulthood is *hard*, whether you do it in school or out; you don't have do it alone.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_7: There are many answers already but I'll add one more for future generations looking for an answer to a very important question.
I've worked with a lot of people who either dropped out of university or never went so they could focus on working writing software. In general, they've done pretty well. Some have difficulties recently because they were bad at managing their money but they made A LOT because they were following their dream and worked 80 hours per week on their dream. This accumulated effort built into a very solid skill-set which was in very high demand from employers. Some started software companies, some just consulted. All ended up making a lot of money (not all of them kept it).
I think programming for the business world is a bit different from other academic pursuits. In my experience (having consulted to the very large, the very small, and everything in between), businesses really care about one thing: How can you make me money. Academics care about much more. So, if you want to write software for the business world and you don't see the benefit in university, then forget it. You can always go back.
All that said, an education is always a good idea. Of course, you don't have to get your education formally, it can be on your own, but a formal education is cared about by some...but in business, people generally care more about your ability to make them money.
If you want to be conservative/safe, then you should stick it out in school. However, since you're young, roll the dice and prepare to pick up the pieces in case it doesn't work out. Don't give up on your dreams. Dreams drive us to put in more effort and to learn more and that is where the fun is.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: Exactly I had the same feeling like you except in a 3rd world country. The school was bad, professors were not teaching properly and I also had a good income by doing freelance jobs. But when time passes and when you reach upper division courses you will want to stick to school. At least this was how it happened to me and now I want to continue with grad school to further get involved with the field.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: My 2cts, do note that I have a number of degrees, so I might be biased towards getting degrees :).
Getting a degree shows that;
* You have acquired some technical skills (algorithms, software design, data structures), and skills how to learn new things. Ofcourse, you can get these outside an official school, but a degree shows that after a few years a (relatively) objective source (the school) says that you have these skills. Unless you have developed some groundbreaking piece of software that everyone knows, it is hard to convince a potential employer that you really can do what you say.
* you can finish something you started. Getting a degree takes three years of work and perseverance, more if you go for an MSc or PhD.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: TL;DR:
```
If you want to learn things you would never be exposed to otherwise
and actually have some grokness without strings attached:
Stay in school, but deliberately seek difficult courses on old-fashioned
topics such as compiler design, operating systems, electrical engineering
media fabrication (actually way cool), graph theory, set theory, etc.
Elif you just want a paycheck for the next few years working in some cool
framework or other flavor-of-the-week:
Drop out *in good standing* and get a job in some startup company with
the prior knowledge that it will fail, and if it doesn't a little
success will transform the place you liked into a place you don't, and
if not then you will eventually go from solving trivial problems you do
know how to solve to solving non-trivial problems you lack the grokpower
to tackle because you neglected to pay your intellectual dues.
Else:
Change major, because this stuff just isn't for you, and I can't bear to
knowingly recommend that someone of obvious intelligence relegate
themselves to being another member in the Mole Man Army.
```
There are some interesting responses here; I can only tell you what I have experienced myself. What follows is a huge digression, but one that will hopefully illustrate the fact that you can't know the future, opportunity is entirely random, and old-fashioned hard work (often academic in nature) is the only way to satisfy the "preparedness" part of the luck/genius equation.
I got involved in phreaking and computers when I was quite young, wrote quite a bit of useful software as a kid, never did homework but aced all my tests in school, did well in sports by hiding my inner geek from the rest of the team, etc. I was (and still am) obsessed with the idea of eventually starting my own computing services (hardware, software, everything) company. I studied a lot on my own on subjects not taught in my school and my grades (ironically) sometimes suffered from it. An emotional/social rift opened between me and the idea of school, me viewing it as worthless, the system viewing me as a misfit. Probably not entirely different from you, though the threads of the tapestry no doubt differ.
Recognizing this wasn't a sustainable situation I requested that my father send me to a military school so I could be forced into a regimented program. I wound up attending a great military high school where the high school classes were taught by the same faculty as the college classes and learned a great deal about myself, the world, and the nature of opportunity. I also learned just how amazing great educators can be -- a lesson that didn't stick until a decade of reflection had passed. I also decided to not attend college against the advice of my mentors and advisers. My parents, however, let me do whatever I thought best.
My family is a bit plain: if I fail they won't help me because I've proven that I was a bad egg; if I succeed, however, I will be celebrated and given responsibility. I thought this terribly cold when I was younger, but have come to realize this is how the successful parts of the world work, except in the real world there is a strong chance nobody will subsidize your food or shelter (and if someone does it is usually a sign of an impending systemic failure). Though this has seen me in a few tight situations I have to say it has taught me a lot, and if my siblings and our general family relationship are any indication, it seems to work amazingly well.
I didn't land an awesome programming job after turning down university acceptance letters. I got interested in the larger world and spent almost the next two decades traveling, teaching (yeah, weird), or in this or that military (most recently involved in the whole GWOT thing, first in the Army, then in a few different contract organizations). My ultimate goal of running a computing company was always in the back of my mind, but the time was never right and I was so involved in other things it just seemed like a different world.
Until I got out. Now I have started that company, things are finally beginning to pick up (after a long dry stretch, survivable mostly because of the community surrounding my ex-military relationships), and I can see a tiny bit of light at the end of this long, extremely difficult, *lonely* tunnel.
Which brings me back to school and my not having been exposed to much of it. Because I didn't go to school I didn't even know there were canonical references to a huge set of problem spaces. I didn't know how freaking important it was to learn the precise differences between analog and digital data before trying to solve a really expensive customer problem that requires a customized hardware solution (and before you think that is a simple difference, go study up on it). I didn't really understand that the hyped frameworks are basically giant cake-sacks of leaky abstractions which fail the moment a new real-world requirement is thrown at them (usually something innocuous, like a customer saying "in the next version, we *really* need screen X to show Y" -- and of course you, not realizing how scary a statement that is, simply say "sure!"). I had no idea how prolific operating systems are, or how fleeting their lives in the market. I didn't understand exactly how software is the thing that lets us emulate different machines within other hardware machines, and why that nugget of esoteric knowledge is so incredibly central to everything I will likely be doing for the next few decades of my life (and I say "life", not "career", deliberately). I hadn't even matured enough as a programmer to develop a healthy baseline disdain for all programming languages.
But I also realize now, after having interviewed and hired people, that most schools simply do not teach the things that need to be taught, and most people are simply too dull to grok the things I need them to grok and would have failed out of the courses I wish they had attended. And that sucks.
So looking at it from the other side of the table, I would urge you to *not* go on a 20-year action adventure as I did (unless that's your thing; I have no regrets) but not simply "stay in school" for the sake of getting some worthless paper that conveys nothing about your actual potential to a prospective employer such as myself. Instead I would urge you to seek out the hardest, most difficult low-level *and* high-level courses you can find that deal with computing. This may require that you achieve decent grades in some courses now to be eligible for the interesting stuff later, which may simply be the universe giving you a lesson in humility and due-paying (hint: it is easier to control your own expectations about life than to control the outcome of each phase of it).
You'll never "finish" in this field, so what you should seek is a strong foundation in leading concepts and underlying principles. You'll do a lot of learning/discovery by composing new ideas from seemingly unrelated concepts you've picked up by way of association with stellar people in your studies, but long after the base ideas were acquired. Being in a good comp-sci or engineering department is one of a very few ways of guaranteeing that you will constantly be exposed to such people. I view this as one of the most important elements of official schooling, and something online education will probably never be able to replicate (and hence I view resumes full of online degrees with suspicion; actually, I have my minions black out those lines before I get the resume if they think the rest of it is worthy).
But all of this is dependent on your goals, of course, which is why I wrote the if-elif-else clause above. I might be misjudging you, but I can easily imagine myself writing a very similar question two decades ago on Usenet, and wish someone would have written this sort of post out then (come to think of it, I may have had just such a conversation back then, and disregarded the advice as I was so wont to do).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_11: In spite of the large monetary and time cost of getting a college degree in CS,
I believe that it is still a good idea to get your degree.
The main reason (to me) that a college degree is valuable
is that in order to get a degree,
you must learn the critical skill of [**self-regulation**](http://www.toolsofthemind.org/philosophy/self-regulation/).
Regardless of your future employment,
there will be times when your work is going to be boring,
but nevertheless the boring work needs to be completed
for you to move forward in your life.
Are you able to discipline yourself in order to do what needs to be done
rather than what you want to do?
Another useful workplace skill that you can develop during college is
how to organize your time,
how to work in teams,
and how to juggle multiple classes + projects + assignments.
Finally, another way to look at this decision is in terms of maximizing your minimum level of achievement.
* If you achieve good grades at school or quit school now,
it may hurt your chances of getting a job at Google or Facebook in the future.
So you may regret this decision if your future desires/circumstances change.
* Conversely, if you go to school,
you would find yourself slightly more qualified
(by being certified as having a degree)
than you would be without a degree.
Your worst job offer with a good degree is probably at least as good as
your worst job offer if you drop out of school now.
In the language of optimization,
getting a good degree is a more "robust" strategy.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_12: You should stay in school if you enjoy being in an academic environment. College isn't just a path for a career. It's about engaging with others, collaborating in projects, making connections.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/03/17 | 1,602 | 6,889 | <issue_start>username_0: Suppose a student applies to a few good graduate programmes, but for some reasons, gains an admit in one great school and rejects in a couple of equally good ones. How necessary is it for the student to be truthful about his rejects? There are a couple of circumstances that arise here:
1. The student is invited to an interview at a school, where he is asked about his applications and decisions. Is it okay to lie that the results are pending? Or that he has been offered admits at a couple of places? It is likely that the student will face a dilemma if he feels the other decisions may affect this one as well.
2. Is it vital to be truthful at the graduate school you have joined? Is there any mutual communication between administrative sections of all top colleges, which may leave bluffing in bad taste?<issue_comment>username_1: One goes to graduate school to work in a field or with a certain researcher. That person, accordingly should have specific enough goals before applying that tweaking a scattershot approach shouldn't apply. In the extreme, you are trying to get into only one place and so the focus is more on developing a relationship with the "target" there.
That said, at least I have found my self in similar situations. As to bluffing. I think the best advice, if you feel the admissions officers are plumbing for advice is to say that you haven't found out yet. The advantage to bluffing is that it makes you look better inasmuch as one school will want another school's candidates.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: As a first very generic rule, academia is very small world, and it's not unlikely at all that the members of the committee responsible for the interview know if the results for another school have been given or not. They might not know the results, but they might know that you know.
As a second generic rule, lying is extremely badly perceived in academia, where the probity of a scientist is very important. If I were to interview a student, and if I suspect that the student is bluffing or lying, that would be an immediate no-go.
As a third generic rule, competition is normal and welcome in Academia. When you apply for a school, or even later for a position, it's normal and even expected that you will apply to other places. If no-one asks, you don't necessarily have to put on your CV the list of schools from which you've been accepted/rejected, but if the question is asked, there is no shame in telling the truth.
So, long story short, you don't have much to gain by lying or bluffing, but you have a lot to lose.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: As someone involved in graduate admissions decisions, I can say unequivocally that knowing a student has been denied admission at another program does not negatively influence my admissions decisions. I have all of the application materials from the student, and (assuming the applicant is strong) the decision is sufficiently important that I will certainly look at and evaluate all those materials. The decision of another school is not a useful indicator of whether I should admit you.
Indeed, if you tell me you have an offer from another top program, I might even be more cautious about offering you admission. Why? If I make all my initial offers to students who end up going to other schools, then I have to go back and dig through the applications and find the ones that didn't already accept an offer, which by that time will be lower quality applicants. I know of one program where this happened last year and they resolved to make more strong offers to the second tier of (still quite strong) applicants this year.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: Personally, I make it a point *not* to ask about alternate schools and programs that a candidate might be applying to in addition to my group. In this way, there is no bias on my part. If the candidate freely offers that information, I will of course take it into consideration, but I have not solicited it, and therefore there should be no compulsion on the part of the candidate to admit to things, one way or the other.
That said, it's not in general a good idea to lie openly to academic institutions. As several other respondees have pointed out, it can be easily caught—particularly if you're in a small field. Moreover, there have been a number of high-profile cases in recent years of academics losing their jobs over misrepresentations of their credentials. So anything that even hints at dishonesty can get you into trouble. (Moreover, many schools do have an "ethics" clause in their admissions policies—and *intentionally* lying, either in the application or during interviews or a visit, can be construed in some cases as sufficient to lead to a retraction of an offer of admission!)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: You should be truthful in all your professional endeavors. Lying is unethical and unprofessional behavior which could be grounds for dismissal or worse. I say this as a blanket statement and stand by it, but obviously ethical standards and practices vary across different careers and walks of life. In academia, the feeling that lying is unethical bordering on repugnant is very strong. One should avoid it at all costs.
The fact that you use the word "bluffing" is slightly distressing and shows that you may not yet have internalized the ethics of academia. **Bluffing** is something you do in poker. More generally, it is a game theoretic strategy designed to minimize information given to one's opponent. Saying that you've been accepted by a program when you have not been -- or, especially, when you have been rejected there -- is not bluffing, it's **lying**.
People who feel strongly that lying is unethical also well understand that you are not obligated to give full information just because it is asked for. In some social situations an innocuous lie is more acceptable than a refusal to answer a question, but academia is not one of them. If someone asks you for information about your applications to other programs and you have any concerns that it may not be to your advantage to give out this information, simply say something like, "I'm sorry, but I'm really not comfortable discussing that right now." As above, sometimes it feels impolite not to answer a question, so it is worth practicing a bit so as to be able to do it in a relatively graceful way.
As for the question of whether different academic programs communicate with each other enough to make it a realistic chance that someone lying in this way will be caught out: absolutely yes. Academic circles are small, are populated by the same people for years and years on end, and almost invariably tend to contain at least a few people who are ridiculously -- almost preternaturally -- in the know about all kinds of personnel decisions.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/03/17 | 364 | 1,482 | <issue_start>username_0: * How easy is it for faculty members working at a reputable university to become entrepreneurs?
* If the faculty member sees an opportunity for a great product and wants to set up a small office with a few engineers working with one or two students, will the university sponsor such a venture?
* How enthusiastic or forthcoming will the industry and VCs in general be towards this?
* Lastly, how common are such professor-run companies for, say engineering faculty in top US schools?<issue_comment>username_1: This is quite common in American universities, and there are probably thousands of start-ups that have arisen out of university-based research. The question of financing such a venture is of course a challenging one to answer, but with the right contacts, is usually available.
I can think of at least four or five such start-ups in the department I attended for graduate school, and I imagine there are several more in the planning stages.
As for how enthusiastic industry and VC's are, well, I think it depends entirely on the strength of the idea, and how "market-ready" the concept is. The sooner it's ready to go, the more enthusiastically people will flock to it.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I think the main issue is that a lot of entrepreneural mindset is eliminated from faculty, but if the faculty has the right mindset there is no limitation to a venture, especially if the faculty has tenure.
Upvotes: -1 |
2012/03/18 | 1,532 | 6,441 | <issue_start>username_0: This is related to "[Skimming through a math paper with a group](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/670/skimming-through-a-math-paper-with-a-group)" and "[What do professors gain out of teaching reading courses with individual Ph.D students](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/689/what-do-professors-gain-out-of-teaching-reading-courses-with-individual-phd-stud)", but from the other side :)
I've experimented with various ways to run my advanced Ph.D seminar, ranging from almost-lectures to "students present papers" to "students present textbook-level material" to "let's all work on a problem together". I don't think any of them have really worked to my satisfaction in the sense of ending the semester feeling that students have a command (as opposed to knowledge) of the material.
I've been reading about the [Oxford tutorial style](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutorial_system) approach, which can crudely be approximated by:
* professor assigns reading material once a week
* students form pairs and meet with professor once a week for about 1-1.5 hours.
* students run the meeting (maybe one person presents and the other critiques, or they work out shared portions of the material on the board). Professor keeps quiet as far as possible except to unblock.
This format sounds tempting, as something that might work with a small group (at most 10 people). Does anyone have experience with this format and would it be suitable for advanced material at the graduate level ?
While I'm hoping it doesn't matter too much for this discussion, the topics for the seminar would be in theoretical computer science.<issue_comment>username_1: I have seen reading seminars done like this: in the beginning of the semester, professor publishes a full list of papers + a little extra that (s)he wants to cover. Each student then picks a paper or two and the date when they will present it. Then the student reads the paper, prepares a presentation on it, and speaks about it to the rest of the group. Presentation can be formal or informal (depending on the size of the class) and encourage other students to ask questions about the material. What I like about this approach is that 1) students get to pick a paper that will engage them 2) they have to read it and understand it so that they could present it to the group and be able to answer questions about it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Although it's quite a while since you posted this question but here's what I've seen been extremely effective (when I was a student for those courses).
Course 1: A theory course with reading and understanding of advanced material
* The professor took great effort in actually explaining everything using a chalk and board (better than PowerPoint for theoretical course IHMO). Of course, we were told to read the papers but he explained as if teaching in a chapter/concept in the lecture. Thereafter, he'd assign us some homework problems and we were allowed to do them in groups. Now, these HW problems were really innovative. They weren't part of any book. He would actually "create" them based on the ideas he was teaching. He would cast an existing problem, either from something he was working on or just create one and ask us to solve it. THAT was the master's stroke, IMHO. The entire class would bang their heads against the wall to solve them and learn a lot as a result. We could solve the problems but not always, but the fun part was applying what we learned, consequently requiring us to understand the material really well.
Course 2: Exact same format as you mentioned as well as that suggested by @username_1
* Nothing learnt. Honestly. Only the people assigned the papers actually read them. Maybe a few questions here and there but very little interaction other than some from the professor. Overall, the students weren't really happy with it. I barely even remember half the things from that class. But for the former, remember almost everything.
Another variation you could try with style #1 (I read about this somewhere): Tell them that you are going to tell one "lie" (false information) when explaining the material. They have to spot the lie by the end of class. If they don't, they have learned something that is not true. If they spot it, a small reward like a chocolate else, it's a HW due next week. This drives them nuts. You can make the lies progressively complex and sometimes not lie too (You can say that you lied when you told them that every lecture would have a lie :) I haven't tried this variation but will do so soon. I feel this is an excellent way to get them to master the course content.
Hope this helps
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I haven't been in a class like this but my husband recommends the following (as a student - he says he learned the most in this format):
* Professor assigns reading (1 paper/meeting)
* At the beginning of the meeting, more or less randomly select one student to be the advocate of the paper and one to criticize it.
* Have the two selected students lead the discussion - the others are encouraged to participate, too, after the selected students have given an overview of the paper together and each made their opening point.
* If the group runs out of material, the professor may help.
* If there are grades, students are graded on their participation in all the discussions - not just the ones they lead.
The trick is the random selection. The students have to believe that they can be chosen to advocate or criticize the paper in any meeting, so they'll at least read it far enough to find one good point and one point to criticize.
You can roll dice or draw straws at the beginning of the semester - toward the middle, you should pick the students who haven't had a turn yet, then after everybody had a turn, go back to straws/dice.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: Best proseminar:
Long list of papers and book chapters, about three per week, carefully chosen to be easy to read at first, then more wiley.
We all had to write a précis on the same one of the papers each week. The other papers were related, usually contradicting each other about the same topic. At least everyone had read one of the papers so we could discuss.
I learned how to read papers that way.
At the end of the semester we all had to assign three papers to the class once and lead that discussion.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/03/18 | 1,585 | 6,786 | <issue_start>username_0: I am a computational scientist and I often find myself much more productive when working with others with resonating mind. When working alone, my motivation level is lower, distracted more easily, and I feel the progress is slower. However, in academic jobs, I often hear that it is important to show that you are an independent researcher.
* Q1. What are the defining properties of an independent researcher?
* Q2. How can I show that I am independent?
* Q3. I like working in
teams, is academia (esp faculty in research university) not a good
career path for me? (I could think independently, but I could do
better with others, so why be independent?)<issue_comment>username_1: At least in my field (mathematics), there are people who do almost all their work collaboratively. Academia *can* be a good place for such people, but:
1. It varies a lot, not only by field, but by subfield, so you'll want to take that into account when choosing a specialty. (Math has a lot of single authored papers, while the lab sciences have very few. I gather CS is somewhere in between, and that it depends on the area. Even within math, it depends on the particular subfield, sometimes for reasons that have more to do with culture than anything intrinsic to the subject.)
2. If you're in an area where single authored papers are common, you'll eventually be expected to produce some, just to demonstrate that you're not be carried along by your co-authors.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The issue of independence is an important one, but it doesn't obligate you to work in isolation. Instead, what it means is that you are capable of generating and pursuing your own research ideas. This can be done in collaboration with others, but there's still needs to be some evidence that you can lead the effort.
Some ways to show independence are to have some collaborative efforts where you are in the "leadership" positions—first or last author. If you can do this across multiple independent collaborations, preferably in multiple disciplinary areas, that will show that you have some lateral flexibility, which is among the hallmarks of an independent researcher.
I don't see, in this day and age, the desire to work in teams as ruling out a career in academia. I might not lean towards it as a first choice—instead, I'd probably steer such a person into a research institute like a Max-Planck-Institut here in Germany, or a DOE lab in the U.S. Those offer more collaborative environments which would be a better "fit" for someone who prefers to be a team player than a team leader.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I think I have a similar mindset. I like independent work, but I find that I am more motivated when working with others. However, I don't think that will hinder your ability to show that you are an independent researcher. As mentioned by @username_2, the defining point of **independence is that you are able to generate and pursue your own research ideas and agenda**. If you do it alone or with others is irrelevant.
In a lot of cases, like when you applying for positions, etc. You will have **reference letters** to accompany your CV. Thus, the author-list is not the only place to show your independence. In the letters your coauthors and mentors can attest to your independence.
A **research statement** or cover letter also is a great place to highlight your independence. If you work with lots of different people, then you can show how all these projects tie into a broader theme which is distinctly your own. In computational science it could very well be a theme like "I like developing information theoretic explanations for neural and multi-agent activity" and then work with an auditory group, a cognitive group, and a population biologists can be great supporting evidence of the fact that your ideas and approach are unique and independent, not to mention widely applicable.
Taking a **leadership and organizational role** is another clear way to show your independence. A personal example: I prefer to read and discuss papers with others, so I organized a reading group that meets weekly (ideally). A bit of my time gets consumed in organizing and managing this group, but it is more than made up for by the extra motivation I get to stay on top of the literature.
As for the atmosphere; **group-work is not an antithesis to academia**. It is very important to show that you 'play well with others' and frequent collaboration is a great way to do so. Especially with the large push for multi-disciplinary work, being able to work with people of various background is a great asset. Further, as a faculty in a research university, one of the things you will be expected to do is supervise and teach students. This means you need experience in sharing and developing your ideas with others, something that working in isolation does not nurture.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Collaboration is generally seen as a major strength in computer science and computational science, not a weakness. One of the biggest questions we ask about any faculty candidate in my department is "Who in the department/college will they work with?" We do occasionally hire faculty that work alone in their cave and occasionally emit theorems, but they're rare exceptions (and even they still work with their students).
The most important thing is to **establish a reputation as a leader** in your collaborations, rather than a follower. You need to establish your own research agenda, instead of just following someone else's. More importantly, you need to be *seen* to have your own research agenda, instead of just following someone else's. Your agenda must be visible in your publication record, in your recommendation letters, and (eventually) in your funding record. To this end, it is *very* important to do a few things:
* Limit your collaborations with more senior researchers, *especially* your advisor, *especially between getting your PhD and getting tenure*. As I've suggested elsewhere, publishing at least one paper without your advisor before you graduate is a strong signal of independence, even if you have other coauthors. Once you have your PhD, **DO NOT** publish with your advisor for at least a few years.
* Do not always publish with the same set of coauthors. It's fine to have two or three different groups of people that you always work with, as long as you can wind a consistent story that ties most of *your* work in those different groups together.
* (Once you have a permanent job:) Get at least one grant as a principal investigator, not just as a co-PI. Definitely join other grants as a co-PI, too, but you *must* have at least one grant with your name on top to get tenure.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer] |
2012/03/18 | 624 | 2,663 | <issue_start>username_0: While I was searching for materials for my research topic, I found a research paper which is signed as copyright by "Some organization". Does that mean that I could not use the content of this paper nor the ideas it presents until the paper owner gives me permissions?<issue_comment>username_1: Not necessarily. Copyright prohibits you from presenting the work as yours under any circumstances. In addition, it prohibits you from publishing or recopying large segments of the work, without securing the permission of the owner of the copyright.
However, the existence of copyright does *not* exclude you from citing the work of others, nor mentioning what their key ideas are. Such use of copyright is covered by [fair-use guidelines](https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/) [(archived version)](https://web.archive.org/web/20210605143659/https://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html). Under these circumstances, though, you are still responsible for following the proper citation procedures of your university or the journal to which you are submitting the work under question. Note, however, that this is a tricky balance, and you should be careful to directly quote only the material you absolutely need to duplicate, as fair use is not an absolute guideline.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: No. Copyright covers the verbatim text and figures, not the ideas.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: The short answer: unless the document is marked "confidential" you can probably quote short passages verbatim and you can certainly make use of the *ideas*.
To expand on some of the other responses given here: In most jurisdictions, copyright allows the protection of the *expression* of an idea (e.g. as written down in a book or article) but not the idea itself. Legal protection of ideas is covered by patent law, which is much more restrictive than copyright, with much shorter periods of protection.
It's also worth knowing that phrases like "All rights reserved" are partly redundant these days in most countries – all works are copyrighted automatically, whether or not they include this phrase or similar. However, it's still useful to know who owns the copyright to a particular work.
What is referred to as "Fair Use" under US copyright law may not exist or may be very different in other jurisdictions. For example, in the United Kingdom there is a rather more restrictive version called "[Fair Dealing](http://copyrighttoolkit.com/fair.html)".
If you have some time to kill, [Bound by Law](http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/comics/digital.php) is a useful comicbook-style introduction to copyright.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/03/19 | 527 | 2,264 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm an international student in a master program in applied math department in the United States. There are two ways that I have known in which the person like me can find the research opportunities:
* Independent research: do it on your own. Is it common for most math students to do research in this way?
* Research for the master thesis: As I know, the credits for the master program in applied math in my school are mainly for courses. You will not do research until you are writing thesis.
What else opportunities can a math student like me have for doing research?<issue_comment>username_1: I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with the structures for funding mathematics research to comment directly. However, there could be the possibility of doing research as a part-time "job" to help earn some money. Since it's part of the university, it's normally allowed under the immigration rules (although you should check this for yourself, and this does not constitute legal advice!).
I would suspect, however, that in mathematics, this would be primarily the applied mathematics groups who would need such work, as they are more likely to have computer codes or experimental apparati to prepare and use.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Find the hallway where your department's faculty have their offices.
Knock on the first door.
When the professor answers, say "Hi, I'm [name]. I'm a master's student, and I'm interested in doing research. Do you have some time to talk?"
Repeat for the remaining doors.
(It also helps to have some idea what *kind* of research you want to do, and to do some background reading on the professors' research before you talk to them. We like it when students say "I read your paper on X, and I have a few questions.")
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: take a look at [projectnudge.com](http://www.projectnudge.com). They have a website that allows researchers to post and apply to research opportunities. I think in your case you can post a statement that you are a master's student interested in XXX and looking for collaborators to write a paper. If you want a collaborator who is a grad student or interested in a particular topic, just say so in your post.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/03/19 | 531 | 2,362 | <issue_start>username_0: I know there is nothing preventing me from publishing an article in a different research field, but is it beneficial other than for satisfying my own interest/curiosity? Presumably these may be added to my CV, and possibly included for funding applications?<issue_comment>username_1: I'd say it depends, on how tangential the research field is from your primary focus, and how you came to work on that field. Researchers working on interdisciplinary fields often have this kind of a scenario (which I would label as an advantageous one) - it would help you in case you ever wanted to change your research focus, as the grant agencies could see from your publication track record that you have done publishable research on more than one research field.
But, it might not be a very good idea to use funds/grants from your primary research focus for working on a different field. You should be able to show that these publications were *in addition to* the work that you published in your principal research area.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I'm honestly surprised at the question. "Primary" does not mean "only"!
If it's a good paper, then *of course* you should publish it. Aside from the obvious personal benefits of making you look more diverse, increasing your visibility in another field, and possibly creating opportunities for future collaboration, you're doing what research is for: expanding human knowledge. And if it's not a good paper, then *of course* you shouldn't publish it, even if it is in your primary field.
But to echo shan23's comment: Don't use grants in area X to fund research in area Y.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: This is an interesting question. I recently was interviewed for a job and one of the interviewers asked me about a couple of papers which were clearly outside of my field of specialization. She wanted to know 'what these papers say about me and my professional capacity'. I was not prepared... and I said something along the lines of that ... I observe everything and try to identify problems and give solutions, even in a field that I am not directly studying... which, by the way, is my true reason to venture outside of my field. Now, looking at some of the responses maybe I was not wrong to go out of my field and produce some publications.
Upvotes: -1 |
2012/03/19 | 521 | 2,347 | <issue_start>username_0: Consider a conference publishing papers related to any EC/CS engineering field. What is the exact difference between different types of papers published in such a conference, i.e., main conference paper, mini-conference paper and workshop paper? Is it inferior to have one's work published in a mini-conference or workshop as opposed to a full conference? Are there any other such sessions within usual conferences for these areas?<issue_comment>username_1: Miniconferences and workshops are usually considered to be satellite events to a main conference. Often, these are on specialized topics, and often what starts as a workshop becomes a spin off conference of its own.
So it's tricky to say that it's inferior, but depending on the workshop/miniconference it might certainly be more specialized.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: For the value of the publication, it will matter more how it is published than whether it's a workshop or conference. If the proceedings are published by a well-known publisher (i.e. with ISBN/ISSN), a workshop paper might be as "valuable" as a conference paper. If on the other hand there are no formal proceedings or just something like a folder, it would be less "valuable". That usually leaves the opportunity to publish the same paper elsewhere though.
Most workshops in CS don't have formal proceedings, so in general it would be better to publish at a conference. That said, in some cases the reviewing process for a workshop/symposium might be more stringent. As smaller events are more specialised, the feedback you get on your work might be better than at a bigger event.
I personally would always go for publication at a conference if I thought the content of the paper to be good enough.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I agree with everything that has been said so far, but I'd like to add that one way to more quantitatively judge the "value" of a publication is by looking at the acceptance rate of the venue. Many conferences in Computer Science are considered "terminal" publications because of their extremely competitive nature and low acceptance rates. There are other conferences, however, that have 50% or higher acceptance rates. Likewise, some workshops are very competitive while others have near 100% acceptance rates.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/20 | 1,067 | 4,384 | <issue_start>username_0: What steps must an educational institution wanting to recruit good faculty take? There is a cycle in the academia:
* Good doctorates from top universities invariably join other top universities as faculty members.
* Good students aspire to study in top universities under excellent faculty members.
Suppose a new educational institution or department springs up and desires to set up a top-quality group, how does it break into this cycle? I suppose this could take some years, but is money-power the only thing that could be wielded by the institute to achieve its end?<issue_comment>username_1: The most effective way to shoot up the rankings is to **focus** on a few areas, make a number of high-profile hires in those areas, and aggressively publicize the institute and recruit students. This is exactly what places like IST Vienna and KAUST in Saudi Arabia are trying to do, and is also what various departments have done in the past to boost their profile.
And yes, this takes a lot of money power.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: **Money**
First, there's very little way - I think - for a university to improve its standing across the board. Institutional reputation on the level of say, an Ivy League school, where everyone assumes each department must be excellent because they're at *Ivy* is a tall order, and one that I suspect is impossible.
But in a particular field (or a particular School)? Money. And the willingness to take risks. A few ways to help:
* Find a few key faculty members. Established researchers with very solid reputations, and see if you can poach them. This might not just be a question of "how big of a check do we need to write"? There are other factors. A considerable bump in prestige. Quality of living perks. The chance to shape a promising new department in ways that you rarely get in established departments - a chance to be the formative voice in something.
* Be looking for promising potential new hires. Maybe they're coming out of the universities you hired these key faculty members from. Maybe they're coming from top schools generally. A generous start-up package, extra lab space and internal funding, a generous tenure process - these are things that might lure top candidates away from a harder path at a more prestigious institution. It represents a risk for both parties - you might get a dud researcher with a good degree, and they might get a department languishing in obscurity. But if it works, it works very well for both.
* Buy something big. Are there no Expensive Piece of Equipment equipped centers in the region? Become the people who have one.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: In some countries, faculty members are public servants, since the state cannot give them more money, others ways have to be found to make positions attractive!
* Extra funding for PhD students and postdocs. The state gives "free" funding to universities (=outside grants), it is conceivable that, to be attractive, a university decides to give this funding to a freshly arrived faculty member.
* Less lectures/responsibilities. This is more touchy, but again, we can imagine that a new faculty member will have less lecture hours for a few years.
* Hiring in the same field. When you arrive in a lab where your field is not represented, it can be depressing. If your field become a priority, then the position become attractive (better to be with "friends" in a challenger university than alone in a top one).
* Preservation from bureaucracy. In some countries (France for instance), the administrative burden is heavy and a lot of faculty members are ready to sign up in any place that guarantees "zero" administrative tasks.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: @Sylvian raised many good intangible benefits, and I just wanted to add another one: **Lab relocation.** Labs take a while to set up, and training new techs takes a lot of time and effort, which translates into lost productivity. Offer to sponsor bringing over everyone from the old lab, including techs and large equipment, to speed up time to productivity.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Oftentimes PhD graduates from top schools join very low-ranked schools because their spouse or partner have tenure there or work in that region. Find a way to accommodate both of them and you have a winner.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/20 | 1,152 | 4,683 | <issue_start>username_0: I've got *a pretty awesome CV* (I think), through hours of trailing through websites and reading tips. However that was back when I'd just finished University and now it needs updating!
I'm 25 and I am into my 3rd job since university and so have quite a bit of experience about these roles.
I have a few questions.
* It seems my job experience now out weighs my education. Should I move my Work Experience to page one and my education to page two?
* Do I still need my GCSE's on my CV? They don't seem very relevant.
* How much detail about my education do I actually need?
* Do people still care what A levels I did?
* Do people want to know my dissertaiton title and what key subject I learnt, or is my degree title now enough.
* Moving onto my work experience. I have had two jobs that are really relevant to what I'm aiming at and the third is less so. What is the minimum I should put for the third job, it's title?
Let's hope someone can help, everything I normally find is for new graduates CV's, bless them but I need some help too!
*EDIT*
**Looking for UK or European answers, the US is too crazy. I don't have a GDP ;-)**<issue_comment>username_1: To answer some of your questions:
* While there's no set guideline, education often comes first. You should include the university where you earned your BS/BA (list major, GPA, and any honors), masters university (field, GPA, and thesis title if applicable), and doctorate university (field, GPA, thesis title). High school and similar degrees (including A-levels) should not be listed. Note that a brief (one to three sentence) explanation of your masters and thesis work may be useful here; most people in industry won't have any idea what "Detailed Sprockification of Remonstrantized Grommits in Hypernormalized Framistans" means, so a short layperson description will show (1) that you can communicate and (2) that you did cool stuff that they can understand.
* Work experience should include company, position title, responsibilities. You can summarize responsibilities in bullet points or short (two to three sentence) paragraphs, it makes no difference either way.
To answer some things you left out:
* Strongly consider adding an Objective Statement to the beginning of your resume. It should summarize your career goals in a sentence. Check out [this website which I found on Google](http://www.broward.edu/career/GetJobReady/Resumes/ObjectiveStatements/page5456.html) for some discussion of what this is.
* Include publications, teaching experience, grants awarded, trainees mentored, and notable community service (awards received, board memberships, etc).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: If you're living in the US or Canada, an important question to ask yourself is:
>
> Is this a résumé for industry and business, or is this a CV for a research-oriented field?
>
>
>
Pretty much all of the differences between the two boil down to this key difference.
* If you are applying for jobs in industry or business—essentially, any non-research-oriented field—your CV should be converted into a résumé format. This format will generally put work experience before education, and will be in general much briefer. A résumé should in general not exceed two pages in length; a CV can be as long as needed. With respect to your questions, you would need to list your high school diploma, although you wouldn't need to go into a whole lot of detail (list the type of degree, plus any major awards). I would list dissertation title if it's relevant to your work. For your job descriptions, I would include key duties and accomplishments in bullet form with active verbs ("Directed X project." "Completed milestone Y.")
* If you are applying for further jobs in academia, then you need to maintain the CV format, so education should remain first. Your high school credentials don't really matter anymore, but the dissertation information remains important, and should be in the information section. Your job section doesn't need to be very detailed, even for the previous jobs: just the major areas worked on, and the major skills and accomplishments could be briefly summarized.
If you might go in both directions, you should keep versions of both up-to-date; if you're staying in one side or the other for the foreseeable future, then you can focus on that. But in general, I would recommend keeping it up-to-date at all times!
(Note: if you're living or working in Europe, then as Blundell comments below, and is corroborated [by some web sites](http://theundercoverrecruiter.com/content/cv-vs-resume-difference-and-when-use-which), you probably only need a CV.)
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/21 | 1,025 | 4,589 | <issue_start>username_0: Does the department determine it, or does the president determine tenure after the department recommends it? Or does the process go through both ways?
And how does this vary from institution to institution?<issue_comment>username_1: The process varies from place to place but in most places the technical determination is made by the department and to some extent the college. Higher levels of approval focus mostly on whether proper procedures have been followed.
Having said that, when things go wrong they could go wrong at any level. Usually it's politics that derails cases at the higher levels rather than straight technical merits.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Here's how it works at my university. There are several layers of votes; I've seen faculty turned down at almost every level. Once a negative vote is taken at any level, it is essentially impossible for the candidate to recover without an official appeal. (The appeals process is complicated.) On the other hand, I know of negative decisions that were successfully appealed at almost every level.
* April: the candidate submits their CV and other supporting materials.
* May: The department's promotion committee makes a go/no-go decision about whether to pursue the tenure case. **A very small number of negative decisions are made here**, but only in truly egregious cases.
* May: The department head chooses a subcommittee of three or four faculty from the promotions and tenure committee to shepherd the case through the department.
* June: The department solicits recommendation letters, some from people proposed by the candidate, but a majority from people chosen independently by the subcommittee.
* August: The subcommittee writes an internal evaluation of the candidate's research/teaching/service accomplishments/potential.
* September: The subcommittee presents the complete case (candidate's CV and statements, internal evaluations, and recommendation letters) to the complete departmental committee. The committee votes whether to recommend tenure. **Most negative decisions are made here.** Having a positive recommendation turned down at a higher level is fairly embarrassing for the department; it indicates that either the department did not do a thorough evaluation or (worse) tried to hide or excuse an obvious gap in the candidate's record. So this level tends to be the most stringent.
* October: The department head writes a one-page letter summarizing the case and the department's vote, and forwards the complete package to the dean.
* November-December: The college promotions committee does its own evaluation of the candidate and votes whether to recommend tenure. Evaluations are more likely to be based on measures of reputation and impact (reflected in publication record, citation patterns, funding history, and recommendation letters) than on actual quality of research. Faculty in the candidate's department are recused from any discussion. **Some negative decisions are made here.**
* January: The dean writes a one-page letter summarizing the case and the committee's vote, and forwards the complete package to the provost.
* February-April: The campus promotions committee does its own evaluation of the candidate (mostly, but not entirely, focusing on whether proper procedures have been followed) and votes whether to recommend tenure. Faculty in the candidate's college are recused from any discussion. **A very small number of negative decisions are made here.** Negative decisions at this level are more likely to involve problems with teaching (or raw politics) than with research, since measures of research quality and impact vary so wildly across campus.
* May: The provost writes a one-page letter summarizing the case and the committee's recommendation and forwards the complete package to the chancellor and university president. The provost also informs the candidate of the committee's recommendation. Officially, this is the first news that the candidate receives about their case.
* July: The chancellor and the president rubber-stamp the provost's recommendations, and then pass them up to the board of trustees, who rubber-stamp them again. (Officially, I think any of these three can overrule any recommendation for promotion, but I've never seen it happen, and it would probably cause a faculty [revolt](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-03-16/news/ct-met-u-of-i-letter-20120316_1_senator-in-anonymous-emails-faculty-chancellor-phyllis-wise).)
Yes, the whole process really takes 15 months.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer] |
2012/03/21 | 622 | 2,520 | <issue_start>username_0: It seems very common for them to normally prefer being addressed by their first names (since Mr./Ms. seems to be very rarely used in Academia).<issue_comment>username_1: My policy : the first time you contact the person, go with <NAME> (or <NAME>), but sign with your first name. The latter is a signal that you are OK with a "first name email relationship", from this point it will be so most of the time.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: You should follow the traditions in the region where the recipient is located. For an American or Canadian, I would probably follow @sylvain's advice, as that is the usual standard in the US—formal at first, but becoming less so as time and familiarity grows.
However, here in Germany, I would continue to use the greeting "Dear Mr./Mrs." until such time as I was *directly* invited to use their first name (this would be the same as the "Sie" to "Du" switch).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: In Sweden, and I believe other Scandinavian countries, email communication is very informal, and communication is mostly on a first-name basis, even if you haven't met in person previously. I can call anybody by first name, even the CEO or an esteemed professor, and nobody would frown upon. Even students address (or at least should, nothing makes me feel older than somebody calling me Mr T., or worse, Sir) their tutors by their first name.
I'd almost never use Mr/Mrs in an email when writing in Swedish, but I would do it more often if the recipient is foreigner and is not familiar with the small power distance in Swedish companies and universities. However, I'd usually be more formal when the circumstances require it -- applying for a job/grant, or sending official documents, for example.
**Pro tip**: -- *never*, **ever** call a Professor "<NAME>", if you are adressing them by family name. Always use appropriate academic titles, when applicable. I'd spare this for associate professors or below, but some academics in the country where I'm from are pretty prissy about this.
Some academics are prideful, and you need to play to their weakness. Gain favour of such people by addressing them with a higher title than they currently have. A certain (then associate) professor which some would describe as "a cerberus in a skirt" was very friendly to me and helped me with administrative matters on a few occasions since I consistently addressed her as "Prof. S.", especially in front of other people.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/22 | 1,772 | 7,573 | <issue_start>username_0: I have seen a number of résumés of doctoral students, but only a few of them listed their evaluation scores when presenting their teaching experience.
* How important are these scores in evaluating the teaching capabilities of a student?
* How does one ensure that the students are sincere in their evaluations?
In case a professor does a slipshod work of a course, not teaching in depth or cramming a lot of syllabus in a short time, there is only so much a TA could do to salvage the course for the students.
* How does the TA make the best of a bad job in such a situation?
* Apart from holding weekly office hours and lenient grading(!), what is the maximum a TA can do, after all?<issue_comment>username_1: Frankly, I don't place much weight on an isolated number; it doesn't tell me much in practice about a student's teaching abilities. That would have to be judged via direct interaction—watching them teach or otherwise interact with students. It's really impossible to expect students to be honest in their evaluation, unless they've provided comments; then you can at least see how much they've written; the more extensive the comment, the more likely it is to be sincere.
As for what to do when a professor does a bad job, I don't think that it really makes that much of a difference in the nature of the TA's responsibilities; the main change is in the intensity of the work required. The TA, *along with the professor*, is responsible for helping students learn the material. If the professor isn't doing an adequate job, then that means the TA will probably need to work a bit harder and dedicate more time to achieve that goal. However, the TA should make sure she is taking care of her other requirements and needs at the same time. The TA position shouldn't consume someone's entire life (unless they are paid accordingly!).
One possibility for how to do things, though, might be to prepare review sheets and guides based on the lecture material (or what the lecture material should have been). This will be good review, both for the TA and for the students!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: This is an *excellent* question, for faculty as well as students!
* *How important are these points in evaluating the teaching capabilities of a student?*
Obviously this varies significantly in different departments and institutions, but in my experience, the scores themselves are not that important.
My department does pay attention to these numbers when allocating future TAships, but definitely not in isolation. Narrative reviews from the instructors carry significant weight. The people doing the assignments also know which courses are unpopular, and which instructors are irresponsible, and adjust the evaluation accordingly, at least in principle. In practice, there are only three evaluations: (1) truly outstanding TAs, who are considered for teaching awards; (2) truly abysmal TAs, who are not rehired, at least without retraining (and since we have a TAship requirement, this has teeth); and (3) everyone else.
When we evaluate tenure-track faculty candidates, teaching ability is usually a second-order concern, but it is a concern. Poor evaluations on an applicant's CV are a red flag—why didn't they just omit them? Good evaluations are mostly a signal to look further. Teaching awards carry more weight. Recommendation letters that directly praise the applicant's teaching ability — with concrete and credible details — are even better. Similar issues arise when evaluating faculty for tenure, with one big difference: omitting the teaching scores is not an option.
* *How does one ensure that the students are sincere in their evaluation?*
You can't. Sorry.
However, I *believe* you can increase the fraction of sincere (and positive) responses by consistently treating your students with respect. Make your expectations clear from day one, and enforce them consistently. Invite feedback throughout the semester, and respond to it quickly and appropriately. Apologize quickly for mistakes, thank students publicly for useful suggestions, but do not buckle on high standards. Give timely, consistent, and useful feedback on coursework. Above all, **do not waste your students' time**; the correlation between hard work and low evaluations is much higher if the students don't see any benefit to doing the work.
* *How does the TA make the best of a bad job [if the instructor is irresponsible]?*
First, do your own job as best as you can.
Second, raise your concerns with the instructor; be respectful but brutally honest. If the instructor is unresponsive, raise your concerns with your instructor's boss; be respectful but brutally honest. (Note: Disagreement is *not* the same as being unresponsive.) If your instructor's boss is also unresponsive, your department doesn't really care about poor teaching; they're likely to ignore your evaluations, even if they are low.
* *Apart from holding weekly office hours and lenient grading(!), what is the maximum a TA can do, after all?*
There are many more things that TAs *can* do. At a minimum, hold office hours that the students actually find useful; don't just show up. Distribute practice problems, and offer feedback on the students' solutions. Hold weekly review/discussion/problem-solving sessions. As username_1 suggests, write review notes. If the instructor covered too much, distill down their main points; if the instructor didn't cover enough, expand on the key ideas they missed. Offer to give a few guest lectures, and then give *fantastic* guest lectures.
More self-servingly: **Make sure the students see you working to overcome your instructor's shortcomings.** If the students *don't* see you fighting on their behalf (even if you are), they'll write you off as yet another useless academic, like your instructor. But if you can make them believe you're on their side, they'll reward you. I think this is why students often reward "lenient grading"; if the students think the coursework is a waste of time, they'll see lenient graders as their allies.
Obviously this all takes time. As username_1 says, TAs usually have many other responsibilities, especially to their own classes, projects, research, families, and sanity. It is frighteningly easy for committed and caring TAs to find themselves being abused by less committed instructors (or even departments). **Set limits.**
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: From my experience, student evaluations are simply a measure of how well the *students* think you are doing in teaching them. Keeping in mind the phrase attributed to <NAME>,
>
> If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have said "a faster horse".
>
>
>
note that the students can often give feedback on your current teaching methods, but they rarely suggest *better* teaching methods. From my experience, the evaluations are not viewed as important, but are meant more for the TA to improve their teaching skills. You can ensuring sincerity by being sincere in your teaching. If you're appropriately enthusiastic about teaching the material, the students will notice and appreciate it. Beyond that, some students will be cynical and apathetic to the process, and there's really not much you an do about it.
The best way to make use of the situation is to use it as a learning experience, as it's intended! Chances are, you'll be asked to teach in the future, may as well use this opportunity to try out different teaching methods to see what works for you.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/23 | 838 | 3,440 | <issue_start>username_0: So, I'm applying for jobs as an instructor/lecturer. They explicitly only require a master's degree, which I have, in addition to some valuable industry experience. It's plausible that I could get one of these jobs.
If I get one of the jobs, I would be hoping to potentially stay in academia for longer, so logically it would help me to have the PhD I currently lack. Ideally, I'd like to pursue my PhD part-time while working as an instructor. My thought is that this would give me the opportunity to eventually get a professor position, later in my career, once I complete the PhD.
My questions:
* Is this something that universities are okay with their instructors doing?
* Or is it not okay for someone to be teaching undergrads while simultaneously doing graduate research?
* If I wanted to do this, would it be more appropriate to pursue the PhD at the same institution as or a different institution from the one that I'd be working at?
Some additional helpful info:
* All of the schools that I'm applying at have part-time PhD programs, so I have no reason to believe that the part-time study schedule is an issue.
* I'm not in the U.S., so the specific rules of American academia don't necessarily apply. For example, here, we rarely have grad students teach classes.<issue_comment>username_1: Most universities are fine with having PhD students working as instructors/lecturer/teaching assistant at the same time, and it's actually quite common. I have personally been teaching at undergrads level while doing my PhD, and most of my friend who did a PhD were in the same situation.
However, it depends on the amount of hours you are spending a week with teaching: if it's taking all of your time, you might not be able to do research in good conditions, and it might be hard to find a professor that would agree to supervise you if you're not available to work on your PhD. Basically, if you combine a part-time teaching/part-time PhD, that should be fine, but if you combine a full-time teaching with a part-time PhD, that might not reasonable.
Concerning where you should apply for the PhD, in general, you can do it in a different university than the one where you're teaching. However, in some cases, it might be more interesting to do it at the same place because you might not have to pay the tuition fees.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Following up on Charles's answer, I think the situation depends strongly on what discipline you are in.
Working as an instructor or lecturer as a *primary* instructor in a course suggests to me that you are working in the humanities; in general, such positions do not exist in the sciences and engineering (with the exception of courses taught by "visiting" or "adjunct" industrial lecturers, who may have work experience but not the normal Ph.D.).
In contrast, in the humanities, it is, as Charles said, quite common for people with master's degrees to teach courses, although again it is, in my experience, more common for them to teach "seminar"-style courses, rather than large lectures.
It may or may not be the case that the instructor of such a course is enrolled in the department to study for a Ph.D.; it depends on the specific policies of the department, and you should ask if this possible at the time of application.
(These are my observations on what is "standard"; of course, there are exceptions to every rule!)
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/03/23 | 1,524 | 6,265 | <issue_start>username_0: This is a related question to my previous one about [keeping advisees aware of literature](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/754/keeping-advisees-aware-of-literature).
Given the relatively large number of papers that are out there, it's inadvisable to force every student to start from ground zero in building up a reference library. To me, this suggests that there should be some centralized ways of keeping track of bibliography references.
The low-cost but high-maintenance route to me would be to have an SVN repository to which people can update their own personal bibliography files. Are there other more time-efficient routes to manage this process when:
* people have different computing platforms and workflows (Windows with Office, OS X with iWork, Linux with TeX, etc.)?
* working with collaborators at other institutes?
* it's important (according to university/workplace regulations) not to have data stored "in the cloud"?<issue_comment>username_1: If you want to sync refs across multiple users but don't want to host in the cloud, you should check out [sparkleshare](http://sparkleshare.org). You'd set up a git repo on a local server to host a bibtex file, then have your users install sparkleshare on their computers and connect to the git repo. You would then use Mendeley, which has a bibtex syncing option. This will achieve a system that will distribute new refs added by any user.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: For small scale projects, such as you and a few other authors working on paper(s), I would just consider plain text file (with standardized fields) in a location you can all access (plus version control). Bibtext would be an obvious solution (and most reference software that I know of can import bibtext files). Easy and minamalist to implement and update. Mike's answer seems like a better solution than this, but this is dependent upon all the members of the group utilizing such software, which sometimes isn't worth the effort to get people to convert.
For large scale operations (like you need to enter in over 1,000 papers for a lab) I would consider rolling your own database + user forms to enter in data. Fields you want from papers are fairly easy to delineate, so setting up the initial database is not too dificult. Here are a few other reasons this is nice;
* You can have flexibility to put what you want in the database. For instance if you were conducting a meta analysis you may want to extend forms to include relevant statistics.
* Querying on a variety of characteristics becomes trivially easy.
* If you are saavy enough with the database, you can write some scripts to export the data in whatever format you want. For instance, I use the one statistical software I am most proficient in (so not a true database, but several seperate tables) to write my bibtext library, plain text citations in approximate APA format, and VBA code to find-and-replace latex like citations in word documents.
Alot of flexibility with your own database, and if you are doing a very large project it might be worth the upfront effort to develop and customize to suit your own needs.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I accomplish this using the groups feature of **[Mendeley](http://www.mendeley.com)**. It works on all three major OS's, allows you to share bibliographies easily with both your group and external collaborators. It also allows something that I think is very important -- lots of bibliographies on particular topics within the realm of what my group does. See, for example
* <http://www.mendeley.com/groups/1045561/runge-kutta-stability-regions/papers/>
* <http://www.mendeley.com/groups/1070421/nonlinear-hyperbolic-pde-solvers-on-gpus/papers/>
I should mention that Mendeley's web interface to bibliographies is awful. But the desktop interface is quite nice and (most importantly) can export Bibtex.
Mendeley does store your data in the cloud (if you consider a bibliography to be "your data").
*Update*: I stopped using Mendeley when it was bought by Elsevier. I haven't found a satisfactory replacement.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: Why not just use vanilla git ? Everyone sets up their private repo and you can use github for shared syncing as needed.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: If you're using LaTeX, you can set up a .bib file on a shared drive and everyone can reference and add to it as necessary using whatever program they like. I'm a fan of [BibDesk](http://bibdesk.sourceforge.net/), personally.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: If you have a PHP server running somewhere, I would definitely recommend [Aigaion](http://aigaion.de/about). From the website, they say:
>
> Aigaion provides a bibliography management environment that supports a user in just this: Organizing and managing a complete bibliography, from small personal bibliographies to bibliographies for e.g. a complete research department.
>
>
>
I've been using it in the past on a project, and it's really helpful to manage a bibliography for an entire group: you can define collections, you can annotate each entry, and you can export easily the bibliography at least to Bibtex and RIS (probably more, but I don't remember exactly, as I was using only Bibtex). You can at the same time manage references to be read by students, and publications generated by the group. Plus, it's open source :)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: We used to maintain our own list on our (sadly now defunct) group website when I was a PhD student. The sources for the group website are in a shared (internal) version control repository to which we all have access. We maintained three shared bibtex-files:
1. one for internal references — everything any of us ever published
2. one for external references — anything not internal any of us has ever cited or found otherwise useful
3. one for new references; we go through them at our weekly meetings, then merge them into (2).
Simple, but works very well.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: The solution is the open source `I, librarian` server. It manages bibliography for groups. You can try it out online here: <http://www.bioinformatics.org/librarian/>
Look for "demo"
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/03/23 | 549 | 2,219 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm looking for a way, tool or technology that allows me to define keywords and/or authors and/or conferences for which I want to be notified if a new paper is published on [ACM](http://www.acm.org) or [IEEE](http://www.ieee.org/index.html). I couldn't yet find a way to achieve that. What are my possibilities? It shouldn't cost any money.<issue_comment>username_1: I've had great experience with Google Scholar Alerts. To use them, go to scholar.google.com and search for any term. In the results page, you will see a link to `Create Email Alert`. Click on that and create the alert to send you notifications.
One very good use of this is to follow specific papers. For example, I have a star paper of mine that I'm currently extending and I like to keep track of who is citing this paper. So, I search for the paper on scholar. In the results page (just under the result for the paper I'm concerned with), there's a link `Cited by 'n'`. Click on that and you get results for only those papers that cite this article. Now, create an alert on this page. This way, whenever someone refers to this paper (and Google finds out about it), you get an email. Do this for all the important literature in your field and Alerts will make sure you are kept abreast of your field.
Never miss out on an important finding!
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Recently I found out that Microsoft Research can be really helpful for people in academia. You can subscribe to conferences, journals, institutions or even authors by the subscription at the right top for the page. For example, check [this page](http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Conference/40/icse-international-conference-on-software-engineering) for ICSE.
Plus, in the [Publications](http://research.microsoft.com/c/1043) section you can sort/filter publication in various ways. [The Academic Search](http://academic.research.microsoft.com/) section gives significant information about professors and even colleges.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: [Semantic Scholar](https://www.semanticscholar.org) got all you want and constantly improves using SOTA technologies. Far better than google scholar.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/03/24 | 1,292 | 5,513 | <issue_start>username_0: I am currently an undergraduate student taking an Honours Pure Mathematics degree with an additional major in Astrophysics and I plan to go to a good graduate school (as good as I can get into) for Pure Mathematics to research either Geometric Topology or Convex Geometry.
I know that academia is a cut-throat world where only "the best" end up on top and the ability to get a professorship is becoming harder and harder as time goes on. I enjoy Pure Mathematics and Theoretical Physics and would not want to do anything else with my life just because I could not do anything else since I find them too damn interesting. What I do not enjoy is the grade-driven-here-is-the-next-thing-for-the-exam learning that doesn't give anyone the big picture. I have been working non-stop to make sure I perform in my courses, undergraduate research, etc. and I am just wondering if there is any way to learn about these topics at a slower pace or just have more time to think about the topics eventually. I understand I will have to at least get through graduate school and get a PhD (otherwise there would be a chance I'd turn out as a crackpot), but I'm just really tired of having so much information crammed into me without having the time to think about what I am learning. I want to do my own additional research on topics I see connections between, and think more about the big picture of how the different fields of Pure Mathematics and Theoretical Physics are related. There are so many unfinished papers that I have started throughout my undergraduate on embeddings of low-dimensional manifolds, determining knot invariants by unique methods, etc. but I just have no time to think about what I want to think about when there's that Real Analysis assignment due the day after my midterm in E&M which I had to stay up all night studying for because I had three quizzes the previous week in blah blah blah blah... for years on end.
Essentially, my question is this: **Is there any other way that someone (after getting a PhD or a few post-docs) can do research at their own pace and just completely go after their interests without having to justify what they are doing to funding agencies, being swamped with administrative work (such as marking exams and writing grants), etc.?**
I know that is asking a lot out for a life style, but I would even be interested in leaving academia altogether to just do my own independent study somewhere and travel around to different universities to collaborate whenever I have new findings or need some new inspiration or ideas. Are there any easy part-time jobs one could do to support such a lifestyle? <NAME> would be someone who I look up to in that respect, I believe he did this exact thing by making a living translating Russian academic papers into English.
Any comments, helpful suggestions, about how it would be possible to live an non-traditional academic lifestyle where people still take you to be credible and you can publish your work in journals. I just want to avoid working working working my entire life without a chance to reflect and then just die.<issue_comment>username_1: It may not be necessary to wait until you've reached the end stages of your career to have time to explore your research.
If you are able to get fellowships to fund your graduate career—or to find a suitably understanding advisor—then it may be possible to "slow down" your graduate career. In such a case, you'd be able to handle things at your own pace (within reason). That's how I managed to take my time doing my Ph.D., and it allowed me to work on problems I was interested in, rather than other problems.
Similar funding does exist at the professional level, such as "named" fellowships at the US Department of Energy (DOE) laboratories, and through grants like the MacArthur Fellowship (also known as the "genius grant"). It is certainly not easy and straightforward to do, but it could be a way to get the freedom to work without additional responsibilities.
Outside of academia, I don't think the situation improves much. For instance, at the DOE laboratories, you're only able to pursue your own research if you're able to secure your own funding to do so (or have moved so far up the chain that you are a laboratory "fellow," and can do what you want). Similarly, in industrial research institutes, I suspect similar issues apply (you might not have to worry about writing grants the same way you do in academia, but you'll still be expected to "justify your existence" on a fairly regular basis.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Some of the slower pace and autonomy that you're looking for may be available to you once you finish your classes and pass your prelim (or qualifying exam; the name may vary, but most PhD programs have some sort of exam, after which you are "all but dissertation"). This is an important aspect to consider when choosing your PhD adviser.
My adviser allowed me quite a bit of freedom to work on problems that I picked. As a result, grad school took me a little longer, but I think I was better prepared for life afterward, when I did not work closely with a supervisor. Through high school, undergrad, and the start of grad school I had a "get through fast" mentality. Once I got a few years into grad school, I changed my view more to "take time to learn the stuff you want to learn". If you do stay in academia, the clock really starts when you finish your PhD.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/03/25 | 1,509 | 6,347 | <issue_start>username_0: After some bad experiences in a master's program, I decided to become a PhD student in the same program. My plan was to finish a paper and leave as soon as possible, meanwhile earning the recommendations that my bad early experiences prevented. That's basically been the situation for a couple years now - longer than I ever expected. At this point, I'm finally finish my projects and I've presented at a couple conferences. I genuinely like the professor I'm working with now. However, I never intended to specialize in this research area; the idea of doing my PhD in this area is very disappointing to me. And (selfishly?), I very much want to move to a new institution.
At this point, I'm not sure what to do. My ideal situation would be to finish my current projects and move to a new institution to work in a field I was more excited about. However, I'm afraid that if I reveal my desires the professor I'm working with will try to sabotage me. I'm also concerned that leaving now will look strange on a graduate application: why admit a quitter? I'm also starting to feel a little old to be starting a new program.
I'd really like to just be done with all this, but the question I keep asking myself is, "Why get a PhD in something you're not interested in?" Maybe, though, there are good reasons.
I'd appreciate any advice you may have.<issue_comment>username_1: From what I could glean from this story, one thing is clear: you are confusing yourself a lot and your thinking is quite muddled possibly because of a few adverse experiences. Think on these lines:
* What is the 'new' area to which you want to move to? Do you *really* love the challenges it poses?
1. If yes, find some nice professors to work with, mail them asking about positions. Forget about your age, the number of years it will take and a host of other details: if you are passionate, the passion will carry you through the doctorate.
2. If no, ask yourself if you are passionate about the one you are working on. From what you have written you do not seem to be so. Even your publications seem to carry this 'ulterior' motive of getting a better grad school. If you do not love your PhD, then you should seriously consider moving to the industry.
* You have publications under your name, so it is unlikely that a professor *can* "sabotage" your application and more unlikely that he *will*. Get over the bad experiences with your first professors soon! Don't call yourself a "quitter", instead admit you have been working on a few research problems but do not want to work on them for a doctorate.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: That might depend on the field, but you don't have to *love* your topic to get your PhD. You are not defined by your PhD topic, and it is usually possible to change topic later in your career. For instance, the topic of my first postdoc was quite different to the topic of my PhD.
So, of course, it's better to do a PhD on a topic you love with an advisor you love, in a university you love, but it's not always possible, and since you already have some papers in your current topic (which somehow says that you have at least some interest in it), and you appreciate your current advisor, then you can consider doing your PhD on this topic, and once you got it, then you can move on. You can also try to establish collaborations during your PhD with professors working on the topic you love, for instance by attending summer/winter schools on this topic.
Getting a PhD is not like taking an oath to work on the same topic for the rest of your life, it's simply getting a degree stating that you're able to do research. That being said, if you are accepted to a program that is exactly what you love, then there shouldn't be any harm in going for it, but it might not be worth to jeopardize your current situation.
EDIT: To illustrate that a postdoc can be indeed on a different topic than the PhD, I can for instance refer to aeismail's answer: <https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/844/102>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: To answer your direct question, I can only think of two reasons:
1. You began your research thinking you'd be interested in a particular topic, but as the research progressed and you became more familiar with the field your interest waned.
2. You have an end goal which requires familiarity with a particular area, and there are a number of ways you can approach that goal. You pursue a PhD in a field where you think it would be easiest to become familiar with that goal, despite the fact that you're less interested in the PhD than the ultimate goal.
The first reason, from my educated guess, is very common. The second probably much less so. Do note, though, that as Charles said, your degree is often very portable; someone with a math degree can likely successfully apply for positions in other related fields (engineering, statistics).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: No, it won't prevent you from continuing elsewhere but from personal experience it would be easier to move laterally perhaps in your own university. However there are some questions that you must ask yourself:
1. How far into your PhD program are you?
2. What about the current topic don't you like and is there anything you can do to develop an interest in this? Very often, the more time you spend with a topic, a better sense of the same you have which can help in looking at it from a *better* perspective.
3. Is it your subject area that is bothering you or do you really want to move to an other university?
Moving schools has it's downsides:
1. Course requirements would need a reboot for you.
2. You may have to take your qualifiers again.
3. Building new relationships and networking will be a challenge (not impossible, just challenging)
Did you talk to your current adviser about your quandary?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Nothing is preventing you from trying PhD in another laboratory at least one or two times. It is appropriate, in some cases may be recommended and is usually accepted as a normal case.
Maybe if it is an adjacent laboratory next door, a potential new supervisor may not want to conflict with your former supervisor, but this seldom expands outside one institution, and even there largely depends on personalities involved.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/03/25 | 663 | 2,812 | <issue_start>username_0: I am really fascinated by ancient civilizations and cultures.
I do not know what subjects one has to take up to study Archaeology (like what subjects in A Levels or High School) at an academic level?
I would just like to know in general but would appreciate any details about United States and India.<issue_comment>username_1: You may be potentially interested in [anthropology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology) programs. Although anthropology can be a very diverse field, all I am familiar with (not many FWIW) have a devoted concentration for archaeology related studies/methodology.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: At least at American universities, there are very few majors that require specific preparation beyond the "standard" high school diploma program. That would generally mean something like: four years of English, three years of math and science, two or three years of social sciences, and other courses as needed to round out the curriculum.
Schools in other countries may (and generally do) have different requirements. So you'll need to look up the specifics of the departments and programs you're interested in to find out what courses you'll want to take.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: It is very difficult to answer with very little information. Archaeology is a very vast transversal field. It can be decomposed by techniques, by periods or by the targeted cultures. So the first question you need to ask yourself is whether you want to be an archaeologist (expertise in techniques) or a specialist of a period or culture (egyptologist for instance).
In the first case, scientific majors in high school is probably better than others, but this is not very important after all. However, be advise that excavation techniques are related to "dirt on the hands" techniques, but also to some top notch scientific techniques (specially for the analysis, where you may need knowledge of stats, paleontology, zoology, botany, chemistry, etc.).
In the second case, I would advise to start quickly to acquire a strong background in art history and ancient languages (starting with greek and latin). I will be easier to learn linguistic and semiology afterwards. I guess that both art history and ancient languages can be learned at the high school level in most countries.
At the university, students usually progress concurrently in archaeology techniques and culture specialization.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Anything skill can be used in archeology from comp sci to law to anthropology to zoology. Cross boundary is good. Pick something you like (mobile phones and CS from your bio?) and tie it in. If I wanted to work in archeology I would use my CS and Kinect hacking skills to make 3D models of sites, for example.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/03/25 | 1,036 | 4,542 | <issue_start>username_0: Simple and short question: as a postdoc (or a senior grad student), is it a good idea to mentor an undergrad?
How much edge will it provide perhaps for a future (NSF) grant, or a job application?<issue_comment>username_1: Assuming the mentoring has a measurable successful outcome (student goes to grad school, student writes paper), the NSF would definitely look kindly on such mentoring. Whether the time spent doing this will (minute for minute) be a better value than writing an impactful paper - probably not. But that reasoning is of course flawed - you don't know ahead of time whether the time you spend writing that paper will pay off :).
As with most other things, do it if you care about the mentoring process and enjoy working with undergraduates. Don't do it if the primary goal is to get the bullet on your CV.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I don't know whether your grant or job applications will benefit from the experience. However, it will provide you with some immeasurably useful management experience, which you may not be able to gain otherwise. I know that my experience managing undergraduates during my graduate career - directing their research project with them, helping them design and put together experiments, and helping them write papers (or, more likely, having them help you write papers) - was an excellent first experience for me in dealing with issues that professors managing a lab have to deal with on a regular basis. For that alone I would strongly recommend mentoring.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I have to take a middle road between username_1 and username_2's answers: mentoring of undergraduates will most likely help you in job applications; I'd believe this to be true whether you're applying to academia or industry or to non-traditional jobs. The reason is that supervising students provides you with direct *management experience*, which is almost always beneficial when being considered for employment.
However, it is less clear that mentoring an undergraduate would help you in a meaningful way on a grant application. The reason for this is that, in general, there's no logical place to bring such information up in the grant application! In a standard CV, you could list "students supervised" as a normal part of the document; however, according to the current guidelines [for the NSF reduced CV format](http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/gpg_2.jsp#IIC2f), the only real way that they can be counted is if they wrote a thesis under you, and perhaps as an aggregate count. In the long run, though, the NSF is really interested in graduate students and postdocs supervised.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I've sat on graduate student committees that have met with faculty candidates for our department in a research university with a sizeable undergraduate population. The mentorship track record and the result of that mentorship are probably the most important factors that we considered after the intellectual capacity of the candidate.
In our case, dealing with whiny grade-obsessed premeds who don't understand basic concepts is part of the job description. There is also a noticeable volume of undergrads who do research. A future PI who doesn't want to be in a teaching environment is already in the wrong place. A future PI who hasn't considered the fact that they would be in a teaching environment doesn't have a clear vision of where they want to be.
As a potential faculty mentor, they are a potential mentor to a graduate student like yourself. An ability to mentor undergrads without a high attrition rate tells you that they are able to create an environment that doesn't scare the student away as well as an environment that keeps the student to come back. Sounds like a faculty advisor that I would want to have available for future students like me. Conversely, an inability to mentor suggests that they mentor either drove their student into pieces or wasn't able to or weren't patient enough to design suitable experiments to teach difficult concepts to a young mind. If one wasn't able to do this with an undergrad, what would happen with a 1st year PhD student who may be stuck with them for the next 6 years?
Mentoring undergrads provides a solid and universal metric of a candidate's ability to mentor. They are probably the most difficult type of advisee to mentor and the past history of mentorship does provide a nice projection to one's path as an academic.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/26 | 520 | 2,052 | <issue_start>username_0: Some authors use "her" whenever they employ a pronoun referring to a noun whose gender is immaterial to the discussion.
Is there any rule (university or journal or conference-specific) which dictates this? Is it good practice to stick to the same pronoun throughout a paper? Or is it better to get rid of the issue by using the gender-neutral 'one'?<issue_comment>username_1: The reason for using "her" more frequently nowadays is to correct an ongoing imbalance: in general, for a long time, "his" has been used, even where a more neutral pronoun ("one") should have been used instead.
Grammatically, however, any of the recipes you suggest would be appropriate: it is only the matter of the particular taste of the author. I would recommend, though, that when using both "he" and "she," that you use one consistently throughout a particular usage. Don't write "she/her" in one sentence, and then "he/his" in the one after. A few paragraphs later won't be a problem, though.
The reason "one" is not nearly as popular is that it is somewhat awkward-sounding; too many "one" and "one's" in the same sentence makes it feel too stiff and impersonal. (It's a bit of a catch-22, I know, but that's the way it is!)
One other option that you did not mention, though, may be the simplest route of all: simply use collective plural pronouns: use "they," "their," and "theirs." It gives you the benefit of including everybody, without having to contort your writing to do so.
(I would also comment that some books go out of their way to be gender-neutral, particularly through the use of "gender-neutral" names: Chris, Sam, Pat, Jean, and so on.)
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Some authors alternate sexes between chapters or sections in an attempt to sound more gender balanced.
While "they" has historically been the correct pronoun to use when sex is unknown or irrelevant, some grammarians took offence to the usage of "they" as it is also a plural pronoun while he/she/it are singular.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/26 | 493 | 2,056 | <issue_start>username_0: Lets say an undergraduate student does some research in their free time and wants to write a paper about the findings. What are the rules regarding affiliation when the student tries to publish?
* The student is **required** to include the university as affiliation, because they are enrolled in a program at the university
* The student is **not allowed** to include the university as affiliation, because they are not officially hired/approved to do research under the name of the university
* There are **no rules**, the student can choose
* ...?
I guess for graduate students / postdocs / professors it is mandatory to include the university as affiliation, as they get paid by the university to do the research they are doing!?<issue_comment>username_1: I don't think there are any "official rules". (I can't even find a clause in my employment contract that officially requires me to list my university on my papers.)
But as long as you are a student, it's a good idea to list your university as an affiliation. Even if the university isn't paying you, you do benefit indirectly from the intellectual environment and resources that the university provides: professors, fellow students, library, internet, health insurance, nearby coffee shops, and so on. It costs you nothing to be generous. Also, for better or worse, [readers will take your paper more seriously](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/306/is-it-possible-take-take-part-in-a-research-project-if-im-not-a-part-of-a-unive).
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The student should talk with their department and let a professor advise, acting on behalf of their Institution. This would be to help the Department find interesting work by students as well as helping the student with professional advice.
In any case, they can list the university they are enrolled in without suggesting that it was *sponsored* by the university. -- unless the University has explicitly set policies otherwise (for some boneheaded reason).
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/26 | 1,932 | 8,092 | <issue_start>username_0: I go to school at a University in the US. We use a competitive grading system where teachers give grades based on how you do relative to other students. This type of grading system doesn't encourage students to work together or help each other because we are all competing against one another. I'm wondering if there is another non-competative grading system that major universities are using to eliminate this competition?<issue_comment>username_1: As a graduate student I had to grade exams for the courses my supervisor taught. We had a very intricate system of establishing what would be a passing grade:
1. Prepare a set of questions.
2. Let all the Teaching Assistants (TAs) solve the problems, keeping track of how long they took for each question.
3. Distribute an arbitrary number of points over the questions relative to how much time, on average, was spent on each question by the TAs.
4. Let the students take the exam.
Let me be very explicit that until this point, *no grading scale has been established*!
1. Mark the exams. This just consisted of going through the questions and assigning points for correct solutions, partially correct solutions, etc... Every question was marked by a different TA and this TA was free to distribute points as he/she saw best. Usually we would go through a pile of 10-20 exams, see how the problems were solved, e.g. what pitfalls were encountered or how far most people got, and then establish a scheme we would use for the rest of the exams.
2. Every TA hands in an exact description of how they marked their question, i.e. how points were assigned.
3. With this list, go through the questions one by one and decide what constituted the minimum requirement in each question. This decision was signed-off by my supervisor.
4. Using the marking schemes written by the TAs, calculate how many points the minimum requirements would have given if they had been handed in as an exam.
5. The number of points for the minimum requirements constitute a passing grade. Anything below that fails, anything above that passes.
In my university, grades were on a scale from 1 (fail), over 4 (pass), to 6 (perfect) in steps of 0.25 grade points. This gives us three grades to map zero, the minimum requirement, and the maximum number of points to respectively. This can be fitted to a function $G(p) = ap^2 + bp + c$ which maps points $p$ to a grade $G(p)$.
The advantage of this approach is that it is, in principle, independent of the TAs specific style of marking, as the marking is taken into account when computing the minimum requirement points. It is also completely non-competitive in that it's independent of the students' actual performance during the exam. To make sure our decisions were sound, my supervisor and I would go through the 10 exams just below and just above the passing grade and see if they were all clear pass/fails. They usually all were. When not, it was usually just a matter of tweaking the rounding.
There is an open question regarding the amount of time given to the students, e.g. is it possible for them to solve all the questions, and thus is the mapping of maximum points to maximum grade justified? Here we played it safe by choosing only a few questions to make sure nobody would run out of time. The point is that if you do or don't know how to solve a problem, time won't be an issue. We also had two-hour exams, which gave the students ample time to show what they could, and what they couldn't do.
This system also works if you're the only person marking all the exams.
I would be very interested if anybody could suggest improvements or detect amendable flaws in this scheme, as it is what I plan to use myself, now that I'm a lecturer.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The alternative is to assign grades based on non-curved performance, with cutoffs for each letter grade. That's pretty standard in many universities. The problem is you may have to wait a few semesters to optimize what the cutoffs should be, as you'll be failing or passing too many students in the beginning.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: In Mexico, the grading system is a scale that goes from 1-10 with a passing mark on 6-7 (depends on the professor)
Also, some professors would do global test averaging at least once in the semester, that is, make everyone take the test, and the average of the whole class is the mark for each student for that test.
One particular professor wouldn't say which test was this going to be (the first, second or third) so you had people making sure everyone knew the bare minimum to get a good mark for every test.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I was a TA last semester for a professor, and we had a pretty good system for giving out grade.
1. Make the exam rubric.
2. Grade the exams. The people who did great, the rubric was not applied to. They were just given full marks.
3. For people who did not do so well, we used the rubric to award as many points as we could.
With this system, there is no direct competition, e.g., someone doing better does not make you worse off. In fact, with this system, it is possible for a class of good students to all make A's. Of course, that doesn't happen in practice though, since class performance is almost always a bell curve.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: What you're calling a competitive grading system is known pedagogically as *norm-referenced* assessment. There are a number of ways to do this, but is based in the principle that a sudent's performance is judged in reference to other students.
The opposite is known as *criterion-referenced* assessment. Its name is quite appropriate — you set up criteria. If the student meets the criteria, they get the grade.
Rubrics are one way to do this that gives off a strong air of fairness (although sometimes might not jive with what holistically makes sense…see clustro's answer for one way around that).
But most people I know think when designing the methods of assessment think about three things (maybe not consciously, though):
* What performance would indicate that a student is competent in the material I have taught, such that they can adequately take follow-up courses and succeed there? (grade: C)
* What performance would indicate that a student has mastered the expectations for the course? (grade: B)
* What performance would indicate that a student has gone beyond mastery of the basic expectations for the course? (grade: A)
For example, let's say we have an exam on the preterite in Spanish (where there are both regular and irregular verbs). A C-level student ought to get most, but not quite all regular verbs, and have mixed performance on irregulars. A B-level student ought to have all the regular verbs, while having mixed performance on the irregulars. An A-level student would excel in all, consistently.
On the other hand, a D-level student might demonstrate cursory knowledge of verb formation, but not be able to apply it any remotely consistent manner. And an F-level student would be clueless.
What criteria you use will depend greatly on the topic, and there are many ways to design exams. For the aforementioned verb test, you might give 60-70% regular verbs and 30-40% irregular. Based on the criteria given, you could expect grades to fall in the appopriate letter category (based on a 10pt scale).
For a longer mathematics problem, you might distribute points in a rubric over things like, does the student how to set up the problem? do they know how to solve it? were the calculations accurate? Obviously a student who can understand how to set it up and solve it, but makes a few calculation errors has met the criteria for passing — but they haven't demonstrated the perfection needed to get the highest level of achievement.
A good instructor will constantly reevaluate the criteria (to see that they meet the needs of the course) and the assessment (to see that student performance numerically lines up with observed performance) and make adjustments as necessary.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/27 | 1,108 | 4,334 | <issue_start>username_0: I have a manuscript that has been in review for 60 days. The journal asks for reviews within four weeks. At what point is it acceptable (and not detrimental) to contact the editor for an update? How should I phrase the request?<issue_comment>username_1: I don’t know your field, but in mine (theoretical computer science), you have to get used to long review processes. My personal rule is to contact the journal six months after submission. Given recent events, my new, additional rule is to also state upon submission that I can suggest referees if need be.
As EpiGrad commented, the four weeks time certainly refers to the time allowed to the referee. But additional stages take longer: a first quick scan of your paper to decide whether it’s worth troubling an editor with it; then the editor has to find referees; and, assuming they all complete their reviews in time, the editor also needs a little bit of time to reach a decision based on the reviews. Moreover, your paper might not be their top priority.
As for the “how”, something like this would do:
>
> Dear Editor,
>
>
> I understand that you must be extremely busy, but I was wondering about the status of my manuscript [title, reference number] that I submitted on [date]. Have you heard back from the referees yet?
>
>
> Thanks a lot for your time.
>
>
> Best regards,
> [name]
>
>
>
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I think an answer to this really depends on a lot of things: at least on the journal and the field you are in.
I am from mathematics and there I usually ask after 6 month. Only for journals which are known for long refereeing times I sometimes wait for 9 month.
By the way: The American Mathematical Society publishes a list of expected waiting times and backlogs for some mathematical journals (see e.g. [here](http://www.ams.org/notices/201010/rtx101001331p.pdf) or google "AMS journal backlog").
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: If done respectfully, it is never unreasonable to request the status of your manuscript.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I would say after six months is reasonable to ask for a status check. I am from engineering and I often politely ask after six months. If I don't hear from them with a final decision within the next two months I decide to withdraw the paper as it seems that the whole process will take too long and either the journal or the reviewer(s) is not very professional. Eight to nine months is very long response time for a first inquiry. Sometimes you just cant wait that long, you need to know whether is rejected or not because you need to present something on your PhD career, change a job, or as part of a funded project.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I believe that accepted answer is too informal for some people. I prepared following template for myself. Using following [link](http://www.editage.com/insights/how-long-should-i-wait-for-a-response-from-the-journal) and [Coursera professional email course](https://www.coursera.org/learn/professional-emails-english). I waited 4 months before sending this email.
```
Subject: Inquiry about my submitted article (#XXXX) to Journal - JOURNALNAME
Dear Dr. EDITORNAMESURNAME
My name is <NAME>, and I am first author of article #XXXX (TITLE).
We submitted our article to journal JOURNALNAME on SUBMISSIONDATE.
We have not received an update regarding the status of our manuscript.
Could you let us know when we can expect notice regarding the decision of the editorial board?
Thank you for your time and effort.
Best Regards,
<NAME>
```
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: As the saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
In my experience, it is reasonable to politely request an update after ~2 months of review. With most manuscript trackers, it is possible to see where the manuscript is in the pipeline and send a gentle reminder if the manuscript is stuck in one stage for too long (e.g. reviewer section, review, editorial evaluation, etc). Keep in mind that most editors are volunteers and they may forget to follow up with reviewers in a timely manner due to their busy schedule. I find it hard to believe that a polite email would antagonize the editor since journals want to publish high quality papers in a timely manner.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/03/27 | 1,338 | 5,645 | <issue_start>username_0: I originally posted this on math.stackexchange but was recommended to post here.
I have been admitted to two Master's Programs in math (both with funding). One is 1 year long and the other is 2 years long. I plan on obtaining a PhD directly afterwards.
The 1 year option lets me save one year. But I would have to apply to PhD programs within the first semester and it seems I would not have time to get good recommendation letters or make a strong impression from my Master's Program. The 2 years option would give me more chance to demonstrate what I've done.
If they are comparable programs, which would be the better choice?<issue_comment>username_1: I would normally choose the two-year program, for exactly the reasons that you cite. One of the few reasons why I would consider the one-year program is if there is a particular individual you want to work with, or if it is your first-choice school for the PhD program *and* it offers a path of lower resistance to already be a student there.
Otherwise, as JeffE points out, you won't really save much time by going to the one-year program over the two-year program. (Besides, if it's a coursework-based program, you'll probably get more out of the two-year deal!)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Well, I originally posted the following as an answer to your post on stackexchange, and since you're posting it here, I'm posting my answer here as well in hopes of it being helpful to a wider audience (not everyone on this site is necessarily a frequent visitor of stackexchange--especially \*math.\*stackexchange).
Posting as an answer, because it is too long for a comment; however, treat what follows as a 'comment', please.
I can only say what I'd do. I would go for the two year program, would try to impress people to obtain good recommendations, would learn as much as I could, would explore my interests, would try to work on some projects with some faculty member(s) (which would also help with exploring interests and obtaining good recommendations), and, assuming good academic standing, would try to apply to top schools.
Now, in the process, I would also explore my strengths and weaknesses on the emotional side. Let me clarify... We all work differently, are most productive under different circumstances and see our place in life differently. When you go for a PhD, as was mentioned above, you'll be on the clock, you'll be under pressure to write a dissertation and, if you're planning a career in academia, to write papers (and try to publish them), make connections with professionals in the field (mostly by attending conferences and dissipating your research results through talks), you'll be trying to impress people and so on. I would use my time in the masters program to explore my strengths and weaknesses in regards to all of the above (as much as possible, at least). For example: 'is mathematics really my thing?'; 'what kind of environment is best for me - a big, top ranking school or a smaller department?'; 'what can I do to be more productive?'; 'what inspires me (especially about math or some special field in math)?'
By working with a faculty member on a project, you can also ask and (more importantly!) try to answer questions like 'what kind of a relationship with my adviser should I expect in a 5 year program, and what should I look for in my adviser?' By developing closer ties with faculty members, you can have some of your questions answered by the faculty members, such as: 'what should I expect in a PhD program?'; 'given my interests, how should I choose the school for the PhD program?'; 'are there any faculty members in potential PhD departments that I can communicate with before I actually apply to the program (this can really help sometimes with your application and chance of acceptance)?'
Last but certainly not least, you'll be gaining a solid knowledge base (but, as implicitly implied above, you can only learn as much as you want to learn). You shouldn't look at it as "losing a year", since it may very well compensate for the first year or two in graduate school when you're studying to pass the qualifying exams. Speaking from personal experience: a year and a half in the masters program helped me to get done with all the formalities (qualifying exams, identifying field of interest, choosing adviser) by the beginning of my second year, and from the middle of my second year in the program I was actively reading papers and thinking about potential research problems.
Good luck with whatever you eventually choose to do!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I would choose the two year program as a Master's program is just that: You'd want to MASTER a certain topic and two years or so is generally a decent amount of time in which you could hone your skills and defend your research (if you would opt for a thesis option).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: If you are certain that you will continue on PhD program after you obtain your master degree, then you should choose the 2 year program. Others already explain why. I am not going to repeat the reasons.
However, if you are not 100% sure about obtaining PhD after you get a master, I would take the 1 year program if I were you. A plan is just a plan after all. How do you know what will happen 1 year from now? Why not get a master degree first? You will have other options after that, such as teaching at a high school, get a job in industry, etc. A master degree may be worth 10% more of the salary.
So, the bottom line is your desire to have a PhD in math. You are the only one who knows the answer.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/03/27 | 2,665 | 11,258 | <issue_start>username_0: I am 33. I live in the US. I am a neither a US citizen, nor a green card holder. I have worked in various jobs as a research assistant (physics, biology, economics) usually involving programming, mathematics or statistics. As a newly minted undergraduate, I didn't really have much confidence in myself and I completely ruled out graduate school as pointless. I didn't think of myself as smart enough. I drifted into working in labs, because those are some of the easiest ones for which one can get a work permit in the US as a non-American.
Having worked in academia for a while now, I've had a chance to leap into various fields and help build solutions to complex problems. I think I have literally gone as far as I can go researching in academia with no higher degree. I work at one of the top universities in the world. (If you looked at US News rankings or the Academic Ranking of World Universities, it's in the top 5.)
Lately, I've been thinking about applying for graduate school. I do have a few papers in various fields. I'm thinking of a PhD in either pure mathematics, applied mathematics, statistics or computer science.
I see two big minuses to applying to graduate school:
1. Most people applying are more than a decade younger than I am. (Alas, more than a few gray hairs have made an appearance in recent years.)
2. Perhaps my achievements would look good for someone younger, but partially my achievements are the result of a long career rather than any special brilliance. So, I wonder how my record will be perceived. I did take GRE and I scored 800 quantitative, 800 verbal and a 5 on the essay. (I would most likely have to do a GRE subject test depending on what field I ultimately decided.)
Please advise on how accomplished, but older candidates, are viewed in the graduate school application process.<issue_comment>username_1: Anecdotal, but: I was 31 when I started my PhD, and it wasn't an obstacle at all. There were more than 80 applicants for two places. I have the impression that what matters a lot (at least in neuroscience, at least at my institute) is how much training the supervisor would have to invest in you. I've seen many times that the applicant who already did some similar research gets the position, even though there might have been someone else who is in principle just as good. Previous research experience carries a lot of weight.
From what you write, it seems to me that you would have a very good chance in getting into a program - publications and good GRE scores are both a big plus. Recommendation letters are also important. I would be surprised if your age would be an obstacle. But beware that it might be an obstacle for some sources of funding! I don't know if it is the case in the US, but I'd guess that's the only potential problem with your age.
...And now we wait for someone on the other side of the application process to give their answer :)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Again, anecdotally: age is simply not a factor in applications. That being said, you'll also be expected to do all the things grad students would do; put in the hard work, write the papers, be available for conferences and such, take courses, act as a TA, and put in the necessary hours to get the work done. Given your description above, though, you're familiar with what the requirements are, so that shouldn't be a problem; if anything, you can put it to your advantage that you're more familiar with the experience than all those inexperienced undergraduates. Good luck with the application process!
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Age is something we might notice, but is rarely an issue. In fact, there are many schools where the added maturity you'd have would be a major plus, because you'd be able to articulate some clear research directions and would be able to get into research directly. If so, then you should be clear to say so in your statement.
While this is unlikely to come up in the application process, it might also be helpful to think about what your post-Ph.D career plans would be. Would you want to move into a research job (in academia or elsewhere) or is a Ph.D just something you'd like to do for the purpose of research exploration ? Because this age discrepancy issue will come up again and again in the academic line of work.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: I have a friend who worked in the automotive industry (all the bigwigs in the US) for about 7-8 years after his Bachelors degree. He joined a university for a PhD at 31 about 2 years and he is well on his way now having finished his qualifiers etc.
Although he isn't working in mathematics, I think it's fine to start your PhD in your 30s. You might actually have an advantage because you have several years of practical/research experience and also maturity that 20 year olds *may not* have.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I do have to say that I have seen the age issue work both ways:
* I do know of programs that are biased *against* older applicants, *unless* they have remained "active" in research-related fields; these tend to be "cutting-edge technology"-type programs where out-of-date knowledge is essentially useless for research purposes. These locations have also been international, where the funding situation is quite different in the US.
* In the US, I do not know of any age-specific bias; technically, it's probably against the law in most states. On a personal level, I have known many students who have returned to academia after extensive careers outside of it, and some of them in fields quite far removed from anything of a traditional "academic" nature. The ones who returned to academia with a clear sense of purpose have thrived, and many of them have even won prestigious fellowships. On the other hand, I've also known people who have been unable to hack the rigors of a graduate education and essentially gave up within a few weeks.
In general, though, if you know what you want to do, and can convince someone to give you a shot, you have an excellent shot at getting a good PhD and having a fruitful career.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: It really depends on your field and the admission committee. Some fields like mature candidate with lots of industry experience as they can be productive at lab work etc.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: This is also anecdotal but I was 32 when I applied to graduate school and started when I was 33. My observations have been the following:
Many of the professors that I've interacted with (some of whom are inevitably going to be part of the admissions process) are very positive about accepting older students, especially if they have work experience. From what I've been able to tell, the reasoning is that having worked and been out in the real world, you probably have a better idea of what you want to do and where you're going. In addition, you are more likely to be dependable about getting the work done, will bring more experience to the table, and have more realistic expectations and strategies for coping with things. This can be really good for getting an RAship and it sounds like your research experience will make it even more applicable.
On the other hand, being a student again means that in many cases people will make assumptions about what you do and don't know and how you will act. I've had a number of people treat me like I've never worked before, making comments about, "You'll find out once you've actually worked..." and things like that. This can make a difference in how you're treated, it's disconcerting to be treated like a student again after being more of an equal with all of the people you're working with.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_8: 33 is not old. We had 40+ year olds in my Ph.D. program.
The biggest hurdle might actually be that your study habits are rusty. You might consider taking a single class in the field as a continuing ed student just to get back in the studying grove. A good grade and reference from your professor won't hurt either and will show you're on top of your academic game.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_9: I've been admitted to two graduate programs (finished one).
In my experience, admissions committees are generally looking for "mass," rather than "velocity," even though both are components of "momentum."
You have the "mass," with your test scores and course work. You seem to fear that older age implies less "velocity." That may be true technically, and it could factor into a few decisions, but I haven't seen much evidence of it.
At some level, admissions committees are looking more for evidence of "likely to finish" (the degree), rather than "likely to be brilliant."
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: This is two years too late but someone else might find my comments useful.
A Math department would likely not care about your age. Most US University teach some baby-calc type course to most of their undergraduate students and Math departments generally are in need of bodies to teach and grade those courses. They take a lot of students in and pare them down at the comprehensive exams stage.
Unrelated to your main question about the admission process, I would like to point a few things out though:
1. Statistically, Pure Math is a young person's game. Most pure mathematicians do their best work in their teens, twenties, and thirties. You'll be 35 by the time you're done with coursework and nearing the end of that window. Still, if you're having fun and making a contribution then that's the only thing that matters. You'll find out during coursework and later while preparing for your Field Exams (or equivalent) where you stand when compared to others. To use a basketball analogy, you could always be the Kareem Abdul Jabbar and play at a high level well into your late thirties but most NBA players start slowing down past their early thirties.
2. I noticed that you're considering applying for both Pure Math and Applied Math . In general, I have seen that if you have a head for pure math, if you love topology, algebra, measure theory etc, you're generally less excited about coding, numerical methods, scientific computation type stuff and vice versa. You seem unusual in the sense that you're attracted to and have talent in very different kinds of mathematics. This is a hard process and a minimum requirement is that you should really enjoy this stuff. So I hope that your decision to apply to a pure math program stems from some real exposure to it.
3. The next 10 or so years of your life will be disproportionately devoted to your career. First to get out of school and then to publish to get tenure. Spending that type of time away from your family and kids becomes difficult for older people who usually have a different perspective on what's really important in life as compared to someone in their twenties. If you're single, you may find it harder to find the time and energy to date someone outside of grad school. If your first job is in a small town then your dating options will be even thinner, especially since you're not a native. These things may not seem important now but you may change your mind later.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/03/27 | 2,192 | 8,698 | <issue_start>username_0: This is one question that has been bugging me for a long time now. Why do universities consider GRE/TOEFL scores at all? Perhaps it is fine for master's degrees, where there will be an enormous number of applicants whose language abilities cannot be otherwise established. But what is the necessity for a PhD degree? Why not zero in on a small group of candidates based on their profiles and then conduct a Skype interview? That way the professor gets to know both the verbal and the research potential of the student. Why isn't this the case for PhD admissions?<issue_comment>username_1: Firstly, not all schools place weight on GRE/TOEFL for PhD admissions. Some do, Some don't.
A publication and good grades but bad GREs/TOEFL does not immediately guarantee rejection. Nevertheless, I had done some research on this and here is what I learnt :
**GRE:**
* GRE (I talk about the old pattern, I have no clue about the new one) tested both Quantitative and Verbal aptitude along with the ability to write and analyze arguments.
* **Quant** section is essentially a sanity check. A 780/800 or above indicated that the student has well founded basics and he is able to solve *everyday math problems*. This was meant to test only those parts of mathematics which everyone applying to graduate school does encounter. Thus, no Calculus or Linear Algebra. Universities find this score useful since it is a good indication of the mathematical basics of the student.
* **Verbal**. This initially irritated me since I saw no benefit in testing my vocubalary for a technical PhD. But later, I learnt that the verbal section actually varies with IQ. There were numerous high IQ societies which gave out invitations on the basis of GREV marks. [This](http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/criteria.aspx) is a comparison of the different high IQ socities with their GRE marks requirement. The GRE (together with Quant) was an instrument for checking IQ without making it too blatant.
Here are a few citations:
[Mensa](http://www.am.us.mensa.org/Content/AML/NavigationMenu/Join/SubmitTestScores/QualifyingTestScores/QualifyingScores.htm):
`from 5/94 to 9/30/01
(quantitative + verbal + analytic) 1875`
[Triple 9 Society](http://www.triplenine.org/main/admission.asp) :
`Graduate Record Exam (GRE), combined verbal, quantitative, analytical (June 1994 through Sept 2001) : 2180`
[One in a Thousand Society](http://www.oathsociety.com/membership.html) :
`GRE (verbal + math + analytical scores) 2180 (6/94 till 9/01)`
[Prometheus](http://www.prometheussociety.org/) :
`GRE (“old”): a score of 1610 on the “old” GRE (taken before October 1, 1981)`
*Personally, I think of all this as pseudo-nonsense but c'est la vi*
* The **argument** section is (arguably) the most useful for PhD admissions. The 2 parts (writing and analyzing) are along the lines of how one writes research papers. The writing sections teaches/tests for rigor in ones' arguments and requires that each statement be backed up appropriately. The analysis section tests the students ability to read "actively" just as how one would read a research paper. The question requires the student to point out flaws in the argument presented and the more the number of (realistic and nontrivial) flaws you find, the more you score. GRE tests students for critiquing general arguments such as building a new library since "the old one is far away from campus" and similar flawed arguments while in research a paper could state something similarly inane in that field.
**TOEFL**
Among Reading, Listening, Speaking and Writing, I think none of them are useful. Reading gets covered in the Comprehension questions in GRE (with a notch higher difficulty). Listening and Speaking are almost useless since it is fairly simple to memorize generic things to say and still get above the 24/30 marks threshold. Writing gets covered in the GRE as well (At higher difficulty). If the university needs to know if the candidate can speak good english, I think an interview is a good alternative or (as some universities seem to be tending to) IELTS is a good option since you actually interact with a examiner rather than recording answers for "The city you love most" to be evaluated later.
But, I Think TOEFL does filter out students with extremely poor English skills (beyond repair for the university), so it does help in spite of having overlaps with GRE and being inherently flawed (IMO).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: GRE/TOEFL scores are used in a number of different ways (some of which are alluded to above)
* GRE scores are sometimes used as a university-level filter (if your GRE score is < X, then you'll need a strong support letter from your department to get admitted)
* TOEFL scores are used as a filter for giving people TA funding (if your TOEFL score is too low, you can't be assigned to be a TA, and if it's lower, you can't even get RA funding)
* More informally, the GRE/TOEFL scores are used as a "do you even care' filter: for a CS program, a quantitative score less than 600 might be considered to be a warning that the candidate doesn't even care enough to prep for it.
But for Ph.D programs, the GRE/TOEFL are either used as a high-bar disqualification filters to prune applications (in top schools), or as low-bar disqualification filters to prune the non-serious applications.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: My (computer science) department does not require GRE scores at all. A few faculty still use them to evaluate applicants—there's no accounting for taste—but there is certainly no official cutoff (as username_2 suggests). In practice, they're only useful if they're really low.
However, by state law, an international student at my university cannot be hired as a teaching assistant if their TOEFL spoken English score is below 24. (Too many courses were being taught by foreign students with thick accents.) Since my PhD program has a TAship requirement, we *must* filter out applicants with low TOEFL scores. We can still admit applicants with scores below 24 if someone offers them an RAship, but they have to bring their score up to 24 by the end of their first year. So in practice, you have to have at least a 20 to be considered at all. (And we do conduct phone interviews with borderline cases.)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: On the admissions committees I've been on, GRE scores have been used primarily for one purpose, namely dealing with students from out of the way places. Every year, we see a number of applications from students at not very prestigious schools but with perfect grades and letters saying they are the best in years. We suspect that the courses are easy and the competition is not impressive (being the best is meaningless if we doubt the second best is very good), but we don't want to reject someone unfairly. GRE scores give a simple, consistent way to compare these students with those from other schools. Most of them have unimpressive GRE scores, but occasionally they do very well on the GRE, and in those cases we investigate further.
TOEFL scores are another case in which consistency is very helpful. Skype interviews would give more information, but different interviewers would be more or less demanding (plus the interviews would be a lot of work). If you want to set a consistent cut-off, for example for TA support, then a standardized exam may be the right approach. Note also that the administration may not trust faculty interviewers not to exaggerate the English abilities of students they want to admit.
If it weren't for its usefulness in screening the applications from out of the way places, I'd be in favor of eliminating the GRE entirely. However, even making someone jump through a meaningless hoop can actually be a useful filter. In practice, having a successful career requires occasionally doing things you don't care about, for reasons that may not be clearly explained (and might or might not turn out to be justified if they were explained). Some students run into serious psychological issues here. Maybe they can't overcome their disorganization if they don't feel motivated, or maybe they just refuse to participate in anything without a clear justification. It may be unfair, but these students are not likely to be successful in the long run, and it's a waste of time and energy to prepare them for a career that isn't likely to work out. Jumping through hoops like the GRE is a mild test in this direction. If you are too disorganized to sign up for it in time, or if you aren't willing to jump through such a hoop at all, then that's a bad sign for your future career.
Upvotes: 4 |
2012/03/28 | 1,285 | 5,499 | <issue_start>username_0: Suppose a student is applying to a graduate school. Who is typically on the admissions committee? Is the chair of the department on the admissions committee?<issue_comment>username_1: It's highly unlikely that the chair of a department serves on a graduate admissions committee. The committee is usually composed of some set of faculty who represent the different areas in the department.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: At my (large CS) department, the graduate admissions committee officially consists of:
* The director of the graduate program. This is a ~3-year rotating position among the senior faculty.
* About a dozen faculty members, distributed roughly uniformly across topic areas and faculty rank. The department head is not a member; he's way too busy.
* About a dozen graduate student volunteers.
However, our graduate admissions database is open to the entire faculty. Each faculty member is expected to help review applications, and in particular, to identify applicants that they would be willing to advise, offer an RAship, help recruit, and/or recommend for fellowships. We ask each applicant to name a few faculty they'd be interested in working with, so I usually start by reading the applications that mention my name. I haven't been on the admissions committee since 2000, but I still read a few dozen applications every year.
For each round of admissions, each research area (theory, graphics, architecture, etc.) provides a ranked list of applicants for their area to the committee, along with estimates of advising/funding capacity. This usually requires discussion among the area faculty, coordinated by the area chair, who may or may not be a committee member. (I was the theory area chair for several years.)
Final admissions decisions are made by the official committee, but positive reviews from extra-curricular faculty carry a *lot* of weight. In particular, nobody is admitted without at least three positive faculty reviews, including at least one potential advisor. Decisions are folded back into the database so that faculty can track their favorite applicants' progress, and if necessary, drum up more faculty reviews.
So, in practice, **everyone** is on the committee, including the department head.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Since this question has somehow come to the top of the queue: in the U.S., in mathematics, the department chair would rarely participate. The person in charge of graduate admissions would be "Director of Graduate Studies in Math.", or equivalent title. This would be a position that would/should involve genuine PR and recruitment work. The old tradition was that the position would be a backwater/sinecure for otherwise inactive faculty. In modern times, the level of energy required to do the job has increased to the point that most faculty could not cope, and do not want such a job, since it would take away from "refereed publications", the baseline for salary and status improvements.
But, of course, grad admissions and policies around this issue have a tremendous impact on the atmosphere in a department. Somehow the internet has made things more intense, more stressed, so choice of people to be around is all the more critical... ironically?
To some degree, the "grad admissions committee" is supposed to represent "all constituencies", but, in reality, this doesn't make much sense, since in the U.S. the thin-ness of undergrad preparation does not allow students to make competent announcements of their eventual interests.
The "real-politick" of grad admissions, involving understanding of the wildly varying undergrad or Master's level preparation around the world, and how those things translate to functioning in the U.S., is not interesting to most faculty, so the responsibility descends to the shoulders of a relative few who've paid attention to the reality, rather than the PR.
Who this is in a given place, and whether it's anyone at all, depends...
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: In my department of 15 faculty, 3-5 faculty serve on the committee. This usually does not include the chair, but sometimes has. The committee makes final decisions on most Masters applicants, and screens PhD applicants. But promising PhD applications are also reviewed by likely potential advisors before a decision is made, so faculty who are not on the committee also play a major role.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: To give a completely different view, here the graduate admissions are handled by a central committee run by the graduate school of the university, as faculty I have next to no incidence on their decisions. We are rather small (some 600 graduate students in all).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: In our small department (about the same size as username_4's), there is no admissions department per se. Master's applications are initially read by our student-services person, who routes the ones passing an initial sniff test to two reviewers (faculty/instructional staff), ideally ones whose specialties align with the applicant's. Reviewers score applications on a rubric, adding a five-point-Likert-scale recommendation (from "definitely admit" to "deny").
A third reviewer may be sought if the original reviewers' opinions diverged significantly. The assistant director of the program resolves any remaining in-limbo applications.
Ph.D admissions, however, go through the Ph.D Committee, which consists of tenured faculty.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/28 | 1,308 | 4,714 | <issue_start>username_0: I have my GPA in the 100 point system,
how could I calculate it in 4.0 point system?
I searched, and I didn't find a good answer,<issue_comment>username_1: You should ask your university if they could provide a mapping to a 4-point system. If they don't, you simply have to calculate GPA\*4/100! In case you feel this undermines your prospects, ask your university for a rank certificate which will give the admissions committee a good idea of where you stood in your department.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Unless it is specifically requested, do not do it. Some school even urge you not to do it. It is highly probable, that they know your scale and understand what level means you are smart and hard working. Be sure to include thing like *cum laude*, merit scholarships, ranking within the cohort, ... These things are easier for them to understand and help them to compare you to the other students.
Miscalculating your GPA may result in unintentional deception or undermining your actual achievements. Be careful.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I found the following conversion for Syria, 100 point systems differ so generally the conversion is not always the same. I would use this only as an indicator.
```
| Scale | Grade Description | US Grade | Notes
| 95.00 - 100.00 | الشرف (Honor) | A+ | Arabic: Sharaf
| 85.00 - 94.99 | امتياز (Excellent) | A | Arabic: Imtiyaz
| 75.00 - 84.99 | جيد جداً (Very Good) | B+ | Arabic: Jayed Jeddan
| 65.00 - 74.99 | جيد (Good) | B | Arabic: Jayed
| 60.00 - 64.99 | مقبول (Aceptable) | C | Arabic: Maqboul
| 0.00 - 59.99 | راسب (Fail) | F | Arabic: Raseb; Lowest passing grade
```
According to this source: <http://www.classbase.com/Countries/Syria/Grading-System>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I know this already has an accepted answer but still:
* Why do you need it?
If you need it for grad school, chances are that the university would want "untouched" grades. In other words, they want to see your grades "as is" without any modifications, conversions or other such activities. I had my GPA on a 10 pt scale and most universities asked me to enter it as it is and that the job of conversion would be their headache.
* Has the university provided you with a conversion algorithm?
If a university needs converted GPA, chances are that it provides a conversion algorithm. For instance, University of Washington provided [this](http://www.grad.washington.edu/fac-staff/gpa-gpc/converting_gpas.pdf) (Warning! PDF) to international students. I've seen Berkeley, PSU and a few other universities do something similar.
* Are you willing to spend money?
Columbia University provided the reference for [WES, a GPA Conversion tool.](https://www.wes.org/calculator/login.asp)
Citatation : [IEOR Dept.](http://www.ieor.columbia.edu/pages/admissions/FAQs/index.html#N100EF)
Excerpt of the passage (In case the link dies):
*For the online application, though, you can enter an approximate conversion of your percentage grade. There are many websites that help you with grade conversion, and one of them is available through [WES](http://www.wes.org/gradeconversionguide/). Please note that we do not recommend this site over other ones.*
* Use your university's guidelines. For instance, some universities give students a rough conversion from their scales to US and ECTS scales. See if your university does so.
**Warning: Do not use random GPA conversion schemes from blogs or *shady* websites. While it might not cause much difference, don't risk it.**
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I recently had to deal with this situation when applying. My University did not have an A/B/C... system and would not provide a GPA.
Some of the application forms that I filled out provided instructions for international students, eg: no not enter a GPA. So I would start by reading the application forms.
For those that do not, my strongest recommendation is to contact the person in charge of applications at the department that you are applying to. Ask them what you should do in your specific circumstance. There is usually an email address on the department website for application enquiries.
Unfortunately a few universities never replied to my emails. For their applications I left the GPA field blank if the form allowed. For forms that required a GPA for submission I simply made up what I thought was an appropriate system.
While this didn't seem to hurt my chances, I would only recommend this as a last resort if you can't get a straight answer from the department you are applying to.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/28 | 1,283 | 5,223 | <issue_start>username_0: I know many master's students who get an opportunity to talk to their potential PhD advisors well before applying. In most cases this opportunity is available by the professors with whom they worked for their master's. Moreover, there are many others who establish a contact with professors by mailing them and enquiring about PhD vacancies.
My questions are:
* How important is knowing an advisor prior to applying for PhD?
* Does an email interaction play a vital role when the department makes its admit decisions?
* If email contact *is* important, can a student send out mails to 2-3 professors (working in the same area) in case one of them does not bother to reply?
* To sum up, is applying of any use (especially in top universities) when you have no contacts and only your credentials to bank on?<issue_comment>username_1: Ultimately, the answer depends upon what admissions system a department uses.
* If you need to obtain admission to a group at the same time as (or instead of) the department as a whole, then it is of course absolutely critical that you make contacts ahead of time! In general, I'd even start contacting people well before the time of application. However, make sure that your contact is substantial. When it becomes time to apply, you will have a better shot.
* In many departments, you apply for admission to the department as a whole. After your admission, you select an advisor to work for. In such cases, it's not really critical for you to have a direct contact within the department, since it's not necessarily a given that the professor you want to work for sits on the admissions committee. In such cases, you'll have an indirect connection at best. That said, it's still a good idea to have a contact in a department during the admissions process. You don't lose anything by it—unless the professor has a bad reputation amongst his colleagues (and then you might not want to work for him or her, anyways!). By the way, I would caution **strongly** against going to such a school if there's only one professor at the department you'd be interested in working for. You're taking a very large risk under such circumstances.
Now to answer some of the other issues raised.
**Email or other forms of contact.** Face-to-face or phone interactions rank above email interactions. There's no doubt about that. However, an email interaction—if actually substantial—can also be viable. However, a quick emil telling someone you're applying and interested in working for them won't really get you anywhere.
**Number of people to contact.** There is of course no limit to the number of potential advisors you can contact. To some extent, they're competing for you just as much as you're competing for them!
**Can I apply on credentials alone?** At most top departments (where application is done at the department level), I think it's entirely possible to apply on credentials *and recommendations* alone. Having the contacts can obviously help, but not having it won't ruin your chances for admissions, either.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Just to add to username_1's answer:
If you can send an e-mail that demonstrates that
* You are a strong candidate
* You wrote an e-mail specifically for that professor
* You are familiar with some of that professor's work
then it **may** have an important positive effect. Ideally, you would be able to suggest how things you know or have done could contribute to that professor's research agenda.
Sending a generic e-mail to multiple professors will not help your case and will probably hurt it. I mention this because a large fraction of the e-mails I receive from potential students are obviously part of a mass-mailing.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: To supplement the other answers, here are some do's and don'ts for email contact.
>
> The worst thing you can do is make it seem like you're trying to cast
> a wide net and don't have a clear focus. That's a guaranteed delete.
>
>
>
Therefore,
* Narrow your search to the people whose work you're really interested in
* Read their papers (especially recent ones - I've had people email me about stuff I did 5 year ago - I've moved on :))
* Think about their work. Find something intelligent to say (even a question).
* Email the professor and focus on those questions.
That's most likely to get my (their) attention.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> How important is knowing an advisor prior to applying for PhD?
>
>
>
Super important.
>
> Does an email interaction play a vital role when the department makes its admit decisions?
>
>
>
Sometimes yes. An email + an visit in person to the university could surely increase your probabilities to get accepted.
>
> If email contact is important, can a student send out mails to 2-3 professors (working in the same area) in case one of them does not bother to reply?
>
>
>
Yes, sure, mandatory! Send as emails as you can!
>
> To sum up, is applying of any use (especially in top universities) when you have no contacts and only your credentials to bank on?
>
>
>
Yes, try to contact and visit the professor you want to work with.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/29 | 732 | 3,179 | <issue_start>username_0: * How important is citation count for fresh doctorates? Is this number more important for joining the academia than the industry?
* What is the importance of citations for someone seeking tenure? Does this depend on the field, as papers in an esoteric area can be expected to have few citations?<issue_comment>username_1: In my experience, citation counts are considerably less important than recommendation letters, but they still matter, especially for tenure. For fresh PhDs, high citation counts are definitely helpful, but they're not a hiring requirement for most fields in CS. But for tenure, it's *really* hard to build a successful case without at least one high-impact (post-thesis) publication.
Smart committees know to gather citation counts, publication counts, acceptance rates, impact factors, h-indices, and other quasi-objective numerical data from reasonable sources and to compare them with peers in the applicant's field. (For my promotion cases, for example, my citation counts were mined from Google Scholar, not ISI, and I was compared against other theoretical computer scientists, not other computational-geometers-who-play-with-surface-graphs.) Alas, not every committee is smart.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: To answer the part of the question about freshly-minted doctorates, citation counts are not normally considered as a critical component, either for academia or for industry. Or perhaps I should state that the *lack* of citations for recently published literature is not a major obstacle, particularly in fields with long "half-lives" for research papers. (Some of my papers only got cited after a year or more following publication.) However, a *high* citation count for a paper indicates that the student is doing potentially impactful work, and that can carry weight with a professor or manager doing hiring in either academia or industry.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: You already got some nice answers, but let me share my personal experience. I am a fresh PhD and I got hired on aP position after 3 months of graduation. There was another candidate (my friend) who also graduated same time with me, he had 14 times more citations, 6 times more total impact factor, and almost 10 times the number of publications. But he graduated from a university ranked in 400 and I graduated from world top 20. He published most of work by collaborating with different students from developing countries, while my publications were totally focused on my thesis work. He had 100+ publications during PhD but no patent, my all publications were registered for patent and 2 were bought by the industry.
I was convinced that my friend will get this position not me, but the result was surprising I got hired while he was rejected. So, in my opinion sometime citations and number of publications has minimal impact and you may get hired based on from where you are coming and what exactly you did during PhD. Focused, well organised, and quality work with few publications and citations are better than low quality large number of publications with high citations and high total IF.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/03/29 | 700 | 3,208 | <issue_start>username_0: I have been on both the author and the referee sides, but I was wondering how editors approach their task. In particular, to what level of detail do you read the paper you assign to referees, and when (i.e. before or after receiving the reviews)?<issue_comment>username_1: From conversations with a mentor who was the editor-in-chief for a major journal, if you take the responsibility seriously, you need to have enough of an understanding of the papers assigned to you to figure out which referees will be suitable for a paper, while not taking so much time to read it that you can't process all of them for lack of time. As mentioned above, you need to at least a "high-level" read of the paper before assigning it to the referees. If the paper comes back with mixed reviews, it probably requires a careful re-read; if the reviews are uniform in recommending for or against publication, then it may not be as critical.
However, the editor will want to read papers when revisions come in, so that may mean going through a paper several times during the course of the review process.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In addition to the reply from username_1 to which I agree you need to add several other aspects. First, let's emphasise that good indepth knowledge of the field is vital.
The first stage for an editor is to assess whether the paper is appropriate for the journal, that it follows instructions for authors and is of reasonable technical quality to go to review (figures in order, language ok etc.)
The second stage for an editor is as was already stated to identify and assign referees based on the content of the papeer and reviewers speciality.
The third stage is to assess the reviewers comments and provide the author(s) with an educated summary of the reviewers work and possibly help by providing guidelines as to how to handle the reviews, emphasising some comments and possibly de-emphasising others. It not uncommon that reviews differ widely and in such cases the editor must be able to mediate, alternatively assign additional reviewers. This means apply objectivity and evaluate reviews. It also means you need to understand (at a deeper level) the paper and the comments that go with it.
The fourth stage concerns the revised work. Once the revised version is back from the author you need to evaluate the authors response to the reviewers comments. The author may not agree with the reviewers comments and it is the editors job to judge the revisons and make appropriate decisions (for additional review or accept/reject).
It might be appropriate to point out here that the editor is not just an evaluator but also a mediator. Disagrements between authors and reviewers are common. Some reviewers may have good points but terible ways of conveying them. In such cases the editor must place him/herself above the infected views and convey the essential points being made to the author.
The fifth stage concerns final decisions. This can be a formality but to have an editor sign off on a paper for publication means it has gone through peer review/revisions in a satisfactory way and is sound. So it is an important final step.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/03/29 | 1,051 | 4,601 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm about to embark on a research project in complex systems on my own spare time. It seems like the idea I have is a good one. However, it would be better, for obvious reasons, to have an experienced person guide me. What are the chances that a university professor would agree to guide me while I try and churn this out? (Obviously, I want it to be as professional as possible).
If I don't get anyone on board, what are my chances of publishing, or at least getting a pat on the back from admissions committees when I apply for graduate school? Do they appreciate this kind of thing?<issue_comment>username_1: You've mentioned that you intend to apply to grad school. It would be helpful to know where you are in the academic process: high school, started university, finished university?
Regarding asking for help, I see two distinct phases:
* If you have not yet started the project (and you are not currently a student somewhere), then I think most professors and professional researchers would be very wary to spend any time helping you. Complex systems, is, in particular, a field that attracts a lot of crackpots, and even the most well-intentioned projects of interested amateurs usually fizzle. I think the best bet would be to find someone you already know to provide early consultation, rather than cold-calling a professional at this stage.
If you are enrolled in a university of some kind, then the story is different: the faculty has something of an obligation to talk to eager students. (-:
* If you have already made significant progress and have *specific technical questions*, I think almost anyone would be wiling to help.
One other piece of advice: don't worry too much about talking about your idea. Many 'amateurs' get obsessed with the secrecy of their amazing idea -- this is the road to crackpotdom. I think it would be quite reasonable to state your idea on a site such as mathoverflow and ask whether it is a credible research proposal.
If you can cite recent publications in refereed journals that indicate active interest in the area of your proposed work, then this is a good sign that you have both done your homework and identified an interesting subject of investigation.
That said, even if the thing you are investigating turns out to be interesting only to you, it could still be worth continuing. It might lead somewhere more interesting later, and you would certainly develop useful skills in the process.
>
> If I don't get anyone on board, what are my chances of publishing, or at least getting a pat on the back from admissions committees when I apply for graduate school? Do they appreciate this kind of thing?
>
>
>
A successful independent project, especially one resulting in a publication, would be great material for your grad school app. If your project does have interesting results, it should not be too hard to publish, regardless of your credentials.
Even if it turns out that your work is not publishable in a refereed journal, it might find a home in your school's "journal of undergraduate research" (or something similar), which would also be a nice resume bullet during the grad school application procedure.
Finally, it's probably best to simply avoid the word "amateur".
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I am an undergraduate student, and my experience with attempting research has been frustrating at best. Science is a political ballpark like any other profession. Tact and suave are your best friends when it comes to wooing a potential mentor in academia. Hard work is necessary as well, but hard work alone will only get you so far in the modern socioeconomic landscape. If a professor senses that they can get away with ignoring you then they probably will. This is especially true of large institutions with thousands of students.
All you can really do is just talk to people and hope for the best. Make sure you talk to a number of people, and don't put all of your hopes in just one researcher or professor.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: If you have no research experience, it will be hard to convince any professional scientist to invest in you. Perhaps there is a team of enthusiasts in your community (or even online) who are happy to embark on projects?
Today's networking opportunities increase your leverage massively in finding like-minded people on the net, via blogs, joint software development etc. At some point, you may try and visit workshops of relevant topics, even just for visiting and meeting people and there you may find some suitable contacts.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/03/29 | 823 | 3,513 | <issue_start>username_0: In the last decades, many international scientific associations have been created. Organizations such as AAAS, IEEE, ACM, involve thousands of scientists and professors that have similar scientific backgrounds and objectives.
However, besides technical and resource taks (such as providing documentation, articles, books, and organizing conferences) their aim is to push scientists closer, and let them connect with each other and network.
Concerning this last point, I've always wondered: yes, but how?
I'm member of several scientific societies, and I think I should take more advantage of my membership to connect with other scientists.
But, anyway, except for conferences where we meet in person, how could I use my membership to get more connections?
How would you do?
What's your experience?
Are you member of some scientific associations? How do you take advantage of your membership in professional connections?
Many thanks!<issue_comment>username_1: The best way to take advantage of memberships in professional societies—beyond attending conferences—is helping to *organize* them. This will get you in touch with the other people in your field who are at an early-career phase. (Older faculty typically don't need to, or are higher up on the food chain.) Organizing sessions is also a good way to learn your specialty better, and to keep abreast of who's working on what.
In the long run, it can also bolster your career by providing you with "synergistic" (or "service") activities that show you to be a good member of the research community, which is important for getting job offers and promotions.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I will say though that early in your academic career (and you shouldn't really get involved in such activities BEFORE you have a PhD), you have to seriously weigh doing such organizational work against the corresponding amount of time spent working at your research. It's good to maybe do one or two things, but I wouldn't recommend spending a lot of time on it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: In my experience, the *only* role that membership in professional societies plays in connecting researchers is **slightly lower registration fees for conferences**. That's it. Conferences and workshops in my field are organized almost entirely by volunteers form the research community. Some are affiliated with professional societies (specifically, ACM, SIAM, and IEEE), but some aren't, and the success of a conference or workshop in bringing colleagues together appears to be independent of any sponsoring organization. But since I'm an ACM member, my registration fees for ACM conferences are *slightly* lower, so I'm *slightly* more likely to go.
Other that that, I got nothin'.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: In addition to all that was mentioned before, as a **student member** of some of these associations *(experience with the ACM)*, you may apply for some travel funding... that will enable you to attend a (or some) conference(s) - in case your university/project doen't give you enough money to do that (I personally know about several cases)- , and then you have the opportunity to keep in touch with your peers. It should be good, to a certain extent, for your carrer. Maybe in a simple conference you can meet the guy you've referenced for a couple of time (that doesn't answer your emails... lol), and talk to him about your research projects/ideas, receive some (good) feedback, and so on...
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/29 | 402 | 1,709 | <issue_start>username_0: What's the best approach for talking to faculty that are in distant/unrelated areas during a campus visit for a faculty position?
Is it preferable to show that you are interested in their research and open-minded about learning new things by asking them about their research, or to try to focus on your own research and the expertise that you offer?<issue_comment>username_1: You'll typically have between a half-hour and an hour to talk with them. In that time, you should be able to cover a number of different topics:
1. Your background (briefly)
2. Your academic experience, if any
3. Why you're interested in working in their department
4. Their research focus
5. Their ideas for future research focuses
6. Ways you could fit into their department
Of all those, the only ones you could probably skip is 1. Everything else is pretty crucial to getting a good idea of what the department's research agenda (if they have one) is.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: When you have a meeting with a "distant" potential colleague, you should let the interviewer determine the initial flow of the interview. The important thing is to not spend too much time trying to figure out if this is just for information, or if you're being "tested" in some way. (The answer is, yes, you're probably being tested.)
Sometimes, the interviewer will want to talk about his research, to see if you are willing to think about new ideas, and how to fit them into your work. Sometimes, they will want to talk about your research, to see how well you can explain your ideas and work to people outside of your field. And other times it will fall somewhere in between these two extremes.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/03/29 | 257 | 1,049 | <issue_start>username_0: I got two papers accepted and I am just wondering how to know their policy towards publishing my papers also on CoRR. is it fine to publish the same paper in CoRR and in the conference?<issue_comment>username_1: Normally, it's fine, as long as you submit a pre-print and not the camera ready of the conf proceedings. You can also check these questions: [Does publishing a paper on arXiv prevent me from submitting it to a non-open access journal?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/7/102) and [Submitting a subset of my work to ArXiv](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/40/102).
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In addition to Charles's answer, it depends on how the conference papers are published. If they're published as a special issue of a journal, then it may very well depend on the policies of the journal, as well as those of the conference. (And some conferences may have special restrictions on publications; in those cases, you should check with the conference organizers.)
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/30 | 1,062 | 4,266 | <issue_start>username_0: What are good practices (does and don'ts) when writing a rebuttal for a conference?
For example, for a journal rebuttal letter you can make changes to your paper, and resubmit it for another revision. However, for conferences (and for the tough ones) you cannot make changes to your paper (as far as I know). So you can only address the reviewers comments', don't you? In that case, what are good things to do and what things you should avoid to get a good rebuttal.<issue_comment>username_1: Even for conference papers you can still perform (relatively small) changes after the notification. When trying to rebuttal, it makes much sense to address the main issues raised by the reviewer (and not to pick on the minor changes they suggest). Some good practices include:
* Acknowledge good suggestions made by the reviewer. If those suggestions are easy to fix, say they are fixable and will be fixed in the final-version.
* If the reviewers suggestion makes no sense or is not valid - explain why their review is invalid. However, you should acknowledge the fact that if the reviewers did not get it right, there might be a problem in your paper. Promise to clarify those issues for the final version.
* If the review raise up a valid point that makes your result significantly weaker than you claim, I don't think there is a reason to rebuttal, but other might think differently (trying to justify why it is still a strong result).
* Don't claim that the reviewer has no idea what s/he is talking about (even if that is indeed the case..)
Bottomline, you should be respectful and polite to the reviewers. Thank them for their suggestions and suggest to fix whatever is fixable even if you think nothing is wrong.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Usually, a conference enforcing a rebuttal process will also define what kind of rebuttal an author can write. For instance, the conference [ACM CCS](http://www.sigsac.org/ccs.html) (considered as one of the best conferences in security) enforces a rebuttal phase. Let me quote what they wrote during last year edition:
>
> You now have the opportunity to view the preliminary reviews of your
> submission and, if you wish, enter a response limited to 500 words.
> This response is completely optional and there is no requirement to
> respond. If you do, the deadline is [3 days after receiving this message].
>
>
> Your response must focus on the following:
>
>
> * Answers to specific questions raised by reviewers (if any).
> * Factual errors in the reviews.
>
>
> We stress that your paper is being evaluated as submitted. You may
> NOT use your response to provide new research results or reformulate
> the presentation.
>
>
>
Another conference, [POST](http://web.cs.wpi.edu/~guttman/post12/), uses a similar process with similar requirements, with an extra suggestion that I think it's worth mentioning:
>
> * Your response will be seen by all PC members who have
> access to the discussion of your paper. Please be polite
> and constructive.
>
>
>
So, the bottom line is: keep it factual, polite and constructive. If a reviewer doesn't like your paper, then it's unlikely you can change his mind during the rebuttal phase. However, it's just a good opportunity to address some very specific point. For instance, if a reviewer asks: "Isn't your approach undecidable?", then you can answer "yes/no, and we can include the proof in the final version of the paper" (and ideally, link to a research report where the proof is already written). Or if a reviewer wrote "this problem has been already solved 20 years ago by X", then you can answer "We released one of X's assumption, that we believed was too strong for this particular context".
Basically, the rebuttal might be unlikely to change a particular review (unless there was an obvious mistake), but can encourage the PC Chair to ask for another review of your paper. And Jeff's remark is very good, don't write the rebuttal the same day than you receive it :)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: For Computer Science conferences, I found this article by three AI researchers/profs very helpful: <https://medium.com/@deviparikh/how-we-write-rebuttals-dc84742fece1>
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/30 | 1,000 | 4,489 | <issue_start>username_0: As I've already saw, many people here are related to admission process. And I want to ask their opinion on what is priority of all stuff from application: what is the most important (letters of recommendation or personal statement, GPA or maybe test scores), what is less important for admission and what is the least important? Would admission committee prefer applicant with good scores, high GPA, but with not outstanding personal statement and without letters from famous or well-known professors (for example, my scientific advisor in undergraduate school get his PhD only a couple years ago), or student with less GPA, test scores, but with letter from university's prof?
Some graduate schools require General GRE (Graduate Record Examinations). Would it better to send GRE scores (general or subject or both) even if it's not required (in case of relatively good result), or them wouldn't be considered at all?<issue_comment>username_1: If we're talking about a PhD candidate, the most relevant factors, for me, are those that demonstrate the applicant's capability to be a productive researcher. That means a compelling statement of purpose (why the applicant wants to be a PhD student, with ideas for potential areas of exploration, if not necessarily an entirely thought-out project) counts for quite a bit.
Equally valuable are letters of recommendation that *actually talk about the candidate*. I don't care for a letter that regurgitates the student's academic performance, or that reads like a template in which the name of the applicant was swapped in for somebody else's. That does me no good in evaluating a candidate, and to some extent can work as a mark *against* a candidate, since it indicates a lapse in decision-making (why get a letter from someone who doesn't know you well?). A really good letter of recommendation, however, can sometimes make the difference between somebody who's on the bubble and somebody who gets an offer of admission.
Transcripts and test scores do matter, but for me are less valuable, because they don't give me a lot to go on—it's not easy to tell what's a "good" performance and what isn't, particularly when schools use "nonstandard" scales (such as reporting scores out of 100 without telling me what the average score is!).
The other factor that we do here that not all programs do is an interview (in person or via Skype). This is perhaps the most important part of the process for us, because we can see if the paper record matches the "actual" applicant. Sometimes candidates look good in writing, but can't really talk knowledgeably about what they have studied. That's usually a clear sign that someone really won't be a good fit as a graduate student.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: As username_1 says, what we are looking for is **concrete evidence of research potential.** So, in decreasing order of importance:
* Decent grades and (if required) test scores; otherwise, no one will read your application at all. Here, "decent grades" means three-point-something from a good undergraduate program.
* Research publications, if you have any.
* Recommendation letters. You **must** have at least one (and preferably three) strong recommendation letter from a faculty member who praises your research potential in specific and credible detail. Letters that draw specific comparisons to other successful PhD students are best. Letters from junior faculty are perfectly fine; they can draw comparisons to their recent graduate school peers. Letters that say only "He got an A+ in my class" are useless; we can read your transcript.
* Research statement. Your statement **must** discuss your research experience and interests in specific and credible detail. A statement that only describes your sources of inspiration ("Ever since man walked on the moon...") and/or brags about coursework is useless.
* Other concrete evidence of independent research/scholarship/creativity.
* No red flags. Potential red flags include low grades in classes central to your proposed research area, missing key classes entirely, abysmal test scores, negative (or overly delicate) recommendation letters, recommendation letters obviously written by the applicant, spelling and grammar mistakes in the research statement, any evidence of immaturity or personality issues, and any evidence that the applicant is not prepared/informed/serious about research.
Notice what's not listed.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer] |
2012/03/31 | 846 | 3,675 | <issue_start>username_0: Before diving into "real research", there are some students who prefer to learn bare minimum prerequisite courses/material and then start off reading survey papers and develop their skills.
There are others who prefer to go through courses from Introduction to Advanced to Independent Study before finally diving in.
The former would probably face problems of fundamentals while the latter spends too much time learning things which might not be completely useful.
**At what point should one (Assume, if necessary, that I am talking about STEM) decide to dive into research while making sure that one is neither being too hasty nor slow?**
Take for e.g. that a person wishes to code a software in Python which does engineering calculations. He would either read something like Intro to Python and then directly start coding or he could also read documentations of other Math libraries, similar libraries in C/Fortran, study coding efficiency and thumb rules and then start.
**How do you prevent yourself from taking up too little or too much time to begin?**<issue_comment>username_1: This isn't a one-size-fits-all problem. People should move into research when they're ready to do so, and in consultation with their advisors, when appropriate.
That said, the approach I'd tend to advocate is to ramp down classwork while ramping up research. In that sense, the student controls the pace at which she learns, and can adjust the selection of coursework as time goes on to support or to complement the research work. Moreover, there's generally the assumption on the part of the advisor that the first few months aren't going to feature a lot of useful scientific results; they'll mainly be spent learning techniques and tools and basic concepts and understanding.
So the way to figure out if one is ready to start research is by doing some "low-hanging fruit" problems: if the student can handle the basics, then she can start moving on to the rest. If not, then at least she has a better handle on what she needs.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: As username_1 says, there's no single answer. As with most things in life, it's hard to know when you're "ready" to do something. The best way is to jump in when you *feel* like you don't need to prep any more, and then be prepared to shore up weaknesses as you spot them.
Over time, you'll learn how to prepare yourself to embark on a new research topic: some people like to start solving a problem first, and then return to the literature when they get stuck. Some people like to read a few key papers to get a sense of the main open problems and techniques, and then go off and play.
The only important thing is that you do *something*, and not just wait on the sidelines for a mythical feeling of "readiness" to emerge. Be fearless, like a 2 year old who doesn't know enough to be afraid :)
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I've never understood the dichotomy between “preparing to do research” and actually doing research. I have always learned best with a target problem in mind. I always have to learn new fundamentals to solve any new problem. Most of the time I spend on research is "wasted", and most of what I learn is "useless", and that's okay.
The difference between just solving interesting problems and doing "real research" is pretty small. In both cases, you're completely ignorant at the beginning; what distinguishes "real research" is that everyone else in the world is ignorant, too. As long as you're comfortable working with no hope of finding your answers in the back of a book, you're as ready as you'll ever be. Jump in!
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/04/01 | 2,777 | 10,323 | <issue_start>username_0: I am expected to finish my Ph.D in mathematics (if relevant, more specifically - in commutative/homological algebra) by the end of this academic year. I am studying in a somewhat minor university, although my supervisor is a well know figure in his field.
Following my supervisor's advice, I submitted applications for postdoctoral positions in about 20 top level universities in the US. As most of these universities already finished hiring for this year, I suspect I made the mistake aiming too high, and would probably get negative answers from all the different employers.
Assuming this is the case, I am now wondering what should be the next step in my academic career. One option is to stay at my current university for another year (but with a much lower salary, as my scholarship will come to an end). I should mention that my supervisor highly discourages this option, as he thinks that I should get more involved in the research community of my field, and my current university is a poor place to do so.
Alternatively, I am wondering if there are any other opportunities for postdocs in Europe or the US for the 2013 academic year, in my relevant field, of which the deadline still did not pass.
Any advice or idea for my situation would be helpful.
Thank you<issue_comment>username_1: There are several major websites on which jobs in mathematics, including postdocs, tend to be posted. Most importantly (in the US) [mathjobs.org](http://www.mathjobs.org), but also the [AMS's service](http://www.ams.org/profession/employment-services/eims/eims-home) and others. (See [this mathoverflow question](https://mathoverflow.net/questions/952/where-are-mathematics-jobs-advertised-if-not-on-mathjobs-e-g-in-europe-and-else) for many more.) Postdoc positions can take a while to sort out, since many of them are filled (or even created) in response to what happened earlier in the hiring season, so there may still be opportunities, especially if you're willing to look outside the US.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: In addition to AMS, you can also have a look at [DMANET](http://dmatheorynet.blogspot.it/), they have many different positions in maths/TCS, but it's quite active, so it might worth browsing the announcements.
Also, if you see a job announcement that you really like, don't hesitate to contact informally the responsible, even if the deadline is passed (and even if the deadline is quite old). It's possible that the position was not filled-in, and that they still have the budget. It's also possible that they are preparing another, similar position. You can also contact directly some professors you might interested in working with, even if they haven't advertised anything, you never know :)
Good luck!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I'd like to give you some advices:
1) **Strong reccomandation**: do not choose an university where to apply by focusing only on its excellence, but choose it only if there is a research group that studies your research stuff.
Working for some years in a research group that does not match with your scientific objective could be a very dangerous error.
2) After identifying which universities have a research group focused on your fields, try to apply for the best, basing on [Times Higher Education Ranking](http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/engineering-and-IT.html), or another indicator.
Good luck!
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: Unfortunately, I'm afraid your supervisor gave you very risky advice. For anyone other than a real star (at the level of the top students at the top schools), applying to just 20 top departments is likely to lead to disappointment. You may be at that level - of course I have no idea - but coming from a less famous university also puts you at a disadvantage, even with a well-known advisor.
As several people have pointed out here, there are still some jobs available for next year, but many of the most attractive possibilities will be gone. At this point, you should look for advertisements but also explore other possibilities. Write to departments to see whether they have any last-minute openings (e.g., a sabbatical replacement), write to faculty members to see if they have postdoc funding from recent grants, etc.
Ideally, a trusted mentor should inquire about these possibilities, not you, although of course this depends on whether you have someone who is willing to do this, such as your advisor. A mentor can explain that you only ended up in this situation because of following questionable advice, and your application was excellent otherwise, so a department that gets you now will be seizing a great opportunity rather than hiring someone nobody else wanted. (Of course, your advisor may feel uncomfortable loudly announcing that he gave you bad advice.) A mentor can also contact friends in other departments, collaborators, etc. in ways you probably can't. But it's much better for you to inquire than for nobody to.
As for staying at your current university, I'd recommend remaining a graduate student rather than getting your Ph.D. and becoming an intructor, unless there's a huge funding difference or you have already spent an unusually long time in grad school. Continuing with a one-year position at the university you attended for grad school is tantamount to announcing "I didn't get a job last year" on your CV, and that can hurt your job search compared with simply graduating a year later.
If you stay in grad school, perhaps your advisor could help arrange for you to spend a semester or even year visiting another university, which could help take care of the "getting involved in the research community" side of things. However, the funding situation for that can be complicated, so it may require luck or someone who can call in some favors.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: There is scads of postdoc money available both inside the U.S. and worldwide for people interested in doing research, really money exists.
There are not however faculty positions for all those postdocs, at least not in countries that pay anywhere near U.S. wages. I know French people working as professors in South America, Americans working in Asia and the Middle East, etc. It's certainly a grand adventure which you should consider, but it's effectively a one way trip because if you stay then you'd never earn enough to retire in the U.S.
American universities will look down upon your time abroad if you try coming back as an academic too. Even very low ranked universities will realize you've taught in much more traditional systems that probably don't coddle the students nearly so much, meaning they won't trust your teaching.
Europe does not follow the U.S.'s job calendar, meaning you may apply whenever you wish, but you must watch the job sites like [math-jobs.com](http://www.math-jobs.com/) year round, which is annoying. I believe many asian countries have schedules, but not necessarily the same ones, watch the job sites.
There is an issue that the further you travel from the U.S. the more your school's standing hurts you. I'd expect you can find postdoc money, references, etc. from Europeans or Asians who know your advisor, but this support counts for very little when you apply for a permanent faculty position.
You should imho simply take an industry job if you wish to remain in the U.S. long term, but if you want an adventure there is one to be had. Adventure isn't for everyone but you only live once. ;)
p.s. Don't limit yourself too much when applying, retool into computational homological algebra if an opportunity presents itself (and you can program well).
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_6: I can only answer your second question, being in somewhat same kind of situation. (job in algebra)Let me first start with a job link:
<http://www.euro-math-soc.eu/node/3432>
Some of the European jobs have later deadlines. You can apply there. Try euro-math-jobs, nordic-math-jobs, and don't forget to write to people asking about whether there are groups having funding for postdocs.And do look at the mathoverflow question they mentioned above (I did too, and it helped).
Also, check this: <http://homotopical.wordpress.com/jobs/postdoc/>
(You will find it very informative).
Best of luck!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: Here's a list as a community wiki (feel free to edit), for primarily temporary Math. positions as researchers (a.k.a. "post-docs", "non-tenured", etc., etc. : the classification varies):
Mainly in North America
-----------------------
* [Chronicle](https://chroniclevitae.com/job_search?job_search%5Bdistance_from_zip%5D=10&job_search%5Bemployment_type%5D=&job_search%5Binstitution_type%5D=&job_search%5Bkeywords%5D=&job_search%5Blocation%5D=&job_search%5Bposition_type%5D=63&job_search%5Bstart_date%5D=&job_search%5Bzip_code%5D=&utf8=%E2%9C%93)
* [Canadian Mathematical Society](https://cms.math.ca/Employment/)
* [American Mathematical Society](http://eims.ams.org/jobs/)
* [Mathematical Association of America](https://www.mathclassifieds.org/jobseeker/search/results/?keywords=&kfields=&t731=47910&t732=49077&t735=&max=25&site_id=1925&search=)
Mainly in Europe
----------------
* [Société Mathématiques de France](http://postes.smai.emath.fr/postdoc/)
* [EURAXESS](https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/jobs/search/field_research_field/mathematics-297)
* [Nordic-Math-Job](http://www.maths.lth.se/nordic/)
* [MyScience.orq](https://www.myscience.org/jobs?ctrl=1&p=&d=Mathematics&r=&t=Senior+Researcher&q=)
Australia
---------
* [Australian Mathematical Society](http://www.austms.org.au/Jobs/Academic_listings.html)
All Around the World
--------------------
* [Math Jobs](http://www.all-acad.com/Jobs/Mathematics_Statistics/)
* [MathJobs.Org](https://www.mathjobs.org/jobs)
* [Academicpositions.eu](https://academicpositions.eu/find-jobs/?s%5B%5D=&fields%5B%5D=mathematics&positions%5B%5D=post-doc)
* [European Mathematical Society](http://euro-math-soc.eu/jobs)
Other Ressources
----------------
* [This post on math.sxe](https://mathoverflow.net/q/952/82852)
* [This long blog post](https://homotopical.wordpress.com/jobs/postdoc/)
* [The Mathematics Jobs Wiki](http://notable.math.ucdavis.edu/wiki/Mathematics_Jobs_Wiki)
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/04/02 | 936 | 4,117 | <issue_start>username_0: This question in some sense, complements [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/324/how-do-you-get-a-bad-transcript-past-ph-d-admissions). Suppose a good student completes his master's degree in a less-than-top-ranked university. He has excellent academic grades both in his bachelor's and master's, but unfortunately has not experienced the best research 'atmosphere' in his post-grad and so does not have any publications thus far in his career.
It is a hugely relevant practical issue: low-ranked universities woo good students by providing them full funding plus scholarships for their master's, so there are many cases where students prefer them to top colleges where funding is not assured. After completion of graduation, these students desire to go for a PhD in top universities. So the question is this:
* How does a bright student with excellent grades but lacking in publications secure an admit in a top school?
One obvious answer is to formulate an excellent research problem and to convince professors of his research ideas pertaining to the problem. Any other useful suggestions?<issue_comment>username_1: You have to make the case that your research potential outweighs your lack of research output.
The only places to make that case are your research statement and your letters. Both your statement and your letters should make it clear that *you are an active researcher,* even though you are not **yet** published. Your statement should describe the specific research problem(s) that you are pursuing, promising and specific partial results, and a specific and well-informed plan of attack.
Similarly, letters from faculty at your MS department should describe your independence, stubbornness, intellectual maturity, and so on, in specific and credible detail. **When you ask for letters, ask your references specifically if they can write a strong letter about your research potential.** Ideally, your references should admit that their department doesn't provide you with the environment that you need to thrive as a researcher. And it really hurts to write “[Bravo] can do better than us,” so it better be true.
Admissions committees (at least the ones I've been on) do take applicants' previous institutions into account when judging research records. We know that applicants from most 4-year liberal arts colleges don't have as many opportunities for computer science research as applicants from (say) MIT, so our expectations for MIT applicants are higher. So your lack of publications may not hurt you as much if your MS department is *known* to have a weak research atmosphere.
However: **Do not suggest in your application that your lack of publications is your MS department's fault.** You may believe it's their fault, and you might even be right. But if you actually *write* that it's their fault, you'll come across as someone eager to blame others for your weaknesses. No matter how good you are at research, nobody will admit you if they think you're a jerk.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: This is another one of those questions that defies easy categorization. If you are applying, for instance, to a "hard" engineering discipline, it's not normally expected that a MSc would have any "external" publication record of any kind, and, as such, not having one would not weight against the candidate in admissions considerations. (All things being equal, of course, the candidate with a publication record might be prioritized over one without.) Similarly, any student coming from a European bachelor's/master's system, where the expected output is a master's thesis, but not necessarily journal publications, I would weight accordingly. (I might ask for a copy of the master's thesis.)
Similarly, if the degree is coursework-only, then this should be clearly stated as part of the application. The challenge will then be to get some support from the letters of reference of your capability to do research.
For fields where some publication record is expected, I'd follow username_1's advice.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/04/02 | 906 | 4,011 | <issue_start>username_0: My research paper was stolen by the co-author and published as his own. What do I do? All the data the paper is based on is my own work. I got it accepted in another journal but now I cannot get it published according to the copyright terms and conditions.<issue_comment>username_1: The first thing would be to contact the editor of the journal that published your co-author's work, and to explain the problem to them. If the proofs that it is your own research are sufficient, they might consider the previously published paper as plagiarism, which should unblock your own publication. In this process, it might be worth contacting also the journal to which you submitted, so that they can confirm the date at which they received your submission.
Right now, I would say that the best move is to contact the two journals editors with the proofs, and see if they can sort things out. You can also consider in the mean time publishing your paper to an open repository (such as [arXiv](http://arxiv.org)), if it does not interfere with the copyright policy of the journal you want to publish to.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: My first advice is to calm down.
Your question and your comments sound emotional to me. The more emotional you are, the worse situation you would be in. Since the other party is your prof, the burden of proof is on your shoulder. You need to deal with it carefully.
I am not even sure you have a problem. From what you have said in the question and comments, your prof submitted a paper with only his name on the paper to a journal without your prior knowledge. Then he gave you his approval to submit another paper of probably the same contents to another journal with both your name and his name on it(you said he is the co-author).
The above is what I understood from your question and your comments. If all are true, the issue is his problem, not yours. Because he is the one who did the double submission, not you. All you have to do to clear up this issue is to present evidence which shows that you got his approval before you submitted the paper to the journal.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Let me echo scaaahu's excellent advice: Calm down. Obviously you're scared, and with good reason, but you need to approach the situation calmly and professionally. Otherwise, *even if you are in the right* it will be difficult for other people to take your concerns seriously.
Your comments suggest (to me) that the situation is not as straightforward as your initial post describes. Without considerably more detail about what happened — **which would be inappropriate for you to post here** — it's difficult to make specific suggestions.
I think you need to discuss the situation with someone who understands both the politics in your department and the publication culture in your field. Find another senior faculty member in your department (or in a different department, or in the dean's office) who you can trust to keep confidence. (Yes, this can be difficult, but ask around.) Write up a timeline of events in advance, and make copies of documentation for each event in the timeline. Calmly and carefully describe the situation. Just present the facts; don't panic, and don't accuse. (One of the facts is "I'm scared"; that's okay.) Ask your confidant how to proceed. **Listen to them.**
In the best case, this is a simple misunderstanding, and talking to an informed but neutral third party is the best way to convince you to relax. In the worst case, your department chair is being egregiously unethical, and in particular threatening your chances at graduation, in which case you absolutely need a senior faculty advocate to help you navigate the resulting political mine field. (Your primary goal in this case should be to graduate and get out, not to optimize your grade or to punish your department chair.) Most likely, the actual situation is somewhere in between those two extremes.
Good luck.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer] |
2012/04/02 | 1,289 | 5,558 | <issue_start>username_0: OK, here is the deal:
I am a computer science student in Turkey graduating this June. I have applied to PhD programs in the US to work in computer architecture. I have a decent bachelor's degree, and my college is reasonably respected. Before admissions, I contacted some professors, and they seemed very interested in my background. During admissions, I was interviewed by some other professors. However, it turned out that there was only one offer with a scholarship, which I decided not to accept. (You may ask why I didn't opt for that one, the response may make the issue personal. But at least I can say that I didn't waste a resource that can be used by someone more enthusiastic about it.)
Now, I am in the middle of nowhere. The opportunity to work in computer architecture in my country is really small. During my bachelor's studies, I took all computer architecture related courses, even graduate ones. Plus, I almost missed all the graduate program admissions in Europe (with scholarships).
What do you think are my options? My idea is to get into a graduate program and be an academic.
* I may start a master's degree in my country, but the area most professors teach that most relates to my studies is embedded systems. In fact, I doubt whether this may take me away from my intentions.
* I can reapply during spring term admissions. (I have been told that these admissions are way more selective than during the fall term and this brings extra financial cost.)
* I may work in the industry for a year, then reapply. (But how about my new profile for admissions? Plus, who wants someone, who is probably leaving soon, to hire?)
So I need some serious advice.
Here is some information about me: I have 3.6 overall and 3.85 major GPA. 6 different people have written references for me.<issue_comment>username_1: The first thing would be to contact the editor of the journal that published your co-author's work, and to explain the problem to them. If the proofs that it is your own research are sufficient, they might consider the previously published paper as plagiarism, which should unblock your own publication. In this process, it might be worth contacting also the journal to which you submitted, so that they can confirm the date at which they received your submission.
Right now, I would say that the best move is to contact the two journals editors with the proofs, and see if they can sort things out. You can also consider in the mean time publishing your paper to an open repository (such as [arXiv](http://arxiv.org)), if it does not interfere with the copyright policy of the journal you want to publish to.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: My first advice is to calm down.
Your question and your comments sound emotional to me. The more emotional you are, the worse situation you would be in. Since the other party is your prof, the burden of proof is on your shoulder. You need to deal with it carefully.
I am not even sure you have a problem. From what you have said in the question and comments, your prof submitted a paper with only his name on the paper to a journal without your prior knowledge. Then he gave you his approval to submit another paper of probably the same contents to another journal with both your name and his name on it(you said he is the co-author).
The above is what I understood from your question and your comments. If all are true, the issue is his problem, not yours. Because he is the one who did the double submission, not you. All you have to do to clear up this issue is to present evidence which shows that you got his approval before you submitted the paper to the journal.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Let me echo scaaahu's excellent advice: Calm down. Obviously you're scared, and with good reason, but you need to approach the situation calmly and professionally. Otherwise, *even if you are in the right* it will be difficult for other people to take your concerns seriously.
Your comments suggest (to me) that the situation is not as straightforward as your initial post describes. Without considerably more detail about what happened — **which would be inappropriate for you to post here** — it's difficult to make specific suggestions.
I think you need to discuss the situation with someone who understands both the politics in your department and the publication culture in your field. Find another senior faculty member in your department (or in a different department, or in the dean's office) who you can trust to keep confidence. (Yes, this can be difficult, but ask around.) Write up a timeline of events in advance, and make copies of documentation for each event in the timeline. Calmly and carefully describe the situation. Just present the facts; don't panic, and don't accuse. (One of the facts is "I'm scared"; that's okay.) Ask your confidant how to proceed. **Listen to them.**
In the best case, this is a simple misunderstanding, and talking to an informed but neutral third party is the best way to convince you to relax. In the worst case, your department chair is being egregiously unethical, and in particular threatening your chances at graduation, in which case you absolutely need a senior faculty advocate to help you navigate the resulting political mine field. (Your primary goal in this case should be to graduate and get out, not to optimize your grade or to punish your department chair.) Most likely, the actual situation is somewhere in between those two extremes.
Good luck.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer] |
2012/04/02 | 654 | 2,784 | <issue_start>username_0: By reading the very intersting question [*Priority of application materials for admission decision*](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/958/priority-of-application-materials-for-admission-decision) about which material is most important to be admitted as PhD candidate, or PostDoc or researcher, in a university, I started wondering on how and how much soft skills count, for the same objective.
As you know, besides academic degrees, grades, publications, reference letters, technical skills, project proposals, and etc., there are also **soft skills** that are considered by talent scouts to choose who engage.
For *soft skills*, I mean competence like:
* public speaking
* active listening
* ability to manage relationships
* ability to show interest
In scientific admission procedures, e.g. for PhD or PostDoc admission, **how much do soft skills count?**<issue_comment>username_1: I don't really know for PhD, but for Postdocs, from what I've seen and heard, these skills count *a lot*, especially when the recruitment process is well structured, as I experienced it in the UK and in Germany. Basically, the recruitment process consists of three steps:
* Sending the CV, application, reference letters, etc. At this point, soft-skill do not really count, although knowing how to write a good cover letter can help.
* Seminar/Public talk: the applicant is invited to give a presentation of his research work to a public audience (usually including the committee, and the staff from the department).
* Interview: the recruitment committee interviews the applicant.
In the steps 2 and 3, the soft-skills are very important. Basically, all applicants reaching step 2 have good credentials, so it's somehow already established that they can write papers and solve research problems, so the quality of the talk and the attitude during the interview are crucial.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: For a graduate student, soft skills matter only in as much as they pertain to good writing and to having good interview skills (if interviews are conducted).
If you write a poor statement of purpose with an otherwise solid application, it can severely hurt your chances of admission. Similarly, in a department that does interviews, a good interview can significantly improve your chances—raising you from "on the bubble" to "admit." Of course, the converse could be true—if you come off as arrogant or incompetent in your interview, that can completely kill your chances at admission.
However, those are skills that can be worked on via practice, and most universities offer workshops and training on how to improve writing and handle job interviews. Students should take advantage of those opportunities when they're available.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/04/02 | 609 | 2,564 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm a exchange student that just arrived in the US. The professor is asking us to do this:
>
> Please write and submit brief synopses of each paper before class which include the following:
>
>
> * the title and authors
> * a one paragraph summary of the paper (do not copy the abstract - how would you summarize the paper?)
> * 1-3 things you found most interesting (at most one paragraph)
> * 1-3 questions that arose for you while reading the paper (at most one paragraph)
>
>
>
I never did this before, specially in English. How should this look like ? You have rules to do (spacing, font, etc.) ? And are the "Title and authors" for my text or the authors of the papers ?<issue_comment>username_1: Unless your professor specified something, you can basically use whatever format you want. Make sure that it looks professional though (i.e. don't use Comic Sans). The titles and authors would be those of the paper you are summarising.
Apart from that, the structure is already given. I would probably put each synopsis on a separate page with something like "Summary of ..." and the title of the paper as heading.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: This is a fairly simple assignment. To answer your questions:
* Obviously your name and class information should appear at the top of the assignment (unless otherwise instructed by the professor).
* The "title and authors" referred to by the professor are in reference to the paper that you are discussing, not you!
* You are told to write in complete paragraphs. That means no bullet lists, so write everything as complete, well-structured sentences.
* Spacing and font are up to you, but in general, I'd use at least 1.5 times normal spacing and 11 pt or larger font (unless you're working with LaTeX, in which case the formatting is handled for you).
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I think this is a really useful habit to get into when you are just starting to read the literature. It lets you look back and quickly refresh yourself about what you found interesting in the paper. I would suggest that as you develop a reference library (e.g., LaTeX bib file or Endnote) that you keep some of the content in that file. As I think grades are less important in grad school than knowledge, use a format that makes it easiest to archive with your bibliographic software.
If you use LaTeX (and possibly in MS Word) you could probably write a citation style and document class that would automagically build the document from the bib data.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/04/02 | 439 | 1,868 | <issue_start>username_0: In May, I'll be visiting a department at Columbia University in the US for a few days. What's the etiquette on visiting (answers relevant to US in general are welcome, to prevent this question getting too localised)?
I'd like to spend some time with quite a few of the researchers, and compare notes on ongoing work. I'll read their recent publications in advance. Should I be inviting staff out for a coffee and a chat; or dinner; or a talk in the lab?
Context: I'm a faculty researcher, and would be looking to spend a bit of time with postdoc researchers, and those professors whose jobs are primarily research, rather than admin or teaching.<issue_comment>username_1: I think you are the person who would be invited out to lunch, dinner etc. as you are the guest `:)` ! However, there is nothing wrong with inviting your opposite number to talk in an informal setting. The only consideration is that you know the lay of the land!
Depending on how many days you would be spending at the US university, you might want to make a strategy on conversations and prospective collaborations.
I am assuming you would have results to show and tell and with a punchline at that. That generally helps.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Your host has a responsibility to make your schedule in such a way that it will be full and engaging.
Sometimes, it can be difficult to fill the schedule - it requires that people respond to the hosts invitations to meet with you. Your input can be helpful both in filling out the schedule and making sure that your visit is productive.
You can request to meet with specific people and ask for feedback from your host on who you might want to speak to.
I think it would be a good idea to request to meet with graduate students in addition to postdocs and senior scientists.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/04/02 | 1,161 | 4,589 | <issue_start>username_0: I am a finishing doctoral student (graduation in ~7-9 months) and I would love to get an year or so of postdoctoral experience. I've come to understand that a postdoc is generally paid by funds created for the project (s)he is a postdoc for.
How should I go about "growing my own" postdoc opportunity? In other words, how should I go about soliciting for funds for research ideas? I know it is a rather daunting task. Although I have participated in writing several proposals (some of which were accepted), I have never been the PI or co-PI for any of those projects -- generally just one of the grad students working on it.
I am at a US university and have already taken at look at NSF's website.. Being an international student, I don't have all the options available to domestic candidates.
This is what I've thought of so far:
1. Come up with feasible research idea and approach advisor.
2. Discuss idea and possible collaborations.
3. Try to categorize it into [NSF's](http://www.nsf.gov/funding/browse_all_funding.jsp) or any other funding agencies categories.
4. Write a proposal in the summer and submit it during the next window of opportunity.
Any pointers, tips or funding agencies I might also look at?
Some background:
I am a PhD candidate in Mechanical engineering with emphasis on fluid dynamics, applied mathematics, energy systems and space systems.<issue_comment>username_1: There are a few programs, such as the [Newton Fellowships](http://www.newtonfellowships.org/) and the [Humboldt Fellowship](http://www.humboldt-foundation.de/web/humboldt-fellowship-postdoc.html) which are designed expressly for international researchers; however, those programs are based out of the UK and Germany, respectively. There is also the [Fulbright Program](http://fulbright.state.gov/grants/which-grant-is-right-for-me) which offers opportunities for students and scholars to come to the US. These may or may not be applicable.
However, this is largely a "chicken-and-egg" problem; coming from abroad, you won't be able to apply for your own money at US agencies (except ones sponsoring programs like the Fulbright). So the logistics of this might be very challenging to coordinate.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: From what I've seen, you've just described perfectly what many professors would view as the "ideal postdoc". As one of the main goals of your postdoctoral training is to gain experience writing your own grant proposals, your four steps are very close to what you should be doing.
The most crucial part for you will be finding a postdoctoral advisor with whom you get along. As is typical in research settings, look for someone with significant research experience who has a successful record of getting proposals funded. Given that this is your goal, this is possibly more important now than their publication record. You should be able to find this out by asking around the department and speaking to graduate students, and even just asking the advisor directly about their recently funded grant applications. Once you find someone, everything else should go fairly smoothly.
>
> 1) Come up with feasible research idea and approach advisor.
>
>
> 2) Discuss idea and possible collaborations.
>
>
>
You should do this both on your own and through talking to your advisor. Remember that one of the main factors driving whether a postdoctoral grant is accepted is [previous experience of both the postdoctoral fellow himself and the advisor](http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/gpg_2.jsp#IIC2j); consider ideas in areas where you have experience doing research *and* your advisor has experience mentoring.
While you can consider collaborations, my postdoc advisor told me that at *most* I should consider one other collaborator, other my advisor himself, as collaborative proposals are more [complicated](http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/gpg_2.jsp#IID4), both from a submission and administrative standpoint.
>
> 3) Try to categorize it into NSF's or any other funding agencies categories.
>
>
>
Your advisor should already be aware of relevant funding opportunities.
>
> 4) Write a proposal in the summer and submit it during the next window of opportunity.
>
>
>
I assume you wrote "summer" because you were thinking of a particular grant, but different opportunities have different grant submission deadlines. Again, talk to your advisor to see which grants the thinks would be a good fit for you, and check out their respective deadlines.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer] |
2012/04/03 | 1,215 | 5,005 | <issue_start>username_0: Many researchers have unpublished data. Some of this data may never be published as a manuscript. But I would like to make scholarly contributions of data that I have no intent on publishing, e.g. by publishing a "data paper"
The term "data paper" may be too new to be familiar, so here is a description from the [Ecological Archives](http://esapubs.org/archive/default.htm) website:
>
> Data Papers are compilations and syntheses of data sets and associated
> metadata deemed to be of significant interest to the ESA membership
> and the scholarly community. Data papers are peer reviewed and are
> announced in abstract form in the appropriate print journal as a Data
> Paper. Data papers differ from review or synthesis papers published in
> other ESA journals in that data papers normally will not test or
> refine ecological theory. Data Papers can facilitate the rapid
> advancement of ecological knowledge and theory at the same time that
> they disseminate information. In addition, Ecological Archives
> provides a reward mechanism (in the form of peer-reviewed, citable
> objects) for the substantial effort required to compile and adequately
> document large data sets of ecological interest
>
>
>
This brings up the following questions:
What makes a good data repository?
Which data repositories provide a doi: for raw data?
Should published data be separate from articles on a CV?<issue_comment>username_1: There are a few things that I would consider when choosing a data repository:
* Does it let you release your data under a license you're happy with?
+ Applying too restrictive a license can prevent anyone from doing anything useful with the data, so think about what you're prepared to allow. In particular, remember that most of the research done in academia could be considered "commercial" from a legal perspective. On the other hand, you may wish to choose a license that ensures you get credit for your work. You may or may not agree with them, but reading the [Panton Principles](http://pantonprinciples.org/) will give you some idea of the issues here. Also take a look at this [list of licenses written with data in mind](http://opendefinition.org/licenses#Data)
* How easy will your data be to find?
+ People will only use your data if they can find it. I recommend Googling (other search engines are available) for some datasets you know of in your field and see if they come up — those repositories which are indexed by the major search engines will put you at a big advantage when it comes to attracting citations.
* What repositories are well known in your field?
+ Your institution may have a repository which you can easily deposit in, but it won't be the first place colleagues in your field will think of to look. If there are well-established repositories I would prefer those, or make sure your data is indexed by a well-established aggregator (I know [ANDS](http://www.ands.org.au) runs a national aggregator in Australia).
* What does your institution allow?
+ In many cases, your institution will own (or otherwise have a claim to) the data you generate as part of your research, so check what your local policies are and if need be ask your supervisor, head of department, legal team, etc. This will particularly affect your choice of license.
The other parts of your question can probably be answered better by others here (or maybe it should be split into several?)
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: [Figshare](http://www.figshare.com) provides online hosting and a permalink to your dataset, though it does not provide a DOI. I've been posting some figures there, but not data, and I quite like the service. They allow the option of keeping the data private as well, so you can use to store the data and later release it when you're done.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I think the best place for data is in a subject-focused data repository, but in the absence of that, there are repositories such as [Dryad](http://datadryad.org/).
Biomed Central just announced a partnership with a site called LabArchives to host data of BMC authors, including DOIs for the data and the re-use promoting CC0 license, but I don't have any experience with the site.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Sounds like it might be appropriate for Pangaea: <http://www.pangaea.de/submit/>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: If you have a website with free preprints of your work (which you probably should have), put your data (and code) there. Alternatively, I know people who use [GitHub](https://github.com/) (or similar) for the purpose of (distributed) storage. This has the charm of persistence and an immediate potential of collaboration.
For a (hopefully) persistent approach to citability, [DataCite](http://datacite.org) looks legit. In particular, they issue DOIs and [are funded by libraries and research facilities from around the globe](http://datacite.org/members).
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/04/04 | 1,189 | 4,564 | <issue_start>username_0: I would be interested in creating with some colleagues a [FET Young Explorers](http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/fet-open/ye_en.html) project, in which I would be Work Package leader.
I've been involved in several european projects, but always as a postdoc recruited by a PI (or WP leader), and I don't have a permanent position yet. So basically, the idea of applying to this project would be to get my full salary paid by the EU project, but I don't know if it's possible.
Indeed, in the FAQ, they say that the applicants need to have a position somewhere. I don't think getting a position would be a problem, but only if I come with my own salary. The question in this case is whether the hosting institution still needs to pay some part of my salary?
EDIT: A precision on the question. From the [Guide for Applicants](ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/calls/cooperation/ict/c-gfastrep-201103_en.pdf), Section A3/Budget, p. 47, the part about the requested European Commission contribution:
>
> The requested EC contribution shall be determined by applying the upper funding limits indicated below, per activity and per participant to the costs accepted by the Commission, or to the flat rates or lump sums.
> Maximum reimbursement rates of eligible costs
>
>
> * Research and technological development = 50% or 75%\*
> * Demonstration activities = 50%
> * Other activities (including management) = 100%
>
>
> (\*) For participants that are non profit public bodies, secondary and higher education establishments, research organisations and SMEs.
>
>
>
So, if the salary of a researcher is included in the Research and Technological development, then does that mean that it's possible to only ask for 75% of it to the EC? (assuming the researcher is employed by a university).<issue_comment>username_1: I think this is a function of the EU country in question, and perhaps even the specific institution that you want to work for.
If you have a particular institution in mind, then you should contact them directly to ask about the specific procedures that apply there. Otherwise, you should take a look at the national-level funding agency or agencies that provide the funding that is comparable to the EU-level program. For instance, in Germany, that would mean looking at what the [DFG](http://www.dfg.de) permits as part of their internal practices. [In Germany, this usually shouldn't be a problem, but it might in other countries, depending on their appointment procedures.]
But I think the other thing is that most likely a *temporary worker* can get a full-time salary from an EU-level grant, but a *permanent* employee cannot.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: So, after quite some time spent on reading the paperwork and talking with helpful staff, I finally understood how this system works. There are different amounts involved:
* **S**: the salary of the researcher, corresponding to the gross amount, i.e. before tax. For instance, 50.000 euros per year.
* **r**: the overhead asked by the host institution, which basically corresponds to the indirect costs of hosting the researcher (renting the office, paying the admin staff, etc). This is an agreement between the host institution and the european commission, usually calculated as a percentage of the salary. For instance, where I'm working now, it's 67%. In some places, it can go up to 100%.
* **T**: the travel and equipments expenses. It basically depends on the expected number of conferences to attend per year, the meetings organised for the project, etc. For instance, based on 4 conferences per year, 2500 euros per conference, that makes 10.000 euros.
* **C = S + rS + T**: the total cost of the researcher per year. For instance, that would be 50000 + 33500 + 10000 = 93500.
* **Req = 0.75 \* C**: is the requested amount to the commission (assuming the host institution belongs to: profit public bodies, secondary and higher education establishments, research organisations and SMEs, 0.5 otherwise). So, for the example, we would request 70.125 euros per year.
Note that the request amount is 10.000 euros above the gross salary of the researcher (deducting the travel costs). In other words, one could consider that the 25% the host institution has to pay are indirectly paid by giving an office and proving staff support (who, in general, would be paid anyway, EU project or not), and therefore it does not necessarily mean that the researcher has to find another funding source for the missing 25%.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer] |
2012/04/04 | 1,074 | 4,494 | <issue_start>username_0: Most universities (at least in North America) have the concept of "Qualification Exams" taken one year after the student joins the graduate course. These usually encompass all that was done in the first year and as undergraduate and might also test some other (research abilities) of the student by asking him to present papers (s)he found interesting.
Some universities treat this as a formality and everyone who attempts usually gets through while some universities take quals very seriously and won't allow the student to continue if he fails the quals (maybe, they will allow for 2nd attempt). These universities might subscribe reading lists consisting of textbooks and papers which comprises of "must-have" knowledge of the field. The latter might constitute as a difficult phase for students who find themselves ill prepared in a certain portion of the exam. (For instance, a pure math undergrad moving to a PhD in Fluid Mechanics and asked to attempt an exam on Fluid Machines)
Assuming STEM graduate course in a university which takes quals seriously (with a structure of written test > oral exam > interview/research proposal presentation),
**How should a student approach these exams?**
Specifically,
* How is it any different from the undergraduate exams that students give?
* Do you really "prepare" for these exams or should you bank on the courses you have taken and the homework you solved to get you through?
* Repeatedly, I have been told by students (across departments and across institutes) that the faculty is only interested in the oral section of quals as a sanity check and to see whether you have the urge for learning something new; is this universally true?<issue_comment>username_1: At my university (in the US), the quals are a big deal -- both written and oral. The written quals are the tough ones because the oral quals, here, deal only with your research and as you should be reasonably well read in the literature in your field of research, no one really fails the orals.
The written quals need substantial preparation. For my quals (Fluids/Thermodyanics/Heat transfer) back in 2008, I had to work and study hard for about 10-12 hours a day for 3 months straight.
There were several students who didn't make it through the first attempt and had to go through it all over again the next year. Some (miniscule number) didn't make it the second time around and were discharged with a master's degree.
So to answer your question:
1. It is very university and area of specialization, the difficulty level and importance given to written qualifiers.
2. To be safe, study up hard like you never have before.
3. You may have other responsibilities like grants, classes to teach, assignments to do and research but you just have to balance all these.
Good luck! It is just a matter of hard work, thats all!
-Will be getting my PhD in mechanical engineering at the end of Fall 2012.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Qualifying exams are *never* to be taken lightly. Even when they prove to be a surreal experience, they need to be given the attention appropriate to their seriousness. These are exams that you typically only have one or at most two chances to pass. As a result, you want to get through them on the first try, so that you don't have to worry about them again.
How hard you have to work does depend a lot on the structure of the exam, and based on your previous preparation. If there are a lot of subjects to be tested with which you are not familiar, you may have to work harder than if you're getting A's in all of the classes that will be tested on the exam. (Even then, you'll still want to work through some practice problems to get a feel for the kinds of questions that are asked.)
As the original questioner mentions, in many cases the oral exam can be a "sanity check"—in more ways than one. If the decision has been largely made on the basis of the previous coursework and written quals, then the oral exam can act either to confirm the decisions of the panel, or as an effective psychological exam. One of my panels turned things into what amounted to a carnival side-show, with everybody acting completely out of character, and in a manner I found entirely unbefitting an oral qualifying exam. However, it made sense to see if there was any way to make me "snap" and lose my cool. (I was too busy trying to figure out why everybody was acting so oddly to really snap.)
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/04/04 | 1,285 | 5,080 | <issue_start>username_0: It's not clear to me, looking over all the various regulations and requirements, how (or even *if*) it is possible for students holding a four-year or five-year bachelor's degree from the US can work at a university as a part-time or full-time researcher. Is this possible? If so, are there specific programs to help set this up? Does it matter which EU country the institution is located? Is there a specific type of visa involved?
(Effectively, I guess this question could be boiled down to: what is the equivalent EU mechanism for a [J-1 visa](http://j1visa.state.gov/), when the student will be engaged in research rather than coursework?)<issue_comment>username_1: I think there are two parts in your question: can someone with a Bachelor from the US get a job from a university or research lab, and what kind of visa such a person would need. For the first question, it's really depending on the university. As for the visa, it depends if it would be for a PhD student, or for a "regular" researcher (i.e. not a student). However, in both cases, the visa application depends on the country, as far as I know, there is no Schengen Research Visa. For instance, for France, there are two types of Visa the person could apply to ([Visa section of the french consulate in Washington](http://www.consulfrance-washington.org/spip.php?rubrique98))
* [The “Skills and Talent” Card visa (Carte Compétences & Talents)](http://www.consulfrance-washington.org/spip.php?article519). However, for this one, they say:
>
> University graduates should be PhD. Lower graduates will be required to add proof of profesionnal experience in the same field for a minimum of 1 to 3 years (the lower the degree, the longer profesionnal experience expected)
>
>
>
* [Visas for professors and researchers holders of a "convention d’accueil"](http://www.consulfrance-washington.org/spip.php?article398). According to this [site](http://www.fnak.fr/dn_Formalites/ES_criteres_eligibilite.html) (in French, I couldn't find an English version), a "convention d'accueil" would basically be the work contract with the university/lab, and the eligibility requirement seems to be a Master degree or equivalent (but it could be the case that a 5-years US Bachelor degree counts as an equivalent to a 5-year French Master degree). As far as I understand, that would be the best option for someone who wants to do her PhD in France.
It would also be possible to apply for a student visa, but I think it's not possible to get a work contract with such a visa. Another solution could be to apply to a:
* [Employer Sponsored visa / OFII](http://www.consulfrance-washington.org/spip.php?article500). There does not seem to be anything specific to research in this case.
So, to sum it up, I don't think there is a unified process to apply for a visa in Europe as a researcher, and each country has its own rules. Note that these visas are not automatically Schengen visa, and I've known the case of some extra-EU students, who obtained a visa in one Schengen country, and were not allowed to travel in other Schengen countries before becoming officially resident of the country.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_1: **It is possible to work as a researcher in a European University with only a bachelor's degree.** In many fields, jobs as a research assistant would be pretty accessible to someone with this level of education, if your degree is in a relevant field or you have relevant experience. You might be able to get a slightly higher level of position if you have a good CV, and there is opportunity for advancement. However, ultimately it is very hard to advance into higher level academic positions without a PhD. This only happens in exceptional circumstances.
**However, practically speaking this will be very difficult for someone without the right to work in the EU**, such as a U.S. citizen. While getting such a job is technically possible (and varies by country), typically it involves the institution sponsoring you. This involves a lot of effort on their part, and most likely will only happen for higher-level positions. Also there may be barriers (such as salary level and education level requirements) that prevent you from getting a visa in certain countries, as well. For example, in the UK you would have to make at least £35,000 or have a PhD level job to get the relevant visa. **In short, unless you have some unique, in-demand skills, this is unlikely to be a real option.**
**If you want to work as a researcher in Europe, consider studying for a higher degree in Europe.** The barrier to entry is much lower for this; visas can be obtained relatively easily, and institutions provide a lot of support to help you. This need not be a PhD, you could just do a one year masters' degree. Depending on the country, you may be able to work while studying on a student visa. You also may have an easier path to transition to a work visa. In any case, the connections you make, and the additional education you get, should help.
Upvotes: 2 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.