Where to Address Issues With Bad Class Formats A little background info: So I'm in my second year of studies at a state university in the town I live in. I'm specifically going to school for computer science. As I said, I'm in my second year, but I've been programming since I was 14 and was recently accepted into a research group (not trying to brag, this will be relevant...).

The school I attend uses the flipped class format for its computer science courses. Every computer science course I've taken has used this format and in all cases the classes have been terrible. In my first year, it really didn't stand out to me as much since these were intro classes, and as a result were really easy for me. But this past semester, I'm taking two classes, one that's almost entirely new for me (Logic and Algorithms), and one that's new in places, but I was really looking forward to (Operating Systems and Networks).

In the logic class, there is no material except a terrible interactive ebook; I understand very little, and one of my friends said the same until he went and found materials from another university that actually explained well. In the OS class, the only material are pre-recorded lectures (which are very high level, whereas the tests and exercises are much more in depth). The only way I've been able to understand the OS class is by buying a text book (which is labeled as optional). Even though I love computer science and do well at it, because of these flipped classes, I'm doing the worst gradewise in these two. For perspective, I'm also taking Linear Algebra, and I'm very close to an A in this course; math has always been one of my worst subjects, and this class is taught in a traditional format.

I have friends and know people in these and other comp sci courses, and we've all been saying the same things (some of which brought it up before I even mentioned it). I have one friend of similar skill level in basically the same situation, and another completely new to computer science whose taking the first introductory course (which states that it assumes you are entering it without prior knowledge), and she says nothing makes sense from this course because the material (and lack thereof) is so bad. On top of that, me and many of my friends commute an hour one way to school (and some of us work part time jobs, myself included), and its really frustrating to basically drive an hour to do homework on material that doesn't make sense during a period that could be spent explaining it. Flipped classes really do net out to more time spent than traditional classes.

I apologize if this comes across as a rant, but I really would like to know if this is worth addressing, and with whom. I feel like it will be like talking to a wall, but I would like to at least say something. I feel bad because I have such a terrible attitude toward my studies at this point because I'm so frustrated. Course evaluations came out last week, and I absolutely ripped these classes, but I would like to maybe send a letter to someone or something.

TL;DR: you could write a letter to your program director. However, success may be elusive, since the situation may be constrained by forces outside of the control of you and your lecturers.

It is worth addressing. The official course evaluations are the appropriate place for this, so you have taken the right approach. However, depending on the situation at your university, it may be the case that nothing you can do will make an impact on the situation. This is because the situation may be forced upon the lecturers through circumstances beyond their and your control.

Consider the following example. I am the responsible lecturer for a data mining course at my university. Teaching is 30% of my job, with 50% dedicated to research and 20% to project management. I am teaching this course in the traditional format, which I would prefer to keep doing. Last year, 134 students followed my course, and I survived (with positive student evaluations). This year, 312 students showed up, and I am barely hanging on (with student evaluations pending). Purely trying to keep up with the barrage of student questions in my inbox is eating up all my time. If I keep the course format the way it was, there will be absolute zero time for me to fulfill the non-teaching 70% of my responsibilities.

At my university, I am forced to write a formal reply to the outcome of the official student course evaluation, explaining how I will address the comments in next year's edition of the course. Hence, these evaluations matter at least a little. However, if I decide to refer to videolectures instead of ever teaching a plenary lecture again, the following will happen. My student evaluation grade will go down. The extra time I free up by eschewing lecture preparation, I will dedicate to writing another grant proposal. If the proposal gets the funding I request, I will get tenure. If I don't get that funding but my student evaluation grade remains high, I might get tenure. My situation simply does not provide me with any incentives to keep students satisfied; in fact, if I were to keep students satisfied, I actively reduce my tenure probability.

If your lecturers have mixed responsibilities like I have, it may be the case that their job parameters are set up such that student evaluations are not relevant enough to them. If not, then your success still depends on what value your university attaches to course evaluations. No success is guaranteed.

So what can you do?

definitely keep filling out those course evaluations. This builds up to a paper trail of things being wrong in your programme at large, rather than being a problem of individual courses;
ensure that you get the education you desire. If the course doesn't provide you with the education, you should use your time at university to get it yourself. Form a study group with your friends, acquire the books or other materials to teach yourself the subject. It is of course far from ideal to have to do this yourself, but if your university does not develop your skill set, you can still develop your skill set. Acquiring this optional text book you talk about, for instance, is a good move;
if you have a set of coherent complaints, showing consistent shortcomings across multiple courses and lecturers, and these complaints are shared between a substantial number of students, bring the complaints to your program director, as a group. The program director should address problems with your program as a whole, that span beyond a single course.

It may well be that you are just at the wrong place. If your description is even close to accurate then your complaints will be impossible to act on effectively as the other students are likely not where you are. Large classes with a diversity of skills are very difficult to manage in the best case. But, it is possible to do that if the administration is willing to look at the issue. Scaling up in education is one of my least favorite things, since I see education as a relationship between a teacher and a learner (see Plato). You can't use the same techniques with 20 that you use with 120.

But, aside from leaving, there is something you might try. It is a fact that you will learn more about a subject by trying to teach it. If you are comfortable with it, tell the teacher that you already know and have experience with much/most/all of the material in the course and that you are bored. You could either suggest more and different material for learning from the prof, or, the more interesting case, offer to help those who struggle with the material to come up to speed. You will get a deeper understanding with either method if you can get buy-in from the prof. A flipped classroom makes this last solution fairly easy to do. You become a TA-lite, so to speak, wandering around and helping people get over blocks.

But, for a more systemic solution, you and the others in a similar situation might try to meet with the department head and maybe a few faculty and ask for a solution to your joint problem. One solution is to allow testing out of some of the early courses. Another is to have a single "honors" section that people could test in to and which might cover material from several of the early courses in a single course. This would put the students into advanced courses earlier than otherwise, but would take some faculty resources. But if the honors course was also "seminar-like" where the students prepare and present material it would be valuable for all and require less of a load on the faculty.

But, I think that complaining isn't going to get you far. Pointing out a problem and asking for a solution is much better, especially, but not necessarily, if you can provide suggestions for the outline of the solution. And collective action here is more likely to be successful than acting on your own.

I'll also suggest that you prof may be just as frustrated as you are. I know I would be and would be searching for solutions.


TA talks to others about students, what to do? I am an undergraduate student at a university in the US.

Unfortunately, I have a concern regarding one TA of a class I took this past year. This individual insults other students in the university during his TA session, and I also found out from other people that this TA has been talking to other people (not just the professor and TAs for the class) about people's grades in the class.

My question is, is it within my power to lodge a formal yet anonymous complaint that will be taken seriously about this?

I am concerned about my identity becoming known because this TA is a strong student, and seems to have a lot of power in the department (and is close with the professor teaching the class).

When you have a complaint about a teaching assistant for a course, you should generally address it to the instructor of record first. Even if you believe the professor will dismiss your complaint, going straight over the professor's head will make you look bad.

Here are some suggestions for making a well-received complaint:

Make your complaint in writing (email).
Do not include any subjective judgment of the TA's behavior, only objective observations of what you have seen and experienced.
Give specific evidence to support your claims.
Phrase it as if you believe the professor is not aware of this behavior, whether you truly believe this or not.
Don't offer suggestions on what actions to take ("I think you should prevent this TA from working in future courses"), just describe what you have seen.
You can specify what steps you would like the professor to take to keep your identity a secret from the TA when discussing the complaint with him. (Only you or someone close to your situation can know how identifiable such a complaint will make you, and what details need to be omitted to anonymize you effectively.)

If the professor does not seem to take the matter seriously, you can escalate your complaint:

To the department head
To a student ombudsperson at your institution

This is a real moral dilemma because such a person is destined to become a really bad boss some day.

Here are some things to be careful of.

If there is an enquiry then person X will turn up with friends ostensibly for moral support but in fact to back him/her up and probably knock you down. Make sure you have some allies to support your case otherwise you will lose.
Once a complaint is out there, you lose control of anonymity. Your identity can get back by gossip or through a retrospective appeal to freedom of information or similar.
Sometimes doing the right thing is just hard. Read about Gandhi if you want to be convinced of that. Decide if you are tough enough. You can be sure that X is.
Speak to an official student counsellor. They are bound to confidentiality.
Without gossiping, put feelers out to see who supports your point of view. Rather than making suggestions, ask questions like, Do you think we can do anything about it? Let them talk and gauge whether a joint complaint is necessary/worthwhile.


I regret declining a really good PhD offer. Can I ask if I can accept the offer after all? I recently declined a really good PhD offer in the US for another offer from an American university and I'm terribly regretting it now.

I made my decision on the 15th of April and it's past deadline now. I really want to go to the other school and since the 15th of April was the last working day, I'm hoping that they haven't offered my position to any other aspirant yet. I know this is ethically wrong but I feel miserable about my decision and want to contact the university and ask them if they can still accommodate me.

As far as the other university is concerned I have only accepted their offer through an email and haven't formally been given the final offer letter yet. Should I go ahead with this?

Dude I am an old guy and here is my advice:

Never be shy to ask for things you don't know.
Accept the fact that you are an imperfect being. You made mistakes, and will make mistakes.
Be open to hear others views, and take moment to digest their words to fully understand their perspective.

Therefore it is totally normal to email the university back with full honesty and tell them that you changed your mind.

BUT before you do that, think twice, thrice or even more. You have already done a mistake for being too quick. Don't be too quick again. At least learn.

To me it seems that maybe you are unstable and change your mind too quickly. Let me blame you a bit: before deciding too quickly, why didn't you just email them back and simply ask "I would appreciate some time to think. Could you please let me know the deadline for my response? Thanks."?

Lesson #1 when you are at a point in time where you need to make a choice, usually the best decision to evaluate and perform is the following:

Evaluate if it's possible to postpone the decision (you might need to ask questions to ensure whether it's possible to postpone the decision).
If it's possible to postpone, then postpone it so that you have more time to think and make a better decision.

Of course, some times it is not possible to postpone a decision because time matters. That's why you need to first evaluate the possibility (or even more accurately: the cost associated with postponing it; if the cost is low, and the value from a more reliable decision is high, then dude postpone it!).

You can certainly ask.

You say yourself the program is very desirable. Surely you are not the only one they admitted, and they have a whole list of backup applicants that have been waiting with bated breath for someone to reject the offer. Now that you have, the school would try to promptly notify the person on the waitlist, and that person would reply very quickly that, yes, they'd love to take up the offer. From what I recall, PhD applications are very competitive at the top schools and the stakes are high for applicants.

If the waitlister did indeed reply and and accept the offer, then your ship has definitely sailed. The university cannot go to the person they just said they'd admit, and say, "whoops, nevermind, we're not admitting you after all, go ask the other school you just rejected to take you back". The outrage and loss of reputation would be far greater than telling you "sorry, should have thought about that before rejecting our offer" (though they'll use much nicer language than me, I'm sure).

The offer of admission, and acceptance of that offer (or rejection for that matter) is often considered legally binding. While it rarely makes sense for anyone to actually go to court over something like this, in practice that adds additional gravity and friction to the decision. That is to say, there is a very narrow time window from the time you reject their offer to the time the next applicant on the list takes your spot, and if you miss that window you are almost certainly out of luck. The best you can do is hope to be waitlisted, but even that is doubtful - both due to time, the fact that universities often dislike applicants who reject them, and also that in rejecting their offer you reduce your own desirability as a candidate (who knows, if you changed your mind once you can change it again).

What if you hit this very narrow window? There's two possibilities:

If you tell them you changed your mind after they send the email to the waitlister, but before the waitlister replies, I would say your chances are almost as slim. As I said, the offer cannot be easily withdrawn, unlike your asking to renegotiate, which can very easily be refused with no real consequence.
If you tell them before they take any action, ie. before they tell the waitlister, then you might have a chance. It comes down to whether that particular program will hold your indecision against you. Some are understanding, because everyone knows the decision is hard and stressful. Some don't want students with even the slightest hint of not being absolutely committed.

On the one hand, you let them know on the 15th, so even the deadline has passed. In theory, all the decisions should have been finalized by now and it's too late for any do-overs. In practice, there's always a few programs that are late, I've heard of people on waitlists linger on into May and then get an offer after all. In addition, it was technically the weekend, so if you send an email now, they should see it first thing in the morning tomorrow... Assuming they don't decide to keep working over the weekends - again, something which while a huge factor, you cannot possibly know.

So in conclusion, it's a bit of gamble with long odds. Can you ask? Sure you can. Should you ask? Well you don't really lose much, so I'd say go ahead and try. Hell go buy a lottery ticket too while you're at it, you never know. But I'd say, whatever you do, don't go to the school you have accepted instead and tell them you won't be attending until you've got a concrete yes from the one you want.


Does it matter how long ago you took a course for graduate school admissions This might be a strange question, but I was curious how much weight goes into when you took a course.  I took some math courses 4-5 years ago and did well in them.  Will the fact that I took courses from that long ago carry less weight when applying to grad school?

This depends a lot on what you've been doing in the interim. At one extreme, even if you had a solid coursework background, but have not been exercising it, or anything related, for the last decade, and admissions committee will worry that you're not up-to-speed.

At another extreme, if you did well in coursework and have been doing serious stuff subsequently, more-or-less related to your future goals, that's obviously a plus. That is, the "stale coursework" potential problem is not a problem for you since you've not only maintained, but improved, your chops meanwhile.

True, it's easier to flash a transcript to "prove" some knowledge or expertise, while professional knowledge or expertise is not universally set up to be "documentable".

No, it does not matter when you took the course, so long as it is finished by the date required by the admissions policy.


Professor wants my "non-funded" master's data I have recently abandoned my master's program. Long story short, she was a very strict director who always put me down. I didn't get along with her, and she never gave me any emotional or financial support. Now that I have quit, she asks I do a backup of all of the work I have done for her. I don't think it is fair that I have to give it to her, especially since there was no funding AND she kind of forced me to quit. I can't find any rules that adresses this type of situation.

Should I give her what I have done since I produced those results while being her student?

Here are more details: After 4 semesters, she told me that I didn't have the abilities to complete the masters program, and that she didn't know what to do with me. While it is true that my work wasn't the best, there also were a lot of problems with the actual project which explains why we weren't going as fast as she would have liked. She went on to talk to the dean, and I went to see my co-director for some alternatives so that I can complete my studies. He came up with a new project,with less interactions with her and more with him, which she rejected. She said that seeing how I have "not produced a single result", she won't start a new project. if I want to continue with her, I have to complete a number of tasks (on the original project) within the semester, and if I fail to complete them, the project is over. Since I was (still am) in a deep depression from working with her, I refused to continue seeing how I don't want to get psychologically weaker. I left school and hoped to get all of this behind me, but she then writes to me saying that since I decided to abandon, I need to give her my all of the data, articles, and other works. I don't understand why she wants my work when she says that I was an incompetent student who hasn't produced any results.

She never did any investment apart from giving her time, I paid for all of my studies and did my own research alone. I don't think I owe her anything.

She never did any investment apart from giving her time

Whoa, there! That sounds like a significant investment, to me.  Indeed, it's hard to see what other investment you could reasonably expect her to make. She's not responsible for your funding; she can't do the work for you because it's supposed to be your master's project, leading to your degree, not hers.

Nonetheless, it is typical for an advisor to provide sufficient guidance intellectual contribution to the project that they could reasonably expect to be a co-author on most papers coming out of the project. This is joint work and it belongs as much to your collaborators as to you, even if you don't get along with your collaborators any more.

What does it cost you to hand over the material? Do you expect to benefit from it in some way that will be diminished by giving it to the professor? If it costs you little or nothing, it's hard to see any justification for not handing it over.  "I don't like her" is spite, not justification.  The main benefit that I see from handing it over is that you can expect to be a co-author of any paper that results directly from the work you have done. And, if you do hand over the data, you should make this a condition.

You should also consider the impact of your decision on your future career. If you intend to leave academia then it's probably minimal: you're unlikely to be asking for a reference from this professor and it's unlikely you'll have any interaction with her in the future. However, if you intend to stay in academia, you need to think carefully about this. People's perceptions of your actions will depend very much on who they think was at fault. If, for example, your professor has a reputation of being difficult, maybe you gain sympathy from the community. However, if she has a reputation of being reasonable, trustworthy and easy to work with, there's the danger that you acquire the reputation of being difficult to work with, falling out and torpedoing projects.

I am a professor (UK).  Ordinarily work produced by students belongs to the University - I believe our policy is that submitted work belongs to the University which is a subtle distinction.

In practice, if you don't provide her with the work they aren't going to do anything about it.  So if your professor was as unpleasant as you suggest, just keep the work in spite.


What is the recommended option for a faculty applicant after accepting an offer and getting another better offer? As universities provide short deadlines for faculty position offers, applicants can accept an offer-1 (verbally or by signing a contract) and which is not the best. What is the recommended option if a late and a better offer-2 arrives after accepting offer-1?

Reject offer-2 and stay with offer-1.
Reject offer-1 and accept offer-2.
Accept and delay offer-2 for a year or two if possible, and work for a year or two with University-1.
other options?

This situation should not actually arise if you are handling your faculty job search properly.  If you accept an offer, you should withdraw all your remaining job applications.  Otherwise either you are wasting their time in considering you for a position you won't accept, or you were insincere in accepting the previous offer.  If you aren't comfortable withdrawing your other applications, then you aren't comfortable accepting the job.  You can negotiate on this point, for example by telling them that another job would solve your two-body problem and you hope they can wait on a final decision until you hear about that job, but there's no guarantee that they will agree.

The basic ethical principle here is honesty: you shouldn't give someone a decision they understand to be final without actually meaning it.  By default, job acceptances are considered binding decisions in the parts of academia I'm familiar with (certainly in mathematics in the U.S.), so you can't just assume that of course they knew you might change your mind.  If you have any reservations or conditions, you should make them explicit before accepting the position.  This can't hurt you if nobody really considered the decision to be final in the first place, and it will avoid unethical behavior if they did.

Even though this shouldn't happen, people do occasionally get themselves into this situation.  If you unilaterally rescind your initial acceptance and take the other position instead, you face almost no legal risk, since nobody's going to try suing over this.  However, you can hurt your reputation, which is a serious danger.

Instead, the way you should handle it is by careful discussions.  Typically, University 2 will let you defer their offer for at least a year, since otherwise they look like jerks for trying to steal you away from University 1 after you already accepted an offer.  (Another possibility is that University 2 had no idea you had already accepted and will rescind their offer upon learning this.)  Then you approach University 1 and apologize profusely for inadvertently creating a terribly awkward situation.  You explain that you are willing to come to University 1 and fulfill your obligations, but you have an offer from University 2 and you would very likely leave after a year to go there, so you wonder whether there is any chance they would release you from your acceptance.  If they agree, then you are ethically free to accept University 2's offer immediately.  (University 1 still won't be happy with you, so you shouldn't do this unless it really matters to you, but asking them for permission is much better than just announcing you aren't coming.)  If University 1 insists that they need you next year, then you defer University 2's offer and show up at University 1.

But you really shouldn't let yourself get further faculty offers after you've already accepted a job.  You might be able to get away with it once by explaining that you accidentally forgot to withdraw your other applications, but you really don't want to develop a reputation over time as someone who deliberately manipulates the system in unethical ways.

I must disagree with "anonymous Mathematician".  That advice might leave you without any offers.  His/her advice does not account for the fact that campus interviews, and therefore offers, often occur weeks and even months apart.  If the first offer is close enough (2-3 weeks) from an anticipated second offer, you should try to ask for an extension.  Inevitably, a school will eventually need an an answer and it is perfectly acceptable for you to accept the offer from School #1 while waiting for a campus interview from School #2.  You may have to call School #1 back and let them know the bad news, but don't let people on here scare you into thinking you HAVE to stay with School #1.  In my experience, School #1 is perfectly understanding.  They would rather let you go than have a bitter faculty member who is disheartened that they didn't have the foresight to reject School #1's offer.


If most universities in the U.S are non-profit, why are they so expensive? Tuition can easily get in the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars for a 4-year degree. This is unarguably many times over what the university needs to cover the costs of offering their services. Why is this the case if they are usually run under a non-profit architecture?

Where is all this money going?

I think that education in US, even in non-profit institutions, is expensive, because colleges and universities can charge basically whatever amounts they want, a practice, to a significant degree, IMHO prompted by trying to stay competitive by overspending on amenities, many of which are very remote to the nature of education and learning. Of course, there are significant costs, some of which are appropriate, such as salaries for faculty and staff, equipment for labs, some research programs and other reasonable expenses. Having said that, I believe that some of the expenses are over-inflated, such as (too) nice and fancy campuses and buildings, top administrative and executive compensation, research labs and programs that don't produce significant enough output, sports and other over-spending sources. That is not to say that tuition and fees cover all those expenses - universities traditionally rely on various financial sources in addition to tuition and fees (see the last link below). Of course, the above is just my somewhat naive (but, hopefully, not so far from reality) interpretation or, rather, impression of the complex ecosystem of higher education.

More details on the topic can be found on Wikipedia (i.e., see this section and this article) and other resources (i.e., this article). In the popular press, there is no shortage of opinions, both blaming colleges and universities for exponential increase of the cost of education as well as defending their actions and situation. Those interested in a more comprehensive economic analysis of the subject, can be referred to a significant amount of existing academic research, such as this thesis.

Haha! Market economics and myths about degrees and particular institutions, and crucially the value of networking in professional life after university.

In reality much smaller, flatter structures than universities could provide the same (or better) standard of tertiary education.  A lot of the seminars could possibly be done by skyping or hiring a cheap room locally.  Lectures (if indeed they are ever genuinely needed) could be delivered by YouTube.  This wouldn't prevent the possibility of social interaction with other students.

For most subjects these days, most learning is self-learning, done by reading books (and of course use of the Net).

What you are paying for is NOT quality of education, NOT face-time with your teachers and NOT lectures (you could get that info more efficiently by reading).  Contrary to myth, the value of university is not even about "having a good time"/"so much more than education".

In reality you are paying for a piece of paper which says "Yale" or "London University" or whatever, and the value of that piece of paper is that potential employers regard it as a badge of seriousness, not of education.

The other thing you're paying for is to make friends.  The idea is that subsequently they and/or you become moderately successful and help one another out.

And the level of the fees? They charge whatever they can get away with. Everything is now "marketised" (already in the Anglo-Saxon world, and the rest of the world will have to follow suite).  Even if they didn't spend the money on staff salaries they would find ways: advertising and branding, preposterously expensive research facilities, Hadron coliders, sabbaticals... the list is endless: university managers are creative people in one way at least.


Studying a second undergraduate degree part-time while doing a PhD? I was wondering if it would be okay for a full-time PhD student (in biology) to pursue a part-time degree in an unrelated subject.
I had an undergrad experience that was pretty "focused", which was great in that it gave me decent training for graduate school, but also meant I never really got to experience certain subjects as much as I would've liked.
I came across a mostly-online degree programme in liberal arts from an accredited university and it got me thinking. Classes are mostly-online and I would be able to work at my own pace; I could spread the whole thing out across, say, 5 years. Any synchronous online sessions would take place in the evening/night, or during the weekend.
Do I absolutely have to enroll in a programme like this to fill out the "gaps" in my education? Admittedly no. I could just read books. But I feel like I want to. I would prefer the structure, engagement and feedback/advising that comes with formalized instruction, especially since I understand self-study is not exactly the best approach to subjects like Philosophy.
I do think the exposure to liberal arts subjects would develop me personally (different ways of thinking, better articulation). It's something I regret not having touched while an undergrad.
I don't mean to sound ungrateful or uninterested in my graduate study. I genuinely am. I just also genuinely want to enrich myself in this particular way, on the side. I know what little free time I have would become even less, but my heart is telling me it would be worth it. And I do have an interest in Philosophy I would like to explore. If things go south, I will pause or drop it.
If it doesn't interfere with my progress in my PhD, do you guys think it would be a good idea? I would have to tell my advisor, right (would I?)? I don't wish to upset him or give him a wrong idea.
Sorry for the long post, thank you for any advice.

If it does not interfere with your graduate studies, then no one could possibly object. People should have hobbies outside their PhDs, and if you a Physics student has an interest in Classic Philosophy, then so be it.
But you need to be sure it won't interfere. There is a world of difference between taking the odd evening class in something and enrolling in a degree, even part time. Think about how much time you have: Our full-time undergraduate degrees are designed to require 37 hours a week of study. Even doing such a degree over 5 years, rather than 3, you would still be talking about 23 hours a week. Are you going to manage to be working at peak performance if you are doing this on top of 40-50 hours a week of graduate study?

When it does not interfere with your graduate studies, then there cannot be any objection on it . Hobbies or other related study on related streams can be done in along with the PhDs.  Chemist can show interests in Classical Chemistry and Earth Science,  All the more the growth rate and the Performance will be high . so it can be as it is .
As long as you can manage there wont be a problem in facing both the test related to once subject .
But make sure it won't interfere. Difference between taking the odd evening class in something and enrolling in a degree, even part time. Hence Time Management will play key roles. Think about how much time you have and the time left and keep it on track.
Finally, at the end of the day , it’s worth it, if you were my student I’d be totally supportive and encouraging of pursuing this idea , is for many people a very demanding pursuit and unencouraged on various level which will lead to less time than they expect for other activities, be it curriculum and  many more .


Why do most scientists think Brexit is bad for British science? From what I've seen in the media, almost all British scientists think Brexit is bad for British science. However I don't understand why. Some of the most common reasons I've seen are:

Loss of funding - UK researchers receive lots of funds from EU grants, and these would not last once the UK leaves. But since the UK pays the EU more than it receives in benefits, the UK could simply redirect some of that money into science. It could be that the UK does not actually redirect the money, but that would be because the UK as a whole decided that science isn't worth it, in which case it would be democracy in action and one can't really complain.

Isolation - this seems to be based on the idea that Brexit makes the UK a less attractive place to work in. However the US didn't seem to suffer a similar brain drain after the 2016 elections, so it's not obvious to me that the UK will. Individuals might leave, but there's apparently no shortage of people wanting to move to the UK anyway (e.g. there were record numbers of international applicants to British universities in spite of Brexit).

Loss of collaborations - it's not clear to me why this would happen. The EU presumably doesn't have a "you may only collaborate with other EU researchers" rule, since there're lots of countries that are not part of the EU. But if they don't have such a rule then presumably collaborations can persist whether or not the UK is within the EU. Further, the EU would be incentivized to keep such collaborations because they're presumably win-win. Finally, even if EU collaborations are jeopardized, there's still the rest of the world. There are scientific powerhouses like the US that aren't part of the EU either.

Other reasons I've seen, like "there's no clarity on what we can or cannot do", should be temporary. They might be causing problems now, but five years in the future they should be resolved also.

Is there anything about Brexit that is fundamentally injurious to British science? If not, why do UK scientists so universally regard Brexit as grim?

tl;dr: Although it is possible to have Brexit without British science suffering, this would require meaningful political support, and there is little to suggest that this will be forthcoming in the near future.

A recent report by the Royal Society provides some context. This report is focussed on the British research sector as a whole, rather than on science specifically, but not too much turns on that. Some key figues include:

Britain receives a significant amount of funding from European bodies (e.g. ERC)
A sizeable fraction of the UK science workforce originates from other EU countries (16% of academic staff; 14% of PhD students)
70% of British researchers held a non-UK affiliation at some point in the period 1996-2011, although there is no EU-specific figure.

The overall picture is that British research benefits from EU membership, through direct financial input and through mobility of individuals. British universities are disproportionately well-regarded on the international stage (e.g. the Times Higher Education ranking has 7 British universities in the top 50, compared to 7 from the rest of the EU combined), and so historically Britain has been able to attract excellent researchers from around the world, especially EU neighbours.

It is right to say that Brexit does not need to change any of this. However, maintaining the status quo would require political and financial investment from the government, and there has been little evidence that this will be forthcoming in the short term - especially given the difficulties the government has had in agreeing the basic framework for Brexit. Domestic investment in research has fallen significantly in real terms in recent years, and it is not clear that any more cash will be available in the immediate aftermath of Brexit.

It is also currently unclear how EU citizens currently living in the UK, and British citizens living in other EU countries will be affected. Some progress has been made on this, but (anecdotally) not enough to allay individuals' concerns. This is compounded by (real or perceived) xenophobic attitudes that precipitated the Brexit vote. Numerous UK-based, non-British researchers of my acquaintance are concerned over what the future holds for them, and have started to consider what other options are open to them.

Finally, it is perhaps worth noting that the Brexit vote was correlated with socioeconomic status, and the ideology of Brexit has never enjoyed much support in any of the academic circles I have been familiar with.

Because scientists have political beliefs, and most of them are left of average voter so in general they opposed Brexit.

So they are more likely to pick on the negative sides of Brexit and ignore the good ones. Similar problem is with the news they read: news media read by leftists is strongly anti Brexit, so this exacerbates the problem.

This is not to say that Brexit changes will not cause problems for scientists based in the UK, but there is no reason for that to happen beside UK/EU being incompetent and/or trying to cause problems intentionally(so they can blame Brexit for those problems) or because they are using people as bargaining chips in their petty negotiations.

Again this may sound like conspiracy theory, but consider the example of China/US trade war where China is targeting certain swing states.
And if you want to make Brexit look bad messing up with science is a good way to do that.


Is it ethical to cherry-pick reviewers based on their previous reviews of your manuscript? The academic review process is usually supposed to be blind, in that authors are not told the identity of the reviewers. But frequently it is possible to guess who has reviewed your work, or the reviewers themselves may let you know informally.

Say my manuscript is rejected from journal A after one very positive and one more critical review, and I think I know who the reviewers were. After some revisions I submit to journal B, who ask me for a suggested list of reviewers. Is it ethical to list the reviewer whom I suspect gave the positive review the first time, but replace the one I suspect has a negative opinion of my work with another reviewer? What if the positive reviewer is someone whom I did not originally suggest to journal A - is it ethical to suggest him/her to journal B in the light of their previous review?

There are ZERO ethics involved.  First, you suspect, but do not know, who the original reviewers were.  You may be right, you may be wrong.

Next, suggestions for potential reviewers are just that -- suggestions.  It is the responsibility of the editor to pick appropriate reviewers, and your suggestions are just one potential source of information in the process of doing so.

I'd say even if you recommend people who you respect to referee your papers, they'll surprise you regularly with critical reviews (if they're doing their job).

The biggest ethical quandry you can get into in the process of recommending referees is probably some sort of pre-arrangement with those you suggest.  This is to be avoided as less than stellar behavior.

if you have to ask if it is ethical, then it probably is not.


My professor skipped me on Christmas bonus payment I am a fourth-year data science Ph.D. student and my professor always tends to send bonus payment at the end of November for all of his Ph.D. students.
This year, all of my teammates got the bonus, even the newly admitted students (I asked them indirectly). Some of my colleagues' behavior is so frustrating as they keep talking about the issue.
I don't know if he decided not to pay me intentionally or he just forgot me. My performance is considered excellent and he is satisfied with my publications. Should I send him an email and ask for the bonus?
Update: I got the bonus. The professor forgot to send me an email that I will get it.  I just got them in my bank account without any emails or notices... I also asked to meet my professor yesterday and today we meet and discussed my thesis table in general. He is more than satisfied with my work and performance. I did not ask or open the topic of the bonus.

I think you need a more serious conversation with your advisor. You need to know if he is unhappy with your performance and if there are things you need to do to improve it. If the answer is no, then you can bring up that you didn't get a bonus. Perhaps it was a clerical issue or an issue in the delivery. But if you are not meeting expectations it would be a time for reflection.
But asking about your performance rather than your bonus would show some sense of seriousness about your work.

This is most certainly a mistake. I doubt that you could possibly go from "excellent performance" to being the only one not receiving a bonus in just one year. And if somehow you managed to mess up this severely, then there is no way your advisor did not communicate this clearly to you several times (There might even be legal implications in this case). So no need to worry.
Talk to your advisor or send an informal e-mail, and simply state that you did not receive the bonus and kindly ask him to check if there was any error in the processing. In contrast to what other answers suggest, there is no need to completely question your self-assessment of your performance.


What is an "Advanced Studies Diploma" equivalent to? To be admitted to my PhD in Mechanical Engineering, I had to have a 1-year coursework, with 8 subjects and a research-proposal defense. Here in Portugal, an “Advanced Studies Diploma” in Portuguese "Diploma de Estudos Avançados" is awarded, but I would like to know what it’s really worth because I am thinking of moving to another country, and I am not sure whether I will finish my PhD.

What is that equivalent in countries such as England, Germany or the USA?
Can I ask for a degree recognition in an university of one of those countries? Here in Portugal it is not considered a degree, just a 60 ECTS diploma.
What does this diploma give me in terms of jobs? Do I have an easier access to some jobs? If yes, which kind of jobs? I am a Materials Engineer MSc., with an Advanced Studies Diploma in Mechanical Engineering

As a PhD student from the Universidade de Lisboa (https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/cursos/deic/curriculo), who is also a student of mobility (Erasmus Mundus), I hope I can add some of my observations which might be helpful.

Advanced Studies Diploma is everything of PhD, except the PhD defence (since it also includes the research proposal defence, that we call "CAT"). In my university (IST-ULisboa), CAT usually comes by the end of the 2nd year. To pass that, you would already have a solid research plan with possibly a few publications and research done.

So, this is part of the PhD (in IST, "Advanced Study Diploma" is used interchangeably with PhD), than a prerequisite to be accepted to a PhD.

I would assume, you already have completed your masters and half-way through your PhD since you have completed all the course works and defended the research proposal, hence making you a "PhD candidate".

However, unless you already have some arrangement with another university or a professor in another country (as in Erasmus Mundus and other exchange/mobility programs), I would strongly advice you against contemplating the idea of migrating/halting half-way through. It is not going to be easy to move your credits to the new university.

With your advanced courses, you may have gained some expertise in academia and research. However, it will be still something half-done than a complete degree. But this part is just my personal opinion. You may list it as an on-going PhD in any case, I suppose.

PhD and DEA are the same thing, DEA could have or not read the PhD Thesis, but certainly are in the same acadamic level and same degree.


Why there is "Dr." before name of PhD degree holder? Is it right practice to place "Dr." before name of PhD degree holder? What is reason for placing such "Doctor" label before name?

Yes, this is the right practice.

A PhD degree is a "Doctor of Philosophy", and the appropriate formal title for that is "Doctor". That there are other professions that can be called "Doctor", for example holders of an MD degree, is simply because there are multiple fields one could be a Doctor of.

Only Ph.D’s must be refered as to Doctors because they hold doctoral degrees and they “teach”. The word Doctor means “teacher or I teach”. Physicians should be only called “Physicians” because they hold only Bachelors degrees in medicine. In the USA, they took the Bachelors in medicine and surgery program and divided into two programs only to be addressed as to doctors. Physicians are only treating people not teaching people.


I'm scheduled to graduate next week but my professor has gone MIA due to a death in the family... what can I do? Next week I'm scheduled to graduate from a major university. One of the required courses that I've taken over the past semester is an independent research study with a single professor.

Throughout this process I've mostly worked on my own, however, with the semester nearing its conclusion, I now need to present my research and receive a grade on my efforts.

Well, over the past five to six days, my professor hasn't been on campus and is for all intents and purposes unreachable. Of the few emails I've sent him he's only responded to one, saying that he's had a death in the family and that he'll get in touch with me the next day (which is now today but he's still yet to do so and it's currently 8pm). The death in the family happened at least last weekend, since when I tried visiting his office on Tuesday another professor told me he was out of the office due to said occurrence.

I consulted my advisor and he recommended that I send a follow up email [tonight] mentioning my concern, and that if he doesn't respond within a few hours to send another follow up email but this time with the chair of the department cc'ed.

My question is, is there anything else I can do to push this professor to respond to me and to set up a time to conclude my research project? What happens if he doesn't issue me a grade? I absolutely have to graduate this semester for a number of reasons that I won't go into; but, it would absolutely be devastating to my current plans in life, finances, etc.

I've been told that it's not within the powers of the chair to actually do something about this, just nudge the professor in the right direction, but, does the dean of the college have some kind of influence in my graduating?

My mentor for this project does instruct other courses, so, I'm kind of guessing he'll be back on campus next week to proctor his final(s)... but, I could also very well see another professor filling in for him.

Does anyone have experience with / knowledge about this? I'm kind of starting to freak out and so I thought I'd consult the masses.

Thanks in advance and sorry if any of this was ranty.

UPDATE: This afternoon I met with the chair of that department, and, about five minutes into the meeting my professor showed up in the door of the room! He was there to drop off a folder of papers for other students from his other courses to pick up, and to tell the chair that he was back on campus.

At that same time, my professor told me that he would just grade me on the results of the project that I had previously submitted to him, along with the presentation I made.

It truly was complete luck [on my part] that my professor showed up at the same time that I was there. And, the conversation between me and the chair didn't get far enough for him to tell me what my options would be; so, I can't update you all regarding what my university's policy / way of handling this would be.

Thanks again for all the comments/advice.

My question is, is there anything else I can do to push this professor to respond to me and to set up a time to conclude my research project?

I recommend that you don't send your professor any more communications than you already have, and in this case, it is completely inappropriate to "push" him to do anything.  The death of a loved one in one's family is a major traumatic event, and a large degree of sympathy and forbearance is appropriate.  With respect, it is a much bigger deal than what are relatively minor concerns over graduation.

At this point you have already sent multiple emails, and it is clear that the professor is not able to perform his work duties right now.  Rather than contacting him again, contact the Head of Department, describe your case, and request a plan to have your assessment pushed forward in the absence of your professor (e.g., with another supervisor allocated).  Make sure you write your request in a way that is sympathetic and kind to your professor, but which acknowledges the reality that he is not presently in a position to assist you.  If you have been advised that there is nothing they can do, then you have been advised wrong, because that is clearly bullshit - a Department Head has the power and responsibility to replace incapacitated staff with other staff members who can do their teaching/supervision work.

If the Department is unable to assess you prior to your expected graduation time, this might end up being a case where your graduation is delayed.  Accept that and put it in perspective.  No-one you love has died, and the worst possible outcome for you here is that your assessment gets delayed, and you end up graduating one session later than you otherwise would have.  If this occurs, and you are worried that it will hamper your ability to apply for later positions (e.g., jobs, post-graduate degree, etc.), ask your Head of Department to write a "to whom it may concern" letter that you can give to potential employers, explaining that you are due to graduate at the next conferral and that your graduation was delayed due to a staffing issue through no fault of your own.

One last thing: remember to buy your professor a nice card or some flowers consoling him for his bereavement.

To answer a specific question:

  What happens if he doesn't issue me a grade?

In a US-like university system (which based on your terminology I'm assuming), what would normally happen is that you'd be temporarily assigned a placeholder grade, possibly I (for Incomplete) or possibly something else that indicates some sort of administrative delay.  Your degree wouldn't be officially conferred, but in all likelihood you'd still be allowed to participate in the graduation ceremony.  When the professor eventually returns to duty, you can complete your presentation (remotely if necessary), and he can assign you a grade.  That grade then replaces the I, and from then on it's as if you had that grade all along.  Assuming it's a passing grade, you will then be awarded a degree, possibly backdated to the end of this semester.

This is a similar process to what would happen if you became ill or incapacitated and were unable to take your last exams on time.

In particular, this sort of situation does not result in you having to retake the course.  I would not worry about the possibility of having to attend the university next semester.

If the professor is out for a really long time, or permanently, (which I wouldn't expect in this case), the department can typically have some other professor review your work and assign their best estimate of a grade.


Can I cite a URL only instead of author, title, etc. in a research paper? When writing a thesis, is it acceptable practice to cite only the URL of referenced research papers where they are published electronically? Or is it compulsory to give proper authors, title, year of publication, etc... information?
Example:

Data mining is the process of analyzing large data sets in order to discover hidden patterns within these data sets.[1] Stock market prices do not follow random walk.[2]
[1] http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5FIEAwyn9aoC
[2] http://rfs.oxfordjournals.org/content/1/1/41.short

No, it's not OK to cite URLs because firstly, you are citing ONLY the URL! The URL could change at any given time without notice. Also, you are assuming that everyone is reading your paper electronically and has access to the internet.

You NEED to give the name of the paper, the author(s), the Journal it was published in and the year it was published.

No, it is clearly and everyone agrees, not acceptable practice to cite only the URL.  So download a PDF copy of the exact web page.  You can even state in the publication that you have a copy of the exact PDF which corresponds with your reference.  If anyone asks you for sa copy of the PDF, you may wish to do one of the following:

Immediately give them the pdf (which may be a license violation).  I feel comfortable to do this, in some situations, but not all.

or

Tell them you would like to give them your saved copy, after they convince you, that the web site will allow you to give them a copy.

It is not your problem, if the web site will not give you permission, to give others a copy of the saved PDF.  However a license violation would be your fault.


How much involvement should my advisor have in deciding my availability and actions for me? I worked in the industry for a few years before starting my PhD and learned many do's and don'ts in the workplace for how you guide subordinates to attend meetings and do things you want them to do. I'm having trouble finding the right mix of transparency/professionalism/availability that I can expect to have with my advisor. Some examples that seem to be ok with my advisor related to availability include:

Advisor tells me I should work and come in over academic breaks
When I'm late for a meeting, sends me an email that says "you're late, get here". Advisor is often late for their own meetings.
On a flight back from a conference, holds a research meeting.
When scheduling a meeting, advisor asks for conflicts, then judges the importance of my conflict vs the meeting. Tells me the meeting is more important.
Advisor schedules recurring meeting over the time I have to eat lunch, tells me I should eat during the meeting
Urges that I come to weekend/post-5pm informal meetups, if I say I cannot attend, asks why my conflict is more important?

Other oddities include:

During research meeting with 15 students, the meeting table is crowded. I grab a chair 5 feet away. Advisor tells me to stand for the meeting (with a laptop).
Advisor tells me I must share a room with another student at the conference hotel

I can't help but feel demeaned by items on this list. I'm a bit older than other students and have a family, so my conflicts are more frequent. Is this advisor-advisee treatment common in academia? I'm trying to seek out the norms of this community.

As with most things, tone matters. All the items on your list don't scream terrible unprofessionalism to me, if done in the right tone and in moderation (ok, the "tells me to stand" one is a bit weird). For instance, I would not force a student to blow off their anniversary dinner for a standard meeting, but I have certainly asked them to cancel some other weekend appointments because of an important deadline on Monday. Further, you mention meetings after 5PM - given that much of my research is done in international cooperation, Skype calls at terrible times are unfortunately not unheard of in my group as well.

I can't help but notice that (as ff524 already mentions), the majority of your items are not so much about professionalism than about time planning. Indeed, in academia, you may need to get used to the fact that most professors require students to be flexible, maybe more so than in larger corporations (but not unlike startup companies, for instance). Nine-to-five workers are typically not popular in academic environments.

You added:

  Advisor tells me I must share a room with another student at the conference hotel

The exact same thing happened to me as an employee of a large, international company. Not usual, but yeah - happens if funds for travel are low for some reason.

You're a grad student. This means you're a slave to your advisor. I was a grad student once and I found the conceit that grad students are human beings and that they are to be treated with dignity beyond comical. Don't talk about professionalism as a grad student - this is not the time and the place, you are off-topic and unfortunately, you are making yourself look ridiculous. If your advisor pulls your chain, you go along quietly, with your tail wagging.

My little brother and I found a preventive cure for this kind of treatment: get a full-time job and go for your graduate degree in the evening. Your adviser is a lot less likely to give you lip if he knows that you, as a grad student, are also a senior engineer at Google :) As they used to say on 42nd Street in New York City in the 1970's: "Money talks and b.s. walks" :)


How should I approach the scholarship committee for reconsideration if they have rejected my application? I applied for a scholarship at Ecole Polytechnique in France and received a rejection early this morning. I want the committee to reconsider my application but I can't find a good enough reason apart from saying that I will not be able to attend the institution without financial support. I have been admitted to another university (HKU) with a handsome scholarship and I was wondering if informing them about this might work. Any advice about this issue would be much appreciated.

Give Yourself another Chance

You can conduct your second try during the next scholarship application cycle - and the time frame of a cycle varies between scholarship providers. Some scholarship providers have an all-year round application cycle, which means you can re-apply for a scholarship as soon as you hear of your unsuccessful application. On the other hand, the time period of other scholarship providers' application cycles is more limited, only allowing you to make a second application a year later.

Write an Appeal Letter

While it is recommended that the next application cycle would be the time you attempt your second try, it also wouldn't hurt to submit an appeal letter to the scholarship provider directly.

In your letter, reiterate that you are trying to apply for the scholarship a second time (even you got a scholarship with another institute but you prefer this one). Make them aware that you are not one to give up after a failed attempt, and are more eager than ever to receive the scholarship in question. Apart from your determination to reach your goals, this will also speak volumes about your courageous, indefatigable spirit.

All in all, it is important to allow your humility and sincerity to shine through in your letter, or in your interview if you are given a second chance. And if, in the end, you do not secure the scholarship of your dreams, don't be disheartened - work towards your career goal anyway. You can always do well in university and clinch a college scholarship, one that comes with no bond and essential financial support. There are many paths towards your end-goal and you should never put out the fire of your hope.


What to do about students who miss my lectures and then want me to repeat entire material? I teach at a top undergraduate college of a highly ranked university in India. We have a centralized system where the syllabus is designed at the Central level (with some input from teachers) and exams are set and evaluated centrally as well. We have an attendance policy, wherein students are required to attend at least two-thirds of the classes to sit for the exam (for all courses).

Some students are engaged in extra-curricular activities and miss a lot of lectures. While a lot of students don't bother, some want me to "teach" the portion they missed, by meeting them separately. Is it reasonable for them to ask me to teach everything from scratch because they couldn't attend the class? I teach a rigorous microeconomics course.

Edited:
I forgot to explicitly mention: since it is a centralized system, teachers can't specify their own attendance policies for a course. Moreover, I teach a compulsory course, and it can't be dropped/taken in any other semester. Further, students go for competitions scheduled outside college during lecture hours, and I have no control over that. We are not a residential University, so extra-curricular activities can't be held after class hours.

Is it reasonable for them to ask me to teach everything from scratch because they couldn't attend the class?

No, it's not.

If a student wants to engage in extra-curricular activities during lecture hours, they had better be able to keep up with the course material independently.

What if you tell them: " If you want better knowledge then you need to come in time. And if you want to learn something you missed 5 minutes of googling wont kill you." Otherwise you ar letting them use you.


In a formal paper, should I censor "brainf**k", the name of a programming language? I'm working on a formal paper about programming languages. I am going to talk about two intentionally difficult languages, brainfuck and JSFuck. Should I leave the names as they are, or censor the names? (e.g. brainf**k, JSF**k)

These are the Registered names of sanctioned programs in your industry.  Their developers chose those names not for their prurient value but for their impact value.  "Brainfuck" sends an INSTANT message that something like "Cerebral Challenge"  could never pull off.  You show your professionalism when you structure the "Brainfuck" section of your paper with the same care you show in other sections, mentioning the singularity of its name only if it's relevant to the paper. Let 'them' come to you, if they feel they must (and I doubt it).  Your responsibility is to the quality--which includes the Integrity-- of your paper.

Consider avoiding the problem entirely, by not providing these languages with the honor of being on your paper.  The namers of these languages chose something that they realized would cause problems.  Don't glorify such a mis-decision by unnecessarily polluting your good research work.

You will likely elicit scorn, and compulsions to roll eyes, even if many people have sufficient restraint to communicate their disapproval.  Some people are likely to see this as a clear mark of unprofessionalism.  Even if you don't get formal feedback, this may impact people's appreciation, and may affect subjective scoring.  All in alll, why unnecessary embrace such negativity that will provide you with no benefit?

Seek out alternative solutions, and use them.  Those who are aware of the entire scenario may have a high appreciation of your successful endeavor.

The most common abbreviation I have found for the first language is "bf".  e.g., searching for "bf language" on Google will show foul language in the results.  Esolangs.org page on this language provides some other abbreviations, noting, "This can make it a bit difficult to search for information regarding brainfuck on the web, as the proper name might not be used at all in some articles."  That's a downside of this language's name.

Or, instead, consider avoiding the problem entirely by using an alternative.  I propose that you consider using Ook! Ook!, which is directly convertible to the bf language that you mention.  If you're interested in language features, this ought to be a direct substitute that will serve you well.  (The only really significant downside I am aware of is just that it is less well-known, so if you're wishing to discuss a community, then it may not have the same effect.  Oh, and I do know of one other technical disadvantage: the source code may be a bit larger, even though the interpreted meaning ends up being the exact same.)

Regarding the other language you mention, I notice that for the JS one, many of the top sites use its full (spelled-out) name and also use the term JSF*ck.  Searching for JSF*ck on Google does manage to pull up the sites.  So, that does appear to be a name that is heavily accepted by the community surrounding that language.


Should I finish all work that I started before PhD graduation? I have enough work done for my PhD dissertation, but I also have one on-going project which I don't plan to include it in my dissertation. My advisor suggests that I have to finish all the work before I graduate. Is it so?

My advisor doesn't currently have funding and I am not being paid now. He also wants me to share my codes with him and other students, should I do so?    I don't quite want to share my work because 1) I was not be paid; 2) I wrote the codes totally on own and didn't receive any technical helps from my advisor (my advisor is a good story-teller, but he barely knows anything concerning technologies). Am I thinking correctly?

If you are not being paid, you should not be spending your time on a PhD.  You should tell your advisor you are not able to continue without financial support.

It is your advisor's job to recommend what you should include in your thesis.  Nobody who has not read your work will be able to advise you on this.

You want to keep the code you have written secret.  To determine if you can do this, you need to consult your university's intellectual property policy.  Very likely the policy says the university owns the rights to all your work, in which case you should hand it over.  In any case, keeping secrets when secrecy is not an ethical requirement is poor scientific practice.

Well, no and yes. In general, it is good to carry away a lot of unfinished projects so that you don't need to start your career with a clean slate. Having a notebook full of research ideas is a big advantage.

But, and this may be the overriding concern, you probably need to do what your advisor requires. It may not be a good career move to push back too hard on such things.

But maybe you can find a middle ground. If there were things s/he has long expected you to complete you would probably be wise to make that happen.

As to the code, it is hard to say. If your project is part of a larger, multi-person, continuing project then the code may well belong to the project. Otherwise you may need to do some negotiating. You will want, at least, recognition, acknowledgement for any future use as well as to guarantee that you may use it for other things.


Leaving PhD in the 6th year and apply for a new PhD program I am a 6-year PhD student in computer engineering in an Asian country. My research field is Bioinformatics which was really hard to me in the beginning, but now, I love it and I have much experience at it.

Last year I was an intern in the bioinformatics department at a high-quality university in the United States. Since then, I have become disinterested in pursuing my PhD in computer engineering. Actually, most of the times I think of leaving my PhD and applying to a bioinformatics PhD program in the United States.
However, I am worried if leaving my current PhD program in the 6th year will appear as a negative point on my CV when I am applying for a new PhD in bioinformatics.

If I leave my PhD, do I have any chance of getting admitted to a new PhD program in bioinformatics?

EDIT: Also, I am worried about the letters of recommendation. If I leave my current PhD program, of course I can't get any recommendation from my PhD supervisor.

You don't give us much to go with. What you are proposing sounds pretty dramatic, and it potentially has a lot of factors going against you: Based on your description, it seems that 1) you are abandoning a Ph.D. very deeply into it; 2) you are parting ways with your adviser unamicably; 3) you are applying to a highly competitive program in the United States; 4) you may not have publications. The one thing potentially weighing in your favor is the fact that you've interned at that university: If your adviser-to-be is willing to commit to advising you and supporting you financially, it may override the other concerns in the eyes of the department.

Someone above suggests applying yourself to completing your Ph.D. and then seeking a postdoc in your dream area; that could well have better odds of success in the long term. Ultimately, of course, there's no way we can predict what the outcome will be. I'd suggest that you be sure you are being completely honest with yourself about the reasons for the situation you find yourself in, and what it is you are trying to accomplish by starting anew.

I would say go with your gut feeling.  If you always feel like leaving then leave sooner rather than later.  Do another phd; you can always quit if you don't like it.


How to deal with a professor who grades assignments and exams incorrectly I currently have a (graduate) professor who clearly does not understand the material she teaches at the level required by the course. This normally would not be a problem - I'm fine with educating myself via textbook - but unfortunately her inaccurate knowledge also extends to grading. I have no problem with studying hard for a difficult class, but I can't possibly know how to predict the exact incorrect ideas that the professor has and incorporate them into my work.

My first response was to very, verrrrry diplomatically approach the professor and talk to her about the questions - but she immediately became angry. I then talked to my advisor, who said that this isn't the first time she's heard of problems with this teacher. My advisor said that her only idea is for me to go to the head of the department, but I'd really prefer not to do this for two reasons:

Relatively small department; it's likely that this professor has
a good relationship with the department head, and I would look bad
It seems like a "nuclear option" and I would prefer to avoid it
(if possible)

This is my last semester of graduate coursework in molecular biology, and I have never had a problem like this before. I feel like my only option is to drop the course - without it, I would still have all my coursework requirements fulfilled - but I don't want to have a W on my transcript.

I have been unable to come up with a satisfactory way to resolve the problem.

Possibly helpful additional information

I have talked to other students in the class; all (of the six I have talked to about the issue) have experienced similar problems in grading
I have confirmation from other teachers that my answers are correct, but they don't want to confront a colleague (and I can't fault them for this)
I don't dislike the teacher; she seems like a relatively OK person. I just wish she understood the content better
The teacher can't possibly have a grudge against me, since I had never met her before the class
I'm  very interested in what this class covers, which is why I took it despite not needing to
I have taught some of this material at the undergraduate and graduate level; I understand it's difficult stuff. It's more the teacher's attitude towards grading that is the problem.

Not a definitive answer, since I’m a postdoc with comparatively limited experience of such conflict situations, but I do have a few suggestions.  They aim to:

maximise the chance of getting better grading without ruffling too many feathers;
give you solid documentation if you do end up escalating the complaint;
minimise the embarrassment in case it turns out that you’re misunderstanding something and your lecturer’s grading is defensible after all.

If you confront the teacher again, do so by email rather than in person.  This has several advantages.  Firstly, it allows you to look over what you’ve written and make sure you’re phrasing everything as tactfully as possible.  Secondly, it gives her time to (hopefully) get over any initial anger/embarrassment and give a considered response.  Confronted on a sensitive topic in person, it’s easy to get flustered and defensive, and entrenched in a position it’s difficult to climb down from later.  Finally, if she doesn’t respond constructively, you have the exchange in writing, so are on firmer ground for escalating the issue to the department head.

If possible, phrase the question/request so that your desired outcome is also palatable for her.  If you argue that she’s fundamentally misunderstanding the course material, she’s pretty unlikely to accept that — admitting that one’s wrong about something is already difficult, admitting one’s incompetent is a whole lot harder again. Instead, you could say that (e.g.) you have learned some of the material previously, and so know it with a different viewpoint from hers (and maybe give a couple of examples here, ideally with sources in well-established literature) and you would like to check that this angle will also be acceptable for work on the course.  I’m not saying you should say exactly that — but look for something that allows her to concede that your understanding is correct, without having to admit (to you or herself) that hers is wrong; and down the line this makes it easier for her to improve her understanding of the subject, rather than remaining antagonistic towards your suggestions.  On the other hand, if she does defend her current approach, this gives her a chance to lay out her case more clearly and carefully.

If you do this and she still doesn’t engage constructively, you’re now on very solid ground to escalate the complaint.  You have a written record of your good-faith effort to sort this out tactfully.  You have specific examples where she has doubled down on her misunderstanding of the material.  (I’d suggest double-checking these with your advisor or another faculty member to be absolutely sure you’re right about them.)  Even if the head of department supports this teacher in general, it will be comparatively difficult for them to dismiss the complaint or paint you as a troublemaker.

It is worth knowing that what is taught in coursework or printed in course texts, can be many years behind research frontiers.

If the coursework is in the professor's field of specialisation, there is a very good chance that her knowledge is years ahead of the text.

Google Scholar is your friend.


Advisor suggested me to typeset my thesis with a software that I don't know I am writing my dissertation and my supervisor recommended me this LaTeX template.

https://bitbucket.org/amiede/classicthesis/wiki/Home

However, I have been using MS-Word all along and don't know LaTeX. What are some approaches I can consider given this situation?

Learn how to use LaTeX.

LaTeX is not hard. If you have any experience programming you'll probably find LaTeX extremely elementary. You can conceivably have issues rendering certain characters or equations, but Google is likely to easily find solutions to that. TeX is also quite powerful as a word processing tool, allowing you to write obscure symbols (for example, \cdot) easily. This doesn't mean LaTeX is better than Word; certainly some things are easier done in Word than TeX. But knowing both means you have an additional weapon in your arsenal, and you'll have a better idea which weapon to deploy given what you intend to write in your dissertation.

The issue here isn't whether LaTeX is hard to learn. The issue is that a LaTeX editor is a terrible writing environment when compared to a word processor. Some people are bothered by this and some are not, and which side you're on is entirely a matter of personal preference.

What is not a matter of personal preference is the expectations of your supervisor and your field. Some fields (and some supervisors) regard producing LaTeX-typeset documents to be matter of professional necessity. Others just think it looks nice, or they like the tech-cred pretentions. So it's impossible to give a good answer to your question without knowing what your context is.

EDIT: This doesn't add much to answering the OP's question, but judging by the comments there seems to be some confusion about what a word processor is for, as well as about what a downvote is for.

Word processors were specifically designed for writing documents, and have features such as outline view, tracking changes, commenting sidebars, etc. Moreover, many writers use formatting features such as highlighting and font color as part of their writing process.

TeX on the other hand was specifically designed for typesetting documents, and the introduction of LaTeX and its variants made it a marginally usable system for writing documents. But the standard LaTeX front ends don't have the features of a word processor and many people find having to read around markup cumbersome and distracting. For these reasons, using a word processor is an objectively better environment for writing.

Of course, many other people are perfectly happy writing in a text editor and don't mind reading around markup. But this doesn't make you smarter, "more efficient," or a superior human being. It just means that you have a different work process.

The point for the OP is that being expected to trade Word for LaTeX is generally a lousy deal, but there might be constraining or mitigating factors in any particular situation.


Why is it acceptable that publishers sell papers they didn’t pay for? I am curious about the worldwide accepted ethics in publishing. I have never seen any other economic sector in which someone legally sold someone else's product for their own profit, apparently without paying for it in any way. I don’t intend to accuse any publisher, I just want to know how this works and why is this acceptable. Is it expected to be changed in the future? Do scientists want to change it, or is this accepted by more or less the whole community?

I admit, this question might seem to be off topic or opinion based but I don’t know where could I ask it.

History.

In the dark ages (i.e., before the internet), publishers provided a valuable service. If an author has a great idea, they want the whole world to read about it and the best way to do that is to get someone to publish their work. The publisher arranges for reviews, copyedits your work, and, most importantly, prints thousands of copies and sends them to libraries and archives around the world. (Note that, legally, they need to have the rights to distribute the work, and they claim ownership of the copyediting work.) Doing all this printing, mailing, and copyediting costs a lot money and thus publishers have to charge for their services. They also make a small profit from all of this.

Fast forward to the 21st century and the picture has changed considerably. Since the arrival of personal computers and software like LaTeX and Microsoft Word, copyediting is now mostly done by authors. (Reviewers and editors are rarely paid.) And, due to the internet, it is very easy to distribute papers using websites like arXiv. Going to the library to find a print journal is now a thing of the past, as journals these days just have websites.
Of course, publishers are still doing something, but it's a fraction of what it used to be.

Publishers made a lot of sense 50 years ago, but these days their model doesn't make a lot of sense; they still collect a lot of money, even though the services could be provided much more cheaply. So why does this model persist? Firstly, publishers still own the copyrights to lots of old work that is still relevant. More importantly, publishers own the "prestige" of their journals, which means academics keep sending them their work.

Is it expected to be changed in the future? Do scientists want to change it, or is this accepted by more or less the whole community?

At least one scientist (who stepped down from a full tenured professorship) wants to change it; he wrote a blog post "Why I stopped caring about peer review, and learned to love the work."
To excerpt this in part:

Today, thanks to the Internet, the sharing of ideas is a free and open process, and readers can form their own judgements about the value of ideas, whether flawed or polished. A good idea does not have to be stamped and labelled to be approved, and science is done in communities, without the central control of anonymous judges and juries. Preprint archives (originally distributed on paper by SLAC) have now become ArXive.org and ResearchGate provides indexed community based services, more efficiently than gross amalgamations of diverse fields by journals on a monthly schedule.
...
Science rarely waits for publications to appear anymore. The process is so painfully slow that when a publication appears, either everyone has already read it, or no one is going to. So much nonsense gets into print that it is scarcely a real accolade to be in print.
It takes months or years for a paper to reach print, and who can afford academic journals anyway? So, why would we not think: what if I just self-published my idea in a blog or a website? I could simply ask a smaller circle of people to comment honestly. And it would be searchable by anyone who might stumble across it with the help of modern search engines. Use the archives and the new social sharing sites. Technology can take prejudice out of the equation.

The blog is more focused on the brokenness of the peer review process, but his suggested solutions take advantage of the Internet age and thereby also address the broken finance arrangements of journal publications.


Is it appropriate for a professor to require students to sign a non-disclosure agreement before being taught? There's a professor at my school that claims to be writing a book. He is requiring students to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) before certain lectures because he wants to maintain certain ideas of teaching his content part of his intellectual property.

I think that part is reasonable (to an extent) since he is protecting his ideas.

What I think is unreasonable is the fact that he requires all students to sign these NDAs, and offers no alternative presentation of the subject matter. Thus if a student does not wish to sign, they end up missing out on lectures that they have already paid the university to receive, and they have a potential of missing out on graded content that is "covered" by the material that the professor is restricting.

Students have no notice that this will happen prior to entering the class and thus are forced to sign if the don't want to withdraw.

No. It’s not appropriate and this is an obvious, blatant abuse of authority. I have a word in mind to describe this professor, but unfortunately am not free to disclose it as I am under an NDA. (It starts with an “i” and ends with a “t”).

Edit: to those asking “why not?”: teaching the class is the professor’s job. He is literally (in the literal sense of “literally”) required to teach the lecture and to allow any registered student who isn’t being disruptive to attend it, without setting any preconditions. And of course this swearing of students to legally binding secrecy is even more absurd than other types of conditions, considering the students are there to acquire knowledge they’ll need to use later in their studies and career. The whole “I’ll teach you but you have to promise not to tell anyone about it” thing reads like something straight out of Catch-22.

I'll take the minority stand.

NDAs are now a standard in the startup ecosystem. Getting students readied for this reality may have been an unintended result of the professor's request.

I have come across a professor who was conducting sponsored research. He could describe the intent of algorithm he was developping, but was not allowed to describe the solution he was implementing.

The ability or willingness for professors or students to require or sign NDAs can widen the scope of university corporation cross collaborations where protecting a competitive advantage is a requirement.

I can see how some ideas may need time to be refined. In this case the professor would provide a peek in his research yet to be completed or even validated.

I would sign up the agreement knowing the book publishing would release me from the NDA terms.


What is the best way to collaborate with a professor whose current work one is extending? I am currently doing a research project and I have found some mistakes in the paper of the professor whose work I am extending. I feel that it would be best if the professor is willing to co-author my paper. There are several reasons for it. First of all the professor is a PC member of the conference in which I am willing to publish. So, the error which I am referring to can hurt his ego and I am afraid of negative review because of bias. Second of all, if he is willing to co-author, my ongoing work can definitely improve and I will have a higher chance of acceptance. In that case, he wont be reviewing my paper as he is a co-author.

But the professor is from a different university and previously there was no collaboration between their university and ours. I am not a professor but merely a graduate student. What should my best course of action to collaborate with him? (He is a very high profile professor)

What should my best course of action to collaborate with him? (He is a very high profile professor)

Your best course of action is to email him, explain the work you've been doing, and politely suggest exploring the possibility of a collaboration. However, you need to seriously work on your mindset before writing the email, because right now I feel like the reasons you are interested in the collaboration are not good reasons - you seem to be interested in the reputational benefit of having him as a coauthor and in the fact that if he is a coauthor then he can't be the referee for the paper; in other words, your collaboration offer will not be based on a genuine interest in the intellectual contribution this "high profile" professor can make to the work, and therefore I would say it is not being made in good faith. If I were the professor and got wind of what your motives are (and it may not be so easy for you to hide them, even if you try to phrase the email dishonestly, which in any case I would not recommend doing), I would not only refuse to work with you but would also develop a poor opinion of you that could be long-lasting and would be hard for you to correct.

To summarize, you are putting the cart before the horse here. You should contact the professor if and only if you are genuinely and in good faith interested in an intellectual collaboration rather than a mere formal coauthorship. Even then, keep in mind the professor may refuse your offer, because he is busy or for any number of other reasons (or for no reason at all). Your offer should be phrased in a tactful way that leaves your dignity (and any potential interaction you may have with the professor in the future) intact in the event that he is not interested in your offer. Good luck!

Personal responsibility dictates that if you know enough about their work that you are able to extend it to new applications, then you should work on your own, reference their results where necessary and without making any assumptions about their opinion or insisting that they take time away from what sounds like a fairly busy schedule, proceed on your own.  If you have quick questions about specialized knowledge that's probably the best way to correspond.

In all likelihood, unless you have an equally sterling reputation, they'll ignore you; however, their opinion will likely be part of the refereeing process if you want to submit something related to their work to a conference with which they are affiliated.  Don't commit the faux pas of trying to chase them down like they owe you something, especially if you think their work has problems.  You're responsible for your own career and your own decisions.


Can we add articles downloaded from Sci-Hub to a meta-analysis study? Is it safe and legal to add articles downloaded from Sci-Hub to a meta-analysis study(unpublished)? Will it make any difference? Are there any consequences?

If you disclose that you downloaded it from Sci-Hub, one cannot rule out that you will suffer legal consequences one day (alongside, perhaps, social punishments based on moral grounds). But given the almost non-existence of a legal enforcement against the individual use of this 'pirate', I find it unlikely.
To be on the safe side, you should simply not disclose the source from which you downloaded that publication. Mention it, discuss it, cite it, but do so without telling the reader how you acquired the PDF. This would be too much detail anyway.
(Yes, a meta-analysis would do good to disclose how it came to include certain studies, but it does not have to tell the reader in minute detail how you downloaded each study's PDF.)

No.

Yet Sci-Hub has drawbacks for text-mining research, Hart-Davidson says. The pirated papers are in unstructured PDF format, which is hard for programs to parse. But the bigger issue, he says, is that the data source is illegal. “How are you going to publish your work?” Then again, having a massive private repository of papers does allow a researcher to rapidly test hypotheses before bothering with libraries at all. And it's all just a click away.

Source


Should I give a talk about an insignificant result? I wrote a paper with some coauthors who are more senior than me (I am a grad student) and it got published although not in a top journal. I thought I understood it and followed the proof line by line but I have been asked to give a talk about it and now I realize that the paper is not very good. We claimed to improve a result of some other people and actually one of our main theorems that we spend lots of space proving is a trivial consequence of theirs just worded differently so I'm worried that giving a talk about this paper will make everyone in the audience just think I'm/we're stupid for not noticing this. I was specifically invited by someone interested in the topic so I can't even talk about anything else. What should I do? Pretending I don't know it's bad gives me more chance to get away with it but seems dishonest. Owning up to the problem sounds like career suicide. And I don't have a good reason to cancel the talk but I'm thinking of saying I'm sick and I can't make it because I really wish this paper doesn't exist.

I'm pretty sure you aren't alone here. People find surprising things all the time. Be thankful that you are the one who found it.

This may sound risky, but I don't believe it is. Give a technical description of the problem as you normally would and then give an historical tour through what you originally thought and what you now think and why.

Rather than being career suicide, you will, IMO, be thought refreshingly honest and open to the truth wherever it leads. If you "get away with it now" but don't later, things will be much worse. Much much worse is if a student in your talk raises his/her hand with ... well, you know.

Out with it my friend. Just take a deep breath and say it all. You can even say that you feel a bit silly now that you've gotten a deeper understanding. Noting wrong about a deep understanding, of course, even if it eludes you early.

And, of course, your more senior colleagues and the reviewers, if any, also missed the point. You are a hero, not a bum. The math is what it is.

Another option, of course, is to say that you have found an issue along with the consequence but then talk about another topic. But I think that would disappoint people. Seeing the flaw can, itself, be enlightening.

In my discipline, part of the purpose in giving talks is to thrash-out ideas which might not be particularly brilliant, in order to get feedback from your audience, so that you can build on the ideas or find better ideas. Academia is supposed to be collegial, which means that we should give and receive robust yet constructive criticism on work-in-progress (and I think you should treat your paper as work-in-progress with potential for future development, even though it has already been published) in order to advance scholarship now and in the future. In other words, a talk need not be a perfect and earth-shattering result.


Is it fair for a professor to grade us on the possession of past papers? My English professor recently asked us to bring in all of our graded essays from the whole semester in order to fill out a 'rubric' of sorts which tallied the various types of mistakes we had made. She will be grading the rubric, and previously stated that if we did not have all the essays from the past semester in class that day, our grade would be comparably lower than otherwise. She made no mention of 'keeping all graded work' at any point during the course, and in my current institution, I have never been expected to keep past work for any specified duration. There are a multitude of reasons why a student may not have been able to keep particular (or any) essays, which my professor did not take into consideration.

Is it fair for my English professor to expect us to keep all of our past graded work, and then grade us on our possession? If unfair, how can I bring this issue up with her and dispute her expectation?

Note that I doubt that this is because she lost the essays; they’ve already been averaged into our final grades.

If this was not mentioned in the syllabus (or at least announced prior to the papers being returned), this is totally inappropriate.  While it may be foolish for students not to keep their graded work (at least until the end of the term), if it was not established as a requirement before the students got their papers back, it cannot reasonably be made a retroactive requirement.

You should bring this problem to the attention of the instructor.  You do not need to reveal whether you actually have all your past papers when you bring this up, lest the instructor try to wave your concerns away if you say that you actually do have all the papers and are just complaining as a matter of principle.  I would also suggest having multiple students come to her together to make the same objection; that may make it more likely that she will relent.  However, if the instructor does not agree to make a change, you should take this up with someone higher up.  That could mean the department chair (or another departmental official, such as the director of undergraduate or graduate studies) or a student ombudsman, if one is available.

One unmentioned possibility is to file a petition with the dean for credit/no credit grading on this course, citing this retroactive requirement as the reason. While this doesn't help the rest of the students, it does get the point across and protects you.

Late filing of credit/no credit (and this would be very late if you're on the quarter system) doesn't have to get approved, but this puts the thing on record in case you decide to appeal the grade later. Effectively retroactively changing the grading metric is a good case for credit/no credit.


Thesis submitted, but not published – can I put the title on my CV? My thesis was submitted, but not published by the library or online yet.

I would like to put its title on my CV. Is this OK? Or is it kind of risky?

There is no obvious reason why including the title of your thesis in your CV might be risky. Just make sure that all information is presented accurately. If your thesis has been submitted, but not accepted, then say "(submitted)".

Yes, just ask your supervisor.  The risk is to your university if it turns out totally bogus.