Quit PhD and find a job I'm a year and a half into a PhD at a top university in the Uk. Doing some good work but not enjoying academia and I think this is more than second year blues. I have quite a bad advisor which doesn't help, for example I've already had my work stolen by a collaborator and my supervisor is reluctant to rock the boat or say anything.

My PhD is in applied Math and computational physics and I have access to London. My current plan is to leave with an Mphil and find a job in the city - trouble is I don't know what I want to do.

I would like a career that uses my mathematical and programming abilities and is more commercial, i.e. not all technical. A career that I can go places with - but has a good work life balance.  I've always wanted to be a professor, but the reality of academia has really put a pin in that, I can't stand it, I hate the politics, I hate the way I'm treated by my supervisors, the university staff and colleges, I hate the academic culture here where I'm expected to let my research take over life and that just by considering other opportunities, I'm not worthy of academia - I came TOP of my class, I worked incredibly hard, I feel I deserve more respect than what I get as a grad student.

So I've been looking around and a few careers have caught my eye - though I want something with a better work-life balance.

Has anyone themselves quit a PhD? Were you happier?

I have strong urge to respond to user9590's comment: No one who quit a PhD ever felt bad for quitting a PhD. Well, I do. I always feel bad after I quit PhD. Although I had good personal reasons to do so, I always regret my decision. I missed everything in academia: the professors, the classroom, the research, the teaching, even the campus. After I retired from industry, I had to choose a place to live. Do you know the street name of my current address? Academia Road !

The reasons you're thinking about leaving academia:

I hate the politics - Do you believe there is no politics in industry?

I hate the way I'm treated by my supervisors, the university staff and colleges - Do you believe your managers, the human resources and the company in industry will treat you very well?

I hate the academic culture here where I'm expected to let my research take over life, - Would you love the industry culture to let making money take over life?

I feel I deserve more respect than what I get as a grad student.. - Do you feel you deserve more respect than what you'll get as an employee of an industry company?

If your answers to the above questions are all positive, industry is your place. In particular, please run to industry if you love to make money. Otherwise, please reconsider quitting PhD. Good Luck!

Drop out now!

I am just about to submit after 5 years of PhD - and I have hated every minute of it.  I also thought about quitting after the first year, but talked myself out of it.  I am a mature age student and had worked for many years before I started the PhD.  My reasons for starting the PhD in the first place were that I was a bit bored with my job and wanted to extend myself - not good reasons!  Also my expectations of what a PhD was and the reality of a PhD did not match up very well.  I thought I should have been discussing big ideas with my supervisors, but our meetings were generally about my style of writing - should I use bullet points or not, how should the tables be formatted, I hadn't led the reader enough (read repeated myself often enough).

At the start of this year I was lucky enough to get a tenure track job at a good university.  I know I'm really lucky to be here, but I absolutely hate it.  I thought I should at least apply for an academic job to see if I could get a job, and then I thought, well... I should at least try it out for a year.  Even now in my head I'm telling myself - it will be better next year.

I feel like I've just drifting along waiting to see if things improve for the past 5 years. I really regret leaving my last job. If I had my time again, I would have quit after the first year and I would probably be doing something I really enjoy now! I feel stuck.


Quoting a typo: Do I really have to do "sic", or can I just fix the sentence? I've got an upcoming work in which I quote a couple sentences from a scholar's book.  There's an unambiguous typo in it; the author just switched a few words around.

Do I really have to quote him verbatim, adding "sic" to point out the error?  Or can I just "quote" him, with the typo fixed?

Academics are old-fashioned people who care about things like truth, facts, and accuracy. By making sure that everything you write between quotation marks is what the person you quote actually wrote (with "[sic]" inserted as appropriate), you will contribute your small share to perpetuating these values, which, although temporarily out of fashion these days in some parts, have served humanity well and will continue to do so in the future.

It may seem silly to resist the urge to make a correction when it's just a typo, but it's a good way to get yourself and others into the habit of speaking truthfully and accurately. So please write "sic" rather than correct the quote. Silly as it may be, in a small way it makes the world a better place.

You have to use [sic], or not change anything. That way everyone reading your paper knows exactly who wrote what.

My personal favorite example in this vein was the writer who [sic]ced "orient" and then explained that the writer they were quoting had meant "orientate".


In the United States, how customary is it for professors to not check their emails around Christmas? I hope I don't sound like I'm complaining, and I understand professors and academics are humans. My question is more of one of inquiry rather than venting. I have e-mailed a few professors for certain professional opportunities. This is not my first time doing so, and I am familiar with proper e-mail etiquette and how to write a message to minimize the chances of a glaring ignore. I have also received replies in the past. However, I have e-mailed a few professors about a week ago, and my inbox is crickets so far. On average, is it customary for academics to take a break from e-mailing during the Holiday break?

Yes, it's common. Many take a break from work entirely during this season. Some reduce their working hours to spend time with family, and only answer urgent email. Some may be traveling and have limited or no access to email. Some (like me) may be swamped with grading and other end-of-semester duties and are focusing on those at the moment.

If you haven't heard back by mid-January, try a polite follow-up then.

I would think that as professionals, most check their emails several times a day. That, of course, is not the same as responding.


How can I protect a course I created independently from being taken by the community college I substitute for, when I am about to teach it there? I have created a course independent of the community college I substitute for. I contacted the CE department about a year ago to see if my course would be something I could offer as a CE course at the college. They were excited and after several meetings my course is scheduled to begin this fall.
However, there have been a few red flags that have me concerned that maybe the college will try to take my course and teach it without me being the instructor. No compensation for all the hours creating the course has been paid. Besides substituting for one of the technical programs, I am not currently a paid staff member. They did not ask me to create the course for the college, I came to the department with the course already created.
I guess my question is: how do I ensure they don’t take the curriculum as property of the college if something goes sideways?

I'm going to come up with a different answer.
Sometimes I've taken over a course from someone else. They've offered me their slides, exercises, questions, etc.
Sometimes I've stopped teaching a class, and I've offered my successor my slides, exercises, questions, etc.
I haven't been able to use anyone else's material, and I'm pretty sure no one has used mine. It's not much use - unless it actually tells you what to say, when I write a slide, I have some idea what I was going to say. No one else does, and they can often fail to make much sense of it.
They can't steal your course, your course is in your head.
(My favorite example of this was when we were giving a talk to prospective students. I usually did this course for our department, but on one occasion, a colleague did it instead. The colleague took my slides, and figured that these were going to be slides that introduced the department. What could they possibly say? I was told later by someone else who was there that there was a slide with a picture of my cat. My colleague said "And this slide has a picture of Jeremy's cat. I've no idea why."  [I'm sure that it was there for a good reason, or to make a point, but I completely forget what that point was.])

You have been getting different answers here because "create" is a rather broad and vague term.
Things like powerpoint slides, written exercises etc. are just part of teaching a class. The school kind of owns them by default even if your legal position may be stronger in theory.
If the overall idea and conception of the course is novel with you, I can well understand your frustration but unfortunately you have undermined your legal position by telling them about it. Because they can always maintain that they entertained very similar ideas long before you came along, and to be honest this may even be the truth.
If you created dedicated software, and particularly if it is innovative in some way or form, you have every right to feel ripped off. Your legal position is complex in this case and you should seek counsel.
But. A word of warning. The community college will not be very rich, but I bet you are not very rich either, and legal procedures are hell expensive. Obstinate clients is what buys a lawyer his second yacht.
So, if you do get ditched as an instructor, your best bet is to take your lumps and let it go. If you find yourself sitting at home, fuming and brooding and losing sleep, you will have to take a deep breath and go ask them why.
There may be a solid reason why you are not suitable. Take this away from the experience and improve on these points.
There may also be a reason that really has nothing to do with you as a person. E.g. Todd had already promised Brad that his second wife could teach the course. This is infuriating, but it is the way of the world.


(UK, mathematics) Making the most of a teaching job as an aspiring researcher I finished my PhD a few years ago, and since then have been hopping from temporary job to temporary job every year. They've all been research-and-teaching jobs, which has been exactly what I wanted. I applied to a whole host of jobs this year, and got one. It's a secure, open-ended job, in a location I think I could be happy living in for a long time. I'm incredibly relieved about this.

The one downside is that it's a teaching-only job.

Now, I honestly enjoy teaching, but it alone is not enough to keep me in this career in the long run. This job seems like a poisoned chalice for my research career: not only does it mean less research time, it also means I'm less likely to be able to attend seminars, I'll have minimal free time during other mathematicians' work hours to liaise with them, I'll receive no funding to attend conferences, I won't be able to swap out duties with other people to give talks, and so on. I won't even be housed in the same building as the research mathematicians, so even interacting with them over lunch is going to be difficult. I'm basically excluded from all of the things that are involved in being an active member of the community!

How do I avoid being funnelled into a permanent teaching-only career? How do I make the most of the time I have during this job? Am I going to find it more difficult to be taken seriously as a researcher after a few years in this job?

Edited to clarify: my department is not the mathematics department. It is part of the university, but it is a "learning and teaching"-style department: the vast majority of staff there are teaching-only. I don't know whether this makes a concrete difference, but it might well impact funding, internal policy regarding grants, the priorities of my line managers, etc. I have no idea. Anecdotes and experiences related to this might also be useful.

First, I’ll describe what happens at my department (engineering, high ranking, UK). It might be useful to understand the mindset.

We were recently hiring for teaching only position at my school (teaching fellow). The idea behind it was to get someone to teach in a specific area. The job is open-ended, the same salary as other faculty (Lecturer/assist prof), and has excellent career progression (to full professor on a teaching track). We wanted someone that loves to do that, teaching. If we wanted someone to do both, then we would open a position for someone to do both.

As a panel, we tried to understand if the candidate really wanted to do research and was only using the position as a transition or as a way into the department. Then, we removed those candidates. Afterwards, there is a probation period of one year during which, if the person seems that is not interested in teaching (which was the job description), the school can decide to let them go.

The school only “allows” the teaching-only colleagues to research if it’s related to teaching. For instance, new teaching methods, methodologies, etc. With “allows”, I mean would shift timetable, include in workload, and pay for conferences. If the teaching staff wants to do anything not related to teaching, they need to do it at their own time and expense. PhD co-supervision is not possible.

To your questions

The more you stay in a teaching position, the more you’ll get trapped. Your peers in research or combined post will be encouraged and have more time to write grants and publish papers. Since these are the main characteristics looked for in research-track hiring and progression, you will gradually become unattractive for research-focused or combined positions.

Transitioning within the same department is indeed possible (but rare). We have a colleague that transitioned from a teaching to a combined position after three years. He is now transitioning back to a teaching post. He found that three years without publishing and without the skills that other research-track colleagues honed over the same three years (grant writing, networking, panels, etc.) it was impossible to attract funding (which is a requirement in our school to keep your position).

Edit based on OP comments

Our university offers two progression tracks. The research track has 80% research excellence, contribution to the field, and funding criteria and 20% teaching. The teaching track is the other way around.

The teaching-track research is on education in the area. One of the best journals for us as an example is IEEE Transactions on Education. Admittedly, most of the research is translational. That is, bringing modern educational concepts and ideas into the engineering teaching environment.

Other criteria involve participation to accreditation process, designing/updating teaching programs, achieving Fellow status at HEA, outreach activities at schools, etc.

The obvious answer is to shirk teaching and divert time to research.  Do it in a stealthy manner of course (just be perceived as efficient, not blowing things off).  Use your massive Ph.D. brain to figure out how to do that. (limit graded homework, use established texts and curricula versus trying new ones, etc. etc. use your noggin.)

But really, you are already pretty far off the beaten track ("job to job" along with taking a teaching only post, versus finding another one with partial research).  At this point, you really need to re-evaluate your goals and see if pursuing hard core academia research is in the cards for you.  It is a tournament system (like being a rock star...lots of aspiring musicians, few headliners).  Consider if you will be happy being a postdoc in your 40s.  Or an adjunct forever. Or if you even might want to look at alternate fields (more applied, BUT don't take more school) or going to work for government or the like.


should I fight to choose journal my work is submitted to? I'm a USA grad student in computational biology.  Starting 2 years ago, I tried to get paper X published, with very little feedback from my advisor, and after a year (!) in review paper X was rejected. Meanwhile, I was working on other projects, gaining experience, and drawing closer to graduation. My advisor then asked me to submit X to a kind of shady non-journal "proceedings" (he had some hook-up), and he didn't seem happy that I objected. Now, I hope to graduate in a few months, and with the benefit of my improved knowledge of science, I'm trying to get project X published again.  My advisor only cares about getting things out the door, not about the projects, and he has a connection to this Chinese journal (jmcb.oxfordjournals.org) that I never heard of. He is impressed  by their impact factor because that's how he is (I can tell they are gaming their IF.). He wants me to put it there, while I think a lower IF, less obscure journal would be way better. Additionally, it appears that very few institutions subscribe to this journal (my univ does not).

It's not a spam journal, but I never would want to submit there, and I feel that I should have some control over it as it's my work. But is it worth it to fight him on this, or should I just go along with it because he's the boss? I guess if it's easy to publish there, I should be grateful not to have to keep working on it after graduation? I do want to do a postdoc.

If the journal is junk, you should not publish there, period. So, the real question is: Is the journal as bad as you think it is or this journal is just not one of the top journals in your area but still a legit, reputable journal? So, confirm which of the two applies. How to distinguish journals has already been discussed several times in this forum. Check the editors, look their homepages if they mention their editorial work there, see who else publishes there and check some of the published articles.

In case this is actually a legit, reputable journal but still not top of the line, you should really consider if your work is actually as good as you think it is. It already has got a rejection and perhaps your advisor suggests some medium (and not top) journal, since he may believe your work might actually have a chance there. So, be open about this and ask him. What does he actually think about your specific work? Is it not good enough for the top journals? If he believes it is not, perhaps you should reconsider your stance.

If it's true that few libraries subscribe to it, then I would say that's serious enough grounds to choose something else, perhaps an Open Access option.


Can I get a refund if I bought an article that contains a major flaw? Is it possible to get a refund from a publisher if I bought an article that contains a major flaw (i.e.,one that invalidates the main results or the main conclusions)? Assume the article was bought through one of the main academic publication's paywall.

Of course you can request one - just send an email. You'll brighten up the publisher's office for the afternoon, and they'll be chuckling all the way home.

So just as long as you don't seriously expect to get your money back, you'll be fine. When you paid your fee, you were paying for access to read the paper. As long as that access was provided, then the publisher has met their side of the bargain. Peer review is not a guarantee of correctness. It's a first-level junk filter, nothing more.

And on top of you getting what you've paid for, you've got the additional bonus that you've now got a new paper that you can write, that's practically already written itself; the paper where you take apart your bought paper's argument. Magnanimously, the publisher won't require you to pay extra for this bonus - you got it thrown in for free.

If you are just looking to get your money back, then I am afraid it is not worth an effort; you probably will spend more on the telephone calls than they charged you for the article.

However, it could be nice to set a precedent like this: to request a refund and eventually to sue a lazy publisher, who do not bother to introduce a proper level of scrutiny in their peer review process, and instead charge the authors to publish some bogus papers and then charge the readers to access them. I have no idea whether or not such a case can win (and I guess it depends on jurisdictions). The question just adds to the bigger question of very complicated relations between academic publishers and academia.


Is it better to have no publication than having you as second author? I am a post graduate engineering student(Computer Science). I have only one conference (not very good) publication in my name as a first author.
One of my seniors labmate, worked on a very good research project a few months ago and wrote a paper. I have been approached by him to generate a few more results for his paper and proof reading and extending his paper with literature survey and elaborative explaination of results. I have been offered co-authorship(2nd author) for this paper.
Now, though I can dedicate some time to do that work, but is accepting 2nd authorship worth.

I would like to ask in general as well, that is it worth to put effort in papers and get 2nd authorship given that the paper is not related to my primary area of research or rather work and dedicate time on one's own research and get papers as a first author ?

Note: I have seen that in academia (where I want to go), usually advertisements call for applications from people having at least X no of papers as first author.

If the paper is well-written, contributes non-trivial knowledge to a particular field, is peer-reviewed, and you contributed significantly enough to the paper to be listed as an author, you should put your name on it. In the case of fields where pre-prints are common (i.e., it won't be peer-reviewed, at least initially), it is also worthwhile.

What you don't want is to be an author on a poorly written paper. In other words, you should be proud to list a publication on your CV even if it isn't exactly in your primary research area. Especially at this stage in the game, having a few good papers will help your case, even as a second author (and keep in mind that some fields, such as theoretical computer science, should have the authors listed alphabetically and all authors are considered primary).

I see the OP has done "experiments" and "drafting". This case differs from what I wrote above. Then he is eligible for authorship, unless "few results" mean really few results and literature review was somehow ready from the paper his/her colleague had already drafted.


PhD and postdoc with no first author publications- realistically what are my career prospects? I am a UK based researcher in life sciences. My research is in neuroscience, mainly involving in vivo electrophysiology. My PhD project was a disaster for a number of reasons (technical difficulties, difficult supervisor etc) and so I finished with very few results. Through a side project I got a middle authorship on a paper in a respectable but not outstanding journal (impact factor ~5-6). Despite all the difficulties I endured during my PhD I still wanted to be an academic researcher and decided to take a 3 year postdoc position at another UK university.

The postdoc project seemed promising and the lab had a track record of publishing decent papers. Unfortunately disaster has struck again, and none of my experiments have worked or produced anything publishable. I only have 6 months left on my contract and the odds of me getting a paper in that time are pretty much zero.

I know I need to think about what my next step is career-wise but I feel so stressed and demotivated that I worry I'm not thinking clearly. Plus my confidence is rock bottom from feeling like everything I touch in the lab falls apart. Part of me thinks it's time to cut my losses and try a different career path, however the thought of giving up on my long held dream of being a researcher is heartbreaking, and I then start to wonder if I'm quitting too easily. When I tell my science friends how I feel they all tell me that I'm not a bad scientist, that I've just been unlucky and that they're sure the next project (whatever it is) will go better. Are they right? Do I still have a chance? If I took another postdoc and got a paper from it, would that ever be enough to make up for the long gap in my publication record? Or would it be a  case of too little too late?

Any advice would be much appreciated!

Are you intending to stay in academia? You stated in your question that you've always wanted to be a "researcher"... you should be aware that there are many industry positions with similar duties and responsibilities. Having zero publications isn't good, but your skills as a researcher aren't limited to the length of your CV. I would spend some time investigating positions in industry that would allow you to perform similar work to what you're doing now in academia.

Hopefully someone else can post something focusing more on your academic prospects.

Edit: Your comment of "not sure if my work is relevant to industry" deserves more attention that an answer on an online forum can provide, but very briefly:

You are not defined by your field. I have a BS in psychology, a PhD in biomedical engineering (which actually was entirely neuroscience, but all my courses were electrical engineering), my first two jobs were a bank quantitive  analyst and a data science manager for an insurance company, and I now work for a cybersecurity research firm. When writing a resume you choose which skills to highlight and how to sell yourself. I strongly recommend you re-evaluate your own skill set and see whats out there that interests you.

First of all take care of your self. Exercise, take some breaks. This will improve your mental performance.

In this life anything is possible. In you position I will definitely change my mindset from "I will fail" to "I will shake earth and heaven to succeed". Do everything a human can do to make most of you remaining time as a postdoc.

You really have to believe you can make it. The worst thing is to quit and say "it was impossible all along".

You can to trust God/your destiny/wherever that one day, somehow, if you don't give up, you will achieve your dreams.

To sum up, the most important thing in life is your viewpoint. Why feel "the pressure"? Just do your best there, try some more and research a topic alone (if the field allows it).

You may ask: "And if I fail and years pass without results?". This is the wrong mindset. The correct one is: "No matter the result, if I do my best, this research won't be futile.". You may get hired for an industry position based on the fact you have a PhD.

You never know, do your best, follow your heart, and don't ever give up because "it was impossible all along". It never really is.

I would stick at least 2 more years in academia before thinking about doing something else. But no matter what, do not say "I have a last chance and I quit".


Is it okay for a professor to leave the classroom only 5 min past the class start if nobody has shown up? Last week, because of a subway delay due to bad weather I arrived 15 minutes late to class to find out my professor had left 10 minutes before because nobody else had arrived.

Was it okay for him to do that? Would it be rude to complain about this matter?

We are just 4 students between mid 20's to mid 30's, this is a grad school elective course with a single session of 3 hours every week, starting at 17:00 ending at 20:00.

I'm also a former TA and currently a lecturer of an undergrad Physics 101 course, so I'm aware of how it feels when even half of the class is missing.

Update version 2 Today I was the only one to attend (unsure about the reasons my classmates had, the weather was OK this time). And talked to the professor about the issue. He said this situation wasn't his problem. About the weather/commute issue he said this: "Of course I know that happens, I'm much older than you". Then decided there wasn't enough people, handed me the class notes saying we will skip theory again because "everyone is irresponsible" (exact words again) and left. I'm dumbfounded a second time.

Final update I decided to let it be for now. I'm not going to pick a fight alone like a crazy person (my classmates don't see a problem, neither with the professor's behaviour, nor theirs). If the situation takes a turn to the worse, I'll just withdraw for the course and hope someone else teaches it next year. Thanks for everyone's interest :) never expected so many comments!

I think this is less about regulations and more about respect and conditioning the students. Also, don't feel offended, you are not the (primary) reason for what happened.
Legitimate Reasons for Leaving
Respect
The fact that 0% of the students arrived shows the professor an

immense lack of interest in his teaching subject ("I disdain the subject that you spend years researching and thus I disdain you.")
OR complete disregard of his didactic skills ("You are so bad at teaching, that I don't think I can gain anything from your lecture.")
OR disregard of his personal status ("You are such an unimportant person and your status is so much below me, that you will have to adjust your life to mine and wait for my arrival.")

Even if the class only consists of 5 students, he might extrapolate that everyone has one or more of these convictions. If he waits for students to arrive, he accepts his lower status and/or personal offense.
Operant Conditioning
If the professor waits for students to arrive, they will be conditioned that coming late  has no negative consequences. Canceling the class will incur a penalty to students and might force them to take arrival times more serious in order to gain the advantage of having the course material explained to them.
Recommendation
Communicate (in person or via e-mail) to the professor

that you are very sorry for your absence
state your reasons (should be severe enough)
and make sure to allude to one more of the three points mentioned in the respect section.

If he feels that you have legitimate reasons for being late and that your absence was not a sign of disrespect, I am sure that he will be more inclined to wait longer next time you are late or might even offer you to come by his office to "pick him up" for the lecture.

OP's Update
(This should probably be a new question, since the update significantly changes the circumstances.)
I am very sorry that the professor refused to give a lecture for you alone.
It is not your fault that you were the only present and thus it is imho unfair that you have to bear the consequences.
Updated Recommendation
I would approach him again

start with how unsatisfactory the situation for him and you is

again alluding to the respect section and

then ask him: Why do I have to bear the consequences for the action of other students? hoping that he is rational enough to realize his mistake. Basically you should try to make him understand that he does the same to you that other students are doing to him.

Maybe he was just disappointed about the low presence again and is an overly emotional person. Unfortunately that is not something you will be able to change.
If this does not resolve the situation I would ask around the department for existing regulations regarding this.

For me, the professor is bound for three hours (within your class timings). He should spend all time in the class or library and conduct class as any student reached. For me, ethically, legally it is not allow him to quit the class after 10 seconds of wait. He can do this only if he certain that no one will come to join class or students are too rude, not take class properly on time.


Is it advisable to have many clickable hyperlinks in an academic CV? I have recently been updating my academic CV. I realise that some items are not as internationally recognised as to that every reader will be aware of their importance without googling them. Hence, I am thinking about inserting hyperlinks to those items lest the reader wish to learn more.

Now, many items on my CV are clickable, and a reader particularly interested in one item may now just click on it to see a webpage with more details to pop up.

However, I rarely see a CV with many hyperlinks behind those words/phrases. Is this a taboo, or I am OK to do so?

I agree: most academic CVs do not have a festival of hyperlinks.  I don't see a problem with it, unless -- as @Taladris says -- the large amount of hyperlinking creates clutter in the document.  For something like a CV, where the spacing on the page is highly adjustable, I would think that you could probably have even a highly hyperlinked CV and take a little care to make sure that it does not look too busy to the eye.

I can tell you though why I don't feel the need to hyperlink my CV (and I imagine the reason holds more generally).  It's simple: I also have a webpage, and anything which appears on my CV which could get linked to also appears on my webpage.  Further, the translation between the two is straightforward: I have a section of my CV listing papers, and I also have an immediately visible link to a subpage containing papers from my main webpage (which, as you can see, is no frills to say the least, but it seems to get the job done).

Although I am certainly no expert on the visual display of information, webpage design (you'll know that immediately if you clicked on the above link) or anything like that, it is my opinion that a webpage is a more natural medium to have clickable content than a CV.

I think every young academic should have a professional webpage.  If they do have one, I'm not sure that a heavily hyperlinked CV is necessary, although again I see no harm in it.

I would advise against including any hyperlinks in your CV. There is very good chance that your CV will be printed out for consideration and it is at this point that you need to have your CV shine so you should design your CV to be read on paper rather than on screen. Hyperlinks, by necessity, will want to be formatted differently from the surrounding text but this will look odd in a printout where the links are non-functional and add no benefit.


What is the effect of a PhD student dyeing their hair blue? I'm a male 19 year old Phd student (in a field in the exact sciences), I dyed my hair bright blue. Personally, I think it transmits a great message and is generally cool. Although, I'm not sure how well received will it be in my university, in teaching, while visiting other universities, meeting new researchers I never met before and while presenting in conferences.

Picture of the hair can be viewed here:

http://i.imgur.com/03viCuL.jpg

Questions:

What effect might dyeing your hair blue have as a PhD student?

The general advice is that when you're an undergraduate student, a graduate student not yet on the job market, or when you're a tenured faculty, you can do whatever the hell you want.

The problem is that you are vulnerable when you're in the position to be hired, promoted, tenured, or retained. In those cases, having just one conservative person on the hiring/promotion/retention committee (or at the divisional, full faculty, dean or provost levels) can derail you. In those circumstances, you want to stand out in terms of your research, service, and teaching  but to try to avoid or mitigate any areas of friction where and when possible.

Since hair color is easily changeable, if I were your advisor, I would recommend that you dress (and hair color) more conservatively when you go on the job market -- and when you come up for promotion/retention/tenure.
I would also recommend you wear shoes at your job interview.

The benefit to risk analysis just isn't in favor of frivolity in these high stakes situations. Your departmental faculty may be 100% behind you and your sartorial style but I've seen faculty lose tenure bids at the divisional, full faculty, and provost level despite department support. I've seen grad students not get hired because they wore a t-shirt to a job interview thinking the institution was a cool, hip place. It was, just not that hip.

At all other times during your career, I think you are relatively free to do what you want within the broader norms of your particular cohort and department.

Note that while my home department is anthropology and I'm currently at a R1, I've also taught at two SLACs and have seen enough shenanigans in other departments and at divisional/university levels that my advice is not restricted to just anthropology at R1s but is intended as general advice. Ymmv.

Nice question. Though it did strike me as being somewhat out of the blue...

Smart to be asking after the fact. 19 years old and already on the Pile it Higher and Deeper track...who wouldn't get the blues! Ok I'm done.

In the academe, and the exact (as opposed to the approximate) sciences in particular, it is tacit knowledge that blue hair is a major showstopper, effectively ending one's academic tenure. Actually, security isn't really supposed to be letting you on campus (nb for those campus visits). Needless to say, job talks and conference presentations should only be done remotely (avoid using Zoot for avatar though tinyurl.com/nzo9cgo). ;)

Seriously, I would suggest the following rule of thumb: Even a genius should look presentable during formal networking or when interviewing for jobs.

If blue hair = presentable in the 21st century, then no worries. But some old school (20th century) profs might not be as "with it."

Applying the rule of thumb to your questions suggests that blue hair should be OK when (a) teaching (undergrads will assume you are cool and/or strange, grads will have enough problems of their own to notice/care); (b) meeting other researchers (unless...see rule of thumb).

To go all the way, you will also need to frequent the gym, and dress the part (despite comments to the contrary, I suggest suit and tie as daily wear). And you just might be taken for a blue chipper. Good luck!


How to avoid my advisor as a reference? I had a bad relationship with my advisor. He told me evidently that he won’t write the recommendation letter for me in the future.

Of course, I will not put him in my reference list in my future career. But I don’t know if the future employer will contact him or question my working performance or attitude? I feel very bad about this. Can you guys give me some suggestions?

There are two issues in my mind. The first is not having the post doc supervisor as a reference. As you get further along in your career, you will have to leave someone that knows you well off your list of references. If you can develop a strong enough network that you have 3-5 people who know you and your work well and are willing to write you strong letter, then the absence of your post doc supervisor will not be seen s odd.

The second issue is more problematic and that is if your post doc advisor is contacted informally, he may actively or inactively sabotage you. In order to get around this, you need to repair the relationship, such that it is not a problem. As a first step, make sure that he is really unwilling to be a reference. If that is the case, then make it clear that you will not use him as a reference. Ask him if he is willing to tactfully deflect informal enquires. If he is, and you believe him, that you do not have much to worry about. If not, consider having one of your letter writers address the issues you have with you post doc supervisor.

Having a reference point out bad things is always dangerous in that it makes the hiring committee aware of something they might not find out about. The advantage is it is the only way to really get your side of the story told. It is worth talking to your other references about how to address the issue.

There is not much you can do to prevent anyone from talking to your postdoc advisor, particularly if they do so informally as part of the hiring process. This is sometimes frowned upon by HR departments, but there is not much that can be done about informal questions like "What do you think about ZZZ's potential?", which could be asked in person at a conference.

For certain types of applications, you can list people who you would not like to review you. This is often true for grant applications and tenure applications, in my experience, but not for job applications.

The safest advice is just to not mention anything about your advisor in your job application and hope for the best. It could be more dangerous for your application to suggest that you do not get along with people, than to try to explain why you don't get along with your advisor.

If you absolutely cannot bear to do that, one option is to talk to another reference writer who you know well, and ask them to mention it very discreetly in their letter.

(The OP has clarified that they are applying for positions in industry. This answer was written more from the perspective of academic job applications. I have never applied to jobs in industry, so I cannot speak to them.)


Will my "the finalist certificate of the best paper award" be underrated if I co-chair a session at the same conference? A paper of mine did recently reach the final competition for the best paper award of a prestigious conference in my field. Although mine didn't end up with the best paper award, yet I'd like to note that in the "honors and awards'' section of my CV because the conference is arguably one of the bests in my field, and even getting through the roster of its finalists means a lot.

On the other hand, I was also the co-chair of one of the sessions of the conference. I had neither any impact on the selection of the finalist nominations nor any vote on the overall award process whatsoever. Since I'm a rookie Ph.D. student, I'd also like to quote this role in the "academic experiences'' section of my CV (next to my reviewing roles, TAships, etc).

Now I'm wondering if I take both ideas above into account, one may think that my co-chair responsibility would have influenced on my finalist achievement. How would academicians interpret this case? Do I have to pick one to avoid such a misinterpretation?

I would propose to put both points into your CV.

The interpretation you're afraid of is a bit far-fetched, and while some persons may indeed come to such a conclusion, I think most will not. Even for those who would think there has been an influence, I would argue that putting both is better than putting only one of them.
This is because they are in different CV categories, and thus people who evaluate your CV will in their mental checklist tick off both "won a paper award" and "chaired a conference session".

You chaired a session, you didn't organize the whole conference. People reading your CV will have had similar roles over the years.


How to prove episodes of academic misconduct? My former PhD supervisor asked me different times to produce false results, including complete fabrication from scratch of otherwise non-existent results. I always managed to get away from that and I have never published nor submitted anything falsified. However, I still think that this must be reported, partially because he may do that again with other students. Also, the other coauthors (including professors) have never known about this.
Unfortunately, I have no written proof of his behavior, not even email, as he has always asked me in person.
How can I proceed in such a situation?

If a professor wants to falsify data now, the professor probably falsified data in the past.  Look through previous publications by that professor for data that is obviously falsified.
Plagiarized images are the most commonly detected form of fabrication.  Not all image reuse is falsified data, but if two publications present the same image data as if they were recorded separately, this is proof of falsification.
People who falsify data are likely to engage in other academic misconduct, such as plagiarism.

Record him. Hidden Camera, hidden audio recorder... get enough evidence to make it stick. Once you have enough approach other students that you think you might be able to trust and seek out past students. Don't make it so obvious until you can trust them. Then find other advisors that you can trust and so on until you build a network.
You can find out if they are trust worthy by "hinting" at the idea of fabricating evidence or ethics, morality, etc and see how they respond. You don't have to mention any names at the start, just see how they respond. You can make up some stuff like "I was reading a news article where some professor was caught making up research articles to get grants....". You have to "fish" and sometimes act a bit unethical.
You definitely should pursue this because these sociopaths ruin humanity. There are far too many doing these sorts of things and none are being held accountable. Remember, several were caught. They are no better than corrupt politicians and lawyers or cops... in fact worse since they should be more intelligent.
If he is obvious and blatant it should be easy to get him... just make sure to gather enough evidence(think of it was "research"). You can also see who he has worked with in the past because chances are he was corrupted by others.
Once you have the evidence then you can figure out how to proceed from there.
Note though that if you do this it will cause problems for your career. There are lots of sociopaths out there and if you put yourself out their as the "slayer of sociopaths" it will put a target on your back. Of course you only have 3 options: Join them, ignore them and hope they don't ruin you, or slay them!
If you have real evidence of him faking shit on his research papers you can go who ever has granted him $$$ and tell him his data is fake and try to get them to make him pay the money back.
Remember, fake research destroys humanity and is anti-science. People make real life changing decisions based on data. Unfortunately it happens so much now that reality has become fantasy(it's hard to trust anything any more... think of "fake news", "deep fakes", etc). This is precisely because people are so greedy and have no morality and no one stops them.


Is it bad form to use the word exciting in a paper, when discussing other people's results? When writing a paper with a collaborator, they didn't like that I used the word "exciting" in the abstract since they said that they don't like when people use personal personal qualifiers in writing papers. In particular my sentence was

"With these exciting results in mind, we study..."

(where the 'results' I am referring to are from a few recent experimental papers which I had nothing to do with). I initially wrote it in this way to emphasize that the recent results are interesting. Is this truly something that should be avoided?

Note: If it makes any difference I work in physics.

An established rule on proper writing demands to "show, don't tell". This does not mean that your results can be left to "speak for themselves", but it suggests that rather than simply claiming that your results are exciting, you should demonstrate and argue why they are. The onus is on your interpretation.

Moreover, the attribute "exciting", just as "interesting", is particularly trite because it is over-used and terribly vague. It begs the question as to what it is that is so exciting.

The word "exciting" is a bit too dramatic for my taste.  How about: important, remarkable, noteworthy, worthwhile, beneficial?


Academic publishing: why placing figures on top/bottom of pages in single-column layout? When you turn in a manuscript to an academic publisher, they may insist (referring to their style guide and publication process) that all figures are placed on top/bottom of the manuscript's pages rather than exactly where you need them (e.g., in the middle on one page and on top on another page). Why? Assuming single-column layout and that no huge line stretching, no huge vertical gaps, and no vertical overflows occur, what good reasons could exist nowadays for figures to be moved out of the very place where you need them?

An example could be the figures in the CSP book: they are placed typically where the reader needs them rather than always at the top/bottom of the pages.

Consider a page structured like this:

where A, B, C, D are columns of text. In such a case, should one read in the order A–B–C–D, or A–C–B–D? For me, it's natural to read in order texts that are close to each other – so here: A–B–C–D. So I'm always annoyed when the text makes no sense because I read it in an incorrect order. The same applies for a layout like this:

where the text nearest to A is C.

In case of this layout:

the page seems too divided – the continuity between A and B is broken. Also, it doesn't look nice when A consists of 15 lines, and B of only 2 lines (or vice versa): the reader could miss the shorter block, and – again – be annoyed that the text makes no sense. So, one wants to have a layout that will be easiest for the reader to follow.

And the layout when the figure is embedded in the text (e.g., with LaTeX's wrapfigure) can be sometimes found in books – I guess journals decided that this would be too distracting in an article which is usually very condensed.

Usually a manuscript is typed with a typewriter. There is a difference between the correct format of submitted manuscript and the article in final printed form. That means, the figures and tables are shuffled. It is a common misconception to believe that authors are in control of layout. All formatting questions are answered by the journal editor. But the author has the obligation to do some pre-work for getting the optimal result. For example, he should write on the back of each figure the senior author name with a soft pencil and the word “top”. Top means, that the figure can be placed on top. If this will happen in the final printed forms, depends on many other decisions which are outside the scope of the author.

Source: page 16-20 Manuscript Guidelines for the Journal of Wildlife Management, 1988


What should I let students do when they finish exams early? I organized my students to take their exams in the school’s computer labs. Some students finished well before others. In each section, I tried different policies for what students should do in this situation, but none worked very well.

I let one section of students leave when they finished, but make much noise while moving their chairs and gathering their things. Furthermore, I am concerned that students will find ways to cheat, e.g. leave and access the Web-based testing system from their iPod.
I let one section do as they like on the computers when they finished, but this made it difficult to determine who was finished and who was using resources to cheat on the exams.
I gave one section some extra credit work to do if they finished early, but many students did other homework instead, which led to similar difficulty in determining who was finished or cheating.

What is a good policy that does not cause interruption to other students but also does not hinder proctoring efforts?

Why were the students leaving early disruptive? Under the rules of every institution that I've been at you are under exam conditions until you leave the room. They should be utterly silent and respectful to other students or face the usual penalties for breaking the rules of exam conditions.

If you're not happy with them leaving early I'm not sure why you would do anything to occupy them. Make them sit in silence and wait for the the exam to finish. Boredom never killed anyone.

Among the three policies you suggested, only Policy 1 - Let them leave when they're done is good - or rather, it's the only morally acceptable one.

The reason is that you have no right to keep people in their seats doing nothing when they're done with their exam. That would be treating them like prisoners. You can and should make an effort to arrange things so that their leaving will be less disruptive (e.g. chairs which don't make a scratching noise when pulled...) - but nothing beyond that.


May I ask professors to reschedule two back to back night classes from 4:30PM to 9:00PM? As a graduate school student, I have two professors teaching two separate classes that go from 4:30PM to 5:50pm and 6:00pm to 9:00PM. This happens every one day of the week.
I'm not sure whether I can handle concentrating for 5 hours and I have the option to not take a class but it would delay graduating by a semester.
Do I negotiate with the professor to reschedule or do they have the power to deny it?

Academic timetabling is a notoriously difficult problem. Professors have several classes to teach, students have several classes to attend. There are restrictions related to classroom sizes, specific equipment (e.g. computer labs). Some professors may have individual restrictions, e.g. can only teach on specific days or hours due to other commitments.
Normally, Professors do not decide their own timetables, but submit their preferences to the Timetabling Office, which then generates a timetable for everyone. Students can also try to submit their requests, but usually as a groups (cohorts), not individually. If you are not happy with your timetable, it is definitely worth trying to change it, but bear in mind that it may not be easy.
However, if you class is scheduled up until 9pm, which is significantly beyond the core hours, you actually have a much better chance of having this class rescheduled, particularly if any of other students attending the same late class have caring responsibilities. Your Student Rep / Student Union Rep / Athena Swan Rep (in the UK) might be able to help you with the process.

You can ask, but school room/building scheduling, other students preferences, prof's preference, and other factors will make you look silly and entitled.
If you did not like the schedule you should not have signed up for both of them if they ran back to back.


What is the appropriate response to students who peek at the exam questions before the exam starts? I have been an invigilator for several exams for large classes. I am not formally affiliated with the classes.

One thing I routinely notice is that, despite warnings, there will always be some students who will very quickly and brazenly flip through the entire exam (booklet) and look at the questions before the exam starts. Some will do this very quickly to get a sense of the type of questions (no more than 10 seconds).

What should be the appropriate response to this type of behaviour? The dilemma for me is, I don't want to expel a student for a less than 10 second glance at an exam, but I have been very annoyed by this type of brazen behaviour (even when I was an undergrad), which clearly constitutes cheating.

Can someone please provide advice as to what to do for this minor type of cheating behaviour?

I don't know what an "invigilator" is exactly, but I presume that you merely watch the students to make sure they don't cheat, distribute exams and paper, and take the filled exams at the end, more or less.

As such it isn't your role to decide on any kind of punishment for cheating. There are probably procedures in place to report cheating. Do it. What happens next isn't up to you. If there are no formal procedures, take the name of the student and inform whoever is in charge (the professor in charge of the course for example).

Unless you have explicitly been told that it is okay, I would recommend being extra careful about expelling students. Students are afforded due process. If it is ever found out that peeking at the exam isn't something worth getting a zero on the exam or if the student is not found guilty, then having expelled them is something that will be terribly hard to correct. In my university the rule is to expel students only if their behavior causes trouble for the other students or in cases of person substitution (someone is taking the exam in the student's place). And even then, it's not the role of the proctor to decide this -- you have to get approval from the university president's office.


Am I obligated to finish my post-doc term before starting my tenure-track job? I am currently a postdoc at a research university. I had originally intended to stay at my postdoc for two years, and this was the understanding I had with my postdoc adviser.

However, I decided to speculatively apply for a few faculty jobs, intending to defer any offers for a year. I have now obtained a faculty job offer to start at the end of one year of my postdoc.

After much reflection, I believe that it is better for my family life not to ask for a deferral and to start the faculty job earlier.
In the event that I take the faculty job offer,
I still intend to continue and finish the research work
which I have started with my postdoc adviser,
so I will not be hurting my adviser by starting but not finishing my postdoc work.

Question: Do I have an ethical obligation to stay at my postdoc for two years, because that was my initial plan and was what I told my postdoc adviser?
Should I expect him to be understanding when I choose what is best for my family?

The following timeline may explain the sequence of events more clearly:

March 2014 I was applying for postdocs, and I told my potential postdoc advisor that I was intending to stay for two years at the university if he were to give me an offer.
April 2014 I was hired with a one-year contract starting August 2014. My adviser explains that there is a good chance my contract will be renewed at the end of the year.
Sept 2014 I decide to apply opportunistically for a few faculty positions just in case I can get a good offer, and intend to ask for a deferral, so that I would only start my faculty job in August 2016.
I told my postdoc adviser that I was applying opportunistically only for a few jobs,
and that if I got a job offer, I would ask for a deferral.
Jan 2015 I get a faculty job offer to start in August 2015.
By this time I changed my mind and feel that starting in 2015 is better for me and my family.

Additional relevant details:

My research area is applied mathematics,
so the only requirements for my research are
a decent computer and an Internet connection.
I can collaborate productively with my postdoc adviser effectively
even if I am not physically in the same location as he is.
I did tell my postdoc adviser that I received a job offer.
However, my postdoc contract has not yet been renewed for the second year,
and we have not yet had a conversation about when to renew the contract.

Congrats on getting a tenure track position!

You are not the first person to whom this has happened.  Of course, there may be specific circumstances that make the early departure more difficult - say, if you are the only person who can operate a certain instrument in a lab.  But people do leave post-docs early, from time to time - it's not at all unheard of.  And, if you applied opportunistically, you probably have a job that you are happy to take.

My advice is to break the news to your advisor as soon as possible - once you have made the decision to accept the offer. Your current institution might still be able to find a replacement for next year, which would be good for them. If you reflect on it, it's hard to see real advantages of telling your advisor later.  And there is a good chance they will be happy for you that you got a tenure track position.

Remember that you will still be in touch your advisor professionally, so you want to try to keep the relationship on the best terms that you can.

Actually,  you are not being fair to your advisor.  They might have actually turned someone away because they preferred you.  That person unlike you might have actually honored their promise to stay 2 years.  Defer for a year, and keep your promise. Otherwise, why should anyone trust you to ever keep commitments?


Should a student be penalized for using a theorem outside of the curriculum? I am taking an abstract algebra course and I am really interested about the topic.  So much so that I spend most of my time reading supplementary materials.  I consequently know a lot more theorems than the ones covered in class.

In a recent quiz, I used a theorem in one of my proofs that was not mentioned in the lecture since.  My professor gave me partial marks for my answer for the reason that we didn't cover this theorem in class even though the proof was completely valid!  I can't really see where he is coming from.  How would someone be able to use a theorem correctly if he doesn't know its proof?  I was quite baffled by his comment.

Do you agree with this?

EDIT: The professor just Emailed me and said that after thinking for a while, he decided to award me the full mark for the question. He also mentioned that he didn't want discourage me from studying the subject (since he saw most of my previous quiz grades were full marks) and I was passionate about it, but kindly requested that I include any proof for a theorem that I cite from now on in his exams. He also sent a broadcast message to the whole class indicating this.

This depends on what is announced in the syllabus and on the kind of test.

If the syllabus explicitly says that tests should be solved using the course material only, then, yes, any answer using anything else than course material is not totally correct and should get deductions. If the syllabus does not say so, the answer is not so clear anymore.

If the test is kind of a final exam on the whole course where the students are tested on the whole subject, than I (and this is a personal opinion) would not deduct anything if the proof is technically correct, whatever tools have been used (unless the problem says "solve this with this method"). However, in an intermediate test it may well be that the instructor wants the students to show that a certain technique can be applied or a certain concept can be used. Going beyond the course material spoils this idea and (again, personal opinion) one may deduct points, although it would be much better if these policy has been stated beforehand.

The above should answer the question "Why could points be deducted?" but not the "Should points be deducted?". I think the answer to the latter question is really opinion based (and may be a question for matheducators.stackexchange.com).

As a side remark on "How would someone be able to use a theorem correctly if he doesn't know its proof?" I (and I guess most other working mathematicians) do that all the time. I would not get anywhere without using theorems of which I haven't even dare to read to proof. Some examples from outside my field: People use Fermat's last theorem, the "Kepler conjecture" (also a theorem now), the four-color theorem, the "10,000 pages theorem" on the classification of finite simple groups, the Poincare conjecture (proven as special case of the geometrization theorem)…

No.  You shouldn't be penalized.   The professor should applaud your understanding of the subject.   That said, in school you should make a habit of answering questions the way a teacher wants them to be answered.   Otherwise you'll have to deal with issues like this.


Graduate Admissions Gender Bias Both my girlfriend and I (both white) applied to the same PhD programs in mathematics. Most of these schools are AMS Group I and some Group II.

I got denied by a majority of these programs while she got accepted to a majority of them. I sincerely do believe my profile is stronger (see comparison below) so I think there is a definite unfair advantage geared towards females candidates for graduate admissions. Am I able to legally sue some of these schools for gender bias? Why are the admission committees doing this? Shouldn't admission decisions be based on "who is best fit and capable to be doing math research" instead of "who will look best for our department"?

Comparison:

We went to the same college, and have the same math classes except for 5-6 courses that are not math since we knew each other since high school. My GPA is 3.9, 0.2 higher than hers.
My Math GRE subject test score is above 80% while hers is less than 40%.
I have done 3 REUs, coauthored some (over 3) papers while she only did one REU last summer with no publications.

Furthermore, in my school, some of the incoming female PHD students know less math (insufficient preparation) than a typical junior/senior undergraduates, which supports my theory.

Am I the only person thinking this is unfair? Aren't the actions of these admissions committee members jeopardizing the output of their math department by choosing less capable people?

I have had people I know who are senior mathematicians tell me in private conversation that they believe it is right and proper to discriminate in favor of females in mathematics in things like graduate admissions and job hiring. In some cases they essentially admitted (in a circumspect, plausibly-deniable sort of way) to practicing this kind of discrimination themselves.

Based on these anecdotal experiences, I believe it is indeed quite possible that you were discriminated against. It’s also possible that you weren’t; there is simply no way to know for sure. It’s not even clear that there is an objective underlying truth to this question, since the notion of what it means to be discriminated against isn’t scientifically defined.

The people I mentioned are people I respect and believe to be quite sensible, well-intentioned people. Their views seem to be widely held among professional mathematicians in (US, and other countries) academia today, including many people whom I would characterize as very reasonable and moral. On the other hand, many other members of the academic math community disagree and believe that gender based discrimination in math and science is unethical and unfair regardless of which direction it takes place in. So no, you are not the only one, far from it.

I don’t think there is a legal remedy for this issue. Who will you sue? How will you prove that a specific program or person discriminated against you? Besides, the societal debate about affirmative action has been going on for several decades and doesn’t seem about to end. There have been numerous lawsuits with results going both ways. The battle lines move a little, then move the other way. Laws are passed, then get ignored or worked around. At the end of the day, there is simply a wide chasm in our society over the belief in the morality of such actions, and no law or court can change that.

For math specifically, the issue will likely subside in importance over time as the number of successful women mathematicians grows closer to (or reaches parity with) that of men in the profession and a younger generation takes over that doesn’t carry the baggage of the older generation and is baffled by the very notion that it was once believed women could not succeed in mathematics.

I understand that all of this big-picture stuff might offer only small consolation for you in your personal situation. It is reasonable to be upset, but keep in mind that most women also have plenty of things to be upset about, and while two wrongs don’t make a right, statistically speaking, you will probably end up getting just as much of a chance as your girlfriend to prove your worth as a budding mathematician, and you will probably be at least a little bit advantaged over her in other ways that you may not realize.

Life isn’t completely fair for anyone. Go out there and succeed anyway! Good luck!

Discrimination is when an under-represented group is excluded from an opportunity.  Nearly everyone agrees that is unfair.

Affirmative action is when an over-represented group is excluded from an opportunity.  This is your situation.  Some people think that affirmative action creates justice because it compensates for unfair discrimination by resulting in a relatively equal outcome.  Other people think that affirmative action is unfair because it is a process that excludes people based on their group.

What is fair or unfair depends on which is more important:  process, or results.  Both views are defensible.


How much help is a PhD supervisor if you only see them 30 minutes a month? I often hear from PhD students that they see their supervisor only 30 minutes per month, or 30 minutes per semester even. According to my calculations, this adds up to a whopping 13 hours and 6 hours respectively over a three year period (if there's no contact during the holidays). This is less than the typical amount of contact hours during an undergraduate week of lectures.

This made me wonder: To what extent does such a PhD supervisor really help you? Even if this supervisor is a star professor, does 6 to 13 hours over a period of 3 years, really help you that much with your PhD?

To formulate the question differently, let's say you're getting 10,000 education/career points out of your PhD. How many would you get if you got rid of the supervisor and basically had to do it without official guidance?

Your supervisor's job is to be sure you're on the right track, not to do any of the work.  Thirty minutes a month ought to be more than sufficient for that.  Also, the supervisor either takes care of the administrative details or is responsible that someone else does that.  Finally, you appear to have omitted the amount of reading required of the supervisor.

I'm absolutely sure I didn't see my supervisor for 13 hours over the course of my degree, but he read every word I wrote and provided feedback without which I probably could not have finished.

I've never met a PI that didn't love to talk about how great their work is. The onus, I'm afraid, is on you, to schedule more time, express your desire to interact more, and to be persistent. Outside of your influence, he/she is going to do the minimum required. Make it fun for them and watch as their schedule seems to clear.


What to do when university has not yet reimbursed travel costs for a job interview? A few months ago, I visited a university for a tenure-track interview in computer science. Before my visit, I received an interview policy sheet from HR stating all the usual things (economy flight fare, etc). After the interview, I was told by HR that I need to mail them my original receipts, which I did instantly upon my return home.

After a few weeks, I inquired regarding the reimbursement and was told that my receipts hadn't been received yet. However, the tracking service (I had used registered mail) did indicate that they had been delivered and, after a second inquiry, HR confirmed that they should have been received at their university but aren't to be found anywhere and reiterated that they need the original receipts to reimburse me.

This was 3 weeks ago and my subsequent enquiries have been met with silence. I did receive a job offer but, also having received another offer, accepted a position elsewhere and informed the university about my decision.

  Is there anything I can/should do about this?

To be frank, the university is overseas and taking the probably very expensive legal route is not an option for me. That said, the interview expenses are in the range of 1.2k USD and thus non-negligible for me.

In general, don't attribute inaction to malice or fraud when it almost certainly is just due to laziness, disorganization, or incompetence. University bureaucracies, especially in some countries, can be unbelievably slow. Sadly, three weeks is often not a particularly long period to go unreimbursed. Be patient and persistent and this will almost certainly work out eventually.

If they promised it to you, then the university certainly has a moral obligation to reimburse you. They may also have a legal obligation.

On the other hand, the way I thought about it when I was in a similar position before was that it was an opportunity cost (think: pay to play). Sure, I paid for it out of my own pocket, but I did it because if it worked out it would have landed me a nice job. Sometimes you have to invest a little money for the potential to make a whole lot more. That didn't make it less awkward that I didn't get reimbursed, but at least I could justify to myself that it wasn't a waste of money.


For how many years does a university keep the thesis? For how many years do universities keep the thesis records. When do they destroy the old thesis reports? If there is some mistake in the thesis then in how many years can the university revoke the degree.

As far as I am aware, most universities keep a record of PhD thesis awards (title and recipient) in perpetuity. It is also the responsibility of the university library to archive the thesis; which is usually done on a permanent basis.

The reason for this is that future researchers, when doing their literature search should be reading these thesis to understand prior knowledge, as each PhD should be an original contribution to the sum of knowledge. Technology has enabled most universities to eliminate some of the burden associated with the perpetual storage of the thesis documents by allowing the microfilming of the thesis, which has now become the scanning and electronic storage of the work. There are consortia of university libraries that are working to ensure the problem of permanent storage of electronic texts is addressed in an era where we have non archival quality of electronic media.

The answer for the storage of PhD thesis and records would be "forever". For a Master's thesis or dissertation the answer is less clear. In many universities I am familiar with, often only the awarding department archives the Masters, and they are less reliable. I have seen with my own eyes archives of older Masters works being "tidied up". To me it was a travesty, but to others it was modernity.

A degree is not usually revoked on the discover of a "mistake" in a thesis. A degree might be revoked if it was discovered that nothing in a thesis was the original work of the student who submitted it; otherwise known as plagiarism, theft or deceit. It would depend on the statutes and regulations on the awarding institution on whether or how this might happen. One can consult the news archives to find many reported incidents of this happening. The revocation can even happen posthumously!

It will be kept forever! Most universities keep students' dissertation as the electronic version (PDF).


Is having access to past exams cheating and, if yes, could it be proven just by a good grade? I studied for three weeks straight for an exam because I was really anxious to pass it with a high grade, while everyone else didn’t study much. Now the problem is, I had access to the exam from the previous year because someone gave it to me. I don’t know where this person got this exam, but I think it was made public after he completed his exam. The thing is I don’t know if I was allowed to have them or not.

Now the exam is over and I didn’t receive my grade while everyone else received it. The average grade for the exam is approximately 50%. Now my professor wants me to see him in his office about the exam, but doesn’t tell me why. The only explanation I can think of would be cheating. My guess is that I scored way higher than everyone else and now I’m kind of panicking.

It’s also important to note that on the exam, half of the questions were very similar as the one from previous year and that no material was allowed during the exam, so I could not have looked at it while doing the exam. Also, I have a high GPA, so it’s not implausible for me to have good grades.

Do you think I could get in trouble for having access to past exams even if there’s no way someone could know I had access to them? And is it really considered cheating?

UPDATE:  Thanks everyone for sharing their thoughts on the answer. I'm writing this answer to give some feedback. So I met with my professor this morning and I admitted having the exam from a previous year. I went with honesty, because I thought that it was the best way to go. The professor was happy about my honesty and he just asked me to elaborate some answer which I did. He saw that I knew my theory well and he didn't punish me further for it.

You haven't said whether you were actually accused or not. I'm assuming that you are just worried about what might happen in the meeting that hasn't happened yet.

The most honest way to proceed, though you may suffer for it, is to tell it exactly like it happened. You studied three weeks, you had access to old exam materials and used those to prepare. All you had in the exam was your memory and your skills. You had no knowledge of any question to be asked on this exam.

If the professor thinks you cheated, then s/he is very naive about how the world works. Student fraternities typically keep records of old exams and students study from them. If the professor uses old questions they should expect that those questions are available.

You might be asked for the source of the materials and you would be unwise to conceal them and might face larger issues if you try.

As the answer of Azor Ahai suggests, make sure that what you did isn't explicitly forbidden by  available course materials. But I don't really see a way in which requirements could be stated that really disallow such a practice. It would be completely unenforceable. Doing well is not a crime. Studying hard is not a crime.

If your professor disagrees and wants to punish you, I'd suggest taking it to a department head or dean, again explaining exactly what you did and how.

If you suffer for honesty, then it is deeply unfair.

Depends on your testing regulations.

The ones at my university (and department) state that professors CAN NOT stop or punish you for 1) photographing it when examining it (i don't know the english word for this, but we can check our stuff for correction errors after the grades are published) and 2) distributing said photographs.

In Fact, some professors even share PDFs of the last exam, to make it fair for everyone.


Difference between tenure-track/tenured positions in universities and research scientist positions in national labs I am trying to evaluate pros and cons for working at universities as tenure-track (and eventually, hopefully, tenured) and research scientist at national labs. I realize that not much is discussed on what it means by working at national labs (except a few specific questions such as Are faculty positions more competitive than government research lab positions?), unlike working at universities. I wish to start by asking about job security, salary (US universities usually pay 9-monthly and expect profs to cover the remaining 3 months from the prof's grants. Is there any such thing at national labs), any other things? Working with research students (all the way to completion of their degrees, as opposed to as your interns for a few months) is of course rewarding at universities. But probably too much teaching and administrative work may be negatives at universities too - any comparison with national lab jobs?

I know that this may be slightly broader question, and a bit subjective too, but I believe answers from different perspectives would help researchers like me who are at critical juncture at their career and need to decide one way or another.

Edit-1: I also came to know that some research labs in the US may have different classifications. e.g., is National Renewable Energy Laboratory same as NASA etc.?

Edit-2: How about 'redundancies'? Can these labs use 'lack of budget' or some other (non-disciplinary) excuse to remove the permanent staff?

My experience is purely through my work at NASA, so take that with a grain of salt.

There are (roughly) two levels of employment at NASA Research Centers (not labs like JPL): civil servants and contractors. If you're looking to become a research scientist at NASA, you want to become a civil servant, though there are plenty of scientists on contract.

Contractors are just that, they work on a specific research project that has allocated in its budget a certain amount of money for a project. Usually these contracts are administered under huge omnibus corporations like Millennium Enterprise Integration, who take something like 200k in overhead, per contractor.

What this means is contractors can be extremely expensive to a project, and that, as a result, contractors usually split their time (and cost) on two or three projects. If you're a contractor at a NASA center, you'll need to maintain a decent porfolio of projects that cover your salary. It can be stressful, but also less regulated than civil servantship

Civil Servantship is a pretty sweet gig if being a tenured professor was your reason to enter academia. If you get hired as a civil servant, it's virtually impossible to fire you unless you commit the equivalent of a felony (which is easier than tenured professorship, see below). Basically when you're hired congress agrees to pay your salary for the rest of your working life.

You can apply for money to do projects, including internal funding that academics won't have access to. With that you can hire contractors or buy equipment, but not pay yourself. Instead you have this new unit of labor called Full Time Equivalent (FTE), which is can also be part of a grant award, and represents your salary being paid for a full year. FTE vary depending on the center you're at, Alabama FTE is going to be cheaper than Bay Area FTE, but at some centers there's a significant surplus of FTE going around (no idea why). All not having FTE means as a civil servant is you might have to go ask someone for FTE, which means you're effectively working for them.

I said before it's easier to commit a felony when you're a civil servant, and that's because you're effectively a representative of the U.S. government. That means you can't take money from companies (gifts are limited to $20), and a whole host of other rules that have been put in place because essentially every form of graft and corruption that you can possibly imagine has already been done by someone in the government. It's actually pretty amazing.

Also the pay for a civil servant isn't that great (still better than grad school!), and because of the rules you can't really supplement your income. That's why it's not unheard of for civil servants to actually switch to contractors sometimes- the caps for compensation are much higher for contractors, and can be influenced by a competing offer.

oh and also you don't have to teach, but that's one of the few places where civil servants can make extra money (lecturing at local universities).

But in terms of an environment where 1) you can pitch research and it will get funded and 2) you'll have job security that tenure used to match, there is no better place, as far as I can tell, than NASA.

There is only one difference between tenure-track/tenured positions in universities and research scientist positions in national labs,that is, that tenure-track/tenured positions ensure job security and proper employment to a person which is not ensured for research scientists


Is it acceptable for professors to listen to music using headphones in the workplace when expecting student contact? In my institution, I see a lot of research students and staff members listen to music using headphones in the workplace. It is a matter of personal preference, and I cannot see a problem in that while it doesn't interfere with communications at work.

Is that behaviour acceptable for a professor during a time in which s/he expects students to approach her/him?

Yes, of course. As long as they turn it down so that they can talk over it when the student comes by, why would it be unacceptable to have music on while they are waiting? If they are listening on headphones while waiting, it would be preferable if they could see the student approaching, but there's nothing unprofessional about it even if they don't. The student can knock on the door, wall, floor, desk, etc. in order to get their attention.

I have a different opinion: no. First, the academia is an institution, so everybody work for academia represent the academia in each ambit.

Second, on the web (blog, social network and so on) we protect our privacy and we try to show an upright behavior, even more so we must do it in the academic world.

For these reasons I think that is not a good picture for a professors to listen to music using headphones or not.

I am not contrary because I hate music, I am contrary because I think that a student that see a professor listen music (the headphones are only an aggravating) during his work might think that his work is not important as he say. Of course this is not true, but... if the student go away without that the professor can see him?


Is it ethical to give (paid) private tutorials for a student in a module I am TA'ing? My TAing mostly involves helping students working on their programming assignments during classes.

A student asked me to give him private, paid, tutorials for the module, being concerned that all 'usual' resources to which he has access for free (book, classes, a bit of time outside of classes with me) won't be enough to cover his starting gap in this course.

Is this ethical? In particular, is it ethical from the point of view of other students in the course? They might think he is getting a privileged treatment, if he doesn't tell them I am being paid for that time. Should I ask him to notify them? Worse, they could think I am giving out solutions to him (I won't, but they might not think that's the case).

Should I speak with the professor of the course myself about this? Or could I ask the student to discuss his difficulties with the professor first, and eventually ask the professor himself if I can private-tutoring him?

Should I speak with the professor of the course myself about this?

I'd recommend telling the student you can't do it, and mentioning to the professor that you were asked but turned it down (to avoid any rumors).  There are massive issues here:

Being paid extra compromises your ability to grade the student's work.  It looks too much like a bribe, and the fact that the student will presumably stop paying you if the tutoring is ineffective (as measured by grades) creates an ongoing incentive to grade leniently or supply inappropriate degrees of help.  Even if you feel you can avoid bias, the apparent conflict of interest is so strong that other students will almost certainly be upset.  Think about it this way.  If the extra money doesn't matter to you and you have enough time, why not help the student for free?  The fact that money is changing hands at all indicates that the money matters to you (as it would for most people), and that is evidence of dangerous incentives.
It could look like you are extorting money from your students.  This is the flip side of the first point: in addition to your incentive to offer too much to those who pay extra, you now have an incentive to offer too little to those who don't hire you as a tutor.  Some students always grumble about how unhelpful their TA is (regardless of the facts), and you really don't want them speculating that your supposed unhelpfulness is intended to pressure them into paying for extra tutoring.
I'd bet this is a major violation of university rules.  Of course you'd have to look into your own case, but I'd be shocked if any university allowed course staff to accept paid tutoring from their students.

I'd be wary of asking the professor whether this is acceptable.  For most questions, asking can't hurt, but here the ethically questionable aspects are so strong that asking whether it is OK could look bad.  If you ask, you should be sure to make your understanding of the ethical issues clear, to avoid giving the impression that you think it's fine and just want to check whether the professor has any objections.

If the student needs a tutor, I'd recommend pointing him towards official university channels.  For example, perhaps your department maintains a list of students who would be willing to offer tutoring.  The important thing is to avoid any appearance of conflicts of interest.  Recommending hiring your friend instead of you is better than accepting the job yourself, but it could still look awkward.  (Students might wonder whether you were receiving a commission or kickback from your friend, or whether securing jobs for friends was enough of an incentive to influence your behavior.)

I see this as ludicrous-- why are you being so overly righteous and saintly?

When close to 80 percent of all faculty are hired as part-time or contingent with little or no benefits, and must cobble together assignments to make a liveable wage, do administrators hold back on this unethical financial exploitation? No, not even a blink! The question should be-- do instructors need to have more ethical or so-called 'conflict of interest' considerations than their administrators? Of course not! Teaching is our profession and obligation (even though we are not treated professionally by many of our employers.)

Secondly, at at least one university where I have taught, the renowned University of Southern California, even publishes faculty members' private tutoring contact information and along with prices on the main university website: http://ali.usc.edu/find-an-english-tutor/

Of course educators are ethical, and tutoring is definitely an ethical enterprise.


I am not getting response from any professors or industry. Is it end of the road for me? I did in a PhD in mechanical engineering from a Canadian university on simulation of shot peening process. I collaborated with experimental groups from my department.
After graduating in January 2020, I joined my PhD lab as a postdoc for few months while I applied for positions. I published 4 papers (first authored), 2 co-authored.
It has been 12+ months and I am still working with my PhD advisor and on a related topic. I have submitted 2 papers (2 first authored).
Now, after renewing my contract for another year, I am about to work on a different topic and in collaboration with experimental groups from other university and industry but same advisor.
As I am open for a life in both academia and industry, I have been applying for other postdoc positions and industrial positions. I apply to positions like 3D printing and simulations of selective laser melting process which is different than my research experience so far but I work with same numerical method (Finite element method).
Also, I apply for industry jobs as finite element researcher, engineer.
Till now, I have contacted 30 professors and  20 industrial positions. I received just 1 response from professor saying he will contact me if gets a grant approved. And I got 2 response from industry, one rejected after first interview and second position with an invitation for C++ coding assessment test. I am not proficient with C++ as I work with Matlab and a bit with python. I would fail the test.
Apart from these, I don't have any other leads. I have to continuie with my current postdoc, but am afraid that I won't get any other positions in the future due to lack of openings.
Where do I go from here? I like my research field, but I don't think I am cut out for it as proved by the lack of job offers. Is this the end of the road?
Please advise.

In short: not knowing you or your life's goals, it is hard to make an assessment, and it is surely impossible to give an objective assessment. So the answers will be opinion-based, even from people claiming to be absoulutely objective.
It looks you are still comfortable with your time in the academia, you are open to both worlds ("life in both academia and industry"), which is not a good thing, in terms of employment in the private world, it is often perceived from the other side as "the candidate does not know what he/she wants, he is just waiting for an opening in the academia" and therefore your application ends quickly in the "let's get back to this later, i.e. never" folder.
This even if you do not express it explicitly, the fact that you are still employed by the uni usually raises red flag for many recruiting.
Formally, it looks like you have a strong academic CV, but it is time to be independent, which means to gather your own funds (for example this Canadian fellowship https://banting.fellowships-bourses.gc.ca/ ) and to perform some research without the influence/guidance/support/involvement of your advisor.
Please note that the +-4 years contract (and associated safety of your position) you had during your PhD is the most stable position you could have had in Academia, apart from being a full professor, which may happen at the earliest some 15 years from now.
So the insecure feeling you have about academic positions, fundings etcetc in the Academia is quite common (not that I approve, but it is beyond the individual possibilities to change this). Either you:

embrace it, looking for academic/research opportunities all over the world, both in terms of open positions and grants applications;
you escape it by working independently as a consultant, or finding an industry position you like.

Final note regarding academic applications: professors are not answering to you. Why? you are very expensive, with the funding of a postdoc they can have 2 PhDs, so PostDocs positions are rare, and if they are available there is not much time to be spent thinking on it, there will be an (official) opening and it will be filled as fast as possible and with as less efforts as possible. But professor will welcome the opportunity to have more fundings, so if you ask support in writing applications for grants and external fundings you will see a better response ratio.

This is a long comment rather than an answer. TL DR: you should not be pessimistic about your ability. Probably your job-search strategy need some improvements.
I am not so familiar with your field but your publication record sounds promising. So it is definitely not an end of road for you. People don't hire you for many reasons unrelated with your ability, for example, the funding are cut during COVID.
Many students and posdoc find a good job because of the connection of their advisor or their department. So if I am you, I will ask my advisor or current supervisor to introduce me to other groups.
In many cases, joining a group is not a jump, but a smooth transition. First you might want to discuss some general research ideas with the PIs or senior posdocs in another group. Then, if mutual interests are there, you could start some mild, informal collaboration, and then do a presentation in their group. If the is interested in your idea, you might be joining their regular group meeting, and a job offer might soon follow.
Same ideas hold for an industrial job. You advisor introduces you to a company for an internship. And if the company likes you, you will have a job offer later.