What's the point of PhD theses if nobody reads them? At best, the PhD thesis is read by:

The author
The examiners
The supervisor
The author's parents
The author's roommate / spouse / fellow students in research group

Or less than 10 people in total. What, then, is the point of writing it? Writing a complete PhD thesis is a time-consuming process, and that time could easily have gone into taking more courses, doing more research, supervising more students, and so on. Of course the PhD student has no choice but to write one, because the programme typically requires it. However that still begs the question as to why the programme requires it in the first place. if the thesis is so useless that so few people read it, what's the point of demanding a thesis as a prerequisite for graduation?

Somewhat related: What is the point of a PhD thesis whose content already exists in published papers? Still, even if there are more readers because a thesis provides a gentle introduction to the field, it seems more sensible to me to just write a monograph and leave out the thesis.

For simplicity, I am going to let your premise that (virtually) nobody reads a PhD thesis stand, even though that's debatable and also a bit field-dependent. There are still a number of reasons for it to exist:

It's arguably more of a "writing to learn" task anyway. Students don't produce theses for the sake of the thesis, but to learn how to do research and write it up properly in a long, coherent book. Even if no single person outside the committee reads the thesis ever, it was still a good learning experience for the student.
There is a lot of history around the concept of a doctoral program requiring developing in new thesis (in the original meaning of the word), writing it down in a book (the dissertation), and defending this new thesis against the local learned community. Even though nowadays many fields don't communicate new research ideas through long books anymore, there is still enough historical appeal to the idea that few programs want to get out of it entirely. The entire process of writing and defending the dissertation also has some appeal as a significant milestone event, which nicely demarks the end of an era for the student - he is no longer a student, but a complete member of the academic community.
In many countries there is a legal angle to this. At least in Europe, a PhD program is usually legally defined to conclude with the production of a doctoral dissertation of some kind.
In the age of "stapler theses" (which consist of a synopsis and a collection of previously published papers in verbatim), the entire affair is fairly low-cost anyway. My last students rarely spent longer than 2 or 3 months on the actual "thesis writing".

In the hard sciences, I really don't see the value of the exercise.  Seems like more benefit from learning to publish and publishing real papers.  If anything, it can be the opposite of value as there are people who write a thesis and don't have independent papers.  Although maybe sweating the thesis is away to put the weaker students through something (some exercise) before you give them the union card.  In some European countries it's actually even explicit that the thesis is just 3 published papers (without even an effort to synthesize them).

However instead of worrying about changing society, my advice is to just deal with the situation.  Do your best on papers.  And for the thesis just get by (it is pass fail after all).  Note that does NOT mean to let obvious errors or typos or poor writing get by.  It should still be good professional work product, like a technical reort in government or industry.

So:

Don't kill yourself on the lit search.
Don't go learning LATEX if you don't already use it.
Don't use some super complicated Word template that is hard to manipulate.
Don't use some complicated drafting or graphing program if not familiar with it already.
Do fit in unpublished work so it is "somewhere" but don't kill yourself to finish up every thread by doing more experiments.  Assuming yu have enough in the main material, the point is just to somewhere put down stuff so not lost to lab group. But don't kill yourself on this...it's a nice to do.
Same as last bullet but also use opportunity to document any little tricks of methods or apparatus that might help the group.  But again...this is a niceness you are doing...not the main point.
Do get it done fast and get out of there.  Try to avoid a lot of editorial criticism.

P.s.  I actually do think theses can be useful looking at a field or a research group especially when coming up to speed (or for members of same lab group).  Get a feel for what is going on.  Some between the lines given.  But my impression is still that most people don't know this trick or do it enough.  Also, I have definitely seen people omit citing prior work from theses.


What was offensive about the "ladies lingerie department" joke, and how can I avoid offending people in a similar way? Moderator note: A follow-on question about how to avoid the behavior described here has been posted.

In recent news, two academics are at odds over this incident full article here:

  The fuss started when [Prof. X] and [Prof. Y] ended up in the same crowded elevator during a conference at a Hilton in San Francisco last month.  [Prof. Y] said she offered to press the floor buttons for people in the elevator, whom she described as mostly conference attendees and all, except one other woman, white middle-aged men. Instead of saying a floor, [Prof. X] smiled and asked for the women’s lingerie department "and all his buddies laughed," [Prof. Y] wrote in a complaint, the details of which he disputed, to the association later that day.

This incident has escalated to the point that the academic organization that organized the conference has decided to sanction Prof. X.

I don't understand why the joke was funny, but that's not really important.  I would like to understand why it was offensive.  Specifically, I'm wondering

In what way was this comment offensive?

The bullets above are not rhetorical or sarcastic; I am completely sincere.  I am worried because I don't understand precisely what was offensive, so I fear that I might do something similar.  I have wondered whether the remark was offensive because:

It referred to underwear
It referred to women (in any way) and was cause for laughter
There is some unstated assumption about his reason for supposedly going to a lingerie department

But I really have no idea, and I want to understand.  I could not find an answer in any of the news pieces on this incident.

I realize that this question might get closed as off-topic.  However, I think it is wrong to assume that no part of this is specific to academic culture (if that's the case, that's part of the answer).  Certainly it occurred in a uniquely academic environment, and is a dispute between academics and an academic society, that seems to jeopardize at least one academic career.

Please refrain from using this as a place to express your opinion on who is right in this dispute.  That's not what I'm asking.

tl;dr: The joke was funny because it was absurd and taboo (made people uncomfortable). It was "offensive" because it may have been intended to make the person operating the elevator feel embarrassed or singled-out. Avoid making jokes that make people feel singled-out.

How is the joke funny?

As other answers have pointed out, the joke is funny because it makes reference to a time when elevator operators were the norm and people would call out the desired floor in a department store by asking for a specific department. It is an absurd (out-of-place) comment to make in the context (the present day, and not in a department store). Often, absurdity is funny.

There is, however, another layer to the humour. People will often laugh when in an uncomfortable situation. The joke is uncomfortable because of the floor that was asked for: ladies lingerie. In some cultures (I can say Canada and the UK for sure) the topic of undergarments, especially ladies undergarments, is taboo and therefore not supposed to be discussed in "polite society".

In what way was the comment offensive?

I think other answers are close, but slightly miss the mark. The reason I think the joke is offensive is because, whether it was intended or not, it made the person operating the elevator uncomfortable or embarrassed. On a more subtle note the reason is context.

The person operating the elevator may have felt like they were targeted by the joke. They asked an innocent question "What floor?" and the joker replies with the less-than-innocent answer "Ladies lingerie". We can only speculate as to the intentions of the joker, but it is clear that while the joke may have been directed to everyone in the elevator, the answer was directed to the person operating the elevator. Add the fact that the person operating the elevator was a woman, and it doesn't seem so far-fetched to think that she may have felt targeted by the joke.

To further consider this point: why was the department "ladies lingerie" chosen? The joker could have asked for "the hardware department" or "men's clothing" or "sporting goods" and the joke would have drawn a few chuckles. "Ladies lingerie" was chosen because it is taboo, and it is extra taboo because it is a man directing the comment at a woman. More discomfort = more likely to provoke laughs (even though the people in the elevator might feel more uncomfortable than tickled).

Finally, consider the context: a male dominated space. I can say from personal experience (as a man) that it is not uncommon for a group of men to direct lewd or taboo comments at women (or sometimes a young/innocent-seeming man) to provoke embarrassment. Heck, I'm guilty of doing it myself, before I realized how it makes the target of the joke feel! It is likely that the person operating the elevator experienced this sort of behaviour many times before and assumed (perhaps rightly) that the joke was targeted at her and was intended to make her feel embarrassed.

Making someone feel embarrassed for your personal entertainment = bullying. Bullying should not be tolerated, especially in a professional setting.

If it was an elevator full of women and a woman made the joke, the context would be different and the person operating the elevator may not have felt singled-out. Similarly if it was entirely men. However, even in these contexts it is possible for the joke to be construed as bullying, especially if the target of the joke is someone that the joker knows would feel embarrassed.

How do I avoid offending people in a similar way?

Avoid jokes involving topics that make people uncomfortable, especially when telling jokes to strangers or acquaintances. Generally avoid taboo topics of whatever culture you are in and especially avoid jokes that might make someone feel targeted or singled-out based on race, skin colour, sexuality, gender, etc.

Well, there was no offense intended, and initially, I didn't see how she was offended. You also can't please everyone, so it's hard to avoid offense unless you carefully curate your jokes?

The offense was taken, and I'm saying it was an over reaction, unless given other context, as it was just a topical joke, I think. I'd say "ladies lingerie" was the first floor type that came to mind, given the circumstances, and on-the-spot jokes need people to be quick on their feet.

And I'm also thinking that the joke was probably the best one that could be given. Any other options wouldn't have been enough of a non-sequitur to be as funny, possibly offered even more offense.

An alternate floor, like "Housewares", for example, might have brought to mind "Stay In The Kitchen" attitudes.

The situation is sort of like a rapid fire answer test, think Word Association and Rorschach testing?

Unless you can find something at least as odd as women's lingerie for a man to publicly state he wants, the joke falls apart.

The woman took offense because she didn't get the joke, I assume. A fault on her, instead of the speaker, due to a lack of historical knowledge.

While it might not be reasonable to expect that knowledge, I find her offense unreasonable, as I didn't immediately find a reason to take offense, unless the core of the complaint is that such a joke doesn't fit the academic setting... But, it's an elevator joke, in an elevator. I love how the situation fits, from a jokester's perspective? ... I might even say she fed him that straight line, but she didn't know it.

On having read some other answers and other commentary on the situation, I find the possible types of offense caused by the joke to be... loosely connected, I think is the right phrase? Although, there is enough connection, to find it as the first associations to come to mind, in someone unfamiliar with the joke?

If I were confronted, I'd ask for an explanation for the offense and defend the joke, but that might not be the best option for you.


I want to be a guest speaker at a university Currently, I am doing a PhD and I want be a guest speaker at one of my previous universities. The topic of my PhD is very similar to what I studied at the university and therefore, I want to give a small talk to the students there. How can I ask the authorities at my previous university to do the same?

Find out who organizes the relevant seminar. Often there is a website listing talks and a contact person. If you can't find this information, just pick someone from the faculty who is likely to be interested in your talk.
Either email that person yourself, or get someone (e.g. your advisor) to introduce you. Introduce yourself; say you are interested in visiting the department and/or giving a talk; indicate what you would like to talk about; and specify what dates work for you. The following email is a good start.

  Dear So-and-so,

  I am visiting Madeuptown the week of Sextember 47th and would be interested in visiting the University of Madeuptown underwater basket weaving department.
  I am currently a PhD student in underwater basket weaving at Fictitious University advised by John Namedrop and I have been working on the use of new wicker weaving materials, which may be of interest to the students in your department.
  Please let me know if you would be interested in arranging something.

  Best,

  Das

I have been the organizer of a computer science group seminar (in the US) and I regularly received such emails. Indeed many of them were much more direct than this.

Most likely, you'll be invited to speak. However, it is possible that they are unable to schedule something suitable at the time you specify. (If you don't get a positive response, then leave it at that. I.e., don't pester them.)

It's worth a try if you are interested in giving a talk. The worst thing that could happen is that your email is ignored.

If you are lucky, they may offer to cover some of your expenses. However, don't bet on it if you are "self-inviting."

This answer assumes that you wish to give a talk at a different institution than your current one. The fact that it's one of your earlier institutions is only mildly related.

Usually, giving a talk at a seminar is not a problem. Simply find the relevant ongoing seminars and their organizers: they might have a free time slot. If you see no seminars online, contact the researchers corresponding to your interests, and take it from there.

However, asking for the reimbursement of the travel costs is or might be a problem for you: it would require substantially more time or effort on the part of  the organizers. Why would they give themselves an ulcer?


How to find the leading researchers in a new field I'm in computer sciences, in applied Machine Learning. I often have to switch applications and I find it cumbersome trying to discern the really good and bad works by doing a large survey.

Whenever you are new in a field, how would you direct your survey to find the people doing seminal work in the area, for example in the specific case of Latent Dirichlet Allocation in Computer Science, you can always go to a 2003 paper by Blei, Jordan and Ng. While if you are a seasoned researcher of the area, you already know this paper is relevant, how a newcomer would find such paper?

Do you ask experts in the area? Do you go by number of citations (I often find this deceptive, particularly in Bioinformatics)

I'm interested in this because I'm switching applications now, and I would like to know which group's work I should be following or which person's papers I should be reading.

Problem is that you hamstrung yourself by eliminating the only correct strategy: doing a long literature survey yourself. You wish to rely on proxies, and sometimes surveys can do that for you, but other people's opinions of "good" and "bad" are just that: opinions.

The only way to really get a sense of good and bad is to read a LOT, think a lot about what you read, discuss with people who might know more about the area, think a lot more, read more, and repeat.

Practical advise is to use platforms such as "ScienceDirect" or "Web of Knowledge". If you have institutional access, you can read every journal of a selected field. By the time you will read the same names repeatedly. Also helpful is to look through conference-papers and other documents prepared for conferences.


I successfully completed degree called Aspirantura from Russia. is it equal to PhD in Europe and US? I completed a four-year Aspirant course and successfully defended my Aspirant thesis

Apparently you don't have a Kandidat Nauk degree (otherwise you should have wrote about it), so by no means it is equivalent to PhD. Aspirantura without a Kandidat Nauk is not valued even in Russia.

Traditionally, Kandidat Nauk dissertation and degree was almost the only outcome of study in aspirantura. However, completion of aspirantura by itself did not automatically result in dissertation defence and awarding a degree. There were and there are a lot of people who do not submit and defend a dissertation while in aspirantura, so they would complete aspirantura without getting a degree. In this case they usually would not even get any diploma. (Some of them would defend a dissertation later, some would outright drop.) There were no final exams in aspirantura, and often no advanced curriculum; and in this sense, aspirantura was more kind of a bureaucratic device that allowed to get funding, give 'legal status' to aspirantura students, not an education institute itself. The main aim of aspirantura was not to give education to students, but to allow them to do research.
However, in recent years, Russian government (Ministry of Education, I suppose) decided to fit aspirantura into the main framework of Russian Federal Law on Education. In particular, AFAIK, aspirantura students are now awarded some diploma on successful completion of aspirantura. It is not tied to Kandidat Nauk dissertation, and has much less requirements, and mainly signifies that some person has indeed studied in aspirantura, and completed some aspirantura courses, and maybe some simple final exam. Even some thesis may be required, but I guess that requirements for such thesis are much lower than for a candidate dissertation.
This aspirantura diploma is not really valued in Russia. (On contrary, it can be a somewhat negative signal, because successfull aspirantura students will defend a Kandidat dissertation and thus will have Kandidat Nauk status, so if somebody has only aspirantura diploma and not a Kandidat Nauk one, this means that they tried and failed). The only use case of aspirantura diploma that I have heard of is when one has to prove that he had received a specific number of years of education, usually when they apply to some position in another country. For example, I've heard it used when one applies to European medical PhD programs. They require that applicants have, e.g., 8 years of medical education (the figures are approximate), while Russian medical universities only provide e.g. 6 years, so additional 3-4 aspirantura years make for the difference.
So if you only have an aspirantura diploma (and defended some thesis required for this diploma), then it is not a Kandidat Nauk degree, and thus absolutely not a PhD equivalent.
Disclaimer: I do not have any direct relation to Russian science in recent years, so my knowledge is based on rumors and information from my friends, many of whom are still working in scientific institutes, and some study in aspirantura, and so the information above may be not exactly correct.

As soon as you defended the Dissertation, the Dissertation Panel awards you the Kandidat Nauk title. It shall be later vetted by VAK (the Higher Attestation Committee), which actually issues the Diploma to confirm your Kandidat Nauk title, but technically speaking you bear the title from the moment the successful defence is announced.
Anyway, as soon as you have a Kandidate Nauk diploma, you can apply to PhD-level jobs in Russia and abroad (including USA). As with any PhD and any graduate degree in general, some people pay a lot of attention to which institution has awarded this degree (e.g. some would seriously consider only applicants with PhD from top-10 universities in the world), and some people/organisations do not have any preferences and are happy to accept any candidate with PhD from a University of Obscure Neverland. Some USA universities may require your Diploma to be notarised and officially recognised, some may accept it with translation you made yourself. You need to check with each University what the rules and expectations are.


Is there anything a student could or should do about a professor who gives lectures so dry that less than 10% of the class turn up? He's clearly a very nice man, but his delivery is reasonably monotonous, and his lecture material is reams and reams of definitions and rules.

I make sure to attend every lecture, and try my best to concentrate, but do find I have had to use other sources (generally online) to be able to answer the questions he sets.

All my peers that I have asked, say they find him very boring.

That you asked the question shows that you feel that there is something that you can do, and that you somehow should do something. However, the question lacks motivation. The lecture is boring - OK. Many things in life are boring. Here are some different motivations you may have (certainly not an exhaustive list):

You would like to have better lecture for yourself to facilitate your learning. That's a good motivation. Especially, you can bring this point across without judging the lecturer or the lecture. Focus on what you experience and what you perceive. Note the difference of "I can not focus for the whole lecture." and "The lecture is boring."
You feel with the students not coming, think they skip the lecture because they find it boring, and wish they would have better opportunities for learning. Note that students skip lectures for all kinds of reasons. I myself skipped lectures because I did not like the lecturer (although the lectures were anything else but boring), because the lecture were indeed boring, because I did not like the lecture style (e.g. it being to fast and reading from a book suited me better), because I was just "not in the mood" (although anything else was OK with the lecture). But it seem that you checked the premise. Then here be sure to stick to the facts when formulating your suggestions/feedback. Note the difference between "The students find your lecture boring." and "Other students I talked to agreed with me."
You want to help the poor lecturer. Also a valid motivation, but quite tough to deduce some action here. First, it's hard to be sure if the lecturer really wants help or could do something.

So, there is no general advice in this situation. Some points to consider: Do not judge persons, do not blame anybody. Describe your experiences, suggest changes that would help you. Be prepared that nothing will happen and do not insist. Think twice before involving a third person.

You are doing the right thing by attending. Even if those lectures are far from optimal, you will learn about the specific parts of course literature that this professor finds to be the most important. This will make it easier to pass the exam later.

And maybe you can suggest to him, in a nice way, how he can improve the lectures? I would. If it is difficult, do it anonymously after the course is completed.


How do professors and lecturers learn to teach? I am a PhD student in the field of education and I enjoy reading SE questions to stimulate my mind when I need a break. I find academia to be one of my most frequently visited sites.

When reading questions, answers, and comments to questions of teaching practices I often see content I consider problematic given what is “known” (a word I will use loosely here) from research in educational psychology.

How do professors and lecturers learn to teach?

I do not mean this flippantly as I often see high-quality contributions on SE as well.

I suspect teaching courses as doctoral students is a consistent practice across fields, but I am curious to know what accompanies this in fields outside of education.  What other resources are provided besides having professors and lecturers learn on the fly and make their own conceptions of what good teaching practices are?

I understand this may be largely field and institution dependent. I also am asking from a U.S. context, but I would be interested to know if the structure is noticeably different between countries.

This answer is based on my experience in Germany, and in an engineering field.

For interested teachers, universities usually have a central department that offers training, workshops, brochures, and plenty of information about how to teach. For example, here, here, and here.
Many lecturers do not take advantage of these possibilities and still learn on the fly. Doctoral students often have recently attended master courses and observed how teaching was done there. In many cases, the professor gives the lectures and the doctoral student teaches the corresponding tutorial, which consists of doing practice exercises on the board. This is easier to do than teaching concepts, and provides an opportunity for the doctoral student to become confident in teaching.
Evaluation by the students also plays a role. The students are asked to give anonymous feedback on the lectures and tutorials approximately at the middle of the semester. The teacher can then learn what they can improve in their method of teaching.

I am assuming professors and lecturers have PhD.

A part of the experience comes from their teaching assistantship during PhD.

Further, when they join a university as an academician, the department conducts teaching-learning workshops where experienced professors discuss new pedagogical skills and feedbacks.

Teaching is a process that needs to keep improving everytime we take a lecture. And, this is a beautiful thing.


Bench fees: typical procedure and rates for visiting students? Over the summer I visited a research station at a different university to collect data for my PhD work. I received an invoice (nearly two months after the fact) for bench fees related to my stay in the amount of $100/day. I used a few square feet of floor space in one of the labs and some outdoor space as well, but brought all my own equipment and materials.

This is my first time visiting a different university, so this is new to me. The communication from the research station before my visit was exceptionally poor, not a single one of my emails (over the span of months) was replied to when I tried to communicate with my sponsor, but since they accepted my payment for lodging I showed up. I guess I should have assumed there would be fees on top of what I already paid associated with my stay, but as I mentioned I am new to this, and working in an interdisciplinary field so my advisor is not familiar with the customs of this other field.

My specific questions are:

1) What is a typical day rate for bench fees, considering the visiting student has provided all their own equipment and materials? (is there a typical rate?)

2) Is it normal to have no communication of any fees beforehand (or during the stay) only to be sent an invoice after the fact? Perhaps I am being unreasonable to expect that this be communicated up front.

My qualm is not with paying the fees, I understand that it costs money to run a research station, but since none of this was communicated ahead of time I did not budget it into my grant for this fieldwork. Also, $100/day seems excessive for floor space, but perhaps that is the going rate.

If somebody is going to charge me money for a service when I'm visiting an off-campus site (or even something on-campus), I want to know about it in advance. The first thing they should have mentioned in any sort of response—or post on a website—is that it's not a free service. Without such information, people can't make an informed decision whether or not the service is worth the cost.

So I would certainly question this invoice and its fairness. (As for the cost, that also seems a bit high, but I can't really comment on a "going rate" for such a service.)

aeismail already comments on the ludicracy and I agree with those words, so I'll comment on the $100/day ~ $3000/month ~ $15000/team (of five)/month, which seems rather a lot when compared to typical city rents (to accommodate five people). Now, that's an incredibly crude way to estimate (especially as I've ignored the lab aspect), but costs vary considerably between cities, so it's difficult to get a better figure without more details (and factoring lab overheads is more work).


I feel like my teacher is disrespectful towards me in the most subtle, Japanese way possible. What should I do? It's hard to pin down, but every time I ask a question in Japanese class, my teacher tends to do this long pause. Sometimes she'll look around the class as if to say "What does anyone else think?" and sometimes she'll say that explicitly, and get someone else to answer it. Other times she'll answer the question, but in a flat short tone that gives me the impression I was stupid for asking it. There was one time when she asked the class "Does anyone have a question?" and I slowly put my hand up, she said "Of course you do." That made me feel humiliated and awful, and I've been reluctant to participate or ask questions since, but of course, I need to understand the lessons.

It may seem petty, but anyone else who asks a question gets a different response; she always responds straight away, or considers the question openly; she doesn't defer the question, pause, or give any sort of flat response. It all makes me feel like I'm doing something wrong. I don't know if I'm asking too many questions, or stupid questions, or if I'm being impolite somehow, if I've missed some term of address (I always address her as 先生 or say すみません.) Despite all that I've said, when I talk to her in person, in her office, she's personable, empathetic, kind and helpful. I don't know why she's so deferential, apparently just to me, in class.

I don't know what I can do about this. Would it be inappropriate to raise this issue with her in person? I don't like the impression of me it would communicate to her ("I feel like you're not being nice to me in class" comes off the wrong way,) but at the same time, I really don't like participating in class because of the way she acts every time I try, and I don't know what to do to fix that.

EDIT: I'm British and from a British university, and my teacher is Japanese.

She says: "Of course you do." - Respond with a small nod and: "Of course I do:" followed by the question. Also, when you feel humiliated when she waits - you can turn this around. When she waits, look at her in a polite, indulgent manner, with an understanding smile (think: you - the OP - are the adult here!). Obviously (so you can think to yourself), she is unable to answer you more quickly, as you have a difficult question, she needs to reflect first on it.

(Completely independent from that, check - just for yourself - whether you really ask too many questions or whether there is something wrong with them; perhaps they are unnecessary or easily answerable or superfluous? But no reason to feel bad, just inspect your question asking style and check whether it may have something you might be able to improve). In my opinion, there is no need to discuss things with her, as the likelihood is that she will downplay or outright deny it.

Imitate her. This will upset her because imitation makes the other person confront his own acts, obligates them to self-reflection. E.g. look around the class as she does when you ask the question, take a long pause before you acknowledge understanding the answer.
Play along with her/your assumptions about the question. Play the fool to catch the fool. E.g. start asking the question but interrupt yourself alleging that it is too easy to be asked in class. Or, when she makes the long pause, say that you will ask it to another student in another moment. Or, say right there that a particular student can answer your question. Or, say sorry for asking "stupid" questions. Or, raise your hand to answer the questions of other students. Or, say something like "doesn't matter I will find the answer in a book", "I will study more for the next time". Or, ask the question on behalf of all students "we are wondering...". Or, ask a "difficult" question from a book to see if she reacts in the same way.

I was wondering if she is being mean to you just because she wants to or she wants to say discreetly some message. Does she want to say that she does not care about you or that you should study more or...?


Does posting papers on Academia.edu count as publishing? Does posting papers on websites such as Academia.edu or ResearchGate count as "publishing" for the sake of future journal submission? That is, if I have uploaded my paper to Academia.edu, can I later submit it to a journal that wants only "previously unpublished" work?

Since nobody wrote it in an answer, I'll do it: the answer to your question depends on the journal, but in each field most journal would have about the same policy.

In some fields (e.g. mathematics, high energy physics), the answer is 'no': posting a preprint in Academia.edu, the arXiv, or on your web page does not prevent you to have your work published by a journal. Many publishers will even allow you to update your public preprint according to the referee's comments, only keeping the publisher-formated version behind a paywall (not all of them though:  Oxford University Press has a very damaging policy in this regard).

In other fields (e.g. some humanities at least in some countries, chemistry) the answer is often 'yes': many journal would reject your paper right away on the ground that it already has been "published" in the sense of being made public. Even if they don't check, they may ask you to pledge that you did not published the material previously in that broad sense, and lying on these kind of issue may be devastating to a career.

In other circumstances, the answer may be more subtle. Some very prestigious magazines as Nature, Science, PNAS may ask for some publications that the authors keep them secret until the journals communicates about the work. This is to ensure maximum media coverage, but of course it concerns only the very small portion of academic works that is considered both as very important for the field, and of great interest of a general audience.

I wouldn't publish my papers on a website that everyone can see before it is actually published in a journal or a conference. Someone else may claim ownership and there is nothing you can do about it

In any case, assuming you did  publish it on either website, you can still publish it in any journal or conference as long as you honor any copyright rules or guidelines.


Are PhD supervisors responsible for informing students about legal issues pertaining to research? After an extreme amount of effort, I am now in possession of a very large dataset of human experiments which is required for my research. However, after speaking with some of my colleagues about writing papers about it, I was told that I need to have had the IRB decide what level of consent is necessary and then had each participant sign the consent form specified by IRB... or else I can't distribute the data... to anyone (yes, I know this is country-specific, but most countries require at at least some legally-valid form of consent).

I hadn't thought about this because I was told by my supervisor to collect the data... and so I did. Now, after asking my supervisor about the ability to legally distribute the data, he agrees with my colleagues in that I need to have had them sign a consent form... but if he told me to collect the data, then methinks he could have been prudent enough to say "oh, and before you go persuade 50+ random people to participate in an experiment, don't forget to have them sign this form or else you can't share the data with anyone at all".

Are PhD supervisors responsible for telling their students about the legal requirements of their work? If not, is it expected that all "learning" done while a PhD student be from making horrible mistakes? Should I basically treat my supervisor not as a boss but as just some random person who might not actually know what I should do?

Good research practice (which I would argue is not country specific), requires an independent ethical review of any research that involves human subjects. A university can make blanket determinations that certain types of research do not require individual review (e.g., interviews).

It is generally considered academic/research misconduct to not have proper ethical review and follow the recommended guidelines. Failure to obtain informed consent, when necessary, definitely falls under research misconduct. In the US and UK, it is the responsibility of the supervisor to make sure that the proper procedures are being followed.

In your case, your supervisor should have told you to get informed consent. The problem, however, sounds way bigger then you just not being able to use the data. The problem could be as large as PhD students not being properly trained regarding human subject research and faculty not following good research practice.

You need to work this out with your supervisor quickly. It should eventually escalate to your department chair and the IRB/ethics board. Not getting informed consent, when needed, is a huge deal.

I am a Ph.D. Professer and graduate student adviser at a university with graduate programs...

No, there is no "responsibility" on the adviser in a legal sense. (people who say otherwise are simply expressing their opinion on how they want the legal landscape to be, not how it actually is.)

Should the Ph.D. adviser be knowledgeable about such things, monitor the student's behavior and correct/educate them when they do something wrong? Certainly. If they can't or won't then the student should have picked a better, more competent, adviser.

But if the student does something illegal or unethical it is 100% the student's responsibility. There will be no legal consequences or repercussions for the adviser as the adviser has no legal responsibility. It is entirely up to the student to make sure they know what they are doing and what is allowed. Any transgression is their fault, not the adviser. The adviser is simply an academic resource and not legally liable for the student's behavior or product.

So, as you asked... yep. just some random dude that might not actually know what you should do. (a pretty good rule to think about every human in existence, including your parents and yourself actually.)

Yes, I know that as an adviser I sound like I'm just covering my ass and trying to avoid responsibility but that is not the case. I have a business obligation to be competent and educate my students well but this does not constitute a legal responsibility for a student's behavior which is what your question is specifically asking about (since there are state and federal legal requirements concerning human and animal test subjects.) It is not the faculty members responsibility that you know them or follow them, though I strongly believe he should know them and make sure that you do too before you embark on your thesis.
But ultimately any legal responsibility for the outcome rests with the student.

Should a driving instructor teach students not to speed? Certainly. Is he legally liable for their speeding tickets... nope. Same sort of relationship.


Accepted by potential thesis supervisor while still waiting to hear back from two others. How to respond? I wanted to know your opinion about this: I had interviews (separate) with three professors that they know each other. One of them which is not my first choice has accepted me, the others still have not answered. How should I reply to his email? Is it okay (=accepted) to tell him I am waiting for other professors' answers? I am asking since the fact that he accepted me I see it as a favor, so I am not sure if it is polite or nice to tell him I am waiting for other professors' decisions. What do you think?

P.S. The reason that I contacted all of them at the same time is that they have a deadline for choosing students, so if I had missed them or none of them took me, I would have to wait sometime with no supervisor.

I think it's perfectly ok to let the professor who's accepted you know that you are waiting to hear back from another opportunity before deciding what to do. There's no need to be any more specific than that. Ask the professor if there's a deadline that you need to tell him your decision by. If it's soon, you could even let the other professors know that you have an offer in hand and need to decide soon. This may speed up their decision.

Don't worry that the professors will think negatively towards you for this. It's a very common situation to be in, and academics understand that students will have their own preferences for who they want to work with. Just make sure you are polite and not pushy in your communications with them.

I disagree with most responses here. If you tell him that you're waiting for other professors' decisions, chances are he won't want to work with you after that. Then, if they don't come through, you won't have anyone.

Also, unless you're absolutely dying to work with one of these others professors, I would accept his offer, as it's a guaranteed acceptance. If, however, you strongly prefer to work with one of the others, then I would wait a few days to see if they come through.


What are the potential pitfalls of having a PhD? This question follow's JeffE's comment here:

  In most industries, a PhD has negative value.

I am curious about what potential negatives there may be with having a PhD, particularly in industries.  For example, my PhD has applications for image sensors, and the potential of working in that field is appealing—would having a PhD be a potential barrier? Would it be a case of how explicit the practicalities of the PhD can be made?  Would this make any difference?

Though a Ph.D is not necessarily a disadvantage, depending on the field and the nature of the Ph.D, it may also not be as competitive as the equivalent number of years in industry.
Think from a perspective of a hiring dev team leader who needs a good systems engineer yesterday to help integrate some obscure API from a vendor into their product. You're choosing between a pile of resumes.
On one, you have a candidate who has 3 years as a junior engineer in a company that worked on image sensors, 2 years of work as a systems developer II, and one year as a lead developer on a computer vision project. He's delivered seven projects in total and has worked in a highly cross-functional team of hardware and software engineers, salespeople, and on-site support staff. The products he worked on brought the company revenue of $86.3 million dollars over seven years.
On another, you have a candidate who has done 6 years in a Ph.D and 1 year worth of internships in total. He's worked on a computer vision project and has contributed a novel algorithm to solving "Line tracing under low UV light conditions" (I made that up, I have no idea if that's a real problem in computer vision), and has written six publications. He also has taught a course on 3rd year systems programming and has TAed robotics three times.
While they are both good candidates, chances are that unless you need someone who does "line tracing under UV light", the first candidate might be more attractive. Less training, less having to work with that person to integrate them into a product-based flow, proven record of delivering product and making sales, etc...
I personally feel that the "disadvantage" of a Ph.D is more about opportunity cost than an actual disadvantage. In many cases, the culture of academia vs. industry are different enough that it's like switching fields even if the technologies are similar. Basically, someone with 7 years actual work experience has enough to basically go from a new grad hire to a project team lead, whereas someone with 7 years of Ph.D is proven to deliver in an academic setting but not in a for-profit product-based one. However, at the same time, there are many industries that want to have Ph.Ds on their staff as well because they are long-term, deep thinkers who are rigorous and detailed.

From my own experience this is mostly true.
I have a PhD in Environmental Engineering.  I tried to find a job in the industry doing process design for water treatment coupled with R&D.  Interviewed a few companies and nobody wanted me.  I did my homework, worked with a career coach with interview preparation, and had an internship with a local utility to gain experience (after I finished school, $20/hr).  They simply did not want me.  One of the interviewers hinted "we want blank paper", at which point I knew this interview was fried. Similar jobs went to MS's of my friends, who got multiple offers from consulting companies as well.  I also connected with a few veteran professionals in the field and they admitted this industry usually reject PhDs unless they have a remarkable connection / already did stuff with the hiring managers.  At the end of the day I landed a government job which had a strict scoring system in their interview process and PhD happened to be a plus, not minus.


What to do with students coming to office hours asking to check their homework? As a teaching assistant (TA), how to handle the situation where a student comes to office hours asking to check their homework? I.e. the student hands in their solution to the homework and ask the TA to check for any mistake. Assume homeworks are worth somewhere between 20% and 50% of the grade.

If country-specific, I am interested in the United States. If field specific, I am interested in computer science, linguistics, neuroscience and maths.

Answering from the point of view of a physical scientist, and in keeping with my personal take on what kinds of help are appropriate or inappropriate.

(I haven't been a TA for a long time, but I teach at an all-undergrad department so I have to be my own TA.)

These are great teachable moments if you have the time (and it can take a lot of time).

You don't check their homework, you ask them to explain their solutions to you.

But there is a catch: you don't let them get away with "I used this formula, and I solved for [variable]"; instead, make them explain their logic and the conceptual basis of their work step by step. When they are stuck or are proceeding incorrectly, you probe their understanding of the problem in a Socratic style.

The kind of questions you might ask include:

Conceptual basis

What physical principles apply to this problem?
Are their any hidden assumptions here? If so, what are they?
What statements in the problem or facts about the world brought you to select that particular approach? And why did you use that expression of the principle in mathematical form?
How well do the explicit assumptions in the problem match the real world (i.e. is this a PhysicsLand (tm) cartoon or a somewhat realistic treatment)?
Are these results reasonable for the real world? If so, why? If not how do you expect the world to differ and what neglected effects would make the answer more realistic?

Math basis (where they'll want to spend all their time at first)

Why is is that the right value for that variable?
Why is that substitution allowed in this case?
What does it mean that there are two solution to that equation? Which one do you use and why? Is the other one meaningful as well?
Does this situation actually meet the preconditions used in deriving the result you want to use?
Can this problem be stated as a special case of one we're already done? Why or why not?

Problem solving basis

What is the goal here? (You'd be surprised how often they lose sight of that.)
What can you learn from what we've been given? (If you don't know how to proceed just try shotgunning it; forward version.)
What list of thing would get you in position to find the answer? (If you don't know how to proceed just try shotgunning it; backward version.)
Do we already know the correct solution to a simpler version of the problem? Does that hint at a way to proceed here?

Most students will find those questions very difficult at first, but as they become more adept at handling the questions they should see their homework and exam scores improve markedly.

If they have the patience they will solve the problem for themselves right there in your office.

Though this is very time consuming most students will not be regulars. Some will simply become frustrated at what they see as your unwillingness to "help" and look elsewhere; and others will get better at the discipline: as the term progresses they'll bring you fewer problems and ask more perceptive questions about them.

In addition to wanting to talk about formulas first, they are going to want to talk about values ("and then I plugged in the 18 from the problem..."). Don't let them do that either. Make they say what quantity it was ("and then inserted the given initial velocity ...").

Beginners are all about numbers and formulas, but learning the discipline is about principles first, problem solving process second, and particular results last.

Philosophical note: As I see it the purpose of homework is to facilitate learning. I wouldn't even grade it except that there is no other way to insure that they will do it. That's why it doesn't bother me that they are getting a lot of support doing the homework for my class: when they come to me I get to make it a learning experience for them.
(The first time they come in they may think they are going to get one for free, but they're in for some skull sweat.)

Admittedly, I get to decide that for my own class and when you are a TA, you may have to abide by the professor's opinion about how much and how directly you should help with assignments.

"Check my homework" is an unreasonable request.  This is a teachable moment that can help you teach a student how to ask a question, which is more important than anything going on in an idiot dual class.    You need to get the student to ask questions that can inform you where the student is conceptually weak, so you can try to patch the holes.


I want to quit my PhD and it's only been 6 weeks Long story short, I realise that I do not like the field of study I have chosen and I Cannot see myself having the ability to successfully complete a PhD in it. I studied physics and went onto enrol on an applied mathematics PhD- whilst it doesn't sound that far removed from physics, I am a physicist at heart and I do not have any enthusiasm for the field I thought I'd love.
I guess the number 1 rule was to listen to my true feelings- I feel genuinely depressed at the thought of having to carry out the work.
Moreover, I feel that my supervision team have taken far too much on as my principle supervisor takes over a week to reply to things I send them, even after they request I do so. I feel that the best option for me is to resign and take some time to evaluate what I really want to study--I'm a physicist at heart and still want to pursue a PhD, just not in applied maths. My question is two-fold:

How do I approach this with my supervisor?
Is it okay to quit a PhD?

Yes, it's OK to quit if what you signed up for is really not what you want (professionally). Plenty of people who start PhD's don't finish.
That said, in your particular case perhaps consider finishing the year. Use the time to learn the kind of applied mathematics you could use when (if) you return to physics. It's too late for your department to use your slot for someone else. They might save a little money if they are supporting you - but if you are earning that support by teaching or grading then your leaving has  no financial value to them.
I don't think you should decide this rashly. You should be able to talk about it with your advisor. Perhaps try to set up an appointment (virtual if necessary) rather than discussing in email.

It is absolutely too early. I do not know if this is a genuine feeling. In case it is the answer would be quit. But for what I know, and having had my own PhD experience as well as having witnessed the experience of at that time fellow PhD students as well as that of current PhD student, I can only say wait.


How to improve my English from Academic papers? I'm not a native speaker. However, I'm doing my PhD in an English country and I read Academic papers which are in English. How can I improve my English from those papers? Any ideas? Although sometimes those papers are not written by native English speakers and may still have problems.

The old adage is: "the language of science is bad English" (and at least in computer science it is 100% true). That being said, I have known PhD students who have failed mainly because of their lacking English language skills – they had ideas, but they could not communicate them to anybody, and they could not write them down in a paper for the life of them. You need decent English to write any paper, and you need pretty good English to write papers at top venues.

You ask how to improve your language skills from reading papers. I would say, you can't do that effectively at all. Clearly, reading anything written in English will help you to some extent, but if you feel like you need to improve your English, taking one or more (good) courses in technical English will help you more than reading through a few dozen papers.

However, there is one language-related skill that reading papers for is really useful – if you are setting out to write the first or one of your first papers of your own, nothing beats analyzing existing papers (at the same conference, in the same journal) to find out how papers in these venues are usually structured. This gets you started much faster than drafting something only for your advisor to tear it apart.

Participate in discussions strictly related to academic papers.
Don't read only - be active in your discussions and write as much as you can (you can make errors but you will self-eliminate them with more practice).


What are some side jobs with which a mathematician in a postdoc or non-tenure-track position can make ends meet? Like many others, I did not get a tenure-track position right out of grad school. I have been moving from university to university across the US for the past few years, sometimes in the capacity of a postdoc, and sometimes in a junior (non-tenure-track) faculty position. (Many of these universities have top math departments, at varying levels; some in the top 10.)

Alas, as I move from one university to the next, my spouse is finding it harder and harder to get a full-time position each time we move. I am currently earning well, but not enough to support a spouse and kids. We're seeing our savings not-so-slowly disappear.

My question is -- what sort of "odd jobs" can someone in my position do to earn money on the side, while my spouse finds his or her bearings (yet again!) in the new location? Note that it is important that these be jobs that are sufficiently flexible that I would be able to do them while still functioning in my current university. I have excellent research (though not sufficient to have gotten a tenure-track position by now), and excellent teaching skills. While I do research in abstract Mathematics, I am also reasonably proficient in statistics and programming.

Are there natural answers to this questions that I have not thought about? Ones that are specific to people in our community? How should one go about getting these odd jobs?

Universities (especially if they're large R1 universities, almost certainly if they're in top 10) usually ask its department members whether they are willing to teach a calculus/lower-level math courses in the summer for extra pay. These are often accelerated and they are over in a couple of months. Teaching one class, in my estimate, should earn you an extra 5-10k, depending on your institution. You can easily pick up two of these classes over the summer. If there is more than one university in your area, you could also try teaching at the other universities.

You could also tutor students. This is admittedly a little awkward when you are a faculty member, but as long as you are not teaching them, there shouldn't be any problems. This works especially well in an affluent area; I'm told that some people, given good credentials, can support themselves completely on tutoring students.

Sometimes, websites dedicated to math education, such as Art of Problem Solving, hires online graders. The flexibility of the job means that you can pick it up on top of being a postdoc.

Lastly, remember that you're on a 9-month salary contract. This means that you could be an intern at some large company using your statistics/programming skills during the other three months, and earn a huge paycheck.

These are not really "odd jobs", but probably the easiest to get given your situations. Of course, you should keep in mind that these will take away from your research time, which might make finding a tenure-track job more difficult (I totally sympathize with you; the system that we have is far from perfect, and it puts so many people in your position. But this is the reality and you should be aware of it when you're contemplating taking up another job on top of your postdoc position, which is already more than a full-time job).

There are plently of online jobs in big data, market research (statistical), etc. you can lookup the following links and chose according to your strength.

and all the best.

https://www.freelancer.in/jobs/Statistics/1/

https://www.google.co.in/search?q=online+jobs+for+statisticians&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=hTpzWK-2Osjk8Aeng7j4CA


How many credit hours of mathematics does an average successful student take before applying to graduate school? I'm a senior in mathematics at the University of Illinois (Urbana). I will be graduating sometimes in 2017, and I would like to go to grad school straight after graduation.

How many credit hours of mathematics does an average successful student take before applying to graduate school?

This tends to vary a lot, but here's what I'd consider reasonably good preparation for pure math graduate school in the United States:

Three semesters of calculus (possibly less if you've had calculus in high school)
A semester of linear algebra
Two semesters of abstract algebra
Two semesters of real analysis
One semester of complex analysis
One semester of topology
At least 2-3 more semesters of advanced electives.  These can vary a lot, but it helps to have some expertise in a few different subfields of math before attending graduate school.

So it seems that I'm recommending at least 12-13 semesters of mathematics.  Assuming 4 credit hours for a one semester course, this is 48-52 credit hours of college mathematics.

I can't say what the average is, but I'll provide some suggestions that should enable you to answer what I think is your underlying question:

  How can I figure out how many more I should take?

Pick a couple of programs you're interested in applying to. Read the program of studies carefully, then check the courses you would be signing up for in your first year, to see what the prerequisites are. This will guide you in your course selection, and give you a fair view of how well prepared you are. Make sure to look at the textbooks used, to gauge the level of difficulty.

Something to keep in mind: if you can get a TAship, unless you have a fantastic scholarship for your undergrad, it would be financially advantageous to make the move to grad school earlier rather than later.  (If you aren't accepted on the first try, you can always try again when you have more feathers in your cap.)


Why did journal subscription prices increase by 25% between 2013 and 2017? (vs. 5% for US inflation) I read on https://journals.ebsco.com/products-services/explore-content :

Why did journal subscription prices increase by 25% between 2013 and 2017?

That's much more than the US inflation (~5.1%  between 2013 and 2017 (mirror)):

(source of the image: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/  (mirror))

The direct answer is "because they can". Demand for journals is pretty inelastic - increasing the price doesn't cause much of a fall in demand. Can you imagine your university not subscribing to a journal like The Lancet or Science?

Behind that answer however is a storm of interlinked factors. Here're some of them:

Publishers are under pressure from their shareholders to show revenue and income growth. This is no different from university administrators pressuring their faculty to show research output growth, university ranking growth, and so on.
The total number of academic papers being published worldwide is increasing quickly. To shareholders this sounds like an excellent opportunity for growth! But not all these papers can be published in top journals, so a lot of them end up in not-so-good journals.
Most of the papers in these not-so-good journals are actually very seldom used. For example take the Elsevier journal Wave Motion. It's got an impact factor of 1.575, which is pretty medium. I picked a random paper, "An elastodynamic computational time-reversal method for shape reconstruction of traction-free scatterers", Vol 72, page 23-40, July 2017. Then I went to Web of Science, found the paper, and checked the usage statistics. Guess how many times it's been used in the past 180 days - three times (!).
Since the usage is so low, libraries are incentivized not to subscribe (and remember, this is a solidly middle-of-the-road journal - imagine what it's like for the bottom-tier ones). But if libraries don't subscribe, the journal makes a loss. What is the publisher to do?
Let's take the obvious thing to do, and one commonly argued for, which is to close the journal. If publishers did this en masse, there'd suddenly be no more journals except the few top-tier ones. Remember that the papers published in these not-so-good journals aren't necessarily bad - they're usually just rather boring, low-novelty papers: the backbone of science. Without the journals, these papers would never be published.
Another thing about these not-so-good journals is that they're crucial to researchers from developing countries. It's true that these researchers might be slightly less capable than those in developed countries, but it's also probable that they simply have fewer resources. If one is not able to access the Large Hadron Collider, one is also not likely to make breakthroughs in particle physics. Hence one ends up with boring, low-novelty papers that won't make it to top journals.
On top of all that, let's add the fact that some academics think that they write papers, they edit journals, they serve as reviewers, they deserve to be paid for it. I'm not saying that they're wrong, but you can see the tension this belief causes.

And then there's open access. Most forms of OA ties the revenue to the number of papers published (there are other models, but those journals are loss-making and only stay afloat because of an external source of funding). This means there's an immediate conflict of interest for the publisher, which is why there's predatory OA publishing, and in turn is why there's a backlash against OA. Also consider what it's like from the publisher's and library's points of view.

Publisher. If you convert a journal to OA, you're giving up subscription revenue. A bird in hand is worth two in the bush. Further, many academics prefer to publish in subscription journals even if they have access to OA funding, since if they publish OA they have to jump through some administrative hoops. There're also lots of academics in developing countries that simply cannot pay for OA. There's no guarantee that your 100-papers/year journal will still be 100-papers/year after you convert to OA. Do you dare? Remember your job is on the line (see comment above about shareholders).
Library. OA costs money. You need to free up funds somewhere to fund OA. In theory you should be able to use subscription money to pay for OA, but in practice, you're either subscribed to a journal or not. You can't just pay $3000 less for a subscription and use that for OA for a single article. The only way is to unsubscribe, which effectively removes access to every paper in the journal.

Finally, let's not forget that publishing is a notoriously poorly-paid job, and the publisher also has to keep its employees happy.

tl; dr: it's a difficult world out there. If you have a solution, you'd be in contention to win the Nobel Prize in Publishing.

I don't think it has anything to do with inflation. It's the growth of the industry and how the companies applied their strategy.


What am I being paid for? (postdoc) I am currently doing a postdoc in mathematics in Europe (staying vague for anonymity...). For various reasons I am seriously considering leaving academia at the end of my current postdoc, which ends in a few months. I have some teaching/supervision left to do, but very little. My postdoc is a more research-focused postdoc, but not within any specific project, I am free to work on whatever projects interest me.

For the last few months I have been feeling extremely unmotivated to do anything related to my research. No one seems to care whether I'm doing something or not and it will most likely not have any impact whatsoever on my future career outside of academia anyway. The coronavirus situation with the requirements to work from home obviously didn't improve the situation, as I lost the peer pressure of having office mates so I don't even feel the need to pretend that I'm working anymore. Yet I am of course still being paid, but it makes me feel quite bad to be paid for doing essentially nothing.

I guess I am looking for advice for how to feel better, either by regaining some motivation, or simply by hearing that it is ok to not do research (or any other kind of related work) if I don't feel like it. I'm not sure if it's a form of the impostor syndrome, but I definitely feel like a fraud for not working and still getting a salary...

Research is a very non-linear process, where long stretches of work may produce not much of value (even though you have learned a lot!).
If you're planning on leaving academia this presents a problem, because you might not actually produce anything before you leave, and it's understandably difficult to motivate yourself to work on something you plan on dropping midway through.
Therefore, I would advise you to focus on projects that are likely to pay off before you leave. Of course without specifics it's hard to come up with examples, but I'll take a crack anyway.

Find a colleague who can benefit from your expertise and help them out.
Reach out and see if you can give some talks about the research you've already completed.
Volunteer and take over some teaching from a colleague.
Expand your (digital) office hours.

Lastly, you've probably spent a good amount of free time doing research anyway, so I wouldn't feel too bad about taking the occasional workday off to do something other than work. (Perhaps figure out what you're going to be doing next.)

A Postdoc position is a starting path to an academic life. Since you say that you are not planning to continue in academia there is nothing indeed that compels you to work hard, or work at all, during your postdoc, and certainly not under the current epidemic situation. So basically, I would simply sit at home, relax and enjoy (possibly try out a Netflix binge).


Is it ok to ask for H1-B visa during postdoc interview? How? I will have a couple of interviews for postdoc positions in the US (at big universities). I have read that it might be very convenient to get an H1-B visa (I'm from a non-US & non-EU country).

Shall I talk about this and/or try to negotiate it during the initial interview? Or maybe only after getting an offer? Or isn't it just 'not' under discussion?

Generally in an interview before you've received an offer, your overriding priority is making yourself look like an appealing candidate, and so bringing up points that will present a difficulty for your employer may not be so wise.  Trying to negotiate a point like this will at best put your interviewer in an uncomfortable spot (since they are almost certainly in no position to commit on a point like this) and at worse come off as arrogant.  I think it would be reasonable to ask if they can put you in touch with a staff person who can explain how visas are usually dealt with (it is probably not wise to try to look this person up beforehand separately).

After you have an offer, then you are in a better position to make requests, though honestly, most postdoc positions are pretty much "take-it-or-leave-it."  Visas (as opposed to salary or research funds) are even trickier since they are not usually handled by the department, and have legal constraints that most of the parties involved understand poorly.  You can try, but I wouldn't have a lot of optimism you will get them to do things differently than they would have.

Several suggestions:

First you want to get them to tell you what their take is on the whole visa situation. That is, don't ask for anything or even tell them what kind of visa situation you would like to achieve before they've described the "possibility space" to you (or made an offer without talking about visas at all).
Either before the interview or after the offer, figure out who is in charge of administrative affairs at the department/group you're interviewing at, call them up, tell them you're about to interview, and ask them, rather the professor whose time is better spent on academic affairs, what's it like for post-doc's with respect to work visas. It's an innocuous question and they are likely to answer it. I personally think it's ok to do so before the interview already, but if you want to be more cautious, then wait even with that.
After you've received an offer and are inclined to accept, talk to the person who made you the offer and say something like "I understand that w.r.t the work visa, sometime X happens and sometimes it's Y. Is that something that is up to me to choose? Will you be able to help me make it Y rather than X?"

Note that I've tried to make my advice non-US-specific (as I don't have much of a clue about the US visa situation, but your question is relevant in a wider context).


Is it wrong to change the name of the university on a recommendation letter One of my professors gave me a recommendation letter for my master's degree application however I just noticed that she wrote the specific program that I'm applying to from a different university that I want to apply as well. Is it alright to just change that data? She send it on a pdf file, and I could easily change it to word and change it, but I don't know how acceptable that is. I'm afraid that the new program I want to apply will think is a fake letter or something like that. What should I do? Is 1.45 am and I need to finish the application ASAP.

You cannot do this.

Your professor recommended you for University A; changing their recommendation to University B is fraud. I realize that they are probably also willing to recommend you for University B (they may even have promised to write a letter for University B), so I know it seems like you're just saving everyone some  time.
But, the professor still hasn't authorized you to do this. I for one would be angry if I found out that anyone submitted a letter with my name on it without my explicit permission (and, for an undergraduate student, I would indeed want to glance at the updated letter before approving it).

The other concern is that University B could somehow find out about this and assume the worst (that you falsified the letter). They could reject you without even bothering to ask for clarification.

So, three options:

Ask the professor to change it
Ask the professor if you can change it (this addresses the first concern only)
Submit it as-is -- as noted in the comments, programs will not generally be too concerned about this mistake, particularly if Universities A's competitiveness >= University B's competitiveness.

Well you can use it to apply the the program / uni named with no issue.

You cannot edit it as you suggest as she did not write or sign that...

It would have been better, and I do this, to write the letter to be specific about you, not mentioning the course by name and date but more generically...


Is it common for a managing editor of a University Press to solicit book proposals from PhD students at a conference? I am a PhD candidate in the very early process of writing my dissertation, and I'm presenting my first chapter at an international humanities conference soon. I received an email from the managing editor of a well known University Press that was impressed by my topic and wants to meet to discuss possibilities. How common is this?

Is it quite common for University Presses to solicit meetings with PhD students? Or is this a rare opportunity? His interest was so unexpected (because I always assumed you approached editors if you wanted to publish) that I'm not sure if this is a promising opportunity.

So how often do managing editors of University Presses solicit authors that are ABD?

I interned at a university press, and it was common to go through conference programs and identify interesting topics/papers written by PhD candidates/early-career scholars. It sounds like it's a little early in the process for you, but it is definitely worth taking the meeting.

This isn't common. It's common knowledge in publishing that for books to sell well, the authority of the author is of huge importance, and as a PhD student you're not likely to be an authoritative author.

My guess is that the acquisition editor is either unaware that you don't have a PhD, or (rather less likely) is making contact with you so that when you become an authoritative author in the future, you'll keep them in mind.

Having said that, there's no drawback for you to go ahead and meet them. If they are indeed aware that you don't have a PhD, but are willing to collaborate with you anyway, so much the better for you.


Can authors from certain origins really not know about the gravity of plagiarism? With respect to some cultures, in particular Asian ones, one often hears statements such as the following:

  In this country, copying is regarded as flattery and thus people do not know the evils of plagiarism.

or (taken from here):

  In some traditional cultures in Asia and the Middle East, for example, college students are expected to quote or paraphrase the best known political or religious authorities without attribution because readers, especially professors, are expected to know what texts are being circulated. Indeed, it might be a serious insult to the teacher if the student writer formally cites the text being borrowed.

Such statements may nourish prejudices or lead to it being considered an extenuating circumstance that a plagiarist comes from a such a country (see, e.g., this answer or this case).
I wonder whether this phenomenon really has the extents that would justify the latter, more specifically: Is it conceivable that somebody makes it to the point where they author a paper or a PhD thesis without knowing that they must not plagiarise? Or: Can authors really commit plagiarism out of inexperience on this level?

Note:

I am primarily interested in anything going beyond personal experience (there are individual statements in this article). A scientific study would be ideal, but is probably not the only possible way to fulfill this criterion.
This is not directly about how the respective academic cultures nourish plagiarism and what aspect of the culture is behind this.

As all the answers so far have ignored this: I am not asking whether cultures differ in their attitude towards plagiarism – they clearly do. I am asking whether these differences reach a certain level.

I am not here to create or perpetuate stereotypes. I just want to make an attempt to explain it.

Yes, in my personal experience, in Asian countries, scholars fail to understand the basic concept of plagiarism. Let me give a background of myself, I finished my undergraduate in India and currently a graduate student in USA.

In almost every American University, there are clear rules imposed on assignments and laboratories. There are certain honor codes and honor committees which oversee the description and prevention of plagiarism. Plagiarism check software are utilized too.

However, in India, howsoever unbelievable it is, there is no concept of weekly assignments in most (just a qualifier) of the Indian universities. At most, students are required to complete one (or two) assignment in a semester. The assignments also happens to be most boring ones. For example, "write report on recent trends in "Biomedical Instrumentation"". Unfortunately, even in those assignments, the grading patterns are usually (again, just a qualifier) binary, i.e. you get full credit if you submit the assignment and zero credits if you fail to do so. Thus, there is no mechanism to evaluate the thought process, the research skills and plagiarism related issues.

However, the concern is, when even most of the professors fail to adhere to plagiarism rules. The reason being the professor evaluation schemes utilized in most (you know, it is a qualifier) of the universities. You are supposed to come up with these many conference papers and these many journal papers for doing fairly well in yearly evaluation. No emphasis on the quality of publications is established. To take advantages of such a sad situation, several conferences pop up from nowhere giving professors opportunity to meet the evaluation requirements. Some of these conferences are pathetic. How pathetic? You can submit a single page paper, for starter; You can submit paper as late as just a week before the conference. And what else is incredible, the conferences bear tags like "IEEE International Conference on _______ _______ and ______". Really? Yes, I know it's sad, but it's true.

These are what I believe the main reasons of why Indian scholars are so much at risk of plagiarism.

Your question sounds very western-centric. As if plagiarism was an obvious bad thing worldwide. No it isn't.
Is it obvious for you that you mustn't hand people anything with only one hand? It's known to be very rude, one need to always hand things with both hands. I learned this was important for Japanese people. I didn't know it. Other cultures don't know US or western Europe attitude as well.
For example in Poland one is not frowned upon when they plagiarize [or cheat or something], but only when they get caught [you can't even cheat? What kind of a student you are?]. We have special words for different kinds of cheating and you don't even have a word for cheating at school [to differ it from cheating on your spouse or something]. So yes, cultural thing.


Is Relocating Necessary in Academia? Despite experiencing a lot of drama and negativity at my university, I love my city and hate the idea of relocating. Sometimes I even think of reapplying there just so I could stay in this city (this is its only university) and still attend grad. school, but the negativity would be a lot to deal with. There's another program that seems like a good fit for me, but I think I'd be miserable in another city, even if I enjoyed the program itself.

However, is relocating a necessary part of academic life? For example, with the job market being so tight, I've heard that you have to be willing to move almost anywhere for a job. I've also seen posts where Ph.D. advisors suggest their students apply to specific post docs/jobs etc. Can you specify that you refuse to move from a specific city? Is it even realistic to pursue an academic career if you're not willing to relocate (perhaps even multiple times)?

Edit- I'm from the US

There are exceptions in some specific fields (for example accounting) where corporate jobs are much more attractive than academic ones, but, in general, an academic considers themselves very lucky if they can find any academic job at all, let alone one in a particular city.

StackOverflow says that you are a new contributor and to be nice. So I won't say what I feel like saying first off after reading your post.

You have left a lot unsaid, I feel.
Unsaid about yourself, your field of study, your career intentions - even your nationality. I raise nationality as your approach to this question is not the usual US approach to such things. Even Europeans don't want to micromanage their career like you seem to want to. There's also a very strange deference to the viewpoints of senior colleagues - something that has gone by the board for decades in the western hemisphere. Maybe you are first generation Indian-American, Pakistani-American or Chinese-American and have been doing what your parents advise up to now. That excess regard for older people's views on your life decisions no longer washes in today's world. Believe me, the one thing you need to do in academia is to be your own man and trust in your own experience, your own analysis and your own decisions until events show otherwise. In other arenas like business, industry, even the professions, you can get by on group-think and following-my-leader. But the stark individualism of academia (in research moreover) makes it vital to determine your own perspective soon after your PhD starts. Mistakes made from your own analysis plus your own experience are honest mistakes. You shouldn't be too proud to make them or too embarrassed to acknowledge learning from them. So, love and respect your parents but make your own decisions. And try to respect faculty members' viewpoints on their field of expertise - but draw a line on their input to your career. I'd personally only listen to those professors who have shown that either (a) care for all students welfare or (b) care particularly for your future. But even here you must take the full responsibility and decide yourself.

I've also seen posts where Ph.D. advisors suggest their students apply to specific post docs/jobs etc. Can you specify that you refuse to move from a specific city? Is it even realistic to pursue an academic career if you're not willing to relocate (perhaps even multiple times)?

I feel that you are not telling us the full story here.
I get the feeling that your viewpoint on your career (perhaps even on life opportunities in general) may have prematurely crystallized. Your comments above betoken a  naive trust in a self-chosen 'orthodoxy' - albeit one occasionally supported by instances where a supervising academic may act with immoderate or ambiguous interest where an ex-student is involved - that isn't really the norm at all.
Let's get something straight here.
You're not going to get any interview or appointment on the back of playing your supervisor - however subtle an operator you may think you are. Even if you did it would be so much the worse for you: the high expectations of your new employer/supervisor and the likely lack of commitment on your own part having got the opportunity without real personal effort would soon lead to disappointment on the other side. Then where do you go ?
So, you may have read that Prof X suggests some internship/fellowship to student Y but this is very much the exception rather than the rule. And God help you, if you think you can specify the location of a job that you are prepared to consider your professor recommending you for then you are in cuckooland and damn well you know it ! On the last question, I know that some colleges appoint many of their ex-undergraduates and many of their doctoral students to their staff. As other posters pointed out, sometimes there is a brief low-level sojourn at another college until they 'return' to their alma mater. But look hard at the quality staff in your own college, even your own department. Not just faculty but those in support positions. There are always lots of foreigners among this group. In my own experience, the only genuine educators I met in my own country were foreigners. They were the ones who broke the old mold of bad curricula, boring lectures and mindless assignments and projects. Having got their positions mostly through familiarity with senior faculty, the native staff were naturally unwilling to appear disloyal by pushing for changes that they may privately have favoured. So I don't think it serves the students well to have faculty who are ex-students of that same college and certainly not also natives of that city. To me, a university's ranking for educational quality is synonymous with its commitment to new blood faculty appointments - the alumni just don't want the social hassle, if they care at all.

Despite experiencing a lot of drama and negativity at my university, I love my city and hate the idea of relocating. Sometimes I even think of reapplying there just so I could stay in this city (this is its only university) and still attend grad. school, but the negativity would be a lot to deal with. There's another program that seems like a good fit for me, but I think I'd be miserable in another city, even if I enjoyed the program itself.

You're saying 'drama' and 'negativity' but not what you mean by that. Drama in everyday life can be good, e.g. colorful characters, vigorous debate, horseplay or humor, or bad, e.g. personality clashes, bad feeling, psychological warfare, workplace politics and worse. Negativity can be as innocuous as a thickly conservative approach to all things or as soul-destroying as those individuals who dedicate every breath of their being to stomping down other people's sand-castles. If it's the latter end of these spectra, you know you have to go elsewhere if you want to have an academic career. Even if it's something less severe but still a drag on your humor and appetite for the workplace and those in it, you have  to go. Firstly for your own nerves' sake as events outside work will present their own problems and no one can fight wars on 2 fronts. Secondly (but to the wider community this is the primary reason) you owe it to others - particularly students and their hard-working parents - not take on a task on their behalf that you have no real zest for yet still choose to do just so you have a secure status in your home city. If you do, you'll become a part of that negativity and drama that you claim to dislike.

You have been in just one city and one college in your life - yet still fear the challenge of another. Don't dress it up as being content in this community and doubting if another city could provide that same sense of congeniality. Good cities don't allow bad colleges. The colleges are the one hope for social advancement in most cities. All the important questions about what's wrong in the local community are raised there, many by newly arrived faculty from other parts of the country or world who have experienced better organized situations elsewhere and ask why not here too.

The thing I just don't get here is how someone could aspire to an academic career but still not have a strong appetite for new experiences, new people, new opinions, ideas and most of all new cultures. Don't you ever get tired of the men or womenfolk in your home town ? Don't you ever get the urge to get off your ass and do something radical about it ?
Higher learning (i.e. learning not just for economic advancement) and relocation to new community have always been inseparable. Christ, even astrologers put both higher learning and distant travel into the 9th House with theology and philosophy.

If you want to be a serious academic, you've got to embrace this happily - otherwise you won't be positive to the spotty teenager asking the awkward question one frosty November morning in your first semester as assistant professor.
If you can't resolve this, you simply aren't cut out for this profession - it's just the security and conveniences of it that are attracting you.

EDIT

Gemini, having read this post I would categorically say that you have no future in your current college until you prove yourself elsewhere. And you know that this situation is entirely of your own doing. I also agree with others' point on getting some help on self-awareness, as opposed to awareness of others behaviour which you seem to analyse quite well.