Is it reasonable to require students to bring a laptop to every lecture? In the next academic year,
I'll be teaching a class on how to use a statistical software package
(the R programming language).
I foresee that each class will have two parts:
a lecture and software demonstration,
and time for the students to get their hands dirty
by trying the software themselves.
I now have to decide what type of classroom to request.
Option 1: Computer laboratory
If I hold the class in a computer laboratory,
the advantage is that every student will have a computer
with the software already installed.
The disadvantage is that the classroom layout
is optimized for students to use the computers,
so it is difficult to lecture.
I foresee that it would be difficult for students sitting in the corners
to see the projector screen when I am speaking.
Option 2: Lecture theater
If I hold the class in a lecture theater,
the advantage is that every student will be able to see the projector screen when I am lecturing and demonstrating the software.
The disadvantage is that students would have to
bring their own laptops once a week.
Although I estimate that at least 98% of students own a laptop,
I don't want to embarrass or cause difficulties to any students who do not.
So bearing these two options in mind,
which type of classroom should I request?
Is it reasonable for me to request the lecture theater,
knowing that this will be inconvenient for students
who don't normally bring their laptops to university?
Edits
There will be around 90 students in the class.
My plan is to ask the students to form groups of 3-4 students,
so that they will help one another as they do coding and data analysis.
I will probably have a TA to help to run the lab session
given that there are many students in the class.
I've attached a floor plan of the only computer lab in my university
which is able to accommodate 90 students.
As you can see, if I am trying to give a lecture in this lab,
it can be very hard for me to have eye contact with the students,
and to perceive any confusion or uncertainty in their minds.

What I decided to do
After considering the input provided by the various answers and comments,
I decided to adopt a hybrid approach,
i.e., 1 hour of lecture followed immediately by 2 hours of computer lab time.
During the lecture time,
I will be showing the students how to use the software
and how to estimate and interpret statistical models.
During the computer lab time,
students will apply what I taught in the lecture to a different data set.

I would go with the computer room option. There are several issues with getting everyone to bring a laptop:

As you mention, a few students may not have one, and this could cause embarrassment.
People are using different operating systems, and may have different versions of the software installed. This increases the chance of code working on some computers but not others, which is always tricky to deal with as the lecturer.
High chance that at least a few students will forget their laptops, or their power supplies.

To deal with the issue of the computer room being poorly laid out for lecturing purposes, I would suggest providing all the materials (powerpoint, code scripts, etc) to the students electronically. This way they can have everything displayed on their screens and can follow along even if they don't have a good view of the projector screen.

Ideally the classroom should already be set up with everything needed for the lectures, however this is not always possible.   If the classroom isn't already set up for laptop usage (as with most campuses built before about y2k), often times these classes are split into a lecture and a lab.  For scheduling purposes, this way can be extremely beneficial to students trying to graduate within a fixed time frame and minimize their student debt because they can usually fit one of the labs into a packed schedule.  This works well in large departments with plenty of graduate assistants to run the labs, so if that option is available, take advantage of it.

That being said, there are pros and cons to having laptops in the classroom.  If their usage is limited to course related material (not including note taking), then it is generally good for learning.

So long as you set aside a time for in-class work (it may take several minutes for some systems to come up) and allow for partnering or group collaboration (unless laptops are mandatory for the class or department) then it shouldn't be a problem.  Even if laptops are required, the group interaction can help shy or new students meet the person/people who will be their future study partner(s).

I hinted that note taking on a device can be counterproductive, so if you can make lectures and notes available, it will allow greater concentration.  If the lectures are not already available, they can be divided among the class members to transcribe.  When I was an undergrad in nuclear engineering, we organized this on our own and it worked so well that the group list became a sort of reply-all mailing list to correct any misconceptions.


Is it undesirable to publish a 2019 paper in a 2020 issue? This question is inspired by How to make sense of a 2019 paper published in 2016 journal issue? From the comments to that question, it's apparent that publishing a 2019 paper in a 2016 issue is inconvenient for the author. This question asks the reverse: what if the journal is so "frontlogged" that it publishes its 2019 papers in 2020 issues?

I have handled such a journal at one point. The journal was receiving and accepting lots of submissions, so many in fact that it was publishing issues ahead of time. Previous editors were reluctant to increase the issue count because they feared this stream of papers would dry up, and if the journal ever struggled to fill its issues it would lead to problems like in the linked question, where 2019 papers are published in 2016 issues. The upshot was, by the time I took over the journal it was more than a year ahead of schedule.

Is the journal being ahead of schedule a problem for authors? What about librarians?

In the present day, publication year is essentially irrelevant.  What matters for the job market is the acceptance date.  Usually publishers put the article online within days of acceptance.  At this point people begin citing it.  If the paper is not assigned to an issue until the next year, the only effect will be that people citing the paper will be annoyed by copyeditors asking what the publication year and issue are.

Apart from its positive or negative mechanical effects in gaming the bibliometrics system, it is undesirable because it's basically lying. It may be an unpopular opinion, but I don't like lies, as a general thing.


When can a person be called a PhD ABD? Can one call oneself a PhD ABD (All But Dissertation) after completing all of the course work and working on the dissertation?

Some people think it's ok to call yourself PhD ABD when in the Canadian or US system, you pass the qualifying exams and coursework, but haven't yet, or fail to ever, deliver the thesis.

But simply do not call yourself PhD ABD.

It's not attractive to advertise failure.

You're either a PhD candidate, or you're a PhD, or there's nothing to say on the subject (bar a line on the CV filling in the black hole on your timeline with discreet mention of an aborted doctorate). PhD ABD is a ludicrous pseudo-title.

A PhD that's All But Dissertation is like an espresso that is All But Coffee. It's hot water with a bit of sugar, thus defeating the entire purpose of the exercise.

For academic jobs it's important on your application to indicate that you are post-comps or "ABD". Many institutions will not consider your application without the accompanying ABD if you are still working towards completing the PhD (usually in the Spring following your Fall applications).


Two PhD's in different UK universities, simultaneously, part-time: absurd idea? I have what might seem like the nicest problem in the world: I've got offered funding for both of my dream PhD's. I am stunned, incredulous, gobsmacked, but also deeply confused: both are with supervisors I would absolutely love to work with, both are topics that genuinely fascinate me. Having to choose one feels like Sophie's choice to me - as soon as I imagine choosing one I start grieving the other.
My question is, would it be madness to switch to part-time mode and pursue both? One is funded by ESRC and the other one, by AHRC; there are parallels in the subject matter but the projects and research methods are completely different, so there is no way I could unite the two (although my two prospective supervisors know and extensively quote each other). The field is humanities (cultural/visual studies in one case, same but with a good dash of social sciences in the other).
Thank you!

Andrew mostly covered why this is administratively impossible, but I think it's also worth addressing the misunderstanding of what a Ph.D. is embedded in this question.  Pete Clark said it better than I can, but Ph.D.'s are not merit badges.  More is not better.  Getting a Ph.D. on one of these topics will not stop you from working on the other.  Working with one of these advisors officially will not stop you from staying in touch with the other, and potentially collaborating in the future.  You want to have ideas about other stuff to work on once you finish your dissertation.

I don't envy having to make the choice, and you will have to close one the doors part of the way to actually finish your degree.  But you don't have to slam it all the way shut, and you never know when ideas you know thought you had set to the side will come right back to you.

From a purely practical point of view, if you are open with your funding agencies and they allow you to keep the funding for both PhDs, then I would keep both options on the table, and evaluate them by exploring what you think is right for you as an individual - you know yourself the best.

There is the argument that you are depriving someone else of PhD funding by holding two scholarships. But equally it could be argued that, because you are spending an extra 3-4 years as a PhD student (time that, under the one-PhD scenario, you would spend as a postdoc), during those last 3 years you are effectively opening up Postdoctoral funding to someone else. So perhaps the ethics balances out.

I'm speaking as someone who got funding to do a year long exchange to another laboratory, followed by a Masters, both of which occurred within my PhD. They have effectively added 2 years and a few months to my PhD project, and this extra time has definitely been well spent. I know that you might be looking at an extra 3 or 4 years if you choose to do both.

There is no rule that says all PhD students have to have the same or similar experience, and doing two PhD's, if you choose to and think it is the right thing for yourself, would definitely make you unique and would help increase the diversity of academic experiences that exist.


Effect of a guest semester in graduate school admissions in Mathematics? I go to an Asian undergraduate school. It is probably the third best place to do undergraduate mathematics in my country. Which means it is basically unknown to graduate admissions committees in top 6 schools in the US. Still, alumni of my school have gone to Chicago, Michigan, Maryland, UCLA, Northwestern etc. There is another school in my country. This is very well known abroad and their alumni have gone in the best of graduate programs. There is an exchange program between this and my school. I can do a semester or two in this school in my 4th year (Mine is 5 year integrated BS-MS course.)

However I am unsure how graduate schools - especially top 6 - would view this.

I have some evidence that this won't have a drastic effect on my application.

The other school also has a MSc program in Math. Every year few people get top grades in that. But no one of them get good PhD positions. Apparently only BSc graduates get amazing offers.

If I take the most advanced graduate courses in two semesters in that school will I be comparable to their BSc graduates who go to top programs and how would faculty there view this ?

First of all, UChicago is a top-6 school, with a great grad program.
The other places you've mentioned are also good places for doing graduate studies, with many graduates getting NSF postdoc grants and getting into good places.

Second, some Chinese schools are known in the West (definitely Tsinghua and Peking, I personally also know some faculty in Fudan and Sichuan). You need to understand that someone from a lesser known school would always be in a disadvantage compared to say graduates of good US universities, as I would not necessarily know the letter-writers and how to evaluate them accordingly (being top of class is nice, but I need to know about the class). This is relevant even for people from the best schools in China, as not all the faculty of even the schools I have mentioned are widely known in the west.
Considering the fact that there are ~100 places in the top-6 grad programs per year, and you are competing with the best graduates of US universities, Canadian universities and some European, Israeli and Indian universities, you see that it is EXTREMELY HARD to get into those programs, even for really good students, and a lot of this rides on your letters of recommendation and pure luck.

I would say that your best strategy would be to transfer to the better school as soon as possible (and obviously don't do the 5 year program, maybe only the first 3 years for BSc and then move to the better school for the MSc), as this will raise your chances, as you will be able to write the name of the better school on your CV later with the MSc degree. Moreover, doing grad courses (and hopefully some research) there will get you recommendations from professors at the better school, so most likely they are better known.
Anyhow, especially with your remark about the master graduates, I suspect the graduate program is not very good/not perceived like one in the West, so it is best to move to other places even for the masters as soon as possible.

If you want even more chances, pull out your cheque book and go to Princeton (I personally believe that you will get better mathematical education for BSc in Tsinghua, but it will be hard to deny a good letter from a Princeton professor, simply the way it is).

I don't think that continuing asking this question with epsilon-changes any week will help you or be productive.
A lot of good mathematicians got their education from not top-6 schools.
There are many upsides for going to top-6 schools, but also some downsides.
Again, if you are not happy where you are, you should move ASAP, and definitely not stay there for 5 years, as this will lead to depression and for you being counter-productive.

Good luck.


Is it unreasonable to expect students to read the lecture notes before attending the first class? The new semester will be starting in a few weeks,
and I will be teaching a course which starts on the first day of the semester.

The goal of the course is to teach students
how to use the R programming language to clean and analyze data.
I will teach the course using a flipped classroom format:

To save time (both my own time and students' time),
I will record video lectures and write lecture notes,
which I expect the students to watch or read before each class.
It should take the students about 1–2 hours to watch/read before class.
The class meets 1 time per week, for 3 hours at a time.
During the class time each week,
students will be in the computer lab,
where they will complete data analysis tasks on the computer.
During the class time in the lab,
students can ask me to clarify any questions they may have.

Question:
From the second class onward,
I will be expecting students
to watch the lecture videos and read the lecture notes before coming to class.
However, is it a good idea to have the same arrangement for the first class?
In other words, is it unreasonable to ask and expect students
to read the lecture notes for the first class
before coming to the first class?
My plan is to post the lecture notes online,
and to notify students that they should read the lecture notes
by making an announcement using the course LMS system.
(In my university,
students are automatically signed up to the course learning management system
when they register for the course.)

Some clarifications:

What types of students will be taking the course?

The course is a course for undergraduate students,
with most of the students are in their 2nd or 3rd year of study.
Is the course listed as a lab or as a lecture course?

The course is listed as a lecture course.
I am teaching in the business school,
where lab courses are extremely uncommon.
I believe that courses which are taught as lab courses,
say by teaching them in a computer lab,
are still listed officially as lecture courses.
Will I be giving the students too much work?

In my university, courses meet once a week, for 3 hours at a time.
My plan is to give students either some notes to read and/or videos to watch,
which they should do before class each week.
This should take about 1-2 hours of time each week,
which seems to me to be quite reasonable.
Students in my university take 5 courses a semester on average,
which is 15 hours of class time each week.

In my opinion,  yes it is unreasonable.

Disclaimer: I am a student in the Netherlands, different universities and countries might work differently.

In all the courses I've followed I can't remember a single one that expected me to prepare for the first class. Usually the first half of the first lecture of a course is dedicated to explaining how the course works, what is expected of you, and anything else related to organization. Most students, including myself, usually don't even register in the online environment where the teaching material is posted before the first lecture.

You could argue that maybe this shouldn't be the case, and that students should be more diligent. And naturally, it is up to you whether you want to take this view and potentially punish students who didn't prepare. Practically though, most students are probably just going to miss it, or skip it.

If you do decide to have students prepare for the first lecture, make sure to clearly note this in the course guide/emails/online announcements. And also note the potential consequences for students who do not prepare.

It is not unreasonable to ask students to be adequately prepared before they attend any lecture: first, second, third etc.  What is unreasonable on the part of the instructor is to expect the students will behave reasonably.


Why don't researchers request payment for refereeing? One of the most criticized aspects of the current publishing scheme, is that academics do pretty much all the work for free and publishers get the money.

Why don't people just charge a fee when contacted by a publisher to referee an article?

I know why do academics write peer reviews?, that's not the question. The issue is why do it requesting no monetary compensation when the publisher is getting (for doing next to nothing) an extraordinary monetary compensation.

Academics aren't upset about not getting paid for refereeing/reviewing - they're upset because journals charge too much.

There's really four points in the statement "academics do pretty much all the work for free and publishers get the money"

Academics do most of the work
Publishers do a comparatively small amount of work
Publishers get the money
Academics don't get any money

Just because people might object to some of the four points, that doesn't mean they object to all of them.

Academics do most of the work - Most academics wouldn't object to this state of the affairs. Of course academics do most of the work in publishing (especially reviewing) - they're the ones who are qualified to do it. You can't have some bureaucrat take care of reviewing the work, you need someone who knows the field.

Publishers do a comparatively small amount of work - Academics might grumble at this, but there's a comparatively little that the publishers are qualified to do. Typesetting, printing, maintaining the journal website, administration in the reviewing process ... and that's about it. All the actual content decisions have to be done by knowledgeable people (academics). There's certainly some journals which try to offload things like typesetting onto the authors, but in part that's financially driven ...

Publishers get the money - This is the main point of upset. Publishers charge what is viewed as an excessive amount. ... but it's not that they're charging money per se, it's more that academics lose access to the content due to expense. Most academics were completely satisfied when they had access through (paid) library subscriptions. It's only when budget cuts (and publisher price increases) caused libraries to cut subscriptions that academics got upset. But again, it's less having to pay for things and more not being able to access everything they need.

Academics don't get any money - This is the point you're addressing. However, I'd say most academics don't have a problem with it. Refereeing for a journal is considered by most to be community service - it's something that needs to happen, and they're the only ones qualified to do it. It's quid-pro-quo: others review your articles, and you review other people's. Attempting to make it a paid-for enterprise makes the person asking for the money seem greedy.

So where does that leave you? Academics (mostly) don't have a problem doing most of the work - and doing it for free. The complaints are on the publisher's side: they're charging too much for what little they do. Demanding that publishers pay academics for reviewing isn't going to change that. If anything, it will make journal access more expensive, as they now need to pay for reviewers.

So charging a fee when reviewing isn't going to fix the problem, and as Mark Meckes mentions in his answer, asking for one is only going to make you look naive and greedy to the (academic) editor who you're in contact with. Note that there's a very big difference between "Decline to review based on principles" and "Decline to review ... unless you pay me".

This is the same question that I often think. From your point of view, yes, you are right in your place. Why should not we get money for review? However, main point is who will decide to give money? And how the amount would be fixed? Based on what? Who will judge? Editor-in-chief, or other person? Since we don't have the clear understanding and methodology for these, there is no money for reviewers.

And regarding publishers, apart from reviews, there are Publishing staffs who are responsible for handling the post acceptance process. Thus, money is required for publisher for the salary of these staffs, also for the journal advertising. Conference is another typical issue. Following this way, you can find where money goes.

Another important aspect, sometimes research can't be measured by money, however, research produces a huge amount of money.


Admitted to a masters in Cambridge - no scholarship! I was admitted to the MPhil masters program in "Advanced Computer Science" at Cambridge, UK, but unfortunately I wasn't offered a scholarship. I browsed the internet a bit, but as I'm not from England (though from the EU) I couldn't find any possibility of loans or studentships, that would cover the whopping 20000£ needed to cover fees and living costs for the 9 months the program takes.

Does anyone here have any experience what possibility for funding exist ? Cambridge, as it seems, of at most grant me a bursary which does not nearly cover theses costs.

Would it be a good idea at all to take a loan (supposing that that's possible) ?

Here is the actual list of funding sources that may be available to you.
http://www.graduate.study.cam.ac.uk/finance/funding

But you should give their financial aid office a call. They're the definitive source for this kind of information, and they should be able to give you advice that is not listed on their web site.

Since you're in an EU country, your tuition should be comparable to what the British people pay. And because you're coming from an EU country, funds may be available to you solely because of that reason. And yes, loans can be a good investment, especially for what you'll be studying.

Obviously, if you were studying something like Archeology or Art History, I would try to steer you away from taking loans.

Getting funding is usually the most difficult part.

There is some funding available available for MPhil programs (but not much - and they are very competitive). Most of it you would have needed to apply for with your course application (or before).

But check here and see if you qualify for anything.

Also check if your home country offers scholarships to study overseas.

I would strongly recommend not taking out a loan for it. It's not worth taking on the debt.


Ethics - Asking someone to work for free This happened a few months back. By that time I had just finished my masters and was looking for a research position.

I approached a professor who was working in a field in which I did my masters. After some initial conversation about my masters' work. He asked me if I will be ready to work for free. Puzzled by this, I asked him what he meant by that. He said that he had some projects down the line and will not have access to the funding for another 3 or 4 months. Then to clarify things I asked him if he will pay me for this 3 or 4 months once he has access to the funds. He simply smiled and shook his head implying 'no'. After that, I just took my resume and left his office.

TL;DR:
I just want to know, is it very common in academia to ask people to work for free? If so, is it ethical?

In academia, it is not common to ask people to work for free. It is also not common to ask people to work, full stop.  What is quite common, though, is to see people seeking work in academia. This include people looking for funding to help them developing their research ideas, and people looking for opportunities to join someone else's research projects.

You came to the professor seeking an opportunity to work with him. The professor did not offer to fund you, but instead offered you an opportunity to work without compensation for a period of time. You can take this opportunity or leave it. If you take it, the funding may or may not come in 3-4 months. You are free to quit this arrangement at any time, before or after the initially agreed period.

The professor did not want you to do his work. You wanted to do some work with him and he offered it. You also wanted some money and he did not offer it. You make the story look like you were deceived or forced into unfair relations - no you were not.

There is no insult in offering someone to work without payment. In some countries such an offer is illegal, and in some universities it is not permitted to work voluntary. This is done in order to comply with employment laws in a particular country. However, you seem to imply that this is somehow unethical or not normal in a weird way - no it is not.

BSc and MSc students often work on their own projects which contribute, sometimes significantly, to projects run by employed academics. Obviously, BSc and MSc students are not compensated financially (on the contrary, they sometimes have to pay tuition fee), but they use the feedback they receive in order to learn new skills. PhD students in some countries get a stipend, while in others they have to pay tuition out of pocket.

You have just completed your master, and have not yet got a PhD. From what I see, the opportunity to work on a project, receive a feedback and learn from it, with a chance of future employment, is not an unfair offer. Whether it is good enough for you to take it, you have to decide yourself.

It is common, because I have heard of many labs doing it. I would say it is ethical, since you don't have to do it. Many PIs expect this sort of "trial period" to suss out people who are not good. Since the professor's attitude bothers you right away I recommend not working in this lab. Depending on where you live these uncompensated work arrangements may not be legal, you would have to contact the Department of Labor to see.

To give the specific details Pete L. Clark asked for:
In my time at "Big State School USA" my engineering lab PI always made undergrads take the first semester for formal "class credit" to see who was worth hiring over the summer. Even if they walked in and asked for a job the response would be "we always ask for prospective undergrad researchers to work a semester for class credit for training and evaluation before paying them over the summer" Seemed slimy but the people we hired over the summer were 100% trained and 100% good after that, so I can't say the process did not yield results. Bio dept was even worse - they had laypeople volunteering as unpaid pipetting robots to "fight cancer".

In my time at "Ivy League Uni" every year I had a new MSc students who were "interested in research" and wanted to work in the lab for class credit. I didn't take any of them on after the first because I realized that with unpaid MSc students, the return on the upfront training you had to provide for only a semester of work was not worth the investment.

In my time at "Big government USA" I was part of group where the individuals that controlled the hiring endeavored to bring in a team of unemployed BSc graduates on a volunteer basis to see who would "work out" and "earn" the 10 month contract position we already had funding for. Seems super depressing, all I could do in the situation was push for the one candidate that qualified and showed up to get leveled up as soon as possible. The candidate published a paper and is now in a PhD program so I guess it worked out for him/her.

Hope these are enough real examples that you would agree the practice would seem "common" to me ;)


Should I admit students who are waitlisted for my class? As an instructor at a large university, you will sooner or later have a waitlist for your class. Is it better (for you) to admit those students into your class or do you better keep the enrollment limit firm?

I favor the latter because it reduces my work, however marginally. What's more, it might improve the attitude of your students towards your class if there is more demand to take your class than you offer.

Is there a different perspective or a refinement of the above?

In my department for lower level courses I have no control over the enrollment of my classes.  For upper levels, it's rare the the capacity maxes out but here's a general way I would look at it from an instructor and/or administrator.

How frequently is the course offered?
There's a huge difference between a course only offered every year or two, and every single semester.
Is the course required for graduation?
If not, there's far less reason to give the override.  If so, why stand in the way of someone's graduation (particularly if they're a senior)?
Are the other sections of the course full?
If the course has multiple sections, why don't they take one of those?  If there is a legitimate reason they can't (a required course at the same time) I might be more inclined, if not, they can take it the other one if they really want it.
Whose student is it?
My department has one to let majors and minors always take the classes, but those who are not in our department will only get it in exigent circumstances (must have course to graduate).  This is because we are penalized if our majors don't graduate on time and we need to always make any marginal spots available first and foremost to them.
Is there a general policy?
Your department may have a policy for this.  If so, use that.

I don't think that there is any benefit to intentionally reducing numbers to increase demand later on.  If your class is required, people will take it because they have to, not because it's popular (your department has created an artificial demand).  If your class is not required, then students will just find a different class and not bother with yours another semester.  The demand for a non-required class only tends to go up if it has the reputation of being easy, fun, relevant to other majors, or some combination thereof.

Regardless on the number of alumni the work doesn't change much since you can automate much of it.

Example: In my country, first semester classes can have 60+ students and the teacher have no control over that, but later classes often have 'listener' students, which ask the professor to come in and be a part of the class even if they are not enrolled with said professor.

It comes down on how to consider such in your big life and career plan.

Advantages of accepting more students:

Grateful students give better reviews.
More students raise your profile and status in large as a teacher capable of tutoring many.
More chances you'll be considered for project coordination or
tutoring, which leads to possibility of grants
Chance to use the students as test subjects for research (bigger study population)
Chance to get the students to help create extra materials that can be
used for future courses, reducing your work.
More experience

Cons :

More work at first until you automate things
More responsibility to alumni
Could cause bad sentiment with other staff that feel you are 'stealing' heir prospect students

General suggestion:

Take as many students as you can and make the best of it.


Can a university claim patent rights for inventions performed on my own time? I'm working for a university as a research programmer (prof staff, exempt) on an external grant ("soft money"), and there is a clear understanding between me and my immediate supervisor/PI, and at least one other PI, that I can use a certain non-trivial amount of my time each week to work on my own projects (the so-called "20% time").

I've tried investigating what the university would officially think of any such endeavour, and I found the IP policy (IU) that seems to suggest that patentable inventions unconditionally belong to the university, whereas general copyrightable work does belong to its authors (unless they perform such work specifically for university use, e.g. course materials).

Apparently, the policy even says that it covers even non-paid individuals, part-time individuals and students (which are not even just "non-paid" for their activities, but are actually required to support the university by paying tuition and various other fees).

Supposedly, it basically applies to everyone who uses University resources, however, the term University resources itself is not defined amongst all the other terms that are, in fact, defined very specifically for this exact IP policy directly within the policy.

Does a public university in the US really have such powers to implement a policy like that, and to claim patent rights to inventions which are not performed in the official line of duty and even oftentimes outside of the work clock?
Have such policies ever been reaffirmed through courts?  Especially when applied to non-compensated employees, or the various slave labour?
What do I do to avoid being covered by such policy?

Must I never perform any parts of my own research on any equipment purchased through university, even on grant money?
Cannot use the monitors owned by the university together with my personally-owned laptop?
Cannot use university's internet connection to connect to my externally hosted personal servers, where the use of university's internet connection is merely coincidental to my own research on my own computing resources, and could easily be replaced by an off-the-shelf 30$/mo service from elsewhere without any significant side effects? (I'm just using ssh, basically.)
Cannot use my non-trivial work time that was allowed for my own research by my supervisors to do my own research?  Do I have to request to be re-classified from being a full-time employee (1.00) to being a part-time employee (e.g. 0.80) to have my 20% time unencumbered?
Cannot sit in my office space doing my own search?
Cannot sit in a university building whilst doing any such research of my own?
Cannot be anywhere on campus doing any of my own research?

Note that a detailed response to your question, as well as any answer tailored to your specific case, will need to be given to you by a lawyer. And, if you think of doing anything that could even remotely be considered borderline or controversial… just ask a lawyer. And even if you don't do anything borderline, better safe than sorry!
Now, I want to explain some of the background of that answer: I have acquired some experience of my own, though not in the US, on dealing with being employed as a full-time researcher and professor, yet maintaining a certain level of activity outside of my employer. I actually produce intellectual property on my leisure time (both copyrightable materials and patent rights), and have consulted with law professionals on how to effectively keep control of my own IP (as opposed to that which I create for my employer).
The main conclusion is: you actually have to be very careful to be able to fend off any potential claim of your employer on the IP created. Of course, it's a risk of the “if it comes to that” variety. If your university is not interested in pursuing any claim to such IP, you may never have a problem, even if you did not clearly separate your own IP from that created for your employer. But… you never know what may happen in the future (e.g., your current understanding with the dean may not hold in a few years), so you should take maximal precautions.
In short, you should assume the following:

Everything you do on company time is owned by the company. I'm pretty sure that this includes your “20% time”: if it's 20% of the time the company pays you, it may mean that they leave you free to do research in a direction you choose for yourself, but it is still research you performed as their employee.
You certainly can't expect to be paid 40 hours a week, work 32 hours for your employer and then spend the remaining 8 hours for someone else, can you?! (in this case, the “someone else” is yourself as a freelancer)

Don't use resources from your university. This is also very typical of contracts and, at least the few European countries I know, the legal status quo: use of company resources means the company has rights on your production. This includes every resource you list, even smaller things you may not think of, like email account, FTP/web/ssh hosting, internet connection, …

Everything you create while inside the company is not yours. Walls, internet connection, desktop, electricity… are company resources. While courts in some jurisdictions have recognized that certain limited activities done inside the company, such as reading email during lunch break, may fall within the personal sphere (and not the professional sphere), it is not likely to be the case for any larger activity.

Finally, if you think of doing on your spare time anything that is thematically closed to your day job, take care: it becomes hard to claim that your own activities are not linked to your university position and resources, and do not in any way interfere with it, if you are a computer science researcher by day and patent new sorting algorithms by night :)

And, did I mention? Get help from a professional, aka lawyer.

Some people are paid to be innovators. How much they pay you for your billion dollar work can be as low as peanuts. If an employer wants to employ you in such a fashion it should clearly be stated in your employment contract. Some people would refuse such positions or not bother with working hard when away from work and instead spend the time relaxing.
Generally if your employer asks you to work on something then that should belong to them. Higher level mangers are employed to innovate in their respective sectors whilst certain conglomerates work in all sectors. It’s the University researchers such as your self that are paid peanuts and expected to hand over all billion dollar inventions.
In short, if an employer wants outside work inventions then it should be clearly stated in the contract! Some people are smart enough to create enterprises for themselves!


Why do universities fund Ph.D. students in the sciences? I was recently accepted into an applied math Ph.D. here in the U.S., and being the 1st in my family to graduate from university, I had a hard time explaining to them why my university will be spending close to 50k on me per year (stipend, tuition, health insurance, fees).

I know that I will be working for the university as a TA, and that perhaps that will go towards covering some of the costs outlined previously, however, it hardly seems to justify the full expenditure.

A good question. Why would the school make this investment (which could be closer to $100K/year)?

As pointed out, if you are TAing/grading/teaching, you are providing services that the school charges undergraduates for.
The funding of a university is not entirely like that of a business. Some of the money is a direct investment in purely academic pursuits, especially that from grants. Educating people and doing basic research is part of what that money is allocated for.
Averaged over all the graduate students, the direct value that they provide to the university in terms of research which goes on to get grants/prestige/donations/patents is substantial.
There is a non-trivial chance that you will become a wealthy donor to the school.

Because that number of "$50k per year" is imaginary.  Anyone they are charging "$50k per year" is essentially paying for your education and being rewarded with a place at the university.

I know others had similar answers/comments, but they were too long and complicated.


Is it reasonable and ethical to apply for two PhD positions with two different professors at the same faculty and the same institution? Note: I saw this link, however I'm hoping to get wider range of opinions to help me make my decisions.

Problem statement: I sent an enquiry email to professor A of faculty X at university Y. Today, I saw another PhD offer posted on the web for another PhD position with professor B of same faculty X at same university Y.

Questions: Is it ethical to send enquiry email to professor B? Should I mention that I've sent an enquiry email to professor A earlier?

Yes, it's ethical. Everyone applies to multiple positions. Everyone knows this. At least this is my impression from the US. You don't say which country, so it's unclear who might be funding your position if you're eventually accepted. It's also unclear if you apply to the university, department, or professor directly. This might have some slight influence on whether you tell A and B about your cross applications. If they are going to be meeting together in committee to decide about applications, it might be better if everyone knows that you've applied to work with two different professors but really only once to the university. If each professor has sole discretion as to whom they hire, and only they see the application, then it probably doesn't matter.

Ethical and reasonable might be, but smart it is not. You will come across as someone who is "fishing" for an angle, rather than someone who is focused and understands the priorities of the department...


How to ask for feedback from research students on my supervision abilities? As the lone experimentalist in my group, I end up supervising most of the students (M.S., B.S. and high school) who do experimentation-focused research in my lab.

I am always trying to improve my mentoring and supervision skills. So I would like to ask my current students for some feedback at the end of the summer.

However, I want to make sure they don't feel pressured in any way by this request, that they are assured there will be no negative or positive consequences to them, and that they understand that I really want honest answers. (I'm not fishing for compliments.)

And, I am looking for specific feedback that I can use to improve or build on, not just general complaints or reassurances that everything was fine.

Given the goals stated above, what's the best way to ask for this kind of feedback? Should we speak face to face in an "exit interview" kind of thing, or should I ask them to write something in an anonymous form online, or something else entirely?

What specific questions can I ask to get focused, helpful feedback on my supervision and mentoring abilities?

Does anybody here have experience (as either supervisor or supervisee) with this kind of assessment, and have useful techniques to share?

Set the Stage

At the start of each relationship, let each student know that you value feedback, that you are adaptable/flexible in your approach to supervision, and that you will be asking for their feedback both during and at the end of the end of the supervision period.

Reinforce the Message and Values

During the supervision period, look for opportunities to demonstrate your adaptability, your interest in feedback, and it is OK for them to offer feedback even if they might feel a bit uncomfortable.  (Some people resist giving feedback to supervisors, including for gender/age/cultural reasons. They need to experience the process working successfully to overcome that resistance.)

Asking for Feedback

Aim for a face-to-face meeting, though it's fine if some people prefer to give feedback in writing.  Before you ask for feedback, first ask what is important to them in supervision relationship. You need to understand their frame of reference and values. Then ask: "What worked well for you? And what didn't?"  Then you can ask the feedback question: "For those things that didn't work so well for you, what would have worked better for you?"  You are asking how things could be different for them, within their frame of reference.  You aren't asking them to step into your shoes and advise you on how to be a better supervisor.

You can do an anonymous survey. Ask them to rate you on certain criteria(that you mention in the survey, and want to get a feedback on!) Have them add additional comments too after the survey so they can add things that they feel, you should know about. This would be completely anonymous so they won't be too afraid to be honest. But on the other side they might still hesitate to open up completely as no one wants their boss to be mad at them just because they spoke the truth.


Misguided use of offensive figures in student presentations I recently had an experience while overseeing student presentations in a course I am teaching. While the concrete situation could be handled without much ado due to some special circumstances, I thought the general problem interesting enough to ask for opinions here.
The case is the following: In a course for first year students, all participants are tasked with presentations of a course relevant topic. As part of the preparations, students are encouraged to make the presentations as lively as possible. One student had included a couple of biographical slides (encouraged), but one of the cartoon figures of a key person was drawn in the unmistakable style of "Der Ewige Jude" from national socialistic propaganda. From context, it was clearly unintended. The student had just googled for images, and this came up. The presentation as such had absolutely nothing to with history, and this was just a biographical introduction slide.
Obviously there is a learning opportunity here, but how should I handle such a problem? In particular since the course as such has nothing to do with European history. Some potential issues I already considered:

Having such a figure on a slide could be quite offensive to other students, and as such, the mistake should be addressed.
But by addressing the issue, I risk derailing the discussion about the course topic in question completely.
By addressing the issue in plenary, I risk discouraging the student from making lively presentations in the future.
By addressing the issue in private, I risk giving the impression that I don't care about such issues.

Let me stress that I am talking only about unintended use. Had the student started regurgitating anti-Semitic propaganda, I would have engaged immediately.
How can I turn such a situation into a positive learning opportunity, without discouraging the student, and without drawing too much attention from the main topic?

Derail the discussion, then re-rail it afterwards.
Keeping the class on topic is useless if students are too uncomfortable to learn.  You are obligated to intervene, once you have learned how to do it.  Here's the method I was taught:

Interrupt.  Example:  "Sorry, I'm interrupting."
Question.  Example:  "Do you know what stereotype does this image represents?"

The purpose of questioning is to allow someone to indicate that they are ignorant, or to allow themselves to correct an error.  In my experience, students usually realize they did something wrong and correct themselves.

Educate.  Explain why something is offensive/discriminatory/whatever.  Example:  "This image is in a style that was used to depict [identity group] as having [trait].  It is a dishonest message and disrespectful."

Once the issue is addressed, direct students back to the usual learning activity.

without discouraging the student

Prejudice is inherently discouraging.  Your students can't learn ethical behavior without being discouraged by awareness of unethical behavior.  Hopefully, the "Question" step will at least reduce the hostility of the interaction.

Another potential issue you didn't mention is the principles of Free Speech and Freedom of Belief. Some people consider Free Speech to be an important human right, and the idea that there are 'things you cannot say' to be extremely offensive and dangerous, in precisely the same sort of way that National Socialist propaganda against Jews was dangerous. Authoritarian regimes enforce a set of social norms on what people are allowed to say and believe, what is socially acceptable, what is moral and ethical according to the regime's definitions of morality and ethics. Those who don't share their norms are considered dangerous influences on society, and need to be silenced, suppressed, driven out, and eventually destroyed. The target for the National Socialists happened to be the Jews, but other groups can and have been targets too. The danger in such propaganda is not about any specific oppressor or target (e.g. National Socialists versus Jews specifically), but in the general phenomenon of any groups, viewpoints, beliefs, etc. being held 'unacceptable' and excluded by society, and Freedom of Speech being persecuted and punished. (Note there is a critical difference between opinion and action. Acting on beliefs where that harms others may indeed be punishable.)
Given that in this case the student was unaware of the context, there can be no suspicion that this was an attempt to marginalise a particular group, and it should therefore be made very clear that the student is not under any moral cloud for having done what they did. It would certainly be appropriate to explain to everyone the historical context of this image and the effect this is likely to have on people who recognise it, but Free Speech includes even offensive speech. (We all hold beliefs that some other people find offensive or wrong.) There may be circumstances where evoking such a reaction is the intention, and appropriate. (For example, in an essay warning against the dangers of totalitarianism...) But it is even more important to explain the point that Academic Freedom requires that there be no forbidden ideas.
Full treatment of such an important topic shouldn't be inserted into the middle of another discussion as a digression. That does neither subject justice. It should certainly be dealt with as a topic in itself, and its importance emphasised. But assuming it has already been presented previously, it would be pedagogically beneficial to briefly link back to it when the issue arises elsewhere, as here.


Any good way to tell a faculty candidate "We don't want you"? I serve on a faculty search committee at a large university here in the US.  The part of the job none of us enjoys is informing a candidate who's visited and given a teaching demonstration that we've decided not to recommend a hire.  We do it in three pretty bare sentences thanking them for coming, telling them that unfortunately, we cannot offer a position (without giving any reasons), and wishing them well.  This is the best we could come up with.

Is there any better/best way to do this?  How do other search committees communicate rejections?  How much, if anything, do they tell the applicant about the reasons for the rejection?  Do they try to do more to soften the bad news?  And would they send the rejection by mail or email (including PDF attachment)?

Getting a rejection sucks. There is not much you can do about it. My wife and I have talked about this a lot and as candidates the only thing we wanted to know was how close we were and how we stacked up against the people who beat us. When sitting on search committess we have had various levels of success trying to inform candidates in the rejection letter about how many applicants, how many first round interviews, how many campus visits, how many offers, and was the position filled.

The other thing we do is make sure the letter starts off with we cannot offer you a position and then includes all the other information.

"We'll call you" - a classic joke I know but still effective. Set up the expectation before hand that there will be no feedback, then you don't have to give it if you don't want to.


How to address a professor in letter? When writing letter to an academic professor (not necessarily from student to professor), what is the appropriate way to address his/her title?

I have seen in letters using

Dear Prof. X even when the addressee is not a full professor

Dear Dr. X though, knowing that the addressee is a full professor

Dear Mr/Mrs X though, knowing that s/he has an academic title

The appropriate way to address someone is with their proper title. In your question, it seems you know what the title should/should not be. If you know, use it. If you don't know, it's generally safer to err on the side of formality.

While I personally prefer (and request) everyone to refer to me by my given name, I do feel it a little strange when someone I do not know / have never met addresses me in writing by my given name. Perhaps I am old fashioned but I expect introductions to be formal (and better to be too formal than too familiar) and then quickly get to preferred ways of addressing (i.e., to use my given name).

When corresponding (in writing or electronically) I would look to the signature. If they wrote:

Dear Professor Schmoe:

Blah blah blah

Sincerely,
John

-----
Dr. John Doe
Agri-science Department
University of Whatchamacallit

Then I would write back

Dear John:

Thank you for your letter. Blah blah blah.

Sincerely,
Joe

I will address Dr. X (if I know that my professor is holds a doctoral degree) and
I will address Professor X (if I am not sure that he is holding doctoral degree).
Not all professors hold doctoral degree I guess.


How are mathematicians paid to do research? How are (pure) mathematicians paid to do research? Let's say my interests lie in the foundations of mathematics and I want to do research in that area. How am I going to get paid for that in the traditional context of academia?

In the US, 99% of long-term positions that involve being paid to do research in pure math are tenure track faculty positions, colloquially known as professorships (in the US, they follow the progression Assistant Professor -> Associate Professor -> Professor). A professor is paid to teach, do research, and to a lesser extent, to do a variety of other vaguely related things that are discussed in many places on this website and elsewhere.

Professors teach and do research. It is not true that (quoting from one of the comments) “mathematicians are not paid to do research, but instead do research on the side and teach to make a living”. It is also not true that (quoting from another comment) “at some universities, research is the main job and teaching is a necessary byproduct”. Perhaps some professors have the mindset that their job is “mainly” about one or the other thing, but that’s simply a matter of personal perception rather than an objective truth. The objective truth is that professors teach and do research, and are paid to do those two things. Nothing is “on the side” or is “the main job”.

It is also not the case that (as seems to be implied by another answer) all math professors have, or need, grant funding to do their work. Grant funding is good to have, and getting it is both a catalyst for and a side-effect of career success. It can also give your salary a modest boost. But most of the funding doesn’t go directly into your pocket, and there are plenty of math professors who have steady employment and do quite well in their research without having it.

Finally, there is a very small number of mathematicians who have permanent, full time positions doing only research. Examples of places where such positions exist are the Institute of Advanced Study, and Microsoft Research. Those positions are very prestigious and rare, so hoping to land one of them is not a viable career plan.

I will argue that research is the primary job that most salaried professors get paid to do. From Wikipedia: Professor:

  Professors often conduct original research and commonly teach
  undergraduate, professional and postgraduate courses in their fields
  of expertise.

Note that "research" is listed first. From an excellent page by Mark Tomforde, University of Houston, "Job Responsibilities of Professors":

  In the UH math department, the responsibilities of a typical tenured
  or tenure-track faculty member are usually allocated as 40% Research,
  40% Teaching, and 20% Service.

Note that research is again listed first. (The approximate allocation matches what I've heard expressed many times, in many places.) Steven Krantz in How to Teach Mathematics (Ch. 6) quotes the Chair of the University of Chicago Mathematics Department, welcoming a new faculty member in the 1960s:

  Remember: Our job is proving theorems.

At my institution, faculty promotion is officially based on the standard triad (research, teaching, and service); but I've been told by those involved that in practice, it really just boils down to number of research publications (justified by the fact that research publications are easier to identify and count than quality teaching or service).

One might argue philosophically that the "emphasis" of faculty work derives from the funding source. Traditionally most funding in the U.S. came from state governments (arguing in favor of a research focus); over time state support has shrunk, and student tuition increased, such that today it approaches a 50/50 ratio (arguing in favor of parity emphasis with teaching). See Figure 8 here.


Final exams: What is the most common protocol for scheduling? At my college this semester, just a few weeks before spring final exams, the administration decided to entirely throw out the prior process for scheduling final exams (which has been in use for at least two decades, I think). Whereas scheduling, duplication, and collection of final exams was formerly centralized, basically it all immediately regressed to being each department and instructor's responsibility. Suddenly there are many (hundreds) of instructors and students with conflicts (two courses at same time in different rooms) and no defined process for solving them. Various instructors and departments are arbitrarily shifting finals to other days, times, rooms, etc. (which seems likely to cause more conflicts).

Our day class meetings are traditionally one-hour apiece, and our final exams have always been two-hour blocks. One of the people partially involved with the recent decision has claimed that these problems would be best solved by having a few days where departments with large common finals hold theirs, then followed by standard class meetings for a week in which the majority of instructors can do whatever they want; possibly extend the meeting to two hours, or split the final into two separate days, etc. The final claim is that this latter protocol is "how it’s done in almost every other college in America".

In my limited experience, it's hard to see how this proposed process (keep standard class meetings and let instructors work out final exam times on their own) is common or feasible. Is it truly how it's done in almost all U.S. colleges? If not, what is the most common protocol? Any references or evidence to support claims one way or the other?

In the two major US state universities that I have either been a student or taught in, the process was roughly the same:

Final exam times were based on the first day of the week course time for the main course meeting, typically a 'lecture' section. Every course that started at 9am on a Monday had the same final exam time. Every course that started at 11am on a Tuesday had the same final exam time. All these decisions were made centrally.

The exam times were mostly unrelated to the actual course times, since the final exam slots were longer than the actual class meetings, but it ensured that no one had overlapping final times because no students would have two courses that met at the same time. The exception was courses that were specifically night courses, which also had night finals, with the assumption that some proportion of the students in those courses were not full-time students and may have had other daytime responsibilities.

I believe there were procedures to allow for simultaneous finals for courses with multiple sections, but I am less familiar with how those processes worked; I believe the centralized time was chosen and then arrangements were made for the small number of students for which there was a conflict.

There were also processes for students who ended up with >2 finals in the same day to make alternative arrangements, but again, these circumstances happened rarely, especially because not ever course actually utilized their final exam slot as anything but a due date for a paper/project/etc.

Hold a one hour final.  Do it in your standard classroom and on the last day of normal classes.  Abbreviate the course to cut last week's section of material.  Do review during last week of school.


How can I counter a student response saying "Why are we bothered to reinvent the wheel when proving mathematical identities?" I am teaching an undergraduate mathematics course to software engineering students. I often ask my students to prove some mathematical identities as their homework. The identities could be, for example: trigonometry identities, Laplace transform identities, Menelaus', Stewart's, Ceva's theorems, etc.
One special student often just copies other works obtained from the Internet without doing any effort to prove them by himself. When I asked him, he replied "Why are we bothered to reinvent the wheel?". I have not replied yet and I will do later.
Could you give some advice for countering his argument?

Someone said:*

When you reinvent the wheel, you end up learning a great deal about why wheels are round.

And that is really the point. When you’re at university to get a degree in wheels, you should fully expect not just to be told that wheels exist but to be asked to think deeply about them so that you develop an understanding, at the deepest level, of why they work the way they do. That is literally the whole point of going to college.
*Source: something I read recently somewhere on the Stack Exchange network. The quote is from memory, I can’t find the exact source now unfortunately.

Since they are software engineering students, ask them if it is still relevant to understand different sorting algorithms. After all, there are libraries.
The answer, of course, is that one should be able to understand how one's tools work, at least when one has reason to look. I recall a bug where a programmer was unaware that quicksort was not stable.


What to do in dealing with scientific mistakes in an article? Recently I've read an article in a journal and find out numerous scientific mistakes in that paper. I decide to write a note to the editorial board of the journal.
First of all, I want to know is there any credit for writing a note about scientific mistakes in an article?
Then I want to know what should be the subject of the note, errata, corrigenda, or retraction note with respect to the scientific mistakes and probably falsified, mistaken data?
It should be noted that I am fully confident of the paper's mistakes and have no desire to communicate with the author of the article.

In this kind of scenario, write a letter to the editor. To quote:

  In academic publishing, letters to the editor of an academic journal are usually open postpublication reviews of a paper, often critical of some aspect of the original paper. The authors of the original paper sometimes respond to these with a letter of their own. Controversial papers in mainstream journals often attract numerous letters to the editor. Good citation indexing services list the original papers together with all replies. Depending on the length of the letter and the journal's style, other types of headings may be used, such as peer commentary. There are some variations on this practice. Some journals request open commentaries as a matter of course, which are published together with the original paper, and any authors' reply, in a process called open peer commentary. The introduction of the "epub ahead of print" practice in many journals now allows unsolicited letters to the editor (and authors' reply) to appear in the same print issue of the journal, as long as they are sent in the interval between the electronic publication of the original paper and its appearance in print.

Example of such a letter, and the authors' response to it (and other letters criticizing their original results).

I recommend you to use PubPeer to put comments on any paper and ask question about an article from authors. Authors would be notified via email if their email is already included in the system but if it is not included you can add it manually by simply finding their emails in their webpages or just find the corresponding author email in the paper. If authors did not answer your query or if their response was not satisfactory, you can go ahead and bring this matter to the attention of editor-in-chief of the journal to investigate.

Keep in mind, in all stages of your comments and queries, you need to have a neutral language even if you are 100% sure that something is wrong with their paper. Otherwise, nobody will take you serious or even worse, they could charge a defamation case against you. I would recommend to discuss it first with your adviser, and then write your question with proven claims or facts in PubPeer to show why you think something is wrong or there is a mistake in that particular paper. Then, if still your question is not answered, you can think if it worth to put some time and efforts to bring the matter to the attention of EiC and administrative body of the author's institution or not.


I solved their problem. Should I involve them? I have dedicated time and effort to solve a theoretical problem posed by two other people.
Now I think I have resolved it, and I have material for a publication.

Should I involve them as co-authors?

Here are more details:

those other two people (hereafter, "they") are academics (as I am), but not colleagues: I have met one of them once, the rest of contact was by e-mail.
while I resolved their problem, I have no idea of the relevance or applicability of it (they are in a less theoretical field than I am). I assume they do;
their only contribution has been to make me aware of the open problem I resolved;
my work has developed completely independently, with methods, techniques and formalism utterly different from theirs; indeed, I think they'd never have been able to reach the result with their approach;
at one point, they informally made me their collaborator, by just saying "welcome to the project" by e-mail, and sending me a draft of their attempts to resolve the problem; we had very little contact on the project, besides that;
one of them is "strategically relevant" for me: despite the mere feeble connection established by the fact that we were working on the same problem, he provided recommendation letters and proactively promoted me when I was in need;
I already have a paper illustrating my solution; however, since I don't have the competence to understand how this result is useful in the application domain, my paper at the moment is missing proper introduction, conclusions, and, generally, context;

One strategy could be to publish two disjoint papers, one with their problem with due context, and the other with my solution.

However, I would like to hear any piece of advice or consideration on how to move: I would like to do what is globally most convenient for me (e.g., balancing the good of having a publication with that of keeping my allies in the academia), while not infringing any ethics.

If you solved an open problem working independently, the polite thing to do is acknowledge the source(s) of the problem in your paper, and perhaps send a preprint to the source(s).

But, if they have not contributed towards the project, it would be inappropriate to include them as co-authors. Co-authorship is properly used to recognize joint work, not as a gift.  If you are able to write a publishable paper of your work, there is no reason etiquette would require offering them a co-authorship, based on what is written in the question here.

On the other hand, it might well be reasonable, depending on your field, to ask someone else if they would like to join with you to extend your work to something that is publishable. For example, if you cannot provide enough context or application to make a publishable paper, and they can, then you could collaborate with them.

The main drawback of the collaboration (I don't view collaboration in itself as a drawback) is that it would take time for them to work on their piece, delaying publication.

One polite alternative would be to send them your preprint and ask them whether they feel it is publishable, or whether additional material is needed. If they say that additional material is needed, that might open the door to a collaboration.

P.S. added a few days later I do agree with others here that it would be very valuable to discreetly inquire about what the others meant by "welcome to the project". The question describes them as "not colleagues" and "their only contribution has been to make me aware of the open problem I resolved"; this answer is written under the assumption that those are correct. If the others don't think they are correct, you run a significant risk of burning bridges. The advice to write a joint paper combining your work with theirs, which was also mentioned in other answers, shouldn't be dismissed too easily.

I think that it is time to shine on your own - it has to happen someday, if you want to move up, so why not now?  It was your work.  Your accomplishment.  Sometimes, you just have to flaunt a little bit and be your own man /woman.  I know it's hard to do, but you may not solve another open problem for who knows how long.  Good luck.


How can Springer and Wiley put a 12 month embargo on posting post-review revisions to the arXiv and similar? This question was inspired by the recent question on posting to Academia.edu.

The general copyright policy for Springer, as listed on SHERPA/RoMEO, is that one can post a pre-review version to the arXiv but one must wait a year after publication before posting an post-review copy to any open repository (and one can never post the final publisher's copy):

This seems to precluding posting a post-review update to the arXiv until a year after the journal article is published. Wiley appears to have a similar policy.

To me this policy seems crazy, because it means that if you actually obey it, you cannot post a revised version to the arXiv for over a year -- and thus you are obliged to leave uncorrected any mistakes that are uncovered during the review process for a protracted period of time. That's bad scholarship at best. I don't see how anyone could comply with this policy in good faith.

It also raises a major issue for peer review. Why one should review for free for a journal that won't let the author share the results of your review with the community in as timely a fashion as possible?

Moreover, I don't see how this policy could possibly be enforceable, due to the timing of the copyright transfer agreement. The author does not transfer the copyright until after submitting the final revised version to the publisher. I am no lawyer, but it seems to me that the publisher has no copyright claim over the post-revision version of the manuscript until the author has actually returned the signed copyright transfer agreement. As best as I can tell, this leaves a generous time window during which the author can freely submit a post-review version of the manuscript to the arXiv without committing any kind of copyright violation whatsoever. The only option open to the publisher would be to refuse to publish the paper in retaliation -- which they are extremely unlikely to do.

So my question is simply this: Am I missing something here? Is there any way that such a policy could be legally enforceable if one posts the post-review version prior to signing the copyright transfer agreement?

The copyright agreement does not require that you leave your mistakes uncorrected, it simply requires you to make corrections in a particular way. The simplest method, if you discover mistakes in the published version, is to distribute some note of correction that specifically addresses your original error, which can be done without violating the copyright agreement. The copyright agreement may allow you to post post-review versions of the paper, since the agreement may contain a clause that "Prior versions of the Contribution published on non-commercial pre-print servers like ArXiv/CoRR and HAL can remain on these servers and/or can be updated with Author’s accepted version". There is always a clause where the author warranties that the work has not been previously published (which includes online distribution via ArXiv), and this is why they need to expressly say that you are also permitted to post the submitted version.

There are two notions of "enforceability" relevant to your agreement with the publisher. The stronger one involves litigation, where the publisher sues you for damages (when you breach a contract). You should hire a Swiss lawyer to get advice on whether Springer is likely to prevail in court. The other notion is "having negative consequences". A simple negative consequence would be that Springer refuses to publish any more of your work, if you flagrantly violate the terms of the agreement. Whether or not your breach involves copyright violation depends on whether or not you give them a license to publish, versus transfer copyright. (In interpreting the Lecture Notes in CS agreement, you would want to consult the Swiss attorney for a precise interpretation of granting and assigning the exclusive, sole right to copy).

Your comment about the review process is tangential, and suggests that you are unaware of review protocol, You ask "Why one should review for free for a journal that won't let the author share the results of your review with the community in as timely a fashion as possible". Reviews are not only anonymous, but also privileged communication between the reviewer and the editor (often -- though not always -- shared verbatim with the author). So you should not distribute reviewer comments, unless that is expressly permitted by the journal.

Without looking at the legal situation:

If you work together with the journal/reviewers on making the paper better, the journal contributed by using their reputation to find a reviewer and the reviewers contributed by using their time. The result (and thus the copyright) is not your result any more but the result of a common work, so you need to keep to the intended terms of this common work. (If you don't like the terms of working together, then don't work together).


How to read textbooks like you listen a lecture? When I hear a lecture, If the instructor is the kind I like, then I can easily understand what part of what I'm learning is important and the true crux of the ideas. Like I can pick it up from how the varying their tone , how loudly they speak and how many times they repeat an idea.
However when I read a book, I don't get that same effect. Each idea is stated only once and I have a hard time figuring out what is significant from what is not.
So, when self studying from a book, how do you know which part of a book is significant and important? Or is the described above just a feature of lectures?
Context subjects: Physics and Mathematics

how do you know which part of a book is significant and important?

It's all important. Since you mention physics, I'll use the example of Griffiths' E&M book, which goes into quite a bit of detail about waveguides. Many professors (quite reasonably) skip this material, as it is "less significant" than other chapters which discuss general topics like Maxwell's Equations, the Wave Equation, radiation, and relativistic electrodynamics. Yet, waveguides are an entire industry (of which Griffiths only scratches the surface), so I would hesitate to say that the discussion is insignificant or unimportant.

Or is the described above just a feature of lectures?

I think the real feature of lectures is brevity. By turning a long book (or a portion of the book) into 42 bite-sized pieces, it is easier to make sense of things. And once you've had 42 bites, it is easier to read the book and fill in the rest of the gaps. In the absence of lectures, then, you could instead treat each subsection as a "bite", and try to understand it in isolation.

Context subjects: Physics and Mathematics

The key to most physics and math courses is the problem solving. Many introductory students make the mistake of reading the textbook, making beautiful notes, memorizing the examples, etc., but their first time working on a previously-unseen problem is during the exam. In my experience, the ideal balance is almost exactly the opposite -- students should spend ~90% of their time working problems, even if this means they don't read much of the book. For self-study, this means that the availability of a solutions manual is an absolutely essential criterion when choosing a textbook.

The experimental evidence shows that neither reading a book nor listening to lectures are effective ways for average students to learn physics.
Instead of trying those things, try solving problems.  The problems can come from a book or a lecture if you want.


Attend an international conference during PhD? How to know I'm ready (or not) to attend/answer a call for paper? I am currently a Ph.D. candidate (1st year). I am still reviewing literature and thinking about the design of my research to begin the empirical part within 4–6 months (social sciences, qualitative research).
There is an international conference organizing different seminars about themes I precisely deal with. Though I still did not start the empirical part, I would like to know if it is of any interest to answer a call for contribution to discuss the theoretical framework I contemplate to build upon?
My supervisor seems not knowing yet that this conference is organized (his research interests are quite far from that of the conference). I fear it might sounds being fiercely ambitious, though I consider this meeting as an opportunity to meet people sharing my research interests/challenging my first assumptions.

From my experience, it's much more useful and rewarding (even for people following your talk) to present a non-finished work than a completed one. As you said, people may come with an interesting opinion or fact you didn't think about and that may improve your study. Moreover, I found much easy and stimulating to talk with someone asking for suggestions rather than presenting a finished work. In this case, they're probably not interested in my opinion anyway.
I attended couple of big international conference and the talk I remember the most was from a guy who didn't even went to the field site to collect samples yet :)
That said, if you think some people may be interested in copying your work and publish it before you, that's a big no-no.


Why do grad programs ask for date of birth? In the spirit of this question about photos on CVs, I'm wondering why applications to grad programs seem to universally ask for the applicant's date of birth, usually right next to the applicant's name.

This is in sharp contrast to the standard practice in "industry" (at least in the US), where no age-identifying information is requested until after you've been hired, and even then the information is restricted to HR.

A few discriminatory practices such as requiring date of birth on the CV or dissertation seem to be finally going the way of the dinosaur, but this obvious point of potential discrimination persists. Why?

For a grad program, age matters a little bit because of little space there is in many programs. This is true of some high profile majors like medicine though not particularly true to others like Law. Public universities are tasked with graduating people who will contribute to society given that their education is A) subsidized and B) very limited in space.

This is going to sound mean, but a 60 year attempting to enter med school is not going to be a good candidate because by the time they finish med school and residency, they are unlikely to work more than 10-15 years before health complications and/or death. But if you take a 25 year old, they will likely use that degree for about 40 years. Mind you, this is not true of all universities and certainly, private ones are not held to these unwritten rules so ymmv.

Because age is the parameter to judge the experience of life and knowledge. To check your mentally able to opt the situation. For example when we go for nursery admission.


Should you recuse yourself from the hiring committee if you have had a past romantic relationship with an applicant? If you are on a hiring committee and find out that one of the applicants is someone you have had a past romantic relationship with, should you recuse yourself?

I will almost guarantee that your university has a Compliance office. Here's the one for my university; you'll notice that it has both a number of links to written guidelines, as well as phone numbers for an Ethics hotline. Your university may not have the exact same thing, but there are people there whose job is to answer these types of questions. Make use of them.

That said, from my completely uninformed standpoint, your situation sounds like a conflict of interest. If I was in a similar situation I would definitely recuse myself.

I would, without question. The benefits of being seen to act in a way that leaves no doubt as to integrity will far outweigh the probably-zero benefits of sitting on a committee that's making a career decision on behalf of your employer and for a past romantic flame of yours. I can't see any good whatsoever coming out of putting yourself in that situation, and plenty of respect from being seen to avoid the conflict. Recuse without question, citing "non work previous social friendship with the candidate" or similar (you don't need to give the detailed reason)


As a TA, I had sex with someone who turned out to be one of my students, what do I do? I'm a grad student and TA.

I was playing pool on campus and met some people who happened to be in a frat. We played together and they invited me to their frat party. Long story short, I got really drunk and ended up having sex with someone. I didn't realize that they were in my class until the morning (I have a lot of students).

What do I do? How do I make this right? I'm sure this is bad, but just how bad?

Note: I'm a department chair at a US university. The following represents my thoughts about your question assuming you are in the US. I will stick to comments pertaining to university policy. I am not a lawyer and am unqualified to offer any legal advice of any sort.

  What do I do? How do I make this right? I'm sure this is bad, but just how bad?

This is awkward, but if indeed you are telling the truth and you didn't realize the person you had sex with was your student at the time it happened, and assuming it was consensual and both of you are of legal age, I don't think it's that bad, if you now proceed to handle the situation correctly and with maturity.

The important thing (and I mean really, really, really important) is that you must immediately act to remove yourself from any position of authority over the student to avoid ending up in hot water over what is certain to be (if you fail to act as I am suggesting) a pretty bad violation of university policy, and potentially even legal trouble. That means speaking to the instructor for the class, telling them honestly exactly what happened (yeah awkward I know), and asking for their guidance about what needs to be done. (It's a good idea for that request to be documented in writing/email.) The department chair will likely need to become informed of the situation as well. My guess is they will either have to remove you from your role as TA for the class, or arrange for the student to switch to another TA if that is a practical option, and find ways to ensure you are not involved in grading or other assessments related to the student in question.

If the instructor and chair are sensible people, I don't expect that there will be any disciplinary action or other formal repercussions to what happened, although you should certainly expect some unpleasant discussions, possibly having to be interviewed by campus officials who handle sexual harassment and discrimination, receiving unpleasantly-worded memos counseling you about university sexual harassment policies, and similar headaches. It's also quite possible that the incident will cause the instructor for the course and/or the department chair (hopefully no one else in your department will need to learn about what happened) to form negative opinions about you. As I said, if they are reasonable and professional people they will keep those opinions to themselves and move on.

Finally, if the people who handle the incident  are not reasonable people, well, all sorts of things may happen, so you'd better make sure you protect yourself against unfair treatment by not committing any missteps that could end up making your situation worse. Such missteps may include trying to keep the incident secret from your department; telling about it but lying about some details (out of embarrassment or because you think those details make you look bad) or omitting important details; or any other immature/unethical/foolish behavior. Ultimately, as I said, you have a reasonable case to argue that you essentially didn't do anything (at least not knowingly, and not so far) that violates any university policies, so if you handle this with maturity chances are you should be fine.

You could either go see a department administrator and tell him or her the basic outline.  Or you could wait and see.

Personally, if I were you I would do the preemptive thing.

This weekend, you can be reading up on university policy, code of conduct, graduate employee handbook, employment contract, etc.  This can help you decide; and it will also help you understand the technical discussions that may ensue.

If you are a member of a union, ask for a union representative to go with you to any meetings.

At the same time, if you are not already working with a medical or mental health provider about healthy use of alcohol, I'd suggest getting started on that as well, so you can avoid destructive and self-destructive behaviors in future.

Edit:

I forgot to answer your last question.  How bad is this?  It is impossible to say at this point; however, nothing is gained by panicking.  I don't want to offer false reassurance.  I think you must realize that statistically speaking the chances of something bad coming from this are fairly low.  If you think there is no police car in sight when you make the illegal U-turn, the chances that you will get in trouble are statistically low.  But you might be observed by a police officer and you might get a warning or a ticket; if you already have a lot of points, your license could be suspended.  In this case, the possible negative repercussions are: an accusation of sexual harassment, possible pregnancy, possible decision to abort a pregnancy, possible decision to carry a baby to term and place it in adoption or raise it, possible spread of HIV or other sexually transmitted disease, possible jeopardy to your TAship, possibility of being unable to continue in the program due to financial repercussions of the loss of the TAship.  I don't want to alarm you, but if you want to know how bad this might be, those are the possible negative consequences of what happened.


Should I report a PhD student’s incompetence to their supervisor? I had a short exchange of mails with a PhD student who wished to ask some questions about a paper of mine, which was troublesome in many respects:

The student had a blatant lack of basic knowledge and techniques of their field. (Imagine a computer scientist not knowing what object-oriented programming is, a mathematician not knowing what fields are, etc. They did not change fields for the PhD.)
The student should be able to answer some of the questions with very little work.
Initially, the student did not give me even remotely the information I needed to answer their question in a useful manner.
The student seemed utterly overwhelmed with their project.
There were strong hints of a “do my work for me” attitude.

For the purpose of this question, assume that I am very likely correct in my assessment.
Going into details about why I arrived at this conclusion would be beyond the scope of this question and be disclosing too much.
I also wish to make clear that I am not annoyed by the questions or similar, I am just worried about the situation.

I am now wondering whether I should write a mail to their supervisor (whom I don’t know and who is not at my institution) informing them about this incident.
My considerations so far are:

I am pretty confident that this student will not finish their degree (by honest means).
As long as they continue with this, they waste time and resources: their own, their supervisor’s, and other researchers’ whom they are emailing.
If I were this student’s supervisor, this is something I would like to know since it can prevent me from wasting my time and resources on them.
On the other hand, I hope that I would quickly notice these qualities in a PhD student.
This problem will likely escalate soon anyway.
It’s the supervisor’s job to talk to the student and give them the possibility to clarify in case I misjudged them.
However, if I am wrong, my information may wrongfully harm the student if the supervisor overreacts or the student’s image is tainted subconsciously.
Depending on the situation, such a communication as mine may allow the supervisor to smoothly get rid of the student – which is good if I am right and the student is incompetent, but bad if I am wrong.

My question is this: Is there anything else I should take into account when making this decision? (I know that, at the end of the day, I have to weigh the arguments myself.) Note that I already sent a mail to the student but am skeptical whether they got the message.

Emailing the supervisor and saying "this student is incompetent and you should get rid of him/her" would come across badly, for a few reasons:

You lack the information to make a holistic assessment of the student.
Even if you're right and the student is weak, weak students can improve.
The supervisor and their institution undoubtedly have their own methods of quality control.
Most importantly, it's not really any of your business.

It's nice that you made a good faith effort to answer the student's questions, but if the exchange has become annoying for you, your best recourse is to simply stop responding and forget the student exists.

I am now wondering whether I should write a mail to their supervisor
  (whom I don’t know and who is not at my institution) informing them
  about this incident.

No. Selecting and evaluating PHD students is the sole responsibility of the supervisor and their institution. It's none of your business if another institution suffers from selecting bad people.

Write a mail to the PHD student that you don't wish to continue the exchange on the topic.
If you want to be super-nice and interested in a collaboration, then write a mail to the supervisor where you ask for a brief alignment on the way of collaborating, and then make clear that you don not desire to communicate with the PHD student directly.


Why are research papers written in language that's difficult for undergraduate students? As an undergraduate student, I find it hard to understand research papers on any particular subject.

Why don't researchers use simple language for their reports, so that everyone would understand?

Update: I will leave this post as a general discussion on this topic. Feel free to edit question.

In short, because it is difficult to express something concisely, and precisely in language that any undergraduate can understand.

Conciseness is required not just because without it every report would be inconveniently long to write and to read, but because it would be harder to understand.
It would be harder to understand because the jargon neatly encapsulates a bundle of concepts (e.g. its definition and related properties) into a single concept.
And we can only be thinking about so many concepts at a time.

Consider the statement about the Stone–Weierstrass theorem:

A mathematician might say:

  Polynomial functions are dense in C[a,b] ⊂ (ℝ→ℝ)

To expand out the math, so that one does not have to know the notations on gets:

  Polynomial functions are dense in the space of continuous real-valued functions defined on a closed interval.

But still perhaps the word dense is beyond the understanding of an undergrad.

So let's expand it to not use that:

  For every continuous real-valued function defined an interval; then for any positive real constant one might care to define, a polynomial can be found such that for every point on that interval the absolute difference between the value of that polynomial and the value of the real function at the point is smaller than the constant.

So that is how much most space it took and how many more ideas one has to keep track of for that fairly simple use of jargon.
When thinking about such a problem rarely is the mathematician thinking about what is going on with the distance of points in a hypothetical polynomial.
They are just thinking "it is dense".

Now imagine expanding all the terms in the generalized version of the above:

  Stone–Weierstrass Theorem (real numbers). Suppose X is a compact Hausdorff space and A is a subalgebra of C(X, R) which contains a non-zero constant function. Then A is dense in C(X, R) if and only if it separates points.

(This last is a direct quote from the Wikipedia page on the Stone–Weierstrass theorem, the preceding quotes are not, though are to some extent paraphrases.)

Then to go the other point on preciseness,
There is a really high chance someone is going to comment on this answer saying that actually my statement is not quite correct, that I've not fully captured the definitions in my explanation

While, yes, every paper could repeat some introductory information,
then that would inconvenience any reader who is looking to find the core idea,
since it would be drowned in a sea of background material.

And you might say that "this answer is hard to understand, in the expanded form, you did a poor job at making it understandable to an undergraduate.",
and I'ld say "Fair enough; I'm not great at making things easily understandable."

And that statement holds for most other researchers too.
Not what most are good at -- it is why there are specialists in scientific communication.

In addition to the good answers above: One additional reason is that the intersection of extraordinary science, literary talent and the will to exercise both is extremely small; the number is probably in the single digits. They all are famous. Russell, Feynman, Hawking, Dawkins come to mind. More?


Are non-citizen Muslim professors and students going to be removed from US universities and subsequently deported by Trump's ban? Does anyone have any information on this?  Are academics somehow protected from Trump's ban on Muslims?

I know that some have the "alien of extraordinary ability" work visa, but what about for others that don't have such status?

The current ban applies only to people who are outside the US.  Nobody knows what Trump might do in the future, though.

Edit: The situation keeps changing, and I will not be updating this answer.  Stack Exchange is not a news service.

Currently as long as you are not a citizen of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, you can still enter the US. You will not be forcibly deported on any basis. If however, you are a citizen of above countries and you leave the US, you may face difficulty in re-entry even if you are a green card holder.