date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2012/02/14 | 423 | 1,473 | <issue_start>username_0: I've just finished my Erasmus period in the Netherlands. I'm still waiting for one result from my guest academy, then the Transcript of Record will reach my home university and, somehow, the results will be translated from Netherlands marks to Italian marks.
Is there an Erasmus standard on how to predictably translate results between ranking systems?<issue_comment>username_1: As far as I know, the translation is up to the universities who do the conversion. I think that it is unlikely that there are is one set of guidelines as even within a country not all universities have necessarily the same ranking systems.
I have found [this table](http://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.sowi.rub.de/mam/images/auslandsstudium/umrechnungstabelle_noten.pdf&rct=j&sa=U&ei=lQM8T82XBOnJ0QW7neVs&ved=0CCQQFjAE&q=erasmus+grade+translation&usg=AFQjCNF1ed-eRBTDXIhteYRf-tD1dSnkIw) on Google though that gives some idea on what grades are roughly equivalent.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Like host <NAME> used to puts it on his old quiz show:
>
> "Welcome to Whose Line Is It Anyway?", the show where everything is made up and the [points don't matter](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gl__LLKMIs)!
>
>
>
Grades are not consistent, nor consistently translatable, across departments, courses, professors, semesters - all within a single university. So you want to have that across different universities in different countries?
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/02/14 | 570 | 2,184 | <issue_start>username_0: In the European Union we have a ["Common European Framework of Reference for Languages"](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_European_Framework_of_Reference_for_Languages). In practice all language certification programmes have one of those levels associated to them (ranging from A1, the most basic, to C2, the most advanced), so that it is possible to establish equivalences between common tests. This allows me to, say, determine if my A in the (life-time valid) [FCE](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Certificate_in_English) exam is worth more or less than a 8.0 in the (short-lived) [IELTS](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IELTS) exam.
This however doesn't help the student that wants to have an exchange program *outside* the European Union. I heave heard *rumours* that, e.g., the Cambridge exams in English aren't accepted in the states, but that could very well be FUD.
What are the most universally accepted certifications in English?<issue_comment>username_1: From what I've heard, the [TOEFL](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOEFL) is well recognised.
That being said, once you get your PhD, I don't think people ask for some English certifications (at least, I've never been asked to, and I'm not a native speaker). I guess your publications and the interview in English should be enough to see if you're able to communicate in English.
EDIT List of [who accepts the TOEFL](http://www.ets.org/toefl/ibt/about/who_accepts_scores).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: As always, it helps to be specific:
- what kind of exchange program?
- what is oversea? USA? Canada? Japan?
In the US for a PhD program generally TOEFL and GRE is required, and most cases cannot exchanged to other certificates. I don't know Master programs, but I would assume similar or same certificates are required. Since exchange programs are much more limited, and I saw a really wide range of people doing them, I am pretty sure that there are programs that do not require any certificates or very flexible.
In Far-East the universities are generally more flexible. Beside TOEFL, TOEIC is also a popular English test, but many have heard about IELTS, too.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/02/14 | 1,838 | 7,144 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm a graduate student in the Earth Sciences. The breadth of my departments runs the gamut from geobiology to geophysics and everything in between. As a result, a large number of the department seminars that get hosted are on topics that I have little or no background in and do not relate to my research field in any way.
The expectation seems to be that everyone should go to these type of events to stay abreast of major events and gain some breadth of knowledge, but whenever I go to one that is far outside my sphere of knowledge I end up resenting the wasted time. To me, it seems like a huge waste to sit through a 60 minute talk on something I don't have the background knowledge necessary to understand in even a rudimentary way. Sometimes this is the fault of the presenter for not preparing a talk for a broad enough audience, but with biology talks I know that the fault is my own. Don't ask me the difference between a protein and an amino acid; I have no idea!
So lately I've felt a strong temptation to blow off some of these events reasoning that it would be vastly better to get in another experiment that day than go sit through a lecture I'm not equipped to understand. But I'm worried that other people will think I'm being a slacker as a result.
**Do you look down on colleagues who sometimes skip out on talks far outside their expertise?**
And, **Is skipping an event like this better or worse than showing up but discreetly reclaiming time during bad talks by studying on a smartphone?** Obviously, whipping out a laptop during a lecture would be very rude, but flipping through flashcards on my ipod while sitting in the back of the hall would be a low-key way to reclaim some of that time during talks when I have no idea what they are talking about.<issue_comment>username_1: Well, there is no universal advice. In general, you should adopt the local policy. If it is really the expectation, then you should go. Try to ask your younger colleagues.
Of course there is an other aspect: usually you never know in advance whether the talk will be good and inspiring or not. Usually it is not, but sometimes there is a surprise. Most of us go to these seminars hoping for a miracle. Unfortunately, in most cases the talks are simply bad.
Finally, there is also the argument that later you will be also giving talks on similar seminars. It is somehow sad if nobody except your fellow buddy listens to your talk.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I would say that you should always go to seminar, unless you have some very compelling reason not to go (you are away, you are working on an experiment, you are trying to finish writing your thesis, etc.).
There are four reasons:
1. Scientific courtesy. To travel somewhere and give a talk to the 10 people who show up (5 of whom you already knew) is really irritating.
2. Good or bad -- you learn something about presentation. Even if you say "wow, I should never do that in a talk" your hour has been well spent.
3. You get perspective. You never know when something that someone says will make you see your own work in a different context.
4. The speaker may someday be interviewing you for a job. It's better to be able to say "I heard your seminar" than "Oh, sorry, I missed your seminar when you visited."
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Try to always go.
-----------------
If you're a first/second year grad student, go because you have to.
If you're a third/fourth year grad student, go to learn about disciplines and topics other than yours.
If you're a fifth+ year grad student, go to network.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: Let's ask another question: is there at least one good reason not to go at the seminars?
* Time consumption: except if you have a 1 hour seminar each day, you can probably afford the time loss due to the seminar. BTW, it it a time loss only if you go and don't speak to anybody, don't ask questions and don't try to understand a little piece of what is presented.
* It is not profitable: really? A lot of research results start with ideas from elsewhere. Of course, it can be different for earth sciences. Even if you don't see something directly useful, you will probably be confronted to different ways of thinking.
* "I am going to the seminars with my laptop/smartphone, people will think I am rude": and they will be right if you use your laptop for other things that taking notes about the talk. To be fair, this can be considered OK to go with your laptop for working during the talk if your the dean, or the head of the department...
Well, in fact I cannot see good reasons not to go, except if it takes you 5+ hours a week...
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: Opinions on others may depend on many factors. Some people may not care at all (or even does not notice), but generally not attending seminars may be viewed as
* lack of commitment,
* lack of genuine interest in research by other people and in other fields,
* general laziness,
* lack of respect for work by other people,
* you not feeling being a part of the department.
And while you may care less about the opinion of your colleagues, the opinion of your advisor may matter a lot.
If everyone knows that a certain seminar is of very poor quality, perhaps the reaction may be not so severe. However, I guess here it is not the case:
>
> Don't ask me the difference between a protein and an amino acid; I have no idea!
>
>
>
It is a sign that even more that you should the seminar. Not knowing sth simple - check wikipedia or ask your friends. Not knowing something more advanced - ask the lecturer (as (s)he is there exactly to explain you, among the others, a certain topic).
**Comment:**
for some reason other answers do not cover the question, which was spelled out three times:
>
> Will people judge me negatively for skipping department seminars?
>
>
> Do you look down on colleagues who sometimes skip out on talks far outside their expertise?
>
>
> Is skipping an event like this better or worse than showing up but discreetly reclaiming time during bad talks by studying on a smartphone?
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: Part of being a grad student is politics. Skipping out on seminars signals to the presenter that you are not interested (which is probably true). Depending on the personality of the person, it may make them an enemy. In academic politics, revenge is a dish served cold.
>
> *Is skipping an event like this better or worse than showing up but discreetly reclaiming time during bad talks by studying on a smartphone?*
>
>
>
If the presenter is an older person, screwing around with your cell phone will be perceived as terribly disrespectful, and much worse than not showing up at all.
>
> *But I'm worried that other people will think I'm being a slacker as a result.*
>
>
>
The perception will come across more as "he is not one of us". That sort of attitude is the kiss of death when it comes to recommendations.
My advice is to suck it up and go to them. It is part of the cost of being a grad student.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/02/14 | 923 | 3,523 | <issue_start>username_0: I am aware of [h-index](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5/what-is-the-h-index-exactly-and-how-does-it-work). I was wondering what other types of scores are both widely and rarely used to measure the impact of a scientist?<issue_comment>username_1: Beyond the h-index, I don't think there's any definitive parameters used in practice. However, some other common factors used to evaluate research faculty:
* Publication count
* Quantity of funding
* Number of invited talks & invited journal articles
* Lab size
Note that these apply to the fields I'm familiar with, neuroscience and engineering. I suspect that these answers will vary according to field.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: There's the [g-index](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-index) and the [h-b-index](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-b_index). Another thing is (in conjunction with the number of publications) the number of coauthors, i.e. has somebody only worked with one group (perhaps at the same university) or have they collaborated with lots of people from different institutions.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: To add to other answers:
How often one publishes in the most prestigious general journals (e.g. [Science](http://www.sciencemag.org/) and [Nature](http://www.nature.com/)) and most prestigious journals in their field (e.g. [Physical Review Letters](http://prl.aps.org/)).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: The h-index is common (and the g-index, which corrects for self-citation), as is the Journal Impact Factor. <NAME> has a [good review of the various metrics](http://www.mendeley.com/research/principal-component-analysis-39-scientific-impact-measures/).
However, it's important to point out that all those measures are just different ways of counting citations. They don't account for things like code you've written or talks you've given and they can't address systematic bias in citation practices such as coercive citation or citation mutation. Also, any citation-counting metric will penalize younger researchers simply due to the time it takes to publish one paper and for other papers to get published citing yours. In order to keep academics from having to publish a paper just to describe some code they've written or a dataset they've accumulated, aggregators have been built to pull in these various metrics and consolidate them. [Total Impact](http://total-impact.org) is a good example of such a system. The general field of study looking at incorporating these broader metrics is called #altmetrics, and you can find a collection of research on the topic [here](http://www.mendeley.com/groups/586171/altmetrics/).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: I believe the answer to your question depends very strongly on the field. In mine, mathematics, the most used quick proxy for quality of research is the prestige of journals one's publishes in (which is not measured by impact factor, although there is a correlation).
In some humanities fields, books are the most prominent research outputs.
For a PhD student in biology (especially molecular and cellular, at least in some labs in France), time spent in lab in the evenings and week-ends seems to overweight everything else.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Take a look at [this open article](http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130411/srep01649/full/srep01649.html) in Scientific Reports for a measure that attempts to discard productivity as a factor in evaluating the output of research.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/14 | 948 | 3,546 | <issue_start>username_0: I am considering joining the recent boycott of Elsevier, however I work with biologists on theoretical/mathematical biology (in particular, evolutionary game theory and population biology). However, It seems like [Journal of Theoretical Biology](http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-theoretical-biology/) is the premier journal for technical work in this field, and my co-authors often suggest it.
What are some (preferably, open-access) alternatives to JTB?<issue_comment>username_1: There are quite a few journals where you can publish theoretical work in this area. Here are a few suggestions (the distinction is based on my perception and knowledge of what they've published, I'll let others chip in if they disagree):
For more theoretical work:
* The [IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics (TCBB)](http://www.computer.org/portal/web/tcbb).
* The [Journal of Computational Biology](http://www.liebertpub.com/CMB).
* The [Journal of Mathematical Biology](http://www.springer.com/new+%26+forthcoming+titles+%28default%29/journal/285).
* The [Bulletin of Mathematical Biology](http://www.springer.com/new+%26+forthcoming+titles+%28default%29/journal/11538)
For more applied work:
* [Bioinformatics](http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/).
* [BMC Bioinformatics](http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcbioinformatics/). (open access)
* [Algorithms for Molecular Biology](http://www.almob.org/). (open access)
* [PLoS Computational Biology](http://www.ploscompbiol.org/home.action). (open access)
This is not exhaustive of course, and I suggest you discuss these "candidates" with your collaborators.
EDIT: I marked some of them "open access" because they advertise(d) so. This does not mean that the others do not offer that option, you'll have to check.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: You can consider BMC Evolutionary Biology and PLoS ONE for game theoretical studies. Unfortunately both are open access, which means there is a hefty fee involved.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Since your work is in game theory and population biology, do not forget Springer's
*Journal of Theoretical Ecology*. It's a newer journal (started in 2008) but already has an impact factor close to JTB, and has an open access option. <NAME> is the Editor in Chief of this journal (you'd have a hard time finding a more prominent figure in Theoretical Biology than him).
Unfortunately most journals in the subject don't have open access options (e.g. Mathematical Biosciences, Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, Ecological Modeling, Journal of Theoretical Population Biology, Journal of Theoretical Biology)
Also don't forget Bio Journals, you can stick the more advanced math and proofs in an appendix, and often your work will get more exposure in these journals. I know *Proceedings of the Royal Society Part B*, *the American Naturalist*, *Journal of Applied Ecology* and *PLoS BIO* all have open access options and take modeling papers as long as the results are interesting from a biological perspective and aren't just a cool model that was fun to explore (a good intro and discussion is key for these journals as they all have very high impact factors).
If you prove things in your work also consider applied math journals like *Nonlinear Dynamics* (Springer) which has an open access option.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: Another good option is "Theoretical Biology and Medical Modeling", [here](http://www.tbiomed.com/).
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/02/14 | 3,108 | 13,475 | <issue_start>username_0: Ever since starting graduate school I've tried to make scientific reading a part of my daily ritual; I track pages read using [Beeminder](https://www.beeminder.com/), and the graph doesn't lie. It keeps me honest.
I aim to closely read and summarize 5 pages per day and skim a few other abstracts besides that. I spend about half my time looking at data and figures which doesn't contribute to my daily "page count." When I'm reading about a new topic these five pages can take several hours, but on topics I have more background in five pages might only take an hour per day.
I guess since everybody defines "read" in a different way it's hard to get an objective answer about how much reading is enough. How much people read seems like a bit of a sensitive topic among real-life colleagues because everyone has a bit of anxiety that they aren't reading enough. But for those further along in their academic path, I'd like to hear how you approached the literature early in your graduate school career and what you think is a sufficient amount.
I guess this all distills down into two main topics:
**When deciding what to read each day, should I focus on depth or breadth?**
**Is five pages of close reading per day enough?** I know it doesn't sound like much, but it takes significant mental energy to meet that goal. And consistently reading 5 pages per day adds up to a lot over time.
**Edited to add:** I mostly read about petrology, volcanology, structural geology, and tectonics if that makes a difference. By "page" I mean "page of text" so if I'm reading a structural geology paper with lots of maps and figures I discount for those and a "ten page" paper becomes a 5 page paper for my purposes.<issue_comment>username_1: *This post refers to research in the [STEM fields](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STEM_fields), and may not be applicable to other research topics.*
One of my biggest epiphanies in research came when I learned how to read a paper. Reading scientific publications is completely different from reading literature or news. At the beginning of your research career, you can expect to spend a full day (if not more) reading through a single 8-page paper. Some tips follow:
* Most papers are divided into "Intro", "Methods", "Results", "Discussion". These are roughly broken down as follows:
+ **Intro** - Read this for background. There will be nothing "new" in this section. You will find it *very* useful to read the intro section to as many papers as you can get your hands on. While you do this, you will become fairly depressed that so much research has already been done, and you will wonder what you can do to add to the field. Speak with your advisor, he has many good ideas.
+ **Methods** - This will take you a VERY long time to read initially, because they go into ridiculous detail. They do this so that you, the researcher reading and interested in replicating their results, can do so. If you don't understand everything here at first, don't worry. NOTE: If you finish reading the methods section and still want to know how something worked, email the author! This is research; the guy who wrote the paper is likely another grad student/postdoc like you. He'd love to hear from you.
+ **Results** - This is the meat of the paper. Read this very carefully to find out what they found. Between this section and the methods section you will determine what went right, what went wrong, what is new, and what they should have done that they didn't that you can now research and publish and become a superstar.
When you cite a paper, you will be citing from this section. If you find yourself citing a paper based on something in the Intro, you're just citing another citation.
+ **Discussion** - This is *the author's thoughts* on what the results mean. Take note of this; the author is using his or her expertise to interpret the results. If you disagree with something he or she says here, and you can back up your findings, more power to you.
* Most accomplished researchers don't actually read papers; they just read figures. A good paper will be completely in the figures. (This is particularly true in some biological sciences fields, less so elsewhere.)
* Take notes on the papers you read. Keep those notes. My method was to keep my notes in a 3-ring binder, put a little post-it tab with the author's name, and then put the paper in there as well with the notes, so each "tab" is my notes and the paper. You will read hundreds of papers during your academic career. You will want to remember what you've read.
* This is a very arduous process, and the learning curve is steep. Don't be discouraged! Reading papers is a skill, and the more you read the more proficient at understanding them you'll become.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: At the beginning read anything and everything (and take notes). You should always be reading something and writing something. The hardest part for most students in the sciences to get past is embracing the unknown.
You will probably feel the need to understand everything, right from the start. Unless you are exceptional, you probably will have to read the important papers several times. You are looking to develop a broad-scale understanding of your field. To know where your research fits in, you have to develop an understanding of where your field in. This takes time.
As time goes on, you'll pick and choose more carefully the papers you read closely. Often you can get the idea from just the abstract. If it sounds promising, then read on.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: *My experience is almost exclusively with mathematics papers, and applies little or not at all to other fields.*
Much of username_1's post applies to math as well, but one big difference is that math papers are much more varied in their structure, not having an actual experiment to tie them together. A good paper will generally explain its organization in the introduction, however.
One point worth emphasizing is that reading a paper from front to back, trying to understand everything at each step, is usually inefficient. The most common instance is that a paper often starts with definitions which may be hard to make sense of without understanding the theorems they're used in. It's generally more effective to skim the paper several times, trying to understand more and more with each pass.
Relatedly, you'll eventually pick up the skill of picking out the most interesting ideas from a paper without reading the whole thing. Early on, though, it's probably better to read things carefully; it's very easy to fool yourself into thinking you've understood something.
As to your main question, about breadth versus depth, your first priority has to be depth, because that's what you'll ultimately need to be able to do your own research and get your degree. But if you're learning enough to do that, you want as much breadth as possible. It actually gets harder and harder to learn completely new things as you get on in your career, even when there may be direct benefits to your research to do doing so. Laying the foundations of a broad understanding of your field while in graduate school will pay off later.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: *This is about my experience in computer engineering*
I found that reading for breadth was the more important approach. The area of research I was interested in was pretty fluffly and ill-defined (I thought I could make a difference by organizing it better), so that many relevant articles were categorized in totally different areas. This meant I had to have a hummingbird approach: flittering around, but drilling down when I found an important vein of data. I also kept a journal where I'd put a citation and a very brief summary of the article, so that I could come back and say "I think I read something about this last September" and then go look in an older journal. Today, I'd have my own wiki at home to keep track of this. I used to have my own "library" of PDFs that I got through university access, but that removable hard drive was stolen.
>
> *Is five pages of close reading per day enough?*
>
>
>
If you can stay consistently at 5 pages (or 1 article) every day, you will end up far ahead of other people who study only in spurts.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: I agree with username_3 about breadth vs. depth. You'll ultimately be judged on depth, so that has to be your first priority. However, breadth is quite valuable too. Many breakthroughs have come by applying standard techniques from one area to a new area.
The $.02 I want to add is that **not all reading is created equal**. Particularly when you're learning a new topic, well-written exposition is invaluable (in large part because it's so rare). As you progress, you'll develop a better intuition for what's worth reading. But when you're early in your career, I strongly encourage you to ask your adviser (or more senior students) **which papers and books you should be reading**. Personally, I've slogged through many manuscripts mired in myopia before encountering enlightened, engaging exposition. ...and that has made all the difference.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: I personally think one should read both for breadth and depth. Read all sort of literature around your field, and a few outside your field. One can only come up with good ideas having a good general knowledge of science. When it comes to your own research area papers should be read carefully and critically to understand what is being done, how it is being done and if the interpretations and methods made and used really show that. As my PhD supervisor used to say, read atleast two papers a day even if you are busy with experiments. This gets easier as you go. For me in the first year it used to take a lot to time to read a paper. Towards the end, I was looking at the abstract, results/figures...if needed methods, and where confused check the discussion quickly to see how the authors explained their results. After a while, you rarely need to read the intro in your own field unless you want a refresher.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: *This is about my experience in applied atmospheric physics*
As others have said, it is often reading for depth that is more effective. Making sure that you understand the key concepts and connections made between the main concept and the subsidiary topics within a paper. Usually, I read the Abstract and Conclusion to garner the main points of what the paper sought to discover, what method they used (established, modified or new) and what were the overall results.
In many of the papers that I have read (and written), the method is often in stages corresponding to specific results in the results and discussion section (they are often merged in my field) - I tend to read the method, derivations therein and the results of each stage - which means flipping between each section. All the time taking notes.
At times (not very often), the method stage makes reference to another paper, so that paper is retrieved and worked through in the same way.
I have found this process to be quite quick, as each stage comprises a short paragraph and equations in the method; a corresponding sentence in the results, often with a table or graph and a sentence or two of explanation.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: I'll chime in with a quite different opinion (or maybe a related opinion phrased in a different way), which grew out of advising/supervising PhD students and post-docs: **reading for depth is a job requirement, but reading for breadth is what will make you stand out**.
As a PhD student, you are required to read in depth the papers that directly pertain to your particular subfield. A PhD is the process of becoming an expert in your discipline, and you cannot do that without mastering the minute details of it, which you will only learn by reading in depth the papers published (and attending conferences, asking questions, etc.).
However, though becoming an expert is what gets you your PhD, if you want to continue further in research (whether academic or R&D), you will need to be able **to show a quick understanding of new problems, to make connections between concepts in various areas of research, and propose creative solutions** to the problems you have identified. This requires a casual knowledge of a large variety of fields, which will be only acquired by reading a large breadth of topics.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_9: I have some points to mention on this:
**1. Read papers relevant to your research:**
I mean, you will know slowly which conferences publish results in your interest area and which do you find relevant, so choose papers from top conferences or journals because those set the benchmarks
**2. Datasets in paper convey a lot**
Browse in the result section of the papers and you will notice that the datasets on which the algorithm are tested should suit your requirement. For example: I am working on outdoor dataset and I see a paper showing results from indoor dataset, there are 99% chances of me dropping that paper.
**3. Use abstract as filter**
I think this point is self explanatory
**4. Scheduling your reading - difficult**
There may be a week where you will end up reading a lot of papers and there will be times where reading even one paper will not be possible.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/15 | 1,260 | 5,468 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm aware that it's a violation of terms for most publishers to submit the same article to more than one journal, but I frequently see authors whose papers seem very similar, particularly papers released in a single year. In my field, neuroscience, this is particularly true about conference papers; one researcher will often have numerous posters/conference papers about seemingly the same topic. What are the guidelines for acceptability regarding this type of behavior?<issue_comment>username_1: 1. According to the [Committee on Publication Ethics Guidelines on Good Publication Practice](http://publicationethics.org/static/1999/1999pdf13.pdf), the term "redundant publication" is defined this way:
>
> "Redundant publication occurs when two or more papers, without full cross reference, share the same hypothesis, data, discussion points, or conclusions." In addition, it states: "(1) Published studies do not need to be repeated unless further confirmation is required. (2) Previous publication of an abstract during the proceedings of meetings does not preclude subsequent submission for publication, but full disclosure should be made at the time of submission. (3) Re-publication of a paper in another language is acceptable, provided that there is full and prominent disclosure of its original source at the time of submission. (4) At the time of submission, authors should disclose details of related papers, even if in a different language, and similar papers in press." Note that (2) states that it is generally acceptable to present a paper in a conference and then later publish exactly the same paper in a journal, as long
> as you mention to the editor that the paper has been publicly presented.
>
>
>
2. According to the paper [Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics:
Results of an international survey](http://jme.bmj.com/content/35/6/348.full.pdf),
>
> "Breaches of publication ethics such as plagiarism, data fabrication and redundant publication are recognised as forms of research misconduct that can undermine the scientific literature." It also stated that redundant publication is an unethical practice. Of 16 ethical issues studied, redundant publication had the highest severity (that is, it caused editors the most concern---more than plagiarism or data fabrication).
>
>
>
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Personally, I have no qualms with submitting the same *talk* to multiple conferences; however, in my field (Chemical Engineering), we don't really do conference proceedings. Therefore, it's not such a big deal to present a work more than once; it's being given to different audiences that might not otherwise see the work, and it's not going into the publication record multiple times, so there really aren't any ethical violations going on.
However, in a field where conference papers are required to give a talk, then ethical rules demand that you disclose if a paper has been accepted previously. If you've changed the material enough, or introduced enough new material, then it's a little bit more of a grey area. But it's still better to err on the side of caution than to get caught out.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Rather than asking what's acceptable, I think it's worthwhile to step back and think about the purpose of scientific publication. Your goal in publishing should be to disseminate useful ideas, not to create a publication record. If you have ten papers that are all very similar, it's hard for people to learn about your ideas because they won't have time to read all those papers. Just write one good one.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: There are a few things to keep in mind:
* Submitted talks vs. invited talks. Many researchers will have given many talks on a subject, but if most of them are invited talks, the reason they're duplicates is because conference organizers have essentially *asked* for duplicates.
* I'd argue it isn't ethical to submit the *same* presentation, but a topic is a wide ranging thing. Heck, even a single study has a lot of aspects to it, and many conference presentations have less content than a single paper. For example, you might have a presentation at one conference that's highly technical, another for a different audience that's more practical/applied, etc. Those are different talks.
* Consider what you want to get out of it. Unless your field is one of those where presentations trump papers or themselves generate papers (CS comes to mind), presentations aren't that big of a deal on a CV such that an extra one or two will really put you over the edge. In my field for example, everyone knows there's certain conferences that will essentially accept as many talks as they have spaces to fill (and they have *many* spaces to fill), so as long as your science isn't egregiously wrong, you're probably going to get in. What you do get out of that is good contacts, and good advice. If you keep repeating the same thing over and over, your return on "investment" starts to dive.
* If your talk is going to be spun into a paper via conference proceedings or the like, be doubly cautious, and make sure if you are double-dipping in an experiment or the like that the resulting *papers* are clearly different as well. I don't know anyone who doesn't frown on duplicated papers, and more than one venue that will smack you down hard for trying to play a game like that.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/02/15 | 1,045 | 3,983 | <issue_start>username_0: I am curious to know the kinds of obstacles a US citizen would come across when trying to find work in academia outside the US and/or those that a non-US-citizen faces when trying to get an academic job inside the US.
It would seem that, logistically, it would be easier on the department to hire a citizen over a non-citizen. Is there any advice applicants can follow that would greater their chances? Do you have to be extraordinary for a department to hire you over an equally qualified citizen?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Do you have to be extraordinary for a department to hire you over an equally qualified citizen?
>
>
>
That really depends on the search criteria. If the criteria specifically calls for international experience—and many jobs around the world now do exactly that—you might not be disadvantaged at all, and in some cases even have the upper hand.
That said, it *is* true that hiring a citizen is generally easier than hiring a non-citizen, and in the EU, it's easier to hire a non-citizen who lives in the EU than a non-citizen who lives outside the EU. The result will be a lot more bureaucracy. Whether or not the hiring unit wants to go through the extra trouble will make a lot of the difference, and it's not something you have much control over. (The same principle applies in the US for non-citizens!)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: There a multiple levels on which this problem operates. This is especially true for places saturated with immigrants. (For instance, USA with Indians/Chinese)
* **Getting the Job**
This problem itself has a million subdivisions. Firstly, it is fairly difficult for immigrants (who studied in that country) to get jobs without exhibiting something really outstanding. The problem is not so bad for sectors such as computer science and electrical engineering wherein professionals are required by the dozen. The problem, however, is really bad in areas such as Theoretical Physics or Chemistry (or basic sciences). With limited vacancies and a million outstanding candidates, it is really difficult to crack that "top job".
* **Working in Sensitive Sectors**
I don't even want to get started on sectors like Aerospace. More often than not, graduates from the top universities in USA and Europe have returned to their homelands because all companies stress on citizenship. For EU, it is fairly difficult for a Non-EU resident to get a job in the first place, add to that defense and secrecy and you have a useless degree. In USA, it's even better, if you graduate with a PhD in Aerospace Control Systems from say, Stanford, you are still worthless for US companies because they don't ask just for citizenship anymore but also [Top Secret (or Lower) Security Clearance](https://owa.jhuapl.edu/psp/cg89prod_cg/EMPLOYEE/HRMS/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_CE.GBL?Page=HRS_CE_HM_PRE&Action=A&SiteId=1)! That's at least 10 years for a foreign citizen.
* **Immigration and Visa**
Getting a job is one part, getting the necessary immigration documents cleared is another. I mentioned about Aerospace engineering being a potential problem as far as jobs are concerned. But thats not all! USA has published a [list](http://www.bu.edu/isso/forms/tal.pdf) called the technology alert list which requires screening of candidates before granting a visa.
The immigration laws in the Europe aren't very friendly for Non-European to begin with but as far as I know, they don't maintain a strict segregation between "things non-citizens can't do" and "things they can". However, [rising](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/8839006/Swiss-far-right-party-on-course-for-record-breaking-election-win.html) far-right politics, things don't seem to get any better in the future.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: In the US, if you're employed by a university or a government research lab, then you're exempt from the H1B visa cap. Thus the visa is not usually a problem.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/15 | 1,394 | 5,827 | <issue_start>username_0: I've received conflicting advice as to whether I should choose my coursework based on my research topic or not. The main pro usually is that I'll quickly be able to get up to speed on my research. The con is usually that there are so many other courses that I could take, in which I could learn topics I may not ever have a chance to formally learn, and given the constant need to hunt for funding, I may never have a chance to put aside and study in-depth again. Any definitive answers to this topic?<issue_comment>username_1: I don't think a "definitive" answer is possible, but the following is based on personal experience and observation of many other students.
If your advisor is okay with it, take as many courses as you can in things that interest you and are in the realm of your discipline. As an applied math grad student, one of the best things I did was to take a graduate course in optimization from the CS department, even though I thought it had nothing to do with my thesis (in numerical discretization of PDEs). It ended up being crucial and allowing me to publish at least one paper that I never would have written if I hadn't taken that course. I also took courses in things like astrophysics, quantum mechanics, and turbulence; I don't use those things much but I can converse with scientists in those fields, which is often useful.
Of course, I didn't take, say, philosophy or Italian or business management courses -- stick to courses related to your field. And make sure that whoever is paying you is okay with it.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: If you are interested in a teaching job, my answer is yes, definitely. You may be asked to teach some courses that are not in your field, or even before it happens, the search committee may want someone who can teach a wide range of courses.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I think this does depend a lot on the kind of person you are/ the way of job you like to have.
I studied IT, but I visited a broad variety of courses. Even history, chinese for beginners, and some other stuff which you might think is not related to my field of work. I don't regret it!
But as a Software Engineer it's actually **important to understand a lot of different fields**. As you can be on projects that differ a lof from each other.
Also you propably can **widen your personal network of contacts**, if you go to class with students that you didn't know before!
**I would stick to the topics you are interrested in**, instead of ending up as an unhappy person after your studies.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Yes!
How do you know in advance what's going to be useful later? The wider a net you cast, the more tools you have at your disposal.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: In graduate school, you have to maintain a higher GPA than an undergrad. In some schools I've been to, a `C` lands you on probation, and a second `C` gets you dismissed. In my view, this means that courses too far away from your core research will be excessively risky. I dislike this, as it means that I can't afford to learn things that stretch my boundaries.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: As with username_1, I don't think a definitive answer is possible, but here are my thoughts:
* It depends on the attitude of your program. Are they trying to ramrod you through your coursework as swiftly as possible? Do they support "dabbling" in other aspects of your graduate career - side projects, practicums, etc.? The answer will likely change wildly depending on those answers.
* How set is your "research topic"? I've bounced around several in my time - I think picking up skills that might be useful trumps "Is it directly relevant to Thesis Aim #1". After all, the moment you get out of your PhD program, your research agenda changes again. If all you have is a hammer, and what you'd really like to do is research screws, you're in trouble. If on the other hand, you took 'Seminar in Advanced Screwdriver Theory'...
* When it comes down to it, do you need to "take" the course, or do you just want to learn the material? I've sat in on several classes (my university doesn't have a formal auditing system) because I wanted to hear what they had to say. That's a nice, low risk way of expanding one's horizons.
I've found if nothing else it widens your contacts in the university, gives you a better feel for "Surely someone in Department X knows how to deal with that...", etc.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: As @EpiGrad, @username_4, and @Swiss Coder said, you should learn about subjects that are outside the direct focus of your research. This provides you with knowledge and tools you might otherwise never obtain. I would add though, that it is rarely wise to take a course in something you have no interest in simply for the sake of "knowledge". However, if you are truly interested in something, don't scrap the possibility of taking the course just because it is not directly part of your research topic. Higher education is intended to help us become well-rounded humans,not force us into the narrow trench of knowing only about a specific field.
Also consider, of course, whether you really need to take a course on this, or if there are other ways to learn what you want to know. Auditing a course is a good option, especially if you don't need to receive credit for it. There are also numerous online options for learning,on your own time and without tuition costs. For myself, though, online learning without the support of a professor and peers rarely works well. I need the motivation of knowing that someone is tracking my progress.
So definitely explore subjects outside "your" area of expertise, and keep in mind that a formal course may not be the only or best option.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/02/15 | 797 | 3,275 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm working as a TA now, and I've found that I'm spending an inordinate amount of time on my TA-ship. Is this normal? Furthermore, is this expected? I'm worried that my research career will suffer because of my lack of research productivity.<issue_comment>username_1: I suppose it depends on the factors that are causing you to spend more time teaching than you think you should. You should talk to (1) the other TAs and (2) the course leader/director. Find out what is expected and what others are doing.
If you are a relatively new graduate student, then I think it's normal to spend more time teaching and preparing for your teaching. As you start teaching the same courses repeatedly, the time you have to spend in preparation will decrease.
If you think of the time you are teaching as working on a craft that you will use for the rest of your career, then it is time well spent.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In Canada, TA's usually have a contract that specifies how many hours they should be working per week / TA term. If you are going way over that you could talk to the course coordinator.
Your supervisor may also get upset if you are spending a large proportion away from you research project, which his / her grant is paying you to work on. This is especially true if you are approaching your reclassification exam -- assuming you are going that route.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I know what you feel like. When I was a fresh TA, I spent an "inordinate" amount of time with my TA-ship. I came to understand that both my research and my teaching assignments did have equal priority and I couldn't neglect one and give preference to the other.
There were always weeks when my teaching load was more manageable and I could progress my research and vice versa.
Of course, how the dynamics of your advisor affect this have a major implication on what "inordinate" would mean.
Here was my experience as a TA the first time I did it:
1. Taught two sections of a lab, each requiring about 2 hours of lecture (4hrs total), 5 hours of preparation (5 hours total), 1 office hour each (2 hours total) and 2 hours grading each (3-4 hours total as I graded the same thing for both sections)
2. Graded 200 homework assignments a week for a course what was out of my specialization (8-10 hours a week)
Total TA time per week ~ 25.
I also had to do research and that time commitment was highly variable!
I hope that generally gives you perspective.
Some background about me:
1. Been in grad school since Fall 2006.
2. Pursuing a PhD in mechanical engineering.
3. International student.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Depending on the course, you may have to invest up to two days of your working week to TA. If the course involves homework assignment, you will have to prepare them, grade them, and give them feedback for every mistake they do (they are learning). Be extremely careful when such tasks are requested, they are a potential career killer. I don't know if there are legal requirement to respect on this regard, but you are not going to have any friend if the professor has to grade two hundred students tests a week instead of delegating the task to his minions (postdocs)
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/02/15 | 549 | 2,349 | <issue_start>username_0: All graduate programs have committees such as the "social committee" and "speaker series committees", as well as Graduate Student Organizations and other organizations to work on behalf of these programs. Is there any concrete career benefit to being an officer on one of these committees/organizations?<issue_comment>username_1: Those volunteer positions may help boost your chances of getting a major award. For example, one of the most prestigious graduate scholarships you can get in Canada is the Vanier Scholarship and the selection board uses your [leadership experience](http://www.vanier.gc.ca/eng/selection_criteria-criteres_de_selection.aspx) as criteria for the award.
In addition to scholarships, it's always nice to have additional things to add to your CV to make you stand out. These skills can show a number of traits that employers may look for.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It's a bit of a mixed bag. While there is certainly a lot of benefit to performing service activities—you *are* giving back to your community, and that is both admirable and expected to advance at all levels of academia—you need to strike a balance. No activities at all makes you look too single-minded (can be a concern for employers). Too many activities and it will look like you're not committed enough to research (again a concern). You need to strike a balance between the two.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: More than being useful on my resume, being part of a student organization in a leadership role gave me new perspective. It allowed me to exercise my mind in a different way and allowed me to hone my administrative skills, people skills and time management skills.
It actually had a positive impact on my research because I was more focused as a result of having a "lot more on my plate".
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I am a firm believer that if it doesn't lead to a publication, than it is generally not worth the time of a grad student. In my mind the social committee is a no win time suck. The speaker series committee, on the other hand, is potentially worth it for networking opportunities. It might all you to interact a little bit more with speakers. Even mundane interactions (e.g., dealing with their receipts and reimbursement) is good networking.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/15 | 493 | 2,154 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm considering going back to graduate school, but I've heard from a number of friends that graduate students are all required to teach. Is that the case? I have no teaching experience at all. Will that negatively affect my chances of getting in?<issue_comment>username_1: In general, no, it won't. Having teaching experience might weigh in your favor in exceptional circumstances (a graduate department that needs a lot of teaching assistants, and you're "on the bubble"; you're going into an education program or something similar; or the application specifically asks for teaching experience).
However, most graduate schools don't expect that students have prior teaching experience, and provide training to smooth the transition.
Teaching load also varies widely from program to program: some science and engineering students TA for one semester over a five-year program, while humanities graduate students may have to TA every semester to pay for their studies.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> *I've heard from a number of friends that graduate students are all required to teach.*
>
>
>
This is usually a requirement for doctoral students, and only because most doctoral students are having their education paid for by the university or grants. If you are terrified about teaching, my advice would be to visit your local [Toastmasters](http://www.toastmasters.org/) chapter. While there is far more to teaching than being able to speak in front of others, the fear of public speaking is the largest (in the sense of provoking fear) hurdle that I've heard folks mention.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: For doctoral students, you may very well be expected to teach - rare is the department with sufficient faculty and graduate student funding that using TAs is unnecessary. That being said, learning to teach in those institutions is considered part of your training - not something you're expected to have in advance.
I had a small shred of teaching experience before entering grad school, but many of my fellow students did not, and it mattered not even a little bit.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/15 | 2,135 | 8,831 | <issue_start>username_0: As a PhD student I generate a lot of pages with calculations, ideas and lecture notes.
Most of them are useful only for a short amount of time, but some may be important for much longer (when writing a paper, or when having new ideas to continue a once abandoned project). Typically I work on a few project simultaneously.
The question is, what is good practice for taking and keeping notes? (With or without computer apps.)
Writing on single sheets (even if adding date and title) makes it easy to organize by topic, but also easy to lose. Keeping them in one notepad makes it harder to collect useful things of one topic in one place.<issue_comment>username_1: If you have Microsoft Windows Office 2010, I would recommend [OneNote](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_OneNote) as a really handy way of tracking your notes, images, miscellaneous ideas etc.
For a non-MS cross-platform app, you can try [Evernote](http://www.evernote.com/) - it is similar to OneNote, with the added advantage of syncing your notes over multiple computers/tablets etc.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: You should keep a [research notebook](http://colinpurrington.com/tips/academic/labnotebooks), regardless of whatever other system you have for notes. The format of the notebook is up to you; it can even be public (see [Carl Boettiger's](http://www.carlboettiger.info/research/lab-notebook/) as an example of an electronic lab notebook). it can be created in programs such as an iPython or Jupyter notebook, or even a more specialized program such as [Findings](https://findingsapp.com).
If you choose the pen-and-paper route for your research notes, and want to have the added flexibility/security of taking your notes with you (and also because it's good practice to do so), you should consider getting a scanner and making regular backups. You can then import these into a product like Evernote, Onenote, or [MacJournal](https://marinersoftware.com/macjournal),
If you are using LaTeX, your options are somewhat limited, as most of the major tools for notebooking really don't support "live" LaTeX. Then you'd be better off using something like [Aquamacs](http://aquamacs.org) as a holder for your "notebooks" (LaTeX documents), and then using one of the above packages (or something like [Papers](http://www.mekentosj.org) or [Paperless](https://www.marinersoftware.com/products/paperless/) to organize the resulting PDFs.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_1: For some pretty well-thought suggestions about organizing your notes (without being specific to any application, and dealing with both electronic and paper notes), you can refer to this [link](http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~jason/advice/how-to-organize-your-files.html).
A summary of what methods are discussed:
* Keeping Track of Information Online: How to organize your notes in a sensible directory structure on your computer.
* Version Control: Using the power of SCS packages (Mercurial happens to be my favorite due to its ease of use) to store multiple revisions of your notes.
* Keeping Track of Paper: Finally, how to keep your office clutter-free.
Bear in mind that the link is a bit dated, so it doesn't refer to online services like Google Docs which can be effectively used to keep a back-up of your notes online!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I like to keep the paper option, since most initial ideas are usually a waste of time to typeset using LaTeX or any other computer system. I really hope that does not sound like advertising, but I find the combination of [Atoma](http://atoma.be/en/index.php) notebooks (picture below) and sticker tabs quite efficient. You don't lose sheets, and you reorganise them as you wish, as many times as you wish.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I would definitely recommend a research notebook.
There are several different ways you can go about it.
* The old school method of just using a paper notebook, where you enter data and computations sequentially by date. One is often encouraged to start a new page if one is moving to a new topic (and label the topic at the top of the page); but another possibility is to make use of the margins for noting the topic at hand.
* An electronic notebook would be more searchable. On the other end of the spectrum from a paper notebook is a lab wiki. Some universities even have a university-wide Wiki platform available (for example, [here's EPFL's wiki portal](http://wiki.epfl.ch)). In those cases you won't have to worry about administration issues, and many of those services are regularly backed up, and come with access control system so that you can limit your lab notebook to be only viewable by those in your research group.
* An intermediate method is to just keep a private electronic notebook. I use a customised document class that I wrote for this specific purpose. If you use a good indexing package in LaTeX and make the effort to keep good indices, such a notebook can be very easily searchable. It also has the advantage that when preparing lecture notes or papers for submission, you can just copy and paste directly from your notebook.
If you prefer not to have a single notebook, what you'd need then is a sophisticated document managing system. For paper documents this will generally involve a filing cabinet, folders, and sticky labels. For electronic documents (say you digitize all your notes either by typing them up or scanning them), a lot of the [citation managers](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/36/94), especially those that support multiple databases, can easily be co-opted for organising notes. On the even fancier side, you may want to use some sort of [mind-mapping software](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concept-_and_mind-mapping_software).
Another option if you do not mind "showing how the sausage is made" is to [follow the initiative of the Open Science Project](http://www.openscience.org/blog/?page_id=44) and blog about your research as you go along.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: Part of my answer in [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/57/73) applies here as well; when reading papers, I've found it useful to write down notes on paper, and then put the notes in a 3-ring binder, along with the paper itself. A similar technique can be used electronically using either [Papers](http://www.mekentosj.com/papers/) or [Evernote](http://www.evernote.com/)... take notes on each paper and attach the notes to the paper (or the to paper if using Evernote). Personally, I found it much better to take notes by hand, as you can scribble in margins, write equations, draw out plots, MUCH faster than if done by hand.
I've also made it a point to keep all notes from classes I took. I've found numerous instances where I referred to notes from a course I took a while back. It's much easier to re-read your own notes (assuming you take good notes) than to learn it from a book where you're unfamiliar with the layout and presentation style.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: I find that using Endnote (or a similar reference software) kills two birds with one stone. I find typing up references correctly very very tedious, but absolutely essential. You can import a lot of the references from databases (less typing needed) and then add your own notes, keeping it all in one place. You can add files or scan your paper notes or photos. It is also easily searchable. Plus when it comes to collating your reference list or bibliography, it automatically inserts and formats the articles in the style you selected. That alone can save days when finalising papers.
Endnote works on both macs and pcs and also has an online version. <http://www.endnote.com/>
I also found that universities usually buy a site licence for Endnote or another similar reference software that both staff and students can use for free.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: I find that a mix of both worlds (physical and digital) works best for me. People have different ways of retaining and processing information.
Productivity apps are quickly becoming a popular and efficient choice in managing note, documents and other information. You may want to try applications like Evernote, Dropbox or Google Drive or a mixture of the three.
Also recognizing this growing problem of information overload and how to address it, there are many new and improved data capture applications that cater to the myriad of problems stemming from the need to organize information efficiently while making it accessible no matter the age of the info. You may want to try new apps around like [Doo](https://doo.net/en/) or [Phoenary](http://phoenary.com/) to enhance your note-organizing and information capture.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/02/15 | 2,575 | 9,745 | <issue_start>username_0: While [arXiv](http://arxiv.org/) is great, it covers only topics in physics, mathematics and computer science.
Are there any good preprint storage places for other scientific disciplines?<issue_comment>username_1: **It seems that neither option presented below are taking new submissions. I keep the answer here for historical interest.**
One option is:
* **[Philica](http://www.philica.com/faq.php)** which occupies a bit of a strange place. It is a free, open-access journal that publishes immediately and in any discipline. The website comes with a non-traditional review system. It is in between what one may call a pre-print server and what one would call an electronic open access journal.
Nature Precedings used to take submissions, but no longer does:
* **[Nature Precedings](http://precedings.nature.com/)**: a pre-print repository run by Nature Publishing Group that focuses on chemistry, biological sciences, and earth sciences. *Edit: As bobthejoe noted below in the comments, Nature Precedings is no longer taking new submissions; though it will for the foreseeable future remain a repository for the pre-prints already submitted.*
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Ones more aimed at social sciences (that I am aware of) are;
* Social Science Research Network ([SSRN](http://www.ssrn.com/))
* The National Bureau of Economic Research ([NBER](http://www.nber.org/new.html))
* The recently-founded [SocArXiv](https://socopen.org/) ([link to search and upload preprints](https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv))
SSRN is dominated by economic and legal research (and NBER is obviously focused on economics).
Another I recently became aware of is [Academia.edu](http://www.academia.edu/), although this appears to me more like a personal website that has the option to upload working papers than an organized repository like SSRN or arXiv (here is an [example profile page](http://unm.academia.edu/KellySocia/Papers) on Academia.edu).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: The OSF provides a general open preprint infrastructure that is connected to a range of preprint services. Importantly, it is not owned by a commercial publisher. It supports a number of discipline-specific preprint services many of which use the ArXiv name under licence.
The list of preprint services is growing over time.
For further information go to: <https://osf.io/preprints>
In general, no matter what the discipline you can post to:
* **OSF preprints** <https://osf.io/preprints/>
However, the OSF supports the following discipline-specific preprint services. Presumably, if your preprint aligns with any of these disciplines, then you would be better off posting to them.
* **Psychological Sciences.** PsyArXiv <https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/>
* **Social Sciences.** SocARXIV <https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv>
* **Engineering.** engrXiV <https://osf.io/preprints/engrxiv>
* **Agriculture and Allied Sciences.** AgriXiv <https://osf.io/preprints/agrixiv>
More discipline-specific preprint services using the OSF framework are being added on a regular basis: <https://cos.io/blog/public-goods-infrastructure-preprints-and-innovation-scholarly-communication/>
### Useful features of OSF-based preprint services
* Strategy for long term archiving
* Integration with Google Scholar
* Integration with OSF projects which allows you to link other materials such as data, code, and materials
* OSF is a not for profit entity run by academic researchers (contrast this with SSRN, Figshare, ResearchGate; i.e., no ads and goals aligned with academic community)
* The functionality of OSF preprints is improving on a regular basis. See [features road map](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SocElbBjc_Nhme4-SJv2_zytBd1ys8R5aZDb3POe94c/edit#gid=1340026270)
* You can choose a licence
* You can link to the doi of the subsequently published manuscript.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: **[Figshare](http://figshare.com/)** is a rather new service (compared to ArXiv) that is just starting to gain momentum. I haven't used it personally, but they have partnered up with some other Open Access players, most notably and recently with PLoS (Figshare will host supplemental data for all PLoS journals). As far as I know, there is no restriction regarding the fields the submissions must be in.
It is a repository, the service is free (unlimited public posts, 1GB private posts). No review or moderation; the submissions will be posted immediately under CC-BY. Each submission is given a DOI. I cannot find info about how many submissions they have received and posted.
**NOTE:** Just checked with Figshare through twitter, and after one year they have 200,000 files shared by users (could be papers, figures, charts, data, etc)
Edit: just realized I should also mention the following:
**[PeerJ](https://peerj.com/)** was just launched very recently (like in the last month or two I think). It's a journal but has its own pre-print system. You can submit unlimited number of public pre-prints in their preprint server [PeerJ Preprints](http://peerj.com/preprints), which has its own ISSN number. You will be able to submit your pre-prints subsequently to their peer-reviewed journal. The journal is gold OA and charges what I believe is a one-time membership fee. The journal has limited scope (does not publish in the Physical Sciences, the Mathematical Sciences, the Social Sciences, or the Humanities ), not sure what the pre-print service will look like yet and it is worth checking out later on.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: [**HaL**](http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/) ("hyper archive en ligne") is a French open archive repository that covers all fields. As far as I know it is open for submission beyond people working in French departments. It can automatically deposit on arXiv for papers whose topic is covered.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: F1000Posters (<http://f1000.com/posters>) is an open access repository that hosts posters and oral presentation slides in biology and medicine, and can also be considered a pre-print server.
It allows researchers to extend the visibility of their work outside of the conference hall, maximising the return on the time, effort and money invested in creating each presentation. Many of the posters are submitted with their subsequent research article added to them when it is eventually published. It also completely free to submit.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: I'm not sure why this hasn't come up on this thread yet:
* [**PubMed Central**](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/) is the main open-access repository in the biomedical and life sciences. It has its own added metadata, and it is the [mandatory recipient](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIH_Public_Access_Policy) of all research funded by the National Institutes of Health and a number of other funding bodies. There are also specific versions for [Canada](http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/) and [Europe](http://europepmc.org/).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: There are some more specialized ones for math:
[Linear Algebraic Groups and Related Structures](http://www.mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de/LAG/)
[Cryptography](https://eprint.iacr.org/complete/)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_9: To complement the other answers,
in mathematical physics there is [mp-arc](http://www.ma.utexas.edu/mp_arc/) in addition to arXiv,
and in biology one has [biorXiv](http://biorxiv.org/) which is apparently modelled after arXiv.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_10: In economics, there is also MPRA.
EDIT: <https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/>
MPRA is a repository run by the Munich University Library and has a description here. <https://blog.repec.org/2009/08/27/mpra-the-munich-personal-repec-archive/>
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_11: Optimization Online is a preprint site for papers in optimization: <http://www.optimization-online.org/>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_12: For linguistics, there's [LingBuzz](http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_13: If your purpose is only to have an openly available version of your paper that you can link to (and that people can find using Google Scholar), you can also **upload it to your institutional or personal website**. At least in CS, this is allowed by pretty much all major publishers I am aware of (and more frequently allowed than ArXiv). Google Scholar will pick up your paper eventually.
Additionally, some universities **host their own ePrint servers** for their own students and faculty. Again, this is not really a place to find new interesting research, but a great way to get your paper hosted and indexed by Google Scholar et al., and is also commonly allowed by publishers.
As a bonus, both of these options do not require you to register any new accounts or upload your paper to some (potentially commercial) third party service, which may be a plus, depending on your personal stance on these matters.
If your purpose is to also "get the word out" about your paper, one of the other mentioned repositories is obviously the better way.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_14: I think academia.edu and [authorea](https://www.authorea.com/product) are also possible answers to OP's question
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_15: For the geosciences and earth sciences (climatology, meteorology, geomorphology, oceanography, etc.) the American Geophysical Union (AGU) now allows and encourages pre-prints to Earth and Space Science Open Archive (ESSOAR) for AGU journals. They also host PDF's of posters from meetings including the annual meeting.
Most of the papers coming out from coworkers in AGU journals are hitting ESSOAR.
<https://www.essoar.org/>
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/15 | 1,871 | 7,860 | <issue_start>username_0: What I'm trying to understand is, to what degree does the status/rank of the University (where one completes his/her Ph.D) matter while shaping his/her career after graduation? I would like to know the weight given to one's school in both the following cases:
* While applying for post-docs/faculty positions in academia
* While applying to industrial research labs
For instance, I've read on some forums (I can't locate the link now) that while considering prospective applications for tenure-track faculty positions, very few Universities accept a candidate who has completed his/her Ph.D from a lower ranked school having a lesser "brand" value, irrespective of the fact whether he/she has published equally original work as his/her counterpart from an Ivy league college. How much truth is in this statement? It would be really great if someone already in academia, either as a newly-accepted faculty or someone on the Faculty Hiring committee could share their experiences/statistics on this regard. I'm simply interested to know the answer, without commenting at all on whether such a practice is justifiable.
Similarly, what about recruitment to internationally acclaimed research labs (like [IBM T.J.Watson lab](http://www.watson.ibm.com/overview.shtml) or [Microsoft research lab](http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/labs/default.aspx)) - what importance do they place on the pedigree of a candidate's college, before taking into consideration what they published ?
I'm personally interested in answers related to the field of Computer Science (theory), but the question is applicable to any prospective grad student in any discipline in my opinion. Feel free to share your personal experiences post-Ph.D in detail, as that would give me (and future viewers of this question) about what its like to carve a career once you are out of school!<issue_comment>username_1: The short answer is that it can matter fairly significantly in where you get your post-doctoral fellowship and eventual professorship, and it will matter *very* significantly if you choose to follow a career outside of academia.
When looking for a job *in* academia, potential employers will look at many factors, including publication record, research success, research track, who your advisor was, etc. The school is important but other factors are involved.
When looking for a job *outside of* academia, they will look at your GPA and the name of the university from which you graduated. In this case, your university could easily be a "make it or break it" part of the deal.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: In my experience, when looking for a job outside of Academia it's only that first job where your school really matters. Even in that case, it's just the most recent school, or post-doc position, or fellowship, or... that makes the difference. As your career progresses after your first job your more recent activities and experience outweigh earlier schooling.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: The larger the workplace, and the more applicants they're responsible for screening, the more important a role the academic pedigree will end up playing. A small business with a handful of applicants—or a professor hiring a single postdoc—probably doesn't need to screen out candidates as efficiently or as ruthlessly as someone that gets dozens or hundreds of applications for an opening.
To point out specific data points, my previous employer had a "preferred" list of schools for its technical hires; if you went to a school that wasn't on the list, it was a *lot* harder to get hired, and some hiring managers wouldn't even try to go through the work needed to get around this ruling. In some cases, this even applied to people who had been out of school for decades!
So, your pedigree is almost never a disadvantage; and as I have been told by many an academic, it can be of enormous benefit to you, particularly if you make the most of your opportunities at a big-name school.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: Let me answer as a theoretical computer scientist with former PhD students in tenure-track academic positions and many years of experience on faculty hiring committees. (However, my understanding is that the selection process at industrial research labs like <NAME>, Microsoft Research, Google Research, AT&T Research, etc., is really not that different from academic recruiting.) As always, take my advice with a grain of salt; I'm as guilty of confirmation bias as any other human being.
Nobody in theoretical computer science cares where you got your degree. Really. We. Do. Not. Care. We only care about the quality and visibility of your results. Publish strong papers and give brilliant talks at top conferences. Convince well-known active researchers to write letters raving about your work. Make a good product and get superstars to sell it for you. Do all that, and we'll definitely want to hire you, no matter where you got your degree. On the other hand, without a strong and visible research record, *independent from your advisor*, you are much less likely to get a good academic job, no matter where you got your degree.
(This is less true in more applied areas of CS, in my experience, mostly because it's significantly harder for PhD students in those areas to work independently from their advisors.)
**But.** Faculty candidates are necessarily judged by people who are not experts in their field. Without the expertise to judge whether your work is really good, those people *must* look at secondary data that correlate strongly with successful researchers. One of those secondary characteristics is "pedigree". Did you get your degree at MIT, Berkeley, Stanford, CMU, another top-10 department, or somewhere else? (What's an "Ivy League"?) How good/famous is your advisor? If they're really paying attention: Where did your advisor's other PhD students get jobs, and how well are they doing now?
Fortunately, most *good* departments do make a serious effort to understand the quality and impact of applicants' results, instead of relying *only* on secondary data. Also, secondary data matters considerably less once you actually have an interview.
**And.** In my experience, where you get your degree is strongly correlated with successful research. I got my Master's degree at UC Irvine in 1992 and my PhD at UC Berkeley in 1996. The biggest difference I saw between the two departments was the graduate-student research culture. **Every** theory student at Berkeley regularly produced good results and published them at top conferences. When the FOCS deadline rolled around each year, the question I heard in the hallways *from other students* was not "You know the deadline is coming up?" or "Are you submitting anything?" but "What are you submitting?", because "nothing" was the *least* likely answer. Everyone simply assumed that if you were there, you were ready and able to do publishable research. Publishing a paper wasn't exceptional, it was just what you did. That cloud of free-floating confidence/arrogance had a *huge* impact on my own development as a researcher. I've seen similar research cultures at a few other top CS departments, especially MIT, Stanford, and CMU. (Caveat: This is an incomplete list, and there are *many* departments that I've never visited.)
tl;dr: **Yes, getting a PhD from a top department definitely helps, but more by helping you become a better researcher than by making you look better on paper.**
Upvotes: 9 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_5: Sadly, it appears to matter a lot. Because academics are very prestige- and status-oriented, they will ask themselves, "Why should I pick someone from a lower-ranked school when we can get someone from an 'elite' university where the letter writers are all famous?"
Upvotes: -1 |
2012/02/15 | 1,040 | 4,070 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm curious to know what kind of choices does someone with a recent Ph.D in theoretical CS have, in the industrial research labs, and how to find out about existing opportunities. In particular, I'm looking for:
* Links to sites where such opportunities are listed, if something like that exists.
* Information regarding the scope of working on pure theoretical topics in industrial labs, which tend to be product-oriented IMHO.
It would be really great if anyone working in an industrial lab would share his experience (which lab, what kind of work you do etc), even if he/she may not be working on theoretical CS (or CS at all!).<issue_comment>username_1: I'm not sure what is the "frontier" of theoretical computer science, but some companies, such as IBM Research or Microsoft Research, also make money by applying to some public funded research project, and as such, can work on rather theoretical work. For instance, I was involved in a project with some guys from IBM T<NAME> on security, and I can assure you that the work was rather abstract, and not at all IBM product oriented.
As for sites where such opportunities are listed, I'm not sure there are many, I'd say (but that's just my impression) that's it's usually by "networking" (i.e. you need to be involved with some guys from a company in some project, and then they might hire you). However, a good technique could be to apply for an internship first (if you're still doing your PhD), although it might a bit too late now, or even for a postdoc (if you've finished it). And in order to find the labs, I'd suggest to go to your favourite conferences, get the accepted papers, and scan for some big companies :)
EDIT: Concerning the sites where you can find job offers, I'd actually suggest to look for specialised sites in your topic of interest, where it can be possible to find offers from industry, rather than on larger sites. I guess most companies prefer to focus their search rather than dropping an ad on Monster, and receiving tons of irrelevant CVs.
For instance (although most ads will be from public academy, some are from industry, it can give you some pointers as to which companies can recruit, even if the ads are out of date):
* [EuroSys](http://www.eurosys.org/jobs/), for Computer Systems
* [IACR](http://www.iacr.org/jobs/), for Crypto
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: [AT&T](http://www.research.att.com/misc/search.jsp?q=%22Algorithms%22&fbid=OgMv-Nx-vPx#), [Google](http://research.google.com/pubs/AlgorithmsandTheory.html), [IBM](http://researcher.ibm.com/view_pic.php?id=134), and [Microsoft](http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/groups/theory/) all have thriving basic research labs that regularly hire PhDs in theoretical computer science, and whose members regularly publish in theoretical computer science conferences and journals. Yes, research at those labs is colored by the needs of their parent companies, but not as much as you might think. All four companies (and several others) have thriving internship programs.
As with any other research job, your best bet in finding opportunities is to talk personally with people at the labs. Go to FOCS/STOC/SODA, sit at the same lunch table as <NAME> or Muthu or <NAME> or <NAME>, and just talk to them. (It obviously helps if you have some research results that they care about.) Ask your advisor to introduce you if you don't feel comfortable just introducing yourself.
(I'm about to get some angry emails from David, Muthu, Ken, and Yuval, aren't I?)
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I would strongly suggest you to join [ACM (Association of Computing Machinery)](http://www.acm.org/). The organization focuses on the advancment of Computer Science both as a Science and profession. Join the community and mingle with experts, share your knowledge and skills with them.
You can also find a lot of opportuites on their [jobs page](http://jobs.acm.org/home/index.cfm?site_id=1603) as well. Wish you all the best in your career!
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/02/15 | 4,261 | 17,152 | <issue_start>username_0: A colleague and I recently submitted a paper to a journal with an impressive-sounding name, the "International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Computational Research". According to their website,
>
> IJAICR is a referred [sic] journal in the field of computer science, artificial intelligence and soft computing methods.
>
>
>
It was accepted two days after we submitted it. That's too fast. We were suspicious. Although the journal said that all papers are peer-reviewed, we could not see how that was done in two days. Plus, we received no comments from the reviewers. Also, the submission guidelines didn't ask for a "blind" copy (without our names or any references to who we were).
But wait, there's more.
The acceptance letter asked us to send them US$300 to publish it. We did not. We've withdrawn our submission and will submit a new version of the paper to a more reputable journal in the coming months.
How might we make a better choice of respectable journals before we submit next time?<issue_comment>username_1: The best way is by word-of-mouth: ask around the department, ask your PhD advisor, ask people you've worked with.
If it is a specialist journal, and you are a specialist, then the next best way is to look at the previously published issues of the journal and see what kinds of articles they accept.
Failing that, the Australian Government's Research Council puts out a [ranking of journals and conferences](http://www.arc.gov.au/era/era_2012/era_journal_list.htm) every now and then. It is not perfect, but should give a rough idea of where a journal places in the eyes of the bureaucrats `:-)`. Note that "new" journals (journals that have not been active for more than X years) are not ranked, so omission from the list does not necessarily mean that the journal itself is not worthwhile.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: The way I usually choose journals is by looking at where people I trust/follow publish, and where previous work was published. It is usually not too hard to compare the quality your work to the quality of the work you are citing, and chose a target based on that. Unless your field is highly mutli-disciplinary, you will see the same journals/conferences popping up again and again in your references; submit to one of those.
Before submitting, however, it is always important to look at a few articles from previous issues. This will give you a second gauge of quality for the journal and also let you pick up on any formatting and presentations quirks that might be present in the publication.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: First of all, I look at the publisher. If you don' find a lot of references to the publisher on the web, it is suspicious.
Then, I look at the editor in chief, and at the board of editors. If you don't find many big names here, this is again very suspicious.
Finally, google the journal name and look who is publishing in the journal. Most of the time it becomes clear if the journal is serious or not.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: You may want to check that the publisher is not on **[Beall's List of Predatory, Open-Access Publishers](http://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/).**
Surprisingly, the publisher in question is not. I've found Beall's list to be fairly comprehensive, but the vanity press industry seems to be booming.
Caveat: that list is just one guy's opinion. But it resonates with my own experience.
**Update**: As of late January 2017, Beall's list has been taken down.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_5: For some hard data I like [eigenfactor](http://www.eigenfactor.org/), because I think there methodology makes a lot of sense. The default settings are a bit odd, you want the AI score not EF score. I also like the "eigenfactor category" under advanced search better than the "ISI category" that you can get on the main page. Certainly it's better to have a more in-depth understanding, but also sometimes you just want a quick ballpark guesstimate of how good the journal is, and eigenfactor does that.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_6: "How do you judge the quality of a journal?"
One answer is already known to you: Submit a paper to it and see how it responds. I once submitted a few papers to an online journal (no print equivalent) and the referee reports that I got clearly showed that they read and understood the paper and that they knew the subject well. They even suggested ways how the paper could be improved. The quality of the referees reflect the quality of the journal.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_7: Look at the journals responsible for the references you cite in your own manuscript. Upside, these are the journals publishing relevant and credible work in your area. Downside, there are plenty perfectly good journals that are newer, or less specialized, and so might be missed.
BTW, a very fast review time with no reviews is suspicious. But charging an article processing charge (APC) is not, in itself, a reason for worry. That said, do look to see that you are getting the full open access you pay for if there is an APC (i.e. no transfer of copyright to the publisher and the article is released under a CC-BY license). You can search for copyright policies by journal or publisher here: <http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/>
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_8: "How do you judge the quality of a journal?"
Look at the editorial / advisory board. They've gotta be from the top schools or they've gotta be top researchers.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_9: The [Journal Ranking site (www.journal-ranking.com)](http://www.journal-ranking.com/) aims to rank many (11K) journals, according to their measure of impact (mainly number of citation, but weighted according to the ranking of the citing journal), number of articles, etc. It also let you sort by field.
But again, this is only their point of view, and their way of measuring quality.
(and it only ranks journals listed in the ISI's SCI)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_10: I'm surprised nobody mentioned this yet, so I'm adding it as a separate answer:
**Read some articles from the journal (in your subfield), and see how they feel like**
When you look at a journal and check that the 5 or 6 latest articles in your domain are of the *meh* type, you probably don't want to publish there. If they make you feel *“oh, I never quite thought of that, it's clever… I see how I may use it”*, go for it!
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_11: You can test them yourself. This procedure will speed up by your experience. There are signs during submission and during review which shows which journal is really good and which is not. But there is another way too: look at the objective information below. It is possible to judge a journal based on the COLLECTIVE information you obtain from these factors:
1. Their editorial. You don't know them? Ok pass to the next ones.
2. Their publishing country (India? no thanks unless the paper is not good or the journal is an exception).
3. Their publisher (yes good publishers usually select good journals, although some weak journals with a lot of money can again hire a good publisher)
4. The time passes since you submit and they respond
5. The above factor SHOULD be considered along with the amount of manuscript they receive. Good journals receive thousands of manuscript a year, but still do not waste authors' time by keeping them waiting for too long before a rejection decision. Bad journals receive sporadic manuscripts and keep the authors wait for months until they tell the author their decision. It is a pain when you see some of them have "lost" you paper, or some of them reject your paper with a couple of lines of comment, after 6 months. Good journals do the same in less than 24 hours.
6. Indexing databases. Look where the journal is indexed in. ISI Web of Science? Medline? or what? The scam journals usually are not indexed in any accredited databases (not Google Scholar or Scopus). If a journal is accepted to be indexed in ISI or to a lesser degree, Medline, it is unlikely to be able to have low quality. Otherwise, ISI would have booted them out.
There are other factors too. But these will give you 90% insight already.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_12: Generally, the scientific specialists' communities have traditionally identified journals having high editorial standards. That is the key: who are the editors and what are the standards. Are the breakthrough discoveries sent to that journal? From that, reputations are built and filtered down to preference and use by the community.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_13: I think that "quality" is a bit overrated, and that you should think most deeply about "fit" (i.e., how well your content matches the interests of a journal's reviewers and readership). With that said, when I'm looking for the best journal to put an article, I have three methods:
1. Look at my cites for similar work to my manuscript, then look at where they published (similar to Artem's comment). If your paper isn't citing related work, well... it probably has a pretty terrible lit review. If you're citing sources out of your league for that paper (i.e., Science, Nature), find the publication list for that lab to find their fallback journals.
2. Ask greybeards I collaborate with where they would publish such a paper. Good senior academics have a huge amount of expertise about the social networks and publishing networks in their fields.
3. Use journal rankings. I find [Scimago](http://www.scimagojr.com/) to be the most convenient. That also charts things like cites/paper over time, so you can see if a newer journal is growing or stagnant. The [Austrialian Research Counsel](http://www.arc.gov.au/era/era_2012/era_journal_list.htm) (mentioned by <NAME>) is probably my #2 resource. Thompson's ISI stuff is also useful, but I've found it sometimes has glaring omissions and has been less convenient to me (annoying to log in). Conferences are harder to rank using indices. [Google](http://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues) and [Microsoft](http://academic.research.microsoft.com/) have ranking systems that catch those pretty well, at least for comparing citations within a topic. However, given the choice, I'd still go with option #1 or #2. I mainly use this approach for interdisciplinary research that doesn't have an obvious, natural target journal.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_14: **Ask your institution's scientific librarian.**
It's part of their job to know about journal reputation and quality.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_15: You can search for conferences/journals on Google scholar: <https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en>
Search by the full name (not the abbreviation), and you'll see its [h5-index](http://mkhamis.com/blog/whats-an-h-index/), which is the h-index in the last 5 years. Although it is hard to judge a conference using its h-index, you can at least compare them to one another.
There is also a list on the left from which you can get the conferences/journals with highest h5-index.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_16: The [Impact Factor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor) is usually a good independent means of establishing a journal's quality. Essentially it is the average number of citations of its articles. The higher, the better. The logic is that good quality articles are cited more, so a journal that only lets in better quality articles will have a higher impact factor than one which lets in practically anything.
The quality of the journal you submit to will reflect on the quality of your paper, so you should try to submit to the better ranked journals within your field. You should be able to readily establish a short-list of suitable journals just by listing the journals of the papers you cite.
There are a few things to be aware of when comparing the impact factors of journals:
* Impact factors also reflect the size of a field, so you cannot use it to compare the quality of journals from two separate and unrelated fields. A group of papers in a large popular field are naturally going to get cited more than those from a very small field.
* Almost all journals have impact factors, unless they have been excluded as a result of being in some way nefarious (such as predatory journals), or if they are newly established and therefore haven't been around long enough to get one.
I could not find an impact factor for the journal you mentioned, even though it seems to have been around for at least 5 years. You are right to be cautious of it. I would not recommend submitting to a journal which does not have an impact factor, even if the reason for this turns out to be quite innocent.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_17: To make a better choice for submitting I would google and use Wikidata.
Googling might lead you to lists like <NAME>'s <https://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/> and provide you with context about the journal, such as editorial board, blog posts, etc.
Wikidata will provide you with pointers to indexing services and journal rankings. Consider Journal of Machine Learning Research at <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1660383> . It indicates a BFI level of 2 which is the high category of the username_12ish journal ranking system. It shows that Scopus is indexing the journal. (Strangely the Australian ERA link does not seem to work). I do not find "International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Computational Research" in Wikidata, which should call for suspicion
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_18: Quality of the journal is reflected in your own experience.
When you've reached the level when you start thinking about publishing in your field of expertise,
and you find out about a journal you've never heard before through several years of undergraduate and postgraduate studies,
it is a good enough reason to be suspicious and cautious.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_19: Many good answers are provided here. Along with the editorial board, publisher, and impact factor, one should check <http://www.scimagojr.com/>.
This site provides ranking for journals, and country.
The ranking of journals based on Q1 through Q4 in the specified subjects ensures of the quality of journals in that issue.
Q1 journals are the best in that subject and Q2, Q3, and Q4 are decreasing impact of the journals.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_20: You could use a combination of some simple rules and common sense. Among the simple rules once could list:
* Presence in major databases, e.g. Web of Science, PubMed, etc
* Does anyone in your field cite papers in this journal?
* The quality of other papers in this journal
* Do your colleagues publish in this journal?
* Do they have typos in their webpage?
And common sense could help in a variety of ways. For example, today, I got the following letter, a rather nice one, seems like someone would have written it specially to me:
>
> I hope this email finds you well. I wanted to get in touch with you
> about a paper you authored entitled "Using principal component scores
> reduces the effect of socially desirable responding". Firstly, thank
> you for taking the time to publish this, it was an interesting read.
> Have you continued working in this area? If you have any other
> articles or ongoing research I would love to know more.
>
>
> I am hoping to discuss with you having a short follow-up article or
> perhaps a review article published in one of the next issues of the
> journal I serve as an editor for, the Medical Research Archives. I
> think our readers would be interested in a paper with information from
> any continued research or new data since this was published. It would
> be especially helpful if the article could be written for more of a
> general medicine audience so that many sub specialties could gain from
> it. The article would not have to be long, and any of your co-authors
> or colleagues would be welcome to contribute to it. I am happy to
> assist in any way I can, and there is no hard deadline.
>
>
>
Ok. First of all, they refer to a paper on psychometrics and ask me to publish something on the same topic in "Medical Research Archives". Makes no sense. Second, they tell me "thank you for taking time to publish this" (gracias de nada! this is my job!) and "it was interesting to read" (how on earth would you know - having not read it? and what is the point of calling it "interesting" if you have nothing specific to say about it?). At this point, it it quite clear that they have a script sending these letters, using a database with e-mails and titles of research papers. It is not written the way an actual editor of a bona fide journal would write, so I just delete the e-mail. (It was better written than most such e-mails, that is the reason why I even checked their webpage, - not that I would for a second consider sending a paper to their journal - but just for curiosity about the new tricks of predatory publishers.)
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/15 | 855 | 3,653 | <issue_start>username_0: I have some experience with hosting reading groups/journals clubs in an off-line setting. Usually we meet every week in a room and discuss the paper for that week. However, recently some colleagues and I (~7 people) are trying to catch up on a specific topic quickly, and we want to hold a short reading group/journal club. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues are at other universities, and cannot physically attend meetings.
**Do you have any advice or suggestions for tools to hold an online reading group?**
My first instinct was G+ Hangout (especially with the new beta features they are making available right now). Skype is also an option, but last I checked required a fee for group video chat.
The preferred features are:
* Talk to (and preferably see) each other
* Have access to some sort of shared whiteboard
* Easy to use and set up<issue_comment>username_1: You can find many softwares or online services for that purpose : blackboard IM, tinychat, etc.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: [Google+](https://plus.google.com/) comes with great communication tools called Hangout. Shared documents and even presentations can be achieved with. There is no real setup process involved but getting an account at Google.
Another option could be [Moodle](http://moodle.org/) which has more features on relevant for teaching courses online and maybe less emphasis on direct communication.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: There's an online [Astronomy Journal Club](http://astrojournalclub.wordpress.com/) hosted on Wordpress.
Here's my main advice: make the process as **frictionless** as possible. Grad students tend to have very busy lives, and journal clubs will inevitably have high dropout rates unless they have some motivation (even through guilt) to stay in and to continue participating. Keep them updated through some service that they'll constantly check even if they aren't doing science (emails end up annoying people, but Facebook, Reddit, and Google Plus might work).
It's also probably easier to convince people to set an online journal club when the journal club is about some specialized subject that only a small number of people at any particular university know about (and if they have a strong urge to talk about the subject with people from other universities).
Finally, if there's an academic conference for grad students (for my area, for example, it would be [AbGradCon](http://abgradcon.org/)), discuss it with people there! Journal clubs are an excellent way to keep in touch with grad students at other universities.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Shepherding this is *a lot* of work. Most such efforts die on the wine because the initial enthusiasts get bored/overwhelmed. Find a solid group of people willing to work together on this, keep the organization flat (not "I started this, so I'll decide what software to use" or so). Keep it simple, no fancy, complex interfaces. No big hassle to set up, use a simple package running (hopefully) under your control on department servers.
You might start by (mis)using the pages used for classes to hand out material, assigments, and class discussions. Everybody involved should already know how to use this. See where this leads, if it outgrows your initial system, you'll know in more detail what you require, and have something to show to convince the department to chip in by e.g.funding a couple of students to help with the day-to-day management (two at least, with overlapping longish tenures, you do not want to train the helpers for a term just to get new ones when they are starting to get the hang).
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/02/15 | 2,799 | 10,923 | <issue_start>username_0: I'd be interested in tools helping to organize thoughts and ideas, especially in a non-linear way (i.e. not as most existing note taking tools, working with lists and bullets, but rather as a post-it application). Ideally, something like the tool they use in Minority Reports would be cool (without the fancy-touch thingy), but an important point would be the ability to visually connect different ideas/notes together.
EDIT: Maybe to make things more explicit, I have a visual memory, and it helps me a lot having a graphical disposition to classify things (like important things at the top-right, urgent ones on the middle-left, etc). Basically, I'd like to find my messy desk on my screen :)<issue_comment>username_1: For non-linear note-taking and also collaboration I use [TiddlyWiki](http://www.tiddlywiki.com/). It is one file that stores all your notes as an interactive wiki. Through a plug-in it support LaTeX-math. If you throw it on a shared [dropbox](http://www.dropbox.com/) then it can even be a quick way to share ideas with colleagues. If you want something more formal than dropbox, then there are hosted options like [TiddlySpace](http://tiddlyspace.com/).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: [Mind maps](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_map) might be what you're looking for. From the Wikipedia page:
>
> A mind map is a diagram used to represent words, ideas, tasks, or other items linked to and arranged around a central key word or idea... Mind maps are used to generate, visualize, structure, and classify ideas, and as an aid to studying and organizing information, solving problems, making decisions, and writing.
>
>
>
There are lots of [mind mapping tools](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concept_mapping_and_mind_mapping_software) out there. I've used [XMind](http://www.xmind.net/) before.
One drawback is that it's hard to put longer thoughts into a mindmap.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: *For nice graphical note editing/drawing:*
If you get the hang on it, you probably could **use <http://prezi.com/>**
Your notes would look great, and you can always **zoom in and out**, if you want to add details.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: A couple of other options for mind-mapping software:
I tried using [Curio](http://www.zengobi.com/products/curio/), which is a very powerful program that can do mind-mapping, as well as a whole lot of other activities. The problem I had with it was that it was, if anything, *too* stuffed with features: I couldn't really figure out how to get simple tasks done, because there was so much work to do just to learn how to do anything at all. However, I'm certain you wouldn't run out of features.
If what you're looking for is something a little less complicated, but still in the sense of mind-mapping, you can try something like [OmniGraffle Professional](http://omnigroup.com/applications/OmniGraffle/), which produces diagrams and organizational charts of almost any shape or complexity. It doesn't try to be the "all things to all people" that Curio is.
Another "out of the box" solution is [Scrivener](http://www.literatureandlatte.com/scrivener.html), which might be a little too text-based for your needs, but is a great tool for writers.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I needed the same functionality for myself. I was looking for a powerful note-taking system and after considerable search concluded that the **wiki** format was best for dynamic unpublished notes and scribblings. I started by using desktop applications but needed some way to render math better so I shifted to web applications (running them locally you'll need an XAMP server).
**Desktop Applications**
[Zim Desktop Wiki](http://zim-wiki.org/) - A wiki notebook. Really good imo.
[WikidPad](http://wikidpad.sourceforge.net/) - Described as an IDE for your thoughts. Offers same functionality.
**Server Based**
[Mediawiki](http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki) - If you're going to end up with thousands of documents being edited by thousands of users then it is the best. For personal use it is a bit of an overkill, and the spaghetti php code doesnt help.
[Instiki](http://www.instiki.org/show/HomePage) - currently using this. Compact and simple. You can easily back it up to an USB disk. Or export all pages to html. Needs ruby to compile though.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: A nice tool I have found for this is [Visual Understanding Environment (VUE)](http://vue.tufts.edu/), which is an open source tool that sounds very much like what you are looking for. You can position nodes how you like and sketch connections between them. It even has a nice mechanism for nonlinear presentations by setting pathways between the elements in your file. The presentation mechanism is not as polished as Prezi, but since you are looking at note-taking rather than presenting, this should not be an issue.
The only thing keeping me from using it more is that there currently is no support for equation editing, LaTeX or otherwise, which is a deal-breaker in my field. There are workarounds like using [Laeqed](http://www.thrysoee.dk/laeqed/) to generate PNGs of your equations, but it can be cumbersome for large projects. If this is not a concern in your area, I would recommend giving it a look.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: Here is another one, which I find very helpful and intuitive: [CmapTools](http://cmap.ihmc.us/)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: I use scapple from <https://www.literatureandlatte.com/scapple.php>
It does exactly what you want. You can put notes anywhere on a canvas.
You can connect them if you want. And you can search them.
It costs about $15 and there is a trial for 1 month so you can see if you like it before you buy it.
It works very well if you use the Crawford slip method of brainstorming.
It's one of the best piece of software I use.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_9: Since you are asking here, I assume note taking for paper is important.
[**Docear**](http://www.docear.org/) is a mind mapping for paper tool which based on Freeplane and Jabref, which might fit academia needs perfectly. And it supports windows, linux and mac. And it' s GPL licensed.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_10: Although the question is old, my answer may benefit future readers.
I've recently started to use [Gingko App](https://gingkoapp.com/). You can hierarchically organize your notes, which are themselves written in card-like units. The possibilities are many, depending on your organizational creativity. For long-form note-taking this is better than mind maps, while providing ~~all~~ many of the benefits of mind-mapping.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_11: TiddlyMap.org - I just found it after looking at your question... Searching through another site.
It works with TiddlyWiki - the recently developed version.
TiddlyMap will let you make a clickable graph of your wiki tiddlers, and show you real time navigation as well of where you are in your graph.
<http://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=TiddlyMap>
DenkWerkZeug - <http://denkwerkzeug.com> is an application I have been looking at for a while and learning about. It combines a Wiki with a graph and semantic principles, but is not difficult to learn, a fascinating application.
And one more named Vis-a-Wiki, that I have heard about that combines a visual approach with wiki and graph as well as Scrumban board... Vis-a-Wiki has 'context sensitive navigation'.
I include these together not take away from, but hope as to just let people know about the existence of these independent software projects.
<http://marko-editor.com/vis-a-wiki/>
Hope this helps... -jariell
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_12: I'm not sure how this old question got bumped back to the top, but I can offer an answer: TheBrain is a very nice dynamic concept map with a lot of sophisticated features. Unlike Scapple or some of the other suggestions here, it's currently under active development.
The downsides are that it's a little pricey (but they offer academic discounts if you contact them) and it doesn't have equation editing, although there are workarounds for that.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_13: This question is quite old, but I'll mention a solution that has worked extremely well for me: the vector-graphics program [Inkscape](https://inkscape.org/).
A new Inkscape document essentially acts like an infinitely-large piece of paper. It username_14ws you to write notes with a pen via a touchscreen or external graphics tablet and also type text on a keyboard using the text tool, along with many of the other useful features of a vector graphics program (lines, boxes, colors, etc). You can easily move objects around and scale them infinitely. The file sizes are quite small, even for relatively large mind maps. You can copy and paste your calculations, drawings, etc.
Perhaps this solution is a bit unconventional, but I've been using it for the past 3 years as my main note-taking software for physics and mathematics research. Once you customize the program settings to your liking and perhaps add a few system hotkeys, it works very well!
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_14: Not recommending concrete programs, but tools that have quite a few implementations
Have a look for:
* Mindmaps
* Desktop Wikis or locally installed Wiki software
* Bugtracker
* For collaborations possibly forum software
* Kanban Software
* Other "Getting Things Done" (thats the name of a concept with many helpful tools) software
* Citation management Software
* Find a concept for organizing your files, such that you find them quickly. Possibly install an alternative file manager that is more intuitive for you
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_15: The last answer to this ancient question is 3 years old, so let me add a more recent development. In the past few years, many excellent note-taking programs have become available that username_14w you to do this. This type of software is often branded as username_14wing you to "build a second brain". (I'm not particularly endorsing that kind of hype branding; just hoping to provide a useful search keyword.)
Conceptually, you may be interested to look into the [Zettelkasten](https://zenkit.com/en/blog/a-beginners-guide-to-the-zettelkasten-method/) methodology. There, the idea is to have short, atomic notes on individual subjects that are extensively linked to each other. There is a large community around this.
In terms of specific software, recent popular non-linear note-taking competitors include [Obsidian](https://obsidian.md/) (which I personally have been using for a while now and think is excellent), [Roam](https://roamresearch.com/), [LogSeq](https://logseq.com/), and [Scrintal](https://www.scrintal.com/).
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/02/15 | 1,263 | 5,476 | <issue_start>username_0: In many countries an application for a PhD position includes a written research proposal, so my questions is **what are some advises/strategies to come up with a good topic/idea for a PhD research proposal and how can one assess the quality/fruitfulness of an idea**? As an undergraduate student one just doesn't have the experience to foresee which ideas might have promising research results and which probably won't have. (And I doubt that potential supervisors have the time to comment on every idea of every potential applicant in cases where it is possible to establish some kind of contact before the actual application.)<issue_comment>username_1: 1. Jot down your interests.
2. Future goals (long term and short term). Doesn't have to be accurate but just to give you the "big picture".
3. Speak with your PhD advisor (if you already have one).
4. Align his/her interests with yours and see if you have common ground (you may need to lean towards his interests or find another advisor)
5. Once you have a list of topics that you could explore, do a literature review and figure out for what topics you'd have a taste.
Each person has his own formula on what to choose as their PhD proposal. This was the way I went about it.
PhD (Mechanical Engineering Expected Fall 2012)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: 1. In your case, I would find scientific publications aimed at the student/general population in your field, and read the articles written for the public. Both [Science](http://www.sciencemag.org/) and [Nature](http://www.nature.com/nature/current_issue.html) will have numerous articles in each issue that can be read and understood by the general public. Some subfields have publications directed specifically at the student/enthusiast population (such as [IEEE Spectrum](http://spectrum.ieee.org/) for Engineering).
By reading through these publications, you will get a sense for what the current major research focus is in a wide variety of fields, and you'll get a feel for what's interesting to you.
2. Talk to professors in fields that interest you! You'd be surprised at how many professors (admittedly, not all of them) would be willing to spend 15 minutes talking to you about their research, and their field in general. I'm not going to say "showing initiative is key to making progress", because it's not, but it can help, and you'll learn a tremendous amount this way.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Find a subject that you really really are passionately interested in, and care about finding out more about it. This subject is going to become almost your entire life for a few years, and you will need huge dedication to it, in order to complete.
Talk, ideally over a coffee, but by phone or (worst-case) email if you can't meet in person, with people who recently completed their PhDs and are now actively researching in this field; discuss your ideas and recent developments in the field.
Find an area that your intended supervisor is up-to-date in.
If you do it right, your PhD will lead you to knowing more than anyone else in the world about this very very specific subject: so it will really help if you're going to be keen to pursue it as a career after completing your PhD, even after writing several papers and making plenty of conference presentations on it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: One aspect of a PhD is pursuing original research in your given field. I believe it is hard for an undergraduate to know what research has / hasn't been in covered in all of the topics they may be interested in.
Therefore, I would advise that you consider the topics you are interested in, and find out which Researchers / Professors are working in those fields, in the universities that you are considering. Then, you should ask them what they are working on at the moment, and what potential projects they would have in mind for a new PhD student joining them. This will give you a feel for the kind of research that you could be doing.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: There are already very good answers above; I would only like to add that you should also take into account whether you can get a scholarship/funding for your research topic. Your personal interests may not necessarily align with those of your potential funders. Consider how much you would be willing to compromise your own interests to be able to receive a scholarship. Most people cannot support themselves financially through the course of a PhD programme, so this point is not to be underestimated.
If you apply for a government scholarship for example, they will likely want you to study a topic that is of high policy relevance to them and you need to think about whether you can offer that or modify your original ideas in such a way that they will meet the policy priorities of the government at the point of application. Governments tend to publish their strategic priorities in various documents online, so it will not be difficult to make the connections between your research and their needs.
University departments giving scholarships tend to be more flexible with regard to research topics as long as the quality and originality of the proposed research is high, but again, it would be best to get an opinion from a member of the department on the chances of your proposal attracting sufficient interest that it will get funding.
Without funding, it will be close to impossible to do a PhD.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/15 | 1,396 | 6,048 | <issue_start>username_0: What impact does prior industry experience (2+ years in a non-trivial functional role in any established organization) lend to the profile of someone who is entering grad school for a Ph.D.? In my case, it's Computer Science, but I expect the question to be applicable to other areas as well.
* Do admission committees look upon it as a bonus point, seeing that the applicant has managed real-world responsibilities successfully in the past, thereby improving the chances of acquiring funding (in terms of TA/RA)?
* More importantly, does it help the candidate during (and post Ph.D.), when looking for research internships/post-docs?
In both cases, assuming the position the applicant held is in a completely different area from their research, what other factors become important in the both the above cases? Is it the difficulty of projects the candidate undertook (which, frankly, very few people outside the organization are equipped to judge), or the level of success (promotions, accolades acquired during the stint in industry) that matter, or are there other parameters as well?
Also, in case it is deemed that such a profile offer limited/no advantage to the grad student, it would be nice to know why that may be the case - after all, most (if not all!) organizations are run for profit, and they would tend to have very little use for someone who is not productive or capable of learning.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't think that having industry experience is going to help with a PhD application unless you have actually worked on the project that you want to do your PhD in. It's certainly not going to help if you worked in a completely different area. Also note that PhD students don't usually apply for funding. I'm farily certain that the answer to your first point is "no" in almost all cases.
That said, I believe it would be more help when looking for internships or a (non-academic) job after finishing the PhD. Again it depends what exactly it is you've done and what you're applying to do.
Working at a company and doing PhD-level research are two (very) different things (unless you're doing industrial research) and being good at one doesn't imply that you're equally good at the other.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Industry experience cannot hurt. While it may not help in every case, in many it will. One of the things PhD application committees consider is their mix of students. In my experience (in Computer Science) a typical PhD program consists of students of many ages from many backgrounds. A good program has a diverse mix, including those with "real world" experience. So I bet it helps.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: As someone who sits on an admissions committee, this isn't idle speculation, but it is a personal perspective. I agree with the other responders that industrial experience probably isn't of much interest to an admissions committee, unless you get a strong letter of recommendation from a supervisor who can make a convincing case for admission to the graduate program.
The issue is that while you are in industry, unless you're in a position where your actively doing things related to your graduate school education, your knowledge of the "basics" is atrophying, so it will actually be somewhat more difficult to get back up to speed for the coursework typically required for a PhD program. The longer you're in industry, the harder it typically is to play catchup.
That said, industrial experience may be of interest to an individual professor within a department, and would certainly help with employment following the PhD program.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: I sit on graduate admissions committees (in computer science, in the US), and I spent 4 years in industry before going to grad school. I agree with others: Industry experience *per se* is not particularly attractive, unless it's directly related to your proposed area of study. (Industry experience may be more attractive in more applied areas of CS; I'm a theoretician.)
But it depends on what you do while you're in industry. Admissions committees are looking primarily for strong evidence of research potential — raw "wattage", intellectual maturity, independence, initiative, creativity, attention to detail, eagerness to fight with hard problems, and most importantly, *real results*. Recommendation letters that specifically address those qualities, whether from academia or from industry, will increase your chances of admission. If you just sit in your cubicle and competently produce the code that your manager asks for, not so much.
My industry experience was a point in my favor during my academic job hunt, but only a minor one.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: Industry experience will often hinder you, because it is a signal (a **reliable** signal in most situations) that you are not up-to-date with the cutting edge of research; and that your academic skills have atrophied.
Expect to work much harder in the time up to application, and at interview, in getting up-to-date in the field, and demonstrating that you are up to date.
This will vary by subject: for maths, it's often going to be a deal-breaker, as the analytic skills tend to atrophy very very quickly, and also tend to diminish with age. For more engineering-type subjects, it might be easier, particularly if you have been doing cutting-edge industrial research. Nevertheless, your academic skills may be rusty, and the people deciding on your admissions will expect that they are.
You may also be going in without a (recent) publication record; that can impair the funding position of the institute to which you're applying, so you may have to offer something a little bit extra to compensate for this.
Your industrial experience may well bring value to your future department: but you may or may not get any recognition of that at the time of your application.
(I write as someone who entered academia after ~20 years industrial experience.)
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/15 | 1,171 | 4,802 | <issue_start>username_0: Assuming that an applicant does his research and applies to a bunch of schools for a PhD. He gets accepted by a few of them with full aid.
Assuming that the research and faculty at all places is more or less of the same quality, what factors come into play when deciding where to go?
(Also assume that the student is an international student)
How important are the following factors:
* Location (Urban/Rural) of School
* Country of School
* Rankings (For instace, U Tennessee Knoxville has awesome Supercomputing Research but a not-so-good overall Ranking)
* Size of Department
* Diversity
* Student Faculty Ratio<issue_comment>username_1: A strong factor for most people will be the financial impact, i.e. how much is it going to cost and are there scholarships available. I would also have a look at the specific field (or subfield) that I'm interested in and compare the faculty and research according to that criteria. In particular the prospective advisor, not so much the rest of the faculty.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Other factors might include:
* Association with an industrial research lab, due to to proximity or high-density of alumni in that lab. That'll make things a lot easier when looking for summer internships!
* The climate of the place. A Ph.D is a 4+ years commitment, and whether you'd be spending 6 months every year in freezing cold or not does make a difference once you are actually there!
I'll add more factors you might want to look at as they occur to me!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I applied to six graduate schools in my field, and was accepted at all of them. The criteria I used to whittle down the choices were:
* Did I like the people in the department I was visiting? (This surprisingly *did* eliminate one school.)
* Did I want to go to live in the city where the school was for five or so years? (One more down, four left.)
* Could I find *enough* people I was interested in working for, so that if I didn't get my top choice, I'd still be happy with the projects I'd be taking?
* Can I financially afford to live in the city? (One more down, two left.)
At that point, however, the remaining criteria were all competing with one another: one school offered me *a lot* more money, the other had *a lot* better location. Both offered plenty of research, and both had excellent reputations in their field. Ultimately, for me, the location, combined with the slightly higher general profile of the school I attended, swayed the balance for me.
Remember that you're looking for individual groups or faculty members as well as entire departments. Students and faculty will both be considerations for you.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: Two that struck me while I was applying for schools of similar rank:
1. Location. You're talking about living in this place for close to a decade in some cases, and at least several years. Is this someplace you want to live? I haven't found that people living in someplace they hate and are miserable are more productive because they just hide in the lab. I've mostly found them miserable and apt to burn out.
2. Attitude. Is the department somewhat more "relaxed" and supportive of its students? Will they pull out all the stops to make sure you can make ends meet if something goes wrong in your funding? Or do they consider graduate school to be a fiery crucible upon which researchers are forged? Which environment would you rather work in?
3. Aid. Advice I got frequently was don't go somewhere that isn't paying you - you don't want them, and when it comes down to it, they don't really want you.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Average time to completion. Shorter better. Many places in the US have 7 year doctorates. A few still have the traditional 4 year expectation. Note this will be department specific.
Percent of starting students getting eventual Ph.D. Higher better. Again, department specific.
Student population: gender mix, where from, friendliness, etc. Go with your gut, based on the visit.
Finally if you are single and looking to change that (especially male in a male dominated field), I would pick the urban school because of the better dating prospects. If you are married, rural will probably be better cost of living but then likely your spouse's job prospects or situation will impact the decision strongly. In general, I think urban is a better overall option as a young professional (even a poor one).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: If we are talking about Europe or the US then your PhD experience will mostly be determined by your supervisor and maybe few immediate colleagues. Perhaps it is more likely to find a good group in a higher ranked university, but it is not a direct connection.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/02/15 | 977 | 4,057 | <issue_start>username_0: As a postdoc, I'm considering to apply to research-only positions (for instance in a research institute, and not a university), and I know that one of the responsibilities of being a researcher is to recruit PhD students.
I personally only know people (including me) who have been "recruited" for a PhD by one of their teacher (usually at Master level), and so I wouldn't be sure of how to proceed in order to recruit a PhD student as a young researcher:
* Are there some specialized websites where to post ads?
* Is it better to contact some teachers to see if they have good students to recommend?
Moreover, in this case, which criteria can one use? If I were to teach, I would have a whole semester to know a student, and to decide whether it would make a good fit for a PhD, but how to do that during a one-hour interview?<issue_comment>username_1: PhD studentships are quite often advertised like "normal" jobs, i.e. on general job boards/recruting websites. If you have contacts, by all means use them. As for evaluating the candidates, similar guidelines as for evaluating applicants for any jobs apply. I don't think there's a one-fits-all answer. Note that the hiring process may also depend on what institution you'd be working for. They might have an HR department that screens/selects the candidates.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I can answer for a specific case: if you are looking to hire PhDs in Theoretical Computer Science, join the THEORYNT mailing list, where you can both send and receive mails about such vacancies. I'm giving an [example link](https://listserv.nodak.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind1202a&L=theorynt&T=0&P=367) that would show you the typical format of such a mail, you can browse through the rest from the website itself.
If you look around, I'm sure there's be a mailing alias for your research specialty as well (if not, maybe you can start one!)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I am presuming by your question that you are talking about working in Europe; in North America, scientists at non-academic research labs generally are not generally expected to recruit PhD students. Unfortunately, I don't think there is an easy method for applying for positions outside of posting announcements on sites like [academia.edu](http://www.academia.edu) or [TIPTOP](http://brightrecruits.com/tiptop/).
However, you will need to make sure that you are clear on your future workplace's requirements and regulations regarding the recruiting of graduate students. Many such institutes do *not* have PhD-granting programs of their own; in that case, you would need to make sure you were affiliated with a program that does grant doctoral degrees *before* you begin recruitment.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: There are a couple of ways to determine whether a particular graduate student is a good candidate for your lab.
* **Subject knowledge**. While this is often unfair to the student, I know many researchers who will only accept students who are familiar with their area of research. This saves time in getting the student up to speed, which can take many months, as you probably know.
* **Simple personality matches**. By the time they're looking into your lab, they've already been accepted into the graduate program and kept their grades up high enough to be applying to labs, which means that (assuming you agree with the standards of the program) they are fairly smart. Your job is determine whether the student would be a good match for your lab in particular, and whether you want to work with them on a daily basis for the next 5+ years.
* **Rotations**. Many programs have graduate student rotations, which will give you an opportunity to interact with many students, and get the chance to know them better than the one-hour interview you mentioned.
Aside from this, read up on general interviewing tips. Almost all the articles you'll find discussing general hiring advice is applicable to recruiting graduate students/postdocs as well.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/02/16 | 1,084 | 4,652 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm a first-year graduate student, and I just joined a computational chemistry laboratory. I have three tasks now: pass all my courses, fulfill my TA duties, and start research. I'm finding that I'm spending all my time doing the first two, and very little doing actual research. I'm worried that my advisor will be upset that I'm not getting up to speed quickly enough on my research (currently, learning the python programming language and reading a whole bunch of papers). **Are first-year graduate students typically expected to do a lot of research, while still managing their grades and TA duties?**<issue_comment>username_1: I think the answer lies in what your PI thinks you should be doing and how well you can, at least, appear to be doing it while doing things other than research. Even if your PI doesn't enforce a certain allocation it's in your interest to do as much research and little else as possible. **You won't get a PhD by teaching or taking classes.** An overload, in my experience, is unavoidable first year. Is is possible to take electives that your PI teaches? That's about the only coursework he or she won't begrudge you.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I think it's fair to expect a first-year student who has course obligations to spend *some* time on course work, but along the same lines as if it were another course—and by no means the majority of time. When the department requires coursework, it's kind of unfair for a faculty advisor to complain about you having to spend your time taking the required classwork. Particularly in a department like chemistry, which tends to have comprehensive qualification requirements, expecting a first-year student to devote more than a modest amount of time to research is rather unreasonable. If you spend too much time on research, and not enough on classes, you could end up failing your qualfiers. If you don't pass those, you won't get your Ph.D., either!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: In France coursework is anecdotal since PhD students are supposed to follow only one course a year, and the validation is decided (without grades) by the professor giving the lecture (and attendance generally means validation).
However, the question of balancing research and teaching is of importance. Those that are TA during their PhD have typically 3 to 4 hours a week on average of presence in front of the students during 6/7 months, and most colleagues agree on the fact that 2 to 3 times this amount is spent in preparing/grading (for beginners). So it is on average between 1 and 2 days a week for teaching. I strongly advised my own students not to cross that line: you don't improve significantly your lectures by working more than that, but you clearly decrease the quality of your research work (again, this is for newcomers in academia).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: From my experience: You *just* have to make it work. You *just* have to balance all that is thrown at you. Believe me, it is a character building exercise, getting a PhD is. It's not just about publishing journal papers. A PhD degree is also about time management, people skills (which can be tested when trying to appease your advisor!) and learning how to communicate effectively (even if you get only 10 hours work done in a week while the expectation was 15 hours, it is *how* you communicate your results during research meetings).
After a year or so and once you have your qualifiers out of the way you will emerge a stronger person who would suddenly even have downtime! Good luck!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: A lack of time for research in the first year is pretty common in programs with heavy course requirements, and your supervisor will usually know this especially if she or he has other students. I used to tell my supervisor that I was pretty busy with courses and this was no problem, and I doubt your advisor will get upset if you also have this issue.
On the other hand, I like the comment of DNA. You'd be surprised that even with a busy schedule there is a lot of room for improvement in how you manage your time. If you take a bit of time to examine your schedule, possibly with the aide of a spreadsheet, often you can find ways to improve your efficiency. Courses and TA duties are tiring and it is difficult to work after them. If this is your case you could try getting up earlier to have the best part of your day for a bit of research. Even three hours per week per semester will be around 40 hours in a semester, depending on the semester length, and you can accomplish much in this time.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/02/16 | 741 | 2,985 | <issue_start>username_0: I have been looking into PhD programs in the Engineering field, and I have found different types of programs, such as some with coursework, and others without any coursework.
What is the practical difference between them? (Besides the obvious coursework) What kind of student is expected for each of them?
EDIT: To be more specific, I have been looking into Robotics PhD programs, such as:
* [CMU Robotics PhD](http://www.ri.cmu.edu/ri_static_content.html?menu_id=321) (Coursework + Research).
* [KCL Robotics PhD](http://www.kcl.ac.uk/prospectus/research/robotics) (Only research).<issue_comment>username_1: It seems to me that there are several advantages; none of these are suitable for every student. It's up to you whether enough of them apply to you, to make it worth doing a taught PhD:
1. A PhD with a bit of coursework in the first year will help those who
are crossing over into a discipline that they're not already deeply
embedded in: it will give you some hand-holding through the things
you'll need to know but don't yet;
2. it should (if taught well) also teach you some extra research skills;
3. it will give you some indication as you progress as to how well you're doing, compared to how well you should be doing if you're going to finish
4. it will allow you to explore different aspects of the field, to help you finalise your thesis topic
5. it may, depending on the country and institution, give you an intermediate degree at the end of the taught section, such as an MRes, which will count for something even if you then don't go on to do the full PhD
6. it lessens the culture-shock for those going straight from fully-taught study to a research degree.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: One thing to keep in mind is that there are international differences as well. In Germany, for instance, doctoral programs almost *never* require coursework as part of the research program requirements (although it may be mandated for purposes off establishing degree equivalency, if you come from a foreign country or have a degree from another field). This is because it is assumed that you have taken all the necessary courses as part of your Master's program, which is considered the follow up to the bachelor's rather than the precursor to the doctorate.
The reverse is true in the US: I don't know of any PhD programs there that *don't* require courses, for the reverse reason.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Also, a coursework PhD program is very useful for someone (like me) who took a break from academia to work for a couple of years - it would be invaluable in refreshing those basics that have atrophied during the time spent at industry.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Sometimes, especially in the beginning, it is easier to measure course progress than research progress, and thus good for the self-esteem.
Being able to say "I've accomplished something this semester" is crucial.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/16 | 607 | 2,654 | <issue_start>username_0: On the Internet, I have found that some people have graduated with a PhD by means of a “sandwich thesis”. Could anyone explain what it is?<issue_comment>username_1: I believe that a sandwich thesis (sometimes called an integrated thesis / stapler thesis) consists of a collection of published or in-press articles (some schools also allow submitted articles). These articles are included in the thesis verbatim. The publications are usually preceded by an elaborate introduction that sets the context for the thesis.
EDIT:
As <NAME> pointed out, there is also usually a final discussion / conclusion after the integrated papers.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Supplementing username_1's excellent answer somewhat, the "sandwich thesis" or similar concepts, seem to be rising in popularity. For example, in my University, they're afforded equal standing to the more traditional "book"-style thesis, and in my Department, they're the *required* form of a dissertation.
The reasoning for this is fairly straightforward. In many fields that don't rely on book publishing as the primary means of publication (most of the sciences), the production of a large manuscript-style work is likely a one time event. One can have an extremely successful career without publishing another book, and the mechanisms to publish books on research findings (rather than say methods) may not actually exist.
As such, requiring doctoral students to produce something like that is counter-productive - they gain no experience in the future requirement to publish journal articles, and leave graduate school with a body of work that isn't represented in the journal literature. The idea of the sandwich thesis is to get around this by layering several journal-style publications (either submitted or unsubmitted) as the meat of the sandwich, with an introduction, perhaps a joint high-level methods section and a conclusion section weaving them into a coherent narrative as the bread. This allows the student's work to flow nicely into the literature in a way that's useful to all involved.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: What is described here as a sandwich thesis (a collection of published (or intending to be published) articles + Introduction + Discussion) is also called a compilation thesis. In the Netherlands this is a very common format for nearly all science PhD theses.
I'm not sure what <NAME> meant by "AIUI lots of people use the "Sandwich thesis" format, while being regular PhD students".
Nowadays, most Dutch universities also publish their PhD theses in online public archives.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/02/16 | 1,479 | 6,457 | <issue_start>username_0: While accepting an offer to grad school, one is basically entering into a lasting relationship with one's adviser - most likely, someone whom the applicant has never met before, and the only exposure has been through the potential adviser's website/publications. It is in the interest of both parties to ensure (to the greatest possible extent) that there are no personal/professional traits of either that hamper the formation of a pleasant working relationship - no-one would want to go through the ordeal of having to change advisers midway!
While the faculty has a chance to have a good look at the applicant's profile as well as his motivations (through his grades and SOP), the applicant doesn't have a similar opportunity. So, I'm interested to know what parameters can be used to gauge a potential fit. I've thought of the following:
* Past students:
1. Did anyone ever drop out/change advisers midway, and if so, for what reasons? These would be a bit hard to find though, as I don't expect the faculty concerned would list them on their website. It would be great if anyone could let me know how to find out the list of incoming students to a department for any year.
2. Publication rate, taking into account the venues where they were accepted.
3. Time taken to graduate - though I accept this is more dependent on the student, a median figure should be telling ...
4. What they did post Ph.D. - did anyone get tenure if they went into academia, or is almost everyone unable to break out of being a post-doc?
* Tenure status: I'm a bit unsure about this, so wanted the community's opinions about it. Just so that I'm clear, I'm only trying to calibrate the applicant's expectations about the working style of his potential adviser - and hence need to know to what extent are the following "typical" assumptions valid.
**Tenured professor**
A full professor is more likely to get grant funding, hence less time spent on TAship - but could also mean less time/effort spent on interactions with students (either being busy with other projects/talks, or due to more commitments to family at that age).
**Tenure-track faculty (Assistant profs)**
More likely to be young and energetic, and could translate to more time spent on one-to-one discussions with grad students - but funding may prove to be an issue, and may have to be on TA for a longer period.
What other factors would be relevant in this matter, and to what extent am I correct/incorrect in either the factors considered, or for undertaking this exercise at all?<issue_comment>username_1: If you can get any information, don't underestimate the importance of simple personality factors---do you expect to be able to get along personally with your potential advisor? This is hard to gauge if you don't have the chance to meet the person, but talking to current or former students may give you some idea.
Also, I'd add to your list how your advisor is viewed in the rest of the field. Not just on the quality of research (though that's important too), but again, how much people like your advisor personally. Again, a small factor, but having other people in your field like your advisor can make a difference.
Unless you have a very close decision and need a tie-breaker, I'm not sure it's worth trying to read the tea leaves about what tenure status implies, since I suspect the person-by-person variation is greater than the between group variation.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: You listed it in your question, but just to state it as an answer, you will **always** want to look into any professor before joining their lab. This includes:
1. Looking up their publications and becoming familiar with their research *style*; do you agree with how he performs research? Does his thinking style seem similar to yours?
2. Speaking with current and past students from that lab and getting their sense of what it's like working for that professor
3. Talking with the professor yourself and seeing whether there's a personality match
4. Simply looking up their name online and seeing what comes up
I would suggest that tenure status is not as important when deciding what lab to join, unless the professor is having difficulty securing continuous funding. You can ask about funding sources when speaking face to face. Most professors are equally dedicated to their job whether they have tenure or not.
Remember, you will be spending numerous years with this person, and there's a very high cost of switching professors as the years add up. Make sure that you not only like their research but you also get along with them.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: There are a few things I would generally look at in a potential advisor beyond just their research/publications:
* **Who were the co-authors on their papers?** Are they actively collaborating with people in your field - people who could be potentially useful for post-doc posts, etc.? Do their students often show up as primary authors on publications, or are they invariably buried in the middle of a long list of authors?
* **Personality.** This goes beyond just do you like the person. Do they prefer frequent updates, meetings and the like, or is the occasional check-in enough? Are they a morning person and you prefer working nights, or the other way around? If you send a long email, would it get answered, or do they not often fail to answer emails? I've had some professors who I'm very fond of nevertheless would make poor advisors because of wildly disparate working styles.
* **How are their students funded?** Your funding stream can have serious impact on your completion time and productivity. If every semester, its a desperate Pick-N-Mix of funded side projects, TAships, etc. you're going to have a lot on your plate that, while potentially an interesting experience, will slow down your progress.
* **Where do their students end up?** Do they have decent career trajectories? Are they supportive of alternative paths like industry or government?
* **Rank and age.** A young professor might be more aggressive and eager, on the other hand they're less established, don't necessarily have the same level of institutional support, and if they're not yet tenured, its possible they'll disappear. An older professor may be more established and stable, but might not use "cutting edge" techniques, or feel less of an internal drive to publish.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer] |
2012/02/16 | 983 | 3,974 | <issue_start>username_0: Following on from [What is a "Sandwich thesis"?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/149/96) , is there an easy way to find out which departments at which universities will allow a sandwich thesis (aka a *stapler thesis*, *portfolio thesis*, *three-paper thesis*, *thesis by portfolio of publications*, *thesis by publication*, *article thesis* or *compilation thesis*)?
That is to say, universities that explicitly allow PhDs theses that consist of a collection of published or in-press articles, possibly topped and tailed by an introduction and summary? It is, to my knowledge, quite rare in the UK - does it perhaps tend to be a country-specific thing?
I accept that it will depend on the supervisor's approval too, but that's a secondary issue: the supervisor can't allow a stapler thesis if the university/department does not. My question is about identifying eligible departments.<issue_comment>username_1: I know it's a "personal" answer, but I don't think it depends only on the university, but also on the department. For instance, I did my PhD in Computer Science at Paris 6, in France, and the thesis had to be an original document (although it's clearly possible to use content from published papers, but not in a copy/paste way). But I knew someone who did his PhD in Physics at Paris 6, and his PhD was a sandwich/stapler thesis. So there doesn't seem to be a global rule across the University, at least not for Paris 6.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: It's essentially impossible to know if you'll be able to do a stapler thesis or not, because the decision also lies with the thesis supervisor, who may not allow you to do that, *even if* it is allowed by the rules of your university or department. I was co-advised, and one thought a stapler thesis was an inherently logical way to write the thesis, while the other thought it was a really bad way to write a thesis, and didn't allow his students to do it.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: The department where you are going to submit the thesis probably has a document of **PhD/thesis regulations** that specify if such a thesis is allowed. For example, [my department's regulations](http://www.et-inf.uni-hannover.de/fileadmin/institut/promotion/englisch/Promo_DrRerNat_Engl.pdf) have the following statement:
>
> [...] Scientific publications may form a part of a doctoral thesis. If the doctoral thesis consists of several scientific papers, a presentation of the guidelines of the papers submitted has to be added in an appropriate extent. [...]
>
>
>
i.e. a sandwich thesis is possible here. So you should find out if your favored departments have similar regulations and have a look in there.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: I don't think there is an easy way to determine this. I don't think it is often set out in the University regulations. For example, where I did my PhD different departments would have different approaches and within each department different supervisors would have different approaches (that fits to what the department 'allows'). Moreover, by 'approach', I do not mean anything written down. Rather, there were/are unwritten, sometimes spoken, conventions.
You could infer these by looking at what theses have been written at the university, in each department under specific supervisors. N.b., if you have more than one supervisor, the power-relation may determine who's conventions are followed.
All of this is a lot of work. I would like to address what I imagine your original intention is - will I be made to do extra work that could be detrimental to my academic career (by reducing publications, for example)? If this is your motivation, perhaps a more effective tool is to simply see for each potential supervisor where their students ended up afterwards. You would not be able to infer what type of thesis must be written from this, but you would be able to get the bigger picture.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/16 | 446 | 1,825 | <issue_start>username_0: I finished my undergrad last year and have since been working in the private sector. I'm about to submit a paper with my senior thesis results. Two questions about corresponding author information:
1. I'm listing my current affiliation in the private sector for various reasons. We are moving offices, and our address will be changing in about 3 months. **Should I use the new mailing address or the old mailing address?** I know it's kind of silly since nobody sends mail anymore, but I'm curious either way.
2. I will probably be going to grad school in a couple of years, and my private sector e-mail will *not* be accessible if I leave. **Would it be passé for me to list my @gmail.com address for correspondence to ensure I'm always reachable?**
Thanks!<issue_comment>username_1: 1. As you mentioned, the postal address does not matter - but in any case, I'd lean towards the newer address!
2. Its definitely OK to do so - I submitted my Masters thesis with my gmail.com account, due to the exact same scenario as outlined by you (currently working, am hoping to go to grad school this fall).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: 1. I agree with you and shan23, it doesn't really matter, but the newer is probably better.
2. Well, to be bluntly honest, I tend to have a negative a-priori when I see an author of a paper with a gmail address (especially when I review it, when it's not double-blind). I know it's stupid, because it should only be about the quality of the work, but I can't really help it. Mostly because I know that there is no authentication with gmail address (I potentially could get an <EMAIL> address). I think it's ok to give an address that will change, after all, few people spend their entire career in the same institution.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer] |
2012/02/16 | 1,213 | 4,634 | <issue_start>username_0: What is the distinction between the following scientific events:
* conference,
* congress,
* symposium,
* meeting?
While I have some idea about differences (e.g. congress - large and serious, meeting - by a certain organization, ...) I have an impression that sometimes the terms are used interchangeably.
Is it safe to assume that the three later are variants of a scientific conference?<issue_comment>username_1: There are certain (informal) nuances I believe:
1. **Symposium** - Prestigious conferences, generally leading venues in their respective fields. Example: [Symposium on Discrete Algorithms](http://www.siam.org/meetings/da12/), [European Test Symposium](http://ets2012.imag.fr/), [Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS)](http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~rafail/FOCS11/) etc
2. **Conference** - Regular venues for publications, may range from established venues to the archaic. I understand the bulk of publications of most researchers are in one conference or other, as symposiums tend to have a very low acceptance rate.
3. **Meeting** - I'm not so sure there are many of these, but I understand that it is more of a forum for interaction/surveys/posters than for publication of full papers. (I based my answer on the description for [SIAM Annual Meeting 2012](http://www.siam.org/meetings/an12/), which describes itself as providing "a broad view of the state of the art in applied mathematics, computational science, and their applications through invited presentation, prize lectures, minisymposia, and contributed papers and posters".)
4. **Congress** - This would typically be held once a year per discipline, highlighting the achievements, notable results in that field. These are typically attended by leaders in that field, and feature a series of invited talks (for example, look at [Mathematical Congress of the Americas 2013](http://www.siam.org/meetings/calendar.php?id=1065)).
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Nothing. They're synonyms. See also "Workshop".
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: "Conference" or "meeting" are catch-all terms that can refer to any scientific gathering. However, I'd argue that a "Symposium" tends to be smaller than the others, and more narrowly focused. "Conferences," "Congresses," and "Meetings" can all be huge affairs, but it's hard to think of many "Symposium" with a similar size. A "workshop" is also an event of somewhat smaller size than a "congress" (which generally implies a huge attending audience).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: **Congress- Conference- Colloquium- Symposium- Seminar- Workshop;**
have the following differences if one proceeds from Congress to workshop:
* Informality decreases
* Number of participants decreases
* One theme and many sub-themes with a large scope to one narrow theme, scope narrows down
* A number of papers and key note addresses to limited number of papers and key note addresses.
* Informal discussion to hands on job training
* Colloquium is limited to a group of researchers concerned with a few themes mostly to review progress.
* workshop means something job training, do it yourself.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: Such differences also depend on the development of scientific associations and how they named their annual conference/congress/meeting in the first place. For instance the [general conference of the ECPR](https://ecpr.eu/Events/EventTypeDetails.aspx?EventTypeID=2) and the [IPSA World Congress](https://www.ipsa.org/events/pastworldcongresses) Might use different terms, but they all are organised and work quite similarly.
Plus, sometimes, it is just a way of naming a gathering of academics more fancy ;) , see <http://phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1704>
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: **Congress**: A very big meeting (more than 10,000 or at least several thousands of attendees), usually held every few years.
**Conference**: A big meeting (hundreds or a couple of thousands of attendees), usually held annually.
**Symposium**: A meeting on a specific interest/topic. Due to the focused field, usually not very big meetings. Often, conferences or congresses run symposia under them (to help the people in the same field find each other in those large meetings). Some symposia run annually at the same location but on a different topic, and some run on the same topic at a fixed time-interval (annual, every other year, etc.).
**Meeting**: Any gathering to share and discuss the latest findings in a field (all of the above are meetings).
None of these are strict definitions, but general guidelines.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/02/16 | 2,678 | 10,545 | <issue_start>username_0: Speaking to the faculty in my program, I've noticed that they seem to evaluate themselves and others using two criterion: (1) publication quality and quantity, and (2) ability to obtain grant money. No one discusses grades or performance in graduate school classes. Even when potential faculty candidates come around, this doesn't seem to be emphasized at all. **What role do grades play in my PhD career?**<issue_comment>username_1: As far as your research stature is concerned, grades would matter *least* of all, below other non-academic stuff as your soft-skills, your personality etc. There are a number of reasons for this:
1. No one cares about your GPA once you are a researcher! While it certainly looks nice to have a stellar GPA, it's the work that you do and where you publish that would matter. Look up some resumes of notable faculty in your field - how many even list their MS/BS grades?
2. I might even say that your adviser would not be too happy if you have a 4.0 GPA - as it means you are spending time on perfecting your grades which is more profitably spent on research! I actually have read this on a faculty/university webpage - would post the link once I dig it up. **EDIT**: Haven't found the faculty website link yet, but [here](http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=469)'s a [couple](http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=470) from an established source, phdcomics - enjoy!
PS: I'm actually waiting for [JeffE](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65/jeffe) to comment on this: His credentials are such that I'm not even qualified to state them, and he himself claims that [he had the lowest undergraduate GPA](http://compgeom.cs.uiuc.edu/~jeffe/) amongst any professor he's ever met!
EDIT: I'm talking about grades in subjects that you *have* to take as part of requirements of grad school - you would be expected to master the subjects that are directly required in your Ph.D research thesis, so your adviser would expect great grades in them naturally!
**tl;dr** - They don't matter (as long as you clear all your subjects!)
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In some graduate schools I've been to (I've worked at a few and tried working on a masters at one), a `C` lands you on probation, and a second `C` gets you dismissed. Other than this, you're correct, they're irrelevant as the important measures involve funding and publishing.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: To be a bit blithe about it, grades matter until they don't. When you are a PhD student, the grades will matter until after you've completed your "qualification" process, in whatever form that takes. If you do well on the exams, then your grades don't matter much; if you're "on the bubble," you might be helped by solid performance in your graduate coursework.
Where grades continue to matter are:
* if you decide to apply for a graduate fellowship, in which case review committees will usually want to see evidence of strong academic performance at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.
* when you apply for jobs, as employers will similarly want to see evidence that you took coursework somewhat seriously. (Some employers may—wrongly, in my view—have GPA cutoffs for graduate students!)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: Just to note one place where they do matter: they may help you find a willing advisor. I am not inclined to take on students who don't do outstanding work in the first-year graduate course that I teach. On the other hand, students who are at the top of the class may find faculty trying to attract *them*.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: I will actually take a strong opinion that my subpar grades from undergrad and graduate school are a large factor in why my PhD is going to take a long time. As [username_4](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/81/david-ketcheson) mentioned, quality grades and GRE scores are important denominators for Graduate fellowships. So far the NSF, NIH, and DOE have all denied me fellowships because I have a lowish GPA according to my reviews.
That being said, once you are an established researcher with a paper track record, the grades really shouldn't matter asides being a bragging point.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: I currently direct a graduate program and as others have said, grades are most important while you're in a graduate program when decisions about funding are being made. C's may get you dismissed, and B's could lead to no funding in programs where funding is limited to a handful of students. If you are in a terminal MA program and applying to PhD programs, grades matter. After graduation and when you're on the job market, grades won't matter as much as your dissertation, publications and recommendations. The way that grades would matter then would be what they say about your professors' estimation of your work and whether they are likely to write you strong rec. letters. In short - if you get anything below an A, talk to the professor about what you could have done to do better and strive to get there.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: It depends, but what I have seen so far (w.r.t. Computer Science PhD perspective) is a bit different than other opinions in this post.
I am doing PhD (Computer Science) in the US (at a mediocre school) and most of my cohorts (not most, actually all of them) have a very decent GPA (like 3.9+ out of 4.0), even couple of them have perfect 4.0/4.0 and a very *few* of them are publishing pretty much good level of research works.
Moreover, most of my faculty members in my school have similar credentials (good grade, good research background, and most of them are from top notch schools like UMD, UPenn, UMich, VTech) -- although my school ranks 60+ in the nation (according to US News, in CS specialization).
Even PhD students in my department who did summer research intern in big companies like google, IBM, Microsoft are also equipped with a good GPA. Even some of them have no publication at all !!, even after being a PhD student for more than 2 years. You will be surprised to know that one of them is currently working as a research intern position at google with no research paper at all, he has been a PhD student for last 2.5 years !! Moreover, if you are from a good school, things will be lot easier.
So, what I see, situation is totally opposite in US. Here Pedigree > GPA > publications.
I used to be the "odd one out", I had a decent publication record (published 4 conference papers during my masters (from a top school outside US) and 2 more in my 1st year of PhD here), but I settled with a low grade (3.2+), compared to others it is actually a "bad". Moreover, the venues that I have published my research works are considered to be quite decent in my field (two of the venues are in the top 20 lists in Microsoft academic search [ranking](http://academic.research.microsoft.com/RankList?entitytype=3&topDomainID=2&subDomainID=5&last=0&start=1&end=100), even I got one best student paper award there. In the US, keeping up both research works and regular course load is quite challenging, at least for me.
Such situation compelled me to focus more on the grades and to start practicing problems from sites like "careercup" to land a job in industry -- that's what others are doing here, and this is a totally disappointing and frustrating experience for me.
I had to cut my time on research as much as possible, now just doing a minimal possible work to maintain my supervisor's "happiness threshold level". Here, landing an academic job is harder than in industries -- unless you are a "rock star" researcher -- and this is the reality. Being a mediocre researcher (like me) from a mediocre school does not count much, neither in industry nor academia.
Last but not the least, I am an international student deceived by the so called delusion of "the land of opportunity".
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: You may need good grades during the first two years of your PhD (the time you would be doing your MS, if you applied to a separate MS program) for the reasons listed above: fellowships, in case you decide to drop out and get a industry job, etc.
After two years in a PhD program, worrying about your GPA is a complete waste of time. I've yet to see any research university even *ask* for a transcript of your graduate classwork. Some research positions in industry might require a transcript and take into account your GPA, but I don't think this (misguided) practice is common.
What's true for certain is that if you're spending late nights and long hours polishing that final project in a class totally unrelated to your research area, so that you will get an A+ instead of an A -- please stop. You are hurting your career.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: Straight A's didn't get me into trouble with my advisor. My committee didn't care either.
I was always told there are three grades in grad school: excellent (A), adequate (B), and failing (C).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_10: I am a Ph.D. student in my second year of research. I hold two MBA's and a bachelors degree. Each of my GPA's raised a bit in the course of my academic career (3.52 - 4.0). I am currently on the President's lists for Capella University. I do not think it matters to most. It certainly feels good to place a 4.0 in my application to teach at universities but I doubt it does much for my selection. The larger impact is what differences can you make. I have saught after a reputation to help develop peoples motivation towards academics, so a strong GPA helps prove that I know how to provide good advice on study habits to help others navigate through Bloom's Taxonomy. I would say, simply do your best! If you are in a Ph.D. program, you pretty much have a focused goal, and all the other crap is noise. Do your best, clear your classes, and focus on what is most important to you, not on what you think others will expect of you. Remember, Doctoral Students only account for less than 2% of America's population so take that into consideration when concerning yourself of what people will think of you. Be brave, take chances and have fun with your studies. You may lose points for being late, may lose points for a paper being too long, or perhaps you explored something not related to the assignment but got a lot out of it, don't stress about a perfect grade. A perfect GPA means nothing if you didn't maximize the opportunity to learn.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/16 | 581 | 2,338 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm having the problem that my advisor isn't providing me with any real guidance. To avoid making this a rant post, I'll just state the facts: my advisor is an MD/PhD, working almost full-time as an MD. He comes to the lab once a week for lab meetings, and often doesn't have time to meet. He seems to have lost interest in doing research, and isn't being helpful at all regarding how I should proceed with my research.
So far, here's what I've tried and how well it worked out:
* Talking to department graduate chair: marginally useful, scheduled a useless meeting with me and my advisor. Nice meeting, but no results.
* Talk to other members of my committee: pretty useful, gave me some very good advice about my research, but I wonder how often I can use them as a resource
Any other suggestions on how I can handle this?<issue_comment>username_1: My answer depends on how far along you are in your research and whether you are in PhD or MD?PhD program.
If you are in a PhD program and you are less than a year in leave the lab. If you are more than a year in at you next Thesis Committee meeting, if it's scientifically reasonable, try to either set a date for graduating or ask for a co-PI.
If you are in the MD/PhD program, you will have to consider your PI's position and whether a lukewarm letter from someone in his position is worth your staying in the lab. If you plan to go into a competitive surgicial or medical subspecialty, it just might be.
I, sadly, think that checked-out PIs- even those without the excuse of having to go see patients- are increasingly the norm. Getting to be a professor is a great way to age rapidly and burn out, especially in the biomedical sciences. Also, professors aren't selected for their mentoring skills so much as scientific productivity. Often scientific productivity means exploitation or disregard because of self-involvement rather than nurturing.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In addition to the department chair, is there a head of graduate studies or the like (e.g., an ombudsman)? You may want to consider talking to them.
Generally speaking though, unless it will *severely* derail your progress, I'd consider changing advisors, and starting to talk to your committee members about shifting who is your chair.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/02/16 | 1,345 | 5,955 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm a student currently pursuing my masters in computer science.
My present area of research is computational algrebraic geometry (theory of grobner bases and tropical geometry).
Afterwards, I'm interested in pursuing my PhD in pure mathematics.
I would like know if I'll be elligible for applying to pure math PhD programs?
And if yes, do I have any realistic chance of getting into one?
What else can I do to improve my chances of being accepted?<issue_comment>username_1: I wouldn't rate your chances as very high, but the following factors might help nevertheless:
1. Your credentials (where you did your BS/MS from), and what balance of mathematics courses did you take - were there any electives, and of course, how you fared in them.
2. Since you didn't mention it, I'm assuming you haven't published in any decent mathematical venues - it helps your chances a lot if you had publishable results prior to your application. If you find it difficult to get published, post (interesting and useful) results to arxiv - that would boost your case in any case.
3. Mathematics is a vast field - it would help a lot if you were to continue along the directions to which you've already had some research background in (and maybe published on), and could get an interested faculty to have a look at your profile.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: (I speak from limited experience, and none on the "reading applications and deciding" side. Technically my undergraduate degree was in a program somewhere between math and CS, but I'd taken a fairly math-oriented slant on it.)
Having a masters degree in a related field certainly doesn't make you ineligible to pursue a PhD in math. The only disadvantage I can see for taking time to do a masters degree in a slightly different area, as opposed to, say, working in industry, is that you may need to work harder to explain why you're changing areas.
(Also you'll have some record of doing research, and you might be judged in part on the quality of that research where an undergrad might be given the benefit of the doubt.)
If you want to continue working in a closely related area that's a bit more in the mathematical direction, it shouldn't be very hard to explain why you've decided to continue that work in mathematics rather than CS. It's a bigger issue if you want to do something very different in math---the worry would be that whatever caused you to lose interest in computational algebraic geometry will happen again. That's not insurmountable, but it will be more of a hurdle to convince the faculty you're really interested enough in the new area to stick out a PhD.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Short answer: Yes. Absolutely. You are already doing mathematics.
A few bits of advice:
* Ask your advisor and other references to specifically address your mathematical depth and maturity in their recommendation letters.
* Include a *technical* summary of your past research, including pointers to ArXiv preprints if possible, in your statement of purpose.
* Apply to math departments that employ computational algebraic geometers. Three that come to mind immediately are <NAME> at Purdue, <NAME> at Texas A&M, and Bernd Sturmfels at Berkeley.
(I know at least half a dozen former CS grad students who successfully switched into mathematics.)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I've served on graduate admissions committees for a math department in a research university. It really won't matter what your degrees are in, as long as the substance is there, but you need to be careful of several points:
1. You need recommendations from people the committee is familiar with, preferably at least one or two mathematicians. The more they committee knows about your letter writers, the better. (For example, if someone says you are one of the best students in recent years, is that because you are great or because they give inflated praise to everyone? There's no way of knowing if the committee hasn't seen previous recommendations from this person.) It's also important for your recommenders to have enough of a feeling for math grad school that they can confidently address whether you will be successful; for example, theoretical computer scientists can probably do this better than people in more applied areas of CS. Finally, many people believe recommenders are a little less selective about recommending people for things outside of their own area, so recommendations from other fields are often given less weight.
2. You need to demonstrate that you have mastered the undergraduate material that is less relevant for computer science. For example, mathematical analysis along the lines of Rudin's *Principles of Mathematical Analysis*. Even if you know a lot about algebra and discrete math, you might still not be in a position to pass some first-year graduate courses in pure math, or you might discover that you don't enjoy them.
3. You need a compelling story for why you are changing departments. If you focus on not liking what you are currently doing, or on wanting a fresh start, then it will not go over well. There are much more positive stories, about gradually coming to appreciate that pure math is your real interest, but you should write carefully. This is tantamount to admitting that the last time you entered a graduate program, you didn't really know what you were interested in, and you don't want to leave the committee with any worries that this might still be true. If you can say this honestly, then it might help to say something along these lines: when you finished your undergraduate degree, you were unsure about pure math vs. CS, so you decided to write an extremely mathematical CS master's thesis, and this experience has helped you decide where your real interests are. (Being unsure in the past comes across better than having thought you were sure and then realizing you were wrong.)
Upvotes: 4 |
2012/02/16 | 2,019 | 8,709 | <issue_start>username_0: I have been told that there is a correlation between being a good teacher and being a good researcher (like [this](http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~harchol/gradschooltalk.pdf) paper, in page 15, point 3.6), but i have not found any references or studies about it.
Does any know if there is really such correlation, or have studies to confirm or deny it?<issue_comment>username_1: I don't think there can be any studies to confirm or deny something like that, simply because neither "good teacher" nor "good researcher" can be quantified objectively without bias, and in the absence of that, how can you compare?
But qualitatively, I think the conclusion naturally follows in most cases - both require one to be enthusiastic about their subject in the first place, and require a certain depth of comprehension before they can either publish their results or interact with inquisitive students successfully!
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I don't have any formal evidence, but I can tell you that at my university there are people who are only doing teaching (and are good at it). If being a good teacher implied being a good researcher, these people would be at least involved in research as well.
Similarly, there are many people who are good teachers at high school level and not involved in research in any way.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: It's hard to evaluate, but from my experience I don't think such correlation exist, or if it exists, it is not extremely evident. Age can certainly be a discriminant, but assumed equivalence in age, a good teacher spends a lot of time in teaching activities, such as preparation, testing, and student nurturing. This leaves very little time for research. Also, most brilliant minds are too involved in their own projects (at the limit of being asocial) and don't make good communicators. The great advantage of a teacher is that he must be "not that smart", that is, he must understand where a difficulty may lie, and come up with a brilliant example to make it clear. Not everyone is Feynman..
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: It seems likely that there's some nonzero correlation. Certainly, there are factors that should lead to positive correlation; for example, some personality traits (like conscientiousness) should lead to both better research and better teaching. There are also factors that should lead to negative correlation; for example, teaching and research are activities that are competing for a limited amount of time. It would be strange if all these factors nearly cancelled each other out, so we should expect some net correlation. Here's an argument for positive:
Let's distinguish between two aspects of teaching, namely exposition and psychology. Exposition means finding simple explanations, coming up with illuminating examples and analogies, mapping out the most important topics and the relationships between them, etc. Psychology means understanding where students are coming from and what they do or don't understand, empathizing and bonding with them, arousing their interest and inspiring them to achieve great things, etc. Both of these are important factors in good teaching, although neither is absolutely essential. A master of exposition without a good understanding of psychology may be clear but dull, and someone who understands psychology but isn't good at exposition may have to follow a textbook closely, but either one will be much better than some teachers.
Expository ability is almost certainly correlated with research ability, since they both rely on a deep, creative understanding of the subject matter. In mathematics, the standard example is <NAME>, who is both a brilliant mathematician and the author of several amazing graduate textbooks, and one can see similar characteristics in his research papers and textbooks.
However, the psychology side of teaching is probably not closely connected with research ability. There may be some correlation, just because smart people tend to be better than average at all kinds of thinking, but I'd bet the correlation is small. Certainly, there are wonderful researchers who have a terrible understanding of psychology, and vice versa, in a far more dramatic way than for exposition.
I see this split as perhaps explaining why there's so much debate about whether good research and good teaching are correlated, with some people saying obviously yes and others obviously no. The answer depends on which aspects of teaching you view as most important.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: There are any number of reasons that teaching and research might be correlated, or be anti correlated. These reasons will all combine and interact, so you will see a range of extents of correlations. Here are a few:
* They can be positively correlated because communication is a part of research, so giving good lectures and scientific talks, writing good papers and lessons will be correlated.
* They must be negatively correlated as a consequence of both taking time from the same individual academic. No one has infinite time.
* They can be positive correlated because excellent departments and universities value their academics' time and provide resources like secretaries and teaching assistants to help academics have time for both.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_6: I would to add a review point to the discussion that could imply a negative correlation. Teaching students takes empathy, understanding that they do not yet understand and what makes them not understand. A top researcher has probably not experienced this when he/she was in school. Lesser researchers might be better at understanding why a student doesn't get it. Also, a good mind does not imply excellent communicative skills. I would say the correlation is non-existing or slightly positive.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: Only reference I know of:
Feldon et al (2011) Graduate student's teaching experiences improve their research skills. Science, 333, 1037-1040.
<http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6045/1037.full>
The authors found a that students who taught improved their abilities to generate testable hypotheses.
So yes, I assume that this means that there is a correlation between being a good researcher and being a good teacher beyond the simple point of being able to communicate your findings more effectively.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: Correlation is not causation. Beware of studies that confuse the two.
For those with non-statistical background, it is like "eating ice cream and "driving a car". There may be a positive or negative (or no) relationship between eating ice cream and causing an accident but ice-cream in itself does not cause the accident.
Similarly, it is not necessary to be a good researcher because one is a good teacher and vice-versa - a notion that is sort of reflected in the many answers.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: This is significantly after the fact, but [this paper](http://www.nber.org/papers/w19406) just came out. It purports to show that students learn the most/best from instructors who are NOT tenure-track professors, potentially due to the added burden performing research has on an instructor.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: There's a negative correlation. It's been well found in my experience. If you're a good researcher, you'd not be your students favorite. It's like thinking a professional in say big data would teach a subject of big data properly. It sounds like it might, but it won't. A professional would always be in a hurry to go to office, keep thinking about his job, he's doing teaching just as a means to make money in a greedy sense. Same goes for researchers, they're there teaching just so that they can get funds to research, they don't want to teach kids about concepts that can be learnt by reading 10 pages of a textbook. They're there for bigger and better things.
So my answer isn't necessarily if a good teacher and good researcher has any correlation. My answer is that anyone who is doing multiple professions just to make more cash (or benefits) isn't going to do it very well. And professors in university have very good power. We had professors who failed 90% of his students, used to come half a hour late to class and left half a hour earlier, we learnt that we were just too dumb. The professor still teaches.
Nobody doing multiple professions can be best at both job. Teaching and writing are two jobs that people don't take seriously. Only students know how serious of a job is teaching and only readers know how difficult of a job is writing. Everyone else thinks, otherwise.
Upvotes: -1 |
2012/02/16 | 1,954 | 7,117 | <issue_start>username_0: Coming from France, where any official academic position (i.e. associate professor or full professor, or equivalent positions at public research institutes) is a civil-servant one, and therefore automatically for life, I've been always intrigued by the "tenure" system in the US.
While reading the [Wikipedia article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure), I spotted the following paragraph:
>
> While tenure protects the occupant of an academic position, it does not protect against the elimination of that position. For example, a university that is under financial stress may take the drastic step of eliminating or downsizing some departments.
>
>
>
Does this kind of elimination/downsizing occur a lot in practice? Is it possible to "cheat" and to pretend to cut a position in order to save money just to get rid of a tenured professor? Are there some laws stating that if a position is cut, then another equivalent one cannot be created right after?<issue_comment>username_1: I haven't seen any statistics on how many tenure professors have been fired, but most articles on the topic treat tenure as though it's a lifetime position (e.g., [this Science article, "Tenure and the Future of the University"](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5931/1147.summary?sid=a7d9043f-a59f-499d-b610-d4092920493c)). Anecdotally, you will likely never meet someone who *knows someone else* who was fired from a tenure position; it simply doesn't happen.
Note, however, that the number of tenure track positions made available over the past decade been trending downward fairly significantly (see the same article, and simply do a [google search on the topic](http://www.google.com/search?q=percentage+of+tenure+positions) to see more).
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It does happen occasionally that entire departments are shut down. An example I remember being in the news a lot was [several language departments at SUNY Albany](http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/10/04/albany). But it's an extreme measure and even with the current severe economic situation it did not happen very often.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: In practice, a tenured appointment is one of the safest job positions out there. Essentially, the number of things which can get a tenured professor "sacked" are exceedingly small, and most of these involve criminal actions. (Even in such cases, the university tends to pressure resignations rather than try to fire them, as has happened, for instance, in high-profile cases at [Harvard](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Hauser) and [Yale](http://yaleherald.com/archive/xxvi/11.13.98/front.html).)
Outside of that, you need the aforementioned budget catastrophes that lead to elimination of entire departments. Even then, sometimes departments are allowed to "decay" rather than get eliminated—current staff stays as the department gets wound down, without new hires and additional support.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: Even if you don't get fired, the department can still make you miserable enough to want to leave. Tenure contracts often only guarantee a small salary, say 50% of the base salary when you were originally hired. Years later, that could be a pittance due to inflation.
Your department could tell you that your research isn't important or significant, and they could require you to do more teaching and service on committees, leaving you very little time to do any research. You could lose your lab space or access to shared equipment. You might not be allowed to take on new students or to hire technicians.
So you'll want to leave, even if they can't officially fire you. You can read some horror stories on [this website](https://chronicle.com/forums/).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: I've seen one case that almost led to firing a tenured faculty member. The university had found him guilty of misconduct and tried to get him to resign; as far as I can tell this involved incentives more than threats. But when that approach failed, the university began proceedings to revoke his tenure and fire him. The "definition" of tenure at my university amounts to specifying what those procedures must include, and they make the the process so cumbersome that no one would want to invoke them except in extreme cases. In this case, the person finally reached an agreement with the university and resigned, on the day that the Board of Regents was to meet to revoke his tenure. Even so, he apparently got come concessions from the university. In particular, a short time later, the people involved in the tenure revocation hearings, even those like me who were only indirectly involved, were informed by the university's lawyers that, under the resignation agreement, we are not allowed to divulge who this person is. As far as I know, that gag order is still in force.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: [Thoughts on Academic Tenure](http://www.joebaugher.com/Tenure.htm) by <NAME> (August 15, 2014):
>
> Tenure can only be revoked for valid cause--normally a professor has
> to do something really wrong or really stupid to lose tenure. Most
> universities have disciplinary procedures already in place for
> handling such cases—typically a quasi-judicicial proceeding is
> provided, surrounded by due-process protections and an opportunity for
> the accused to provide a defense. Such cases are quite rare--**in the
> US, according to the Wall Street Journal (Jan 10, 2005), it is
> estimated that only 50 to 75 tenured professors (out of about 280,000)
> lose their tenure each year**. Revocation of tenure is usually a
> lengthy, costly, and tedious procedure, very often resulting in a
> lawsuit. Grounds for dismissal typically include doing something
> illegal like embezzling research funds, stealing school property, or
> conviction of a felony or any offense involving “moral turpitude”.
> The grounds for tenure revocation can also include things such as
> professional incompetence, gross academic malfeasance such as
> plagiarism or the faking of research results, falsification of records
> or credentials, neglect of duty, unprofessional or confrontational
> conduct toward colleagues, sleeping with a student, sexual harassment
> of another faculty member, or other conduct which falls below minimum
> standards of professional integrity. A tenured faculty member can
> also be dismissed if they develop a physical or mental disability, one
> so serious that even with reasonable accommodations the faculty member
> is no longer able to perform the essential duties of their position.
>
>
>
<NAME>, "[Dismissals for Cause](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=8336648275769238261&hl=en&as_sdt=40000005&sciodt=0,22)", The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 7, 1994, p. A17, as reported by [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure):
>
> In 1994, a study in The Chronicle of Higher Education found that
> "about 50 tenured professors [in the US] are dismissed each year for
> cause."
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/16 | 650 | 2,798 | <issue_start>username_0: Generally speaking, are there good "milestones" to suggest that a graduate student should initiate their job search? Roughly a year from completion? More? Less? Is there a particular time of year a job search should be kicked off?
Basically: The job search, how do I time it?<issue_comment>username_1: The following is condensed from advice for academic job hunts that I've read [here](http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/oleary/gradstudy/node12.html#SECTION000124000000000000000) and [here](http://matt.might.net/articles/advice-for-academic-job-hunt/#timing) - I imagine it should be somewhat applicable for jobs in industry as well:
* If you would be applying for a position at Fall, begin applying from summer the previous year - applications tend to be sorted during committee meets, and the earlier you apply, the fewer applications are there, so there are higher chances of getting your application noticed. Hence, you'll want to draft your research statement, teaching statement and curriculum vitæ (CV) the summer before your search. If you are applying for industrial as well as academic positions, you probably want more than one resume, since achievement, skills, and goal-oriented resumes can be more effective in the industrial setting.
* The middle of January is when most schools stop accepting applications. Even then, keep submitting to any position you find through February, particularly if someone there recommends you apply. You will probably hear back with invitations for interviews in January and February, but sometimes even March and April.
* Get your letter writers primed as early as possible. You'll need at most six letter writers, but no less than three, and you'll want to ask them at least a month in advance with all your documents.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: If you're talking about job searches in general, it's *never* too early to start making contacts with potential future employers. Getting on their "radar screen" early can only help you when it comes time to apply formally for jobs; in addition, if you are their "preferred" candidate, you may find a job posting "stressing" your particular research direction.
When it comes time for the actual submission of applications, academic positions typically operate on an annual cycle that depends on the field, and you should plan accordingly, as given in the response by shan23. The timing for other jobs varies, in particular depending upon the state of the economy. However, at the absolute minimum, you should start applying six months before your anticipated graduation; in the current circumstances, I think twelve months ' advance lead is also acceptable. Further out, the crystal ball is probably too cloudy for both employer and applicant.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/02/16 | 1,100 | 4,000 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm looking for an online resources that lists all summer schools of the actual year in a specific domain. Are there any sites? I just found one: [Summer Schools in Europe](http://www.summerschoolsineurope.eu/), but this site seems to be a little bit outdated and doesn't have a lot of summer schools.
In my case, I'm focused on software engineering and Europe. But if it is a world-wide source I wouldn't mind.<issue_comment>username_1: For software engineering maybe you can find sth [here](http://lanyrd.com/search/?q=summer+school).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I would say that one of the best online resources for Software Engineering is [SEWORLD](http://www.sigsoft.org/seworld/). You can browse their archives and look for summer schools there.
Note that their search engine is a bit weird, if you go through "search the archive", put Summer school in the subject and "2010-1-1" in the starting date (when I leave it blank, I don't get recent results). For future references, here is the result of this query:
* ISSSE 2012 - 9th International Summer School on Software Engineering
* Summer School Marktoberdorf 2012] *Call for Application*
* LASER Summer School 2012: Innovative Languages for Software Engineering
* CALL FOR PARTICIPATION - 4th RiSE International Summer School (RISS) - Next Generation of Software Product Lines
* summer school VTSA 2011
* Summer School on Technologies for Realizing Social Networks and Applications
* CFP: 1st Insubria International Summer School on Open Source Software (IISSOSS 2011)
* Summer School on Mechanized Logic for High Assurance Software
* Canadian Summer School on Practical Analyses of Software Engineering Data
* UPCRC Illinois Offers Summer School on Multicore Programming
* 3rd International CASE Summer School on Practical Experimentation in Software Engineering - July 11-15, 2011 - Free University of Bolzano-Bozen
* Summer School on Programming Languages for Concurrent and Parallel Computing
* 8th International Summer School on Software Engineering (ISSSE 2011)
* [Summer School Marktoberdorf 2011] *Call for Application*
* LASER Summer School 2011: Tools for Practical Software Verification
* [CFA] Summer School on Programming Languages PL2010
* CALL FOR PARTICIPATION - 3rd RiSE International Summer School (RiSS) - Generative Reuse
* Call for participation to the 3rd International Summer School on Adaptive Socio-Technical Pervasive Systems
* CfP ADAPT Summer School
* DSM-TP 2010: 1st International Summer School on Domain Specific Modeling - Theory and Practice - Call for participation
* Call for participation: VTSA 2010 Summer School on Verification Technology, Systems & Applications
* 6th REASONING WEB Summer School "Semantic Technologies for Software Engineering"
* Summer School on Mining Software Repositories - June 2010, Kingston, Canada
* CfP: UPCRC Illinois Summer School on Multicore Programming
* LASER Summer School on Software Engineering
* TiC'10: Third International Summer School on Trends in Concurrency
* Call for Part: CASE Summer School, Bolzano, Italy, 19-23 July 2010
* CfPart: 6th TAROT Summer School on Software Testing
* 7th International Summer School on Software Engineering
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: You should also check [this list](http://user.it.uu.se/~bengt/Info/summer-schools.shtml).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Take a look at [Dagstuhl Seminars](http://www.dagstuhl.de/en/program/calendar/?dag_type=345&dag_year=2012). In that space some summer (and winter) schools on SE are frequently offered.
Their list is updated very frequently, and they make available a schedule of events about to happen for a couple of years. This way, you can organize your time (and money) to attend any school.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: You can check [ABC Business Academy Summer School](https://abc-businessacademy.com/). It's not software engineering specific, but it hits the broader scope of the topic.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/02/17 | 1,922 | 7,795 | <issue_start>username_0: I am a Canadian undergraduate student intending to get a master's degree, but not intending to get a Ph.D.
A Canadian graduate student told me that master's degree in the US are really only designed for people desiring to get a Ph.D.
Is there any truth to this statement? Do masters degrees in the US put significantly more emphasis on preparation for a Ph.D than in other countries?<issue_comment>username_1: This is a partial representation of the truth. On the one hand, departments are always looking to retain masters students as PhD students; it's better for the department (better numbers), it's better for the professors (more research from PhD relative to masters), and it's better for the university. On the other hand, simply looking at the numbers you'll see that most masters students do not go on to become a PhD student [[1]](http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/tables/dt05_009.asp). I think it's safe to say that most students who go through masters programs enter with a goal in mind (academia or industry) and finish with that same goal in mind.
I don't know how it works in other countries, so I can't compare that. Also, regarding whether they put more emphasis on PhD *preparation* than in other countries, I don't know how to quantify that.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: If you look at the description for [Cornell M.Eng program in computer science](http://www.cs.cornell.edu/grad/MEngProgram/index.htm), you'd find it describes itself as:
>
> The M.Eng. program in Computer Science is a one-year (two semester) professional development program designed to enhance professional skills in practical computer science. **The program is particularly suited to students seeking advanced credentials for employment in industry**
>
>
>
So, I would have said it depends from program to program, but I won't - most MS programs in computer science in US have the same (unstated) goals, and while candidates entering the PhD program find it convenient to have already had a MS degree (reduces course credit requirements), the majority of the graduates take up jobs in the industry. Some MS programs have a *thesis* option, wherein it takes an extra semester to graduate but provides a platform for tasting research - if you opt for that, then you may consider this as a preparatory semester for a doctoral program.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: There are two very different kinds of computer science master's degrees:
* Professional master programs involve taking lots of classes, but have no research requirement. These are almost universally considered (academically) terminal degrees. The actual degree is usually *not* "M.S.", but something similar like "M.Eng." (Cornell) or "M.C.S." (UIUC).
* Research masters programs require at least a modicum of original research, usually leading to a thesis. These are generally (but *not* universally) considered preparation for a PhD program, because of the research component. The actual degree is usually "M.S." In some departments, the MS program is equivalent to MCS + thesis; in other programs, the MS program has different (usually smaller but more advanced) course requirements.
It is **very important** to know which type of master's program you are applying to.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Also keep in mind that this is *very* field-dependent as well as program dependent. There are no hard-and-fast rules.
In a lot of fields in the natural sciences, an M.S. is the standard working degree, and so in many fields people traditionally do a stand-alone M.S. regardless of whether they plan on going on to a PhD.
As an example, in geoscience, M.S. degrees are one of two types:
1. Those handed out automatically en route to a PhD (usually after passing quals/prelims).
2. Those that consist of a stand-alone project/degree.
The big difference with other fields is that the stand-alone, industry-oriented M.S. is the one that requires a thesis. The other is rather meaningless unless you get a PhD from the same program as well.
Both are common precursors to a PhD (it's very common in geoscience to do an M.S. on a fairly different project than your PhD). However, the first type isn't seen as its own degree, and is often looked down upon (e.g. "he/she dropped out with an M.S." vs. "he/she got their M.S. at XYZ").
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: Its extremely field and program dependent. For example, in my field, Epidemiology, there are (I'd argue) actually three types of Masters degrees. Annoyingly, they're not named consistently, so you have to read a program's description to figure out which is which:
* Preparation for PhD degrees (MSPH, MPH): These degrees are intended to be stepping stones towards a PhD in the field. Emphasis is on advanced classwork and research, they may actually be joint admissions (get your MSPH and then your PhD), etc.
* Post-doctoral terminal degrees (usually MPH): So you already *have* a doctorate degree of some sort. PhD, MD, JD...and find yourself doing public health work, and in need of a somewhat more formalized treatment of the subject. These are *very* classwork heavy, often with classes that don't entirely overlap with the PhD-type classes, depending on the audience. They often don't have as heavy a research component to them.
* Masters-as-Final-Degree (MSPH, MPH): *Tons* of public health work doesn't need a doctorate, and everyone knows it. Data manager or statistical analyst for the government, industry or academia? That's a Master's level position. Most local/state public health work can and is done by people with Master's degrees as well. These often emphasize more practical experiences - internships, practicums, etc.
So many master's degree programs are oriented toward the PhD track, but there's a considerable number in some fields that are designed for people who don't want to head into academia, but need an advanced degree for one reason or another - going into industry, government service, etc.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: There are many kinds of masters programs.
* Often students intending on going into industry in a technical field will get a masters degree. Many schools have masters programs specifically designed for such a student; they are usually focused on coursework rather than research.
* There are degrees like the MBA (Master of Business Administration) that are designed for business people who have no interest in academic careers, and do not lead to a doctorate.
* In some fields the masters degree is terminal, and doctoral degrees are rare or nonexistent. For instance, in the fine and performing arts, the masters (MFA) is the highest degree offered by most institutions.
* A masters degree is typically the minimum requirement for faculty at two-year community colleges; some students in masters programs are headed for such a career.
* In many states, high school teachers are encouraged to have a masters degree in their subject. Some universities have masters programs in fields such as mathematics, history, or English, that are specifically designed for prospective or working teachers in these areas, and are not preparation for a Ph.D.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: It's the other way around. That's because America is a nation of "doers" at least compared to Europeans.
MANY U.S. Master's degrees are terminal degrees. Think of a Master's as a "two year graduate" degree, just like an associates degree is a "two year college" degree.
Americans don't like to spend more time on education than necessary. There are Master's programs that lead to PhDs. But something like 40 percent of students in "non-terminal" degrees are foreign, not American, born.
You seem to fit the "American" mold.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/02/17 | 1,555 | 6,423 | <issue_start>username_0: *Note: I'm primarily interested in answers relevant to Computer Science (Theory), but answers in different areas in CS / totally other disciplines are equally welcome.*
In most (if not all) PhD programs, incoming grad students are supposed to take relevant courses and fulfill their TA-ship duties (I'm assuming not everyone gets a RA from the 1st semester itself). During that time, they are also expected (and highly encouraged) to keep reading on their chosen research field, to have a concrete idea of where all the focus in that field is at that moment.
In my opinion, I would consider that attending important conferences and interacting with leading researchers in their field would play a very important role in the development of a young researcher, as he/she would have the chance to get motivated by the best brains in the business! But, it is unlikely that he/she would have publishable results at such venues within such a short time, and if he/she doesn't have a fellowship/travel scholarship, it is unlikely that he'd be able to afford the registration/travel/accommodation expenses from his own stipend.
So, what are the options in front of such a student to make attending such events possible:
1. Do advisers cover the expenses for their incoming grad students, for
attending such talks/conferences, or is there a provision for such
funds from the department ?
2. How much does the answer to the above question vary between different colleges - I've heard (unconfirmed) reports that
higher-ranked institutions have more funds to burn, and as such
students in such departments can afford to attend talks without
publishing in them (at least for the first 2 semesters) ?
3. Are there specific scholarships/fellowships that exist to primarily cater to conference related expenses for students? If so,
it would be great to get some leads on where to look, and what are
the primary qualifications (>90% of fellowships in US require the
applicant to be an US citizen, making it extremely difficult for
international students to get one!) ?<issue_comment>username_1: For questions 1 and 2: it **depends**: you have to find out from your individual advisor/department/university. Furthermore, you characterisation
>
> In most (if not all) PhD programs, incoming grad students are supposed to take relevant courses...
>
>
>
is certainly not true internationally. Many PhD positions in Europe, for example, expect the student to already have had a Masters degree and to start doing research the minute they arrive. For those positions attending conferences starting in the first year is almost a must.
For Question 3:
The best place to look is the conference organisation itself. Often funding is given to students to encourage participation. A lot of professional organisations also offer funding for full time graduate students to travel. (But note that preferences for grants maybe given to those individuals presenting [either orally or at a poster session] at the conference.) Some examples:
* The [American Mathematical Society](http://www.ams.org/student-travel) offers travel grants for any full time graduate student in mathematics to go to one of their sectional meetings, and for any last year graduate student in mathematics to go to the Joint Mathematics Meetings.
* The [American Geophysical Union](http://www.agu.org/education/grants/travel.shtml) has a host of various travel grants available. And I want to especially outline their Lloyd V. Berkner Travel Fellowship which is *designed* to be given only to 'AGU members under the age of 35 who are residents of countries designated by the World Bank as “low” or “lower-middle" income per capita.' In particular, the *opposite* of the US citizen requirement you quoted.
* Conferences like the [Association for Computing Machinery's CCS](http://www.sigsac.org/ccs/CCS2011/stgrant.shtml) also offer student travel grants. The website states: "Any graduate student in good standing, regardless of nationality, or any other criteria, except as noted, may apply."
In fact, aside from actual full graduate student fellowships, and some scholarships directly sponsored by the US government, many **travel funding** opportunities do not have the US residency requirement. (What they may have, however, is a pesky requirement for you to travel on US flag airlines.)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: As username_1 says, it depends on your school and your advisor. As an obvious general rule, departments and advisors with more research funding are more willing to spend it. (As a reference point, my department does *not* offer such funding, because individual faculty generally have enough money to support their students' travel.)
A significant number of CS theory conferences have external support for student travel; see, for example, [SODA 2012](http://www.siam.org/meetings/da12/tsupport.php) and [STOC 2012](http://cs.nyu.edu/~stoc2012/travel-support.htm). These grants usually require a letter of support from your advisor, so you at least need an advisor. (In many PhD programs, including mine, PhD students do not necessarily have formal advisors for the first year; students are admitted to the PhD program, not to any particular research group.)
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: As others have said, it depends on your school, department and advisor.
There are a couple ways a first-year student might be able to secure funding:
* If you're already tied to a project with an advisor, they may have travel funds as part of their grant support for some of their graduate students.
* Some conferences have small amounts of awards for graduate students to help pay for the conference - you can apply to these, in hopes of getting them. Some of these do require you be presenting a presentation there.
* Some universities have one-time or (in rare cases) multiple-time travel scholarships for graduate students. In my experience, these tend to be enough to soften the blow of paying for a conference out of pocket, but not enough to pay for it entirely.
The good news is I think the pressure you might be feeling to *go* to a conference your first year is a little off. I got very little out of conferences (including the all-important networking) until much later in my program, when I both understood what was going on better, and had more interesting things to say.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/02/17 | 1,297 | 5,368 | <issue_start>username_0: I have heard that it would be a bad idea to take up a post-doctoral position, if your ultimate goal is to work in industry. The basis of this maybe that it is harder to be hired for an opening at a company, maybe because you would seem unsure of your direction, or would be over qualified for a junior role.
If there are no ideal jobs available at present, should I take up a post-doctoral position as a safe option, or easy way out, in the meantime?<issue_comment>username_1: Well, clearly, it depends on many factors (my answer is probably strongly influenced by the Computer Science field).
* If you want to apply for a non-research industry position, then clearly, the postdoc might not appear as a strong point, unless you can travel, attend conferences, manage a budget, develop an application/software/experiment, apply for patents, etc, in general any transversal skill that you can justify. But if the postdoc is just sitting in an office writing theoretical papers for a couple of years, then it's probably not the best choice.
* If you want to apply for a research industry position, then a postdoc can be a good point, although of course, the closer you can be connected to industry, the better it will be.
* Ideally, you could do a postdoc in industry (in CS, IBM, Microsoft, Intel, HP, and many others offer this possibility).
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: **No**. There are many reasons you may want to do a postdoc; gain experience in a particular subfield, get to know the research of a particular advisor, work with a particular research group or department, or even to work with a industry group, in the case of industry-sponsored postdocs. You may be asked why you chose to go the postdoc route when you are eventually interviewing for industry positions, but it is by no means a declaration that you are going "academia-only". Note that this is particularly true during recession periods; it's much easier to get a postdoc than a "real job".
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I am currently involved in a <NAME> financed Academia-Industry collaboration. I am doing one year in industry (hired as a software developer) then two years in academia (hired as a postdoc) then one final year back in industry (again hired as a software developer). I have no interest in an academic career path for a plethora of reasons that I won't delve in.
The point is that academia has no alternative contractual access for project-oriented hiring (I call them "disposable scientists") hence the "postdoc" is basically a catch-all contract type to get someone to work on an academic project within academia. It can be intended as a professional step to establish yourself on an academic career path, but by no means it must be intended only as such.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> *Does doing a postdoc mean a commitment to an academic career?*
>
>
>
No. However, if your goal is to work in industry, that is where you should be looking for work. A post-doc would be better than a stretch of unemployment. This is because many companies treat recruiting like dating in high school: you are desirable if you already have a date/job and you have cooties (or something else is wrong with you) if you are single/unemployed.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I'm writing in from the biotech industry. I hold an MSc, but obviously I work with a lot of PhDs and have observed many PhD hires. Most PhD level industry positions REQUIRE time spend at a post-doc position. This would be either in academia or industry, but academic post-docs are infinitely more common. If you are being hired at a company straight out of a PhD program, that position will (9 times out of 10) be a temporary post-doc position itself.
Be aware that there have not been nearly enough PhD positions in industry to go around for the last 5 years at least. And many companies have strict policies against hiring PhDs for non-scientist positions. I've seen many times a research associate (BS/MS) position post, and we receive up to 100 applications from PhDs that go straight to the trash.
My recommendation for a transition into industry would be:
Do your PhD and post-doc research in the most prestigious labs possible and publish in the most prestigious journals possible. This is because other PhDs will hire you and be impressed by your boss' name and publication record - so it's the same idea that holds if you were to stay in academia.
Skill set is important, but in most cases is not what gets you hired. It is assumed that you can be trained to use any protocols or equipment in house.
Maintain contacts with everyone you know who is or moves into industry, including people at the BS/MS level. Referrals are extremely important and sometimes the only way to get in. Seek out projects that are collaborations with industry labs and go to every industry-sponsored event on your campus. Ask the professors in your department if any graduates or former post-docs moved into industry and try to get in contact with them.
And bottom line: no hiring manager will blink if they see a post-doc on your resume, as long as it lasted less than 5 years and you have results to show from it. And in many cases, managers expect or require some type of post-doc experience for a career position.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/02/17 | 2,265 | 9,656 | <issue_start>username_0: I recently attended a very large conference in my field ([SfN](http://www.sfn.org/am2011/), ~30,000 attendees), and after I got back I was thinking about what I had gained from the trip, and I realized not that much. I listened to a few different talks, and I saw a whole bunch of relevant posters, but on reflection I don't think anything I did progressed my knowledge/career that much. **What should I do in the future to ensure that I make the most out of conferences?**<issue_comment>username_1: Read [this](http://sidsavara.com/personal-productivity/how-to-to-network-at-conferences) and [this](http://www.wikihow.com/Network-at-a-Conference).
My professor put forth 3 simple rules for networking:
* Talk to the guy beside you
* Talk to top 3 (sort by relevance or whatever you prefer) presenters
* Mail them 5 days after the conference with some follow up content (questions/comments/invites for talks etc.)
Just to make this post "dead-link" proof, I present a gist of the content in the above links.
* **Start Early.** You should begin preparing before the conference starts. Start reading on who will be there, emailing people you want to meet, and determining which events you will attend. You may want to contact the speakers whose talks you will be attending before the conference; try to set up a meeting, or if they are too busy, at least meet them and give them your business card.
* **Bring Business Cards**. Make sure they're up-to-date and details your preferred mode of communication.
* **Research people and get involved in their networks.** If a certain professor is giving a talk; read his previous research papers, frame interesting questions and get an excuse to meet him. If you do meet him, exploit the opportunity to interact with his peers and try to enter their network. Sometimes, this is the only way of getting to network with someone. I know of professors who refuse to take students for PhD or internships or Postdocs without a recommendation from someone in his network. A good impression might just get you that recommendation.
* **Note people with similar interests to yours.** These people will be attending all the same presentations as you, talking to the same people, discussing similar topics. They are the potential spots for networking.
* **Prepare the elevator speech**. A common question will be "So, what is your research about?" Make sure you have an answer for every audience. For e.g. If you are in Computational Science, the answer may vary depending on who you are talking with. Plus, make it interesting and digestible.
* **Organize an event of your own.** This is especially useful is forming "lower" networks i.e. networks of people who lag in terms of age or experience such as graduate students. If not more, they could notify you of openings or interesting papers or whatever. They could be useful. (Plus it helps us :P )
* **Read "[Never Eat Alone](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0385512058)".**
* **Follow Up**. Prepare for this even before you leave for the conference. Have different modes of follow up ready. Will you have anything to say that is worth writing an email for? If not, think of something which will. If nothing works, make sure you click a photo of yourself with him and send it to him a few days after the conference.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: * Know why you're going in the first place: only go to conferences where you can get something useful out of it. You can usually get access to the proceedings (and at lower cost) without going to the conference. So just access to the proceedings is usually not enough. You're there to present your stuff and get feedback on it, and/or for networking, and/or to hear specific speakers talk insightfully on a subject important to you, whre you've got an opportunity to ask clarifying questions directly of them, and to participate in a discussion with others, afterwards, on the content.
* Be the first after a presentation to ask an insightful, relevant, informed question. Catch the speaker's eye as you ask the question. Go up to them after the session ends, thank them in person, exchange business cards
* Network like crazy
* Have a big stack of business cards. Give them away liberally to anyone vaguely connected to your field. Get some more printed. Repeat.
* Collect business cards of anyone vaguely connected, voraciously. Add their email addresses to your database of interesting contacts. Follow them on your networking sites of choice. (Twitter, CiteULike, Academia.edu, etc). And when one of your papers gets published, email them a link to it, and let them know that it may be of use to them.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: From my own experience I get the most out of conferences which are not organized as conference expos. There's a big difference between conferences created for income (yes, even in academia) and those created to promote new discoveries and knowledge.
Of the latter type I find the presenters are generally excited by their opportunity to meet others in their field. It's more of a grassroots type of experience and you find that you naturally start to share in the discussions. No networking is needed.
```
What should I do in the future to ensure that I make the most out of conferences?
```
Choose a conference that's in your field. Prepare a paper or two of your own on a subject that really interests you. Discuss it with colleagues. Get it published. Present it at a conference. The critical thought you put into this process will help you to pick conferences more suited to you and stimulate your interaction with others.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: On top of all the answers above, I would add very selfish points to expand on meeting like-minded people from user107 answers.
1. **Avoid destination conferences**(or The location is time)! The best conferences are the ones you can spend the most time with the people you want to network with and not where people will count seconds to leave and go sight seeing. For example, if the conference is in San Fransisco, without a doubt everybody is excited to bring a +1 and go about seeing friends in the area or sightseeing. You will have a lower chance of spending quality time with the researchers in your field. Meanwhile, people from Google or Uber or local equivalents of your field might not even show up to present their work cause they are busy(real story)! On the other hand, if the conference is in some center of nowhere, with literally nothing to do except the conference activities, you will have a high chance of getting to know your colleague very well. And people who are there are serious about their business. You have all the afternoon, night, and late nights to know who is who, and what they have to say that they can not publish yet(including politics of the field)! The catch is that conference organizers might spend more money to plan events that bring you guys out of your hotel rooms and bring you back again to such a location.
2. **Find and meet people who can give you recommendation letters** later on based on your work. People who have genuine appreciation of your work or methods or even your adviser and are nice enough that if needed to read your work for feedback or writing you a nice recommendation you can actually count on them. Someone would add avoid snobs or super-busy ones, you will not hear back from them soon enough.
3. **Find fellows** (same level as you maybe a couple of years ahead), who also have a genuine interest in your work, that also can play the role of proof-read or an extra pair of eyes for you. you can easily cut the time of your publications by sharing your work with such peers and make your papers ready nicer. if their English or experience in writing is more than you its a plus.
4. **Talk with people in the industry** or application world (or vice versa), who you can talk to you about what is actually needed out there and if they are also willing to use your work or test it or give you comments. These people can help you explore alternative career paths as well.
5. **Don't be negative(snob) about presented works.** everyone knows some works are worst than others, but cynicism or negative attitude scares most people and will isolate you. There is so much to learn even from works that look not ready, or complete or even wrong! Be positive about all works and try to learn from every single presentation rather than ignoring their efforts.
6. **Collaboration with other institutes** is always a great experience item. see if you can establish such opportunity for yourself. Maybe a visiting summer or just working on a piece of open source code together.
7. **Avoid politics.** most likely your source of information is not perfectly aligned with locals and you can hurt mis-represented and already-harassed people!
8. **Branding.** Have a letter-sized summary, quadchart or an executive summary of your work copied in color and enough number available. It can be a great branding if you are serious about your ideas. Business card or LinkedIn will not go anywhere in academia.
9. **Go out and make memories** with your peers, go see a random part of the city. It will be a better way to network than staying in the hotel's bar(except if it's too late at night).
10. **Don't miss the elders** of the crowd. Remember some people come to this conference every year for last 30 years. Some of them really appreciate new people who do the effort of introducing themselves.
11. **Make as much notes as possible**, cause you WILL forget, even the most important things.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/17 | 1,525 | 6,557 | <issue_start>username_0: I've been told by numerous people that (1) my undergraduate university will be disinclined to bring me on as a graduate student, and that (2) it's a bad idea to attend grad school where you completed your undergraduate degree, anyway. Is that true? If so, why?<issue_comment>username_1: I will address the two points separately:
1. If you have a strong application, then your undergrad university will be *more* inclined to take you as a graduate student. The reason is that to have a strong application, you need very good reference letters. The reference letters are probably from professors *at* your undergrad school, and thus they will carry a lot of weight there (compared to other schools where your former supervisors are less known). Thus, it is often easiest to get into the school you graduated from.
2. I've heard the second point myself, and I actually advice it/try to follow that advice, too. The reasoning behind it as that at the school you graduated from, you already know everybody. Thus, if you stay you will continue to work with the same people and won't meet new collaborators. If you go to a new school, you will have to meet new people and expand your network.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: **Pros**
* If you stay at the same school (this applies even more when you join grad school immediately out of your undergrads), it'll be a matter of remaining in your comfort zone - same department, a faculty who know you, even the same apartment/neighborhood! This can be a major factor, depending on the person concerned - the pros of staying at your Alma mater are all about convenience IMO.
* If your UG department has an influential professor with whom you've worked before and are planning to continue as well, that can be very advantageous - as having such a faculty get to know a student's work as an undergraduate can lead to a very strong recommendation (since he has accepted you in the grad program, it is reasonable to assume your work had impressed him during your undergrads).
**Cons**
An important advantage of going to another school is that you will be exposed to a completely different department, with faculty who may have diverse research ideas for you to work on. The department, in turn, will benefit as well as a new student from another school will cross-pollinate their department with fresh ideas. This is so important that some top universities have a strong bias against accepting their own undergraduate students into their graduate programs.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: As Henry points out in the response to Artem's answer, many graduate departments—especially at top schools in the US—have a "no undergrads admitted from our department" policy. Both my undergraduate and graduate schools have adopted such policies.
In general, unless you have a very strong reason for staying at your undergraduate school—either a personal situation, such as a spouse who has a job in the area, or the opportunity to work on the world's only "X" (whatever "X" is)—then you are much better served by going somewhere else for graduate school. You will have the advantage of working with new people, plus you avoid the very strong stigma attached to having all of your educational pedigree at a single location.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Here's an intermediate step that some of my friends took: they stayed on to do their Masters in the same lab where they did their undergraduate study, then moved college (and country) to do their PhDs. That way, they got more research experience in an excellent lab in their home country (keeping costs down a bit), then used their PhD stipends to offset the cost of living abroad.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: The only advantage I see in entering graduate school in the same university where you completed your undergrad program is having a continuity between your undergrad research programs and graduate research.
Typically it takes some time for a new grad student to get accustomed with research activities, with the routine of a new lab or research group, getting to know your advisor, etc. Also there are some adjustment of your personal life: you are probably moving to another town, choosing another home, finding a new favourite grocery store, a new gym, etc, etc. This takes time and certainly impacts how productive you are.
If you are enrolled in undergrad research programs, and you're already well adjusted to your lab's/research group routine and workflow, it might be that you'll feel much less of an impact of changing from undergrad to grad research programs. It might be that you can start being productive right away because you don't have to worry about a lot of things.
On the short term, it might be that you manage to turn this into one extra article published at the end of your PhD. It's not improbable. But it's not incredibly probable either.
You incur in a lot of risks if you don't change. If you spend too much of your formative years working on the same research group, you risk becoming *too well adjusted* to its workflow and research programs, to the point that you can't see alternatives.
Also, the real impact of a few months of advantage and an extra article, if it really happens, is probably offset by the advantages of moving to another university. A couple years after your PhD the time you lost finding an apartment and banging your head against the wall to understand your new research program will most likely be forgotten and will not influence your career at all.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: Answering (1):
Staying at the same place is very uncommon in the US, where there is a presumption against it. It does not mean that it is impossible or never happens, but it counts against you in admissions.
This is mostly true when referring to doing undergraduate and PhD studies at the same place. Normally it's fine to do your Masters and undergraduate at the same place, or to move between undergraduate and Masters and then stay at the same place for PhD.
\*
The situation is very different in Europe. In fact, professors may attempt to recruit their best undergraduates to work for them as graduate students and this is seen as a positive thing for all involved.
There is an increasing stigma against hiring faculty that has no experience outside of a given university (derisively called *in-breeding*), but I do not think that it applies to undergraduate->graduate transition.
Others have answered (2) in more detail.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/17 | 694 | 2,975 | <issue_start>username_0: What is exactly the difference between a reference letter and a recommendation letter in Academia? According to [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recommendation_letter):
>
> Letters of recommendation are very specific in nature and normally requested/required and are always addressed to an individual, whereas letters of reference are more general in nature and are usually addressed "To Whom It May Concern".
>
>
>
However, I've often seen applications where it was asked to provide letters, without being explicit about whether it should be recommendation or reference letters (according to the previous definition).
I only ask letters from persons with whom I have worked closely (typically my former advisors), because I believe they are the best persons to ask about me, but it seems that some people also include letters from persons they just know.
In other words, what exactly is expected when a job application asks to "give references who can provide recommendation letters"?<issue_comment>username_1: With due deference to Wikipedia, colloquially, the two terms are used interchangeably.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: In my experience, a person can **serve as a reference** and be contacted by the potential employer/school, usually by phone. Alternatively, a person can **write a letter of recommendation** which they mail themselves.
So when a job application asks to "give references who can provide recommendation letters," they most likely want their contact information.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: As per the definition given on the webpage of [McGill University](http://www.mcgill.ca/caps/students/graduate-studies/references/):
>
> A "**letter of recommendation**" is one that is specifically requested by someone for a determined/defined employment position, academic program or award application. Generally, these letters are sent directly to the requester and not seen by the student. They can be categorized as:
>
>
> * Employment Related
> * Academic Admission
> * Commendation or Recognition
> * Performance Evaluation
>
>
> A "**letter of reference**" is normally more general in nature and not addressed to a specific requestor. Often you will see these letters addressed as "To Whom it may Concern" or "Dear Sir/Madam". These letters are most often given directly to the student and kept for future use. Situations where they are used tend to be:
>
>
> * Character Assessment
> * Academic Related
> * Employment Related
> * General Purpose
>
>
>
As [this site](http://examplereferenceletter.com/what-is-the-difference-between-recommendation-letters-and-reference-letters/) also explains, a recommendation letter is more specifically related to skills and qualifications of a person with respect to a definite position/program, whereas a reference letter is usually more general in nature and refers more to the overall character of a person.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer] |
2012/02/18 | 472 | 2,111 | <issue_start>username_0: As examples, the lab executive assistant at <http://www.klab.caltech.edu/people.shtml> or the lab administrative assistant over at <http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tapio/people.html#admins><issue_comment>username_1: Funding for non-research positions comes from either direct or indirect sources.
Direct sources means writing a proposal that includes funding for personnel such as a lab technician or an administrator for a research center. In this case, the funding is obtained directly through grants.
Most of the time, however, the funding is *indirect*: the salary is paid by the department, rather than an individual research group. This funding is paid for through the "overhead" charges that are included in research grants. (In some cases, such as public universities in Germany, this funding is also indirect, coming from a grant by the state or federal government given to each professorship.)
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I've seen three common ways of funding staff - undoubtedly there are more.
1. For staff directly related to the running of a research lab, for example senior technicians, lab managers, dedicated programmers for computational research, etc. there may be funding written into the direct salary costs of the research grants their faculty member submits. For example, many of the grants in the field I'm in have direct funding for data managers and the like for the duration of a research grant.
2. If a faculty member anticipates needing a particular type of help - most often a lab technician or programmer in my experience - they may ask for their salary to be part of the faculty member's startup package for some small number of years before (hopefully) the faculty member can support them through mechanism #1.
3. Other staff members, such as personal assistants, some research staff etc. are theoretically things that are supposed to be paid for by the rather sizable chunk of a grant budget that goes to indirect costs to the university. Whether or not this occurs in practice is another question all together.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/19 | 2,126 | 8,853 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm applying for graduate school (PhD in computer science), and I'm considering writing to faculty whose research areas match with what I intend to pursue, to understand:
1. Whether they'd be looking for new students at all in the coming year?
2. If they did, would they be potentially interested in my profile (I know no-one would guarantee an acceptance without me going through the process of application), but it would help to know if they *would not be interested at all in me* - which would leave me free apply to other schools in which I get a neutral/positive response.
Keeping the above in mind, what would be the best way to introduce myself in the first mail?
* What should be the salutation - I know "Respected Sir" sounds archaic, but was wondering if "Dear Professor X" sounded too informal or not!
* Do I state my credentials (details of where I did my undergrads/masters) first, or do I state my purpose in writing to him/her?
* How to mention my background concisely, without giving too much details, while at the same time not "underselling" myself as a potential grad student?
* I want to give a link to my resume/profile hosted on my website - should I embed the hyperlink, or is it better to write the link in plain text?
* How do I end such a letter - the obvious ones (such as "see you soon" or "till we meet again") being not quite suitable in this case)?
I'm basically afraid of saying too much (causing vexation) or too little (resulting in no response to my missive). I understand that the faculty are accustomed to seeing their inbox flooded with such mails each year, few of which ever get a positive response - which may not always be due to lack of an interesting profile, but the manner in which the mail is worded (*Many* professors have explicitly mentioned on their websites that they would not respond to generic *"Do you have funding"* type of queries no matter what the credentials of the student are!).
Though my interest is specific to CS, I believe it would apply to other fields as well. Also, I would be interested in the opinions of both present faculty members (who have to sort through such mails), and past applicants to grad-school (who have the experience of successfully writing to their advisers before applying)...<issue_comment>username_1: My personal experience relies more on postdoc application rather than PhD application, but here my answers to your questions:
1. Salutations: I think that "Dear <NAME>" is the usual salutation, although if the person is using a different title on their website, it's better to use this one.
2. I'd start with the purpose of writing, and more particularly, with a "personal" context, in order to clarify that it's not some kind of generic email. For instance: "Dear <NAME>., I have read with much interest your papers Y and Z, (or I attended your invited talk at this conference, etc), and I would be very interested in applying for PhD under your supervision. Indeed, I believe that the idea you have developed is ... (very good) and intersects strongly with my own research interests." At this point, you can start putting your credentials, and to emphasize on the points that are the most relevant.
3. In order to be concise, I would insist on the points that make you potentially different from other applicants. For instance, if you have a regular MSc in CS (i.e. not from a top Ivy Uni), then just mention it, because it won't be the "selling point", since pretty much any other applicants for a PhD got something equivalent.
4. For your CV, if it's light enough (i.e. less than 1MB), I would actually include it in the mail. And I would also put the link in plain text (because personally, I like to know what kind of link I'm clicking on :)).
5. I usually finish my emails with something along the lines "I'm at your disposal for any further information you might need. Best regards".
Also, as a general advice, I would contact the Asst./Assoc. Professors rather than directly the Professor in charge, at least for an informal query.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: This is another example where internationalization of programs makes an answer more difficult. If the program in question is in the US, for instance, you should probably *never* contact the professor directly until *after* you've been admitted into the program in question. Since admissions decisions are handled centrally, it's just a waste of time.
For foreign professors, however, I believe you should again exercise caution before making contact, and also keep expectations low. For instance, I'm in the role of Assistant/Associate Professor that Charles mentions in his response. However, I will probably not take the time to respond to a request asking for positions in my group *unless* I think a candidate is an exceptional match, and would be one I would actively consider for the group if I had an available opening. Otherwise, I don't reply, just because it takes too much time.
To address the question of salutation, I would **absolutely** use "Dear Professor X," or some other salutation that includes the name of the person you're addressing. Otherwise, it doesn't look like you're doing other than sending out an email blast to a bunch of email addresses—another move which almost guarantees that your email is going to be consigned to the "ignore" pile.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_1: I have a list of things you should do from my seniors (Some might disagree):
1. Try not to over-sell yourself. There is a fine line between stating facts about yourself and boasting. Stay on the former side.
2. Try not to mention things and leave them abruptly or incompletely. For e.g., Don't say "I was involved with a project in the University of X where we studied Cancer Treatment." (Thats it). What did you do? Where did it lead? What is the status now? Thats the crux of the information and sadly, that is left out.
3. Have an interesting question or comment in the mail. Merely stating that you read a paper or attended his talk is not enough. Billions of other students will be stating the same. What made you like it? Why was it relevant to you?
*Side note: Surprisingly, many professors who I mailed have been interested on **how** I stumbled on his paper.*
4. Never ask direct questions that the professor wouldn't like answering (At least in the first mail). Asking him about his funding status isn't the best idea in the first mail. This is true for many reasons: For one, most profs wouldn't like telling you such details without you proving you are worth it (Why would they?). Secondly, your intentions are getting obfuscated. Are you really interested in the professor ( & his research) or his money? If his research was interesting but he couldn't fund you for X years, would you still go?
5. If this wasn't obvious, don't mass mail/mail merge.
6. Be honest about what you say. This includes no exaggeration.
7. Make it short. No one likes reading a billion lines to find out who you are.
8. Emphasize your work and what differentiates you from the rest rather than your grades and scores. Grades and scores (GRE/AGRE) are bonuses (or deal breakers) but they are secondary.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: As an adviser in TCS, I don't want *new students*, I want to work/advise someone ***who is in my opinion very promising***.
* First, the email must be concise (not necessarily short, but concise): be respectful, don't ask abruptly if the person needs students. Present shortly yourself: "I am XXXX, currently studying YYY at university ZZZZ"
* Then, present your work interest, and more, show that you are aware of the work of the person you target: "this year, I educated myself on the problem of finding an algorithm of complexity XXX for solving YYY. During this process, I analysed in details the method for finding a lower bound that you present in paper ZZZ"
* Ask for a short scientific discussion, you can either ask for clarification on the aforementioned lower bound, or explicitly mention that you have some ideas about the problem, or that you need some guidance on further reading about the problem. Anyway, make sure that you worked hard before coming to the meeting. If you cannot afford the travel (too far, too expansive, etc.), ask kindly if you can ask a few scientific questions in another mail.
* Once you're known to the person, everything is easier. Then you can ask about your future.
The thing is to make yourself known for something different than job request. For instance, you target TCS, if you are known on TCS.SE, it will be easier to have guidance/advice from TCS researchers that are also on TCS.SE.
Concerning some of the points you mention, don't hesitate to join a resume to your mail or (better) a link your (serious) homepage.
Upvotes: 4 |
2012/02/19 | 1,439 | 6,103 | <issue_start>username_0: I mean, I really *should* be glad when they ask me this question. But inevitably, different people will ask me the same question many different times (over many different interviews), understandably so, and response fatigue does start to set in. I just wonder how other people can manage to be so patient when I ask them the same exact question (that they've probably answered hundreds of times by now).
I guess one of the things that has always driven me (despite an initially subpar educational background) was that I was always extremely averse to any form of redundant stimuli or repetitiveness. This helped carry me from a crappy middle school into UChicago/Brown. But I do need to get used to it a bit more as my role changes.<issue_comment>username_1: You **should** have an *[elevator pitch](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevator_pitch)* version of your research i.e. a description of your work that you can concisely explain to an incoming grad student within the time taken to ride a few floors in an elevator. I know that can be pretty hard to think up on the spot, which is why I'm suggesting you have the basic points at the top of your mind. With time, you can reel it off without even thinking for it!
As to why I emphasized on why you should do it, there can be enormous benefits of having such a version ready (say your adviser introduces you to someone with whom you'd like to work with in future in the hallway one morning, and he asks the same question out of courtesy - it might really look bad on both you and your adviser if you start hemming and hawing!) for when you really need it. Also, it would keep you grounded to what you started working on while deep inside the technicalities of a paper...
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Your job, as an academic, is twofold:
1. Do amazing research.
2. Write it up and convey your results to other people.
It sounds like you view (2) to apply only to others who are already in your field and are completely familiar with everything you've done. You will find that, in the entirety of your field, there are probably just a few dozen people who are intimately familiar with every details of your field, and only a few hundred who are really familiar with what you do. Everyone else — academic, layperson, village idiot — will require an explanation, and you should do them the favor of explaining it to them.
To more directly answer your question, you should always have two answers ready to the question "what do you do?":
1. An elevator pitch, as described elsewhere. This should take ~15-30 seconds to say and would give a very high-level overview of your work.
2. A more in-depth explanation, which would take about 3-5 minutes, which conveys what you do in more detail. Generally speaking, less time than that and you can't convey any useful information, more time than that and you're giving too many details. After your in-depth explanation, either the person will say, "oh", and move on, or they'll ask questions and you can have an intellectual discussion.
*(Note: the following point is somewhat debatable.)* I've found for myself that it helps to visualize the person you're talking to as paying your salary; if you're on a publicly-funded research grant (i.e., any governmental grant), their taxes are funding your research. It gives some perspective.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: The previous answers are all good and I strongly recommend having something prepared in advance. However, I think some people are more prone to fatigue from repetition than others, and if you get tired easily from answering this question like me, you could challenge yourself to come up with something different to say every time.
It is definitely true that each person you talk to will have a different background, and in general how you inform somebody of your research should be not just a function of what you know about it, but also of their personality and their knowledge.
This is a good practice because it will make you more aware of the subtleties in communication, which is important especially when you are applying for a job. A fellow colleague won't react in the same way as a potential employer for instance. In other words, you should practice finding some common ground which will inspire your questioner, and in this case every time someone asks you what your research is about, you will always have something new to think about.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Well, if repetition does annoy you: I usually hear this question as "What kind of research did you do *recently*?" If you research evolves a bit, this will help to avoid too much repetition. Also it helps to keep you explanations fresh and if you like your recent results you may probably like to share your enthusiasm...
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I have been in the same situation - having to explain the same thing over and over again, usually in interviews and such... The way I dealt with it was to explain it in a fresh way every time. So, on one occasion I may focus on the "fun" part of that work, while another time I may focus on the discovery part of it, while yet another time I may focus on the teamwork that was needed... The interviewer may give me a clue (body language, vernacular, etc) as to what type of answer may work best for their media/platform, so I tune into that. If it is a younger audience, I will try to make the answer more fun and attractive, while if it is for a serious, older audience, my answer will focus on serious matters more. Say a project I worked on was both famous and earned a lot of money - in a show for teens I may talk about fun part of it and perhaps someone famous I met, while in the other, serious show I may throw in figures and profits and such and perhaps even the whole industry a bit, to make it interesting for their audience.
This also gives a benefit to the listener who may have seen/heard/read more than one of my interviews and would not be bored by repetition (although some repetition is to be expected).
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/19 | 816 | 3,491 | <issue_start>username_0: I have a rather difficult quandary. I'm a first-year student, and I joined my lab group to work on a clinical psychiatry/neuroscience grant. I've been making slow progress towards familiarizing myself with the grant. However, my advisor (actually, one of my two-advisors... they both run the lab together) has been having me work on a separate project of his, completely unrelated to my work. From what I can tell, this project would take a few months to work out, and the result would be my co-authoring on a small paper with another graduate student in the lab.
My worry is, I receive a stipend from the university every month, and that stipend is paid for my the psych/neurosci grant. By working on the second project, I have the feeling that I'm "stealing" from the first grant. I was told by my advisor that this sort of time-sharing between grants is normal within the research world. My question is, is that true? If it is a problem, how should I deal with this?<issue_comment>username_1: I think it's true that the time-sharing between grants is quite normal within the research world, at least, I've observed it a lot, and in any case, you shouldn't have to worry about that, because it's under the responsibility of your advisor.
Actually, one of the problems when it comes to funding is that in order to make a grant proposal, you somehow need to know precisely enough where you're going, otherwise you have the risk not to be able to achieve what you promised. Hence, I know that it's quite normal that when applying for a grant, some parts of the results promised at the end of the grant are already done, although maybe not finalized. So, you can use the time you would have spent doing the research you promised (but already done) to do some other research on another topic, so that you can apply for another grant on this topic.
That's why in the end, the main question is whether it benefits you, as a first-year student, to work on the other project. Clearly, working on a different topic is always a good experience, especially when there is a potential publication at the end. I don't know how long is your grant, but if it's 3 years, then spending a few months on working on something different will not really impact it. Of course, if you have a grant of only 6 months, then maybe you can't really spend half of it working on something different.
So, to summarize: don't feel guilty about it, I believe this kind of things is pretty common, and just consider whether it can be good/interesting for you or not.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Time sharing between grants is extremely common - I've often been asked to work on projects unrelated to what I am formally being funded for.
As @CharlesMorisset mentioned, many grants are now written with a sufficiently robust idea of where they're going, how they'll get there and that they'll work that a considerable part of the research is already done. Additionally, since grants *need* fairly strong preliminary results sections these days, one is essentially forced to use current funding to do the research for "future" projects.
So I wouldn't feel bad about it for the reason you've mentioned. I would consider asking your advisor "why this project?" Do they just need a warm body to do the work? Would they like to give you a shot at an early, modest publication? Is there a particular skill they are hoping you'll develop working on this project?
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/02/19 | 725 | 3,116 | <issue_start>username_0: I just finished an undergraduate degree in psychology, with a focus in biological sciences and pre-medicine courses. In looking at my options for graduate school, I've taken an interest in biomedical engineering; tissue engineering, medical devices, medical imaging, etc. My biology is pretty solid, but I'm not much of an engineer, aside from a few math courses. My question is, are students entering a PhD program typically very well-versed in the field, or is there a lot of "learning on the job"?<issue_comment>username_1: I had asked the same question related to CS in TCS.SE (found [here](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/q/8339/4119)) - from that, I'm summarizing the answers I got w.r.t your field:
* Before grad school is a very early stage to change fields. Many people shift then. It's acceptable and expected. In your application, explain your changing fields (so the readers understand why the letter writers are not from psychology, why you took lots of biology courses, etc)
* If you have research experience (especially if there's some angle towards biological subjects in them), it still counts for you, even if it's in a different field
* If you have good grades, it still counts for you, even if they are for courses from a different field.
* Admissions committees are generally looking for "strong" students where "strong" is largely defined via prior research experience. i.e. they especially want to know if you've had the experience of doing research, were successful at it and have a good idea if this is something you really want. The letters are important as experienced researchers' evaluation of your research ability and potential and grades give some indication of overall academic aptitude. Thus, if you have strong letters from your supervisors, it still counts for you, even if they are from a different field (strong = from a professor who knows you well and has great things to say about you).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: While shan23's answer is good, it is also somewhat incomplete. There are a few things to watch out for when you're coming in to a field from another department:
* You will need to keep in mind the qualifying procedures for your new department. Will they expect you to pass exams in undergraduate coursework in the new discipline? If so, then you'll need to do a lot more "catch-up" work early on to make up for the potential shortfall.
* Unless the new area is an interdisciplinary one—such as biomedical engineering—they're probably going to want to see some track record in the area. You're going to find it a lot easier to move into biomedical engineering from mechanical engineering than from economics.
* You may find it helpful to try to find a position as a lab assistant or something similar to this in the new field before you try to start the graduate coursework. However, this is by no means required. (But it would help to prove the "dedication" aspect, which is what you'd need to convince a graduate school admissions committee about in order to have a successful application).
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer] |
2012/02/19 | 1,167 | 4,927 | <issue_start>username_0: Will people look down on me if I say that I plan on doing research that I end up not doing due to various reasons, especially if I'm a PhD student?
I guess it's somewhat expected, and that experienced professors don't always believe that I'll end up doing what I say (because unexpected bugs and events happen all the time). And sometimes you also end up going on detours.
That, and professors always say that they do things on smaller timeframes than what it really takes them to do.
I guess if I always meet my commitments, then people might believe me more. But on the other hand, it always helps to get more feedback on ambitious projects that I don't necessarily believe that I will finish.<issue_comment>username_1: There is a huge difference between saying that you will do a given research effort, and saying that you will obtain a particular result. If you have guaranteed the latter, you made a mistake, it's research, there is no guarantee on a result !
So, if you give a work planning to your adviser, you have to stick to it. Of course, you can have (once, not twice) a real problem that ruins your effort (house on fire, a relative at the hospital, etc.).
To summarize, you can promise that you will work, but not that it will work ;) If you always fail on your commitments, you will never be seen as reliable, and people won't work with you, it's that simple.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: The question is subjective in nature, but the answer is almost certainly **no**. Academicians are always applying for funding, looking into collaborations, reading research articles in different fields, and generally taking an interest in new research venues. It's expected that you'll occasionally (maybe even regularly) expand your research interests, and it's the nature of the game that some of your attempts will not pan out.
Anecdotally, my graduate research advisor completed a whopping 10 grants a year for a very wide variety of research projects. Each grant entailed a good deal of preparatory research, in which we would explore a new field and try to find some preliminary results strong enough to drive the grant through. Some of my (and my colleagues) most interesting work (medical ontologies, intelligent systems, lung-powered electricity generators) came from these failed grant attempts.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I lean towards agreeing with username_2 and disagreeing with Sylvain.
A PhD project is inherently a somewhat fungible plan—what you do depends on the results that you've obtained. And obviously equipment failures, unexpected obstacles and delays, and other unforeseen circumstances are a natural part of research. So I wouldn't be too concerned about failing, as a graduate student, to reach the long-term destination of your research project.
In particular, with my own students, I try to sketch out as little as possible the actual outline of the projects they are going to pursue. That way, there is much more flexibility in the future development of their projects, as I plan to tailor them based on the students' expertise and interests. (Moreover, I would suggest that if you know everything you need to do to reach your goal, and you accomplish exactly that, you haven't done any research at all!)
That said, there is the issue of meeting *short-term* goals as well as long-term goals. You shouldn't promise your advisor something will be done in 1 to 2 weeks if you don't intend on having it ready for 2 months. (I would also argue the reverse is a dangerous situation, too, because you could fall into the "competency trap," whereby the advisor thinks you really know what you're doing, and continues to expect you to know what you're doing for the remainder of your time in the advisor's group!)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: In my experience, the answer to this is *no*. Projects die for various reasons all the time - the funding vanishes and there's no one to work on it, it turns out to not to be a particularly productive line of thought, or as a graduate student, your interests shift.
In my mind, the important thing is that you have put in as much effort as is expected of you. If you've told your advisor you've had a random musing you'd like to pursue, then come back a month later having not gotten very far but decided upon poking around a bit that it's not worth doing, then no harm, no foul.
I also have to agree with username_3 that it depends on what you're framing as "research". Not being wedded to X, Y, Z things must be done, come hell or high water means if thing Q turns out to be *really* interesting, you're free to pursue that instead. But that's a long-term question.
If, on the other hand, you've said "Sure, I'll make a figure for that data by next week" and you consistently fail to do things like that? That is going to have an impact on your reputation.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/19 | 572 | 2,299 | <issue_start>username_0: An incoming graduate student is typically required to help out as a TA, take courses both related to their research and required by the program, as well as to start reading up on the research topics in his field. Unless he has worked in the same research area prior to joining grad school, it is unlikely he would get any publishable results very soon after joining grad school.
To avoid being depressed by this apparent lack of results in the first few semesters, it would be helpful to know what the adviser/admissions committee expects out of him in that time, and by when he would be expected to start having publishable results?
I'm interested in the answers related to Theoretical CS, but as always, I believe it would be applicable to *any* grad student as well - so it should not be specific to this field.<issue_comment>username_1: This wil vary significantly according to advisor, but I'd say a typical plan is:
* Years 1-2: coursework, begin research
* Summer of year 2: Small research publications (in my field, 2-4 page conference proceedings, small steps)
* Year 3: Get some real research done, more small papers
* Year 4+: ~1/2 paper a year, ish
However, the variance may be too great for this to be meaningful. I have a friend who published 17 papers during his 6 year graduate student tenure, and I have a number of friends who published zero peer-reviewed papers during my grad school tenure. Take the numbers with a grain of salt.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In France, the PhD is funded for 3 years generally. In our university ([Paris-Sud university](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris-Sud_11_University)), PhD students meet a committee composed of the adviser, the head of the lab and the head of the doctoral school each year. In TCS, if you have not published (or have a paper close to be published - that is submitted) during the second year; this yields a big red flag. So, it means that it is expected that some results are ready for publication during the third semester of the thesis (even in a small workshop).
Edit : PhD students are doing a 6 months internship before entering the PhD, with their PhD advisor mostly, so in fact the research is done on 3,5 years, and often 4 without much troubles.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/02/19 | 1,057 | 4,701 | <issue_start>username_0: Quite often, at conferences or while attending seminars, I will start an interesting discussion with the speaker, first on-site, then later by email, and even though at some point there seems to be some mutual interest, it almost never gives an actual collaboration (i.e. working on an actual paper).
I have no particular problem of working with different people, so I was wondering if it was quite usual to have this huge ratio of "collaboration failure"? In particular, my problem is that, although it's quite simple to have an idea, it seems quite hard to do the next step, that is to actually work with someone you have no connection, and who might even live in a different country. Are there some techniques to make a "temporary" collaboration work, or at least to detect those which are unlikely to work?<issue_comment>username_1: In my experience, starting a collaboration is incredibly easy: you use your network of contacts to identify someone who'd be willing and interested in solving a problem. You talk at a conference or meeting, or arrange a visit to their laboratory.
*Maintaining* a collaboration, however, is next to impossible. It only works if you have a history of successful results early on, or if you have already had a long history of acquaintance with one another before the collaboration began. (In other words, were you friends or colleagues before the work started?)
Otherwise, I would recommend making sure that you start off with "low-hanging fruit": problems that can be solved mutually within the framework of existing funding on both of your parts, with value for both of you. This is important because one of the challenges of getting grants is that reviewers for funding agencies typically want to see an existing record of collaboration—mutual publications and effort—before they're ready to award money to a new collaborative proposal. There are exceptions to this, but they're by no means common.
After that, you have a track record of working together which will let you grow the collaboration into something further.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Many times I had e-mail conversations but they never went into a serious collaboration (i.e. ending with a paper). All papers I have are with persons I know from a frequent face-to-face contact (plus with the people they know from frequent face-to-face contact).
Perhaps it has to do with:
* psychological barriers (as also it is easy to have a conversation with a big name on a conference, but much harder to engage in a distant correspondence),
* funding/time issues,
* that collaboration usually requires a lot of contact (sometimes very hand-waving), *especially in the beginning*,
* with a frequent face-to-face contact it is much easier to gauge others' interest and choose the right persons.
(Entirely anecdotally, as a PhD student with only 7 papers so far. It may not apply to other situations.)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: IMHO successful and fruitful long term collaborations require at least two important features
* mutual trust
* complementary competences
Trust is essential at various stages of the collaboration: i) you should
be happy to make a fool of yourself in front of your collaborators during brainstorming
ii) you should be fairly certain that they will pay credit to your own efforts
within the collaboration iii) you should be happy to strongly disagree and fight about
it without strong feelings for the sake of challenging ideas.
From personal experience (and watching colleagues) it is easier to cultivate and develop trust during your PhD and postdocs while socially interacting with your fellow students and postdocs.
A first advice would then be do not under-estimate extra curricular activities with your colleagues, as they can in fact be the foundation of upcoming shared ideas within long term collaborations.
Complementary skills is key in order to value what your collaborators provide to the collaboration. If your asset is starting papers, you need to find someone who is good at finishing them or vice-versa. It also avoids unnecessary competition within the collaboration. On a more positive note, it sheds distinct light on a research project
which is globally useful.
Finally, if possible
* focus on people you can communicate well with: research is about beating about the bush for a long time before seeing the light. Precise understanding speeds things up a bit!
* avoid too large time-zone differences!
Having said that, I am always amazed how (in contrast to crowds!) collaborators are collectively so much smarter than individually! A difference in perspective is key.
Upvotes: 4 |
2012/02/20 | 933 | 4,083 | <issue_start>username_0: I've been attending my lab's journal club for a while, and I'm wondering whether there are better ways out there of conducting a journal club. To make the question more generic, our club seems to have two purposes:
1. Ensure that the students in the lab are reading papers in the field
2. Discuss the latest research findings in the field
Regarding goal (1), that's kinda what I'm spending all my time doing; I'm doing research, and much of that involves little more than reading a ridiculous number of papers. Insofar as accomplishing goal (2), I'm not sure we do it the best way possible. The journal club I'm currently attending is run by a professor. In general, one person prepares a presentation, and the professor grills that person on the paper. Other people chime in if they're interested, but more often than not it's an hour of watching the prof duel with the student. If the student is well prepared, I'll learn a lot, but when the kid has clearly not read the paper well, it's just a waste of everyone's time. **What successful journal club formats have you encountered?**<issue_comment>username_1: This is based on my experience being in some highly unsuccessful journals clubs, and some very successful ones - at least in my mind.
1. You *must* have faculty involvement. I've seen more than one journal club that either didn't have faculty members, or had a faculty member or two who just kind of sat back and didn't say anything. That's bad. Faculty members who can contribute, answer questions, and generally provide some context for papers are excellent. They're good for pointed questions we might have missed - I've had faculty members ask a question about a figure that got into an interesting discussion of research ethics, one that led insight into some politics ("The reason that commentary appeared in this journal is Y"), etc.
2. I prefer to have them separate from lab meetings, and drawing from a wider audience than my specific research group. I find the breadth of experience, diversity of papers, and keeping up with things taking place beyond my narrow little laser-like focus to be both refreshing and more useful than going over a paper half of us already read.
3. Giving the journal club a greater context. Yes, keeping track of the literature is important. But its importance seems to slide if you know your analysis should be done soon, or something needs to come out of the water bath, or midterms need to be graded. One semester we framed ours as qualifying exam preparation, and another as professional development - the people presenting wrote their critiques like responses to requests for peer review.
Overall, I've found journal clubs to be most useful for mid-level graduate students - they need enough experience to have thoughts, insights and feelings about the paper, but if a JC succeeds, eventually they should need it less and less.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: [username_1's answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/280/5674) is great. Along the lines of "greater context" - you could form a journal club around a topic, rather than around your laboratory. When I was in grad school for plant biology, a friend of mine in Ag Chemistry formed a photosynthesis journal club. He was able to get his supervisor (photosynth bacteria) and another PI (plant focused) on board as regular attendees, while the student himself proctored the meetings. I participated not because I was studying photosynthesis myself, but because I wanted to learn more about biophysics.
Attendees (including the professors) took turns selecting papers and leading discussions. It ended up being good study for my qualifying exam - and a good way to get face time with others in the department that I wouldn't normally interact with.
This is one way to get around the "students take turns getting grilled by one professor." Take the initiative or find another student who wants to run a club, and find professors who want to participate but not lead. The environment will be different.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/02/20 | 1,195 | 5,018 | <issue_start>username_0: There is a divide between the scientific community about involvement in popular science. I would define it as involvement in NatGeo/Discovery type documentaries, writing columns for newspapers/magazines, blogging about articles of popular nature (Like End of the World, Tsunami or whatever).
Does involvement in such issues harm one's reputation in academia?
I have frequently seen grad students shy away from such opportunities because they think they will be made fun of or won't be taken seriously when they go and speak about "actual" research.
(Although I am talking about grad students, the scenario isn't very different for faculty as well IMO)
Some people like <NAME> or [<NAME>](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Wiseman) have actually authored best selling books. Whereas a majority of people in academia stay in the confines of the journals.<issue_comment>username_1: If certain fields of academia do in fact frown upon "popularizing" science, then they are shooting themselves in the foot.
One of the most important ways of securing funding in different disciplines is through getting support by the federal governments in which they are working. Convincing politician X that you should fund research on doohickey X and widget Y to solve problem Z rather than funding their new shopping mall or football stadium requires convincing them that your research is important and worthwhile. The key to doing this is having a message to sell—something that the lobbyists and staff persons working for the government officials can take to them and say "this is what you need to know about why this is important."
An excellent way of doing this is to take part in writing columns, producing features for television, and other "popular" methods of outreach. You'll have to figure out how to distill your message in a way that's exciting for the viewer or reader, and that will help no only you but your peers as well.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: One situation I have come across in which it can potentially make the academic look negative would be when one is interviewed by a journalist, and the journalist is the one writing the article. Hence, one can be quoted out of context (twisting your words to mean something entirely different) or more frequently just being quoted in a silly way (since the journalist only has a fairly superficial understanding of what you are talking about). Especially if you are involved in something that is controversial (e.g. global warming, racial bias) one should be more aware of this potential.
Besides that I have seen *slight* negative sentiment towards when an author writes a piece that is sensationalist in some ways (which aren't seen as science, or unethical). Examples I have come across are the *Freakonomics* books (or one of the sub-stories from the initial book titled *Gang leader for a day*). I suspect the benifit of exposure outweighed any negative sentiment though in those examples. This probably isn't pertinent to many scholars though (how many people write whole books that could be possibly construed in such a negative light before they are well established?)
I have never encountered negative sentiment for smaller articles (like short peices in the newspaper or blogs). Most people I know are really happy to get an article/editorial in the paper (or other widely read magazine like NatGeo).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I think the answer is, if its done in balance, no. I've had experience as a graduate student with two projects that could be considered "popular science", and they've done...interesting things, career wise. Good as ice breakers ("Oh, *you* did that!?" - in a generally positive tone) and one yielded some interesting professional contacts.
I think there are two critical elements that need to be there:
1. It needs to be popular *science* - it needs a rigorous scientific backing behind it. The popular, fun, Discovery Channel part of my work is backed by peer reviewed publications and conference talks to scientific audiences. That's a good way to reflect criticism of the work as being "soft".
2. As a graduate student, you need to do other things as well. It's dangerously easy, I've found, to make that your "thing" - but if you're going to be a one trick pony in grad school, that pony probably needs to be serious research. "So what are you working on now?" probably needs to have a straight research answer, rather than another popular science project.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: There is a field in which academics are paid to find "the Equation for the perfect X" so that the company that makes X can write a news story about it. I am not sure how academics generally feel about this, but it certainly gives off sellout vibes. On the other hand, [if <NAME> is allowed to do it](http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/may/28/stephen-hawking-formulae-england-world-cup-success) then maybe it's OK?
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/02/20 | 1,154 | 4,843 | <issue_start>username_0: I use the online tool [citeulike](http://www.citeulike.org/user/apwheele) to manage my bibliography. The main tool to organize the library is tags (functionally equivalent to tags here on this site). One problem I seem to be having is I do a very poor job of initially choosing tags, so I need to continually re-tag my library to keep it organized.
Is there any advice on choosing an intitial set of tags? Or will it be necessary for me to continually maintain my library to keep it organized/updated as much as I would like?<issue_comment>username_1: I don't use citeulike myself, but I think it's important to make a difference between tags and keywords. Indeed, keywords are usually already included in the paper or at least in the abstract, so you don't need to retag them with duplicate information. Instead, it's better to use tags to give some personal context, such as why did you read this paper in the first place, or which general idea can you connect it to, or for which of your papers you used it, etc. In this case, there is no "wrong" or "right" tag, just some facts.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: One of the great things about [CiteULike](http://www.citeulike.org/) is that you can see what papers you have in common with other people, and what they're tagging them as. That can give you a good clue when you're starting tagging.
However, whatever you choose, it will evolve as you aggregate a larger and larger library of references, so don't be afraid to keep it flexible.
In the end, your tagging system will be unique to you, because your interests are unique. For example, in my library, I've got a medical-epidemiology tag, because that covers around 1% of my library. If I had no such papers, it would be a useless tag. If I were doing medical epidemiology research, it would also be a useless tag, because I'd have to apply it to 90+% of my library.
Learn by your own experience: how do you use tags? Which tags have helped you find things? Which tags have you used to try to find things, that turned out to be dead ends?
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: The best solution of my is [Papers](http://www.mekentosj.com/papers/) from mekentosj. I should also mention that using tags is not an efficient solution for me; at the tagging moment I could not think about relevant tags and later I would not be able to find the paper. In my system I organized papers in collections (like folders) and search for them using keywords (like one would on in Web of Science) or authors or any other usual field.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Tagging is only useful if you use it with discipline. Look at Wikipedia or Stackexchange, most articles can be determined by 5-6 categories (science - math - geometry - euclidean geometry - metric). Stackexchange has a max. of 5 tags, often you only see 1-2 on questions, which is often pointless, as those tags will appear often in the question/paper title and abstract too. Wasted time.
So, if you decide to create a tagging system, **use at least 4-6 tags** depending on how interdisciplinary and specialized your paper/link collection is.
Also consider to **not only tag by topic but also kind** (review, letter, peer-reviewed, experimental results, theoretical analysis, explanation of new measurement method, meta-discussion...), **year, personal rating** (very interesting article you learned a lot from and should read again from time to time), **rarely/often/top cited, new theory/model, strongly discussed in the research community**
A last note. I use myself **Copernic Desktop Search as a supplementary tool**, I download all papers of possible interest (disk space is cheap ;) ), papers I read, will read or maybe will never take a look at. The point is that **Desktop Search software often has more powerful search operators and sorting mechanisms than Google Scholar & Co**. If you know how to use them, you can save a lot reading and tagging time or tagging at all. You know, if you are smart in using Google & search operators and have a good vocabulary, you don't have to ask a lot questions on internet boards.
Conclusion:
**Don't use tagging for creating a pure thematic and linear directory structure**, if finding again your papers or bits of information can be done by learning a good Desktop Search software. Use your tags in a personal way and remember, the point is not to structure your bibliography like a folder directory for categorized files, the point is to find again the bits of knowledge and most memorable papers, which will rather look like a strongly interconnected nonlinear tag cloud. If you look how people tag sites on del.ic.ious, often only 2 or 3 tags, sometimes using up to 10 pure thematic redundant tags, they are doing it imho wrong and waste a lot of time.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer] |
2012/02/20 | 595 | 2,569 | <issue_start>username_0: I have been recently introduced to the idea of teaching portfolios, that is a collection of teaching experiences and references made by peer educators. Their supposed purpose is to go along a researcher CV when applying for a position in academia, i.e. assistant/associate professor.
Any first hand experience?<issue_comment>username_1: This may be useful for someone considering a career at a teaching-first school, but I've never seen such portfolios asked for or even considered at research universities in the US and the larger European countries.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Creating a "portfolio" for teaching used to be the norm for those entering the teaching career on the secondary (high school) level and below. My portfolio is HUGE (a 3-inch binder stuffed full of lesson plans, my philosophy of education, professional development, letters of recommendation, photos of my students, etc.), but I've only had one administrator ever actually LOOK at my portfolio and that was when I was interviewing for my first teaching position.
The move I've seen from many universities is to have their teaching students create virtual or online portfolios. If I were you and I were considering applying for a higher-ed. position, I certainly wouldn't create anything that was a step backwards in technology. If you choose to create a portfolio, spend the time and create a virtual one.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I have to agree with username_2 answer, they don't seem to be as important and they are made out to be by the powers to be. I created a "portfolio" and the only person who ever looked at it was a colleague who was part of an interview process. They don't appear to be looked when you go in for interviews. I like that I can look back on my portfolio and see past achievement and progress over the years but to be honest I quit updating mine about 4 or 5 years ago.
My final message would be go for and create the portfolio but don't be disappointed if it does not get reviewed during your hiring process.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: I think it's going to depend wildly on the position and very unpredictable factors. In my extremely limited experience in one discipline (mathematics) at one level (research university), a portfolio would probably only be useful if the committee had already decided to hire you, and higher-ups (chairs, deans, provosti) expressed concern about your teaching. In the right situation, they could be very useful, but it's not the most common in the world.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/02/21 | 1,332 | 5,507 | <issue_start>username_0: Graduate school has a reputation for being a tremendous time-sink. I'm currently married with kids, and I have a fairly busy extracurricular schedule. Is it common for married people - or anyone, actually, with significant external time constraints - to not finish their graduate work, specifically due to conflicting obligations?<issue_comment>username_1: I've seen it work both ways: some people realize that they have a limited amount of time to work as a result of their external commitments, and therefore make themselves super-productive during the hours they are able to do research. I think, to some extent, that most of the people with severe external obligations fall into this class.
For a sizable minority, however, the balancing act proves too difficult—although this is often a function of a mismatch in expectations between the advisor and the graduate student. If you believe this could be a problem for you, you should definitely talk with your advisor; if the outcome is unsatisfactory, you should also consider speaking with your thesis committee and the "graduate officer" of your department.
In general, I think that if you are a productive graduate student, your advisor would be willing to work out suitable accommodations for your schedule.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The people who I've seen with considerable external commitments who have still gotten through in a reasonable amount of time all boil down to one thing: They treat grad-school like a job. From 9 to 5 (or 10 to 6, 11 to 7, whatever works for their schedule) they're *working*. No, they're not available for the infinitely many distractions of life, any more than someone at an office is. They pack a tremendous amount of productivity into that time, and then when they need to be with their family, they're with their family.
Those at least are the people who got through it sane. I think the other major trait is to recognize that, because you have a life, this might take a little longer, and not burn yourself out trying to hammer things through to the point of exhaustion.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: I think the answers given by username_1 and EpiGrad are correct, however, I just want to add one particular point, the one of traveling. Indeed, if it's true that many jobs from 9 to 5 can also include some traveling duties, it's particularly true when doing a PhD (and later on during the whole academic life). In this case, I don't think that marriage is a problem, but other external time obligations, such as a baby or an activity requiring some presence can pose problem.
I've known a case of a PhD student who couldn't attend a conference overseas in its entirety due to religious reasons: the conference was ending on a Friday, and this student needed to be home every Saturday. He couldn't attend entirely for the same reason a PhD school, and I think it's a real problem, because these kind of events are also there to socialize with peers, and going there just for a limited time window does not help.
Similarly, I've known a case where a speaker could only attend one day at a conference, the one where he was giving his talk, as he couldn't be far from home more than that, because he had to take care of his baby.
I'm not saying that an academic life means no private life, but in some cases, it can require some flexibility, and an external time obligation might imply to limit oneself, for instance by considering only "local" conferences.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I had a similar dilemma (mine was whether to become a parent during grad school), and what solved it for me is the realization that, if all goes according to plan, my post-PhD life won't be too different from my grad student life. I'd like to stay in academia, and all the current difficulties will remain (e.g. short-term contracts/grants, traveling, unevenly distributed workload throughout the year, etc.). This realization was one of those: "Aha!" moments for me. If it doesn't work out now, it won't be a viable option for the future either. That being said, I do try to keep a 9-5 schedule, and I don't think it would have worked out well if my partner wasn't as involved in parenting as I am.
Perhaps working in industry is different, and it really is easier to have kids. In any case it might be an idea to ask yourself whether you think your obligations in grad school would really be all that different from what they are at your current job.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: I agree with previous answers: graduate school is a *full-time* job, and should be treated as such. I think it is possible to do so while keeping a healthy marriage life, though it might take more time than usual.
Just to complete the perspective, let me give my personal experience. I have completed my M.Sc. in parallel of working a full-time job (which was really a 24/7 kind of work). Although it was M.Sc and not PhD, it was research-based rather than classes-based and same rules apply: school is a full-time job. Graduating took me 6 years rather than the common 2-year program, but I did it! Don't get me wrong - it wasn't easy at all: I was working on weekdays and studying on weekends, with very little time to do other stuff (if at all). However, I know quite a few people who did the same. The key to success is only to have a strong will. Kids and marriage are a large time-consuming, but certainly not as much as another job.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/21 | 2,096 | 7,919 | <issue_start>username_0: For many years, I've used Latex to create my presentations, because I need to include mathematical formulae and symbols. However, it's sometimes quite cumbersome to use, and it's much harder to do "visual" effects (I'm not talking about animations, but for instance about arrows emphasizing a particular word, or connecting two words together, etc) compared to, say powerpoint.
I'm now trying to keep the maths to a minimum in my presentation (that was actually a really good advice given by a good speaker I talked to), but I still need them a bit, so my question is: what good (combined?) solution exist to create nice presentation that involve mathematical symbols?<issue_comment>username_1: If you're on OS X, then a great solution is to use the [LaTeXiT](http://www.chachatelier.fr/latexit/) package, which allows you to create graphics files for individual LaTeX equations, which can then be copy-and-pasted into your favorite presentations program (Keynote, LibreOffice, Powerpoint, or even LaTeX Beamer if you have a suitable penchant for irony).
For other systems, options include [KLatexFormula](http://alternativeto.net/software/klatexformula/), and of course the well-known (but also not free) [MathType](http://alternativeto.net/software/mathtype/).
But I prefer LaTeXiT, as it gives you the classic LaTeX look and precision control, while also making it very easy to cut and paste your work. (You can even save equations if you want to use them later.)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I've found that the secret is (1) good tools to create equations, plus (2) liberal use of arrows and text, plus (3) animations linking the two.
I've found the following two programs to be indispensable for writing talks:
* [LateXiT](http://www.chachatelier.fr/latexit/) for the Mac
* [KLaTeXFormula](http://klatexformula.sourceforge.net/download/) for a number of OSs, similar to latexit but less functional
The goal is to make the math (1) visually distinctive, so that the reader can easily tell when you're discussing an equation, and (2) easy to interpret. Remember, in a paper, you have text such as "...where n is the number of..." after the equation is shown. This typically isn't done in research talks, and even worse, once you're off the slide, the reader has to simply remember what the equation was; they can't flip back a page.
My technique (you can see it in action in [this presentation](http://www.slideshare.net/username_2/meg-preprocessing)) is to put equations in a [unique font](http://www.slideshare.net/username_2/meg-preprocessing/73) (I use Times New Roman, with bolding and italics), and using the above tools to [typeset equations in latex](http://www.slideshare.net/username_2/meg-preprocessing/25) and insert them as images as necessary. As you introduce each equation, explain all the variables using [text and arrows](http://www.slideshare.net/username_2/meg-preprocessing/29). Every variable should be explained... yes, this is slow, but learning is slow. If you're going to re-use the same equation multiple times, put it in the [top-right corner of the slide](http://www.slideshare.net/username_2/meg-preprocessing/85) - with arrows and text sometimes included - so that (1) they remember what you're talking about, and (2) so you can [refer back to those equations](http://www.slideshare.net/username_2/meg-preprocessing/90).
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: An answer involving "not LaTex" based on both finding it utterly unnecessary in my field (which *does* involve a fair amount of math) and finding an endless stream of LaTeX-based presentations to feel very boring and same-y.
Have you considered MathType? I've found it far stronger for equation layout than the default Microsoft tools, and it plays pretty well with both Powerpoint and Keynote, which lets you work in the strengths of actual dedicated presentation software. It is admittedly not free, but I've had fairly strong success with it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: If you are in Windows, you can try [Aurora](http://elevatorlady.ca/), although it's not free.
The good thing about Aurora is it fits perfectly with Microsoft Word, you can insert inline equation or numbered equation and when you update the equations, the numbers can be altered easily.
Also, when you insert an equation using Aurora, other people who don't have Aurora can still open the file seeing the perfect equation since it's embedded as a picture to non-Aurora user.
The best part is when you insert an equation with Aurora, it won't mess up the line margin or other typesettings, which is quite often when using MathType.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: You might also want to try [InkScape](http://inkscape.org/) for creating presentations with plug-ins, such as [JessyInk](http://code.google.com/p/jessyink/) or other - simply search for "[presentation in inkscape](https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=presentations%20in%20inkscape)". Besides that, InkScape allows you to render LaTeX math, [it has the support built in in the new versions](http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/LaTeX). This solution might sound a bit complicated at the beginning, but you'll get the power to create extremely fancy visual presentations in the style of [Prezi](http://prezi.com/) but locally and you can play them in your favourite browser.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: It involves some Latex programming, but you can do all of these things with Beamer and Tikz; see for instance <http://www.texample.net/tikz/examples/beamer-arrows/> and <https://sites.google.com/site/kaarebmikkelsen/in-the-news/fancyequationsinlatexbeamerwithtikz>.
Sample image from the first link:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hS1tG.png)
Essentially, Tikz allows you to remember the positions of the elements in each picture (using `\tikzstyle{every picture}+=[remember picture]`), and then add popups, markers and arrows between them as an overlay over the already typeset page (using `\begin{tikzpicture}[overlay]`).
The main benefit with respect to other solutions is the quality and consistency of Latex typesetting, which we all know and love.
The main drawback is the (possibly) cumbersome Latex programming, which we all know and loathe.
Also, it's all plain text (with simplifies automation, version control...)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: Microsoft Office 365 supports Unicode Math for Powerpoint, and also LaTeX syntax for Word. For most simple equations, it is possible to directly type them in as text and edit as necessary, without converting them to images. This includes equations involving integrals, derivatives, limits, trigonometric functions, etc.
While Powerpoint does not seem to support LaTeX syntax, it is possible to copy and paste LaTeX equations written in Word. For a presentation that is lightweight in math content, this could be a good option to keep the other features of Powerpoint without compromising on math expressability. However, Microsoft Office 365 needs a paid subscription.
A few helpful references:
* [Linear format equations using UnicodeMath and LaTeX in Word](https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/linear-format-equations-using-unicodemath-and-latex-in-word-2e00618d-b1fd-49d8-8cb4-8d17f25754f8)
* [Write an equation or formula](https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/write-an-equation-or-formula-1d01cabc-ceb1-458d-bc70-7f9737722702#ID0EAACAAA=Write_new_equation)
* [Unicode Nearly Plain-Text Encoding of Mathematics Version 3](http://www.unicode.org/notes/tn28/UTN28-PlainTextMath-v3.pdf)
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_8: [IguanaTex](http://www.jonathanleroux.org/software/iguanatex/) is a free AddIn for PowerPoint which allows for seamless integration of LaTeX in PowerPoint slides.
It is very simple to use and feels very natural.
Upvotes: -1 |
2012/02/21 | 1,749 | 7,564 | <issue_start>username_0: I graduated with a Masters of Engineering, concentrating in digital signal processing, in particular medical and audio, almost two years ago. I've always been interested in research, but due to personal circumstances I could never commit a lot of time to working on a research project with a professor, and obviously didn't get a chance to publish anything. Now that I'm more settled and have much more time on my hands, I started getting involved in some open source projects and reading some technical literature (engineering, mathematics) that I couldn't get to before. However, I'd still like to find someone to to collaborate with on a research project who is already established in the field and publishes papers. Part of the reason I want to do that is to be able to eventually apply for a Ph.D. program in a good school, and having publications would be a great thing on my resume.
What I'm trying to find out is how I can work on a research project similar to those graduate students work on as a part of their studies if I'm not a student anymore? Should I contact my old professors from the university? Is it possible to find some "open research" team that accepts collaborators from outside? Do I have to do it on my own (quite frankly I'm not sure I can give myself a good enough quick-start)? In short, I'm willing to volunteer my time in exchange for a possibility of publication in the future. Can I do it, and if yes then how?<issue_comment>username_1: The short answer is yes, you can.
There is no need to be in a university, a research lab to work on a research project. There is also no need to have a PhD or any other specific degree/position.
This is however somehow unusual. But, there is a bunch of people in industry that publish on a regular basis some serious research work.
If you have no idea of the problem you want to address, or at least a broad domain, this will be even harder. I can only advice you to offer your manpower to people who are established researchers. For that purpose, you can go to seminars, you can maybe, if this is possible where you live, lurk into some graduate lectures, etc. After a while you will be able to talk with people and offer your services.
However, the simple way is to work with relatives. For instance, my brother is an entrepreneur, and he wrotes two papers with me (one is published, the other will be soon I hope). Of course, it was simple: I described one of my problem on a sunday lunch at the parents house, He had some ideas, we worked on it...
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It is possible to take part in a research project, but your situation is not that common.
Many labs have paid positions for Research Assistants, where you will assist with managing all aspects of the research except for defining the problem to be solved. Details of the position will vary from lab to lab, but you will often be very involved in the research. Usually research assistants are not authors on publications, so you would need to discuss the details with the professor managing whatever lab you're interested in.
Also, many labs will take on undergraduate student volunteers to assist them with their research. Your having completed an undergraduate degree may make you eligible for these positions, on a case-by-case basis. You would want to speak with individual labs to see whether they would be amenable to this sort of arrangement. Note that position would almost certainly not be paid. Also, note additionally that there may be insurance issues which would preclude you from following this path... you'll have to look into this for yourself.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The best thing for you to do is almost certainly to just start emailing professors who do things you're interested in.
Especially if you mention that you're interested in eventually pursuing a PhD, they may be sympathetic. Most researchers have a sizable number of problems on their personal back burner that they'd be willing to share, but in my experience, it's better to just go ahead and email a number of professors who do work that interests you.
Be prepared for a number of rejections, or even just to have your email ignored -- so you may want to email many different professors -- but it's not unlikely you'll find a professor interested in working with you.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: It's not clear, based on your letter, what discipline you're working in, but I would assume that it's something somewhat "portable," since you don't make any mention of moving to the site of the collaborator's laboratory.
The main obstacle I would see would be how to credit your work. Technically, unless you're funded with or directly affiliated with a research group (for instance, with a university ID, etc.), there may be liability issues associated with your claiming their affiliation. Also, the collaborators in question may be leery of the same.
That said, there are still options. One possibility is that you create a startup-like business that allows you to represent yourself as "Company X"; coupled with an academic or research affiliation or two, this should be enough to get you started.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: It's certainly possible, though admittedly somewhat harder outside the framework of a university. Some potential avenues, answering generally - not all of them might apply to your particular circumstance.
1. Academic/Business partnerships. These are a new hot topic, and in some fields quite active. Universities love them because they're a revenue stream. Businesses like them because its harder to get closer to the cutting edge than at a major university. Look for companies that do this as potential employers? They're good for both dabbling in research, and also as a springboard into the research side of things - I've met several "private sector refugees" in my time.
2. Research-oriented companies. Quintiles, RTI, Westat, RAND, etc. all come to mind. There are *tons* of these companies, and many of them both pay quite well and actively publish. Are there any that serve your particular field?
3. Consulting. Research groups occasionally have funding for outside contractors of one sort or another - and if someone really wants to work with you, they may write such a position into a grant with you in mind. For example, I have some grant support for a freelance programmer. I've known other people hired for a particular expertise, or just "a warm body who isn't a student". This is probably the path you'd end up going down if you both contact your ex-professors and want to get paid.
4. Volunteering. Academics are cheap. It never hurts to ask if they've got some side project you might be suited for collecting dust in the back.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_6: Yes - totally. Just think about this: a lot of professors even allow high school students to take part in research. Since you have some more experience, they won't have to spend as much time training you, so they are often totally willing to let you join in (after all, it's free labor).
You may have to be somewhat flexible (and to be prepared to accept unpaid work), but it can work if you're living with family/flexible friends [1]/relatives.
[1] Basically, some friends are willing to let you stay with them for free as long as you make their life more interesting (I'm willing to grant this favor to others since my life is rather bland at the moment), or if you can share in with the cooking/other chores.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/21 | 678 | 2,922 | <issue_start>username_0: I keep hearing different things from different people and it seems there is no clear policy laid out at my institution regarding the definition of graduate student vacation days; I'm curious how PIs and students handle this issue at other places.
**At your institution, do University-wide holidays (such as "Spring Break" or "Winter Recess / Christmas holiday") count towards a graduate student's two weeks vacation?** I always thought the expectation was just that you should be working most of the time, regardless of what day it is, and that seems reasonable to me as long as students have flexibility to take leave when they want/need to without somebody nagging them about the specifics of when/how much time off.
However, recently there's been the assertion by certain bean-counting PIs in my department that students should be working 6 days a week (including nights) and only taking 2 weeks of leave in total (including major holidays). Most people probably work about this much anyway, but being told that it's required leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If people want to get really specific about the "number" of days worked/not-worked, there should be a more standard definition of what comprises a work day (i.e. 9-5, not 9am-12pm). **Am I way out of line here?**<issue_comment>username_1: I would answer with a definite **No**, but check with your graduate student handbook or university's graduate student policy documentation to verify.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: This is not meant to be an official opinion, since obviously the rules depend on the local labor laws.
* We should distinguish school holidays—days on which classes are cancelled—from official holidays, on which the university offices are closed.
* A graduate student not working on a school holiday would be counted as taking leave; however, when the university is closed, that is not normally expected to be a working day for anyone, and thus students would not use a vacation day in such a case.
* Advisors should not have policies in place that *expect* students to be regularly working six days a week, particularly since that would mean that they are potentially in violation of a whole bunch of labor rules.
Given that information, my personal opinion is that research cannot be done according to a timecard. There will be days when you go into the office and figuratively spin your wheels all day, and there are days where you are firing on all cylinders and getting tons done. In my own group, so long as someone:
* is prompt in answering requests,
* attends group functions,
* lets me know if he or she will be out of the office for extended periods, and
* is getting his or her work done,
then I will let that person work in whatever manner is most conducive to getting the job done. That's more important to me than knowing they clocked in 8 hours per workday.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer] |
2012/02/22 | 4,327 | 16,896 | <issue_start>username_0: I have a master's degree in International Studies, and a double major with Computer Science from undergrad. My transcripts suck. There's no other way to dress it up. I have pretty good teaching experience, and my GRE scores are awesome, and I suspect my recommendations are as bland as everyone else's. Basically, to an admissions committee, I suspect I'm the model of a student who is probably smart enough but didn't work hard enough.
I want to do a Ph.D. in Political Science, but the response from my applications is looking pretty grim. Am I permanently out of the running, or is there something I can do for the next few years which will help to counterbalance my unfavorable GPA?<issue_comment>username_1: It depends on where your weaknesses are. If they're in both the master's and the bachelor's degrees, you're in a lot of hot water, because it says, as you suggest, "student not serious enough about studies." (As someone on an admissions committee, I can tell you I need a heck of a lot of convincing to overlook a weak grade in a "core" subject, let alone an overall mediocre transcript.)
The "best" way to get a weak transcript through an admissions committee is to have somebody who can vouch for you to the committee *whose judgment the committee will respect*. So, that means working either for a Very Big Name in the field, or working for someone at a particular institution which you'd later be interested in attending. If they can see that you're someone worth having around, that can sway an admissions committee a lot more than a good package from a complete unknown.
Given your field, this may not be the easiest task to pull off, but I don't see many other options.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I can answer as far as Computer Science(CS) is concerned - don't know how applicable that might be in your scenario.
In CS, you can make up for your transcripts being less-than-average by undertaking research projects/internships in the next few years, ideally in the area you want to pursue you Ph.D. in. Once you have some good results that are published, you can use them to bolster your application - indeed, if they are good enough, they might even trump a candidate with stellar grades and no research experience!
Also, such an endeavor would remedy another aspect of your applications that you don't seem too concerned about - your Letters of Recommendations. "Bland", "did well in class" letters would kill your application a lot faster than your grades, and I don't see how you would make up for it unless you involve yourself in research projects before the next admissions cycle!
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Some universities impose a minimum undergraduate GPA requirement for all incoming PhD students. For example, the University of Illinois [requires a GPA of at least 3.0 (out of 4.0) for the last two years of undergraduate study](http://www.grad.illinois.edu/admission-faqs/domestic/requirements-deadlines) for **all** PhD programs. Applicants that fall below this line are usually culled from the applicant pool before any faculty see their application. Departments can petition for a waiver for individual applicants, but the case has to be pretty compelling.
Of course, every university is different. Choose your targets wisely.
(My undergrad GPA was well under 3.0.)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: **Short answer**:
* Know what area you want to work in and be fluent with it.
* Construct an honest, compelling narrative illustrating your strengths, how you've learned from mistakes or pitfalls, and why you're a good candidate for your chosen PhD programs.
* Talk to as many professors as you can about their interests and yours, especially those you'd like to work with.
**More details:**
There is some [excellent advice here](http://www.quora.com/If-I-contact-a-professor-for-research-graduate-school-and-he-asks-for-my-resume-transcript-what-should-I-do-if-my-transcript-is-embarrassing) and [here](https://www.quora.com/Graduate-School-Admissions/If-I-have-good-research-projects-and-publications-but-a-low-GPA-will-top-grad-schools-accept-me). Basically, <NAME> (who is now a professor in neuroscience at UCSD) managed to get into UCSF (a top school for neuroscience) with an overall GPA that hovered around 2.5. As <NAME> said, your ultimate goal is this:
>
> Do everything in your power to leave a paper trail of excellence to
> overcome your grades. Your goal is to make those grades look
> meaningless. **Your goal is to have your work speak for you so strongly
> that, when people look at your grades, they feel silly for even giving
> them a second thought.**
>
>
>
This was precisely why I was willing to give my unofficial transcript to professors at my school who asked for them (when I needed letters of recommendation). They already knew me well enough to know that my GPA doesn't reflect my true ability.
As another suggestion, if you're applying for a school that puts a lot of weight on a subject GRE exam (like the Physics GRE), you can do your utmost to score obscenely high on the test and still get in. As an example, [see this guy who managed to get into Harvard with a 3.1 GPA](http://www.physicsgre.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4274&start=50#p39860).
For the record, I'm an undergrad with a 3.16 GPA (with 3 grades of 0.0s and 3-4 courses I retook with grades of 3.0-3.1 on the retake because I didn't even bother going to class on either class attempt). Despite all this, I managed to get into both the University of Chicago and Brown University - both with fellowships for being one of the top applicants. I also almost got into Yale in a year that was unusually competitive for them (they paid for me to visit+interview there) - but there were research fit issues involved at the end (actually - what ended up happening was that I had such intensely-defined research interests - exoplanet climate modelling - that it would have been hard for anyone there to take me individually, and everyone felt that I would be going to Chicago anyways). [Click here](http://www.physicsgre.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4274#p38595) for a rough profile of my "stats".
You should also try schools that do interviews (especially in-person interviews) before they do acceptances, since the interview is where you have the opportunity to shine (and where they can at least give you a chance). Yale is one of those schools.
You should also look into very interdisciplinary graduate programs that are expanding faster than what their textbooks (and courses) can keep up with. Newer fields also tend to be [low-consensus](http://www.cogsci.msu.edu/DSS/2012-2013/Simonton/2010BVSRcombmodPoLR.pdf) fields, which also tend to be more tolerant to those with low GPAs. The geosciences is one of the few areas where plenty of people with sub-3.5 GPAs often do get into top schools. As the geosciences aren't taught in high school, it's often said that the Geosciences is something that you "stumble" into, and it's actually very common for people to enter the geosciences only after finding that they didn't like another major (this is often true for geoscience professors as well).
[Biology is another area that's often tolerant of those with low GPAs](https://www.quora.com/Graduate-School-Admissions/If-I-have-good-research-projects-and-publications-but-a-low-GPA-will-top-grad-schools-accept-me/answer/Alex-K-Chen/comment/1524987), from what I've heard. In both Biology and the Geosciences, research fit often matters a lot more than "being one of the top applicants", so if you have a *focused* interest that you've demonstrated through research (and that matches the interests of faculty members who are willing to take new students), then yes, they can be willing to take you over people with better GPAs and test scores. The thing in common with the two is that they're so broad that it's impossible to put every applicant through a common set of required courses (or through paper-based qualifying exams), so their quals cannot be based on coursework. In that case, performance in prior courses doesn't matter as much. In fact, some geoscience programs (like Berkeley EPS) don't even have admission committees because the interests of faculty members are so diverse that applicants often only have research fit with a single faculty member - so it then often becomes a single faculty member who decides between applicants.
The MIT Media Lab [is the perfect example of this](https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-most-important-tips-for-getting-accepted-in-MIT-Media-Lab/answer/Drew-Harry), in fact (though most geoscience/biology programs will have more of a committee than the MIT Media Lab). The tips in this link can be quite helpful to anyone with a low GPA who wants to work with a particular adviser.
You should also look for fields with very low people-to-problems ratios. Many of these fields don't offer courses that are part of the core requirements of numerous majors, so there won't be hordes of undergrads who take their courses. Fields like atmospheric science and various areas of biology are particularly known for their low people-to-problem ratios, and the professors in them can be incredibly accessible (and are more willing to closely look at unusual applicants). More [here](https://www.quora.com/Graduate-School-Admissions/If-I-have-good-research-projects-and-publications-but-a-low-GPA-will-top-grad-schools-accept-me/answer/Alex-K-Chen).
Also, just write 2000-word personal statements. I wrote 2000-word personal statements for all the schools I applied for (they were **necessary** since I had to do some explaining), and they didn't prevent me from getting in. They can annoy some schools, but that's going to be a matter of fact if you're a highly unusual applicant.
Finally, you can always stay somewhat longer. My GPA would never recover from the early mistakes I made, but I managed to recover by staying longer and by taking a huge number of grad-lvl courses in my last 2 years. When writing your personal statement, you should always put in statistics like last-2-year GPA and last-X-year major GPA in whatever field of study you're in (I put in post-(freshman year) physics GPA of 3.77 in). Be careful not to sound like you're cherry-picking though.
If you need some extra inspiration, [you should read about <NAME> too](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Smale).
>
> He entered the University of Michigan in 1948. Initially, Smale was a
> good student, placing into an honors calculus sequence taught by Bob
> Thrall and earning himself A's. However, his sophomore and junior
> years were marred with mediocre grades, mostly Bs, Cs and even an F in
> nuclear physics. However, with some luck, Smale was accepted as a
> graduate student at the University of Michigan's mathematics
> department. Yet again, Smale performed poorly his first years, earning
> a C average as a graduate student. It was only when the department
> chair, Hildebrant, threatened to kick out Smale, that he began to work
> hard. Smale finally earned his Ph.D. in 1957, under Raoul Bott.
>
>
>
One word of caution: Graduate programs have gotten a lot more competitive in the last few years, so what applied 5 years ago (or 40 years ago, for that matter), may not necessarily apply today.
By the way, elite private schools (for whatever reason) tend not to have GPA cutoffs. If you're a student with a low GPA applying for an elite private school, you probably have something else in you that's extremely unusual, since very few students with low GPAs apply to them. In fact, when I emailed professors, those at elite private schools seemed to be more responsive to my emails (low student to faculty ratio could be a reason behind that). That said, they're not necessarily more forgiving of unusual applicants. It's often the programs that have some "weakness" in their applicant pool that tend to be more forgiving of them.
Also - I would definitely look for areas where the department is trying to expand into, but where the department has no reputation for as of yet (visits/contacting professors can help you learn more about that).
Going to academic conferences can also **really** help as well - but only when you can make sure that you have useful things to say. The same is also true for visiting schools before applying.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_5: When evaluating graduate applications, I weight recent evidence more than stale evidence. One way to recover from bad undergraduate grades is to take classes through a community college or extension program and get great grades or recommendations.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: I had a very mediocre transcript from a very good school. I worked five years, then applied to a good school in a foreign country paying international fees for a masters degree. Then I worked very hard and got decent grades and great letters of reference and got into MIT for my PhD.
In general, if you work a few years and/or do another degree, your first degree doesn't matter any more, your more recent work does. This can be for good or for ill.
One really excellent thing I've seen: Northwestern University in Chicago allows you to sign up for night courses no questions asked, then after you've taken five will review your work on their courses and decide whether to admit you based almost purely on those courses. I assume some other universities might do this.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: You need to have good connections. I.e., a senior, well-respected person in the field who can put their word for you. Or a terrific work experience -- being say the top 10 person on Obama's or Romney's election team would certainly speak for itself in your field. Bad grades + mediocre work experience + bland letters = wasted time and money on the application process.
A former student of mine whom I taught at University A applied to the department I used to work at in University B. He got rejected on the grounds of having a D in the one of the classes in our department's major in the University A. (He later retook the class and got something like a B.) About 20% of our faculty got their degrees from University A, and another 40% are in the same narrow field that the said University A department specializes in, so that bad grade was certainly a big "no-no" for them. I think that student was even bringing some outside federal fellowships money with him, but it did not matter. The student got accepted a year later to University C, which is a *better* program than University B, and finished his Ph.D. a few months ago -- went to work in industry, never had much thrust to work in academia, though.
One other approach you can try is to find the PoliSci department with a heavy computing component, so that you could leverage your computer science experience. These would be the top departments, though, which would make it even more difficult. Pick a computation-heavy book published recently by a department member, go through it, replicate some of the results, think about some of the extensions and/or computational efficiencies you can develop, email back to that guy -- that could be your stepping stone towards the good connections that I started with.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: Do not limit yourself to top 20 schools. There are over 200 degree granting schools in the USA and a good percentage have Ph.D programs. While applying to grad school I even found a school with a 2.5 GPA cutoff. Just be realistic about where you are able to get in. What matters ultimately is not where you go to school or who your advisor is but rather the quality of work you are able to produce. [Yitang Zhang](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitang_Zhang) was an unknown adjunct professor at the University of New Hampshire when he published his remarkable paper on prime numbers. Afterwards he could have been a professor for any school he wanted to but chose to stay at UNH.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_9: Now this might be both my field (computational biology) and/or local culture but I found that my grades were easily ignored during my PhD application.
What I think is the most important part is to tailor your application to the job. If your grades are bad, don't mention them (unless of course they explicitly ask for them) and instead focus on relevant skills. Perhaps you learned relevant (and perhaps uncommon) skills during previous projects/internship/thesis work. You may even have acquired relevant skills through extracurricular activities.
Focus on what makes you the perfect candidate for this job.
Also, for your recommendations; make sure you get your recommendations from people who will actually recommend you. I think a less known researcher who is positive about you is better than a big name that's negative about you.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/22 | 978 | 4,413 | <issue_start>username_0: My graduate training is in an interdisciplinary field (bioinformatics). I am affiliated both with a genetics department and an interdepartmental program that encompasses everything from genetics to computer science to evolution to statistics to engineering. The life-science-oriented fields seem to place a lot of value in publishing papers in high-profile journals, whereas some of the more quantitative and technical fields (comp sci and engineering especially) seem to be focused on getting accepted to high-profile conferences with low acceptance rate. So far in graduate school, I have focused completely on publishing papers in journals and have not worried about getting into competitive conferences.
My question is twofold: first, is my assessment of the life sciences vs the quantitative sciences accurate? and second, should I consider submitting my research to competitive conferences in addition to journals? Will this make me more marketable as an interdisciplinary scientist down the road?<issue_comment>username_1: I'll give you my own opinion, as something of an interdisciplinary scientist in a nearby field (I work in mathematical epidemiology) with publications in both places (the conference paper frankly by accident):
First, your impression is indeed correct. CS and related fields very heavily weight conference presentations and proceedings papers in ways the life sciences really don't.
In my mind, there's two things you should be considering:
1. The opportunity to double-dip a bit. We had a question about this recently, but I think it applies to you as well. If your project has "Life science spin-offs" and "Computational science spin-offs", you can submit to both places. For example, I have a project that will end up living in both applied math journals and clinical journals. There's no reason you can't do both.
2. *This part is purely my opinion*. When in doubt, I'd go for journal publications, for a few reasons. I've found most CS and technical people recognize that outside their field, its papers or nothing, better than the other way around. Journal papers are also more likely to get on the radar of people you want seeing your work, get indexed in PubMed (LNCS for example is not indexed in PubMed) etc. Those departments will also probably recognize your technical chops either via talking to you, the technical bent of your publications, or a few conference presentations.
I sympathize with your problem - it's sadly familiar. Generally, I'd try to figure out which audience you want to sell yourself to *more*, and do as they do.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: As a "classically-trained" engineer who's moved into interdisciplinary work, I would argue that the weighting of conference papers seems to be restricted to computer science, rather than being generally true for "quantitative sciences."
For instance, I don't see any such strong preferences in mathematics, chemistry, or physics, and there's definitely no such bias in chemical engineering (my "home turf"). In engineering, perhaps this is because there aren't as many "prestigious" meetings, and because we don't submit anything more than abstracts in order to be considered for a presentation slot.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I agree with @EpiGrad 's [answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/334/204).
I'll also add that the lack of a deadlines for journals can reduce unnecessary stress and allows for a better revision process with reviewers. I've found that journal papers are consequently more polished and thorough compared with conference papers on similar topics.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I can confirm the much heavier weight on conference publications in Computer Science. You should certainly consider publishing in high-profile conferences unless you want to shift your focus away from Computer Science.
The other thing I would add is that often conference publications become journal publications. This is mostly because of the page limits imposed by conferences -- short papers are often only 2 pages. There is also a fair number of Computer Science conferences that offer fast-track or special issue journal publication for the best papers. I think a lot of people in Computer Science do not consider publication at a conference *or* a journal, but rather conference first and then journal.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/02/22 | 1,285 | 5,199 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm in the U.S. and have always written in American English. I will be submitting a paper to a U.K. journal for the first time. To conform to British spelling, I've changed the Microsoft Word dictionary to U.K. English, which has caught most of the obvious differences . Even so, I'm worried that it will miss some of the differences listed [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences) and [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences). **Is this even worth worrying about? Will being lazier about spelling hurt the chances for my paper's acceptance?**<issue_comment>username_1: A lot of US spellings have come to become accepted internationally - at best, some of the reviewers might point out the words which they don't feel are spelled correctly in their review. But, I strongly believe it would not affect the chances for your paper's acceptance in the least - its the content/idea that matters most in journals.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The answer depends very much on the journal. Some expect UK spellings; others will permit either American or British spellings. You should check with the journal in question.
Of course, the other option that you have is the following. Since you know what the major differences between the two sets of spellings are, and you have a sense of which one's won't be caught by your spell checker, you could always do a final search-and-replace after you've completed work on the paper to make sure you've switched everything over. (Or at least, everything you know should be switched over.)
That should satisfy most journals, and as shan23 said, I don't think a journal will reject your paper for writing "meters" instead of "metres"; the most you'll get is a referee report telling you to switch spellings.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Read your journal's guide for authors. That will usually tell you.
Anything that makes the paper look unlike the papers in recent issues, will hinder acceptance. It may be blatant, it may be subtle, but it's there. Dialect of English is one of those things that may or may not matter. Skim through three or four recent issues: are there a mix of US English and UK English articles in there?
That's only a small part of the consistency-checking you should be doing before submission. Indeed, it's part of the checks you should be doing before you sit down to write. Along with: what sort of breakdown of sections do your target journal's papers have, typically? Do article titles include a colon (always, usually, rarely, never)? How many paragraphs per section, words per section, how any words in the title, and so on.
Editors are usually very very busy. Anything you can do to make their life easier, will help your article get published.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Practice between publishers (and indeed, between individual journals put out by the same publisher) would be different. It is best to consult the **Author Guidlines** for the journal you will be submitting to. Occasionally there will also be certain idiosyncrasies that do not agree with the dictionary included in Microsoft Word.
For example, take a look at the publishing guidelines for [Institute of Physics](http://authors.iop.org/atom/usermgmt.nsf/AuthorServices) which is based in London. It stipulates that
* `ize` endings should be used instead of `ise` endings. (I know a lot of spell checking software will tell you that 'colourise' is perfectly fine British English, so be careful there!)
* British spelling is compulsory ... with the exception of a list of journals where both American and British spellings may be used. (So if you submit to one of the journals in the list of exceptions, you should just aim to be internally consistent with your choice of spelling.)
For the most part: if there is anything specifically listed in the author guidelines, make sure to follow them. For everything else, especially since "British English" is a bit of a moving target (as evidenced by the second link you provided in the question), that's what [copy-editors](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_editing) are for. (And unless you have a very good reason, don't fight with them. House style almost always trump your personal preferences.)
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: It will matter. The brits will think you are misspelling if you don’t do it their way.
I use this to help me get it right. I would look at the “don’ts section”. I think it applies.
<http://blog.lib.umn.edu/lawre035/SocSci/Writing%20Journal%20Entries.pdf>
Then again you can just browse through the many online dictionaries. My favorite one is thefreedictionary. It has so many ways to choose.
<http://cognitiveanomalies.com/my-quest-for-the-best-online-dictionary/>
Good luck
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_6: As long as you get your meaning across efficiently, it won't matter.
We 'Brits' (as the previous contributor so brashly refers to us) are a cosmopolitan lot and we are well used to reading materials in US spelling.
Why do people use the word 'Brit' anyway? It's derogatory and offensive.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/22 | 834 | 2,935 | <issue_start>username_0: For the record, I'd like something to replace notebooks. I'm accumulating more and more notebooks, and they're a pain to tug around everywhere. Plus, notebooks are easy to get lost (I've lost notebooks by accidentally leaving them in restrooms), not easily-backup-able, and non-searchable.
So I'd like a tablet that allows me to read PDFs heavy on math/physics, that allows me to easily annotate notes, and that has a thin stylus that allows me to write subscripts and superscripts with ease.<issue_comment>username_1: I believe the limitation is more on the software that you are using, rather than the tablet itself. So, if you are using an iPad, you can use [UPad](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/upad/id401643317?mt=8), whereas android tablets users should be looking at something like [Repligo](https://market.android.com/details?id=com.cerience.reader.app) or [ezPdf Reader](https://market.android.com/details?id=udk.android.reader).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Regarding the stylus, [this review from MacWorld](http://www.macworld.com/article/156560/2011/05/touchscreen_stylus_roundup.html) strongly recommends the [Wacom Bamboo stylus](http://wacom.com/en/Products/Bamboo/BambooStylus.aspx) for writing notes.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: The apps suggested by others for iPad and Android with the necessary stylus-es are not bad. However, if you are looking for something **ONLY** to take notes I would suggest looking at [Boogie Board](http://www.improvelectronics.com/boogie-board-LCD-writing-tablet/boogie-board-rip-LCD-writing-tablet.html). I haven't tried it out myself but I hear its good. Plus, its dirt cheap as compared to tablets. Also, the battery life is insanely high and since it doesn't use a touch interface, you can practically write anything and it will store it as that. There are downsides though, it can't save many PDFs and it can tend to be slow. You might want to check them out.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I found this [Lenovo Thinkpad Tablet](http://the-gadgeteer.com/2011/11/16/lenovo-thinkpad-tablet-review/), which designed specifically for stylus use (iPad and the likes are not).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Check out this question and my answer: [Device for writing a lecture with a stylus for video lecture recording](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2853/device-for-writing-a-lecture-with-a-stylus-for-video-lecture-recording/2855#2855)
Short version: any professional tablet pc with an active digitizer (the Wacom ones are the best on market). They cost only a little more than an iPad. IPads are good for goofing off and clicking on your virtual farm but there is an abyss in terms of writing quality.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Try the samsung galaxy note 10.1. With a wacom s pen it seems to be the right choice for people who do write a lot of equations/ want to annotate lecture notes.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/22 | 647 | 2,644 | <issue_start>username_0: For the record, I'm visiting the University of Chicago as an accepted PhD student (in the geophysical sciences) next week.
In particular, I'd especially appreciate creative questions that few other visiting students ask.<issue_comment>username_1: * Talk to current graduate students in your lab (even better, working with your potential adviser!)
+ Ask about their opinion about how the working environment is - what is the working style of your adviser, what is the average time take for a PhD student to graduate from the lab, and where do most of them land up (as eternal postdocs, or tenure-track faculty positions)
* What is the funding scenario - do most people have to be TA's for an extended period/all throughout, or whether RA grants are available? What about conferences - do students get funding for traveling to important venues?
* What kind of a social life exists in and around the campus, and what is the cost of living - a Ph.D is a long commitment, and you should remember these "soft" criteria as well, so that you are at least prepared mentally when you enter grad school
I'll expand on my answer as and when other points come to my mind!
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: You'll want to get a sense of their feelings for:
* The graduate program
+ Easy to work with regarding customizing the program to their specific needs (i.e., taking courses outside their specific area if necessary)?
+ How easy/difficult was the process for joining a lab?
+ Have they found the staff easy/hard to work with?
* The advisor
+ Attitude towards students (respectful/distant/slavedriver)
+ Presence in the lab (micromanager/occasional presence/absentee)
+ How organized is the research?
* The university as a research institution
+ Easy collaboration between departments (in their opinion)?
+ Availability of course offerings (from their experience)?
* The city as a place to live
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Few of my favorites are 1) Did anything regarding the school surprise them? 2) Things they wish they had been told when they had visited/started grad school at that school. 3) In retrospect, would they still make the decision to come to that particular school.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I want to add three important questions:
* What have you personally done?
* What is that you currently work on?
* How long have you been here?
The best indicator of future performance is past performance. You are likely to be in these graduate students' position in a couple of years' time. How satisfied will you be if you accomplished as much?
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/22 | 988 | 4,166 | <issue_start>username_0: In many cases, they (understandably) don't reply (or they are uncomfortable with sharing them, as they often contain unpublished material). Also, I do this often, and don't want to be known as "the person who asks people for their powerpoint slides".
At the same time though, it's simply far easier to remember the content of a presentation/talk when you actually have access to the stuff inside (and I do discover that I learn faster from talks than from any other source). Most of the time, I request the slides as a reference for learning the material (since I'm still new to the area, and they are quite helpful for that).
(though I do wonder - what are the underlying circumstances when most people ask for them?)<issue_comment>username_1: Be very clear on what you want it for, particularly whether you will be sharing it further (even within your group, with your advisor, &c).
I often post edited version of the slides online, but I always want to have control on the contents that are public, semi-public, or private.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: You can ask for a redacted version of the slides, without new data. Do note that this will require extra work from the presenter; in my experience, I've found that most people do not go this route. I would follow the route you're currently taking; ask for them, and if they don't wish to share, then drop the subject.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I don't mind sharing my presentations, but I make sure that I provide a read-only format only (PDF) with slides scaled to e.g. 1/4 of actual size, in raster format (so that more than one would fit on a page). When people ask for presentations, I expect they'd like to have the material handy for further reading and reference, not to present it or use it themselves.
One would go even further and restrict the PDF printing, copying and modifications, although these can be circumvented with a reasonable effort if you know what you are doing. I don't do this as a matter of principle, but I can see how some people might want to have such kind of control.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: There is no magic when it comes to asking for presentations. And there is nothing wrong with being *the person who asks people for their powerpoint slides* (at least you show that are interested and it may result in them being cited; and it shows that they got their job done - though a presentation they interested others in their idea).
If they don't reply (or don't sent it), it is usually of one of the following reasons:
* They are busy and missed your mail,
* It would take their time to find the presentation and send it (it may be big so it is not just sending an e-mail),
* They would prefer not to make it public as:
+ It is not polished enough for anything but a presentation,
+ It may contain things that they would prefer not to share publicly (e.g. plots form other papers, preliminary data which may later proven to be wrong or incomplete, pictures or video they don't have right to share further, etc).
If they don't want to share it - they have right to it. However, usually they have nothing against (and actually are happy to do so) as long as you make it quick and easy for them.
So it is a good idea to ask for slides just after their talk - they may have it on their computer (so you can copy it to your stick) or on a stick (o you can copy it to your computer) or send it right away.
Also:
* Send your e-mail at most a week after the presentation,
* Be short and concise (what exactly you want, what do you want with do with it),
* If there is no response try writing the same e-mail a week later.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_5: If you're uncomfortable asking the authors of the slides, for some event types, another idea could be to **ask the organizers of the conference, seminar, talk, etc., if they could make the slides available to everyone on the event website**. Depending on their attitude, the organizers may think that this is a good idea and do it on your behalf, and there may have a higher chance of getting a response from the presenter.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/02/22 | 1,154 | 4,843 | <issue_start>username_0: I have a background in Psychology and Fine Arts. My passion lies with doing scientific research and making art. So ideally I would be able to do both, or use one to support the other. However, I've found that finding a job in the social sciences is pretty difficult, if not impossible without work experience (pretty much a vicious cycle).
But since finding a steady income with a degree in fine arts is even more difficult, I would very much like to provide a steady income for myself by working in the social sciences. I've had countless bad jobs to support myself through both of my degrees, and I don't see myself becoming very happy doing that my whole life.
**At this point, I have several options, and I would like some advice on what you think would be the best way of proceeding (the points are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and if you have a better idea, please, do suggest it):**
1. I could further specialize myself: do a masters (or even a PhD) in a field which aligns with my academic and research background. However, this could risk another worthless degree with no job and waste of time and money
2. I could move to another geographic location, where a degree in my field is in higher demand, get a job and support my other passions.
3. I could freelance to build experience but this is usually as taxing as a normal job minus job security and pay.<issue_comment>username_1: The question you have to ask yourself is what is the "opportunity cost" of the different options:
* You can apply for jobs without first relocating to the new area, if you're willing to spend some money on travel for the interviews before accepting a job.
* What are the costs of getting a new degree, versus the improved likelihood (if any) of employment with the advanced degree, compared to the lost income while acquiring the degree.
* Could you make enough money freelancing that you can keep yourself *relatively* financially stable while you're organizing something else?
I'd certainly think that starting out freelancing while you figure out a "Plan B" would be the logical, low-entry-cost route. After you've done that for a while, you can decide if either of the other routes make more sense for you.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In general I would counsel against further study. I have seen many people finish an undergraduate degree, look for a job they like/a job, and when they have no luck go back to study. This has almost always ended badly. In most cases they have no understanding of how a further degree will allow them to get the jobs they are interested in, and are merely spending a lot of money to prolong (or make worse) the problem.
If you are incredibly passionate in an area go for it. However the fact that you are posting this/reading this suggests that you are not.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: What you ultimately need to ask is why do you want the MFA, MA or PhD.
For a long time I didn't want these. I saw the MFA as something that many of my friends got with no real objective except to avoid the so-called "real world" and get to stay in a studio as long as they can. I can't do that and it sounds like you can't either.
So then the question is what reason should you get the advanced degree?
The answer is simple: I want to do advanced research in ***(topic)***.
If your answer is anything but the above then it isn't for you. So I can teach is not a strong reason for an MFA or PhD. So I can get a higher paying job is not a strong reason for an MFA or PhD. It is a research degree and ultimately that needs to be your reason for pursual.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: The advice given by some is misleading. A PhD is psychology is almost always a *paid* position. So while you may be earning less than you would in industry, you will earn a stipend (albeit often minimal) while you complete your degree. A Masters degree in psychology, on the other hand, is typically paid for out of the student's pocket. If you are interested in doing research, as you say, I would be hesitant to get a Masters unless you are very confident in a specific career path that requires an MA (and not a PhD).
That said, all of the criticisms that others have raised still apply. For social psychology in particular, I would not recommend applying for a PhD without having a decent amount of research experience. Consider applying for a research assistantship at a university. The purpose of this is two-fold. Most importantly, it's to know what you're getting yourself into and make sure you would enjoy doing research full time for several years. Additionally, it greatly improves your application when applying to mid- or top-tier universities. They want to know that you are both capable of doing research and enjoy doing research.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/02/22 | 1,444 | 5,815 | <issue_start>username_0: What are the advantages of Mendeley over Bibsonomy?
Is it easy to migrate from Bibsonomy to Mendeley?
Does Mendeley offer equally powerful bibliography exportation?
---
In detail, the following disadvantages of Bibsonomy are crucial for me:
* you can not modify all your bibliographies at once, e.g. exchange in every URL field each `#` with `\#`
* many references are not present, so I have to import the bibtex myself
* search functionality could be better.
Does Mendeley solve these disadvantages?<issue_comment>username_1: I haven't got the chance to use Bibsonomy, since I use Mendeley since the beginning.
Concerning your questions:
* You don't have to import bibtex files in Mendeley(although you can), you just simply drag and drop a pdf file to Mendeley, and Mendely will grab the title, user, publication details for you, which is the best thing about Mendeley.
* Search function in Mendeley is quite satisfactory.
* As for modification, I don't have the experience in doing that. Since Mendeley grab the things for you, I guess there is no need to do that.
Also after you registered in Mendely, your references will be uploaded to your account. So when you reinstall your system or something, all your references will come back.
Mendeley is quite great and has other great functions, totally worth trying!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, Mendeley does offer export - BibTex, RIS, and EndNote XML.
The search is pretty decent, though I often find I use Acrobat search instead - its word-stemming seems better.
Batch replacement is very weak - the only way to do it is to go into the database yourself and tweak it. Very unsatisfactory. There is some batch update, in that you can select several papers, and add the same metadata to all in one go: but that's not the same as a batch search & replace. The one batch search & replace it does do very well is that when you get two versions of an author's name, you can drag one name onto the other, and all the papers will get updated accordingly.
I've also found the technical support to be very slow, and often unsatisfactory.
The auto-grab of references from the web is patchy, and you may find you're often correcting it. Often, its guesses seem utterly bonkers, like it's just grabbed a few general words from the title, and gone off to find the closest match for those, in some subject that's completely alien to me.
The interface is klutzy, though I've yet to find a reference manager that had an interface I **did** like.
Earlier versions of Mendeley did occasionally corrupt the metadata, doing things like swapping round the lead and second author - unbelievably frustrating. This may have stopped now - I don't use Mendeley so much any more, because of this and other problems.
Mendeley does have its evangelists, and it seems to have been very slick at cultivating its fanbase - more resources seem to have been spent there than on the software. The [feedback forum](http://feedback.mendeley.com/f) has now become pretty much unusable - there are plenty of important things in there that have been "planned" or awaiting assessment for 2 or 3 years.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I've got impression that Mendeley is pushing energy into something that is not the desktop software for sure. I had 2 years break from my sci efforts and after that period I've installed fresh new version of the desktop software and found few things:
1. my online cloud/repository was crashing desktop software immediately after start (after connection is made)
2. I've just created new username after realizing there is no way to reuse my old account (tried to delete all via web interface but no luck)
So the cloud argument: hm, proved not to be to reliable.
Then I noticed few bugs that blown my mind.
It was all fine before but now (LibreOffice plugin): you click "insert citation" it minimizes Mendeley Desktop (!?! yes, you are at LibreOffice but for no apparent reason, it minimizes the Mendeley Desktop even it is on the second screen), opens popup window within the LibreOffice where you have to know exactly what you want to cite - but, your cursor is not refocused to the input field (HA!). You say: ok, let's see what I was about to cite: you open Mendeley from the task bar and then: HA! the popup window is gone! Then you click "insert citation" again - and guess what: it does the same thing, with the windows again!
So, you might thought that multi-display environment is common in scientific community - but no, you're wrong: apparently 99% of Mendeley users have single screen and find this show&hide game amusing. At least, such impression I've got from low votes on this issue on their support/suggestion issue rank list.
I'm still using the Mendeley because I'm so used to. But if you're a new user, having a learning/adaptation curve to pass anyway: try something else first.
Mendeley does have very good auto-discovery solution for any PDF you put in watched folder(s). Few fantastic features it has, in that direction like auto online search for more data for existing entry. But then some really stupid bugs make you crazy: like you manually edit a field, then open another entry and come back to the edited one: HA! you see the old data, the update you just typed in vanished. I'm still trying to understand a pattern there: because it's like every 4th modification is just ignored, at least in my case.
To me it seems they have to stop with development of new features and go back to fix the stuff that was fine before, but suddenly became buggy for no reason. I wish it is an open source project so I can jump into the code and disable this "now you see me, now you don't" game of the windows. It kills me.
(this is comment, not answer)
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/02/22 | 1,011 | 3,945 | <issue_start>username_0: E.g. as shown in the example [here](http://www.princeton.edu/aos/people/graduate_students/persad/G_PersadCV2011.pdf).
>
> * 2011—Centennial Fellowship, Princeton University Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (accepted)
> * 2011—Top Student Award, University of Washington (declined)
> * 2011—Program in Climate Change Fellowship, University of Washington (declined)
> * 2011—Faculty Fellowship, Columbia University (declined)
> * 2011—<NAME>, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (declined)
> * 2011—Regents Fellowship, Scripps Institution of Oceanography (declined)
> * 2011—Chair’s Award, Stanford University Department of Earth and Environmental System Science (declined)
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: I don't think there's one answer to this question. Different people react to different things on CVs in different ways. The level of listing above is silly; if the candidate in the example had asked me for my advice I would have told them not to (they're basically listing jobs they were offered; interpreted generously, it looks like CV padding), but occasionally it can make sense to list a prestigious fellowship you declined due to circumstances.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Bad idea. If you turn down an award (or an acceptance to a univeristy, etc), you don't get to reap the benefits of that award.
No one cares about the universities you *could have gone to* or the fellowship programs you *could have worked for*, they care about what you have actually done and that is all you should include on your CV/resume. Period.
To me, the resume linked to above reads "I had no one else edit or evaluate my resume before I posted it online."
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Like so many other matters, your location plays a role in what is considered accepted or not.
In the US, I would limit listing "declined" awards to *national*, *competitive* fellowships which had to be declined because of the fact that you're not allowed to accept multiple fellowships. However, the awarding of multiple such fellowships shows that you are a "hot commodity," and therefore does confer some benefit to you. (As an example of other countries' practices, here in Germany, it is *expected* that you would list offers of faculty positions that you have declined, for exactly the same reason.)
However, I would agree with username_2 and Ben that in the present case, those awards should not have been listed on a CV. On the other hand, "DOD Fellow" and "Offered NSF fellowship" would be a different scenario.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Aeismail makes an important point about location: what's standard in Germany differs from what's standard in the US.
In a US context, I would strongly recommend against listing things like declined graduate fellowships. It will look strange, and even beyond that it can work to your disadvantage: everybody will already assume you declined several attractive offers, so giving an explicit list will do nothing but focus attention on what isn't on the list. (If the list of declined offers is short, readers will be disappointed, and if it's long, they'll spend more time speculating about what's missing than being impressed.)
The only time I'd recommend highlighting this sort of information is if for some reason you had to turn down a vastly more prestigious offer than the one you accepted. For example, maybe you were offered a tenure-track job at a top department, but ended up working as an adjunct in the middle of nowhere so you could take care of a relative. You should then make sure everybody knows this the next time you are able to apply for jobs. However, you should be very careful when doing this, because if the prestige difference isn't absolutely universally acknowledged, then you run the risk of offending people who feel you are unfairly denigrating a perfectly fine career path.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer] |
2012/02/22 | 843 | 3,538 | <issue_start>username_0: As part of my MSc I have to produce a Thesis/Dissertation which forms an integral part of the program and classification (roughly 1/4 - I imagine the subject can make a difference, so I should say that my MSc is in Mathematics in the UK).
I am wondering to what extend I should expect to be completely on my own in this endeavor. I have a supervisor who has a pretty good research reputation as far as I can tell from his publications and collaborations, so I'm quite happy in that sense, however it s becoming increasingly evident, that he will not provide much guidance when it comes to specific topic selection or anything else for that matter.
Is this normal and to be expected for an MSc Dissertation, or is it a bad sign that should make me think whether it may be better to switch? (I was under the impression that at such a junior level one could still expect quite a bit of hand-holding when it comes to the selection of a feasible topic).<issue_comment>username_1: I'm not sure how much of your issue is related to the specific field—mathematicians are known for being somewhat more independent than graduate students in, say, engineering.
That said, your advisor should at least show signs of being interested in your research. If you feel like you need help, and aren't getting any, then you need to make arrangements to get it. At first, I'd recommend talking to other graduate students and postdocs under your advisor. Next, I'd talk to other students outside the group; finally, I'd move on to other faculty.
It really depends on how easy or difficult it is to change advisors. If it's relatively easy, then in the end, it might be necessary as a last resort. If not, you'll need to make do with a rather unfortunate situation.
Ultimately, this is a case-by-case kind of situation: you'll need to talk to more people in your department and find out how widespread this is. Some advisors are completely hands-off, and expect their students to be self-motivating. Others are hands-on to the point of micromanagement. In math, my impression from conversations with colleagues is that the tendency is towards being hands-off, but it's impossible to say what will be the case in your specific department.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Staff at my department have to propose specific projects for MSc theses (possibly together with the student). Even if your university doesn't require that, I would expect your supervisor to help you significantly with selecting the topic of your thesis. For the thesis itself the help will be less, but I wouldn't think it reasonable to expect an MSc student to essentially come up with their thesis topic unless they want to.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: It can vary a lot by advisor. You should always talk to current (and former if possible) students of an advisor before committing to one. Some questions you might ask:
* How often do you meet with your advisor?
* Did your advisor help you come up with a thesis topic?
* Does your advisor answer your emails quickly/at all?
* Do you feel comfortable asking your advisor for help? Does he/she give it?
* Does your advisor know and care about your career goals?
* Is your advisor expected to stay around this school for long? (An advisor could be pre-tenure and expected not to get it or could be up for sabbatical soon.)
* When you thought you were done, did your advisor agree or want you to do more? How long did it take to get the advisor to read the thesis?
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/02/23 | 1,923 | 8,659 | <issue_start>username_0: Assuming that there are no ethical or legal concerns involved, in general, how would academic journals handle research submitted from the general public (e.g., if a carpenter were to perform a study on memory)? Would it be published if it held to the same standard as other research, or is it rejected without review?
*Edit: A lot of people are commenting on the fact that a person outside of academia probably wouldn't be able to write in a way that was required or have the sufficient training for carrying out a proper experiment. Not my point. I just want to know if there is a general rejection of articles **purely based on the fact that the person doesn't have any affiliation to a proper research organization**. We could for example imagine a former Nobel prize winner who has a lot of money and prefers to work alone.*<issue_comment>username_1: Some journals implement a double-blind reviewing process, meaning that the reviewers are not aware that the authors are from academia or not, and only the scientific content is judged. That being said, it's worth mentioning that it would be hard for someone without a proper "paper-writing" training (such as the one one can acquire in academia), to produce a paper that would be accepted by reviewers. Some general structure is expected, such as related Works, critical discussion, rigorous methodology, and I would say that without that, it would be hard to get the paper published (I have myself rejected papers from graduate students, not because the idea itself was bad, but because the structure and the presentation were not meeting the standards one could expect for a scientific publication).
EDIT: After reformulation of the question, assuming that the quality of the paper makes it indistinguishable from any other paper, then, no, as far as I know, there is no general policy regarding the official affiliation of the author(s). For instance, in Computer Science, it's not rare to see papers published by people working in a "normal" company (i.e. not a research company), typically on some concrete problems/solutions they have found. Some people even keep publishing after starting their own startup, and therefore the affiliation is something like "MyCompanyWeb2.0".
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In principle, there's nothing stopping a paper from being published by a private individual. However, in many fields, the bar to realizing a publishable "quantum" of work is so large in terms of equipment or other resources required that there's virtually no chance of anyone without exceptional means could afford it.
That said, there's also nothing that *requires* a journal to accept a paper from a private individual, either. Journals regularly return papers without review; one criterion for accepting a paper could very easily be that the authors have affiliations witbh "verifiable" organizations.
However, once a paper has been forwarded for review, it should absolutely be reviewed on an equal basis to any other paper in the journal.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: As far as I know, in just about every field it would be considered wrong to reject a paper merely because the author doesn't have a university affiliation.
However, as other answers have pointed out, a paper from a non-academic may have difficulty complying with the usual norms of the field for writing, and might be summarily rejected (or sent to a referee but quickly turned down after a cursory reading) on those ground. Mathematics probably gets more amateur submissions than most fields, many of them downright crankery---although now that I think of it, it's been several months now since someone e-mailed me a one-page proof of Fermat's Last Theorem---and coping with them is a problem, in part because there is a culture that says formal journal submissions need an actual reason to be rejected, just in case this is really the one time a genius from outside academia has solved a problem. But the converse is that as soon as such a paper does fail to comply with ordinary norms of writing and argument, there's grounds to reject it.
(By the way, your example is an interesting one because a study on memory presumably involves research on humans, or at least animals, which might have compliance issues---a carpenter has presumably not gone through the usual process of having research with human subjects checked by a board for ethical compliance, and I'm not sure journals would publish research which requires ethics review but didn't get it.)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: In the Humanities and Social Sciences there are no formal restrictions against submissions by members of the general public. Some journals are far more friendly to non-academic researchers, either due to editorial staff or a culture of supporting popular contributions to knowledge. (History from below and socialist research programmes in general have an openness to knowledge from outside the traditional academy).
The largest barriers to entry are of course the methods, language, evidence and "currency of research" required to conduct and produce research to scholarly standards.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: In general, it should not matter who you are, it is the quality and importance of the work you do that should determine the publishability. With that said, it is true that it is a nontrivial task to write with the appropriate tone, have the needed citations, and conduct a solid research effort without formal training. My advice to you, should you be considering publishing in a technical area (if you are the carpenter in question), would be to find someone who works/publishes in the area with the aim of writing something together. Chances are they may have some good ideas on how to structure and present the work, how to formulate the basic hypotheses and ideas so that they will be palatable to the journal.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: I left academia about 27 years ago after completing my doctorate and a couple of years of post-doc. Since then I have published about 6 papers on physics and mathematics in peer-reviewed journals so it is certainly possible to publish without any affiliation.
However, this week for the first time I experienced the rejection of a paper purely because of the lack of affiliation, so I can confirm that some journals are now rejecting manuscripts purely on this basis. The paper I submitted was [arXiv:1401.8217](http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.8217) which reports my progress on Lebesgue's Universal Covering Problem including a new upper bound. This work is not going to make any seismic waves in the world of mathematics but it is a well known hundred year old problem and previous improvements on the upper bound have been published and well cited.
I submitted to the Hindawi journal "ISRN Geometry" because it is open access and currently has no article processing charge. These are useful conditions for someone with no funding or easy access to subscription journals. It was also convenient that they do not ask for TeX layout and will do the formatting to their style themselves. I had written in Word and was glad not to have to reformat.
After about two weeks I received a message from someone at the editorial office to say that I just had to submit a new manuscript including my academic affiliation for the review process to begin. I was given two days to do this. I replied quickly to say that I had no such affiliation. Two hours later I received a final rejection notice "I regret to inform you that it was found unsuitable for publication in Geometry." No more details were given. The paper had not been sent to a reviewer and it was clear that the only reason for the rejection could be the lack of the requested affiliation. The person who signed the message does not have any academic record that I can find and is not one of the long list of editors for the journal.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: If you want to appear in a motorsport magazine as a racing driver, you will need to belong to an approved team and comply with all the rules of the activity. If any requirement is missing, even if it is minimal, you will be left out.
Motorsport sponsors protect their interests and impose conditions. They can pay a lot for technical optimization and can pay pilots to spend all their time intensely training. So do the sponsors of science.
Do you listen to fans of motorsport complain about the imposition of conditions in the activity? Obviously there are no such complaints. Why then, who are out of scientific sponsorship, want to complain?
Upvotes: -1 |
2012/02/23 | 824 | 3,641 | <issue_start>username_0: I believe in Mathematics and Computer Science journals usually accept LaTeX documents. In fact, the AMS has a number of packages and document classes for just this purpose.
What about other disciplines? I'm not particularly familiar with the humanities. Would a Microsoft Word document be unacceptable?
Does it vary from subject to subject, or even journal to journal?<issue_comment>username_1: The policies vary entirely from journal to journal about what is considered acceptable. APS journals, for instance, will accept both MS Word-based documents as well as documents formatted with RevTeX, their modified template system. ACS journals and a number of other publishers also offer their own LaTeX- and Word-specific templates for authors to use. Whether the use of the template is required or merely recommended is also a function of the journal. So, as a general rule, you should *always* check the homepage of a journal *before* you start preparing an article for submission to that journal.
To some extent, I prefer working with LaTeX in preparing manuscripts, for the simple reason that their plain-text document format makes it a lot less painful to switch back and forth between different templates, compared to a word-processing format like Word or LibreOffice or Pages.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: This varies a lot between journals, and probably even more between different disciplines. In the life sciences Latex is rather rare, MS Word seems to me to be the most common format in my subjective observation.
But the actual document format, be it Latex or Word, is only part of the difference between journals. The exact rules on how to format a paper vary so much that you'll have to put significant effort into adapting the same manuscript for different journals anyway. Check out the [Author submission guidelines for Nature](http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/gta/index.html) or [those from JACS](http://pubs.acs.org/paragonplus/submission/jacsat/jacsat_authguide.pdf) as an example. They often regulate details like how the axis labelling in graphs has to look like. The journals also often have different length requirements, so you might have to shorten your manuscript if you decide to switch to a different journal.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: It does indeed vary from subject to subject, and journal to journal. I once got in a short argument with some math students who had asserted "If its going to be published, it needs to be in LaTeX", a disagreement that only ended when I went and found some submission guidelines. For three fairly good journals in my field (Epidemiology), you have some considerable differences.
*American Journal of Epidemiology* wants everything in either Word or PDF format - LaTeX documents are compatible with this, but its certainly not doing anyone any favors in terms of already being formatted. *Epidemiology* will accept LaTeX documents, but warns that the odds of typesetting and other erros increases in formats besides *Word*. *Journal of Clinical Epidemiology* only requires that an editable version be available.
So the de-facto standard in my field is Word, though of course there are ways around that. And then, as mentioned, there are formatting issues beyond just "what's the file extension?" How references, the text, and figures are reported - must odds ratios be graphed on a log scale or not?. How p-values are treated. What format graphics are allowed to be in, etc. As Fabian said, submitting to a new journal often involves combing through the same content to subtly tweak formatting.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/02/23 | 1,556 | 6,891 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm coming from a biomedical engineering background, and I'm noticing that almost all job postings ask for either an MS or a PhD, and from speaking with my friends with masters it seems that masters are often favored, because they demand less pay. In fact, the only positions that specifically seek out PhDs seem to be research positions in industry.
Based on that, I'm curious to see if this exists beyond just engineering. **Are there any non-research industry positions that actively seek to hire PhDs over masters students?**<issue_comment>username_1: I don't have hard numbers to support this statement, but I've been told that many investment banks are quite interested in PhD (although mostly in hard sciences) for quantitative analyst jobs. These positions are not research positions, but it seems that the rigor and the experience of research, in terms for instance of modelling data, acquired during the PhD is appreciated.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I think that the only positions where it makes sense to hire a PhD over a master's degree holder are those which require a lot of analytical skills, plus the ability to be "laterally" flexible. That is, you want to hire someone who can do many different tasks over time, rather than just lead one project or group. These occupations would include quantitative analysis, but would also include more non-traditional jobs such as a journal editor or a consultant.
From an industrial perspective, though, for anything outside of research, it's probably more economical and practical to hire someone with direct or relevant experience at the master's level and train them to do the job you need them to do.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: From what I've heard, some companies prefer hiring PhDs over Masters not because of their additional knowledge because people who have done a PhD will in general be more mature and reliable. Some companies also count having a PhD as work experience which will reflect on your salary.
To answer your question, I'm not aware of any specific positions for which this is done, but depending on what the actual job is, recruiters may prefer candidates with a PhD (even if it's not in exactly what the work is going to be) for the reason mentioned above.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: I am currently employed in the biotech industry. Hopefully this is helpful but it may all just be obvious:
Concerning **research industry positions**, jobs are generally classified as PhD (scientist) or non-PhD (research assistant/associate). For scientists positions, sometimes someone without a PhD will be considered if they have significant experience - e.g. Masters plus 5-8 years, Bachelors plus 10+ years. However, PhDs are generally favored over non-PhDs for outside hires. For research asst/assoc positions, non-PhDs are favored over PhD holders, and many companies have policies that prohibit hiring PhDs.
Concerning **non-research industry positions**, holding a PhD will give you an edge over BS/MS holders, but you have to compete with other specialized degrees. For business developement and upper management positions, you'd have to compete with MBA holders (along with internal hires from research/scientific management). For legal positions, you'd compete with JDs and certified patent agents. For project management, there are certifications as well.
If you were to hold MBA/JD/additional certification AND a PhD, you would be extremely marketable for these types of positions. It's a lot of work to add something like that on after finishing a PhD program, but companies often love to have PhDs on staff in those types of positions - but generally you need to have the other qualifications as well.
Edit: Also, the best people to talk to are professors from your current/old department who are on any company's board of directors. They will know exactly what kind of people a company wants to hire, and will be able to tell you how to target your job search, or what kind of experience/credentials matter most.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: High-tech engineering companies, for one. A friend of mine works at a small system-on-a-chip designer company, and they supply highly specialized chip designs to other businesses which utilize embedded systems -- think leading automotive, aerospace, consumer electronics OEMs. The company is small and every engineering employee has at least a MSc, most of them have PhDs or higher (that would be associate professors and professors).
Another example is automotive R&D -- mechanical engineering. Companies are financing new development of new methodologies in product development -- particularly structural optimization, design automation, manufacturing process simulations. Virtual prototyping is the name of the game for top manufacturers currently, and the demand for highly-skilled experts is great, even in these uncertain economic times.
In the country where I study, PhD projects are financed jointly by interested private companies as well as research organizations, and the companies have a vested interest to receive not only the direct results from the research, but also trained individuals that can integrate the research outcomes into their product development or manufacturing process.
Obviously YMMV by country and research field. PhDs in in mostly theoretical projects might have harder time finding a good position after graduating, while hands-on graduates whose projects were conducted in collaboration with industrial partners are much more likely to secure a senior technical position even before their dissertation.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_6: PhD is all about getting qualifications for becoming a scientist/researcher. You learn how to do the research independently, how to present your work, you meet people who might be helpful in your further career, and incidentally you get some hands-on experience in an obscure area of science. These are "hard" skills you get along the way. This means that the *only* type of work PhD is required for, or gives you a real benefit, is a job of a researcher, either in academia or in the industry.
Occasionally you might be lucky to work on something truly useful and job will be a natural extension of your PhD. But since getting a PhD degree is really a learning process, the topics are necessarily moderately ambitious and niche - you have the rest of your scientific career to "make an impact".
Outside the research the only thing PhD gives you is a bit of "prestige". This might be a hindrance, or, at best, make no difference when you search for a job. But in a long term you'll likely find that the ceiling is a bit higher. The good thing is that any job you end up doing will be good - the title automatically "filters out" positions that you would later find unsuitable.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/23 | 1,072 | 4,401 | <issue_start>username_0: As a converse to [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/353/what-are-some-good-questions-to-ask-current-graduate-students-when-visiting-scho), as a professor, I find it difficult to conduct a useful interview. **What types of questions should I ask which would give me a good idea as to how (1) productive and (2) self-sustaining of a student the interviewee may be?** If different questions are required for each parameter, please mention that in your answer.<issue_comment>username_1: I think a good general question to ask is what motivates them to do their research. The answer should give you a good idea at least for the latter and depending on the level of detail maybe also for the former.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I underwent an interview recently from a prospective adviser, and I found the questions he asked of me to be pretty insightful - hence I'm sharing them here.
* Why do you want to pursue research in this specific area?
This would highlight the candidate's motivation in wanting to do research in a particular field - and would also tell the professor more about the candidate's exposure to this area.
* What made you apply to this lab/university, as a continuation of the previous question?
The answer would tell you whether the applicant had simply browsed the rankings list of universities, or did he/she actually go through the research publications of the lab - and the application was done due to an intersection of the two!
* What would you like to be doing post Ph.D.?
There is no "right" answer to this, but it also tells a lot about the candidate's motivation in pursuing a PhD.
* Finally, you can ask the candidate to discuss any problem that he is familiar with in that field - doesn't have to be anything fancy/complicated, but that would serve to highlight the clarity of the applicant's reasoning, communication skills, and level of exposure to the field.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: In addition to the questions that shan23 has mentioned, I ask candidates for my group a few other questions:
* *What kind of advising style do they like? How "hands-on" or "hands-off" do they want me to be?* If they want someone whose style is vastly different from mine, that's going to be a problem.
* *What is your preferred working environment? (When?, Where?, etc.)* I just want to get a sense of what they're going to be like to work with.
* *What kinds of projects do they like?* Do they want a methodology-driven project, or are they more interested in applications.
* *Have you spoken with members of my group?* I want future group members to have an interest in who they'll be working with.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: This is my favorite question to ask in interviews:
*Can you tell me about a problem you encountered in the laboratory, and the process you went through to troubleshoot it?*
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Ask them about their ***expectations*** out of their coming 3-5 years as a grad student!
I find that a significant portion of the frustration that I (and those others around me) have experienced is due to s*evere disparity between expectations and reality*. Note that this is as much for the benefit of the prospective student as it is for you as the PI.
Specifically things to consider regarding expectations:
* **The amount and style of supervision the student expects.** My expectation was that I would "do science" and not "paperwork", in reality my PI knew less about the paperwork then I did, so I typically ended up needing to do a bunch of paperwork regarding employment (like salary raises, progress reports etc) and always late too...
* **The abundance and lack of relevant competencies in the lab, for that proposed project.** I was confident that the lack of computational competency at our lab wasn't gonna be a problem for me. I couldn't be more wrong..
* **The workplace interaction with colleagues.** I was under the impression that we'd be a team of intellectuals, tackling problems together, from our own angles. Again I was dead-wrong... Here, everyone's buried under their own pile of... Similarly, I can imagine that if the student expects to be a lone-wolf, forced team-work might be frustrating in the long run.
* **How to handle getting stuck/frustrated.** This is quite self-explanatory I guess..
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/02/23 | 575 | 2,231 | <issue_start>username_0: The purpose of this question is to attempt to generate a concise but comprehensive answer to the question, **what happens to the researcher after fraud is discovered?** I'm familiar with some consequences:
* Listing on the [NIH Office of Research Integrity](http://www.ori.dhhs.gov/case_summary) website
* Retraction of relevant publications
* Prevention from publication in journals for `X` years
What other are some other typical (and atypical) outcomes?<issue_comment>username_1: * You would probably find it very hard to find a job or may even get fired from your job, depending on the severeness of the fraud.
* Your employer might start a formal investigation into your behaviour.
* The party you defrauded might sue you for damages.
* Your reputation in your community would be at least severely damanged. Other researchers might refuse to collaborate with you.
* You might be banned from applying for grants and/or have trouble getting grants you apply for.
I'm sure there are lots of other things. Basically, unless you have a very good explanation for it, you're done for (at least in your particular area of research).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: As I posted in answer to another comment, more often than not, schools want to avoid the dramas associated with plagiarism scandals. That is why schools like Harvard will prompt researchers accused of fraudulent behavior, such as [<NAME>](http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/9/9/professor-faculty-misconduct-tenure/), to resign, rather than go through tenure revocation procedures.
But losing one's job is fairly likely, and an unofficial blacklisting is almost certain to result.
One other consequence, though, is often forgotten: the peripheral damage of academic fraud cases. Sensationalized results, such as those in the [<NAME>](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hendrik_Sch%C3%B6n) and [<NAME>](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-suk) cases, led many graduate students to embark on projects in those disciplines trying to reproduce and expand upon the promises implied by those projects. When those projects collapsed, a lot of graduate students were left in the lurch.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer] |
2012/02/23 | 551 | 2,120 | <issue_start>username_0: Is it feasible for an engineering student from Germany to get into a Ph.D. program in the UK/Ireland? Specifically, what should one keep in mind/try to accomplish in the last two years before finishing the "Diplom"? How would one apply?
Maybe this question can be extended to other combinations of countries, but I didn’t want it to be too broad.<issue_comment>username_1: * You would probably find it very hard to find a job or may even get fired from your job, depending on the severeness of the fraud.
* Your employer might start a formal investigation into your behaviour.
* The party you defrauded might sue you for damages.
* Your reputation in your community would be at least severely damanged. Other researchers might refuse to collaborate with you.
* You might be banned from applying for grants and/or have trouble getting grants you apply for.
I'm sure there are lots of other things. Basically, unless you have a very good explanation for it, you're done for (at least in your particular area of research).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: As I posted in answer to another comment, more often than not, schools want to avoid the dramas associated with plagiarism scandals. That is why schools like Harvard will prompt researchers accused of fraudulent behavior, such as [Marc Hauser](http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/9/9/professor-faculty-misconduct-tenure/), to resign, rather than go through tenure revocation procedures.
But losing one's job is fairly likely, and an unofficial blacklisting is almost certain to result.
One other consequence, though, is often forgotten: the peripheral damage of academic fraud cases. Sensationalized results, such as those in the [<NAME>](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hendrik_Sch%C3%B6n) and [Hwang Woo-Suk](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-suk) cases, led many graduate students to embark on projects in those disciplines trying to reproduce and expand upon the promises implied by those projects. When those projects collapsed, a lot of graduate students were left in the lurch.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer] |
2012/02/23 | 939 | 3,797 | <issue_start>username_0: I am looking for a good source to get my hands on some pre PhD level maths papers/dissertations, because I want to get a better feeling what is expected. (i.e. BSc and MSc Dissertations)
My department is unfortunately not at liberty to make MSc Dissertations available for copyright reasons, so I am stuck with asking individual people. In order to get a good overview I'd really like to get my hands on a much bigger selection of papers though, so I'm looking for a good online sources.<issue_comment>username_1: Your best source of such information would be to look for electronic repositories that are at least partially "open." The [*openThesis* repository](http://www.openthesis.org/) offers one such source, and you might find some information on sites like [academia.edu](http://academia.edu).
An alternate source would be to look at individual school's repositories. For instance, MIT's [DSpace](http://dspace.mit.edu) offers copies of many recent MIT thesis and dissertations, which can be previewed by anyone, although you need to be a member of the MIT community in order to be able to download and print documents from the site.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: A quick Google search for "[partial fulfillment master science mathematics](https://www.google.com/search?q=partial+fulfillment+master+of+science+mathematics)" finds hundreds of MS theses in several branches of mathematics.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I'm now a PhD candidate mathematician, working towards understanding what really constitutes a paper as well. If you are considering going after a math PhD, I recommend finding an area you're interested in, finding papers in that field, and backtracking enough until you understand what's going on. I think math is very-well suited to this style of behavior.
For example, I'm interested in number theory, and I've recently been hearing a lot about automorphic forms and multiple Dirichlet Series. So I find [this paper](http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.4868) by Dr. Hoffstein. Some of it is understandable, some of it isn't. Going through it, I isolate 3 potential sources that might help me understand - the first references are frequently on background material, and here he references Selberg's work. Conveniently, my institution has access to electronic archives of his work, so that's great. It also references an Analytic Number Theory textbook by Iwaniec. Finally, I realize that this is largely built on [this previous paper](http://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0110092), with Dr. Hoffstein as one of the authors, from years before.
And then I can rinse, wash, and repeat. In this way, I both get an idea of what papers are like, how far removed they are from current material, and how advanced the math that goes into them are. A key aspect of this idea is that it's easier to go after particular research papers, theses, and dissertations than it is to find whole repositories that you can go through. So perhaps you should try a similar approach, suited to your interests.
As always, a good place to start is the [arxiv](http://www.arxiv.org).
On the other hand, it sounds like you're preparing to write a bachelors thesis, and that's of a different calibre. I suspect that your school has its own standards, and the best way to prepare for that is to simply do your best and ask your advisor lots of questions along the way. Ultimately, your school can't demand from an undergrad much more than it prepares you for (a vast difference from the life of overgrads, in my opinion).
As a last note, <NAME> has a large archive of their undergrad math senior's theses [here](http://www.math.hmc.edu/seniorthesis/archives/), and they might be what you're looking for if you don't like my previous idea.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/23 | 936 | 4,120 | <issue_start>username_0: A couple of years back I did some research at a company in a field (Computational chemistry) that I am no longer interested in pursuing (To be blunt: I discovered that I dislike computational chemistry, and lack a certain numerical intuition needed to interpret the results). As I have this and a number of computer science classes on my CV several jobs I have applied for have added computational chemistry to my duties, which leaves me in the unpleasant position of explaining that I'd rather not do that type of research. (See edit below for an explanation of the process)
I'd rather not take that experience off my CV, as it explains why my undergraduate degree is taking so long (I was working for a semester instead of taking classes), and my supervisor did offer me a good reference letter, since I was a good worker, despite the fact I didn't get great results. Also, to be frank, I'm an undergrad and would like to list it to stand out from the crowd a bit: Relevant work experience is much rarer then good marks.
Is there a way I can include that position on my CV, but specify that I'd rather not peruse that field of research? Perhaps as a footnote or a comment intside that description of the job that 'This is a field of research I am no longer interested in perusing'?
EDIT: An explanation of how applying for summer jobs tends to work in my experience:
I'm an undergraduate chemistry major applying to be a research assistant over the summer. The general process for this is you find a professor doing the type of research you want, and email them your coverletter and CV. If they like you then they either hire you, or apply for a grant to get funding to hire you. Formal or informal interviews can take place at any time during this process, depending on how the professor likes to operate. Formal job descriptions are usually only placed on the grant after the student applies, it isn't listed on the profs website beforehand. Therefore I've applied to several synthetic chemistry groups then been either told I'll be expected to do some modelling as part of my job, or asked if I would be willing to do such research: The second option isn't so bad, but the first is rather awarded to explain, doubly so if I'm not told of this until after the grant is already awarded.<issue_comment>username_1: It doesn't sound like you want to make that explicit on your CV. You could certainly include something in your cover letter though that mentions that you'd prefer not to do work in that area.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Typically, the way you would state that sort of preference is by noticeably not including it in the list of interests. Given your experience with the technique, not including it on a cover letter, or in your "Objectives" statement on your CV, should be enough to prompt someone to ask about it during the interview process. If it does not come up during discussion, you will definitely want to proactively mention it at some point during your interview.
That being said, the best way is to not apply to labs which do that sort of work, and focus your search on areas that do interest you.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Usually, in an academic CV, you can distinguish between "Research Activities", which consist of all the research you've done in the past, and "Research Interest", which consist of all the research you want to do in the future. So, someone who would include a topic that you don't list in your research activities without asking you first would be a bit rude.
However, in order to avoid this kind of cases, and not to be too explicit (that is, not saying "I don't to work on Computational Chemistry"), you can try, in your cover letter or your research interests to put a sentence like "Although I have a good background in Computational Chemistry, my research interests rather lie in ..." or "My background in Computational Chemistry taught me to [...], and I'm now interested in broadening/focusing my interest on [...]". That's a bit more subtle, but I guess the message should pass.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer] |
2012/02/24 | 1,370 | 5,511 | <issue_start>username_0: The question is hypothetical, but it came up in a conversation and I'd like to see if we can come up with a logical analysis and conclusion. For various reasons, *graduate students* might not be inclined to apply for funding.
By *funding* I mean grants or scholarships intended to support graduate students directly in the form of money given *directly* to the student. That is, I am *not* talking about applying for research scholarships intended to fund an experiment, buy equipment, etc. Here are a few (made up) examples.
***Case 1 (Differential)***. I get 20000 of internal departmental funding but be encouraged by the department to apply for external funding. If I then get 5000 scholarship, then the departmental policy might be to drop the internal funding to 15000, so I don't apply for it.
***Case 2 (Rich Student)***. I am very wealthy and I have no need for funding. I am a brilliant student and could probably get many different scholarships but I chose not to because I feel other students with less money need the money more.
The "Rich Student" scenario is slightly different than the "Differential" scenario. If I am rich then for sure some other poorer student could have gotten the money, whereas in the "Differential" scenario, I am now only getting 15000 so another student will get the 5000 anyway.
The problem with not applying for scholarships is that I don't get scholarships, and in many fields winning scholarships is good for your academic career. Perhaps in some fields this is more important than others.
Overwhelmingly I've heard that one should always apply for scholarships regardless of circumstances because of this. Of course theoretically, I could bypass my "rich student morality" by using it to do something useful for the community.
Personally, although I am not in these situations, I feel that it is most beneficial to always apply for scholarships, I would just like to have some kind of evidence that support this.
**So to put this in a definitive question: for graduate students, is there ever a reason not to apply for at least a few available scholarships?**<issue_comment>username_1: The "Differential" argument doesn't really even hold as much weight as you'd think, because many departments will reward you with a bonus for bringing in an outside fellowship. Then it becomes even more of an incentive to obtain an outside fellowship.
In addition to this, external awards make you more attractive to potential advisors, since you don't cost them as much in the long run to support you. In some cases, this even makes the difference between being able to work on a project of one's own choosing, versus a project for which the advisor has funding.
So, the only reasons I can think of why one wouldn't want to apply for at least some sort of fellowship support are:
* Being a fantastically rich student, who can pay his own tuition and stipend support for the full duration of the program, or
* Being a student of extremely limited means, who can't afford the costs of reporting GRE or scores or transcripts to the various funding agencies. (In many cases, though, "hardship waivers" are available that renders even this point moot.)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: * Reward to ratio of the application. If you already have some funding, and the additional funding is small compared to the time required to apply for it. For example, you have an NSF fellowship at ~$30k/yr, so it might not be worth applying to $2k scholarships which take a week or two of time.
* Reward to ratio of the work. You don't want to take on a new project.
* The project isn't relevant to your line of work.
* You aren't qualified (GPA, citizenship, or status limitations)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Beyond @username_2's answer of it not being worth it (I've chosen not to apply for fellowships with a poor reward:effort ratio), you might not be *allowed* to. For example, many fellowships, NIH training grants etc. have rules about what other funding you can get (especially for the same project).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Why didn't I apply to the NSF pre-doctoral scholarship during my second year of grad school?
1. **Time** - I didn't have any. And since I was doing a different project from what I proposed when I applied my previous year, I would have had to write my application over from scratch.
2. **Feedback from previous year** - my subject GRE score was not high enough. Even though I could have re-taken the exam for free, I didn't have time to study for it all over again.
3. **I had a stipend** - Even though the award would have increased my yearly stipend by about $6k, the chances seemed slim and I felt my time was better spent being on top of my course work, studying for my qualifying exam, and getting a good start on my thesis project.
(Full disclosure: after passing my quals I opted to leave grad school with a MS instead of finishing the PhD. I've been employed full-time at academic or industry labs since.)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I refuse to abide by the **rich student** frame of thought. If the rich student has funding and works for a PI, then that PI is then able to fund another student. Graduate Fellowships should not always be considered a zero-sum game.
However, certain fellowships like SMART involve military service. Others like the NIH NRSA prevent you from taking summer internships. I see both as pretty valid reasons for not bothering to apply.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/24 | 1,411 | 5,934 | <issue_start>username_0: More than once, I have had (graduate school admissions) orientation sessions where the faculty of the institute introduce their fields, their research and what they expect from potential students (Among other things).
At places I am interested in, this is a useful exercise. However, there are often places which I don't wish to study at but have a few good professors doing some really good work with great knowledge of the field and awesome intuition.
**How does one fully exploit an opportunity to interact with good professors from institutes you are not interested in attending?**
This is very different from a [research conference](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/223/how-can-i-get-the-most-out-of-conferences) for obvious reasons.
Further,
* If I am not interested in *that* institute but wanted the opinion of one of the professors about another institute/lab (the ones I *am* interested in attending), is that a taboo?
* **How does one stay in touch with such contacts where your only excuse to mail is to ask a question? I really want to be on email terms.** I have read and understood their work but what is it that should be the content of mails written to them? It doesn't make sense to simply send them emails saying that I read your paper or I attended your talk.
(Please feel free to edit this question in any amount if necessary)<issue_comment>username_1: 1. I don't think you can expect to get the opinion of a professor about another institute/lab. You can probably get some facts (like this other institute has more/less money, they are more/less active in this area), but nothing subjective. Academia is pretty small world, and people try as much as possible not to say anything negative publicly (and since everything said is positive, it can be hard to distinguish the real positive from the fake one).
2. You need to have a real interest in their work. As mentioned [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/271/how-to-achieve-successful-collaborations), it's already pretty hard to maintain collaboration between people interested, so if there is no clear interest, it will very hard to be on email terms. But, the question is: why do you want to be on email terms?
3. See the previous point. You need to *really* interested, meaning you've read and understood their papers, and are able to ask questions that go beyond "what are the possible usage of your approach?".
As a general remark, professors are usually already very busy dealing with their own research/teaching/students. Of course, they usually are open to new collaborations, but they might lack the time to work with a student who is not theirs. A good solution could to try to visit them, academically speaking, for a month or so, to work on a very specific topic.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: From your stated question, you need to tread carefully. The nature of the environment at those presentations is one where the professors are looking for potential graduate students, not collaborators. Even more so, if you're a potential graduate student, you likely haven't done any real research yet, so you can't work out "collaborations" or anything.
That being said, it's perfectly acceptable to simply walk over to them and ask to hear more about their research and interests. They know that you're looking at many labs and many not choose theirs. Just make sure your request to remain in contact comes across as a "Do you mind if I contact you later to discuss your research?" and not "Can we talk later even though I have no interest in joining your lab?" Now is not the setting for that; wait until after having joined a lab to initiate that conversation.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Take the long view. Don't try to go fishing for collaborations for *now*, or even in the near future. Faculty-student sessions, meet-and-greets, etc. aren't completely a waste of time in places you don't think you want to attend however. A few reasons:
1. You will have met them. Yes, by the time you're actually something resembling a peer it will have been some time, but being able to say "We spoke once when I was looking at University X" is never a bad thing.
2. You get a feel for them as people. This isn't just "would I like to collaborate with this person?" The academic landscape is made up of people, and if this is your field, these people will come up. Paper reviewers, journal editors, session chairs at conferences. All of those things are impacted by personality - something you can start to get a feel for while you're there.
3. You get the birds-eye-view of some of the cutting edge research in your field. That can suggest things like where the field is headed.
It's essentially an excuse to meet some people years before you *need* to meet them. I also had some of the best shrimp-and-grits I've ever eaten at one, so there's that.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Why are you visiting programs that you know you don't want to attend? (I want to go further and ask, why even apply to programs you know you don't want to attend?)
*If I am not interested in that institute but wanted the opinion of one of the professors about another institute/lab (the ones I am interested in attending), is that a taboo?*
Yes. For a handful of reasons - the most critical being that you are basically telling the professor that **the department wasted their money bringing you out there**. You are also wasting that professor's time by talking about another university when she's there to talk about her lab and her institution.
And it's also worth saying that most professors don't bother to get to know or remember most students who actually enter the program! This is not the time to get on "email terms," she's not going to remember you. The time to do that is once you are established in a lab and have your own project to talk about.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/02/24 | 1,134 | 4,314 | <issue_start>username_0: Looking at the [list of academic ranks](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_ranks) on Wikipedia shows that the same academic rank/title can mean quite different things in different countries. For instant, a "research assistant" in the US can stand for an undergrad student doing an internship, while in the UK it can stand for a postdoc. Similarly, the term "lecturer" might stand for a permanent position (e.g. in the UK) or for a teaching assistant position, open to graduate students.
However, when thinking about it, there are not so many kind of possible positions (permanent or not, with teaching or not, with research or not, with PhD supervision or not, with team responsibility or not, etc), and having a clear title could help a lot (for instance, in my case, I've been working in four different countries, with a different job title each time!).
* Is there some kind of official taxonomy that one could refer to?
* If not, who could be in charge to create it? (the EU, if only for intra-Europe mobility?)<issue_comment>username_1: In general, the answer is negative.
Not only there are different systems in different countries (and same-spelled degrees may have different requirements), but even if a degree seems to be the same, it is not necessary considered equivalent.
Often universities and institutes have some freedom in the interpretation of degrees earned in other countries. Common sense can be a good guide but in case of doubt you need to check if university (or institute) X accepts a foreign academic title Y instead of their Z.
For example, when I obtained degrees [licencjat](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licentiate#Poland) (3 years undergraduate, 180ECTS) and [magister](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magister_%28degree%29#Central_Europe_and_Eastern_Europe) (5 years undergraduate, 300ECTS) from a Polish university, they refused to translate it into anything else (stating explicitly that it is not equivalent to anything else). However, some other Polish universities do translate it into [Bachelor of Science](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Science) and [Master of Science](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Science), respectively. Nevertheless, my new institute didn't have problem to find them qualifying me for their PhD program.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: As the [answer of username_1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/434/75368) says, there is not really a generally accepted consensus on this.
However, the [OECD](https://www.oecd.org/) defines certain grades to rank academic positions/titles in their [2015 Frascati Manual](https://www.oecd.org/publications/frascati-manual-2015-9789264239012-en.htm) (on page 275). They give some examples of titles that fit in these grades. The [UNESCO Institute for Statistics](http://uis.unesco.org/en/home) apparently [also recommended these grades](http://uis.unesco.org/en/glossary-term/researchers-seniority-levels) to be used and added some additional examples of titles, these I've italicized below.
* **Category A**: The single highest grade/post at which research is normally conducted.
Examples: “Full professor” or *“Director of research”*
* **Category B**: Researchers working in positions not as senior as top position (A) but more senior than newly qualified doctoral graduates.
Examples: “Senior researcher” or “Associate professor” or *“Principal investigator”*
* **Category C**: The first grade/post into which a newly qualified doctoral graduate would normally be recruited.
Examples: "Assistant professor” or “Post-doctoral fellow” or *“Researcher*” or *“Investigator”*
* **Category D**: Either doctoral students who are engaged as researchers, or researchers working in posts that do not normally require a doctorate degree.
Examples: “PhD students” or “junior researchers”
Obviously, these are not very widely used (at least in my experience), but at least it gives you some feeling of the relative levels and something to fall back on in case someone questions the seniority grade you claim.
It also clearly shows the large discrepancy between the U.S., where even a post-doctoral level could have a title with "professor" in it, and Europe, where "professor" is usually the highest or almost highest academic title you can have.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/02/25 | 1,614 | 6,719 | <issue_start>username_0: I've been using git for a while and now [GitHub](https://github.com/). I'm starting to write a master's thesis. Would it be a good idea to upload all the files to online public repositories? Does anyone have any experience with this?
EDIT: Thanks for all the answers. I consulted with my adviser about this, and he said that latex sources were ok, as the document will be open access anyway. My source code however was not, primarily because the collaboration already has a protected wiki for such things.<issue_comment>username_1: **Code** - yes, it is a good idea.
**PDF** (perhaps with LaTeX source) - you can (why not? but rather as a place to store it and point to).
However (for finished), there are more dedicated places, e.g.:
* [opentheis](http://www.openthesis.org/) - repository of theses,
* [Mendeley](http://www.mendeley.com/) - reference manager allowing to upload your publications (including theses),
* [arXiv](http://arxiv.org/) - base of preprints (but only for theses in English and from a list of topics; there you need to put source as well),
* etc.
When you intend to actually write your thesis in the public - well, it is mostly up to you ( i.e. if you fill comfortable with it).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't think there is a universal right answer to this. Some factors to consider, during the thesis *preparation* stage:
* Are there intellectual property issues to consider in your thesis work? If so, that would mitigate *against* having a public repository.
* Does your school or institution have rules against such behavior?
* Does your school offer its own service, which may offer better security for your data?
After the thesis is completed:
* Do you hold intellectual property rights to the original materials, so that you can publish it to a repository?
* Will publishing to a repository conflict with your ability to publish the work in journals (you'll need to check the journals in question)?
* Does your institution offer an archival service that will allow such access?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: You should be very careful. As usual, this depends on your field. Mine is mathematics and it is not uncommon for a graduate student's thesis question to be solved much more quickly by someone far more advanced. If your thesis is publicly available then you increase the chances of this. This is more relevant for those working on original research, which is not always the case for a masters thesis, but keep this in mind.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I'm told for your field that the answer might be yes, because you're slightly less threatened in terms of being scooped than most, with physics (apparently) going largely by who submits first.
*I* would be extremely cautious publishing the source of my thesis in its entirety on a public repository. I'm all for repeatable science and open access, but the public should only have access to your code when this condition is met:
*You have no further use of the exclusive access to your code. All the questions you've programmed have been answered, the papers and presentations that emerge from them are in press, and at this point, it is a question of reproducible research.*
Once that's true, sure. Until that point? You're running the profound risk of your research being stolen.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: The answer is in two parts:
* Yes, it's a very good idea to use an online repository with a versioning system to write your Masters thesis. It offers a nice automatic backup, you can easily sync from different locations (office, home), and (this is mostly true for papers rather than a thesis) you can easily collaborate with people outside of your university (i.e. who wouldn't have an account on your university server.
* No, it's not a good idea at to make it public. Plagiarism is real, online versioning systems do not offer any real protection, and you don't want to make it too easy to copy, especially when you're not finished yet. I'm all for the open-access of *finished* documents, that you can put on arXiv, but in this case, there is a real timestamp, and your work can be indexed (for instance, in Computer Science, arXiv is indexed on DBLP).
For these reasons, I've been personally using for my papers [BitBucket](https://bitbucket.org/plans), that offers academics a free unlimited plan (unlimited public/private repositories, unlimited collaborators). In this way, I create a private repository for each of my papers, give access rights to my co-author(s). It seems that GitHub also provides a way to have private repositories for academics: <https://github.com/edu>, so you can keep using it for sharing your open-source code (for instance) and use it with a private repository for your thesis.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: Talk to your adviser about this. **Do not make anything that is unpublished publicly available without their knowledge.** Any other people who might be co-authors on your papers might also have a say.
Having said that, a *private* github repository is a great idea (I used one myself for my PhD dissertation & papers).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: Bitbucket offers unlimited private repositories for academic accounts that you can get by using your uni email id. I'm writing my PhD dissertation using Lyx and use Mercurial for version control, so I store my code in a **private** repo on bitbucket. I think version control is indispensable for large research projects that are completed over a long time frame, so using a repository would obviously fit right in.
But making your stuff public serves no useful purpose, neither for you, nor for the academic community that would be interested in your research. You make something public when it is ready to see the light of the day. Till then, you receive feedback from your supervisor and colleagues, and improve the quality of your work until it is **good enough to be of use to others**
Making half-assed research public is a crime against academia, can reflect poorly on you, and in any case conferences are the best venue for discussing work in progress *and* for getting your work time-stamped by a large gathering of people in your field who know each other, and this can prevent "scooping". However I must say I'm sceptical that such a thing even exists in academia, your research can only be done by **you**.
Journalists search for novelty, and can therefore be scooped. We academics, on the other hand, search for credibility, which only comes from knowing "your" idea inside out. If somebody else can do more credible work with your idea, then they get the Nobel, you get the citation.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/25 | 713 | 2,956 | <issue_start>username_0: I was planning to use mdpi.com to submit a paper to "Entropy" journal. The journal perfectly matches the area that my paper covers. However, they require a cover letter to five reviewers selected by myself:
<http://www.mdpi.com/journal/entropy/instructions>
>
> Coverletter: Check in your cover letter whether you supplied at least 5 referees. Check if the English corrections are done before submission.
>
>
>
Is this the standard procedure? Can you propose other similar journal? I am getting afraid that receiving feedback is not an easy task, and I can wander with the paper for a year or so.<issue_comment>username_1: They don't require you to send a cover letter to five referees, but just to indicate in your cover letter the names and contact info of 5 potential reviewers. It's just to help them finding reviewers for your paper (as they say, they might not use those you provided). But I don't think you need to contact the reviewers first.
As far as I know, it's a pretty common procedure, I've seen it for several other journals.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I wouldn't say that a journal asking for reviewers is "standard" practice, but it is by no means rare. For instance, nearly all [ACS journals](http://pubs.acs.org) require that the paper submitter provide the names of between three and six potential referees. Other journals that I've submitted to, including [J. Chem. Phys.](http://jcp.aip.org) and the [Physical Review](http://prola.aps.org) series do not require referee lists of any kind.
It should be noted that the choice of referees is entirely discretionary on the part of the editor. The editor is free to pick from any or all of the names on your list—or none of them, if it's an area the editor knows well enough to assign referees independently.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I've encountered this before - as username_2 has said, it might not be "standard" practice (implying most journals do it) but its certainly at the very least common.
This is often intended to provide focus and speed for journal editors to get papers out. Finding appropriate reviewers is a long and tedious task, and if editor's come to rely too much on "their" expert reviewers, they're likely to burn them out. The approach of recommending peer-reviewers gives you, the author - and presumably an expert in your field - an opportunity to weight in on who is *qualified* to review your paper, while avoiding people who would have to abstain due to a conflict of interest, or who you feel might not judge your paper fairly.
Essentially, you should be considering people in your specific field who aren't your direct collaborators, but who might be disposed to look on you and your work in a positive or at least neutral light - avoiding people who don't like *you*, or who think "Paper Topic is a waste of time and research dollars, and should never be published".
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/26 | 2,277 | 8,817 | <issue_start>username_0: What is the best way to go about to find a certain research group that do work in a specific field (e.g research groups doing empirical brain investigations but working from a dualistic perspective, or research groups doing eyetracker work on infants)?<issue_comment>username_1: Frequently formalized groups of academics hold *conferences*, or if it is a more specialized field they are frequently part of a broader conference but have special panels/proceedings/meetings within the larger conference.
So possibilities of finding such groups are;
* Looking at the *CV* of authors in the field to see if they are members of such organizations or have presentations at said conferences.
* Looking for conferences in the broader field, and seeing if they host research on specific topics.
Other possibilities include email list-serves and forums. I'm not sure if I have any better advice to find such groups than besides doing regular internet searches though.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: If you know specific search terms you're looking for, you could begin by searching [Web of Science](http://isiknowledge.com) for the specific combinations you're looking for, and then following up on the specific groups that are returned by such a search.
You may need to use some creativity in narrowing down the search criteria to avoid getting 5000 hits that you need to sift through, but there are a large number of possible "narrowing" options on Web of Science (year of publication, location, sorting by citations, etc.) that can help you.
Alternatively, sites like [academia.edu](http://academia.edu) or even a more generic engine like [Scholar Google](http://scholar.google.com) may be able to assist you in this process.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I would try the following, in order of "how useful the results will be":
1. If you know someone - anyone - in the field, have them recommend names of labs/professors to you. The names they give you will likely be people relevant to their research who have done solid research, and have really established their names in the field. This is the best approach.
2. If you have access to journal articles, find a good journal in field X and look for a recent paper. There are two ways to do this one:
1. Look in a couple of articles that seem interesting and see which authors are cited most often in the "introduction" section. Chances are, those authors have completed some recent seminal work, which all these other papers are using as their research springboard.
2. Look for a review paper, and see who is cited often. This isn't such a good method, as I've found that many review articles will be fairly biased towards themselves/their collaborators, but it still can be useful.
3. Go to any big-name university's department web page for field X and browse the faculty listings. This is a total crapshoot; you'll find lots of labs, but there's no surefire way to tell quality of lab from their department web page.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Well, I find [reasonable numbers for research groups](https://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&tbo=1&prmdo=1&q=eyetrack%2a+infant+%7C+baby+research+%7C+forschung++inurl%3Aedu+%7C+inurl%3Auni+-filetype%3Apdf+-filetype%3Adoc+-filetype%3Appt+-filetype%3Aps+2011..2012&oq=eyetrack%2a+infant+%7C+baby+research+%7C+forschung++inurl%3Aedu+%7C+inurl%3Auni+-filetype%3Apdf+-filetype%3Adoc+-filetype%3Appt+-filetype%3Aps+2011..2012&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=12&gs_upl=21080l24324l0l29693l12l10l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0) focusing on *eyetracking* by using Google and search operators. Of course, you should add some redundant similar terms (eye-movement, baby,...)
Notice, there are some patterns:
* american universities nearly always have **edu** (actually it's even a domain) in their URL, german univ. **uni**. So using `inurl:edu` in google filters out a lot. Non-university institutes like german Max-Planck often have URL patterns too.
* further add `-filetype:pdf -filetype:doc -filetype:ppt -filetype:ps` to filter out more useless results
* add `2010..2012` to be sure the site/group is still active and the topic on their agenda.
* add `research | forschung` (latter being german translation, but afaik nowadays most natural sciences groups in Germany have a english (& german) page)
Some research branches also have a online directory, there exist also internet directories like dmoz (not sure if this stuff is up to date, probably some dead links):
<http://www.eurosys.org/directory/>
<http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Biology/Neurobiology/Research_Groups_and_Centers/>
<http://www.ida.liu.se/ext/etai/actions/colloq/groups.html>
At least I can say that most research groups in Germany will have a english home page and short summary/research topics/open positions on it. So there should be no general problem to find them by some "serious" googling. But **don't use too specific keywords**, "eyetracking on infants", "dualistic view" is too special imho, use keywords being specific rather to the topic than the exact methodology. They are probably mainly interested in how the visual recognition system adapts and learns over time, this is the bigger thematic picture. You attract master and phd students not by naming a special experimental method, so you will not find these type of keywords often on a group page, where they often try to put in a minimum of time.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_5: I found one possibly relevant result searching [Mendeley](https://www.mendeley.com/search/?query=eyetracking) for your topic of interest. The advantage of using Mendeley over Google is that you can limit your search to researcher profiles. On-site people search is a little broken sometimes, so you might have better luck actually doing a Google search but limiting it to Mendeley profiles like this: <https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=eyetracking+site%3Amendeley.com%2Fprofiles%2F>
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: One way is to ask [ChatGPT](https://chat.openai.com/chat). Although its answers are sometimes inaccurate, it can help a lot when your question is a bit vague. It understands what research groups are and it understands the connections between fields.
With ChatGPT you don't need to list all the different synonyms for your field or their subfields and it can choose to ignore some parts of your query if they're too specific.
For my own search I've seen that out of the 10 suggestions it gave me,
2 were misnamed or didn't exist, but the rest all seemed to be very good suggestions.
Of course this is just a tool and you should never rely on it too heavily, but it can help you find research groups which are a good fit for what you're looking for. Also note that ChatGPT was trained on data from 2020, so it might be outdated.
Here's an example output of ChatGPT for your query:
>
> Can you list several research groups doing empirical brain investigations but working from a dualistic perspective, or research groups doing eye-tracker work on infants.
>
>
> I can certainly provide you with some examples of research groups that fit your criteria:
>
>
> * The Center for Mind, Brain, and Culture at Emory University: This interdisciplinary research center includes researchers who work from a dualistic perspective to investigate the relationship between the mind and brain. They use a variety of empirical methods, including neuroimaging and behavioral experiments.
> * The Human Neuroscience Laboratory at the University of Utah: This lab conducts research on the neural mechanisms underlying human perception and cognition. They use both behavioral and neuroimaging techniques, including fMRI and EEG, to investigate these mechanisms from a dualistic perspective.
> * The Center for Cognitive Science at the University of Minnesota: This interdisciplinary center includes researchers from psychology, philosophy, linguistics, and neuroscience. Some of their work investigates the mind-body problem from a dualistic perspective, using neuroimaging and behavioral experiments.
> * The Infant Cognition Center at the University of British Columbia: This research group investigates the cognitive and perceptual abilities of infants using a variety of methods, including eye-tracking. They have published several studies on infant perception of social cues and facial expressions.
> * The Developmental Neuroscience Lab at the University of California, Berkeley: This lab uses a variety of methods, including eye-tracking, to investigate the neural and cognitive mechanisms underlying developmental processes in infants and young children.
>
>
> I hope this helps! Please note that this is not an exhaustive list, and there are many other research groups out there conducting similar work.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/02/27 | 352 | 1,302 | <issue_start>username_0: Is there any publicly accessible information regarding the success rate of grant/project applications for science/technology and other research grant programs (e.g. NSF grants) and its variation over time?
I'm not interested in an exhaustive list but some illustrative examples would be much appreciated.<issue_comment>username_1: It's surprisingly hard to find that information, I was expecting to get it more easily, in particular when public funding is involved. I've found for the European Union FP7-ICT call 1, there were 1836 proposals for only 318 accepted, with a total 1.2 billion euros funded ([Source, slide 18](http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/downloads/enlargement/infodays/jrc_20080506_infoday_tirana_cindy_vd_boogert.pdf)).
I guess a good strategy could be to contact the [Research Division](http://ec.europa.eu/research/index.cfm?pg=contacts&lg=en) of the European Commission, I'm sure they have this information somewhere, and they are probably able to provide it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Check out the [NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools](http://report.nih.gov/success_rates/index.aspx). It may take you some time to find exactly what you're looking for, but there are numerous reports available, with a good deal of detail.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/02/28 | 1,153 | 4,614 | <issue_start>username_0: I often fantasize that when I will get my work to successful end, then I will have new possibilities open – and that maybe I will even receive scientific job offers. The work is obtaining new important results in computational sciences.
But then I get to the ground, think that giving someone job is rather a necessity for the employer – and not an act of appreciation or even not an act of support. Then, my results are important and useful, so someone may need them. However, the results can be understood, used and further developed by some other scientist. So it will not be necessarily me, who will get the job.
One related example that comes to my mind is <NAME>, who is independent because he is earning money himself. So he was not appreciated by someone, instead he won his share in software market.<issue_comment>username_1: Sadly, there is not a strict correlation between doing good science and being financially successful. It is entirely possible to do "creative, important work" and still not be well rewarded for it. For instance, one could have published these results in an obscure journal that very few people will read. Or, as another example, the researcher might be a poor "salesman," unable to convince readers and fellow scientists of the merit of his work.
In general, you need a combination of both networking and technical skills to forge a successful career as a researcher: the contacts will help you get interviews for jobs; your technical knowledge will get you the job.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: username_1's response is on target, and just to extend it a bit more, you will find few researchers who make money directly from their research. All your work is owned by the university and patents you file are owned by the university.
That being said, it is fairly common for a researcher to found his or her own company based on their work. There are numerous examples of this, but just to give two examples from my own experience:
* [Psychology Software Tools](http://www.pstnet.com/), the company behind E-Prime, a popular psychology paradigm programming language, is owned by [Dr. <NAME>](http://schneiderlab.lrdc.pitt.edu/), a psychology professor at the University of Pittsburgh.
* [Computational Diagnostics, Inc.](http://cdi.com/), a company offering neurological monitoring services, is run by [Dr. <NAME>](http://www.neurosurgery.pitt.edu/faculty/sclabassi.html) (recently retired), who has numerous publications in the field of EEG signal processing.
Aside from creating a startup, some professors will consult externally for a fee. Anecdotally, depending on how well-connected the professor is, I know a number of graduate students and post-doctoral fellows who did consulting work on the side.
Often, if researchers have business acumen and interest, they will follow one of these two paths.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: When I worked for HP (in the storage area network division), much of the published research articles were for things that it still took several years to bring to market. Generally, it was about 5 years between the first papers and the time a product made it to market. Even things used everywhere - SQL - took 9 years to go from research paper (Codd's paper was in 1969) to first commercial product (Relational [now called Oracle] was released in 1978) with several large companies (including IBM) trying to bring a product to market. In software development, academic research runs 5 to 30+ years ahead of in-the-field practices.
As for Wolfram, I don't think he's a good model to emulate, as he fits the [model of a crank](http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/wolfram/ "Book review of A New Kind of Science by someone I respect in the industry") more than the model I would attribute to a good scientist. Despite that, I bought his book and use his software.
Another example I can think of where creative important results don't translate to success is [Long Term Capital Management](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_Capital_Management). Founded by 2 Nobel Prize winners in economics, it was the first massive Wall Street bailout in the 1990s after the Russian financial crisis resulted in Soviet/Russian bonds going belly up. One of the founders was *the* Scholes in the [Black-Scholes model](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black%E2%80%93Scholes), which is one of the most important equations in finanace.
Discovering something great and/or important takes a different set of skills than bringing that discovery to market.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/28 | 3,191 | 13,367 | <issue_start>username_0: I've been considering applying to graduate school of some form or another in Mathematics. During my undergraduate years, I did decently on my undergraduate coursework (mostly A-s, some As, a B) but not stellar, and it wasn't until I started taking graduate courses as a senior that I started buckling down and getting solid As or higher. I also had no research experience at this time.
I eventually want to apply to a Ph. D program in pure mathematics. Since I didn't really click until later in undergraduate years, so I was considering applying to 2-year masters programs in mathematics, and then based on my performance there, decide whether I'm fit to work towards a Ph. D.
>
> My question is, what are the advantages and disadvantages to completing a master's program before applying to a separate Ph. D program?
>
>
>
I know masters degrees are sometimes considered terminal degrees. Would doing well in masters coursework be advantageous in applying to Ph. D programs later on as opposed to immediately after undergrad years? Does strong performance as a masters student make one a more attractive candidate, or do programs have less interest in applicants who already have a masters? Is it wiser to apply for a Ph. D directly? I'm sorry if this question is considered too much of a soft question. Thank you.<issue_comment>username_1: Many PhD programs require you to do a masters on your way to a PhD, so the point in many cases is moot. That being said,
**Advantages:**
* You'll get a chance to see whether research is something you like before committing to the PhD process.
* You'll complete most of the coursework, so when you get to the PhD work you'll be able to more quickly focus on research.
**Disadvantages:**
* Depending on the masters, you may be spending money on your degree. Many PhD programs will fund your way (in exchange for you doing awesome research).
* You'll be required to do a master thesis, which can be comprehensive, and you may come to view it as a waste to do it twice (one for masters, one for PhD).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Other than what username_1 mentioned, you might want to consider the following points:
**Pros**
* If you have lackluster UG grades with little/no research experience (in terms of publications/term papers/internships), few top PhD programs would be even willing to look at your application, not matter what are your scores in the GREs. I assume your letters of recommendations (LORs) from faculty would be average at best as well, which would really, really hurt your admission chances. So, a Masters degree would help you rectify that - you can aggressively start pursuing research-based projects with the faculty, and work at a publishable thesis. This would both give you something added to your profile (a publication), and you can get much better LORs from your masters faculty - something that may get you into that top school where your dream adviser works!
* You can get (some of) your Master's course credit transferred to your PhD program, so that you can start working on your thesis much early, and may even finish faster! However, this *really* varies from department to department, so make sure you inquire about this before applying!
* If you are really, really sure of what field you want to research in, you can find the top people in your field (whom you'd want to be advised by during your PhD) - and start corresponding with them during your Masters, asking queries/having discussions about their most recent papers, and using them in your Masters thesis (assuming you'd be working in the same field). That way, when you finally apply, you would stand out in their mind from the other applicants, as someone who is genuinely interested in their research. Mind you, I'm not asking you to fake anything! Be sincere about your passion to work in the same research areas, and they just might be convinced to bat for you during applications review!
**Con**
* On the other hand, if you do not fare well in Masters program, most admission committees (ad-coms) would take it as a red flag - as it would bolster the less-than-stellar impression your undergrads created, and hence they might deem you not fit for PhD at all. This might be the case with even the ad-coms that might've been willing to give you the benefit of the doubt when only presented with your undergrad records - so, tread carefully if you happen to embark on a Masters, as your performance there would undergo even greater scrutiny!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I can only speak for my (computer science) department. Students who apply to our PhD program with MS degrees are held to a higher standard than applicants who apply as undergraduates. What we look for in PhD applicants is *strong evidence of research potential*. Most undergraduates don't have an opportunity to undertake a real research project, but MS students do have that opportunity, *by definition*. It's *much* harder for MS applicants without publishable results to be admitted than an undergraduate in the same situation, all else being equal. Grades are much less important (unless they suck, which yours don't).
On the other hand, the fact that your already decent grades improved when you started taking graduate classes is a *huge* point in your favor. Be sure to get recommendation letters from your instructors in those courses, and hit them up for research opportunities. I recommend applying to *both* MS *and* PhD programs; some departments will even let you apply for both simultaneously.
There's a similar effect in NSF's evaluations of graduate fellowship applications. NSF splits the applicant pool into three piles based on the number of years of graduate education: still an undergrad, less than 12 months, and more than 12 months. Expectations are higher for applicants in later piles. In particular, publications are a *de facto* requirement for students in the more-than-one-year pile, *even if their one year of graduate education was in a non-research masters program*.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: This is speaking only from my experience in Public Health and Epidemiology, so its slightly more general, but hopefully it will be helpful. Some of these have already been mentioned by other posters.
**Advantages:**
* You have the potential to establish your "research chops", or shore up your grades. If you don't think you have a strong application coming directly out of undergrad, this is probably a plus.
* If you move programs between your MS and your PhD, you get to see two schools. That's good for both perspective on research (rather than only being exposed to "The University X way of doing things"), and it means an extra set of contacts, though admittedly your network from the Masters university will probably end up being somewhat weaker.
* You get the "feel" for your potential research topic. Which means that if you don't like it, you can switch. Getting an MS and a PhD in two different but related topics (like say Pure Math and Applied Math/Operations Research/CS, etc.) is pretty run-of-the-mill. Switching PhD programs mid-stream is a much less pleasant experience.
* In contrast to some of the answers here, in my field at least I'd argue that undergraduate applicants are judged more harshly than their MS-weilding colleagues. Several major programs simply *do not* accept folks directly from undergrad into their PhD programs, and several others say they do, but in practice without someone pulling for you or an act of God they're not going to do so.
**Disadvantages**
* It will probably add time. If you're coming straight from undergraduate, a university's combined MS/PhD track (wherein essentially you get an MS by way of your PhD coursework + a thesis) is likely the "least time" path to a doctorate. While you'll be able to transfer some of your credits from your Masters into a PhD program, some will almost certainly not transfer, and the university may have a core set of courses that they'll want you to take over again. For example, in my program, I'd say having a Masters trims about a year from your time in the PhD program. But most Masters degrees take 2 years...
* You have to move again. The flip side to getting to see two places worth of stuff is you're going to find yourself hopping across the country not once by twice.
* There are potentially some cultural problems. Some places view Masters students (not necessarily incorrectly) as transient, so its hard to command a professor's attention as someone worth investing tons of time into, compared to a doctoral student who is going to be around for 5, 6 or more years. This is especially true for professors outside your thesis advisor and maybe the professor who taught a class you did particularly well in.
* Money. In contrast to @username_3's assertion (which is absolutely true for doctoral programs) my field doesn't necessarily fund Masters degrees that aren't part of a combined MS/PhD track. It's hard to get faculty to use their limited RA positions on Masters students instead of doctoral students, and because in the field there's actually a very small number of undergraduate programs, there are few TAships available to people who haven't passed through at least some of the coursework. Because the MPH is also heavily used in my field as a terminal/practitioners degree, it's treated somewhat like a professional school - you pay for your degree.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I cannot speak for Mathematics but for Computer Science the importance of getting Maters degree first is multi-fold which of many have been stated above but one which I feel is also very important. Sometimes in the middle of the PhD program you might feel like taking a break for couple of years and consider doing a job either for relaxing or to get a hands on experience in the industry. Having your Masters degree then will help you find a better job than with undergraduate or god forbid you quit your PhD, you will have Masters degree in your hand.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: So I'm a first year math PhD student. I did not get my masters before entering university, but I don't think that had a big role either for or against me. I didn't end up applying to any masters programs actually, and I had two major reasons:
* the primary reason for me was money. None of the programs that I was interested in funded masters math programs. I'm sure that there are such programs, but school is expensive. And I'm poor. So it goes.
* the secondary reason was inspiration. I'm going to do original research, right? That's the goal. And I'm impatient ad ready for it (at least in spirit). It happens to be the case that we spend our first year here doing a lot of work, quals, etc. It's the second year where things kick into gear, and I'm already straining for it. (However, if I already knew everything, I would have already passed my quals, so it's not unfair treatment or anything).
If I were to give you my personal recommendation, knowing that you wanted to get a math PhD eventually, then I would say apply to both if you are in doubt. What's the worst that can happen? If you are a strong enough candidate to go straight to PhD, then great. Why not, right? And if not, then a little graduate coursework can't hurt your application.
I would also like to mention that, at least in my program, there is no transferral of credits. You come in, pass qualifying exams, and write a dissertation. The transferral of credits would come in the form of you already knowing enough to pass the quals immediately (I did not know them all, for instance - some people knew more and some less). In all likelihood, you'd still burn at least a semester, more likely a year, just like all of us do. So a masters would likely lengthen your studies (at least at my uni).
On the other hand, it is possible that you don't have a big idea of what area of math, or what field of math in particular, you want to work in. This would be a big issue, perhaps. I knew I wanted to do number theory, and I was interested in the work of some of the number theorists at Brown. But a combinatorialist, graph theorist, or many other people would be hopelessly alone here (there is little love for combinatorics here). I suspect this sort of problem could be true in many schools. But if you know what you want to do, then this is no issue.
To end, I wanted to note that it's fine to test the waters, i.e. to see if you're fit for a math PhD, in a math PhD program. I've known people who have gotten a masters a year or two in, decided that was enough, and left the program. I suspect this isn't uncommon (although it would be uncommon where I am), and you'd get paid to do it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: In some fields (this is true in my own experience for some humanities and social science disciplines), there are departments whose terminal MA programs are recognized as being "feeders" for more competitive Ph.D programs. So applicants who go through those are not necessarily at a disadvantage—possibly the reverse, especially if one's undergraduate grades or training are lacking in some respect. You will need to find out, though, what is true of the field you are working in, and of course *which* MA programs, if any, have this reputation.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/02/28 | 513 | 2,296 | <issue_start>username_0: My department is looking for a CRM tool to manage its relationship with graduated students (either on BSc, MSc or PhD level). What we want to achieve:
* Show our candidates that you can get a well paid work after graduating Physics in Poland (they don't believe such positions exist)
* Allow our department to track careers of out students and possibly change study program to better fulfill their needs
* Gain input from former students
* Allow current and former students to view/apply for job opportunities (people from our department who start a company often look for people with similar education level)
All these use cases are more or less practiced now, but mainly using emails.
I was wondering what are established practices, particularly in Western Universities (since Polish ones tend to lag somewhat, especially when it comes to such problems). **Do your departments do any kind of alumni tracking?** If yes, what tools do you use? If not, why not?<issue_comment>username_1: [LinkedIn](http://www.linkedin.com/) is a fine resource for this sort of thing, especially for keeping track of alums' careers and contact data. I encourage my students to link to me for exactly this reason.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Our [Link username_2 app](https://linkalumniapp.com) helps you reunite with your classmates from the past. It aims to create a professional private network for alumni where they can connect, communicate, share and support various business opportunities and networking events.
We have customized system in which we design according to our client requirements:
1. Create awareness about the details of the job by posting and sharing the details with your alumni network. Pitch ideas to fellow alumni for a start-up and get started.
2. Give back to the community; help your alumni network by guiding them and sharing your experience through mentoring, boss talks and other CSR activities.
3. Create events and invite alumni network by sharing details and media gallery of the event. Purchase event tickets through different online payment methods easily.
4. Helping all the students in their journey by guiding and providing a solution to their concerns and problems related to before, during and also after the graduation.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/02/29 | 579 | 2,349 | <issue_start>username_0: Here are the details for one of my schools so far:
At UChicago, my prospective adviser said that I should expect to have around a month off per year (probably 2 weeks in winter and 2 weeks in summer).
It's probably fairly reasonabl, though it came as a bit of a shock at first but that was because I was used to being an undergrad where I had at least 2 months off EVEN if I included courses during summer quarter.
I'm on a fellowship for my first two years, but I'll still be pushed to produce results (I'm basically being trusted to do a highly ambitious project).<issue_comment>username_1: The official answer depends on where you are located, and the applicable laws in your jurisdiction. For instance, in Germany, graduate students are almost always employees of the government, and are therefore accorded vacation benefits commensurate to that (between 23 and 29 days per year, depending upon age). In contrast, the United States technically does not have any requirements on annual paid leave, so the answer in principle could be as little as zero, but normally is two weeks per year.
Unofficially, that's a matter to be worked out between you and your advisor. Some advisors will be willing to let you take days off here and there as needed, so long as they don't interfere with either your long-term progress or meeting your day-to-day responsibilities. Most advisors will be rightfully displeased if you ask to take two months of leave all at once, but most will not mind a three-day weekend here and there as needed.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: username_1's answer is very good. Just to extend it a little, you should *not* expect to take breaks with the undergraduate schedule; spring/summer/winter break does not apply to graduate students. Almost all (US) graduate students will take off the week of 12/25-1/1 or thereabouts. At the end of the day, it really depends on your advisor's dispositions towards your taking time off from lab.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I guess one can take 4 weeks off per year if they want to and can. But you hardly have the time to do so, especially if you are working in a wet lab. I probably took 2 weeks max per year, and that also not all at once (more like one of two days here and there to fit my experiment schedules).
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/02/29 | 1,597 | 6,696 | <issue_start>username_0: I have a bachelor's degree in computer science. I am looking for an appropriate master program. I am interested in algorithms.
My question is not about where I should continue my education. My question is about how exactly should I search for the place to study for my master's degree. I simply don't know where should I start. I don't know what my first step should be. I don't have any experience living abroad.
Right now in order to choose the place I consider just few parameters.
1. I am interested in algorithms, almost every university that offers master degree in computer science would be an appropriate choice.
2. Fee. It's really a problem. I didn't find universities in Europe that offer master's degree study for free, few of them offer applying for scholarship. But I am not sure I have a good chance to get one, and obviously it doesn't cover all fee. I don't have citizenship in a European country so I assume it's going to be harder to apply.
What's your experience? Did you try to apply to scholarship? What's your opinion? Can I start doing research and hope for funds.
In Canada there are few places without fee, therefore it should be very competitive, but at least there is a chance. Usually they ask for GRE in mathematics and computer science; sometimes for IELTS. What's your opinion? I assume you should be really perfect in your field in order to get applied.
In China, very interesting option, without fee or with minimal fee plus one year to get a new language. It looks very attractive, especially with approach of Chinese government to education, as I know there are many programs for free. The only problem is to get the minimal communication in Chinese which may take up to a year according to experience of others.
**Addendum**:
According to responses I decided to update my post.
I earned my bachelor degree 3 years ago, I have a good job, and I work as a programmer. Throughout the last year I am taking courses of master degree in my domestic university. I have one day off in week for studies. Three years is a long break but I feel the power is back. In my place it's not common that employer will pay for studies, of course I have some savings but this is not going to cover fee, and all spendings for at least two years.
I would like to go to research master. Right now I am not ready to get good grade at GRE, but I am working on it. I am not fluent in English, but in my opinion more important to be good in my field of study.<issue_comment>username_1: This can only be answered backwards, by asking what you hope to get out of the study. You state you want a masters degree... masters are typically used to get a job in industry, and scholarships can be difficult to obtain. You will typically have to pay in order to go this route. There are some graduate programs that offer research masters (at least in engineering), but (1) I'm not sure how prevalent this is in comp sci, and (2) you'll be adding on at least a year to your degree in order for you to complete the research.
If you are looking for a masters so that you can move to industry, your best bet would probably be to look for jobs now, work a year or two, and then have your work pay for your masters. Many workplaces offer education benefits, and this can be a very nice way to further your education while not paying for the degree.
If you're looking for research, consider going the PhD route, which would open up possibilities for stipends.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: **There is no such thing as free lunch.** If some university is offerring ou free tuition they want something from you. Mostly in the form of research. So PhD has a very high chance of getting a scholarship unlike Masters just because they know you are going to just study and not primarily do research.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The reason why you're not seeing scholarships for study at the master's level *in Europe* is that the master's degree is *not* viewed as the prerequisite for PhD study, but instead as the direct continuation of the bachelor's degree. As a result, you're expected to move on to the master's program, and usually at the same location you did your bachelor's degree. That means there really isn't a call for a lot of scholarship to fund master's study. However, it is possible to finance one's stay in a European university, as many schools offer part-time positions for master's students working in a research group for some number of hours per week.
However, in the US and several other countries, gaining admission to a PhD program is a good way to get your master's studies funded, as the funding is normally provided for the entirety of your graduate tenure, rather than just the PhD portion.
To get in to most programs in English-speaking countries, you will need to show evidence of a good scholastic record as well as good English skills, as evidenced by the IELTS or TOEFL. If those aren't in place, it's going to be very difficult for you to be competitive, and almost impossible to be competitive for a scholarship or fellowship.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: I can't comment on the solution posted by @Sunil. I disagree with him. You should never do that. You are depriving others of `a position who really want to do Ph.D.` You should follow that Ph.D. route only if you `really want and absolutely positive` that you want to do the research, otherwise, you should not do it.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: You should consider France. The second year of the master program is roughly the 1st (or 2nd ?) year of a PhD program in the US. You are not paid during this year, but you are during the next step : the PhD, and it is so during 3 years.
Now, if you are already a skilled programmer, you can apply for a short term (1 year) contractual position in a research project in a french university. During this same year you graduate from the master program, then you go straight into the PhD program.
Of course, this requires that you are attractive (scientifically speaking) since this is not the usual way of entering into a PhD program.
PS : I said France, but you can probably do that in many others countries.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: In Canada a research Masters generally comes with financial support. There are tuition and other fees, but the support generally exceeds the fees and should also cover basic living expenses. Naturally it is quite competitive to get a position, and if you get one, you are expected to work hard to earn your degree. If you are interested in going further, a research masters can be a stepping stone to PhD work.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/02/29 | 689 | 2,947 | <issue_start>username_0: The thing with PhDs is that it often takes someone who knows the politics and people of the field in order to really understand (or help) a PhD student's troubles (if any arise). At the same time, there are many similarities.
If they don't, who are the other best people to talk to in case issues arise?<issue_comment>username_1: In general, university counseling should be aware of how to deal with PhD student affairs as well as undergraduate issues. (Perhaps different staff or the two groups, perhaps not.) However, I'll focus on the "if they don't" part of your question.
There is usually a graduate "officer" in most departments, who is tasked with making sure that graduate students complete the requirements of their studies, and that departmental regulations and policies are being followed. This officer should be the first person to talk to if something goes wrong, and the problem can't be resolved between the parties directly.
Beyond that, the members of the thesis committee have an obligation to intervene in the case of severe conflicts that could disrupt the program. Ultimately, though, the chair of the department would be the last "internal" stop before you would have to go to the university-level administration (the office of the dean of graduate students, or a similar position).
If you are looking for advice from fellow students, perhaps you can get information from the student committee that is present in most departments.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Generally speaking, you'll get the best advice from one of the following, in order of usefulness & availability to help:
1. Your advisor
2. Postdocs in your lab/field
3. Other graduate students in your lab/field
4. Close collaborators
5. Your committee members
6. University departmental staff
7. ...
In the past, I have spoken with departmental staff for issues, including my department chair, but often they're pretty limited in what they can offer. Your most useful advice will often come from the top three in the above list.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Many university mental health centers have PhD-only group therapy programs. These often focus on stress and anxiety. They will be proctored by a professional counselor but are designed to be a space where graduate students can help each other.
The benefit is two-fold - you get to talk to people who are in grad school in your university, perhaps in a similar field or program. You'd be surprised how similar some issues are regardless of field of study (research falling behind, concern about funding, conflicts with PIs/advisers, etc.). But in group therapy you are able to work through issues in an explicitly private space. If you are having a serious issue, it may be good to start here rather than within your department. I'd say that is any grievance you air to someone within your department has the chance to spread.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer] |
2012/02/29 | 688 | 2,723 | <issue_start>username_0: There are many disciplines where collaborative learning is the norm; group projects in engineering, working in pairs in bio & chem laboratories, writing papers in a variety of fields, and Team-Based Learning in medical schools (among other areas). **Are there any software tools available that are specifically intended to augment collaborative learning?** In my head, this would include capabilities such as:
* Asking questions of the group
* Enabling real-time group discussion
* Sharing attachments<issue_comment>username_1: There aren't many popular ones specific to students. Many universities use [BlackBoard](http://www.blackboard.com/), but despite having been in many classes where it was used, I've never seen students use it to collaborate. Students use the same tools everyone else uses... Skype, Github, Dropbox, Google Docs, etc.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Are there any software tools available that are specifically intended to augment collaborative learning?
>
>
>
This strongly depends on the setting (i.e., the aim of the learning experience) and consequently expectations the teacher and the students have.
For collaborative knowledge-base management and/or note-taking, e.g., [Wikis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki) are an effective tool. There exist a [plethora of various flavours of wiki's](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_wiki_software) for various purposes, depending on the exact requirements you might have.
If you are after e.g., collaborative writing, then tools similar to [Google Docs](http://docs.google.com) might be of some use.
In the case you would be after something more complex, such as collaborative exercise sheets, that would be trickier of course.
It also might be useful to start from Wikipedia's entry on [Computer-supported collaborative learning](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Supported_Cooperative_Learning)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I've been using [Piazza](http://piazza.com) with some success. It provides a collaborative discussion forum for a course. The best thing I can say about it: my students actually use it. Caveat: it doesn't include the capability for students to upload files.
From the Piazza website:
>
> The (Free) Efficient Way to Manage Class Q&A
>
>
> How is this better than email, newsgroups, and discussion forums?
> Students actually use Piazza, they love it. This difference stems from how we built Piazza. We've personally met with and spoken to thousands of students and instructors. The result is a beautifully intuitive and simple product that students love and use.
>
>
>
Also see [why Piazza works](https://piazza.com/why-piazza-works).
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/01 | 1,324 | 5,221 | <issue_start>username_0: Tonight I was scrolling through my RSS aggregator (which includes subscriptions for several journals I follow) and the abstract for [All Your Base: a fast and accurate probabilistic approach to base calling](https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2012-13-2-r13) caught my attention. The article's title, as well as the name of the software it describes, includes a subtle reference to the popular internet meme [All Your Base Are Belong to Us](http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/all-your-base-are-belong-to-us). This gave me a good laugh, and an excuse to watch that ridiculously silly video again.
But on a more serious note, this is not the first time I have seen the use of subtle (or not-so-subtle) humor in the title of a scientific journal article, conference abstract, or poster presentation. Sometimes the humor is even injected into the body of the publication itself. But in general, we as scientists are expected to write in such a way that our findings are easily communicated and easily reproducible. The focus is on clarity, objectivity, and reproducibility.
There are of course no formal rules about the use of humor in scientific literature, but are there any *de facto* rules? Do these *de facto* rules depend on the field (computer science vs genetics) or the publisher (Oxford Univ. Press vs BioMed Central) or the journal's impact factor (Nature vs Frontiers in Genetics)? Does humor even have a place in scientific literature, or would we be better off without it?<issue_comment>username_1: The brief answer is that, yes, humor has its place, but
1. it should never be used at the expense of the integrity of the results;
2. even when used, it is often only used sparsely; *and*
3. the author typically is somewhat known in the field. (You rarely find a very young professor publishing something like that.)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I see humorous titles in scientific articles now and again, like the "Wizard of Odds" joke in a recent commentary in *Epidemiology*. One should however be somewhat cautious. The general use of "marketing gimmicks" like [questions in the title](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0412-z) have been suggested to increase *downloads* but not actual citations - which flawed or not flawed form the basis for how both the paper and you as the author are evaluated.
Consider [this finding](https://jis.sagepub.com/content/34/5/680.short):
>
> The results of the current study indicate that in two prestigious scientific journals in psychology the use of exceptionally amusing titles (2 standard deviations above the average rated amusement) was associated with a substantiate ‘penalty’ of around 33% of the total number of citations. The present results were found in both of the examined journals and cannot be attributed to potential moderating effects of the title length and pleasantness, the number of authors, the year of publica- tion, and the article type (regular article vs comment).
>
>
>
While that might not be perfectly generalizable, I think it's pretty easy to say that being overly clever is hazardous.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I would be careful with humour in publications mostly because the reviewers might not appreciate it, especially if it's something they might not understand because their native language is not English. Having a paper rejected because a reviewer didn't appreciate your attempt at humour is not something I'd be very keen on.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: The [NCBI ROFL](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/category/ncbi-rofl/) blog is a good source of intentional and unintentional humour in the scientific literature.
In general I think we can get a little too po-faced about the "importance" of the scientific literature, and a little humour now and then (used wisely) can help to make a point. It is an easy thing to misjudge, however, and I think it is true that no humour at all is vastly preferable to bad humour.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: I wrote a [paper](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.06777.pdf) with a colleague where we used a fictitious motivating example with Dr <NAME> and Beaker from Muppet Labs (the machine learning part of the example was very real). We used this fictitious setting because we didn't want to name and shame a real person (likely to be an early career researcher) that had fallen into the pitfall we wanted to discuss (it is a fairly common pitfall). It never got published in a journal because the reviewers thought this use of humour was inappropriate. Personally I thought it made the point clearly and in a more memorable way and avoided unnecessary singling out of particular individuals, so I rather disagreed with the reviewers on this one. Humour (or at least not being *completely* serious) can help communicate serious ideas, which is the purpose of writing papers.
Of course we could have just presented the results of the motivating example, but that would have been very dull and unlikely to be memorable for the students, practitioners and early career researchers who need to know about the pitfall so they don't fall into it themselves.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/01 | 4,342 | 18,308 | <issue_start>username_0: As a young scholar I frequently struggle with knowing the extent to which I should be critical of particular components of papers I am reviewing. I can formulate a rough hierarchy between major concerns (things that need to be changed or this shouldn't be published) and relatively minor concerns (things I think would improve the manuscript, but aren't substantive enough to affect whether the paper is publishable or not).The question here concerns the latter, in essence I don't know where the cut-off in reasonableness should be for minor concerns.
For one example, being curmudgeonly I would say bad graphics are the norm rather than the exception in my field, although they aren't frequently *so bad* I can't figure out what the author is trying to say. Are minor critques of graphs appropriate (e.g. your gridlines are very obtrusive, the aspect ratio of your chart isn't appropriate, your colors/patterns are hard to distinguish, you should use a dot plot instead of a stacked bar graph, etc.) Frequently my suggested improvements would be somewhat arbitrary though, so I frequently hesitate to give such advice.
Is there any advice to guide the role of the peer-reviewer? Another side question too, does the scope change if I'm doing this for a colleague versus as an anonymous reviewer for a journal?<issue_comment>username_1: If these are suggestions rather than mandates (as you suggest) and if you are willing to commit the time to providing such feedback, I'd say go for it. It could only help, as long as you're not so picky that the authors end up with a list that is too overwhelming to deal with (not sure where the bar is for that).
FYI: I'm a "young" scholar, too, not a journal editor.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: There are certain things I look for when reviewing papers that are "show stoppers", i.e. if I find one of these, I usually recommend rejection.
* Things that don't add up, e.g. fractions that don't add up to 1, unreasonable large performance improvements such as orders of magnitude when the proposed method would save 50% of the work in the best case.
* Major omissions, i.e. something that would be required to reproduce the results/implement the method is not described adequately.
* Wrong or unjustified statements.
The things that don't fall into this category (e.g. graphs that are hard to read) are usually not a reason for me to recommend rejection, unless they occur several times throughout the paper. The same goes for bad spelling/grammar.
I would always point out things like you mention as example (one particular thing I don't like is graphs with different scales next to each other to compare two approaches) if you think that changing them would make the paper better. In the end, everything is subjective and may seem arbitrary.
I would use the same diligence regardless of whether looking something over for a colleague or reviewing for conference/journal because even in the former case the paper will presumably be submitted somewhere where it will be peer-reviewed.
In summary, I think that there need to be a number of minor concerns throughout the paper to recommend its rejection. One or two graphs that look odd would for me not be a reason to do so, unless of course there are other, more serious problems.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Please see [my answer](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/a/1902/111) to [a similar question](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/q/1893/111) on the theoretical computer science SE site.
At @David's suggestion, I'm copy-pasting my answer here, but keep in mind that the question is slightly different, and my answer is aimed at theoretical computer science. The bold questions are quoted from the original post. Point 5 is probably the most relevant for this question.
Short version: **Be respectful, but brutally honest.**
---
1. **What are the main criteria for determining the significance of a paper's results?** To the best of your knowledge, does the paper make a significant, well-presented, and correct contribution to the state of the art? If the paper fails any of the three criteria, it's fair to reject it for that reason alone, regardless of the other two.
2. **What are the main elements of a referee report, and which parts are most important?** Here's what I think a report should contain. Everything should be visible to the author, except *possibly* for serious accusations of misconduct.
a. A quick summary of the paper, to help the editor judge the quality of the results, and to help convince both the author and the editor that you actually read and understood the paper. Place the result in its larger context. Include a history of prior versions, even if the authors include it in the submission. Be respectful, but brutally honest.
b. A discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the paper, in terms of correctness, novelty, clarity, importance, generality, potential impact, elegance, technical depth, robustness, etc. If you suspect unethical behavior (plagiarism, parallel submission, cooked data), describe your suspicions. Be respectful, but brutally honest.
c. A recommendation to the editor for further action — accept, accept with minor revision, ask for a second round of reviewing, or reject outright. Keep in mind that you are making a recommendation, not a decision; if you can't make up your mind, just say so. Be respectful, but brutally honest.
d. More detailed feedback to the author — more detailed justification for your recommendation, requests for clarification in the final version, missing references, bugs in the proofs, simplifications, generalizations, typos, etc. Be respectful, but brutally honest.
3. **How does assessment for conferences differ from that in journals?** Conference reports should be shorter; program committees have hundreds of papers to consider at once. Whether there should be a difference between conference and journal papers is up to the journal (and indirectly, up to the community). Most theoretical computer science journals do *not* insist on a significant difference; it is quite common for the conference and journal versions of a theory paper to be essentially identical. When in doubt, ask the editor!
4. **What if I don't understand the paper? ...the proof? (Is it my fault or theirs?)** If you still don't understand the paper after making a good-faith effort, it's the author's fault, or possibly the editor's, but *certainly not* yours. The author's primary responsibility is to effectively communicate their result to their audience, and a good editor will send you a paper to referee only if they think you're a good representative of the paper's intended audience. But you do have to make a good-faith effort; do not expect to immediately understand everything (anything?) immediately on your first reading.
5. **What about typographical/grammatical mistakes?** If there are a *lot* of errors, don't even read the paper; just recommend rejection on the grounds that the paper is not professionally written. Otherwise, if you really want to be thorough, include a *representative* list of grammar, spelling, and punctuation mistakes, but don't knock yourself out finding every last bug. Be respectful, but brutally honest.
6. **How much time should I spend on a report?** Expect to spend about an hour per page, mostly on internalizing the paper's results and techniques. Be pleasantly surprised when it doesn't actually take that long. (If it takes significantly less time than that, either the paper is either exceedingly elegant and well-written, you know the area extremely well, or the paper is technically shallow. Don't confuse these three possibilities.)
7. **How many reports a year am I expected to write?** You should write at least as many referee reports as other people write for you. If this takes more time than writing your own papers, you're not spending enough time on your own papers.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I think everything you're asking about is within the scope of the reviewer's role. Generally speaking, I divide my review up into three sections:
**Summary**: A summary and free-form critique. Here I communicate what I think the "gist" of the paper is about, its strengths, and offer some weaknesses that might exist in the paper as a whole. For example, if I think the authors were slightly too timid in not offering a interpretation of the data, or if they've missed or glossed over some major point.
**Major criticisms**: These are things that *must* be fixed in order for me to consider it a publishable paper, and if I have the chance to review the revisions (some journals do this), things I expect to either see changed, or have *very* good arguments for why they're not. Stuff in this category includes:
* Flawed or inappropriate methods
* Major intuitive leaps that aren't supported by the data or analysis
* Study design problems that need attention
* Major failings of interpretation
* Journal specific problems, like failing to properly report your protocol to established standards for a clinical trial, or the inappropriate use of p-values in some journals.
**Minor criticisms**: These are all things that are essentially "The advice of someone reading your draft with a critical eye". Importantly, these are things where, if they all made it in, while I would possibly be annoyed, I wouldn't be upset that the paper hit the press. This *does* include things like advice on graphics (my pet peeve is graphics that are unintelligible when printed), missing citations, etc. Things that are above the level of a copy editor, but aren't going to move my decision on the paper one way or another, unless there are *a lot* of them.
Occasionally I'll put in one or two small copy editing notes if something jumps out at me (insure vs. assure vs. ensure, etc.)
The cut-off I use is "Will this irk me when I see it in print, and will I think less of the authors that produced it?" To use your example of bad graphs, yes, this would annoy me, and it results in a less usable finding than one with the appropriate graphs - just like garbled language in the Results section might. If its minor stuff, like a turn of phrase I wouldn't have used, or a slight fondness for run-on sentences? That falls below the radar.
As for friends vs. anonymous reviews, I think the scope does change slightly. For a friend, you're helping them polish a paper - I think a great many more things fall under that umbrella, including things like "That's really not what a semi-colon is for" or fiddling with the graphics parameters on a plot. For a reviewer, you're one of the last gatekeepers before this goes out into the world - but you *aren't* an editor. Your focus should be on the research, and the appropriate presentation of it, unless the errors are so bad as to impede one of those.
In either case, you should be polite.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_5: If you decide that a particular paper you're reviewing is acceptable, then your job as a referee of the paper becomes to suggest improvements that you think will *substantively* help the presentation of the scientific content. Even minor corrections like the ones you've listed can be considered substantive when they lead to "real" improvement.
For example, I'd argue that suggesting a comment that axes labels should be 12 pt instead of 7 pt would be appropriate, as it would substantially improve legibility; however, arguing for 12 pt instead of 13 pt is not significant enough to make a real difference. Similarly, I would point out grammatical or spelling mistakes if they are relatively few in number, but make a general comment if there are many, because I'm not being paid to be a copy editor. (As another example, Oxford commas wouldn't rise to that level, unless it's an "Eats, shoots, and leaves" issue.)
In general, however, there isn't anything that is really *too* nitpicking in nature unless all you're doing is expressing a personal preference.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: My main criterion for such concerns over clarity and presentation is
**reader time**: is the time it takes the authors to address your concern comparable to the (cumulative) time gained by the paper's readers.
This also means: the larger the expected audience, the more you can nitpick.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: *PLoS Computational Biology* editor <NAME> has written a series of very decent [*“Ten simples rules to …”*](http://www.ploscollections.org/article/browseIssue.action?issue=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fissue.pcol.v03.i01) articles. There is no detailed guide to being a good reviewer, but [*Ten Simple Rules for Reviewers*](http://www.ploscollections.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.0020110) sure is a good starting point. Summing it up:
1. Do Not Accept a Review Assignment unless You Can Accomplish the Task in the Requested Timeframe—Learn to Say No
2. Avoid Conflict of Interest
3. Write Reviews You Would Be Satisfied with as an Author
4. As a Reviewer You Are Part of the Authoring Process
5. Be Sure to Enjoy and to Learn from the Reviewing Process
6. Develop a Method of Reviewing That Works for You
7. Spend Your Precious Time on Papers Worthy of a Good Review
8. Maintain the Anonymity of the Review Process if the Journal Requires It
9. Write Clearly, Succinctly, and in a Neutral Tone, but Be Decisive
10. Make Use of the “Comments to Editors”
I would add: carefully read both the “instructions for authors” and “instructions for reviewers” of the journal you are reviewing for, if you are not already very familiar with them.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_8: I can also add some other pointer I've come to learn over the years on what constitutes a good reviews.
Things you should avoid:
* Rejecting the paper because you did not like the approach (science is not about liking, is about correctness)
* Rejecting the paper because it has many typos (you can always ask for a spell checking, but if the idea is good, not being a native speaker shouldn't affect you)
* Criticizing a paper for not having simple definitions, my rule of thumb is that if a concept pops in a Google search as a wikipedia page, the author does not have to explain it again.
Things that can help the paper:
* If the Grammar is poor, recommend some book for writing styles, like Strunk and White, and give some examples on how the paper can be improved.
* If you think the paper has some obscure concepts (that did not come up in Wikipedia) ask for clarification.
* The paper, as a rule, should be implementable by someone who has the expertise in the area.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: Here is the rough checklist I use for refereeing. I work in mathematics, so it may need adjustment for other areas. When I write a review, I imagine it is for my own paper, and I try to include the things that I would like a reviewer to include for me.
1. **Is the paper correct?** Trivial errors can be corrected in a resubmission, of course. I have not yet received a paper in which I found any serious error.
1. Part of correctness is clarity. I consider the average readership of the journal (to the extent I can), and any aspects of the paper that would be unclear to them can be raised in the report. There is a difference, of course, between unclarity and writing style. But papers should use standard terminology when it exists, and proofs should be written in a way that is not unduly difficult to follow. Occasionally, a referee can suggest a more streamlined proof, which is fine.
2. I keep a running list of typos, style errors, and other trivialities, which I list at the bottom of the report with minimal commentary.
3. I do not check the correctness of all bibliographic data, but I often refer to one or more of the references when reading the paper. If I notice any errors in the bibliography I note them in the report.
2. **Is the paper complete?**
1. Are there any obvious gaps in the research? For example, if a theorem has a strange additional hypothesis, the author should address the necessity of this hypothesis, or consider stating it as a question. Nobody else will be able to publish a paper to fill in minor gaps, so it is important for the author to be sufficiently thorough in the original paper, for the sake of the overall literature.
2. Are there additional references that should be cited? If I know of additional research that the author has not mentioned, I can raise it in the report. I believe this is one of the more important roles of the reviewer, because no author is aware of the entire research literature.
3. **Does the paper fit the journal to which it has been submitted?** I have a general feeling for the differences between the journals in my area. Most journals have a statement of scope and purpose on their website, as well. For some journals, I think that all professional-quality, on-topic papers are in the scope of the journal. But for "high-tier" journals, the paper needs to have sufficient results (and, perhaps, a sufficient density of results) to fit.
1. The degree of completeness (item 2) can be important here. The editor will make the final decision, of course, but it is not inappropriate for the reviewer to indicate if they think the paper is correct but not a good fit for the journal to which it is submitted.
2. If it is clear that a paper is not a good fit, I may write a report indicating this without verifying the correctness of the results. This allows the author to resubmit to another journal more quickly than if I took my time with the paper.
4. **Did the editor give any additional instructions?** For example, one top-tier journal explicitly asked reviewers to raise the quality level required for acceptance, because the journal had a long backlog and wanted to reduce the volume of accepted papers. Other uncommon situations can arise, which the editor may summarize for the reviewer.
I attempt to answer questions 1 and 3 in the first paragraph of the review. These are what the editor needs to know. The lower parts of the review are intended more for the author, and may have remarks related to possible changes or additions, particularly if my recommendation is to revise and resubmit.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/03/01 | 1,390 | 6,124 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm a first year PhD student. I'm just reading background papers trying to find a topic for my thesis: my subject is turning around tree different elements (XML (as a tool), complex data, and the cloud computing (as an environment)). So I find that is a large subject with many materials that treat this subject, whether each element individually, or two elements at most at a time, but not all three together.
My question is
>
> How should I choose the most worthy materials so that I could find a good topic which uses these three elements together?
>
>
>
Any information, insights, or propositions are welcome. Thank you.<issue_comment>username_1: I can answer this from the perspective of someone who did it poorly in retrospect, but from a different field (engineering). You will want to make sure that any papers you begin with are:
1. **Accepted findings in the field**. I made the mistake of basing much of my thesis work on a paper which was used a one-off paradigm, and was not replicated by anyone other than myself. This resulted in my needing to spend much more time validating my results than I otherwise would have needed to, because there was no other validation in the literature.
2. **Simplicity over novelty**. You're a graduate student, at the beginning of your career. You'll have tons of time to do awesome things as your career progresses. Unless you're working for Dr. Awesome BigName Researcher whose lab is known for doing cutting-edge work on X, be conservative... choose the less exciting but more likely to work research over the more exciting but very complex and/or more likely to fail.
Note that this post is completely irrelevant to anyone whose advisor effectively tells them what their thesis project is, as your criterion will be (1) the papers your advisor hands you. You have my sympathies :)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I think the answer to your question depends on the aims you want to pursue with your thesis.
* **Start a career in academia.** In this case I agree with username_1. Use something that enables you to build a solid foundation.
* **Start a career in industry.** Look at the particular industry/company you're interested in and decide what's going to be most important to them and hence most important in facilitating you getting a job there.
* **Neither of the above.** If you don't really know what you want to do after you've finished your PhD, I'd say go for the thing that interests you most, even if the results you're basing your research on is novel and you're not sure if it's the right direction to go in. That's why it's called research after all :)
In any case you should make sure that you're comfortable doing the research. The best papers are no good for you if there's no scope for you to extend the work or you can't build on it for other reasons.
In your particular situtation I would probably focus on papers that bring the different subjects you've mentioned together, as this gives you the option of shifting the focus of your PhD slightly in one direction later.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Find out what the most current problems in these fields are. This can be done by reading papers in the most recent proceedings of the conferences and journals dedicated to these topics.
Regarding these three topics:
* XML is, as you say, a tool. XML in itself is not particularly novel and a lot of research involving XML is of the form "Something interesting and known *in XML*." I find such papers unexciting and reject them if they pass my way.
* Cloud computing is a hot topic and there will be lots of people working on it. This means that it is easy to find papers and easy to find a venue for publications. On the other hand, there is a lot of competition.
* Complex data is and will always be interesting. But what do you plan to do with it? Are you planning to use the cloud to process massive amounts of complex data? That is certainly a hot topic these days, with things like Google's Map-Reduce framework and other comparable things (Hadoop, Cassandra, ...). A lot of big companies have interest in such settings, so it might be challenging to find something new to do, but you will likely have people interested in the work you do.
In short, I think you only really need to consider the complex data and cloud computing combination. This will make your search a little easier. Then find the top conferences in the area and read the proceedings from the last few years.
In addition, it is crucial that you build on top of what other people have done, rather than starting from scratch. Ideally, start with something developed by people in your own lab (whether it be a system or a theory).
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: One point not covered by the other answers is [Review articles](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Review_article) which summarize the state of a particular research field.
As the OP is at an early stage of the process, these are especially useful for gving an overview of the most important work, and are usually written by an authority on the topic. They can be invaluable in preparing a reading list, as the references are the ones that are considered central to the development of the field, and will often be articles that you'll be expected to know.
Even when looking for inter-disciplinary stuff it is usually useful to begin with review articles from all the sub-fields that touch upon the research topic. The [Annual Reviews](http://www.annualreviews.org/) series of journals are a good generic place to start, though you should focus on the leading journals of your field. The number of citations that can be checked on google scholar are also useful in establishing the important research concerns of your field to know *before* you start working on something brilliant that nobody will care about. For instance, there might be excellent reasons why nobody has done work usng your chosen approach, so getting the most respected/ cited papers will help you identify useful research topics, and also the ones to avoid.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/03/02 | 1,425 | 5,710 | <issue_start>username_0: If a person studies and/or does experiments at his/her own home or laboratory because of some reasons, is he/she still allowed to compete with others to get a prize like Nobel Prize, Field Medal, etc?
More precisely, from the beginning he/she never gets educations from formal institutions (schools, colleges, universities).<issue_comment>username_1: Allowed - yes. Have any reasonable chance to compete - no.
(But to learn university-level things, given the determination - yes.)
There are two separate issues:
* you won't learn stuff abut the current research lines and you won't be able to attract others to your results,
* in academia things like degrees and university/advisor name do matter.
First, you can learn a lot of stuff by yourself. However, it is hard to get to research-level. Moreover, now most research requires a lot of collaboration. A century ago it may be still possible to invent something in one's private workshop (but still a lot of knowledge and infusion was required). Now it is not true anymore. Also, you need to know the tools and which problems are open, solved or seems to be dead-end. Moreover, you may end up solving problems which are difficult but not of the interest of other academicians.
See also from [<NAME>, How to become a good theoretical physicist](http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theorist.html):
>
> It so often happens that I receive mail - well-intended but totally useless - by amateur physicists who believe to have solved the world. They believe this, only because they understand totally nothing about the real way problems are solved in Modern Physics. If you really want to contribute to our theoretical understanding of physical laws - and it is an exciting experience if you succeed! - there are many things you need to know. First of all, be serious about it. All necessary science courses are taught at Universities, so, naturally, the first thing you should do is have yourself admitted at a University and absorb everything you can. But what if you are still young, at School, and before being admitted at a University, you have to endure the childish anecdotes that they call science there? What if you are older, and you are not at all looking forward to join those noisy crowds of young students ?
>
>
>
Also: almost all Nobel prize winners had advisors, which were also well-know and are from first league universities.
Second, the academia is less meritocratic than it seems to be. While certain skills and knowledge are essential, they are not the only factor. It does matter if you have a certain degree\*), from which university you are and who is/was you advisor. Many contacts are within a clique, were you need to have a recommendation by people they know.
\*) In science no matter how smart you are, you won't have chance without a certain degree, while in programming your skills and experience are more important than if you have a PhD degree or not even a BSc.
Nevertheless, finding enough skill and determination to do experiments in one's own home may be a good predictor of later success in science or engineering.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The important factor here is that these prizes are awarded for making a significant contribution to knowledge. This cannot generally be assessed at the point at which you had the idea, and it is for this reason that prizes are usually awarded for contributions which are decades old.
For example, [<NAME>, Jr.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash,_Jr.) was awarded a Nobel prize in 1994 for work done as a graduate student in the late 1940s.
It's only after many years of further research, by the originating researcher and the community as a whole, that the importance of an individual idea can be understood in that context.
A corollary of this is that only research which is published, presented at conferences and generally publicised in the research community is likely to attract sufficient attention and further development to be considered for such a prize.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: A person is nominated for a Nobel Prize by someone familiar with his work, and the Nobel Prize committee judges it for its originality, depth, and service to mankind.
It's barely possible for someone to make a highly original contribution to a field outside of the usual academic circles. In the unlikely event that this occurs, the Nobel Prize committee will consider it on its own merits.
For instance, the Nobel Prize was awarded to a new finance concept called [microlending](http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2006/press.html), developed by a banker, not a professor. Admittedly, it was the Nobel Peace prize, but it could have been awarded as the Economics prize.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: It's certainly possible, if you're a genius on the order of Srinivasa Ramanujan and can invent an entirely new, provable/repeatable, and productive field from first principles.
Likely for a mere mortal? You've probably got better odds of winning the Lottery, being struck by lightning, or fill-in-your-least-likely-scenario-here. Not because there's any prejudice against autodidacts, but because the odds of someone selftaught actually finding something new -- and being correct about it -- are just not that great.
Go for it. Just don't expect recognition of that kind until you have produced work with is widely agreed to be truly revolutionary.
(Except, as noted, for the peace prize. Which is sometimes given based on hope rather than achievement. Even then, you'll probably have to be someone who has worldwide recognition.)
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/02 | 2,291 | 9,976 | <issue_start>username_0: For a similar thing, [see this thread](http://www.quora.com/Is-Jay-Wackers-real-first-name-Jacob-or-Jay), where <NAME> managed to get people to call him by the name Jay even though he didn't need to get a legal name change. I'm not sure how to go about this though.
The main problem with me is that I have such a frustratingly common name that *a lot* of people cannot find me when they google me. So many of them simply don't notice the middle initial that I always use in between my first and last names, and this could actually become a major issue in academia, since people have little time and are prone to giving up quickly if they want to look for me (or for my papers) and can't find me at all (I know this having seen how several academics use the Internet and how they look for people's names). This, in turn, could easily ruin my citation count in the future (it's not just that - it's helpful to others when I have a less common name so that they can more easily locate my stuff). I already know at least several people who specifically told me that they tried to find my email but that they couldn't find it (and this isn't limited to just them - there are many, many more - including long-lost friends who have wanted to talk to me for a long time, but who couldn't find me due to said ultra-common name). Of course, people can go through the respective university directories, but how many people really do that? From my observations (when I've seen people look for someone else), very very few do it. Hell, there are even several people at my OWN university who share the same exact first+last name as me.
In Academia, this is even a bigger problem because the vast majority of your connections will be people who only vaguely recognize/know you, so they may know most of the search clues. Even a "full name" + university won't solve all the problems, because I may switch universities and people may only remember the old university that I was in. I'm also very very interdisciplinary, so I want to be searchable to people outside my field as well.
And even if I fix the issue for Google with a massive SEO operation or whatever (that may even be impossible for my ridiculously common name), it's still not going to fix the problem for all of the other ways that people use search.
I'm currently transitioning between undergrad and grad school, so now may be the perfect time for a name change? But I don't know what to do. Is it better for me to change my first name or my last name? The problem is that a citation like "Chen 2011" is going to produce so many entries that *no one* will ever find them, even though they frequently do google things like that (and I simply cannot prevent people from googling something like that). Chen is so frustratingly common that even a "Chen and Name2 2011" paper could come from some random medical paper rather than from something I wrote.
As an additional complication, the % of Chinese people using the English Internet is exponentially rising, and I can only expect the problem to get worse in the future because of that (and not just for my first name, but even variants of my first name too).<issue_comment>username_1: If you are going to be very practical, you're right, you should change Chen. But there might be emotional reasons against that, of course. It's a personal choice.
I'll note that you need to be very consistent, professionally; but you can still use whatever else personally/legally. You can choose a professional name like an artist chooses a stage name.
If you start now, always referring to yourself professionally using whatever you choose, and publishing &c under that name, people will know you like that. It's really that simple.
I always spell out both my first names in print, but I never insist that people treat me like that in person. My Portuguese friends tend to, but more random encounters sometimes do, sometimes don't and it's fine.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Name changes are a significant and sensitive issue for many people—particularly female academics who get married, and then have to determine whether to change their name professionally, or to use one name for legal purposes and another for professional publicity purposes.
An extremely common last name is certainly a difficulty in finding you; however, changing your first name won't necessarily improve your visibility, because, as you mentioned in your question, first names aren't normally included in citation searches. Therefore, whatever you do will need to be done to your last name.
Perhaps you could add a hyphenated extension to your last name; whether this would be a legal action (requiring a visit to a court, in most venues) or just unofficially for your profession is for you to decide. (However, it should be pointed out that a legal name change can have major implications on your everyday life, and should not be entered into lightly.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I think people stress too much about the "what if people can't find my papers?" problem. That's what CVs are for. Don't overestimate how often people will actually try to find all of your papers outside of hiring situations. It won't be often. By the time you are established enough to accumulate a significant number of publications, you will be connected to a research university or institute which will make it easy to link you to your publications.
If *"the vast majority of your connections will be people who only vaguely recognize/know you"* you've got a problem that changing your name will not solve.
I'd especially like to hear from someone who have had this cause a career problem. My (legal) first name is one of 10 most common, and my last name is in the top 20 (within the US). While this is annoying, it has not caused me any career issues.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Certainly adding (or just making up) a middle initial to your name will help to differentiate you a lot if someone if looking for your papers specifically. But you have to be consistent and use it everywhere professionally. I work with someone who inserted a made up initial in his publications just for this purpose and says it works quite well. I don't believe that he visited a court or anything to do this.
For hiring purposes, your CV (as mentioned by others) and a "publications" page on your professional website will be the best. If you don't have a website, something like ResearchGate.com or Academia.edu will work in a pinch.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: *One small suggestion:*
Set up your [Google Scholar Citations page](http://scholar.google.com.au/citations). This will make your publications and name more visible in Google scholar.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: Look into how pen-names are handled in your jurisdiction. Authors often take pen-names for much the same reason you are considering changing yours, you want something more distinctive. Given the relatively global nature of this practice, there is likely a legal way to handle it everywhere in the world. This is a different route to changing your name everywhere, as you would for a married name. Depending on your legal system it may be easier.
For example; in the UK there is no singular definition of a persons legal name. Your birth certificate need not match your passport and your passport need not match your bank. So in the UK, everyone is entitled to have as many pen names as amuses them, so long as they don't try to make unjust gains by pretences involving multiple names (that would be fraud).
The only slight complication in this will be email addresses. My institution (not in the UK) automatically granted me my full passport name as an email address. This was not what I had wanted, as it's an absolute mouthful. But a polite email to the IT department, along with a couple of references to places I had used my shorter name, was enough to convince them to offer me the shortened form instead. So my advice there would be to use a personal email where possible anyway, because you don't change it between positions, and to ask nicely if you want a different address from your institute. Ditto for changing information on institutional webpages.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_7: Don't underestimate the downsides to changing your name as it might not actually solve your problem. My cousin changed her name almost 15 years ago, and there are *still* friends and family members who think she just dropped off the face of the planet because they aren't aware she changed her name. It's practically impossible to communicate that sort of thing to everyone who needs to know. Your long-lost friends are now even *less* likely to find you because they won't even be looking for the right name anymore.
If you want to improve your findability online, it seems like you'd get a better return on investment by keeping your name and improving your internet presence. Keep a blog or homepage of some sort where you talk about the interesting things that you're doing and can link to your research. When you meet people that you might like to collaborate with one day, add them to your LinkedIn (or whatever social network you use for your professional stuff). Don't make them go looking for you, be the one that initiates the connection. There might be a bunch of people named <NAME> in academia, but there's only *one* <NAME> that I met at that photonics conference in Brussels and added to my social network. Connecting directly with people like that means they don't have to wade through the entire internet to find you. Even a well-connected person rarely knows more than 2-3 people with the exact same name, and the picture on your profile should make it clear which one is which. That personal connection is better than any SEO you could ever do, plus they'll see your posts about new publications without having to go search for you at all.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/03/02 | 1,361 | 5,929 | <issue_start>username_0: With Asperger's, the trick is always when to explain it (in a non-awkward situation). I'd like to avoid mentioning it if possible, but it has gotten to the point that I only mention it after committing a major social faux pas, in which case it might be seen as an excuse.
With ADD, this is an issue that happens when people explain things to me. I often don't parse things very well when they're communicated to me verbally since I do have attention lapses. That's the major issue, anyways.
With that said, I do (indirectly) imply that I have both diagnoses on my personal website.<issue_comment>username_1: This is a difficult situation. If you believe that you will be placed in situations where a someone in question will need to know that you have Asperger's, lest he or she misread your actions in that situation, then you should inform him or her before it becomes a problem. As you said, informing them afterwards can make it seem like an excuse.
However, if your diagnosis affects your "job" performance (academic or research or otherwise), then you should let them know as soon as possible. If there is the possibility to make appropriate accommodations for your condition(s), then you should have this entered into your official records, so that it's available in case it becomes necessary.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I agree with username_1's answer, however I would just add that you might need be careful about the perception of your condition(s), especially the negative aspects. For instance, with the ADD, it's better to ask people to send written copies because you have a visual memory, because it's a constructive remark, rather than saying that you don't fully understand verbal explanation. Myself, I ask people to send emails about important things, and I clearly state that it's due to my great visual memory and my terrible auditive memory.
In other words, I think it's a good idea to inform people that you have Asperger or ADD, especially those you work closely with, but it's more important to explain the positive aspects rather than just stating your condition.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: From personal experience, I would say not to tell unless your impairment is extreme enough to have required accommodations all throughout your schooling. I personally had always struggled at some things more than others and excelled in area that no one else could fathom and was considered a little 'quirky'. Because of some advice that I received, I did notify the university, as I had just been diagnosed with ADHD (at the age of 50) and just prior to turning in my final thesis, was told that I didn't belong in grad school. Unfortunately I was too humiliated to stand up for myself at the time and when I could, the statute of limitations (one year for discrimination) was over. There is still quite a stigma attached to both diagnoses unfortunately. The stigma won't be resolved with the secrecy but it depends on what your top priority is; challenging the stigma or graduating. Unfortunately, this was my reality and it tends to be rather ingrained in most of higher academia at this point, truth be told.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: If you were a student in my class, I would recommend that you tell me as soon as possible. That way we could brainstorm effective workarounds for you *before* you possibly fall behind. I've had a number of students with some type of learning disability (I realize this isn't the same thing, but my response is similar). If you can get cleared with the university for extra time to take exams, I'm happy to provide that. For one student who had trouble concentrating on quizzes during class, I let her take them outside of class (beforehand). Many people will be happy to work with you, but they won't be able to unless you tell them about your condition and how they can help.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Depending what country you are in, they are often required to make accommodations by law, but that is only if they know about them.
That said, if it is 'just' social interactions that are the issue affecting you, then it is worth examining exactly what you hope to gain out of telling people, because it is more of a gray area in terms of your rights as far as I understand it, anyway.For example:
If you are always being expected to work in a group and you feel worried about this and want to work on your own, it might be worth it. However, if it is just a bit of understanding you want for when you say inappropriate things then you might also be disappointed by how ignorant educated people can actually be about these sorts of things... It depends on you though, some people are more bothered by what people think than others are!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Many universities have offices dedicated to help people which might have learning and other kinds of difficulties, the office in University of Toronto is called "[Accessibility Services](http://www.accessibility.utoronto.ca/)". [Their job](http://www.accessibility.utoronto.ca/Home/About-Us.htm) is helping people who have such difficulties. I suggest that you check if your university has such an office and register with them.
Generally it is better to discuss this with them and let them inform the departments and instructors as needed. They can also provide advice to you and to the instructor and tell the instructor about the kind of special considerations they need to provide for you while keeping your personal information confidential as much as possible.
It also has the benefit that you don't need to explain it more than once, the office will do it for you.
It is also helpful for instructors. An instructor might not be knowledgeable about your difficulties and how he or she can help you. The office can tell your instructors what they have to do exactly to help you in their courses.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/03/02 | 666 | 2,824 | <issue_start>username_0: What's the best way to make corrections to a published paper? Should I amend the original paper and mention in a footnote (or similar) what was changed and why or prepare a completely separate document and put that on my website/append it to the original paper?
I'm not so much worried about how to get it to the publishers that handle the paper, but rather about how to go about it. I would especially like to hear from people who have done something like that or know someone who did.<issue_comment>username_1: Journals oftentimes make their procedures regarding varying types of corrections available on their website (e.g., [Nature](http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/corrections.html)). I would speak with the journal and see what their preferred methodology is. This way, you can have the correction listed alongside the original publication, which would maximize the visibility of the correction. Almost no one reading your paper will check your personal website to see if corrections have been posted there.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It depends on what the error is.
* If the error is the publisher's fault—for instance, if they failed to make a correction you specified in the proofs—then they have an obligation to correct the error. In that case, an email to the editors alerting them of the problem, along with some documentation of the original list of corrections, usually suffices to get the problem fixed. (This will usually be accompanied by a "publisher's note" alerting the reader to the correction, although the original article will usually be updated to provide the correct information.)
* If the error is something discovered after publication, then the best way to fix this is to prepare a short comment detailing the error, the correction, and its implications on your work. The resulting item is then submitted to the journal as a "comment" (or, in some cases, an "erratum," if the journal offers that as a submission option). In this sense, it is like any other comment on a paper.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: >
> What's the best way to make corrections to a published paper?
>
>
>
Although it isn't clear what the "best way" is, I am fairly certain that it is not the standard approaches that are currently used (e.g. as described in [aesmail's answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/523/258)).
[PLOS](http://www.plos.org) enables authors and readers to post [notes, comments, and corrections](http://www.plosone.org/static/commentGuidelines.action) on published articles. Corrections can be either minor or major corrections, and are reviewed by PLOS staff.
I think that this is a step in the right direction, and by lowering the bar for publishing a correction will hopefully promote better science.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/03/03 | 1,057 | 4,589 | <issue_start>username_0: Most of the questions about teaching assistantship portray TA'ing as a waste of time that only damages research. Although I am not TA'ing this year I consider applying for a TA position next year, because I feel I kind of missing it and it actually helps me to focus on my research.
Are there any clear benefits of TA'ing for one's studies and research?<issue_comment>username_1: Of course, it depends on how much teaching you would be doing, and how many hours a week it would take you, but generally, I would consider the following pros/cons points:
**Pros:**
* Teaching might allow you to meet other people than those you are doing research with, and interaction with different people can be useful in terms of research (for instance, you can find a nice collaboration idea with a prof or another TA).
* Teaching brings more immediate rewards (positive and negative) than research. When I was doing my PhD, I was also teaching (about 60 hours per year), and sometimes, when I was stuck with some research problems, it was a nice feeling to interact with students and to feel "productive".
* Teaching is a good training to clearly explain ideas and concepts, which an important skill to write good papers.
* Teaching provides you a different activity aside from research, and can help you focus (as you said yourself).
* Teaching is good on a CV, and if you consider applying at some point to a lectureship/professorship position, then having done some teaching during your PhD can allow you to do some more research-oriented postdocs after (and thus get potentially more papers), so it's somehow a good time investment to do it when you're not expected to produce a huge amount of papers.
**Cons:**
* Teaching takes some time, especially if you are teaching in a field where you are not an expert.
* The downside of the immediate rewards is that sometimes, you can get frustrated because of the teaching, and that can have an impact on your research production.
In conclusion, I would say that being a TA has really clear and acknowledged benefits, as long as it does not take too much time on the research activity (I would say no more than a day per week during the official periods of teaching).
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I would definitely say that teaching helps you to understand better your teaching subject. Learning something is very different than learning something so that you are able to explain it to others.
As Einstein said it.
```
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
```
When I teach, I see different viewpoints while I am explaining.
When you see, students do not understand your example, you are forced to think about it.
A question force you to see other parts of subject.
These things always help me to understand my subject better.
But you should be picky about your subjects. A subject which is completely different from your research topic is not suitable. But a subject which is helpful to your research subject will be better for you. For example I am studying Machine Learning, a lot of courses are offered which will be helpful in this topic.
* Statistics
* Optimization
* Data Mining
* ....
But in the same token, web programming may not be helpful.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The idea that teaching is something that invariably and inexorably damages ones research and study prospects to be entirely opposed to my actual experience.
*Some* teaching experiences are nothing but time sinks that devour otherwise productive periods and leave you no closer to having finished, or produced interesting work. But the same can be said for some research experiences.
There are some definitive pros I found to teaching. First, it provided a second pass at material I thought I "knew", but now had to know inside and out. That was eye opening, to say the least. It afforded me more time to interact with the professor who was teaching the class, and gave me a framework where I was immersed in a topic - said immersion ended up in me adapting some things about my dissertation to a particular class topic I now knew *really* well.
It also teaches you to teach, and while generally an undervalued skill in academia compared to research, it's both something you should probably know, and does train you for some research oriented problems - how to give a new grad student in your lab a rundown of the topic, how to answer questions off the cuff during talks. How to give talks meant to convey *information* instead of a summary of results.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/03/03 | 2,812 | 11,816 | <issue_start>username_0: I love learning and solving problems (I'm in math/ computer science) and I'm also very motivated. However, I don't have fantastic grades and so I don't expect to get into any top graduate program. This may seem like a discrepancy, but I think it is partly a personal issue (which I'm working on).
Is it possible to conduct research and therefore further any field without being in academia? This post is primarily targeting people who are doing their PhD.
I want to get the opinions of as many people as possible, so let me know if there's another place (forum) where I can ask.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> I love learning and solving problems (I'm in math/ computer science) and I'm also very motivated. However, I don't have fantastic grades and so I don't expect to get into any top graduate program. This may seem like a discrepancy, but I think it is partly a personal issue (which I'm working on).
>
>
>
Wrong assumption. If you like solving problems and love learning, it won't be difficult for you to convince others that this is true and usually, that is one of the most important factors contributing to success of PhD students. As far as your grades are concerned, bad grades does not necessarily imply rejection at universities. See [this](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/324/how-do-you-get-a-bad-transcript-past-ph-d-admissions) post regarding how to get bad transcripts across. Good GRE scores (with AGRE maybe), recommendations and past research will probably negate the bad grades.
>
> Is it possible to conduct research and therefore further any field without being in academia? This post is primarily targeting people who are doing their PhD.
>
>
>
You can but it depends highly on where you work. If you work at a corporation which "implements" rather than "innovates". Chances of getting a job involving research is pretty slim. Having said that, it is always possible to work around or find other jobs which will allow you to work on something new. Also, *is it possible to conduct research without being in academia* is somewhat misleading. A large portion of research **does** take place out of academia. IBM, Intel, AMD and many other companies work actively in research.
>
> I want to get the opinions of as many people as possible, so let me know if there's another place (forum) where I can ask.
>
>
>
No offence but taking opinions from many people won't necessarily give you a clearer answer.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: As Nunoxic noted, doing research as a part of your job is possible. Also, doing research at a graduate program that isn't at a top school is possible. But doing research on your own, and hoping to bring innovations to a field... is highly unlikely to work, in my opinion.
My opinion is based on experience with a bad schooling system (undergrad and Masters in Serbia) where publication is mostly irrelevant to survival of the teaching staff. Access to research journals is also severely limited, and, as a consequence, access to international conferences, international collaboration and all that. Essentially, supervisors would offer minimal guidance, and students are always free to choose their research topic. This is still more guidance than you would have on your own.
Then I got myself into good schooling system (a second Masters - to catch up - and now my PhD studies), in The Netherlands. Neither of the two Dutch universities I've been studying at are top schools in the Shanghai sense: their rankings fall between 100 and 150. Still, in comparison with Serbia, the difference in what I've learned and achieved since being at these universities is **staggering**.
* I don't spend months of my time sifting through articles in order to slowly begin comprehending which papers/names are the most relevant ones in the field.
* I have someone to immediately tell me if a research question is worth pursuing.
* I have someone to immediately point out similar research.
* I have someone to immediately correct small mistakes that would prove important at the end of data collection
* I meet important people in the field, and get feedback from them, with no cost to myself
* I work with technology that costs a great deal of money, with no cost to myself
The essence boils down to having access to people who know what my work is about. This speeds up my understanding of the subject matter by an order of *years*. Science is so fast-paced nowadays that it's very difficult to make breakthroughs without collaboration.
In sum, my advice for someone in your position would be to give priority to non-top graduate schools, if it doesn't work put with top ones, instead of trying to be a solo researcher.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: You can get a CS support job in a research lab. I worked as a programmer at various government and edu labs for a decade between bad grades and phd. I got my name on papers as a coauthor and helped do research.
Can be a great gig. You get to help solve problems, but don't need to worry about writing it up or worry much about funding, something PhDs do constantly.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: On some universities there are programmes to encourage more people to join the research. You might want to check them and ask (They might be called UROP, research internship etc.). In such way you can work a bit with research to try if it is for you.
Depending on your work and findings you might be coauthor of paper. At least 2 of my friends coauthored the paper in such way before they finished their undergraduate studies.
**PS**. I am not a PhD student (and I do not have PhD) but I participated in such programme. I would recommend you to search for one as it allows you to try it.
From what I heard it also helps getting onto PhD programme as you have shown that you have an experience with research (and know what you are doing).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I'm currently working on my math PhD. I think that it's incredibly unlikely that someone without graduate work in math could do much math research (I don't know about the computer-science side, however).
Now that I have put myself out there, I should clarify my point. Is it actually impossible? Well, no. In particular, there are many combinatorial or graph theoretic problems that don't really rely on previous work to be done. Some fields of math aren't as profoundly cumulative as others (on the other side of the spectrum, I might place something like algebraic number theory or elliptic curves, both of which I find highly removed from pregraduate work).
But what I'm really saying is that it's prohibitively difficult, not impossible. It's time-consuming no matter what, and I think the greatest advantage an academic has is that research is what we're paid to do. But it is possible to get 'research-style' jobs without a PhD. But they are limited in scope.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: There is 'doing research' and then there is 'publishing papers'
You most certainly don't need a PhD to do research. If you want to make an advancement, like a better algorithm, then you can create your own experiments to show how your idea works better (on the problem you tested) and you have created a meaningful advancement in science. If you had a PhD you should have learned how to create solid experiments and how to analyse the results (which often leads to more experiments).
This may sound a bit jaded, but publishing papers is often about understanding what a particular field cares about (and who the influencers are) and becoming part of that community. There is definitely a clique element in most fields - by getting your PhD you are invited into the clique under the wing of your supervisor. It might not be impossible to publish coming from outside a community, but I think it is certainly harder.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: I am doing research outside of academia because being in business shows where the real problems are, because being given a job assignment is what motivates me to take action, because my research is very far outside the mainstream, and because I wanted to develop my thinking very far outside the mainstream. I would prefer to be in academia but for these four things. I have made slow but steady progress in my area of research, and if I had to make a guess, I will have something useful to present about five years from now. I do not recommend doing research outside of academia unless you have some serious reasons to do so, as I have such reasons but most researchers do not.
On the other hand, now that I have developed my research focus and direction over the last 20 years in a way that is solid and unique, I am now starting to think seriously about starting a Phd program. With a strong direction to my thinking and research, I can now interact with other academics without being lead outside my research direction. We'll see what happens.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: I'm a former professor. I could no longer stand the elitism, tiresome institutional structure, and narrow mindedness of working in a university. After quitting the ivory tower, I still desired to continue my research, and discovered the pros and cons of being an independent researcher.
The most obvious plus is that I can research whatever I want, whenever I want, and publish in whatever publications I want. No more colleagues frowning on my choices. No more administrators denying my funding requests based on personal bias. No more crappy vanity research in unethical publications to stroke the egos of a tenure and promotion committee. It feels a bit like being in grad school again, where my creativity and personal curiosity can shine - only with more maturity and structure as guidance.
The cons are painful, though. Gone are the days I can submit 30 interlibrary loan requests for materials in a day. My public library only allows three requests at a time, which is practically useless. I'm spending a lot of time and money buying materials and traveling to libraries to get at resources. But, the traveling is fun at least. Even though it's all on my dime (that travel budget as a professor was a privilege I took for granted!), true research freedom is priceless!
Besides a lack of access to materials, the major con is lack of access to respect. Filling out a form - be it for access to an archive or submission of a publication - I'm always asked for my "affiliated institution." Well, I don't have one anymore. They aren't interested in where I used to work, or my publication history, or even the quality of research I do now. It's a major hurdle. Academics are often fueled by their egos, and they often only have respect for others at their perceived level. Don't have the right letters after your name? Go away! Aren't on the payroll of a university? Get lost! Urgh. I saw serious independent researchers get turned away and mocked frequently by these elitist pigs.
It is possible to make progress in your research without the credentials of an academic, even while being under scrutiny of many academics you'll come into contact with. You'll have to be a more efficient researcher and do everything the hard way, but it will be rewarding!
In the hard sciences I imagine it would be costly, too, to gain access to equipment you might need. It all depends on what your goal is. But give it a try, and live your dream! You have nothing to lose.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_9: Philosophical issues with no right or wrong. Bottom line, for me, after masters level is doing research that brings innovations whether for social or academic or personal reasons. Fame should be attached to success in life, career etc. not necessarily to acquisition of a 'prestigious' title.
Upvotes: 0 |
Subsets and Splits