label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
B | POST: have been together for a few years & have spent enough time around each other to know our habits/routines. We alternate staying at each other’s apartments for X amount of days. He graduated from uni years ago & has been in his career ever since. My partner is a pretty self-sufficient person, but I still worry that grad school will consume me & I will not have any time for him & our relationship. I would just like to know other people’s experiences of what it is like being in a committed relationship with someone who isn’t in grad school. I’ll take all the advice/opinions/thoughts that I can get. Thank you SO much in advance!!
RESPONSE A: In my experience it’s very difficult, but manageable. A PhD requires you to be very selfish with your time - plans get delayed and canceled. Meetings/project commitments/travel opportunities come up and you aren’t really in a position to say “no” to most of them. There is time off, and you need to prioritize that time with your partner rather than individual activities. But still, you’d need a very understanding partner to make all this work. Excelling in a PhD program requires you to make it the most important thing in your life, and I don’t think it’s something that can be done working 9-5. Weekends/late nights/off hours happen, and that’s just part of the game. If there was a period in your life where you should really buckle down and grind, this is it. With all of this said, I’ve made it work and many others have. Communicate when you’re overwhelmed and short on time and make the best of the time you do have.
RESPONSE B: BETTER!!! It is one hundred percent better. We are 40 years in this June. Been together since I figured out being a professor was the best option because the NFL wasn’t going to work out (seventh grade). The last thing you want or need is a partner who is caught up in the cultural shit show that is academia. It is not a natural normal morally balanced environment. Someone outside keeps the narcissism at bay. Good luck!!!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What is it like being in a PhD program while being in a relationship with someone who is not in school at all or doesn’t know much about academia? Hi guys! I’m not sure if this is the right page to ask this sort of question on, & if you have suggestions for what other page I can ask this sort of question do share below in the comments. I am starting a PhD program in the Fall that requires both my significant other & I to move to a different state. I love them so much & am extremely grateful they are supportive of what I am choosing to do with my life & willing to move with me. My s/o & I do not live together, but we have been together for a few years & have spent enough time around each other to know our habits/routines. We alternate staying at each other’s apartments for X amount of days. He graduated from uni years ago & has been in his career ever since. My partner is a pretty self-sufficient person, but I still worry that grad school will consume me & I will not have any time for him & our relationship. I would just like to know other people’s experiences of what it is like being in a committed relationship with someone who isn’t in grad school. I’ll take all the advice/opinions/thoughts that I can get. Thank you SO much in advance!!
RESPONSE A: BETTER!!! It is one hundred percent better. We are 40 years in this June. Been together since I figured out being a professor was the best option because the NFL wasn’t going to work out (seventh grade). The last thing you want or need is a partner who is caught up in the cultural shit show that is academia. It is not a natural normal morally balanced environment. Someone outside keeps the narcissism at bay. Good luck!!!
RESPONSE B: My PhD studies were an excuse for my spouse to cut and run. Three children (initially under the age of ten) were supportive and communicative throughout. I couldn’t have done it without them. Cheers to single parenthood.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Do you have to wait 5 more years in another institution to get tenure there? Or can you get it earlier?
RESPONSE A: I've been in academia in the US for 25+ years now and have only known a small handful of people who were denied tenure at one place and later got it elsewhere; all of them left R1s or elite private schools and took a step down (sometimes a *major* step down) in prestige before getting tenure. Most had to start over or received limited credit (1-2 years) toward tenure at their second institution. Here's the rub: I've served on far too many faculty searches over the years and have seen how search committees respond to denials of tenure. No matter what the file might say, they tend to think "There's something wrong with this person, is s/he worth the risk to us?" because obviously another institution rejected them. When you have a flooded market and dozens, if not hundreds, of qualified candidates applying for every job people are looking for any excuse to weed the pool. The fact that someone was effectively fired from a previous job is a pretty good excuse in some people's minds. There are two exceptions: everyone knows that Harvard/Yale et. al don't typically tenure junior faculty so they get a pass, as do most people who come with $$$ external grants. But there is a very strong bias against anyone perceived to be "damaged goods" in the US market, and nobody will trust letters of recommendation from a former department because they believe (with some reason) that those often omit serious problems because the writers/school don't want a lawsuit. So unless there's an inside connection-- someone in the hiring department knows someone in the former department --the odds are the committee is going to balk. For the majority of US academics, I'd say, a failed tenure bid is a career-ending event. Certainly the vast majority of people I know who have been denied tenure never earned tenure at a second institution.
RESPONSE B: I'm not US based, but I'd say it depends on the reason for being let go. Specifically on how well you, and your reference writers, can sell it as being beyond your control.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is your academic career over if you are let go after not being able to get tenure? Or can you get tenure in another institution sooner without waiting for 5 years again? I am not that familiar with the Academic career ladder. But from what I have read, it seems that when you are in a tenure track position you usually get five years to earn tenure. If you fail to get tenure you are let go. Is your whole academic career destroyed after that? Do you have to wait 5 more years in another institution to get tenure there? Or can you get it earlier?
RESPONSE A: I'm not US based, but I'd say it depends on the reason for being let go. Specifically on how well you, and your reference writers, can sell it as being beyond your control.
RESPONSE B: It varies a lot between institutions, but denial of tenure doesn’t necessarily mean it’s game over for an academic career. At my school I’d estimate that 75% go on to get tenure elsewhere (sometimes right away) and the other 25% decide to do something different. Many department chairs keep an eye out for terrific mid level faculty who might’ve lost tenure bids due to some political nonsense at their institutions.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is your academic career over if you are let go after not being able to get tenure? Or can you get tenure in another institution sooner without waiting for 5 years again? I am not that familiar with the Academic career ladder. But from what I have read, it seems that when you are in a tenure track position you usually get five years to earn tenure. If you fail to get tenure you are let go. Is your whole academic career destroyed after that? Do you have to wait 5 more years in another institution to get tenure there? Or can you get it earlier?
RESPONSE A: I'm not US based, but I'd say it depends on the reason for being let go. Specifically on how well you, and your reference writers, can sell it as being beyond your control.
RESPONSE B: I"ll add that it's typically not a surprise if you don't get it. You should be having yearly reviews with your chair...and they SHOULD be giving you an honest assessment of your chances at tenure. At my school a number of people leave after year 3 or 4 because of those assessments. The third year review committee lays it out for those who are in danger- either get it together or get out essentially. those people typically stay for year 4 while they are job searching elsewhere, and do end up landing other academic gigs. We have a low failure to attain tenure rate because of this system, and it's easier to hide on job applications. But even then, someone walking away at year 4 does cause questions on search committees.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is your academic career over if you are let go after not being able to get tenure? Or can you get tenure in another institution sooner without waiting for 5 years again? I am not that familiar with the Academic career ladder. But from what I have read, it seems that when you are in a tenure track position you usually get five years to earn tenure. If you fail to get tenure you are let go. Is your whole academic career destroyed after that? Do you have to wait 5 more years in another institution to get tenure there? Or can you get it earlier?
RESPONSE A: I"ll add that it's typically not a surprise if you don't get it. You should be having yearly reviews with your chair...and they SHOULD be giving you an honest assessment of your chances at tenure. At my school a number of people leave after year 3 or 4 because of those assessments. The third year review committee lays it out for those who are in danger- either get it together or get out essentially. those people typically stay for year 4 while they are job searching elsewhere, and do end up landing other academic gigs. We have a low failure to attain tenure rate because of this system, and it's easier to hide on job applications. But even then, someone walking away at year 4 does cause questions on search committees.
RESPONSE B: We hired someone was was denied tenure at another SLAC. It was a bit more prestigious school though. As far as I know, they are thriving.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is your academic career over if you are let go after not being able to get tenure? Or can you get tenure in another institution sooner without waiting for 5 years again? I am not that familiar with the Academic career ladder. But from what I have read, it seems that when you are in a tenure track position you usually get five years to earn tenure. If you fail to get tenure you are let go. Is your whole academic career destroyed after that? Do you have to wait 5 more years in another institution to get tenure there? Or can you get it earlier?
RESPONSE A: I'm at a regional university. In recent memory from my college, we have had three people denied tenure. One is now teaching at a community college (and is quite happy), one started a consulting company, and the other went to work for a local government agency making as much as a typical full professor at my university. I also agree with SnowblindAlbino that there is a bias against people denied tenure in search committees for the same reasons mentioned. In fact, anyone about 4-5 years in an assistant professor gig is looked at with ~~suspension~~ suspicion. Why are they on the market right before going up, they must know they are not going to get tenure...what is wrong with them?
RESPONSE B: I'm not US based, but I'd say it depends on the reason for being let go. Specifically on how well you, and your reference writers, can sell it as being beyond your control.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: For those who take leave from their PhDs, how do you pay the bills? I feel like I've been operating at the edge of burnout for quite a number of years now and could use the break. The only thing that is honestly keeping me from taking it is that I have no idea how I would pay for rent/groceries if I took a temporary leave. How do you do it? How do you find a temporary job that pays the same for a year but simultaneously gives you the break you need to really recharge? What do people do when they need a break but can't financially afford to take one? It feels like taking a leave isn't a real option.
RESPONSE A: Usually, people do not take a break during their PhD, at least in my fields. I have heard of people doing an internship in some companies for a couple of months, but the PI needs to give the approval for that. If you want to take a break, you will have to discuss about that to your PI first.
RESPONSE B: I've known people that took temporary leaves from their PhD for medical and/or mental reasons. It's uncommon but it does happen. Most of them were at least partly supported by their parents during that year, usually including moving back home. If they stayed at their old apartment instead of moving home, I think they'd take a basic job that required no serious thinking (like in retail).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: a year but simultaneously gives you the break you need to really recharge? What do people do when they need a break but can't financially afford to take one? It feels like taking a leave isn't a real option.
RESPONSE A: I'm assuming you don't have access to financial privilege, which is of course how most PhD students deal with this. The first and most obvious option is to get a random job or two, like in retail, service work, data entry etc. where you can clock in and clock out. For those of us who are used to always working or thinking about work, that attitude can be really reinvigorating in and of itself. Another option is to find work that is semi-relevant to your field. Your school/program may have job placement or internship programs for grad students that could help you find somewhere to work. The issue with this is that it's harder to explain that you need a mental health break if you appear to be switching into a career-driven opportunity. But some programs will be more understanding about this - mine has allowed several students to take a year of leave to pursue professional opportunities, and some students ended up leaving permanently while others returned at the end. You could also look into academically-relevant professional development-type internships. For example, some institutes offer research residencies, or you could apply for funding to do fieldwork, or even take an intensive language course abroad. This would only be a partial break, since you would still be in academia, but it would at least be a break from your institution/city/colleagues and potentially a break from your usual research. In general though I think this is much easier to swing in the humanities/social sciences than in STEM. If you're working in a lab, it's much harder to get out of those responsibilities. But if your only major commitment is your dissertation, it probably won't matter to your advisors if you dip out for a year.
RESPONSE B: Double check your uni’s policy about leave. Some programs provide a 1-term paid leave option. It’s not common but it exists. Others have hardship grants for grad students. (I admit that this is more common for well-funded R1 programs.)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: do people do when they need a break but can't financially afford to take one? It feels like taking a leave isn't a real option.
RESPONSE A: I'm assuming you don't have access to financial privilege, which is of course how most PhD students deal with this. The first and most obvious option is to get a random job or two, like in retail, service work, data entry etc. where you can clock in and clock out. For those of us who are used to always working or thinking about work, that attitude can be really reinvigorating in and of itself. Another option is to find work that is semi-relevant to your field. Your school/program may have job placement or internship programs for grad students that could help you find somewhere to work. The issue with this is that it's harder to explain that you need a mental health break if you appear to be switching into a career-driven opportunity. But some programs will be more understanding about this - mine has allowed several students to take a year of leave to pursue professional opportunities, and some students ended up leaving permanently while others returned at the end. You could also look into academically-relevant professional development-type internships. For example, some institutes offer research residencies, or you could apply for funding to do fieldwork, or even take an intensive language course abroad. This would only be a partial break, since you would still be in academia, but it would at least be a break from your institution/city/colleagues and potentially a break from your usual research. In general though I think this is much easier to swing in the humanities/social sciences than in STEM. If you're working in a lab, it's much harder to get out of those responsibilities. But if your only major commitment is your dissertation, it probably won't matter to your advisors if you dip out for a year.
RESPONSE B: Usually, people do not take a break during their PhD, at least in my fields. I have heard of people doing an internship in some companies for a couple of months, but the PI needs to give the approval for that. If you want to take a break, you will have to discuss about that to your PI first.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: thing that is honestly keeping me from taking it is that I have no idea how I would pay for rent/groceries if I took a temporary leave. How do you do it? How do you find a temporary job that pays the same for a year but simultaneously gives you the break you need to really recharge? What do people do when they need a break but can't financially afford to take one? It feels like taking a leave isn't a real option.
RESPONSE A: Teach!
RESPONSE B: I'm assuming you don't have access to financial privilege, which is of course how most PhD students deal with this. The first and most obvious option is to get a random job or two, like in retail, service work, data entry etc. where you can clock in and clock out. For those of us who are used to always working or thinking about work, that attitude can be really reinvigorating in and of itself. Another option is to find work that is semi-relevant to your field. Your school/program may have job placement or internship programs for grad students that could help you find somewhere to work. The issue with this is that it's harder to explain that you need a mental health break if you appear to be switching into a career-driven opportunity. But some programs will be more understanding about this - mine has allowed several students to take a year of leave to pursue professional opportunities, and some students ended up leaving permanently while others returned at the end. You could also look into academically-relevant professional development-type internships. For example, some institutes offer research residencies, or you could apply for funding to do fieldwork, or even take an intensive language course abroad. This would only be a partial break, since you would still be in academia, but it would at least be a break from your institution/city/colleagues and potentially a break from your usual research. In general though I think this is much easier to swing in the humanities/social sciences than in STEM. If you're working in a lab, it's much harder to get out of those responsibilities. But if your only major commitment is your dissertation, it probably won't matter to your advisors if you dip out for a year.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: journals waive fees as I'm completely unfunded? Can I publish using a personal email address as my contact? What do I put as my affiliation? As far as I can tell, I can use a personal email address, and some journals seem to have no fees to publish or, more commonly, waive them in certain instances. Any insight is appreciated, especially regarding contact info/affiliation, as I certainly don't want to publish my home address as my contact in any manuscripts I manage to get accepted. I also recognize publishing as a solo scientist can be quite difficult and a slow process. I have no illusions regarding how relatively slow my productivity will be doing this just in my free time. However, it's for fun and self-actualization purposes, so even if I only get one small paper accepted every 3-6 years, I'd be more than satisfied.
RESPONSE A: Same as before. You do not need any affiliation for publishing. So, you can be an "Independent Researcher" with your own email address, and still publish. This is what I am (partially) doing. Perhaps I would recommend to have your own webpage (where you put your interests, papers, etc.) and your own address, and not a Yahoo or hotmail address :) Regarding fees, this will be journal dependent, and you will need to ask. I personally publish in journals where there is no publication fee (but the papers are not open access). However, I always put a preprint online which I regularly update so that people can still access my papers for free. This is allowed by the journals I publish in. Finally, regarding paper output, you can still collaborate with other people. I have several collaborations running at the moment, and this helps with keeping the output at a reasonable level. Edit. I am in STEM.
RESPONSE B: Not sure what difference it makes whether you're an academic or not, unless you need access to equipment you can find only at a university. I published the vast majority of my work as an independent researcher long before formally coming to academia. IME, journals will not waive fees (why would they?). Get a professional domain and use an address there for your online/email/publishing contact points. I did that for years before joining a university.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do I publish now that I've left academia? Earlier this year I left my academic postdoc. I now work in an industry R&D job. However, I still enjoy publishing original research, and I've been working on some projects using largely in silico studies. This work is 100% unrelated to my industry work and there is literally no overlap. My question is whether or not there is any roadmap for how I could continue to publish as an independent scientist? Will journals waive fees as I'm completely unfunded? Can I publish using a personal email address as my contact? What do I put as my affiliation? As far as I can tell, I can use a personal email address, and some journals seem to have no fees to publish or, more commonly, waive them in certain instances. Any insight is appreciated, especially regarding contact info/affiliation, as I certainly don't want to publish my home address as my contact in any manuscripts I manage to get accepted. I also recognize publishing as a solo scientist can be quite difficult and a slow process. I have no illusions regarding how relatively slow my productivity will be doing this just in my free time. However, it's for fun and self-actualization purposes, so even if I only get one small paper accepted every 3-6 years, I'd be more than satisfied.
RESPONSE A: Thank you for asking this, I've always wondered if there was a way I could write research papers independently.
RESPONSE B: You can also see if you can get a courtesy 0% appointment at a local university or at your Alma Mater
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is anyone willing to be a guest-speaker in my bioethics and medical literature class for 1 hour this spring? In consideration of bringing professionals and industry insight to students I am trying to arrange a guest-speaker for our class discussion. This is for a University in downtown Chicago. Depending on the week our focus will vary from exploring topics like euthanasia to experimentation ethics and the Nuremberg trials after WW2. The meeting would be via zoom and my class is Wednesdays from 6-8 PM CST. If you work in the field of bioethics and or medical ethics and are willing to come online for my class discussion I would be willing to compensate you. I could possibly just record an interview with you instead of a live Q and A from the entire class (24).Thank you in advance.
RESPONSE A: Would be happy to chat about my experience at WHO HQ during Ebola as a bioethics fellow and my recent experiences on a human research ethics committee in Japan. I could do it live at that time/timezone. Please message me if interested.
RESPONSE B: You could probably reach out to Emily Jackson at LSE, if you’re interested in law and medical ethics.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is anyone willing to be a guest-speaker in my bioethics and medical literature class for 1 hour this spring? In consideration of bringing professionals and industry insight to students I am trying to arrange a guest-speaker for our class discussion. This is for a University in downtown Chicago. Depending on the week our focus will vary from exploring topics like euthanasia to experimentation ethics and the Nuremberg trials after WW2. The meeting would be via zoom and my class is Wednesdays from 6-8 PM CST. If you work in the field of bioethics and or medical ethics and are willing to come online for my class discussion I would be willing to compensate you. I could possibly just record an interview with you instead of a live Q and A from the entire class (24).Thank you in advance.
RESPONSE A: Would be happy to chat about my experience at WHO HQ during Ebola as a bioethics fellow and my recent experiences on a human research ethics committee in Japan. I could do it live at that time/timezone. Please message me if interested.
RESPONSE B: I'm sending you a recommendation via chat.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is anyone willing to be a guest-speaker in my bioethics and medical literature class for 1 hour this spring? In consideration of bringing professionals and industry insight to students I am trying to arrange a guest-speaker for our class discussion. This is for a University in downtown Chicago. Depending on the week our focus will vary from exploring topics like euthanasia to experimentation ethics and the Nuremberg trials after WW2. The meeting would be via zoom and my class is Wednesdays from 6-8 PM CST. If you work in the field of bioethics and or medical ethics and are willing to come online for my class discussion I would be willing to compensate you. I could possibly just record an interview with you instead of a live Q and A from the entire class (24).Thank you in advance.
RESPONSE A: Reach out to Jim Childress from University of Virginia. He’s retired but is still active with the medical school and health system. He wrote the book on bioethics fundamentals (principles of biomedical ethics) and is an awesome person.
RESPONSE B: I'm sending you a recommendation via chat.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is anyone willing to be a guest-speaker in my bioethics and medical literature class for 1 hour this spring? In consideration of bringing professionals and industry insight to students I am trying to arrange a guest-speaker for our class discussion. This is for a University in downtown Chicago. Depending on the week our focus will vary from exploring topics like euthanasia to experimentation ethics and the Nuremberg trials after WW2. The meeting would be via zoom and my class is Wednesdays from 6-8 PM CST. If you work in the field of bioethics and or medical ethics and are willing to come online for my class discussion I would be willing to compensate you. I could possibly just record an interview with you instead of a live Q and A from the entire class (24).Thank you in advance.
RESPONSE A: You could probably reach out to Emily Jackson at LSE, if you’re interested in law and medical ethics.
RESPONSE B: I'm sending you a recommendation via chat.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it possible to be published even as a non-profesional? Hello, some time ago I had met a guy working in university administration, he is without any diploma, without any title, M.A. nor bachelor... but since he is often mistaken for profesor since he is visitting conferences and helping students with everything.... It let me think: is it possible to publish in academic magazines or taking part in conferences if you lack titles or background in some university? Will you paper fail in review if you lack PhD? And did you met some "laic" researchers to be recognized by academia?
RESPONSE A: It's possible but rare, especially in STEM. A more common way to get published if you are not a professional researcher or academic is to volunteer in an existing professor's lab and publish under their auspices.
RESPONSE B: It's quite possible, it just doesn't tend to happen because the skillset you need to publish you only tend to learn...in academia.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it possible to be published even as a non-profesional? Hello, some time ago I had met a guy working in university administration, he is without any diploma, without any title, M.A. nor bachelor... but since he is often mistaken for profesor since he is visitting conferences and helping students with everything.... It let me think: is it possible to publish in academic magazines or taking part in conferences if you lack titles or background in some university? Will you paper fail in review if you lack PhD? And did you met some "laic" researchers to be recognized by academia?
RESPONSE A: Absolutely they can publish. Scholarly work should not be judged based on a person's background. Our current systems are heavily set to favor those involved in academia. From networking opps to resource support, including available time, the system excludes good researchers and good work that could come from the outside. And I don't see entrenched academics rushing to upset the cart. This is a disservice to people and disservice to science and societies.
RESPONSE B: It's quite possible, it just doesn't tend to happen because the skillset you need to publish you only tend to learn...in academia.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it possible to be published even as a non-profesional? Hello, some time ago I had met a guy working in university administration, he is without any diploma, without any title, M.A. nor bachelor... but since he is often mistaken for profesor since he is visitting conferences and helping students with everything.... It let me think: is it possible to publish in academic magazines or taking part in conferences if you lack titles or background in some university? Will you paper fail in review if you lack PhD? And did you met some "laic" researchers to be recognized by academia?
RESPONSE A: It's quite possible, it just doesn't tend to happen because the skillset you need to publish you only tend to learn...in academia.
RESPONSE B: From my reading, yes, absolutely. Journals for the humanities and arts tend to be more flexible in their admissions policy than those for STEM subjects, I’ve found; some of the former even actively encourage independent scholars to submit their research to them. On the other hand, there are those which can be quite exclusive, and won’t be so inclined to consider work that’s not from a professional or tenured scholar (their loss). In any case, I’d advise contacting the board or editor of the journal(s) your friend has in mind, and directly ask what their admissions policy is.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it possible to be published even as a non-profesional? Hello, some time ago I had met a guy working in university administration, he is without any diploma, without any title, M.A. nor bachelor... but since he is often mistaken for profesor since he is visitting conferences and helping students with everything.... It let me think: is it possible to publish in academic magazines or taking part in conferences if you lack titles or background in some university? Will you paper fail in review if you lack PhD? And did you met some "laic" researchers to be recognized by academia?
RESPONSE A: You don't have to be a PhD or academic affiliated to publish an academic paper. I've seen some papers published where they added themselves as "Independent Researcher." I think, being in an academic setting, there are more advantages, such that writing an academic paper or getting subject expertise from others, which strengthen's your findings. But, it is possible, I've seen it happen on pubmed. There are people who publish as an "Independent Researcher." In addition to that, most journals don't look at your credits (as reviews are suppose to be anonymous), so their focus is mostly on content. If you can follow the academic format of writing and are of expertise of the subject. Surely, you can publish papers to an academic journal.
RESPONSE B: Absolutely they can publish. Scholarly work should not be judged based on a person's background. Our current systems are heavily set to favor those involved in academia. From networking opps to resource support, including available time, the system excludes good researchers and good work that could come from the outside. And I don't see entrenched academics rushing to upset the cart. This is a disservice to people and disservice to science and societies.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it possible to be published even as a non-profesional? Hello, some time ago I had met a guy working in university administration, he is without any diploma, without any title, M.A. nor bachelor... but since he is often mistaken for profesor since he is visitting conferences and helping students with everything.... It let me think: is it possible to publish in academic magazines or taking part in conferences if you lack titles or background in some university? Will you paper fail in review if you lack PhD? And did you met some "laic" researchers to be recognized by academia?
RESPONSE A: You don't have to be a PhD or academic affiliated to publish an academic paper. I've seen some papers published where they added themselves as "Independent Researcher." I think, being in an academic setting, there are more advantages, such that writing an academic paper or getting subject expertise from others, which strengthen's your findings. But, it is possible, I've seen it happen on pubmed. There are people who publish as an "Independent Researcher." In addition to that, most journals don't look at your credits (as reviews are suppose to be anonymous), so their focus is mostly on content. If you can follow the academic format of writing and are of expertise of the subject. Surely, you can publish papers to an academic journal.
RESPONSE B: From my reading, yes, absolutely. Journals for the humanities and arts tend to be more flexible in their admissions policy than those for STEM subjects, I’ve found; some of the former even actively encourage independent scholars to submit their research to them. On the other hand, there are those which can be quite exclusive, and won’t be so inclined to consider work that’s not from a professional or tenured scholar (their loss). In any case, I’d advise contacting the board or editor of the journal(s) your friend has in mind, and directly ask what their admissions policy is.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Super passionate about teaching and advising, absolutely hate research. For background, I'm in engineering. I'm looking for advice because I really want to be a professor at a smaller teaching university (with less emphasis on research), but I have 2.5 years left in my PhD program and I hate doing research. I have had teaching and advising roles (teaching assistant, recitation instructor, tutor, academic mentor, grader, graduate student instructor) for 5 years and I've enjoyed all of it. Teaching and advising are definitely what I'm passionate about. And I'm pretty good at it, too. It's not that I don't like my research topic, I just don't like being a researcher. I have tried to motivate myself with the mindset of "suffering for 5 years so I can have my dream job for the next 40" but it's been getting harder and harder to motivate myself to do the work and I've gotten to the point that I'm behind where I should be in terms of my progress. Has anyone else experienced this? What did you do?
RESPONSE A: Community college is for you my friend
RESPONSE B: I haven't experienced it per se, but I know that there are universities (even R1s) that place a lot of value on teaching and mentoring undergraduates. Perhaps applying to teaching professorships or lectureships at R1 universities or professorships at smaller colleges could be a good option. You can DM me and I'll give you the contact information for some people who have gone down a similar path.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: years left in my PhD program and I hate doing research. I have had teaching and advising roles (teaching assistant, recitation instructor, tutor, academic mentor, grader, graduate student instructor) for 5 years and I've enjoyed all of it. Teaching and advising are definitely what I'm passionate about. And I'm pretty good at it, too. It's not that I don't like my research topic, I just don't like being a researcher. I have tried to motivate myself with the mindset of "suffering for 5 years so I can have my dream job for the next 40" but it's been getting harder and harder to motivate myself to do the work and I've gotten to the point that I'm behind where I should be in terms of my progress. Has anyone else experienced this? What did you do?
RESPONSE A: Something that could help is turning your research into more of what you enjoy. Recruit some undergrads to work with you on your research. More of your time will be spent advising and teaching, but the same research will get done. If possible, have your research get incorporated into a class (e.g. some classes have 5-week end-of-semester independent projects, get students to work on your research in there, bonus if any of them join the lab with you later on). Anything else you can do to take on more of an advisor/teacher role will help you enjoy the research that has to get done
RESPONSE B: I was you 25 years ago. Pushed through and landed a TT position at a community college that I absolutely love. Small class sizes; emphasis on teaching and mentoring; teach both lectures & labs (no TAs); great work-life balance. The last couple years of grad school sucked hard, but it all paid off! (Having said that, please realize that TT positions are extremely scarce and challenging to land. I’m now the department chair and have served on numerous hiring committees. We have adjunct faculty who have been trying for years to land a full-time position and every time we advertise one we get dozens upon dozens of applicants. So be prepared to possibly have to adjunct for several years or have a good back-up plan.)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Super passionate about teaching and advising, absolutely hate research. For background, I'm in engineering. I'm looking for advice because I really want to be a professor at a smaller teaching university (with less emphasis on research), but I have 2.5 years left in my PhD program and I hate doing research. I have had teaching and advising roles (teaching assistant, recitation instructor, tutor, academic mentor, grader, graduate student instructor) for 5 years and I've enjoyed all of it. Teaching and advising are definitely what I'm passionate about. And I'm pretty good at it, too. It's not that I don't like my research topic, I just don't like being a researcher. I have tried to motivate myself with the mindset of "suffering for 5 years so I can have my dream job for the next 40" but it's been getting harder and harder to motivate myself to do the work and I've gotten to the point that I'm behind where I should be in terms of my progress. Has anyone else experienced this? What did you do?
RESPONSE A: Something that could help is turning your research into more of what you enjoy. Recruit some undergrads to work with you on your research. More of your time will be spent advising and teaching, but the same research will get done. If possible, have your research get incorporated into a class (e.g. some classes have 5-week end-of-semester independent projects, get students to work on your research in there, bonus if any of them join the lab with you later on). Anything else you can do to take on more of an advisor/teacher role will help you enjoy the research that has to get done
RESPONSE B: I haven't experienced it per se, but I know that there are universities (even R1s) that place a lot of value on teaching and mentoring undergraduates. Perhaps applying to teaching professorships or lectureships at R1 universities or professorships at smaller colleges could be a good option. You can DM me and I'll give you the contact information for some people who have gone down a similar path.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: for 5 years and I've enjoyed all of it. Teaching and advising are definitely what I'm passionate about. And I'm pretty good at it, too. It's not that I don't like my research topic, I just don't like being a researcher. I have tried to motivate myself with the mindset of "suffering for 5 years so I can have my dream job for the next 40" but it's been getting harder and harder to motivate myself to do the work and I've gotten to the point that I'm behind where I should be in terms of my progress. Has anyone else experienced this? What did you do?
RESPONSE A: Since you're an engineering student have you ever thought about teaching at a STEM high school? There are elite *public* boarding schools in about half the states now. NCSSM, SCGSSM, MSSM, and IMSA are the ones I'm most familiar with, but there was 27 the late time I heard the stat. I went to one and all teachers had to have at least a masters degree in their discipline or a bachelors in their discipline and a masters in education, but half of our faculty had PhDs. Engineering was a required course; there's a robotics lab (and team) and a fabrication lab; and there was massive latitude for academic creativity with labs, assignments, and tests, especially outside of the AP courses. The one I went to was truly a magical place and most people who got jobs there stay until they retire because your classes are filled with super smart kids who are thirsty for knowledge because they were plucked from high schools that they had academically outgrown. And it's a boarding school, so if there are discipline problems (very rare in classes), you can ground them as punishment!!!
RESPONSE B: I haven't experienced it per se, but I know that there are universities (even R1s) that place a lot of value on teaching and mentoring undergraduates. Perhaps applying to teaching professorships or lectureships at R1 universities or professorships at smaller colleges could be a good option. You can DM me and I'll give you the contact information for some people who have gone down a similar path.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: a smaller teaching university (with less emphasis on research), but I have 2.5 years left in my PhD program and I hate doing research. I have had teaching and advising roles (teaching assistant, recitation instructor, tutor, academic mentor, grader, graduate student instructor) for 5 years and I've enjoyed all of it. Teaching and advising are definitely what I'm passionate about. And I'm pretty good at it, too. It's not that I don't like my research topic, I just don't like being a researcher. I have tried to motivate myself with the mindset of "suffering for 5 years so I can have my dream job for the next 40" but it's been getting harder and harder to motivate myself to do the work and I've gotten to the point that I'm behind where I should be in terms of my progress. Has anyone else experienced this? What did you do?
RESPONSE A: Lecturer positions are starting to become more common, even at R1s. Try searching the term "lecturer" on higheredjobs.com.
RESPONSE B: Since you're an engineering student have you ever thought about teaching at a STEM high school? There are elite *public* boarding schools in about half the states now. NCSSM, SCGSSM, MSSM, and IMSA are the ones I'm most familiar with, but there was 27 the late time I heard the stat. I went to one and all teachers had to have at least a masters degree in their discipline or a bachelors in their discipline and a masters in education, but half of our faculty had PhDs. Engineering was a required course; there's a robotics lab (and team) and a fabrication lab; and there was massive latitude for academic creativity with labs, assignments, and tests, especially outside of the AP courses. The one I went to was truly a magical place and most people who got jobs there stay until they retire because your classes are filled with super smart kids who are thirsty for knowledge because they were plucked from high schools that they had academically outgrown. And it's a boarding school, so if there are discipline problems (very rare in classes), you can ground them as punishment!!!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Tips on managing your emotions and preventing stress reactions? For example, sometimes when I get very stressed I feel so emotionally overwhelmed that all I can do is go to the bathroom and cry silently for a while. It's very hard to be productive when crying. I feel very weak and lazy whenever this happens to me.
RESPONSE A: Do you have any student/employee assistance program, where you could ask to speak to a therapist? Many universities offer them, and it's usually off-campus and confidential.
RESPONSE B: I hear you. I also have such reactions. Sometimes after teaching a class, even a good one, go to my office and cry for a few minutes. I'd recommend DBT to work on meaningful responses to emotional distress. I also recommend that you learn about "emotional labor" to better understand what may be happening to you. And read Mad at School.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Tips on managing your emotions and preventing stress reactions? For example, sometimes when I get very stressed I feel so emotionally overwhelmed that all I can do is go to the bathroom and cry silently for a while. It's very hard to be productive when crying. I feel very weak and lazy whenever this happens to me.
RESPONSE A: a) talk to a therapist, it can help a lot! b) develop your habits and routines for keeping on top of your obligations and prioritizing the ones that really matter versus the ones you can slack on; sometimes these kinds of situations can be avoided with careful planning c) give yourself time every week to relax and just not worry about things — don't buy into the culture of always-working, take at least one day where you give yourself permission to NOT be productive d) recognize that lots of very successful people have been there too, and it doesn't make you weak and lazy, it just makes you human, and that's OK
RESPONSE B: I would say if you need to cry, do it. But the "feeling weak and lazy" aspect is something you don't need to feel and a counselor can be very helpful to help you stop those thoughts or not give them as much weight. I'm not sure about your situation, but our university just started implementing an online therapy program so that you can do different sessions on your own time (for example, there is a topic about managing stress which gives you different tasks to complete and information about how to deal with stress). I think for me, a big thing is putting things into context. Is it the end of the world and reflect my entire work if I didn't find good results on this one project? No. But it might feel like that in the moment. Taking a step back from things can also help give perspective on the situation.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Every research job I see in academia requires a PhD. I'd like to work in research but think only a Masters is viable for me. Is it possible to work in (academic) research with only a Masters?
RESPONSE A: Plenty of people will say yes, but the reality is you have already capped your salary at a very low level by doing so in academia. In industry prospects will be better, but I know more 30-40 year olds who both have and don't have PhD's and have got bored of working twice as hard for half the money in research when they could do anything else for far less stress. If you want to be a Tech forever, then yes you can. If you don't, then no. Then add if you are on some forever fixed term 2 year contract which won't secure you something like a mortgage you will see why it is ponzie scheme held up by the naivety of youth.
RESPONSE B: I don't know about other fields, but in robotics, machine learning, computer science it is certainly possible to work as a research programmer, analyst etc. without a PhD. e.g.: https://careersearch.stanford.edu/jobs/software-developer-1-40
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Every research job I see in academia requires a PhD. I'd like to work in research but think only a Masters is viable for me. Is it possible to work in (academic) research with only a Masters?
RESPONSE A: It's unclear why a masters would be viable but not a PhD, especially if you want to stay in academia. You could take on a support role, but you will be paid quite a bit less with a lower ceiling. May as well tought out the extra 3 years while being paid to get a higher pay grade. Secondly, why do you want to be in academia if you don't want a PhD? Why not do research in industry?
RESPONSE B: I have a BS (but am working on my masters) and work at a university- first as an RA in neuropsych, and now as a research coordinator in otolaryngology. It may vary by field, but research jobs definitely exist below PhD.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Every research job I see in academia requires a PhD. I'd like to work in research but think only a Masters is viable for me. Is it possible to work in (academic) research with only a Masters?
RESPONSE A: I don't know about other fields, but in robotics, machine learning, computer science it is certainly possible to work as a research programmer, analyst etc. without a PhD. e.g.: https://careersearch.stanford.edu/jobs/software-developer-1-40
RESPONSE B: It's unclear why a masters would be viable but not a PhD, especially if you want to stay in academia. You could take on a support role, but you will be paid quite a bit less with a lower ceiling. May as well tought out the extra 3 years while being paid to get a higher pay grade. Secondly, why do you want to be in academia if you don't want a PhD? Why not do research in industry?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Every research job I see in academia requires a PhD. I'd like to work in research but think only a Masters is viable for me. Is it possible to work in (academic) research with only a Masters?
RESPONSE A: It's unclear why a masters would be viable but not a PhD, especially if you want to stay in academia. You could take on a support role, but you will be paid quite a bit less with a lower ceiling. May as well tought out the extra 3 years while being paid to get a higher pay grade. Secondly, why do you want to be in academia if you don't want a PhD? Why not do research in industry?
RESPONSE B: In physics it's very uncommon to have faculty without a PhD, at least in the places I know (and in theoretical physics which is my field in particular).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Every research job I see in academia requires a PhD. I'd like to work in research but think only a Masters is viable for me. Is it possible to work in (academic) research with only a Masters?
RESPONSE A: Consider a couple of things: A master's degree is often more expensive because you will have to pay tuition, and most PhD programs pay a stipend. The work in a PhD isn't necessarily of a different character than a masters, there's just more of it. Most people who do a masters, can do a PhD.
RESPONSE B: I have a BS (but am working on my masters) and work at a university- first as an RA in neuropsych, and now as a research coordinator in otolaryngology. It may vary by field, but research jobs definitely exist below PhD.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: be the bulk of my thesis. I'm really freaking out now. I can't write a thesis with a bad procedure, and I can't publish bad science. I have no idea what I'm going to do. Two weeks ago I was at a conference feeling good, and now the rug's been totally yanked out from under me. I have no idea what to do. My advisor seems less freaked out than I am, but not happy, and I'm seriously terrified that everything will fall apart yards from the finish line. What the fuck do I do now?
RESPONSE A: I was listening to some vlogs by tara brabezon about how not to fail a PhD. She commented on how it was important not to sweep mistakes or dodgy data under the rug. She said some of the best theses she's read were mostly a documentation on how not to go about doing x-kind of research. If you feel your procedure isn't as sturdy as you once thought, could you write about what went wrong and why you shouldn't use the methods you used? Maybe some recommendations of what you would do instead on reflection?
RESPONSE B: A PhD is ultimately about gaining & demonstrating research qualifications, not about getting a gold star for having the World's Best Results. If you've done things properly, published things that the field thought were publishable, developed new skills, and continue to act like a professional about it, there's no reason you shouldn't get your degree. > I'm really freaking out now. I can't write a thesis with a bad procedure Calm down - of course you can. You can write up what you did, critically evaluate it, and put it in context with this new work. You can brainstorm a small side project or reanalysis or something that will help you find some strengths in your approach, or quantify the errors from it, or build upon this new data with something unique that you have. Most PhD theses don't change the world. Many get proven wrong, or end up being kind of pointless, or are sloppy. Negative results and intermediate procedures that get improved upon are one of the foundations of scientific progress. C'est la vie.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: to do. My advisor seems less freaked out than I am, but not happy, and I'm seriously terrified that everything will fall apart yards from the finish line. What the fuck do I do now?
RESPONSE A: A PhD is ultimately about gaining & demonstrating research qualifications, not about getting a gold star for having the World's Best Results. If you've done things properly, published things that the field thought were publishable, developed new skills, and continue to act like a professional about it, there's no reason you shouldn't get your degree. > I'm really freaking out now. I can't write a thesis with a bad procedure Calm down - of course you can. You can write up what you did, critically evaluate it, and put it in context with this new work. You can brainstorm a small side project or reanalysis or something that will help you find some strengths in your approach, or quantify the errors from it, or build upon this new data with something unique that you have. Most PhD theses don't change the world. Many get proven wrong, or end up being kind of pointless, or are sloppy. Negative results and intermediate procedures that get improved upon are one of the foundations of scientific progress. C'est la vie.
RESPONSE B: Talk to your advisor. Work out a plan. It may involve work, but -- this is science. The whole point is that you do work, it gets published, then others refine (or refute) that work and repeat. Perhaps there are some more experiments which can do which confirm your results? Or other ways of looking at your data? Hard to say without knowing your area intimately. Fortunately, your advisor does -- so the two of you can work this out. It's Saturday night. Go grab a beer (not too many...) with your grad student friends and vent. It sucks right now, but you've got this. The bright side? When you do figure out the right solution and implement it, you'll have a great story. A great story of how you hit a really hard problem, and solved it. That kind of story is \*great\* for job interviews, as it shows your ability to Get Stuff Done.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: , my candidacy, and I'm supposed to defend this semester. The problem? I published a paper last year. Got a result that I (and my collaborators) thought was good. Now, a whole bunch of new data just got released and it completely trashes the procedure I used in my paper and that I was using for my next paper. These two papers plus a third I'm second author on were going to be the bulk of my thesis. I'm really freaking out now. I can't write a thesis with a bad procedure, and I can't publish bad science. I have no idea what I'm going to do. Two weeks ago I was at a conference feeling good, and now the rug's been totally yanked out from under me. I have no idea what to do. My advisor seems less freaked out than I am, but not happy, and I'm seriously terrified that everything will fall apart yards from the finish line. What the fuck do I do now?
RESPONSE A: Hey, there was a dark alley, hard to get into, full of perils. You went there, discovered that there's nothing there, and there's no point for anybody else to go down this alley. So you came back and wrote it on a post near the entrance, with good photos and full documentation. Like "it looks interesting, but actually it's a dead-end. Don't go there". This is incredibly useful. It may not feel as glorious as discovering a forgotten temple or a hoard of gold, but it is still incredibly valuable for the community. Arguably, in many cases, more valuable, as we came to learn over the years that most claims of golden piles are greatly exaggerated. Well done, OP, and good luck with writing your thesis!
RESPONSE B: If you can write intelligently and clearly about why the procedure you used was bad, then that is good. Might not get a published paper out of it, but I still consider it a contribution to knowledge. Other people might try double what you did and you can explain why the method is no good. That is worth knowing too, even if it isn’t a “result.”
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Everything is ruined. Advice needed. Fifth year Ph.D. student in physics. Got through my quals, my candidacy, and I'm supposed to defend this semester. The problem? I published a paper last year. Got a result that I (and my collaborators) thought was good. Now, a whole bunch of new data just got released and it completely trashes the procedure I used in my paper and that I was using for my next paper. These two papers plus a third I'm second author on were going to be the bulk of my thesis. I'm really freaking out now. I can't write a thesis with a bad procedure, and I can't publish bad science. I have no idea what I'm going to do. Two weeks ago I was at a conference feeling good, and now the rug's been totally yanked out from under me. I have no idea what to do. My advisor seems less freaked out than I am, but not happy, and I'm seriously terrified that everything will fall apart yards from the finish line. What the fuck do I do now?
RESPONSE A: There are much better answers by others, but one thing I keep reminding my undergrads is that the only time you've failed is if you didn't learn from the project. Learn from what went wrong and write your dissertation on that. It can still be a success.
RESPONSE B: Hey, there was a dark alley, hard to get into, full of perils. You went there, discovered that there's nothing there, and there's no point for anybody else to go down this alley. So you came back and wrote it on a post near the entrance, with good photos and full documentation. Like "it looks interesting, but actually it's a dead-end. Don't go there". This is incredibly useful. It may not feel as glorious as discovering a forgotten temple or a hoard of gold, but it is still incredibly valuable for the community. Arguably, in many cases, more valuable, as we came to learn over the years that most claims of golden piles are greatly exaggerated. Well done, OP, and good luck with writing your thesis!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is a Harvard CV the standard for academia? How do "fancy" CV's fare? I have one of those fancy colorful CV's; it's really good for sending to investors and startup people. But I'm preparing a CV for my Phd application and I don't know if I should move to a Harvard CV (bland black and white type, 3 pages) showcasing publications, patents, grants etc, or should I stick with a fancy CV?
RESPONSE A: As an academic, I've never seen a "fancy" CV. I'm having a hard time picturing what it would look like or why it would be beneficial or better than plain black on white.
RESPONSE B: Unfortunately, what makes an academic CV fancy are your actual qualifications. The most aesthetically fancy thing about my CV is the font, and even there your choices are fairly limited.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is a Harvard CV the standard for academia? How do "fancy" CV's fare? I have one of those fancy colorful CV's; it's really good for sending to investors and startup people. But I'm preparing a CV for my Phd application and I don't know if I should move to a Harvard CV (bland black and white type, 3 pages) showcasing publications, patents, grants etc, or should I stick with a fancy CV?
RESPONSE A: As someone that interviews at a startup - the fancy CV is not doing you any favors there either. Nobody gets hired on the strength of their resume styling. There are two outcomes. 1. The hiring committee see your fancy CV and think it looks silly. You might get compliments on it, but it’s sort of like when you wear a loud hat - everyone says “nice hat” because that’s the most memorable thing about you. 2. It gets run through some candidate management software that re-formats it as a plain document, and any fancy formatting gets scrambled. This makes the whole CV illegible. I get case 2 a lot. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to clarify a candidates CV because it was originally “fancy” Make it simple and legible, and run it though a CV parser to make sure it gets parsed correctly. If you want to wow people visually, you can submit a fancy portfolio in addition to your plainly formatted CV. Go wild with the portfolio.
RESPONSE B: There is no page limit to the academic CV. Many run up to almost 10 pages for advanced scholars. There should be no colors or fancy fonts. The occasional use of italics and bold is permissible. It should be clearly organized around the principle of peer-review (i.e. publication and peer-review take priority.)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is a Harvard CV the standard for academia? How do "fancy" CV's fare? I have one of those fancy colorful CV's; it's really good for sending to investors and startup people. But I'm preparing a CV for my Phd application and I don't know if I should move to a Harvard CV (bland black and white type, 3 pages) showcasing publications, patents, grants etc, or should I stick with a fancy CV?
RESPONSE A: Not sure your field, but in many basic sciences, there isn’t a “standard” CV. I’ve reviewed thousands for hiring PhD level pharmacologists and they’re all different.
RESPONSE B: As someone that interviews at a startup - the fancy CV is not doing you any favors there either. Nobody gets hired on the strength of their resume styling. There are two outcomes. 1. The hiring committee see your fancy CV and think it looks silly. You might get compliments on it, but it’s sort of like when you wear a loud hat - everyone says “nice hat” because that’s the most memorable thing about you. 2. It gets run through some candidate management software that re-formats it as a plain document, and any fancy formatting gets scrambled. This makes the whole CV illegible. I get case 2 a lot. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to clarify a candidates CV because it was originally “fancy” Make it simple and legible, and run it though a CV parser to make sure it gets parsed correctly. If you want to wow people visually, you can submit a fancy portfolio in addition to your plainly formatted CV. Go wild with the portfolio.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is a Harvard CV the standard for academia? How do "fancy" CV's fare? I have one of those fancy colorful CV's; it's really good for sending to investors and startup people. But I'm preparing a CV for my Phd application and I don't know if I should move to a Harvard CV (bland black and white type, 3 pages) showcasing publications, patents, grants etc, or should I stick with a fancy CV?
RESPONSE A: I’m currently chairing a search. I went to print a CV yesterday and said, out loud at my desk, THIS IS AN ASSAULT ON MY EYEBALLS.
RESPONSE B: As someone that interviews at a startup - the fancy CV is not doing you any favors there either. Nobody gets hired on the strength of their resume styling. There are two outcomes. 1. The hiring committee see your fancy CV and think it looks silly. You might get compliments on it, but it’s sort of like when you wear a loud hat - everyone says “nice hat” because that’s the most memorable thing about you. 2. It gets run through some candidate management software that re-formats it as a plain document, and any fancy formatting gets scrambled. This makes the whole CV illegible. I get case 2 a lot. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to clarify a candidates CV because it was originally “fancy” Make it simple and legible, and run it though a CV parser to make sure it gets parsed correctly. If you want to wow people visually, you can submit a fancy portfolio in addition to your plainly formatted CV. Go wild with the portfolio.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is a Harvard CV the standard for academia? How do "fancy" CV's fare? I have one of those fancy colorful CV's; it's really good for sending to investors and startup people. But I'm preparing a CV for my Phd application and I don't know if I should move to a Harvard CV (bland black and white type, 3 pages) showcasing publications, patents, grants etc, or should I stick with a fancy CV?
RESPONSE A: There is no page limit to the academic CV. Many run up to almost 10 pages for advanced scholars. There should be no colors or fancy fonts. The occasional use of italics and bold is permissible. It should be clearly organized around the principle of peer-review (i.e. publication and peer-review take priority.)
RESPONSE B: Not sure your field, but in many basic sciences, there isn’t a “standard” CV. I’ve reviewed thousands for hiring PhD level pharmacologists and they’re all different.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Can children come to academic conferences with a parent attendee/presenter? Can children (in particular I’m thinking of older children, like in the 8-13 age range) attend scientific conferences if they have a parent attending and/or presenting there? Is it usually only a viable option when there is no other place for the child to go during the event, e.g. for single parents unable or unwilling to leave the kid outside of the event or their presentations? If they can come with, are they limited to certain places and parts of the event, such as specific childcare areas on-site? Or can they be part of the audience at panels and such and essentially accompany their parent as an attendee? In short: what would the experience for a child attending a conference with their researcher parent be like?
RESPONSE A: I have a pair of colleagues who take their little one (5/6) to conferences. One presents, the other parents. I was chairing a panel in which the mum was presenting and the dad and son wanted to listen. He was brilliantly behaved and no one objected. A few conferences in my field have childcare or actively allow kids. I've seen people present while holding a sleeping infant and I've also been the one to take a noisy child (not mine, but a colleague) out of a panel to calm them down a bit. We are a collegial bunch! However, I fear this is definitely not the norm, which leads to problems for parents (usually mums, let's be honest!)
RESPONSE B: I used to be that kid and hated it so much it’s a miracle I even ended up in academia.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Can children come to academic conferences with a parent attendee/presenter? Can children (in particular I’m thinking of older children, like in the 8-13 age range) attend scientific conferences if they have a parent attending and/or presenting there? Is it usually only a viable option when there is no other place for the child to go during the event, e.g. for single parents unable or unwilling to leave the kid outside of the event or their presentations? If they can come with, are they limited to certain places and parts of the event, such as specific childcare areas on-site? Or can they be part of the audience at panels and such and essentially accompany their parent as an attendee? In short: what would the experience for a child attending a conference with their researcher parent be like?
RESPONSE A: I have only ever seen it happen once or twice when the person had child care arranged that completely fell through at the last minute. Given that, I would certainly feel uncomfortable bringing my child.
RESPONSE B: I used to be that kid and hated it so much it’s a miracle I even ended up in academia.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: ) attend scientific conferences if they have a parent attending and/or presenting there? Is it usually only a viable option when there is no other place for the child to go during the event, e.g. for single parents unable or unwilling to leave the kid outside of the event or their presentations? If they can come with, are they limited to certain places and parts of the event, such as specific childcare areas on-site? Or can they be part of the audience at panels and such and essentially accompany their parent as an attendee? In short: what would the experience for a child attending a conference with their researcher parent be like?
RESPONSE A: I used to be that kid and hated it so much it’s a miracle I even ended up in academia.
RESPONSE B: I have found this to be highly variable by conference, but to be generally improving. Some conferences I've attended let kids (of any age) attend for free or for a nominal fee of like $20. At conferences I've been to, children who are able to quietly occupy themselves have been well-received. So I'd check with the organizers on this. Most of my familiarity with this is folks bringing kids out of necessity rather than thinking the child would be interested. One conference I go to has onsite childcare for this purpose, so might be worth looking for. I will say though, I am a criminologist and some conferences I've attended would be extremely unsuitable for a child (I mean the sessions themselves) because the content is potentially very upsetting to children and sometimes graphic. It is also quite uncomfortable as a presenter who knows you have a creepy talk to give to have children in the audience you might be afraid of upsetting. When I have been in a situation where a minor child had to attend the session, the organizer had the parent/guardian present first and have their Q&A so they could then leave the session early. I will say that it is very unusual in my field to see children at conferences, aside from some very young infants, even if the kids came along on the trip. I suspect this is partially because of professional norms excluding parents who would have to bring their child and partially because conferences are boring and expensive.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Can children come to academic conferences with a parent attendee/presenter? Can children (in particular I’m thinking of older children, like in the 8-13 age range) attend scientific conferences if they have a parent attending and/or presenting there? Is it usually only a viable option when there is no other place for the child to go during the event, e.g. for single parents unable or unwilling to leave the kid outside of the event or their presentations? If they can come with, are they limited to certain places and parts of the event, such as specific childcare areas on-site? Or can they be part of the audience at panels and such and essentially accompany their parent as an attendee? In short: what would the experience for a child attending a conference with their researcher parent be like?
RESPONSE A: I grew up going to academic conferences. As long as the child doesn't start fires, I think they can even get away with asking questions.
RESPONSE B: I used to be that kid and hated it so much it’s a miracle I even ended up in academia.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Can children come to academic conferences with a parent attendee/presenter? Can children (in particular I’m thinking of older children, like in the 8-13 age range) attend scientific conferences if they have a parent attending and/or presenting there? Is it usually only a viable option when there is no other place for the child to go during the event, e.g. for single parents unable or unwilling to leave the kid outside of the event or their presentations? If they can come with, are they limited to certain places and parts of the event, such as specific childcare areas on-site? Or can they be part of the audience at panels and such and essentially accompany their parent as an attendee? In short: what would the experience for a child attending a conference with their researcher parent be like?
RESPONSE A: I've never seen it myself and I have never seen a conference with childcare, but I know some people who nearly had to bring their kids to a conference. I don't remember their details though. My spouse (or relatives) would take my kid elsewhere when I had a conference. My first conference my daughter and husband went to Disneyland (which for the record I have still never gone to.) I'd ask the conference committee chair, they would be best suited to answer for a specific conference. EDIT : My conferences I've attended have been boring but otherwise pretty suitable for kids. Many kids might actually dig some of the conferences I attend. I do psychology and space primarily with a few other topics here and there depending on what I was tricked into signing on for. Rarely is there anything graphic or horrifying.
RESPONSE B: I used to be that kid and hated it so much it’s a miracle I even ended up in academia.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: to get a jump on the most common questions asked of OP I see in these types of threads)**: - I'm 33, planning to go back to undergrad in about 2 years to finish a BS in physics & math (I'll likely take the full 4 years, just to be thorough) and, ideally, move on to a PhD with a goal of working in public research. - US citizen living in California (but with residency in New York), but have lived abroad long term and happy (eager is more like it, tbh) to do it again. - My wife and I have no children, and will never have children. - My wife and I are comfortable with the lifestyle we can expect with me as a 40-something student. - The tedium/politics/long-hours/etc of academics doesn't faze me. - My current career is virtually non-existent, and has no relation to STEM. - I have no interest in using my current skills to go into a field tangential to research, like science journalism, science policy, etc - I've checked my math skills and they're the same as always—definitely above average, but not brilliant (and I've worked out a 2 year plan to improve these skills). - As for where I'm likely to get accepted for my undergrad, I don't expect to be able to go to a Top-20. Maybe a Top-50? Yes, I have the deep passion to pursue this, but I also don't want to end up >$150k in debt only to discover at the end of things that I won't be able to actually go beyond the degree in a way that's meaningful to me. That said, I have no illusions about working on the next world-changing thing. I just want to at least be some cog in the public science machine.
RESPONSE A: I'm also in a similar boat and am curious.
RESPONSE B: Is your goal to become a researcher with a permanent position at a university or national research lab? The prospects for this are poor for someone who does their PhD in their 20s, and much worse for you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: . That said, I have no illusions about working on the next world-changing thing. I just want to at least be some cog in the public science machine.
RESPONSE A: If you work hard and develop expertise, people will want to work with you, regardless of your age. The path to research is a long one and requires luck. For Fermilab, I have seen people do two to three post docs (2-3 years each) before getting a scientist position. If you want to work at a national lab, do your PhD work at a national lab. Then try to do a postdoc there. You will get to know people, and if you impress them, this will help immensely when trying for jobs. A few other things: You should have a research experience under your belt before applying to grad school. If you go to a large undergraduate institution, try to find a professor to work with over the summer. If not, then apply for NSF REU summer programs. Both of these should pay, not much, but some. You should not pay for a physics PhD program. The students in most physics PhD programs are paid a small, but livable stipend. You will be expected to TA for the first couple years. Once you find a group to work in, they will typically pay for your remaining years. Caveat - I’m talking about experimental physics. My theory friends had to TA all through grad school. If the school asks you to straight up pay for your PhD, you don’t want to go there. You need thee strong recommendations to apply for grad school. As you finish your undergraduate degree, get to know three profs well (go to office hours, do research with them, read their papers and talk to them about it). You should also plan to do well on the general and physics GREs. These tests do not predict your ability to be a good physicist - they just measure how well you take those kinds of test and how much of the testing content you know. You have to practice to get good at anything - including these tests. That’s is all I can think of now. Good luck!
RESPONSE B: I'm also in a similar boat and am curious.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Addressing Professors In Canada or US, does Professor John Smith mind being addressed as Hi John, in an email. How about in person? In what context is it (in)appropriate to use Hi Prof Smith vs Hi John? How about pre-interview, during and after getting hired and working in the same lab?
RESPONSE A: Academic etiquette exists for a reason. You don't call someone by their first name, unless you know them personally (or unless that person lets you know that they prefer to be addressed by their first name). In all other cases, you address a person officially - with their title and last name. Even when you know someone, you still address them officially in front of their or your students (unless those are the students in that professor's lab, but that depends on the individual lab's habits/traditions).
RESPONSE B: It's Prof. or Dr. until they give you permission, either explicitly or implicitly. If they start signing emails "-John", then you're probably clear to use the first name. Until then, use the honorific.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Addressing Professors In Canada or US, does Professor John Smith mind being addressed as Hi John, in an email. How about in person? In what context is it (in)appropriate to use Hi Prof Smith vs Hi John? How about pre-interview, during and after getting hired and working in the same lab?
RESPONSE A: Academic etiquette exists for a reason. You don't call someone by their first name, unless you know them personally (or unless that person lets you know that they prefer to be addressed by their first name). In all other cases, you address a person officially - with their title and last name. Even when you know someone, you still address them officially in front of their or your students (unless those are the students in that professor's lab, but that depends on the individual lab's habits/traditions).
RESPONSE B: With the usual disclaimer that things can vary wildly by disciple and by university... A reasonably safe policy is to start formal at first-contact ("Professor/Dr Smith"), especially if it's by email, and then pay attention to how they sign off their email replies. If the reply is formal ("Sincerely, Prof Smith"), stay with that. If it's casual ("Cheers, John"), I take that as an invitation to respond that way. In person, something similar usually works. Mirror whatever level of formality they use, and when it doubt err on the side of more formal and see how they respond.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Addressing Professors In Canada or US, does Professor John Smith mind being addressed as Hi John, in an email. How about in person? In what context is it (in)appropriate to use Hi Prof Smith vs Hi John? How about pre-interview, during and after getting hired and working in the same lab?
RESPONSE A: Even as a full professor, I will use an honorific when emailing a professor I don't know for the first time, and I would be rather put off if someone I didn't know addressed me by my first name in an email.
RESPONSE B: Dear Dr/Prof Smith, Blah blah blah Thanks, Student Dear student, Blah blah blah. -Joe —then you can respond “Hi Joe”
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Addressing Professors In Canada or US, does Professor John Smith mind being addressed as Hi John, in an email. How about in person? In what context is it (in)appropriate to use Hi Prof Smith vs Hi John? How about pre-interview, during and after getting hired and working in the same lab?
RESPONSE A: If you’re a PhD student or an RA in a lab, I can’t see why your professor would be offended by you calling his/her first name. If you haven’t met him before/ he doesn’t know you, perhaps address him as Professor xxx to maintain some distance.
RESPONSE B: Even as a full professor, I will use an honorific when emailing a professor I don't know for the first time, and I would be rather put off if someone I didn't know addressed me by my first name in an email.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Addressing Professors In Canada or US, does Professor John Smith mind being addressed as Hi John, in an email. How about in person? In what context is it (in)appropriate to use Hi Prof Smith vs Hi John? How about pre-interview, during and after getting hired and working in the same lab?
RESPONSE A: Dear Dr/Professor Smith when first writing, and after that until they tell you otherwise. If, for example, they're actually a grad student teaching your class, they'll probably tell you almost immediately. Signing their emails 'John' doesn't mean you can call them John. If you are their grad student and/or work for them, the traditional etiquette is to keep calling them the formal style until they tell you not to. My PhD supervisor was a traditionalist. She was Dr X to me for the entire year I knew her as an undergrad while she assisted me with my PhD proposal. Once I officially started, she replied to my first email to her with 'First of all, my name is [firstname].'
RESPONSE B: Even as a full professor, I will use an honorific when emailing a professor I don't know for the first time, and I would be rather put off if someone I didn't know addressed me by my first name in an email.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: what are the rules for emailing a professor at a university I do not attend? I am currently a politics student who has applied for a history masters at another university. Whilst writing my dissertation I have come across an academic who’s work has helped me massively and I have discovered they’re a professor at the university I want to attend. What is the general consensus if I wanted to email their university email (which is their profile on the university website) and say I appreciate the work you have done and also low-key mention I wanna study at their university?
RESPONSE A: It’s reasonable to say you’re interested in their research and to ask if they’re (i.e. the prof) accepting new grad students.
RESPONSE B: Professors get tons of emails. Don't "low-key mention [you] want to study at their University". Reach out, tell them you appreciate their work and why and tell them you are interested in working with them (assuming you're doing a thesis-based master's).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: what are the rules for emailing a professor at a university I do not attend? I am currently a politics student who has applied for a history masters at another university. Whilst writing my dissertation I have come across an academic who’s work has helped me massively and I have discovered they’re a professor at the university I want to attend. What is the general consensus if I wanted to email their university email (which is their profile on the university website) and say I appreciate the work you have done and also low-key mention I wanna study at their university?
RESPONSE A: Professors get tons of emails. Don't "low-key mention [you] want to study at their University". Reach out, tell them you appreciate their work and why and tell them you are interested in working with them (assuming you're doing a thesis-based master's).
RESPONSE B: Ask an interesting question, start a conversation.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: what are the rules for emailing a professor at a university I do not attend? I am currently a politics student who has applied for a history masters at another university. Whilst writing my dissertation I have come across an academic who’s work has helped me massively and I have discovered they’re a professor at the university I want to attend. What is the general consensus if I wanted to email their university email (which is their profile on the university website) and say I appreciate the work you have done and also low-key mention I wanna study at their university?
RESPONSE A: Ask an interesting question, start a conversation.
RESPONSE B: It’s reasonable to say you’re interested in their research and to ask if they’re (i.e. the prof) accepting new grad students.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: what are the rules for emailing a professor at a university I do not attend? I am currently a politics student who has applied for a history masters at another university. Whilst writing my dissertation I have come across an academic who’s work has helped me massively and I have discovered they’re a professor at the university I want to attend. What is the general consensus if I wanted to email their university email (which is their profile on the university website) and say I appreciate the work you have done and also low-key mention I wanna study at their university?
RESPONSE A: Professors generally appreciate receiving such emails. Definitely inform them that their work was beneficial to you. And be direct if you're looking to connect re: a future academic position.
RESPONSE B: Ask an interesting question, start a conversation.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: what are the rules for emailing a professor at a university I do not attend? I am currently a politics student who has applied for a history masters at another university. Whilst writing my dissertation I have come across an academic who’s work has helped me massively and I have discovered they’re a professor at the university I want to attend. What is the general consensus if I wanted to email their university email (which is their profile on the university website) and say I appreciate the work you have done and also low-key mention I wanna study at their university?
RESPONSE A: Ask an interesting question, start a conversation.
RESPONSE B: Folks are right that professors get plenty of email. However, it is always good to hear that your work has had impact. Please make your email formal...try and avoid informal greetings or any slang and try and use their correct title. Most will reply with the first name, indicating that follow-up comms do not require the title (Dr, Prof, etc.). If you are wanting to become a member of this persons lab, treat every communication as a micro-interview, as this is all they will have initially to judge you. If the professor is dismissive or impolite in their reply...you’re better off not being in their lab!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is Math a skill you are born with, or something you can be good at if you try hard enough? Hi everyone! Happy quarantine!! I have a question about math. I've noticed that lots of mathematicians are talented. They were brilliant as a kid. That's not what I want to do, though. I want to do a PhD in Economics with a focus on international trade. The thing is, I've never been good at math before. This is why I've decided to give it another go, to see if I can make it. I'm looking for online math courses right now. What I want to know is, if the math is for Economics, not Mathematics, then can I overcome it by working hard? Do you need talent to be good at Economics math? Thank you so much! I would love to hear your experiences! I hope you all have a great day!:D
RESPONSE A: It is something that we have to learn. Nobody is born good at math. But some are born with more active brain than other. So we can say that they can be better than us at math. But even they should learn it, to become good at it. So yeah, nobody is born good at math👍
RESPONSE B: As with almost anything in life (arts, sports, and skill you can think of), you can learn math to a pretty impressive degree if you have no talent/have average talent for it. The talent comes into play at really high level research, and it's usually tied to the ability to abstract, and thing in abstract terms on multiple levels. So, seat your ass in a chair, grab a textbook, and get going. :)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: s not what I want to do, though. I want to do a PhD in Economics with a focus on international trade. The thing is, I've never been good at math before. This is why I've decided to give it another go, to see if I can make it. I'm looking for online math courses right now. What I want to know is, if the math is for Economics, not Mathematics, then can I overcome it by working hard? Do you need talent to be good at Economics math? Thank you so much! I would love to hear your experiences! I hope you all have a great day!:D
RESPONSE A: As with almost anything in life (arts, sports, and skill you can think of), you can learn math to a pretty impressive degree if you have no talent/have average talent for it. The talent comes into play at really high level research, and it's usually tied to the ability to abstract, and thing in abstract terms on multiple levels. So, seat your ass in a chair, grab a textbook, and get going. :)
RESPONSE B: In my opinion, based from personal experience, this question has 2 answers. I will use a football example too. Yes, Math to the level of doing a PhD in Math and revolutionizing the field, and making brilliant contributions to the world, is something you're born with. A great example of this is Srinivasa Ramanujan. So yes, there are people who are born with a special talent for math, as there are people who are born with special talent to sing, just like Maradona and Messi were born to play football with an incredible talent Nevertheless, I think that the math level required to do a PhD in Economics is something that you can learn, and if you invest 2000 hours or so to learn the math, you will achieve any goal related to it. You don't need to be born a genius to get a PhD, and you can work your way to it, be sure about that. As long as you don't aspire to be John Nash or something like that, you can work hard and with dedication until you make it. That's what Cristiano Ronaldo did, and see where he is now.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: a focus on international trade. The thing is, I've never been good at math before. This is why I've decided to give it another go, to see if I can make it. I'm looking for online math courses right now. What I want to know is, if the math is for Economics, not Mathematics, then can I overcome it by working hard? Do you need talent to be good at Economics math? Thank you so much! I would love to hear your experiences! I hope you all have a great day!:D
RESPONSE A: I think it's a bit of both, i know many people who were skilled at math and i was not so much, i hated math but wuth practice i got a good grade eventually, but, its more a case of intelligence, not mensa iq but like real intellegence and the easiness of learning is different to everyone so, probably, but anyone can get better with practice. Economics is a bit harder but i can't see it as something impossible
RESPONSE B: hi hello economist here I think talent/hard work is kind of a misnomer here. On the one hand, you can definitely learn math by working hard and most people I know did just that. On the other, there is a lot of math economists need to know, both to be admitted to grad school and to advance to candidacy, and for some people there aren't enough hours in the day to hard-work their way through it. I don't know if this is due to "talent" (whatever that is), or because they had a poor mathematical education in K-12 or whatever else. There's not really such a thing as "economics math" - it's the same math as, god forgive me, "math math". It's why it's so advantageous to get a math undergrad to do econ in grad school (albeit not at all required). I know that in some countries, econ undergrads do "calculus for economists" or whatever which is a watered-down version, but in the US at least, to do econ, you need to know pure math.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Besides obviously publishing more, what are some things you wished you did during your PhD? (e.g. starting a blog, twitter, youtube channel)
RESPONSE A: Looked after my health.
RESPONSE B: I’m only in my second year and I can already answer. Look after my mental and physical health. My goal for next semester is to sleep at least 6 hours a night, cook healthy meals *most* of the time, and not live off caffeine and nicotine.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Besides obviously publishing more, what are some things you wished you did during your PhD? (e.g. starting a blog, twitter, youtube channel)
RESPONSE A: Looked after my health.
RESPONSE B: I definitely *don't* wish I spent more time on social media.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Besides obviously publishing more, what are some things you wished you did during your PhD? (e.g. starting a blog, twitter, youtube channel)
RESPONSE A: Networked more. Developed and maintained a relationship with lots of different people in different places doing different things, you'll be surprised which ones amount to projects/ jobs/ funding and which ones kind of fizzle out.
RESPONSE B: I wish I had taken more advantage of certain resources on campus, like the center for innovation in teaching and learning. They were always hosting workshops and trainings for grad students. I got plenty of TA experience, but always put off learning more about pedagogy and such because I felt I was too busy. Recently, while applying to faculty positions and writing my statement of teaching philosophy for those applications, it dawned on me that some more formal training in teaching would have been beneficial. Of course, that really only applies if you are interested in a future job that includes teaching as well as research. Besides that, I wish I had applied for more grants, however small. I also wish I had pursued more formal training (workshops, etc) in grant-writing. My funding was quite stable so I didn’t have necessity driving me to apply to more funding opportunities. It’s easy to get sucked into your research and forget to take on additional opportunities that will make you stand out as a candidate for jobs later on. Before you know it you’ll be on the job market and it’s a brutal world out there. Beef up that CV as much as you can.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Besides obviously publishing more, what are some things you wished you did during your PhD? (e.g. starting a blog, twitter, youtube channel)
RESPONSE A: I wish I had taken more advantage of certain resources on campus, like the center for innovation in teaching and learning. They were always hosting workshops and trainings for grad students. I got plenty of TA experience, but always put off learning more about pedagogy and such because I felt I was too busy. Recently, while applying to faculty positions and writing my statement of teaching philosophy for those applications, it dawned on me that some more formal training in teaching would have been beneficial. Of course, that really only applies if you are interested in a future job that includes teaching as well as research. Besides that, I wish I had applied for more grants, however small. I also wish I had pursued more formal training (workshops, etc) in grant-writing. My funding was quite stable so I didn’t have necessity driving me to apply to more funding opportunities. It’s easy to get sucked into your research and forget to take on additional opportunities that will make you stand out as a candidate for jobs later on. Before you know it you’ll be on the job market and it’s a brutal world out there. Beef up that CV as much as you can.
RESPONSE B: Looked after my health.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Besides obviously publishing more, what are some things you wished you did during your PhD? (e.g. starting a blog, twitter, youtube channel)
RESPONSE A: I'm super old, finished my PhD 22 years ago and am now a tenured full Professor and department chair. Looking back on it, two things are clear: 1. Take better care of my physical health. More sleep, better nutrition, more hydration, more exercise. These take time, but being sick and tired all the time takes more. 2. At the same time -- while I am a big proponent of "work life balance" in my job now, I wished that during grad school I had really committed to going all-in on my studies and focusing 100% on those, rather than trying to mix Ph.D. work with a lot of outside activities. Don't get me wrong, having friends, family, church, etc. outside school is very important. But I was in grad school with a highly specific goal: To earn a Ph.D. and to do so in less than 5 years (before my funding ran out). To accomplish that goal, you have to keep that goal in front of you the whole time and minimize, even cut off completely, anything that doesn't support it. Example: I was dating someone in my first two years of grad school. At the time it seemed like the most important thing in my life, but I was wrong -- the relationship wasn't healthy, I couldn't give it any attention because of my studies, and it was just a giant time-suck. It would have been better if I'd just said "no" to it in the beginning, and I've always wondered how much further I might have gone in my studies if I'd done so. This is the exact opposite of the advice I give faculty now -- the most important thing is _not_ your job, and you need to put your job in a box when it starts interfering with family, personal relationships, etc. Grad school is just a very special situation that takes single-minded focus to get the most out of it so you can have more of a life later.
RESPONSE B: Ditched my toxic, abusive advisor. I really should have worked with someone else.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: My Eyesssss Hey! I was wondering how people take care of their vision/eyes being in a career that involves a lot of staring at books/computers/whiteboards/etc. I've noticed that my eyesight has gone down this year, and wanted to see if any of you had any tips on how you deal with this. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: If you're like me generally every 20 or 30 minutes of staring at the computer looking at my unfinished articles I close my eyes and weep for about 3 minutes. The periodic break does wonder for my eyesight.
RESPONSE B: Blue filter on glasses helps with eye strain. However this does make everything look slightly yellow. Or use something like f.lux on computers to decrease the amount of blue.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: My Eyesssss Hey! I was wondering how people take care of their vision/eyes being in a career that involves a lot of staring at books/computers/whiteboards/etc. I've noticed that my eyesight has gone down this year, and wanted to see if any of you had any tips on how you deal with this. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: If you're like me generally every 20 or 30 minutes of staring at the computer looking at my unfinished articles I close my eyes and weep for about 3 minutes. The periodic break does wonder for my eyesight.
RESPONSE B: Have your eyes tested at an optometrist and get a pair of glasses if you need it. Unfortunately, most peoples' eyesight degrades over time. It's not usually something to worry about. Aside from that, it helps if you look into the distance every 10 minutes or so. Just take a look out of the window every once in a while. It relaxes your eyes for a bit.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: My Eyesssss Hey! I was wondering how people take care of their vision/eyes being in a career that involves a lot of staring at books/computers/whiteboards/etc. I've noticed that my eyesight has gone down this year, and wanted to see if any of you had any tips on how you deal with this. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: **BLINK regularly!** ​ The biggest impact on eye health when using a computer monitor is that your body stops blinking as much and your eyes dry out. Make sure to blink **extra** to balance it out. Also, if you can look out a window or somewhere further away every 10 minutes or so, even just for 5 seconds, it will help with the strain. Blue light filters make like a 5% difference in the light energy that goes into the eye, the same as moving a screen away a few inches. ​ You shouldn't hurt your eyes by staring at nature all day, and real sunlight is many many times brighter than any monitor. So if your eyesight wouldn't have gone down without the monitors, it's probably not blinking that had the negative effect and not anything special to do with staring at text on books/computers/whiteboards/etc.
RESPONSE B: Have your eyes tested at an optometrist and get a pair of glasses if you need it. Unfortunately, most peoples' eyesight degrades over time. It's not usually something to worry about. Aside from that, it helps if you look into the distance every 10 minutes or so. Just take a look out of the window every once in a while. It relaxes your eyes for a bit.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: My Eyesssss Hey! I was wondering how people take care of their vision/eyes being in a career that involves a lot of staring at books/computers/whiteboards/etc. I've noticed that my eyesight has gone down this year, and wanted to see if any of you had any tips on how you deal with this. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: **BLINK regularly!** ​ The biggest impact on eye health when using a computer monitor is that your body stops blinking as much and your eyes dry out. Make sure to blink **extra** to balance it out. Also, if you can look out a window or somewhere further away every 10 minutes or so, even just for 5 seconds, it will help with the strain. Blue light filters make like a 5% difference in the light energy that goes into the eye, the same as moving a screen away a few inches. ​ You shouldn't hurt your eyes by staring at nature all day, and real sunlight is many many times brighter than any monitor. So if your eyesight wouldn't have gone down without the monitors, it's probably not blinking that had the negative effect and not anything special to do with staring at text on books/computers/whiteboards/etc.
RESPONSE B: Don't get old. People's eyesight naturally gets worse as they age. I'm sure the suggestions others have offered may have some impact, but some deterioration of one's eyesight is inevitable.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Personal web site as PhD Student. What do you use and why / why not? I'm looking at a simple platform to have a personal site. Something that I can use mainly to take notes actually. I find that I gather so much notes, tutorials, websites for references, etc. and haven't found a good way to do that in a way that works well. I find that a hierarchical tool like a web site makes more sense than a word document. ​ Also, it would be public facing, have my publications and work, and link to researchgate / Orcid / twitter etc. in one place. ​ So, what are your simple to use tool to achieve that? (I can do programming but prefer not to take my time to do too much of that myself). Thanks!
RESPONSE A: Have you considered free web hosting platforms like Weebly?
RESPONSE B: If you are technical enough to run a GitHub pages site, then https://github.com/academicpages/academicpages.github.io looks nice and is really easy.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Personal web site as PhD Student. What do you use and why / why not? I'm looking at a simple platform to have a personal site. Something that I can use mainly to take notes actually. I find that I gather so much notes, tutorials, websites for references, etc. and haven't found a good way to do that in a way that works well. I find that a hierarchical tool like a web site makes more sense than a word document. ​ Also, it would be public facing, have my publications and work, and link to researchgate / Orcid / twitter etc. in one place. ​ So, what are your simple to use tool to achieve that? (I can do programming but prefer not to take my time to do too much of that myself). Thanks!
RESPONSE A: Have you tried Wordpress? I'm using that to have my personal website on it. Seems to be fairly straight forward. But I'm bit confused on what your requirements are though.
RESPONSE B: If you are technical enough to run a GitHub pages site, then https://github.com/academicpages/academicpages.github.io looks nice and is really easy.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Personal web site as PhD Student. What do you use and why / why not? I'm looking at a simple platform to have a personal site. Something that I can use mainly to take notes actually. I find that I gather so much notes, tutorials, websites for references, etc. and haven't found a good way to do that in a way that works well. I find that a hierarchical tool like a web site makes more sense than a word document. ​ Also, it would be public facing, have my publications and work, and link to researchgate / Orcid / twitter etc. in one place. ​ So, what are your simple to use tool to achieve that? (I can do programming but prefer not to take my time to do too much of that myself). Thanks!
RESPONSE A: If you are technical enough to run a GitHub pages site, then https://github.com/academicpages/academicpages.github.io looks nice and is really easy.
RESPONSE B: You should try personal wiki.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Personal web site as PhD Student. What do you use and why / why not? I'm looking at a simple platform to have a personal site. Something that I can use mainly to take notes actually. I find that I gather so much notes, tutorials, websites for references, etc. and haven't found a good way to do that in a way that works well. I find that a hierarchical tool like a web site makes more sense than a word document. ​ Also, it would be public facing, have my publications and work, and link to researchgate / Orcid / twitter etc. in one place. ​ So, what are your simple to use tool to achieve that? (I can do programming but prefer not to take my time to do too much of that myself). Thanks!
RESPONSE A: Definitely use GitHub pages. It's free and easy to set-up simple webpages with HTML, CSS, and even a bit of Javascript. Here's mine based on a free template: https://tfburns.com/ There are plenty of free website templates these days. I found mine here: https://html5up.net/
RESPONSE B: Have you considered free web hosting platforms like Weebly?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Personal web site as PhD Student. What do you use and why / why not? I'm looking at a simple platform to have a personal site. Something that I can use mainly to take notes actually. I find that I gather so much notes, tutorials, websites for references, etc. and haven't found a good way to do that in a way that works well. I find that a hierarchical tool like a web site makes more sense than a word document. ​ Also, it would be public facing, have my publications and work, and link to researchgate / Orcid / twitter etc. in one place. ​ So, what are your simple to use tool to achieve that? (I can do programming but prefer not to take my time to do too much of that myself). Thanks!
RESPONSE A: Have you tried Wordpress? I'm using that to have my personal website on it. Seems to be fairly straight forward. But I'm bit confused on what your requirements are though.
RESPONSE B: Definitely use GitHub pages. It's free and easy to set-up simple webpages with HTML, CSS, and even a bit of Javascript. Here's mine based on a free template: https://tfburns.com/ There are plenty of free website templates these days. I found mine here: https://html5up.net/
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: have an extremely low likelihood of landing a tenure track position and humanities undergrad enrollments are consistently dropping while government funding dries up. Is there any hope or are we essentially looking at the death of disciplines like history, literature, etc.? Will it eventually just fall to lobbying the government to pass some labor laws banning adjunct labor or encouraging humanities PhD students to seek non-academic jobs in journalism, high school teaching, etc.?
RESPONSE A: We have a very strong Education program at my school, and they require all of their majors to have a double major (I think that's actually required for licensure in our state). The majority (though not all) of our humanities majors are double majors with Ed. We also have pretty robust core requirements, which keeps us pretty busy. It also helps that the program director of our business administration major (largest single major at the college) was a philosophy major himself in undergrad and encourages his students and advisees to value their humanities core classes and use free electives to take more. Obviously, these things aren't replicable everywhere, but aspects of them might be.
RESPONSE B: There are jobs with people with degrees in the humanities. Regardless of the perception, we know these degrees are valuable. What is happening in academia is a rationalization of where the humanities is offered. This severely impacts the job market. Wealthier, private, R1 and historic institutions are likely to continue to offer it and attract students as well as quality staff. It is less likely to be funded and offered at other institutions. If people want to get degrees which have little chance of getting them a TT job - go for it. People move to Hollywood every day trying to be a movie star. People buy guitars wanting to me musicians. It doesn't mean it can't happen. it means it is unlikely unless you are very good or very lucky or both. But if it doesn't work out have a plan B. As for as labor laws barring adjunct labor? In the US? Where the minimum wage is laughable and labor laws are often not enforced? Unlikely. But in Australia the government has recently come out against universities who underpaid their adjuncts and made them pay with penalties....
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How is it regarded “career-wise” when doing PhD at a research institute vs. university? I am thinking mainly of Max Planck vs. top tier universities. I realize that the reputation of the advisor and his research group dictate most of the quality of the PhD experience and its outcomes, but other than that, would you consider turning down a Max Planck offer and pursue a PhD degree at a university instead (e.g. ICL)?
RESPONSE A: I just started my PhD at a Max Planck also in the genomics field and I can recommend it from a prespective of diversity of colleagues, funding and connections from the PIs. Also you wont be forced to teach a lot, which might be the case at university.
RESPONSE B: I think the main difference between a PhD at MPI and Imperial will be the amount of handholding: German institutes leave you to fend for yourself with very little interaction with your advisor, whilst in the UK there will be some handholding. Then there's the US....
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How is it regarded “career-wise” when doing PhD at a research institute vs. university? I am thinking mainly of Max Planck vs. top tier universities. I realize that the reputation of the advisor and his research group dictate most of the quality of the PhD experience and its outcomes, but other than that, would you consider turning down a Max Planck offer and pursue a PhD degree at a university instead (e.g. ICL)?
RESPONSE A: I just started my PhD at a Max Planck also in the genomics field and I can recommend it from a prespective of diversity of colleagues, funding and connections from the PIs. Also you wont be forced to teach a lot, which might be the case at university.
RESPONSE B: In France, we have the CNRS which funds certains labs, staff members and PhDs. Note that in any case, you'd still get a PhD from the university, the research institute isn't able to deliver diplomas. There is no serious difference between this and the uni PhD in terms of legal framework in France (the same laws apply). Some could argue that the researchers in the institute, being recruited more selectively, are better but that's difficult to generalize. One key point that's specific to France : if you're doing a PhD financed through the institute, it's harder to get teaching hours during your PhD. It's not a big problem because you could do a special type of postdoc in France that *does* give you teaching hours (ATER). I mention this because in France, if you're trying to get a permanent university position, you'll be expected to have some teaching experience. This may or may not apply to german system but I imagine it's the same kind of setup (harder to teacher at a Max Planck institute but teaching is a required skill for habilitant or similar postings).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: concentration. The thing is, when I return from lunch (2pm), I can work a little bit more until around 3:30-4pm, but the quality of the work decreases significantly. After 4pm, I don't even know what I'm doing anymore, but I usually try to continue until 6pm. I wanted to know how people that do research full-time structure their day to be able to work decently for the whole day. Do they get used to being focused for longer periods or they just accept that they can only do so much and then do other things? I go to the gym everyday before starting the thesis at 9am and I eat well. Sometimes I feel lethargic after lunch, but I'm working on that and it's getting better. I sleep properly and after I leave the lab at 6pm, I try to relax and not think about "work". It might be an issue that I don't have shallower activities scattered throughout the day, like meetings or a lot of e-mailing, because I feel that these would help me diverge my attention a bit to later on get back focusing on my project.
RESPONSE A: Op, this is a really important thing I found......it takes an equal amount of time to think as it does to write. So allocate plenty of time to a thesis. I don't really structure my life around time, I just think I have 1-2 weeks to do X. It doesn't matter when I do X, but X needs to be done by 1-2 weeks.
RESPONSE B: > Do they get used to being focused for longer periods or they just accept that they can only do so much and then do other things? The latter. Email? That's work. Planning and attending meetings? That's work. Trying to buy equipment through a glitchy eShop system. That's work. All of these little, tangential tasks may not be "research" but they're part of the job and should count toward your "full-time" work hours. Also, don't be afraid to skip out an hour early if you feel you've done all you needed to do for the day. It'll all come out in the wash when you need to work additional hours before a deadline...
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: time. I usually start by 9am and until lunch (1pm) I am pretty productive and can maintain a high level of concentration. The thing is, when I return from lunch (2pm), I can work a little bit more until around 3:30-4pm, but the quality of the work decreases significantly. After 4pm, I don't even know what I'm doing anymore, but I usually try to continue until 6pm. I wanted to know how people that do research full-time structure their day to be able to work decently for the whole day. Do they get used to being focused for longer periods or they just accept that they can only do so much and then do other things? I go to the gym everyday before starting the thesis at 9am and I eat well. Sometimes I feel lethargic after lunch, but I'm working on that and it's getting better. I sleep properly and after I leave the lab at 6pm, I try to relax and not think about "work". It might be an issue that I don't have shallower activities scattered throughout the day, like meetings or a lot of e-mailing, because I feel that these would help me diverge my attention a bit to later on get back focusing on my project.
RESPONSE A: Op, this is a really important thing I found......it takes an equal amount of time to think as it does to write. So allocate plenty of time to a thesis. I don't really structure my life around time, I just think I have 1-2 weeks to do X. It doesn't matter when I do X, but X needs to be done by 1-2 weeks.
RESPONSE B: I divide up my writing tasks and work on each for a chunk of the day. When I fatigue on one, I switch to another. Tasks I can think of that you may be doing: analyzing data, making figures and tables, outlining chapters and sections, actual writing, editing for content/logic, editing for flow, editing for grammar/typos, layout, incorporating feedback, reading literature. Personally I have at most two 3hr chunks of high level intense thinking in me on a good day. I focus on difficult tasks when I'm feeling best and save others for when I'm tired.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: is the only activity that I have and I am expected to work on it full-time. I usually start by 9am and until lunch (1pm) I am pretty productive and can maintain a high level of concentration. The thing is, when I return from lunch (2pm), I can work a little bit more until around 3:30-4pm, but the quality of the work decreases significantly. After 4pm, I don't even know what I'm doing anymore, but I usually try to continue until 6pm. I wanted to know how people that do research full-time structure their day to be able to work decently for the whole day. Do they get used to being focused for longer periods or they just accept that they can only do so much and then do other things? I go to the gym everyday before starting the thesis at 9am and I eat well. Sometimes I feel lethargic after lunch, but I'm working on that and it's getting better. I sleep properly and after I leave the lab at 6pm, I try to relax and not think about "work". It might be an issue that I don't have shallower activities scattered throughout the day, like meetings or a lot of e-mailing, because I feel that these would help me diverge my attention a bit to later on get back focusing on my project.
RESPONSE A: Op, this is a really important thing I found......it takes an equal amount of time to think as it does to write. So allocate plenty of time to a thesis. I don't really structure my life around time, I just think I have 1-2 weeks to do X. It doesn't matter when I do X, but X needs to be done by 1-2 weeks.
RESPONSE B: When I was working on my dissertation I tried to run errands in the middle of the day. Stores are less crowded and it gave me a mental (and physical!) break from my desk. I also never thought of it as a 9-5 type thing. As /u/sleeping_in_ says, it's about getting the work done, not putting in a certain amount of time. Some days I would be on fire and work for 12 hours, others I would barely work at all.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What are some of the unexpected tasks you do as an academic? I went into my supervisor's office the other day and he was ordering books for the university's library. He told me that this is just one of the many random jobs he didn't expect he'd have to do as an academic (in the humanities) when he first thought of becoming an academic. I'm curious what other seemingly random tasks academics have found themselves doing that they didn't otherwise expect.
RESPONSE A: Ordering office supplies. When I was a graduate student, I would just pop in the department and grab a box of copy paper. Now I have to flip through a catalog, get the inventory numbers, submit a formal order, etc. It's a lot of paperwork, far more than I would have assumed.
RESPONSE B: (Crisis) counseling. We have psych services, but my students are often nervous about going. They'd rather talk to me. I can recommend they go, and I report major issues, but if they just need to chat with a trusted adult, I'll carve out 20 minutes for them. I've done everything from troubleshoot roommate problems to LGTQ+ issues to abusive relationships to math help and so on.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What are some of the unexpected tasks you do as an academic? I went into my supervisor's office the other day and he was ordering books for the university's library. He told me that this is just one of the many random jobs he didn't expect he'd have to do as an academic (in the humanities) when he first thought of becoming an academic. I'm curious what other seemingly random tasks academics have found themselves doing that they didn't otherwise expect.
RESPONSE A: (Crisis) counseling. We have psych services, but my students are often nervous about going. They'd rather talk to me. I can recommend they go, and I report major issues, but if they just need to chat with a trusted adult, I'll carve out 20 minutes for them. I've done everything from troubleshoot roommate problems to LGTQ+ issues to abusive relationships to math help and so on.
RESPONSE B: I ordered many hardware parts, mainly for our self-driving car. There isn't really someone else with the expertise to chose correctly, and no students were available. Sometimes I write mails for my prof, or in general offer him to take over some other annoying stuff when he has too much going on and tbe secretary can't do it. If I save my prof time this way, he can give me more time for supervision. People who use the coffee machine in our chair have to clean it regularly. It takes some time. But I don't drink coffee.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Academics on twitter, has social media benefited or damaged your writing in any way? I used to read a lot of books, but I seem to spend a lot more time on twitter these days. Consequently, I'm now used to digesting information in small bites. And sometimes without context. So, I'd like to know if social media has impacted your focus or writing in any way. I ask because I feel as though my attention span is suffering, and I'm very concerned it's because of my time spent online.
RESPONSE A: Deleting Twitter app was an immense boost to my mood, productivity and motivation. I was subscribed to a lot of big researchers and successful PhD candidates/students as a way to seek motivation myself being a PhD student. Instead I felt quite intimidated and got the opposite effect. It varies a lot from person to person, but I feel better without Twitter. I still have my account and occasionally go there but not everyday and certainly not for long.
RESPONSE B: I, like another commenter, think some of my decline in attention is age-related. As for Twitter, I never use it. I honestly cannot read all the shorthand people use. It often looks like gibberish to me and I lose interest. I've tried a number of times and simply cannot successfully engage with Twitter as a medium.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Academics on twitter, has social media benefited or damaged your writing in any way? I used to read a lot of books, but I seem to spend a lot more time on twitter these days. Consequently, I'm now used to digesting information in small bites. And sometimes without context. So, I'd like to know if social media has impacted your focus or writing in any way. I ask because I feel as though my attention span is suffering, and I'm very concerned it's because of my time spent online.
RESPONSE A: Deleting Twitter app was an immense boost to my mood, productivity and motivation. I was subscribed to a lot of big researchers and successful PhD candidates/students as a way to seek motivation myself being a PhD student. Instead I felt quite intimidated and got the opposite effect. It varies a lot from person to person, but I feel better without Twitter. I still have my account and occasionally go there but not everyday and certainly not for long.
RESPONSE B: Not at all. I love reading, and will happily sit down for a day with a book at any given opportunity. Twitter etc is useful, but it's a very different format, and should be used as such. In the same way that writing a piece for an audience of the general public is totally different from writing a piece for a journal.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Academics on twitter, has social media benefited or damaged your writing in any way? I used to read a lot of books, but I seem to spend a lot more time on twitter these days. Consequently, I'm now used to digesting information in small bites. And sometimes without context. So, I'd like to know if social media has impacted your focus or writing in any way. I ask because I feel as though my attention span is suffering, and I'm very concerned it's because of my time spent online.
RESPONSE A: This article addresses your post in a great way. I don’t necessarily agree with the entire thing, but it’s still a standout piece of writing a decade after it was written. I think it’s only gotten more relevant with the rise of social media.
RESPONSE B: I, like another commenter, think some of my decline in attention is age-related. As for Twitter, I never use it. I honestly cannot read all the shorthand people use. It often looks like gibberish to me and I lose interest. I've tried a number of times and simply cannot successfully engage with Twitter as a medium.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Academics on twitter, has social media benefited or damaged your writing in any way? I used to read a lot of books, but I seem to spend a lot more time on twitter these days. Consequently, I'm now used to digesting information in small bites. And sometimes without context. So, I'd like to know if social media has impacted your focus or writing in any way. I ask because I feel as though my attention span is suffering, and I'm very concerned it's because of my time spent online.
RESPONSE A: This article addresses your post in a great way. I don’t necessarily agree with the entire thing, but it’s still a standout piece of writing a decade after it was written. I think it’s only gotten more relevant with the rise of social media.
RESPONSE B: Not at all. I love reading, and will happily sit down for a day with a book at any given opportunity. Twitter etc is useful, but it's a very different format, and should be used as such. In the same way that writing a piece for an audience of the general public is totally different from writing a piece for a journal.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Academics on twitter, has social media benefited or damaged your writing in any way? I used to read a lot of books, but I seem to spend a lot more time on twitter these days. Consequently, I'm now used to digesting information in small bites. And sometimes without context. So, I'd like to know if social media has impacted your focus or writing in any way. I ask because I feel as though my attention span is suffering, and I'm very concerned it's because of my time spent online.
RESPONSE A: I'm not on Twitter. However, as a non-native speaker, my heavy redditing has certainly improved my academic writing in English.
RESPONSE B: Academia has damaged my writing.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: My defence is in just under 4 weeks and I'm very anxious. Any tips? My slides are ready, I'm just practicing and thinking of possible questions. Every minute I'm not working on them or the questions is racked with guilt/anxiety for "not studying". Any tips on how to prepare? Thank you in advance.
RESPONSE A: A word of encouragement, rather than advice. Your defence is the best conversation you will ever get to have about your dissertation. All those arguments you've had at conferences ... parties where you've been boring people to tears by talking about your research ... your advisor paying just enough attention to make relevant responses ... your pharmacist staring at you blankly as you rant about citation stylesheets -- those conversations were just try-outs for *the one really good conversation*. You get to have a chat with people who have really made an effort to get to grips with what you have been wrestling with for years. They'll actually have *paid attention to what you're saying*. And that can be awesome. Even if you become famous and get interviewed on the Late Show, the people there aren't going to be as interested in your work as the people at your defence will be. OK, sure, they'll have criticisms. But they'll also be more invested in your work than anyone else in the world that isn't you. Make the most of it! To get this far, you must like talking about your work. You like ranting about your research? Well, here's your chance!
RESPONSE B: You are the expert and you are ready. Enjoy it:)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: My defence is in just under 4 weeks and I'm very anxious. Any tips? My slides are ready, I'm just practicing and thinking of possible questions. Every minute I'm not working on them or the questions is racked with guilt/anxiety for "not studying". Any tips on how to prepare? Thank you in advance.
RESPONSE A: A word of encouragement, rather than advice. Your defence is the best conversation you will ever get to have about your dissertation. All those arguments you've had at conferences ... parties where you've been boring people to tears by talking about your research ... your advisor paying just enough attention to make relevant responses ... your pharmacist staring at you blankly as you rant about citation stylesheets -- those conversations were just try-outs for *the one really good conversation*. You get to have a chat with people who have really made an effort to get to grips with what you have been wrestling with for years. They'll actually have *paid attention to what you're saying*. And that can be awesome. Even if you become famous and get interviewed on the Late Show, the people there aren't going to be as interested in your work as the people at your defence will be. OK, sure, they'll have criticisms. But they'll also be more invested in your work than anyone else in the world that isn't you. Make the most of it! To get this far, you must like talking about your work. You like ranting about your research? Well, here's your chance!
RESPONSE B: They are all naked underneath. Many of them look horrible nude while acting all adult and professional. Keep that imagery front and center. :)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: My defence is in just under 4 weeks and I'm very anxious. Any tips? My slides are ready, I'm just practicing and thinking of possible questions. Every minute I'm not working on them or the questions is racked with guilt/anxiety for "not studying". Any tips on how to prepare? Thank you in advance.
RESPONSE A: Few tips - don't over-prepare the presentation. You'll sound robotic. - re-read all the key references in your thesis - make sure you fully understand all the techniques underlying your results (whether it's how equipment works or what the underlying stats are) - take a deep breath before speaking. It's easy to let the nerves run away with you and gallop into answering the question you thought you heard. Taking a beat just to get some oxygen will let you marshall your thoughts and respond properly.
RESPONSE B: A word of encouragement, rather than advice. Your defence is the best conversation you will ever get to have about your dissertation. All those arguments you've had at conferences ... parties where you've been boring people to tears by talking about your research ... your advisor paying just enough attention to make relevant responses ... your pharmacist staring at you blankly as you rant about citation stylesheets -- those conversations were just try-outs for *the one really good conversation*. You get to have a chat with people who have really made an effort to get to grips with what you have been wrestling with for years. They'll actually have *paid attention to what you're saying*. And that can be awesome. Even if you become famous and get interviewed on the Late Show, the people there aren't going to be as interested in your work as the people at your defence will be. OK, sure, they'll have criticisms. But they'll also be more invested in your work than anyone else in the world that isn't you. Make the most of it! To get this far, you must like talking about your work. You like ranting about your research? Well, here's your chance!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: My defence is in just under 4 weeks and I'm very anxious. Any tips? My slides are ready, I'm just practicing and thinking of possible questions. Every minute I'm not working on them or the questions is racked with guilt/anxiety for "not studying". Any tips on how to prepare? Thank you in advance.
RESPONSE A: You are the expert and you are ready. Enjoy it:)
RESPONSE B: They are all naked underneath. Many of them look horrible nude while acting all adult and professional. Keep that imagery front and center. :)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: My defence is in just under 4 weeks and I'm very anxious. Any tips? My slides are ready, I'm just practicing and thinking of possible questions. Every minute I'm not working on them or the questions is racked with guilt/anxiety for "not studying". Any tips on how to prepare? Thank you in advance.
RESPONSE A: Few tips - don't over-prepare the presentation. You'll sound robotic. - re-read all the key references in your thesis - make sure you fully understand all the techniques underlying your results (whether it's how equipment works or what the underlying stats are) - take a deep breath before speaking. It's easy to let the nerves run away with you and gallop into answering the question you thought you heard. Taking a beat just to get some oxygen will let you marshall your thoughts and respond properly.
RESPONSE B: You are the expert and you are ready. Enjoy it:)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Why are online/virtual conferences so expensive? For context, I am not in academia but my work and interests rely heavily on information that comes from the academic community. In other words, I am not eligible for funding or discounted fees for attending conferences. There are several conferences I've been interested in attending this year, especially given that they've been designed for a virtual audience and don't involve travel. What's surprised me is how many have registration fees similar to that of an in-person conference. I find it hard to believe that the running costs of an online event come close to the in-person costs, so is this money just going into the pockets of the organisers?
RESPONSE A: Some conferences use professional equipment and software to stream. This requires staff, licences for streaming services (eg vmix) and equipment to run it on.
RESPONSE B: While I'm not on the planning committee, I am on another committee that deals with our annual scholarly conference. Our biggest costs for an online conference was the online part. We didn't have the computing infrastructure to host a online conference so they outsourced it. That was an expensive contract. As far as I understand, our conference is not a money maker. In normal years it roughly breaks even (registration $300 member/$500 non-member). The money comes from membership fees and their journals. Last year they deeply discounted it, but this year it was roughly the same. I have not heard the profit/loss of it for this year. I will say that sitting on these committees, almost everyone on those committees come from big research universities with large grant support. They honestly don't see the money because it is all paid for either by the university or from their grants. We also have a sizable group of physicians that attend, and nobody is worried about their ability to pay. We will, though, have long conversations about grad students and post-docs and how much we ask them to pay.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why are online/virtual conferences so expensive? For context, I am not in academia but my work and interests rely heavily on information that comes from the academic community. In other words, I am not eligible for funding or discounted fees for attending conferences. There are several conferences I've been interested in attending this year, especially given that they've been designed for a virtual audience and don't involve travel. What's surprised me is how many have registration fees similar to that of an in-person conference. I find it hard to believe that the running costs of an online event come close to the in-person costs, so is this money just going into the pockets of the organisers?
RESPONSE A: While I'm not on the planning committee, I am on another committee that deals with our annual scholarly conference. Our biggest costs for an online conference was the online part. We didn't have the computing infrastructure to host a online conference so they outsourced it. That was an expensive contract. As far as I understand, our conference is not a money maker. In normal years it roughly breaks even (registration $300 member/$500 non-member). The money comes from membership fees and their journals. Last year they deeply discounted it, but this year it was roughly the same. I have not heard the profit/loss of it for this year. I will say that sitting on these committees, almost everyone on those committees come from big research universities with large grant support. They honestly don't see the money because it is all paid for either by the university or from their grants. We also have a sizable group of physicians that attend, and nobody is worried about their ability to pay. We will, though, have long conversations about grad students and post-docs and how much we ask them to pay.
RESPONSE B: It's not all conferences - I've been to several major online conferences this year (EGU and ICRS) that were reasonably priced (<£100). Both EGU and ICRS are run by scientific societies rather than for-profit organisations so maybe that's why.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: comes from the academic community. In other words, I am not eligible for funding or discounted fees for attending conferences. There are several conferences I've been interested in attending this year, especially given that they've been designed for a virtual audience and don't involve travel. What's surprised me is how many have registration fees similar to that of an in-person conference. I find it hard to believe that the running costs of an online event come close to the in-person costs, so is this money just going into the pockets of the organisers?
RESPONSE A: While I'm not on the planning committee, I am on another committee that deals with our annual scholarly conference. Our biggest costs for an online conference was the online part. We didn't have the computing infrastructure to host a online conference so they outsourced it. That was an expensive contract. As far as I understand, our conference is not a money maker. In normal years it roughly breaks even (registration $300 member/$500 non-member). The money comes from membership fees and their journals. Last year they deeply discounted it, but this year it was roughly the same. I have not heard the profit/loss of it for this year. I will say that sitting on these committees, almost everyone on those committees come from big research universities with large grant support. They honestly don't see the money because it is all paid for either by the university or from their grants. We also have a sizable group of physicians that attend, and nobody is worried about their ability to pay. We will, though, have long conversations about grad students and post-docs and how much we ask them to pay.
RESPONSE B: It's ridiculous. I had an anual conference of the International Society of my field. 400 EUR for the online version of it, while the "physical" version of it was around 600 EUR and held in Seul. Absolutely not, ridiculous. Last year I already spent 100 USD on the same conference online, and it was utterly shit, absolutely not worth it. Not a single presentation was recorded, so that people outside of the main time zone could watch on a good hour, plus many stability issues. I like the idea of online conferences, they really help and should be here to stay, but the pricing and logistics is still horrible
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Why are online/virtual conferences so expensive? For context, I am not in academia but my work and interests rely heavily on information that comes from the academic community. In other words, I am not eligible for funding or discounted fees for attending conferences. There are several conferences I've been interested in attending this year, especially given that they've been designed for a virtual audience and don't involve travel. What's surprised me is how many have registration fees similar to that of an in-person conference. I find it hard to believe that the running costs of an online event come close to the in-person costs, so is this money just going into the pockets of the organisers?
RESPONSE A: Demand for certification of attendance and presentation at conference is steady and inelastic as a result of career progression requirements. Those specific outcomes (as opposed to actual networking, quality of meeting) are equally served by virtual and in-person conferences, so equalisation of registration fees is an inevitable trend. It's less bad in smaller, academic-led society meetings, but it's going to be inevitable anywhere the conference organisation process is outsourced away from the participants.
RESPONSE B: While I'm not on the planning committee, I am on another committee that deals with our annual scholarly conference. Our biggest costs for an online conference was the online part. We didn't have the computing infrastructure to host a online conference so they outsourced it. That was an expensive contract. As far as I understand, our conference is not a money maker. In normal years it roughly breaks even (registration $300 member/$500 non-member). The money comes from membership fees and their journals. Last year they deeply discounted it, but this year it was roughly the same. I have not heard the profit/loss of it for this year. I will say that sitting on these committees, almost everyone on those committees come from big research universities with large grant support. They honestly don't see the money because it is all paid for either by the university or from their grants. We also have a sizable group of physicians that attend, and nobody is worried about their ability to pay. We will, though, have long conversations about grad students and post-docs and how much we ask them to pay.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Why are online/virtual conferences so expensive? For context, I am not in academia but my work and interests rely heavily on information that comes from the academic community. In other words, I am not eligible for funding or discounted fees for attending conferences. There are several conferences I've been interested in attending this year, especially given that they've been designed for a virtual audience and don't involve travel. What's surprised me is how many have registration fees similar to that of an in-person conference. I find it hard to believe that the running costs of an online event come close to the in-person costs, so is this money just going into the pockets of the organisers?
RESPONSE A: This is news for me. The online conference that I'm planning to attend is \~ $25 USD.
RESPONSE B: While I'm not on the planning committee, I am on another committee that deals with our annual scholarly conference. Our biggest costs for an online conference was the online part. We didn't have the computing infrastructure to host a online conference so they outsourced it. That was an expensive contract. As far as I understand, our conference is not a money maker. In normal years it roughly breaks even (registration $300 member/$500 non-member). The money comes from membership fees and their journals. Last year they deeply discounted it, but this year it was roughly the same. I have not heard the profit/loss of it for this year. I will say that sitting on these committees, almost everyone on those committees come from big research universities with large grant support. They honestly don't see the money because it is all paid for either by the university or from their grants. We also have a sizable group of physicians that attend, and nobody is worried about their ability to pay. We will, though, have long conversations about grad students and post-docs and how much we ask them to pay.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.