label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
B | POST: Is it acceptable to email an author asking for the full version of their article for free? Anthropology. Obviously I wouldn't word it exactly like that. I guess I was just wondering if the idea itself is considered taboo or unacceptable in the academic world. I read how in hard science, the authors usually don't get any of the funds from people using money to access their articles so if you email them they'll often send them for free. I was wondering if a similar dynamic exists in lib arts/anthropology world, and also if this works when there's more than one author
RESPONSE A: Sure, but why not just use libgen
RESPONSE B: ABSOLUTELY acceptable!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it acceptable to email an author asking for the full version of their article for free? Anthropology. Obviously I wouldn't word it exactly like that. I guess I was just wondering if the idea itself is considered taboo or unacceptable in the academic world. I read how in hard science, the authors usually don't get any of the funds from people using money to access their articles so if you email them they'll often send them for free. I was wondering if a similar dynamic exists in lib arts/anthropology world, and also if this works when there's more than one author
RESPONSE A: Have you looked for them on researchgate.net?
RESPONSE B: This is a totally normal request. They may not have time to do it, but it certainly wouldn't be offensive to ask.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it acceptable to email an author asking for the full version of their article for free? Anthropology. Obviously I wouldn't word it exactly like that. I guess I was just wondering if the idea itself is considered taboo or unacceptable in the academic world. I read how in hard science, the authors usually don't get any of the funds from people using money to access their articles so if you email them they'll often send them for free. I was wondering if a similar dynamic exists in lib arts/anthropology world, and also if this works when there's more than one author
RESPONSE A: Sure, but why not just use libgen
RESPONSE B: This is a totally normal request. They may not have time to do it, but it certainly wouldn't be offensive to ask.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it acceptable to email an author asking for the full version of their article for free? Anthropology. Obviously I wouldn't word it exactly like that. I guess I was just wondering if the idea itself is considered taboo or unacceptable in the academic world. I read how in hard science, the authors usually don't get any of the funds from people using money to access their articles so if you email them they'll often send them for free. I was wondering if a similar dynamic exists in lib arts/anthropology world, and also if this works when there's more than one author
RESPONSE A: Have you looked for them on researchgate.net?
RESPONSE B: They'll be incredibly flattered. The only entity you'll be upsetting is Elsevier and F them.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it acceptable to email an author asking for the full version of their article for free? Anthropology. Obviously I wouldn't word it exactly like that. I guess I was just wondering if the idea itself is considered taboo or unacceptable in the academic world. I read how in hard science, the authors usually don't get any of the funds from people using money to access their articles so if you email them they'll often send them for free. I was wondering if a similar dynamic exists in lib arts/anthropology world, and also if this works when there's more than one author
RESPONSE A: They'll be incredibly flattered. The only entity you'll be upsetting is Elsevier and F them.
RESPONSE B: Sure, but why not just use libgen
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: WTF. Why are my Engineering students so demanding I work at a large research one institution. I’m an academic advisor in a grad program in engineering. I previously worked in this same position, but in education. Most of my student population are international students (85-90%) whereas previously it was maybe 20-25%. Also the majority of my students are males from cultures where women are traditionally not as valued as men. I’m only saying this because I can’t figure out if they are so demanding because of the cultural differences or because they are engineers. This is way beyond the norm of what I would call millennial entitlement. It’s not uncommon for students to expect me to have their paperwork ready and returned to them within a few hours. I will get multiple email requests in less than a business day asking about it. I have had requests for me to call other offices and have their paperwork moved to the front of the queue for “reasons.” One student asked me about a scholarship and when I referred him to a particular person making the decision he informed me that I could go talked to this person on his behalf. I informed him I have my diplomas and am not currently in need of a scholarship. The immediacy with which these students expect me to act is just insane. So what gives. Help me understand this before I snap and have to hide a body.
RESPONSE A: I'm not a professor or in any teaching position, but even in undergrad, none of my professors would have put up with this degree of entitlement. They would have laughed at the student asking to talk to the scholarships office on their behalf. Honestly, I think the fact that a majority of your students are international is probably the issue. Lay down some ground rules in the syllabus and enforce them.
RESPONSE B: International students that can afford to do a graduate degree abroad, and specifically in the US, typically come from very privileged backgrounds and, in my experience, can have a sense of entitlement or a large cultural difference they need to overcome.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: %) whereas previously it was maybe 20-25%. Also the majority of my students are males from cultures where women are traditionally not as valued as men. I’m only saying this because I can’t figure out if they are so demanding because of the cultural differences or because they are engineers. This is way beyond the norm of what I would call millennial entitlement. It’s not uncommon for students to expect me to have their paperwork ready and returned to them within a few hours. I will get multiple email requests in less than a business day asking about it. I have had requests for me to call other offices and have their paperwork moved to the front of the queue for “reasons.” One student asked me about a scholarship and when I referred him to a particular person making the decision he informed me that I could go talked to this person on his behalf. I informed him I have my diplomas and am not currently in need of a scholarship. The immediacy with which these students expect me to act is just insane. So what gives. Help me understand this before I snap and have to hide a body.
RESPONSE A: Honestly, I noticed a much higher incidence of 'spectrum-like' personalities in our engineering department. Abrupt ways of speaking, a lot of people who seemed to lack common civility in how they interacted with others. Add to this a lot of stress from a high course load and you're bound to see some unfriendly demands. As for the international thing, these wouldn't happen to be East Indian students, would they? Personally, I've dealt with extremely rude and demanding East Indian developers and recruiters. Both when I was hiring people and when I was job searching. They would literally *demand* that I do things for them immediately. I just chalked it up to cultural differences. Many of us have dealt with it, not to rule out misogynism, just saying it was the same for me too. /u/leejh06 advice about setting expectations is a good strategy.
RESPONSE B: International students that can afford to do a graduate degree abroad, and specifically in the US, typically come from very privileged backgrounds and, in my experience, can have a sense of entitlement or a large cultural difference they need to overcome.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: WTF. Why are my Engineering students so demanding I work at a large research one institution. I’m an academic advisor in a grad program in engineering. I previously worked in this same position, but in education. Most of my student population are international students (85-90%) whereas previously it was maybe 20-25%. Also the majority of my students are males from cultures where women are traditionally not as valued as men. I’m only saying this because I can’t figure out if they are so demanding because of the cultural differences or because they are engineers. This is way beyond the norm of what I would call millennial entitlement. It’s not uncommon for students to expect me to have their paperwork ready and returned to them within a few hours. I will get multiple email requests in less than a business day asking about it. I have had requests for me to call other offices and have their paperwork moved to the front of the queue for “reasons.” One student asked me about a scholarship and when I referred him to a particular person making the decision he informed me that I could go talked to this person on his behalf. I informed him I have my diplomas and am not currently in need of a scholarship. The immediacy with which these students expect me to act is just insane. So what gives. Help me understand this before I snap and have to hide a body.
RESPONSE A: First mistake is hiding the body. Never hide the body. I think it sounds like a cultural thing at least based on my experience with my engineering friends
RESPONSE B: International students that can afford to do a graduate degree abroad, and specifically in the US, typically come from very privileged backgrounds and, in my experience, can have a sense of entitlement or a large cultural difference they need to overcome.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: s not uncommon for students to expect me to have their paperwork ready and returned to them within a few hours. I will get multiple email requests in less than a business day asking about it. I have had requests for me to call other offices and have their paperwork moved to the front of the queue for “reasons.” One student asked me about a scholarship and when I referred him to a particular person making the decision he informed me that I could go talked to this person on his behalf. I informed him I have my diplomas and am not currently in need of a scholarship. The immediacy with which these students expect me to act is just insane. So what gives. Help me understand this before I snap and have to hide a body.
RESPONSE A: First mistake is hiding the body. Never hide the body. I think it sounds like a cultural thing at least based on my experience with my engineering friends
RESPONSE B: I am a male international student in an engineering grad program in the US and may be able to provide some perspective. My guess would be that the students in question are Masters students. Given the currency conversion rates the students in question are often paying a lot of money (esp for their home countries) for the degree and may often see it as effectively "buying" a service. (There is enough evidence to suggest that schools also, in turn, treat them as cash cows.) This also means that you are probably dealing with the richest kids in their home country (who are therefore presumably pretty entitled). Also, I think there is some amount of (unreal) expectation of more efficiency in the US coming from an expectation of the opposite of the bureaucratic inefficiency they have seen back home. As far as your charge of possible sexism stemming from their culture is concerned, I may not be able to evaluate it fairly given that I am not a woman and I don't want to deny any part of your experience of perceived or actual discrimination. (Even though your crude and broad-brushed assessment of cultures does bother me). One way to confirm/assuage your concerns on that front may be to compare notes with a male colleague in a similar role. In terms of concrete steps I think others have covered it. Hope that was helpful.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: ’m an academic advisor in a grad program in engineering. I previously worked in this same position, but in education. Most of my student population are international students (85-90%) whereas previously it was maybe 20-25%. Also the majority of my students are males from cultures where women are traditionally not as valued as men. I’m only saying this because I can’t figure out if they are so demanding because of the cultural differences or because they are engineers. This is way beyond the norm of what I would call millennial entitlement. It’s not uncommon for students to expect me to have their paperwork ready and returned to them within a few hours. I will get multiple email requests in less than a business day asking about it. I have had requests for me to call other offices and have their paperwork moved to the front of the queue for “reasons.” One student asked me about a scholarship and when I referred him to a particular person making the decision he informed me that I could go talked to this person on his behalf. I informed him I have my diplomas and am not currently in need of a scholarship. The immediacy with which these students expect me to act is just insane. So what gives. Help me understand this before I snap and have to hide a body.
RESPONSE A: International students are generally the children of elites. They grew up with servants, and will treat you like one too if you give off a certain vibe. Also, they're often paying crazy tuition, which doubles up the sense of entitlement to 11. There's a lot of "well, I'm paying $90,000 a year to go here, what do you mean your office hours don't fit with my Rolls Royce mechanic? Fix it."
RESPONSE B: > I can’t figure out if they are so demanding because of the cultural differences or because they are engineers Why not both? I am assuming you are female from that quote? You didn't specify. An academic advisor has a small "paperwork" role in their students. I could well believe that students from more patriarchal cultures will estimate that role to be much larger if their academic advisor is a woman. Ditto for engineers in my experience (though that is of course a generalisation).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Malaysian University graduates 632 PhD candidates in one ceremony. How is this possible? Slightly old news but this is the first time I have seen a university graduate that many doctoral candidates in one sitting. No, it is not an MD or other professional doctorates, but a PhD. Does anybody have an insight on how this happened? https://upm.edu.my/news/sultan_sharafuddin_wants_upm_graduates_to_succeed_in_academics_and_character_development-53879
RESPONSE A: Wouldn't surprise me if there is a covid bump as research groups finally return to labs, you could have a few cohorts compressed into one as large amounts of the previous couple of cohorts extended their PhD.
RESPONSE B: They apparently have 13000 grad students, so 600 graduating in one year doesn't seem crazy. Looks like they offer a lot of joint PhDs with other institutions too.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Academic Mommas Any academic mommas out there? Still in my doc program, but hoping to be hired as a professor down the line. Also crazy baby crazy and hoping to adopt once I finish. Am I insane to try and juggle the tenure track and single-motherhood?
RESPONSE A: 🖐“Each part of my life provided respite from the other and gave me a sense of proportion that classmates trained only on law studies lacked.” —Queen RBG
RESPONSE B: I’m doing it. I’m early into my career tho, so we’ll see if I can manage to get tenure (I feel like I’m on pace now, but I’ve also got baby #2 due so we’ll see how productive I am these next six months). Someone recently recommended I check out the podcast Agile Academic. I haven’t listened to it yet so this is kind of a blind recommendation, but my friend recommended it based on the many discussions of women and mothers in academia. It’s not only focused on that, but apparently it’s a reoccurring topic.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Academic Mommas Any academic mommas out there? Still in my doc program, but hoping to be hired as a professor down the line. Also crazy baby crazy and hoping to adopt once I finish. Am I insane to try and juggle the tenure track and single-motherhood?
RESPONSE A: Had my first during graduation week of my first year on the tenure track, so I was pregnant basically my entire first year. Didn’t really get a maternity leave, and the second year (when she was a baby) was tough! She was a horrible sleeper and I was exhausted the whole time. Just had my second ten months ago and insisted on having the fall semester off. That was a much better experience (for obvious reasons). Got tenure this past summer. I’m at a teaching-heavy institution, so my lack of time to publish wasn’t held against me because I did well in other areas (teaching, committee work, department chairing, grant-writing, etc.). It is hard because I essentially have no “me” time. When I’m not working, I’m parenting, period. And with the pandemic I’ve had no childcare, so that’s really been a struggle. So, yes, it’s doable, and being a mom is wonderful. But it’s far from easy. You may want to check out the books “Mama PhD” and “Do Babies Matter?”—I read them when I had baby fever in grad school and they helped me think through what I might be in for.
RESPONSE B: Finished my MA with two kids under the age of 3 and a husband who was never home (military). No family to help, got a babysitter my last semester. The time flies by and before you know it, it’s all a blur. Waiting for the second kid to go to school before starting my Doc. You got this!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Academic Mommas Any academic mommas out there? Still in my doc program, but hoping to be hired as a professor down the line. Also crazy baby crazy and hoping to adopt once I finish. Am I insane to try and juggle the tenure track and single-motherhood?
RESPONSE A: Had my first during graduation week of my first year on the tenure track, so I was pregnant basically my entire first year. Didn’t really get a maternity leave, and the second year (when she was a baby) was tough! She was a horrible sleeper and I was exhausted the whole time. Just had my second ten months ago and insisted on having the fall semester off. That was a much better experience (for obvious reasons). Got tenure this past summer. I’m at a teaching-heavy institution, so my lack of time to publish wasn’t held against me because I did well in other areas (teaching, committee work, department chairing, grant-writing, etc.). It is hard because I essentially have no “me” time. When I’m not working, I’m parenting, period. And with the pandemic I’ve had no childcare, so that’s really been a struggle. So, yes, it’s doable, and being a mom is wonderful. But it’s far from easy. You may want to check out the books “Mama PhD” and “Do Babies Matter?”—I read them when I had baby fever in grad school and they helped me think through what I might be in for.
RESPONSE B: Whole bunch of strong women on this thread, much love 🖤
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Academic Mommas Any academic mommas out there? Still in my doc program, but hoping to be hired as a professor down the line. Also crazy baby crazy and hoping to adopt once I finish. Am I insane to try and juggle the tenure track and single-motherhood?
RESPONSE A: Just got my MA and am a single mom- I had to switch from working full time to part time though while I was in school bc I got major burnout, just keep an eye on your limits and don’t try to take too much on. I had a fair amount of long nights, but it is very possible and I am glad I did it. Im taking a break from school now but I’m hoping to go for a PhD next and become a professor as well! Best of luck to you!
RESPONSE B: Had my first during graduation week of my first year on the tenure track, so I was pregnant basically my entire first year. Didn’t really get a maternity leave, and the second year (when she was a baby) was tough! She was a horrible sleeper and I was exhausted the whole time. Just had my second ten months ago and insisted on having the fall semester off. That was a much better experience (for obvious reasons). Got tenure this past summer. I’m at a teaching-heavy institution, so my lack of time to publish wasn’t held against me because I did well in other areas (teaching, committee work, department chairing, grant-writing, etc.). It is hard because I essentially have no “me” time. When I’m not working, I’m parenting, period. And with the pandemic I’ve had no childcare, so that’s really been a struggle. So, yes, it’s doable, and being a mom is wonderful. But it’s far from easy. You may want to check out the books “Mama PhD” and “Do Babies Matter?”—I read them when I had baby fever in grad school and they helped me think through what I might be in for.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Academic Mommas Any academic mommas out there? Still in my doc program, but hoping to be hired as a professor down the line. Also crazy baby crazy and hoping to adopt once I finish. Am I insane to try and juggle the tenure track and single-motherhood?
RESPONSE A: I am a single mom by choice and TT (well, now tenured) I did it closer to when I was going to get tenure but everyone has a different path. It is hard but doable with solid childcare.
RESPONSE B: Had my first during graduation week of my first year on the tenure track, so I was pregnant basically my entire first year. Didn’t really get a maternity leave, and the second year (when she was a baby) was tough! She was a horrible sleeper and I was exhausted the whole time. Just had my second ten months ago and insisted on having the fall semester off. That was a much better experience (for obvious reasons). Got tenure this past summer. I’m at a teaching-heavy institution, so my lack of time to publish wasn’t held against me because I did well in other areas (teaching, committee work, department chairing, grant-writing, etc.). It is hard because I essentially have no “me” time. When I’m not working, I’m parenting, period. And with the pandemic I’ve had no childcare, so that’s really been a struggle. So, yes, it’s doable, and being a mom is wonderful. But it’s far from easy. You may want to check out the books “Mama PhD” and “Do Babies Matter?”—I read them when I had baby fever in grad school and they helped me think through what I might be in for.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: a certain extent to everyone, but it seems like some people are better at pushing through it? And I don't know if I've had that fortitude in the past. I know it's impossible to tell how any individual will find doing a PhD. I guess I would just like some advice if there are signals that I might be more or less likely than average to make it through a PhD. Are there people in academia who successfully are able to be generalists and draw from many different disciplines and to be thinking in a variety of different ways? Or if you really want to succeed in academia, do you really just have to specialize and only very marginally draw inspiration from side reading (which is not necessarily bad either! Just hard to tell what that will feel like in the concrete). Anyway, if anyone has any insights, that'd be greatly appreciated! Thanks for reading :)
RESPONSE A: Do you get tired of subject or type of work? If it's subjects.... yeah, frankly, you're going to have a bad time. You're not only focused in one discipline, you're focused on one piece of one question within a sub discipline for years. You might have a few related projects but you can't realistically hope around like that. Your best bet is probably keeping one as a hobby -- I did this with my college minor. If it's type of work (writing, reading dense documents, coding, math, teaching), academia might actually be a good fit because you do have to switch between a lot of types of work. I always had really diverse interests and part of what I really like about academia is that you often are involved in every piece of a project and doing lots of things, so when I'm fed up with my code, there's probably a paper I should be working on instead and vice versa.
RESPONSE B: I recommend an interdisciplinary field, maybe public health or a psych program focused on social psychology. You need to field that will give you intellectual freedom, at least in the long term. You could also consider sociology with a quantitative focus. There are several excellent quantitative sociology programs. I recommend trying to get funding that is not tied to a specific project so that you can maximize research freedom during the program.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: either! Just hard to tell what that will feel like in the concrete). Anyway, if anyone has any insights, that'd be greatly appreciated! Thanks for reading :)
RESPONSE A: Do you get tired of subject or type of work? If it's subjects.... yeah, frankly, you're going to have a bad time. You're not only focused in one discipline, you're focused on one piece of one question within a sub discipline for years. You might have a few related projects but you can't realistically hope around like that. Your best bet is probably keeping one as a hobby -- I did this with my college minor. If it's type of work (writing, reading dense documents, coding, math, teaching), academia might actually be a good fit because you do have to switch between a lot of types of work. I always had really diverse interests and part of what I really like about academia is that you often are involved in every piece of a project and doing lots of things, so when I'm fed up with my code, there's probably a paper I should be working on instead and vice versa.
RESPONSE B: I'm in a similar spot in that while my interests lie squarely within healthcare and drug development, there are a number of areas that capture my interest but require extremely different skillsets. Consider reading Range by David Epstein if you have time. He has a chapter or two addressing exactly this; there's a lot of emphasis on integrating across domains and how analogous thinking can forge unorthodox connections. This would definitely serve you well if you pursue a PhD and, in general, "domain-extrinsic" knowledge is never a bad thing... there are tons of successful investigators with knowledge bases that bridge disciplines. Diversity of thinking/creativity is the hallmark of a great investigator, at least in the sciences! Career wise, it sounds like you have a strong love of learning and quite a broad range of experiences. In terms of finding a consistent flow of new and diverse challenges, you might consider looking into strategy consulting. I know this is reallllly far off from your proposed path of investigation, but it would certainly put you in a highly dynamic, continuous learning environment.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: just like some advice if there are signals that I might be more or less likely than average to make it through a PhD. Are there people in academia who successfully are able to be generalists and draw from many different disciplines and to be thinking in a variety of different ways? Or if you really want to succeed in academia, do you really just have to specialize and only very marginally draw inspiration from side reading (which is not necessarily bad either! Just hard to tell what that will feel like in the concrete). Anyway, if anyone has any insights, that'd be greatly appreciated! Thanks for reading :)
RESPONSE A: I'm in a similar spot in that while my interests lie squarely within healthcare and drug development, there are a number of areas that capture my interest but require extremely different skillsets. Consider reading Range by David Epstein if you have time. He has a chapter or two addressing exactly this; there's a lot of emphasis on integrating across domains and how analogous thinking can forge unorthodox connections. This would definitely serve you well if you pursue a PhD and, in general, "domain-extrinsic" knowledge is never a bad thing... there are tons of successful investigators with knowledge bases that bridge disciplines. Diversity of thinking/creativity is the hallmark of a great investigator, at least in the sciences! Career wise, it sounds like you have a strong love of learning and quite a broad range of experiences. In terms of finding a consistent flow of new and diverse challenges, you might consider looking into strategy consulting. I know this is reallllly far off from your proposed path of investigation, but it would certainly put you in a highly dynamic, continuous learning environment.
RESPONSE B: A PhD is years of the same topic while you’re collecting your research. And it’s a very narrowed in subject, it’s like becoming an expert on one specific phenomena or pathway or protein. Redundant sort of work when things don’t go right, so if you like to move between subjects you may not like it :/ that was not meant to be discouraging at all, I wish for everyone to be able to do what they please, that’s just how it kind of is :)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: titude in the past. I know it's impossible to tell how any individual will find doing a PhD. I guess I would just like some advice if there are signals that I might be more or less likely than average to make it through a PhD. Are there people in academia who successfully are able to be generalists and draw from many different disciplines and to be thinking in a variety of different ways? Or if you really want to succeed in academia, do you really just have to specialize and only very marginally draw inspiration from side reading (which is not necessarily bad either! Just hard to tell what that will feel like in the concrete). Anyway, if anyone has any insights, that'd be greatly appreciated! Thanks for reading :)
RESPONSE A: I'm in a similar spot in that while my interests lie squarely within healthcare and drug development, there are a number of areas that capture my interest but require extremely different skillsets. Consider reading Range by David Epstein if you have time. He has a chapter or two addressing exactly this; there's a lot of emphasis on integrating across domains and how analogous thinking can forge unorthodox connections. This would definitely serve you well if you pursue a PhD and, in general, "domain-extrinsic" knowledge is never a bad thing... there are tons of successful investigators with knowledge bases that bridge disciplines. Diversity of thinking/creativity is the hallmark of a great investigator, at least in the sciences! Career wise, it sounds like you have a strong love of learning and quite a broad range of experiences. In terms of finding a consistent flow of new and diverse challenges, you might consider looking into strategy consulting. I know this is reallllly far off from your proposed path of investigation, but it would certainly put you in a highly dynamic, continuous learning environment.
RESPONSE B: I recommend an interdisciplinary field, maybe public health or a psych program focused on social psychology. You need to field that will give you intellectual freedom, at least in the long term. You could also consider sociology with a quantitative focus. There are several excellent quantitative sociology programs. I recommend trying to get funding that is not tied to a specific project so that you can maximize research freedom during the program.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: PhD in retrospect What is something you would have wanted to have known before deciding to do a PhD? Or what is something you would have liked to have known/learned earlier? What's the best/worst part?
RESPONSE A: I wish I had known my advisor had a radically different idea of what a dissertation should be than the rest of my committee. I wish I had understood that STEM faculty are expected to primarily bring in research grants rather than teach at most universities, whereas I want to teach.
RESPONSE B: Work with as many professors as possible. Your main advisor is important, sure. But, if you get the chance to learn from and work with other people, take advantage of that. Seek out opportunities, don’t just wait for them to come to you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: PhD in retrospect What is something you would have wanted to have known before deciding to do a PhD? Or what is something you would have liked to have known/learned earlier? What's the best/worst part?
RESPONSE A: I'm really glad that I wasn't on reddit when I applied to grad schools (2011) because between this subreddit and others like /r/GradSchool, I would have been massively discouraged from embarking on a PhD and might not even have done it. The people who have bad grad school experiences are the most vocal about it. The reality is that grad school is often fine -- nice advisors exist, interesting projects exist, progress towards thesis happens, and people graduate on time. For smart folk looking for a stimulating environment alongside other smart folks, doing a PhD can be an amazing experience. Therefore the advice I'd give to others is to not be discouraged by the overwhelmingly negative academic reddit communities. These are places for people to vent when they have a bad time. The stories told there are exceptional cases. And your PhD journey will prob ably not leave you battered and bruised.
RESPONSE B: I wish I had taken a year or two between undergrad and grad school to work a bit. I say this not because I regret having taken the PhD route — I would still do it even with the two years off. It’s just that the academic route is a very narrow. Once on it, it is hard to take time “off” to have non-academic work experience. Plus, all of the people I know who came to a PhD from industry were much more organized and focused than than those of us coming from undergrad. Also, if you do a PhD — or any graduate work — please do the research and math in advance. Make sure you understand how many graduates get jobs and what kind of jobs they get. Know the salaries and the lifestyle so that you can be sure that you’ll be able to pay the bills and meet whatever financial obligations you want to take on later in life.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: PhD in retrospect What is something you would have wanted to have known before deciding to do a PhD? Or what is something you would have liked to have known/learned earlier? What's the best/worst part?
RESPONSE A: Really wouldn’t change anything about my experience, but completely on board with two things that were mentioned. First, self-care and staying healthy are paramount to your success. Can’t stress this enough. Second, “technical” training in your field is only a part of your overall training (which is more like apprenticeship anyway). Socialization into the academic community, understanding sociopolitical dynamics of your field, meeting the right people, etc., are all just as important as being technically good.
RESPONSE B: I'm really glad that I wasn't on reddit when I applied to grad schools (2011) because between this subreddit and others like /r/GradSchool, I would have been massively discouraged from embarking on a PhD and might not even have done it. The people who have bad grad school experiences are the most vocal about it. The reality is that grad school is often fine -- nice advisors exist, interesting projects exist, progress towards thesis happens, and people graduate on time. For smart folk looking for a stimulating environment alongside other smart folks, doing a PhD can be an amazing experience. Therefore the advice I'd give to others is to not be discouraged by the overwhelmingly negative academic reddit communities. These are places for people to vent when they have a bad time. The stories told there are exceptional cases. And your PhD journey will prob ably not leave you battered and bruised.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: PhD in retrospect What is something you would have wanted to have known before deciding to do a PhD? Or what is something you would have liked to have known/learned earlier? What's the best/worst part?
RESPONSE A: The years and years of poverty. Of being broke as all hell while watching bartenders with a high school diploma go on fancy vacations. The stress that comes with years of uncertainty. How it really wasn't worth my health.
RESPONSE B: I'm really glad that I wasn't on reddit when I applied to grad schools (2011) because between this subreddit and others like /r/GradSchool, I would have been massively discouraged from embarking on a PhD and might not even have done it. The people who have bad grad school experiences are the most vocal about it. The reality is that grad school is often fine -- nice advisors exist, interesting projects exist, progress towards thesis happens, and people graduate on time. For smart folk looking for a stimulating environment alongside other smart folks, doing a PhD can be an amazing experience. Therefore the advice I'd give to others is to not be discouraged by the overwhelmingly negative academic reddit communities. These are places for people to vent when they have a bad time. The stories told there are exceptional cases. And your PhD journey will prob ably not leave you battered and bruised.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: ? What's the best/worst part?
RESPONSE A: I'm really glad that I wasn't on reddit when I applied to grad schools (2011) because between this subreddit and others like /r/GradSchool, I would have been massively discouraged from embarking on a PhD and might not even have done it. The people who have bad grad school experiences are the most vocal about it. The reality is that grad school is often fine -- nice advisors exist, interesting projects exist, progress towards thesis happens, and people graduate on time. For smart folk looking for a stimulating environment alongside other smart folks, doing a PhD can be an amazing experience. Therefore the advice I'd give to others is to not be discouraged by the overwhelmingly negative academic reddit communities. These are places for people to vent when they have a bad time. The stories told there are exceptional cases. And your PhD journey will prob ably not leave you battered and bruised.
RESPONSE B: I'm going to be mostly negative here. There are certainly lots of pros (great relationships, a decadent amount of time to think and read): 1) PhD in the social sciences. An "established professor" without a lot of grad students can be basically emeritus by the time you are finishing up 7 years later. 2) As others have said, pick the advisor that clicks with your working style. Even more importantly find an advisor that goes to bat for their students. 3) Don't count on getting an academic gig, even if you are in a top program. If you are in the social sciences and humanities (maybe other fields too), try to get a 2nd terminal masters along the way in something a bit more marketable (e.g., information science). Even better, try to get some work experience (e.g., internship) along the way. 4) I ended up in a city I really fell in love with, that was a massive bonus. Not sure I would have finished if I didn't love living where I was. 5) The most enduring, useful relationships/experiences were the ones I got beyond my department. Make sure you build strong relationships within your department, but venture out as well.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Transgender scientist here. What kind of effects will changing my name have on my career? Thankfully I'm still a very early-stage career scientist, I'm a master's student to be specific. However, I already have a publication out there with my old name on it, and I also have a google scholar page with the same name as well. This was before I was living with a full-time female identity. From now on, I will be publishing any papers under my new name. If anyone else has gone through this, your insight would be appreciated. Is it possible to change the name on my Google Scholar page? As well as still having my pre-name change publication show up on the page? Also, would it raise any kind of red flags if I list that publication with my male name on my resume with my new name? My surname is pretty unique, but I would worry that a potential employer or PhD advisor would see that and wonder why the names are different and I'm not extremely keen on discussing an issue as personal as transitioning during an interview if I can help it.
RESPONSE A: I think that these things you can just talk with the advisor when applying. I have no idea of how it would impact your career but maybe take a look on the women that changed their names after being married, that's a change in surname only, but the process might be the same to assign your previous article to your ORCID. OH, it just occured me that maybe the ORCID staff can give you an insight about it. And of course, it's always good to find fellow LGBTs on academia! Let us updated on how to deal with this process for future reference.
RESPONSE B: Does your name begin with the same letter than your old name? In that case, you could list the publication on your resume using only the initials and last name, and it shouldn´t raise red flags. Regarding the Google Scholar issue, I have no idea, but I agree with the previous commenter saying that contacting the ORCID staff could be a good start. Good luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: and I also have a google scholar page with the same name as well. This was before I was living with a full-time female identity. From now on, I will be publishing any papers under my new name. If anyone else has gone through this, your insight would be appreciated. Is it possible to change the name on my Google Scholar page? As well as still having my pre-name change publication show up on the page? Also, would it raise any kind of red flags if I list that publication with my male name on my resume with my new name? My surname is pretty unique, but I would worry that a potential employer or PhD advisor would see that and wonder why the names are different and I'm not extremely keen on discussing an issue as personal as transitioning during an interview if I can help it.
RESPONSE A: 0. people will often give out really conservative advice about name changing because many/most academics have done a lot of pre-internet citation work. It's never been easier to navigate a name change. 1. Assume everyone is an ally when it it comes to academic bureaucracy. There are squeaky wheels out there who can be excellent colleagues if approached with mutual good will. 2. Reach out to past collaborators. Depending on the status of your work with them there might be updates they can perform. Preferably have any changes completed for them and tied up neatly with a bow. This also allows you to continue maintaining your professional relationship with them. 3. Give back to your community by including your school's LGBTQ+ resources. They should jump at the chance to help document the process or get you in touch with those who have gone before you. 4. Good luck and fret not.
RESPONSE B: People in academia generally avoid bringing up your name change. It's the sort of thing that is unusual, but requires no further clarification ("hey I noticed someone with the same surname from these old papers...did you do the thing?"..."yes, I did the thing"..."oh ok"). My recommendation is to not tie your identities together too publicly, just do it quietly. Then in a couple years you may feel more strongly about being "stealth" and just decide to stop mentioning that old paper. That's what I did.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: with the same name as well. This was before I was living with a full-time female identity. From now on, I will be publishing any papers under my new name. If anyone else has gone through this, your insight would be appreciated. Is it possible to change the name on my Google Scholar page? As well as still having my pre-name change publication show up on the page? Also, would it raise any kind of red flags if I list that publication with my male name on my resume with my new name? My surname is pretty unique, but I would worry that a potential employer or PhD advisor would see that and wonder why the names are different and I'm not extremely keen on discussing an issue as personal as transitioning during an interview if I can help it.
RESPONSE A: 0. people will often give out really conservative advice about name changing because many/most academics have done a lot of pre-internet citation work. It's never been easier to navigate a name change. 1. Assume everyone is an ally when it it comes to academic bureaucracy. There are squeaky wheels out there who can be excellent colleagues if approached with mutual good will. 2. Reach out to past collaborators. Depending on the status of your work with them there might be updates they can perform. Preferably have any changes completed for them and tied up neatly with a bow. This also allows you to continue maintaining your professional relationship with them. 3. Give back to your community by including your school's LGBTQ+ resources. They should jump at the chance to help document the process or get you in touch with those who have gone before you. 4. Good luck and fret not.
RESPONSE B: I think that these things you can just talk with the advisor when applying. I have no idea of how it would impact your career but maybe take a look on the women that changed their names after being married, that's a change in surname only, but the process might be the same to assign your previous article to your ORCID. OH, it just occured me that maybe the ORCID staff can give you an insight about it. And of course, it's always good to find fellow LGBTs on academia! Let us updated on how to deal with this process for future reference.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: career? Thankfully I'm still a very early-stage career scientist, I'm a master's student to be specific. However, I already have a publication out there with my old name on it, and I also have a google scholar page with the same name as well. This was before I was living with a full-time female identity. From now on, I will be publishing any papers under my new name. If anyone else has gone through this, your insight would be appreciated. Is it possible to change the name on my Google Scholar page? As well as still having my pre-name change publication show up on the page? Also, would it raise any kind of red flags if I list that publication with my male name on my resume with my new name? My surname is pretty unique, but I would worry that a potential employer or PhD advisor would see that and wonder why the names are different and I'm not extremely keen on discussing an issue as personal as transitioning during an interview if I can help it.
RESPONSE A: This is a really common concern by women who get married and change their names. I can think of zero times it has been an issue, including for myself. Just indicate your position in author lists on your CV with bold or asterisks, and add all relevant publications to your google scholar and other relevant profiles. No one will be confused.
RESPONSE B: 0. people will often give out really conservative advice about name changing because many/most academics have done a lot of pre-internet citation work. It's never been easier to navigate a name change. 1. Assume everyone is an ally when it it comes to academic bureaucracy. There are squeaky wheels out there who can be excellent colleagues if approached with mutual good will. 2. Reach out to past collaborators. Depending on the status of your work with them there might be updates they can perform. Preferably have any changes completed for them and tied up neatly with a bow. This also allows you to continue maintaining your professional relationship with them. 3. Give back to your community by including your school's LGBTQ+ resources. They should jump at the chance to help document the process or get you in touch with those who have gone before you. 4. Good luck and fret not.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: changing my name have on my career? Thankfully I'm still a very early-stage career scientist, I'm a master's student to be specific. However, I already have a publication out there with my old name on it, and I also have a google scholar page with the same name as well. This was before I was living with a full-time female identity. From now on, I will be publishing any papers under my new name. If anyone else has gone through this, your insight would be appreciated. Is it possible to change the name on my Google Scholar page? As well as still having my pre-name change publication show up on the page? Also, would it raise any kind of red flags if I list that publication with my male name on my resume with my new name? My surname is pretty unique, but I would worry that a potential employer or PhD advisor would see that and wonder why the names are different and I'm not extremely keen on discussing an issue as personal as transitioning during an interview if I can help it.
RESPONSE A: 0. people will often give out really conservative advice about name changing because many/most academics have done a lot of pre-internet citation work. It's never been easier to navigate a name change. 1. Assume everyone is an ally when it it comes to academic bureaucracy. There are squeaky wheels out there who can be excellent colleagues if approached with mutual good will. 2. Reach out to past collaborators. Depending on the status of your work with them there might be updates they can perform. Preferably have any changes completed for them and tied up neatly with a bow. This also allows you to continue maintaining your professional relationship with them. 3. Give back to your community by including your school's LGBTQ+ resources. They should jump at the chance to help document the process or get you in touch with those who have gone before you. 4. Good luck and fret not.
RESPONSE B: I don't think it would be a major issue. Personally I would keep referring to your single publication while you are still building your career as an academic, and perhaps in the future stop referring to that publication, purely for the sake of having a neat CV and avoiding awkward questions in interviews.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 2 PhD students, same experiment Hi, I started my PhD in Biology a week ago and I just found out that there is another PhD student (who started in October) working under my supervisor who is already working on the EXACT same experiment as me. What should I do?
RESPONSE A: Since you both started recently, this might perhaps be a "training wheels" experiment, and the supervisor might have given you both the same thing to do independently of each other, to double-check the results. If two inexperienced PhD students obtain the same data, that's probably good data. There's no harm in asking nicely your supervisor about this, though, if you feel uncomfortable being in the blind.
RESPONSE B: Same program of research or the same experiment down to every last detail?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 2 PhD students, same experiment Hi, I started my PhD in Biology a week ago and I just found out that there is another PhD student (who started in October) working under my supervisor who is already working on the EXACT same experiment as me. What should I do?
RESPONSE A: Why didn't your supervisor tell you beforehand?
RESPONSE B: Since you both started recently, this might perhaps be a "training wheels" experiment, and the supervisor might have given you both the same thing to do independently of each other, to double-check the results. If two inexperienced PhD students obtain the same data, that's probably good data. There's no harm in asking nicely your supervisor about this, though, if you feel uncomfortable being in the blind.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 2 PhD students, same experiment Hi, I started my PhD in Biology a week ago and I just found out that there is another PhD student (who started in October) working under my supervisor who is already working on the EXACT same experiment as me. What should I do?
RESPONSE A: You just started a week ago. It’s not like you’re ready to publish a paper, this could easily just be a way for you to get your feet wet and get trained
RESPONSE B: Challenge them to a duel for rights of the experiment
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 2 PhD students, same experiment Hi, I started my PhD in Biology a week ago and I just found out that there is another PhD student (who started in October) working under my supervisor who is already working on the EXACT same experiment as me. What should I do?
RESPONSE A: Same program of research or the same experiment down to every last detail?
RESPONSE B: Challenge them to a duel for rights of the experiment
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 2 PhD students, same experiment Hi, I started my PhD in Biology a week ago and I just found out that there is another PhD student (who started in October) working under my supervisor who is already working on the EXACT same experiment as me. What should I do?
RESPONSE A: Challenge them to a duel for rights of the experiment
RESPONSE B: Why didn't your supervisor tell you beforehand?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How much choice do you have in where your job is as a professor? Hello everyone! I'm a current undergraduate student studying physics and math, but planning to continue into grad school by studying atmospheric science. I'm strongly considering a career in academia as I believe I would love the balance between performing research and teaching students. One of my main concerns though is that I wouldn't get much of a choice in where I would end up geographically. For example, I'm from the midwest USA and would love to remain in the area whenever I get a career (to be somewhat close to family, etc.). How much of a choice do you really get in where you ended up geographically? Is the job market competitive enough that you ultimately took the first opportunity that came up no matter the location? Or did you wait for an opportunity in your ideal location/region of the world/country? Or was it somewhere in the middle? I'm aware this is probably entirely different for everyone, but I'm curious what the range has been like for everyone. Being in the field of STEM I'd specifically love to hear from others in this field, but would greatly appreciate help from any areas of study. I'd love to hear about what your experience of getting into the career was like and if you have any suggestions! Any advice and comments would be greatly appreciated!
RESPONSE A: Almost none
RESPONSE B: Little to none. Each application cycle you will be lucky to receive one job offer, let alone have a choice. And in the likely event that your job is not tenure-track, you can expect to move again at the end of each contract.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How much choice do you have in where your job is as a professor? Hello everyone! I'm a current undergraduate student studying physics and math, but planning to continue into grad school by studying atmospheric science. I'm strongly considering a career in academia as I believe I would love the balance between performing research and teaching students. One of my main concerns though is that I wouldn't get much of a choice in where I would end up geographically. For example, I'm from the midwest USA and would love to remain in the area whenever I get a career (to be somewhat close to family, etc.). How much of a choice do you really get in where you ended up geographically? Is the job market competitive enough that you ultimately took the first opportunity that came up no matter the location? Or did you wait for an opportunity in your ideal location/region of the world/country? Or was it somewhere in the middle? I'm aware this is probably entirely different for everyone, but I'm curious what the range has been like for everyone. Being in the field of STEM I'd specifically love to hear from others in this field, but would greatly appreciate help from any areas of study. I'd love to hear about what your experience of getting into the career was like and if you have any suggestions! Any advice and comments would be greatly appreciated!
RESPONSE A: Very little.
RESPONSE B: Little to none. Each application cycle you will be lucky to receive one job offer, let alone have a choice. And in the likely event that your job is not tenure-track, you can expect to move again at the end of each contract.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: though is that I wouldn't get much of a choice in where I would end up geographically. For example, I'm from the midwest USA and would love to remain in the area whenever I get a career (to be somewhat close to family, etc.). How much of a choice do you really get in where you ended up geographically? Is the job market competitive enough that you ultimately took the first opportunity that came up no matter the location? Or did you wait for an opportunity in your ideal location/region of the world/country? Or was it somewhere in the middle? I'm aware this is probably entirely different for everyone, but I'm curious what the range has been like for everyone. Being in the field of STEM I'd specifically love to hear from others in this field, but would greatly appreciate help from any areas of study. I'd love to hear about what your experience of getting into the career was like and if you have any suggestions! Any advice and comments would be greatly appreciated!
RESPONSE A: I have applied to probably 30-40 FT and/or TT positions in my short career, gotten to 8 final rounds, and then of course got my current TT position. I can honestly say that none of the 8 positions for which I was a finalist are anywhere near any place I would have chosen to live myself. I accepted a long time ago that I will live wherever the few successful job interviews take me. I sometimes encounter students who have similar aspirations, who speak about maybe getting a certain position where they went to undergrad or at a school near where they grew up, etc. While something like that is theoretically possible, and you sometimes see older faculty who maybe grew up around the school where they now teach, there are just so many qualified people in most fields, and there is no was a legit program is hiring someone for a TT line without an international search. EDIT: FYI, I am in music.
RESPONSE B: Basically none. 100 applications in 2 years. 6 interviews. 1 job offer. I interviewed in locations as disparate as rural Maine and Hawaii. The one job I was offered just happened to be in a very desirable location that works perfectly for my partner’s career. Basically, like winning the lottery in this job market.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How much choice do you have in where your job is as a professor? Hello everyone! I'm a current undergraduate student studying physics and math, but planning to continue into grad school by studying atmospheric science. I'm strongly considering a career in academia as I believe I would love the balance between performing research and teaching students. One of my main concerns though is that I wouldn't get much of a choice in where I would end up geographically. For example, I'm from the midwest USA and would love to remain in the area whenever I get a career (to be somewhat close to family, etc.). How much of a choice do you really get in where you ended up geographically? Is the job market competitive enough that you ultimately took the first opportunity that came up no matter the location? Or did you wait for an opportunity in your ideal location/region of the world/country? Or was it somewhere in the middle? I'm aware this is probably entirely different for everyone, but I'm curious what the range has been like for everyone. Being in the field of STEM I'd specifically love to hear from others in this field, but would greatly appreciate help from any areas of study. I'd love to hear about what your experience of getting into the career was like and if you have any suggestions! Any advice and comments would be greatly appreciated!
RESPONSE A: It varies by discipline and your willingness to settle for an okay job/institution. A friend who is a history academic said in her field, that most open roles come from someone dying.
RESPONSE B: Basically none. 100 applications in 2 years. 6 interviews. 1 job offer. I interviewed in locations as disparate as rural Maine and Hawaii. The one job I was offered just happened to be in a very desirable location that works perfectly for my partner’s career. Basically, like winning the lottery in this job market.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How much choice do you have in where your job is as a professor? Hello everyone! I'm a current undergraduate student studying physics and math, but planning to continue into grad school by studying atmospheric science. I'm strongly considering a career in academia as I believe I would love the balance between performing research and teaching students. One of my main concerns though is that I wouldn't get much of a choice in where I would end up geographically. For example, I'm from the midwest USA and would love to remain in the area whenever I get a career (to be somewhat close to family, etc.). How much of a choice do you really get in where you ended up geographically? Is the job market competitive enough that you ultimately took the first opportunity that came up no matter the location? Or did you wait for an opportunity in your ideal location/region of the world/country? Or was it somewhere in the middle? I'm aware this is probably entirely different for everyone, but I'm curious what the range has been like for everyone. Being in the field of STEM I'd specifically love to hear from others in this field, but would greatly appreciate help from any areas of study. I'd love to hear about what your experience of getting into the career was like and if you have any suggestions! Any advice and comments would be greatly appreciated!
RESPONSE A: Basically none. 100 applications in 2 years. 6 interviews. 1 job offer. I interviewed in locations as disparate as rural Maine and Hawaii. The one job I was offered just happened to be in a very desirable location that works perfectly for my partner’s career. Basically, like winning the lottery in this job market.
RESPONSE B: the arts: zero.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: community of like-minded people to work on problems of interest with me. Does anyone have examples of people doing something like this successfully? I don't think it makes sense for me to try to get a tenure-track job since these seem to favor new graduates, and I won't need the salary. But I would like to be associated with a university just to be in the right community to discuss ideas (in my case, I'm interested broadly in human-style AI (AGI) as opposed to mainstream machine learning). In an ideal world, somehow I would raise the funds (e.g. through external grants etc) to run my own research group, but again I don't know how feasible this is unless I'm a tenure-track professor as opposed to a crazy independent scholar on the fringes of some academic institute. Looking forward to suggestions here. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: What you want to do is unusual, but possible. I know of a couple of examples. Someone who has been out of the academic research game for a decade or more doesn’t have quite as much to offer the university as they think they do, and in general, the university isn’t going to just give them a research position. However, it is entirely possible for someone in that position to join the lab of an existing faculty member, initially in a volunteer capacity, and work with them and their students and then begin submitting their own research proposals and gain independence that way. That’s how I have seen it done, and in both cases the person has gone on to be very successful on their own. If I were you, I would find one or more faculty members with whom you might enjoy collaborating and get in touch with them. That’s by far the easiest way to get your foot in the door.
RESPONSE B: I know of someone doing something not very different by starting an open source project that attracted academic interest. You would need to keep track of academic interests by going to conferences but I assume you would do that anyway out of interest so I see this as certainly viable. A good way to start would be to pick your favourite open source projects, and make contributions that favour some direction that fits in with your research agenda. Contributions includes hiring people to make said contributions. Open source projects are usually linked to some university/research groups.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: been working in the tech industry in machine learning and doing well, so I expect in the not so far-off future to achieve my "FIRE" goals and be able to live modestly off my investments. I miss the academic world and I'd like to rejoin that community and contribute my ideas to the research world, but I'm not sure the best way to go about it. My primary goal will be to work on my own research projects (i.e., I'm more interested in research than teaching, although I'd enjoy giving special topics seminars to interested students) and to build up a community of like-minded people to work on problems of interest with me. Does anyone have examples of people doing something like this successfully? I don't think it makes sense for me to try to get a tenure-track job since these seem to favor new graduates, and I won't need the salary. But I would like to be associated with a university just to be in the right community to discuss ideas (in my case, I'm interested broadly in human-style AI (AGI) as opposed to mainstream machine learning). In an ideal world, somehow I would raise the funds (e.g. through external grants etc) to run my own research group, but again I don't know how feasible this is unless I'm a tenure-track professor as opposed to a crazy independent scholar on the fringes of some academic institute. Looking forward to suggestions here. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: What you're describing is research faculty. There will be many opportunities to do this sort of work (it's less competitive than TT lines and, certainly in CS, industry experience is valued). Schools would be more interested in you working on mainstream machine learning, rather than AGI. You can decide for yourself what compromises you're willing to make.
RESPONSE B: Check out data science groups at big universities. They often have a few ML/AI ppl on staff who get to work on their own projects for a bit of time, but also spend like half their time consulting with academics in other domains on projects. University of Washington eScience Institute & NYU Center for Data Science are just two examples. I’m seeing more and more of these types of groups at large R1’s.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: learning and doing well, so I expect in the not so far-off future to achieve my "FIRE" goals and be able to live modestly off my investments. I miss the academic world and I'd like to rejoin that community and contribute my ideas to the research world, but I'm not sure the best way to go about it. My primary goal will be to work on my own research projects (i.e., I'm more interested in research than teaching, although I'd enjoy giving special topics seminars to interested students) and to build up a community of like-minded people to work on problems of interest with me. Does anyone have examples of people doing something like this successfully? I don't think it makes sense for me to try to get a tenure-track job since these seem to favor new graduates, and I won't need the salary. But I would like to be associated with a university just to be in the right community to discuss ideas (in my case, I'm interested broadly in human-style AI (AGI) as opposed to mainstream machine learning). In an ideal world, somehow I would raise the funds (e.g. through external grants etc) to run my own research group, but again I don't know how feasible this is unless I'm a tenure-track professor as opposed to a crazy independent scholar on the fringes of some academic institute. Looking forward to suggestions here. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: One thing you could think about, is building a research lab that fulfills this goal of yours. For example, Character Lab is run by professors from Wharton, but isn’t explicitly a part of UPenn. They work with researchers all over the US/World on facilitating research in schools. A potential avenue for you would be creating a partnership with a professor and building out this type of research lab that focuses on the area of research you focus on.
RESPONSE B: What you're describing is research faculty. There will be many opportunities to do this sort of work (it's less competitive than TT lines and, certainly in CS, industry experience is valued). Schools would be more interested in you working on mainstream machine learning, rather than AGI. You can decide for yourself what compromises you're willing to make.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: the tech industry in machine learning and doing well, so I expect in the not so far-off future to achieve my "FIRE" goals and be able to live modestly off my investments. I miss the academic world and I'd like to rejoin that community and contribute my ideas to the research world, but I'm not sure the best way to go about it. My primary goal will be to work on my own research projects (i.e., I'm more interested in research than teaching, although I'd enjoy giving special topics seminars to interested students) and to build up a community of like-minded people to work on problems of interest with me. Does anyone have examples of people doing something like this successfully? I don't think it makes sense for me to try to get a tenure-track job since these seem to favor new graduates, and I won't need the salary. But I would like to be associated with a university just to be in the right community to discuss ideas (in my case, I'm interested broadly in human-style AI (AGI) as opposed to mainstream machine learning). In an ideal world, somehow I would raise the funds (e.g. through external grants etc) to run my own research group, but again I don't know how feasible this is unless I'm a tenure-track professor as opposed to a crazy independent scholar on the fringes of some academic institute. Looking forward to suggestions here. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: What you're describing is research faculty. There will be many opportunities to do this sort of work (it's less competitive than TT lines and, certainly in CS, industry experience is valued). Schools would be more interested in you working on mainstream machine learning, rather than AGI. You can decide for yourself what compromises you're willing to make.
RESPONSE B: You can always pair up with faculty at your local R1 CS department that already has a research group in your area of interest and become a 'patron' to a graduate research assistantship. This would be the fastest and most effective way to mandate the areas of interest (you can stipulate that the work of the recipient has to be in, e.g. AGI, the candidate selection) and actually help both a capable student and the institution.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: best way to go about it. My primary goal will be to work on my own research projects (i.e., I'm more interested in research than teaching, although I'd enjoy giving special topics seminars to interested students) and to build up a community of like-minded people to work on problems of interest with me. Does anyone have examples of people doing something like this successfully? I don't think it makes sense for me to try to get a tenure-track job since these seem to favor new graduates, and I won't need the salary. But I would like to be associated with a university just to be in the right community to discuss ideas (in my case, I'm interested broadly in human-style AI (AGI) as opposed to mainstream machine learning). In an ideal world, somehow I would raise the funds (e.g. through external grants etc) to run my own research group, but again I don't know how feasible this is unless I'm a tenure-track professor as opposed to a crazy independent scholar on the fringes of some academic institute. Looking forward to suggestions here. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: What you're describing is research faculty. There will be many opportunities to do this sort of work (it's less competitive than TT lines and, certainly in CS, industry experience is valued). Schools would be more interested in you working on mainstream machine learning, rather than AGI. You can decide for yourself what compromises you're willing to make.
RESPONSE B: I'm not sure this will interest you as they are full time positions with full time expectations, but look into research software engineer positions with labs or centers. Most of your work will be supporting other researchers, but it will get your foot in the door for an academic community. All the work is still research and there's plenty of opportunities for collaboration. Keep in mind that even tenure-track/tenured academics don't get to do only their own research interests, academia is a lot of politics and grant priorities. Your own research may or may not be valuable, but mostly it will be difficult to get it recognized without playing the game. Examples of independent researchers off the top of my head who achieved success without being tied to academia are Robert C. Edgar (comp bio) and Yitang Zhang (math)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Any advice on how to force myself to stop skim reading? I'm used to skimming texts, which works for newspaper articles and regular books, but when I try to read something where I need to focus on every word it's very hard to not jump ahead. I know I'm not the only person to have this problem, if you overcame it, please share any advice!
RESPONSE A: I don’t have data to support this, but I have noticed that with increased use of Reddit (and also hitting middle age - not sure if either of those have a causal link), I have more difficulty focusing on hard reading. So, focusing on mindfulness and attention training helps in the background. In general, some deep breathing and relaxation helps me get in the mood and focus better. I’ve also found that if I use my E Reader and switch to open dyslexic, it is substantially easier to pay attention and follow. I have used rulers in the past, particularly while reading philosophy and some art criticism. It was the only way I could absorb certain textbooks and longer articles. (Covering text and revealing it only as I am ready). Often times forcing myself to translate what I just read in my head is a challenge and helps with understanding. Not with speed and I am rather impatient with myself - I have to really want to understand and absorb the material to wrestle myself into slowing down. A previous poster summarized how I attack articles from more research oriented publications: abstract, conclusions, figures, then the rest of it. I’ve never really highlighted anything unless there are key ideas I wanted to bring into a paper I was writing. It did nothing for me. I absolutely read aloud, or read to my spouse and then talk about what I just read ; or read a paragraph together. Study buddies are super useful if you are a social person.
RESPONSE B: If research I like to expand the text on my screen so it is huge. Helps me if I cant see the rest of the article.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Any advice on how to force myself to stop skim reading? I'm used to skimming texts, which works for newspaper articles and regular books, but when I try to read something where I need to focus on every word it's very hard to not jump ahead. I know I'm not the only person to have this problem, if you overcame it, please share any advice!
RESPONSE A: Use it to your advantage. Skim first. Then take notes. BREIF notes - condensing things into the essence takes thought. Skimming first is helpful.
RESPONSE B: I don’t have data to support this, but I have noticed that with increased use of Reddit (and also hitting middle age - not sure if either of those have a causal link), I have more difficulty focusing on hard reading. So, focusing on mindfulness and attention training helps in the background. In general, some deep breathing and relaxation helps me get in the mood and focus better. I’ve also found that if I use my E Reader and switch to open dyslexic, it is substantially easier to pay attention and follow. I have used rulers in the past, particularly while reading philosophy and some art criticism. It was the only way I could absorb certain textbooks and longer articles. (Covering text and revealing it only as I am ready). Often times forcing myself to translate what I just read in my head is a challenge and helps with understanding. Not with speed and I am rather impatient with myself - I have to really want to understand and absorb the material to wrestle myself into slowing down. A previous poster summarized how I attack articles from more research oriented publications: abstract, conclusions, figures, then the rest of it. I’ve never really highlighted anything unless there are key ideas I wanted to bring into a paper I was writing. It did nothing for me. I absolutely read aloud, or read to my spouse and then talk about what I just read ; or read a paragraph together. Study buddies are super useful if you are a social person.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Any advice on how to force myself to stop skim reading? I'm used to skimming texts, which works for newspaper articles and regular books, but when I try to read something where I need to focus on every word it's very hard to not jump ahead. I know I'm not the only person to have this problem, if you overcame it, please share any advice!
RESPONSE A: If research I like to expand the text on my screen so it is huge. Helps me if I cant see the rest of the article.
RESPONSE B: I believe this is a tendency for when you read things online. Or, a habit that is encouraged unintentionally due our engagement with a lot of online/app based media. The scroll bar - scrolling - becomes a habit. F- Search, becomes an action in other actions, looking only for specifics, and not reading to read, or go through completely at one time. ***Now, when I read things seriously, I have to put up visual barriers to section off/partition parts of text, into smaller than a page.*** ***Online: I'll highlight a few paragraphs. Finish reading those to completion, notate some things on my note-taking medium, and go through like this till I get to the end.*** ***Physical: Use some pieces of paper or index cards to section off paragraphs.*** I'm not that old, under 30, but I remember when I was younger and took more time to go through things. I do believe that it has a lot to do with how fast technology has developed and how much digital media/technologies have been integrated into our lives. It's beyond just work or school, it's in the personal & home sphere as well. We just need retraining to focus and do some things at a slower pace to absorb more at one go.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Any advice on how to force myself to stop skim reading? I'm used to skimming texts, which works for newspaper articles and regular books, but when I try to read something where I need to focus on every word it's very hard to not jump ahead. I know I'm not the only person to have this problem, if you overcame it, please share any advice!
RESPONSE A: I believe this is a tendency for when you read things online. Or, a habit that is encouraged unintentionally due our engagement with a lot of online/app based media. The scroll bar - scrolling - becomes a habit. F- Search, becomes an action in other actions, looking only for specifics, and not reading to read, or go through completely at one time. ***Now, when I read things seriously, I have to put up visual barriers to section off/partition parts of text, into smaller than a page.*** ***Online: I'll highlight a few paragraphs. Finish reading those to completion, notate some things on my note-taking medium, and go through like this till I get to the end.*** ***Physical: Use some pieces of paper or index cards to section off paragraphs.*** I'm not that old, under 30, but I remember when I was younger and took more time to go through things. I do believe that it has a lot to do with how fast technology has developed and how much digital media/technologies have been integrated into our lives. It's beyond just work or school, it's in the personal & home sphere as well. We just need retraining to focus and do some things at a slower pace to absorb more at one go.
RESPONSE B: Use it to your advantage. Skim first. Then take notes. BREIF notes - condensing things into the essence takes thought. Skimming first is helpful.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What are the pros about getting a PhD degree? I’m tired about hearing the cons. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: I did mine for the silly hat
RESPONSE B: Crazy deep knowledge about a very specific topic, the discipline to stick with a project for longer than just a few seconds (i.e., for years), the ability to skillfully express your argument in writing, the possibility to just think and write, getting to know the giants in your field (at conferences, discussions, drinks), and sometimes the luck to collaborate with them, last but not least being called 'doctor' (and sometimes having to explain that your are not 'that kind' of doctor), and a certain status that comes with it are fun too, but shouldn't be your primary reason to pursue a PhD.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What are the pros about getting a PhD degree? I’m tired about hearing the cons. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: The super simplified answer I give when excited: you finally get the answer to a question you wanted a legitimate answer to, but nobody knew the answer yet. Or: one day I hope to know a thing, and find out other stuff along the way.
RESPONSE B: Crazy deep knowledge about a very specific topic, the discipline to stick with a project for longer than just a few seconds (i.e., for years), the ability to skillfully express your argument in writing, the possibility to just think and write, getting to know the giants in your field (at conferences, discussions, drinks), and sometimes the luck to collaborate with them, last but not least being called 'doctor' (and sometimes having to explain that your are not 'that kind' of doctor), and a certain status that comes with it are fun too, but shouldn't be your primary reason to pursue a PhD.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What are the pros about getting a PhD degree? I’m tired about hearing the cons. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: 1. You'll be called Dr for the rest of your life. Nobody can take your title away from you, no need to reapply for your title periodically, it's yours for life. 2. You'll immerse yourself in a single subject for a few years, emerging at the end as a recognised expert in that tiny little domain. 3. During your viva, you'll be sat across from two experienced experts in the same field, who will devote at least 2 hours of their time to discussing the project that has swallowed up all of your attention, thoughts, passion and feelings for the previous years. You'll never ever have an opportunity like that again to discuss your passion at such length with such knowledgeable company. 4. Your published work(s) will make a permanent contribution to your chosen field. Even if you deviate from that field after graduation, your mark will still have been made on that subject. There are plenty of other pleasantries too. Do you want to become a nocturnal worker? Your supervisor might be happy with that, if you're prepared to put the work in. Do you fancy skipping the office on Wednesday, making up for it another day? Go ahead, your working time is 100% flexible during the course. It's also hard work, it's not a qualification given out for free, but when you come out at the other side you'll potentially have far more to contribute to society than when you went in.
RESPONSE B: Crazy deep knowledge about a very specific topic, the discipline to stick with a project for longer than just a few seconds (i.e., for years), the ability to skillfully express your argument in writing, the possibility to just think and write, getting to know the giants in your field (at conferences, discussions, drinks), and sometimes the luck to collaborate with them, last but not least being called 'doctor' (and sometimes having to explain that your are not 'that kind' of doctor), and a certain status that comes with it are fun too, but shouldn't be your primary reason to pursue a PhD.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What are the pros about getting a PhD degree? I’m tired about hearing the cons. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: 1. You'll be called Dr for the rest of your life. Nobody can take your title away from you, no need to reapply for your title periodically, it's yours for life. 2. You'll immerse yourself in a single subject for a few years, emerging at the end as a recognised expert in that tiny little domain. 3. During your viva, you'll be sat across from two experienced experts in the same field, who will devote at least 2 hours of their time to discussing the project that has swallowed up all of your attention, thoughts, passion and feelings for the previous years. You'll never ever have an opportunity like that again to discuss your passion at such length with such knowledgeable company. 4. Your published work(s) will make a permanent contribution to your chosen field. Even if you deviate from that field after graduation, your mark will still have been made on that subject. There are plenty of other pleasantries too. Do you want to become a nocturnal worker? Your supervisor might be happy with that, if you're prepared to put the work in. Do you fancy skipping the office on Wednesday, making up for it another day? Go ahead, your working time is 100% flexible during the course. It's also hard work, it's not a qualification given out for free, but when you come out at the other side you'll potentially have far more to contribute to society than when you went in.
RESPONSE B: I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said, so I'll throw in a funny one - my partner now calls me Dr. Baby
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What are the pros about getting a PhD degree? I’m tired about hearing the cons. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: After reading subs like /r/MaliciousCompliance , it's obvious to me that we in academia deal with much much less inane bullshit than people in private industry. Fewer pointless meetings, less petty office/lab politics, etc. Not to say that there aren't horror stories from academia, but it's a different ballpark.
RESPONSE B: You get to make an original contribution to human knowledge, small though it might (or might not!) be. I really like the idea of making some small discovery and thinking "I found that. That is a thing humans get to know now, and it's because of me!" Another cool thing is traveling for field work, if your project requires/allows it. I went observing on remote mountain tops a lot in grad school, and I had several friends who did things like go to national labs or did on-site interviews with indigenous peoples.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Chance of canceling faculty search? My wife interviewed for a faculty position at R1 university about 4 weeks ago. Last week, the search chair told her that faculty members didn't come to an agreement for the decision yet. All three candidates they interviewed are great, so professors have different opinions. She starts to think that the search will be canceled. Is this common in academia? Why don't they do a majority vote? Isn't it better than hiring nobody?
RESPONSE A: Failed searches have been common in my experience of academic departments.
RESPONSE B: It could also be false. They might be negotiating with a top choice candidate and want to keep her as a backup.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Chance of canceling faculty search? My wife interviewed for a faculty position at R1 university about 4 weeks ago. Last week, the search chair told her that faculty members didn't come to an agreement for the decision yet. All three candidates they interviewed are great, so professors have different opinions. She starts to think that the search will be canceled. Is this common in academia? Why don't they do a majority vote? Isn't it better than hiring nobody?
RESPONSE A: Failed searches have been common in my experience of academic departments.
RESPONSE B: My department did a search and the Dean required that it be a unanimous pick. We had two great finalists and were at 4-3 when the discussion and voting began. We got it to 5-1 with one abstention and could not budge the one person to vote with the majority. We hired neither, canceled the search, and did another search the following year. The frustrating part was that the one 'no' vote was a faculty member nearing retirement. She was barely going to work with the new hire. Her attitude was that she built and maintained the department for decades (true) and we owed it to her to choose the candidate she liked as some sort of going away present. That search literally ended numerous friendships and tore my department in half. It took us years to recover.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Chance of canceling faculty search? My wife interviewed for a faculty position at R1 university about 4 weeks ago. Last week, the search chair told her that faculty members didn't come to an agreement for the decision yet. All three candidates they interviewed are great, so professors have different opinions. She starts to think that the search will be canceled. Is this common in academia? Why don't they do a majority vote? Isn't it better than hiring nobody?
RESPONSE A: I have been part of more failed searches than I care to admit, and this was the reason one of the searches was called off and re-started with an amended/updated ad the following semester. But, this is beyond anyone's control, so it's best not to fret about it, if possible. There is so much more that goes into the decision to cancel a search, it's impossible to be able too tell from an outside perspective.
RESPONSE B: My department did a search and the Dean required that it be a unanimous pick. We had two great finalists and were at 4-3 when the discussion and voting began. We got it to 5-1 with one abstention and could not budge the one person to vote with the majority. We hired neither, canceled the search, and did another search the following year. The frustrating part was that the one 'no' vote was a faculty member nearing retirement. She was barely going to work with the new hire. Her attitude was that she built and maintained the department for decades (true) and we owed it to her to choose the candidate she liked as some sort of going away present. That search literally ended numerous friendships and tore my department in half. It took us years to recover.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: canceling faculty search? My wife interviewed for a faculty position at R1 university about 4 weeks ago. Last week, the search chair told her that faculty members didn't come to an agreement for the decision yet. All three candidates they interviewed are great, so professors have different opinions. She starts to think that the search will be canceled. Is this common in academia? Why don't they do a majority vote? Isn't it better than hiring nobody?
RESPONSE A: In my graduate program, they cancelled the same search for 5 years in a row because they could not come to a consensus on who to hire. Because they never hired someone, there were several cohorts of grad students that all had to take a required core class from an adjunct one semester. At my university, we have a history of getting positions yanked if we fail a search, so we usually come up with some type of compromise to hire someone. Though this pressure to never fail a search has lead us to hire some sub-par faculty. Overall, though, you can just never tell anything about the timeline of a search. There are just a million different things that can get in the way of doing this timely. I think this is because faculty generally do not start until the next August or September so the university is in no rush. As faculty, we finalized our part of a search in February, and as of last week, the university still has not finalized all of the paperwork.
RESPONSE B: My department did a search and the Dean required that it be a unanimous pick. We had two great finalists and were at 4-3 when the discussion and voting began. We got it to 5-1 with one abstention and could not budge the one person to vote with the majority. We hired neither, canceled the search, and did another search the following year. The frustrating part was that the one 'no' vote was a faculty member nearing retirement. She was barely going to work with the new hire. Her attitude was that she built and maintained the department for decades (true) and we owed it to her to choose the candidate she liked as some sort of going away present. That search literally ended numerous friendships and tore my department in half. It took us years to recover.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Chance of canceling faculty search? My wife interviewed for a faculty position at R1 university about 4 weeks ago. Last week, the search chair told her that faculty members didn't come to an agreement for the decision yet. All three candidates they interviewed are great, so professors have different opinions. She starts to think that the search will be canceled. Is this common in academia? Why don't they do a majority vote? Isn't it better than hiring nobody?
RESPONSE A: A while ago, I interviewed for an endowed distinguished professorship, and they ended up not hiring anyone because the department could not reach an agreement. Part of the issue was they had certain resource constraints, so they might have had a hard time coming up with a competitive salary offer, so they end up using the endowment on a professor they already had.
RESPONSE B: My department did a search and the Dean required that it be a unanimous pick. We had two great finalists and were at 4-3 when the discussion and voting began. We got it to 5-1 with one abstention and could not budge the one person to vote with the majority. We hired neither, canceled the search, and did another search the following year. The frustrating part was that the one 'no' vote was a faculty member nearing retirement. She was barely going to work with the new hire. Her attitude was that she built and maintained the department for decades (true) and we owed it to her to choose the candidate she liked as some sort of going away present. That search literally ended numerous friendships and tore my department in half. It took us years to recover.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Advice on first grant management I just got my first reasonably large external grant as a PI (). Any advice on grant management? Anything you wish you knew going into your first grant?
RESPONSE A: work hard and spend the money wisely. No point on saving it — make sure you produce!
RESPONSE B: I’d keep a close eye on the budget. I have found so many mistakes from our financial analysts and grant managers - from typos to full on billing someone on the wrong account. Some mistakes are much easier to fix within a certain period of time.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Advice on first grant management I just got my first reasonably large external grant as a PI (). Any advice on grant management? Anything you wish you knew going into your first grant?
RESPONSE A: Maintain oversight of the funds, with a burndown chart. Many universities don’t require PIs to do this, but then you’ll likely never have a clear picture of where your money went. This also helps ensure you get the equipment/etc that you need/want because you would know any trade offs (like if you gave X more hours to a person, that means you cannot buy Y).
RESPONSE B: I’d keep a close eye on the budget. I have found so many mistakes from our financial analysts and grant managers - from typos to full on billing someone on the wrong account. Some mistakes are much easier to fix within a certain period of time.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Should I report an undergrad to their summer research supervisor for bullying and harassment? Basically, I don't know the student's name but I do know that they have been bullying and harassing a particular person to an exceptional degree, going so far as to spread some very damaging lies about them, post their private information online, and try to get them fired and expelled. I don't know why they're so adamant on doing this, but they are. A few comments have me suspecting that it's race-based harassment. But I also know who they'll be working with for summer research this year, and I know that I wouldn't want that level of toxicity in my lab. It's a small group and I doubt they're taking more than one undergrad, so even if I can't provide a name, they should know who it is. Should I reach out to the head of this lab to warn them about this individual? I'm only a graduate student so I don't really have much power in anything, plus it isn't behaviour that's tied to their research group or to mine, it'd be more like a character anti-reference. And I'm worried that even though I have the name of the head of the group from this person's own mouth, they could be lying and my anti-reference could get tangled up with a completely innocent student.
RESPONSE A: I’d want to know if I had a student doing this.
RESPONSE B: How do you not know the name of the student but yet know who they will be working for in a summer research program? The person being harassed should reach out to the TitleIX coordinator (or whomever deals with this in your school) and to HR. If you are a mandated reporter, and this has been communicated to you, you have an obligation to report it to the appropriate authorities (in this case, HR, Title IX, student affairs etc) and it is for them to investigate.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Should I report an undergrad to their summer research supervisor for bullying and harassment? Basically, I don't know the student's name but I do know that they have been bullying and harassing a particular person to an exceptional degree, going so far as to spread some very damaging lies about them, post their private information online, and try to get them fired and expelled. I don't know why they're so adamant on doing this, but they are. A few comments have me suspecting that it's race-based harassment. But I also know who they'll be working with for summer research this year, and I know that I wouldn't want that level of toxicity in my lab. It's a small group and I doubt they're taking more than one undergrad, so even if I can't provide a name, they should know who it is. Should I reach out to the head of this lab to warn them about this individual? I'm only a graduate student so I don't really have much power in anything, plus it isn't behaviour that's tied to their research group or to mine, it'd be more like a character anti-reference. And I'm worried that even though I have the name of the head of the group from this person's own mouth, they could be lying and my anti-reference could get tangled up with a completely innocent student.
RESPONSE A: I have been in a similar position at college please do it. It will mean the world to the person getting bullied to have that off their back. I had to report multiple people for bullying in my program because they were putting down others with disabilities. That is not cool.
RESPONSE B: How do you not know the name of the student but yet know who they will be working for in a summer research program? The person being harassed should reach out to the TitleIX coordinator (or whomever deals with this in your school) and to HR. If you are a mandated reporter, and this has been communicated to you, you have an obligation to report it to the appropriate authorities (in this case, HR, Title IX, student affairs etc) and it is for them to investigate.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Should I report an undergrad to their summer research supervisor for bullying and harassment? Basically, I don't know the student's name but I do know that they have been bullying and harassing a particular person to an exceptional degree, going so far as to spread some very damaging lies about them, post their private information online, and try to get them fired and expelled. I don't know why they're so adamant on doing this, but they are. A few comments have me suspecting that it's race-based harassment. But I also know who they'll be working with for summer research this year, and I know that I wouldn't want that level of toxicity in my lab. It's a small group and I doubt they're taking more than one undergrad, so even if I can't provide a name, they should know who it is. Should I reach out to the head of this lab to warn them about this individual? I'm only a graduate student so I don't really have much power in anything, plus it isn't behaviour that's tied to their research group or to mine, it'd be more like a character anti-reference. And I'm worried that even though I have the name of the head of the group from this person's own mouth, they could be lying and my anti-reference could get tangled up with a completely innocent student.
RESPONSE A: Yes
RESPONSE B: How do you not know the name of the student but yet know who they will be working for in a summer research program? The person being harassed should reach out to the TitleIX coordinator (or whomever deals with this in your school) and to HR. If you are a mandated reporter, and this has been communicated to you, you have an obligation to report it to the appropriate authorities (in this case, HR, Title IX, student affairs etc) and it is for them to investigate.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Should I report an undergrad to their summer research supervisor for bullying and harassment? Basically, I don't know the student's name but I do know that they have been bullying and harassing a particular person to an exceptional degree, going so far as to spread some very damaging lies about them, post their private information online, and try to get them fired and expelled. I don't know why they're so adamant on doing this, but they are. A few comments have me suspecting that it's race-based harassment. But I also know who they'll be working with for summer research this year, and I know that I wouldn't want that level of toxicity in my lab. It's a small group and I doubt they're taking more than one undergrad, so even if I can't provide a name, they should know who it is. Should I reach out to the head of this lab to warn them about this individual? I'm only a graduate student so I don't really have much power in anything, plus it isn't behaviour that's tied to their research group or to mine, it'd be more like a character anti-reference. And I'm worried that even though I have the name of the head of the group from this person's own mouth, they could be lying and my anti-reference could get tangled up with a completely innocent student.
RESPONSE A: I’d want to know if I had a student doing this.
RESPONSE B: Yes
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: , going so far as to spread some very damaging lies about them, post their private information online, and try to get them fired and expelled. I don't know why they're so adamant on doing this, but they are. A few comments have me suspecting that it's race-based harassment. But I also know who they'll be working with for summer research this year, and I know that I wouldn't want that level of toxicity in my lab. It's a small group and I doubt they're taking more than one undergrad, so even if I can't provide a name, they should know who it is. Should I reach out to the head of this lab to warn them about this individual? I'm only a graduate student so I don't really have much power in anything, plus it isn't behaviour that's tied to their research group or to mine, it'd be more like a character anti-reference. And I'm worried that even though I have the name of the head of the group from this person's own mouth, they could be lying and my anti-reference could get tangled up with a completely innocent student.
RESPONSE A: Late response but maybe helpful. I've worked closely with admin at a couple universities. All institutions have official policies to heal with harassment. Sometimes these polices have "harassment" or "code of conduct" in the title. You can google the name of the university and something like "harassment policy" or "report student harrasment." just be sure that you have the university policy and not the university's residence policy because the residence office can't help in this case. The policy should have the information about who to contact. You will be contacting an administrator or HR person. They are finicky and probably won't want to take action unless they have to. If you message them, be clear and concise. End you communication with a question like, "any information on the next steps would be greatly appreciated" to open the conversation and encourage a response. I will let you decide whether or not you report this person. I just want to give you all the tools to make an informed decision.
RESPONSE B: Why would you not?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How did peer review work before the internet? I receive review requests by email, not even always open them, let alone reply promptly. Then read the abstract, decide if I care and if I have time, get the whole PDF, write down what I think etc.... And we know in the end how freaking long reviews take. How did it work before the internet was widespread? Did they send around letters to other nations asking people if they wanted to receive a manuscript, and in that case send out a whole package of printed stuff? How long did reviews take then? Like two years from submission to publication? And when did they switch to online?
RESPONSE A: You should ask how we got papers. I used to send out postcards. When you published you'd order a box of reprints to send to colleagues who postcarded you.
RESPONSE B: I worked in an Ed Office in the mid-1980s as an Editorial Assistant. Manuscripts would come into us via the mail. We would assemble the manuscripts into a pile and the Editor would come to the office once or twice a week and assign two reviewers to each paper (assuming it was within the scope of the journal--but desk rejects were rare at the time). We had an office full of assistants that would then make copies of the manuscripts, type a letter to the reviewers, and then send them off. When the reviews came in, we created a pile for the editor, who then made a determination--accept, accept with revision, not acceptable in present form, or reject. We had four or five Editorial Assistants who would then take the reviewer comments plus the editor's decision and craft a letter to the authors.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How did peer review work before the internet? I receive review requests by email, not even always open them, let alone reply promptly. Then read the abstract, decide if I care and if I have time, get the whole PDF, write down what I think etc.... And we know in the end how freaking long reviews take. How did it work before the internet was widespread? Did they send around letters to other nations asking people if they wanted to receive a manuscript, and in that case send out a whole package of printed stuff? How long did reviews take then? Like two years from submission to publication? And when did they switch to online?
RESPONSE A: I worked in an Ed Office in the mid-1980s as an Editorial Assistant. Manuscripts would come into us via the mail. We would assemble the manuscripts into a pile and the Editor would come to the office once or twice a week and assign two reviewers to each paper (assuming it was within the scope of the journal--but desk rejects were rare at the time). We had an office full of assistants that would then make copies of the manuscripts, type a letter to the reviewers, and then send them off. When the reviews came in, we created a pile for the editor, who then made a determination--accept, accept with revision, not acceptable in present form, or reject. We had four or five Editorial Assistants who would then take the reviewer comments plus the editor's decision and craft a letter to the authors.
RESPONSE B: One I know! During the Renaissance, I know of at least one writer (Alberti) who was deeply invested in emendation. As I understand, he would send his works to his friends/colleagues who were also humanists, which might explain why there are so many editions of his treatises in manuscript form with slight differences between editions. In fact, he recommenced emendation to his colleagues, including Brunelleschi.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How did peer review work before the internet? I receive review requests by email, not even always open them, let alone reply promptly. Then read the abstract, decide if I care and if I have time, get the whole PDF, write down what I think etc.... And we know in the end how freaking long reviews take. How did it work before the internet was widespread? Did they send around letters to other nations asking people if they wanted to receive a manuscript, and in that case send out a whole package of printed stuff? How long did reviews take then? Like two years from submission to publication? And when did they switch to online?
RESPONSE A: One I know! During the Renaissance, I know of at least one writer (Alberti) who was deeply invested in emendation. As I understand, he would send his works to his friends/colleagues who were also humanists, which might explain why there are so many editions of his treatises in manuscript form with slight differences between editions. In fact, he recommenced emendation to his colleagues, including Brunelleschi.
RESPONSE B: You should ask how we got papers. I used to send out postcards. When you published you'd order a box of reprints to send to colleagues who postcarded you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: questioning whether I have made the right choice. I enjoy research and currently work as a research assistant. I will be moving cities to start a PhD in a new lab. I am really questioning whether I am suited for study - I am already dreading the pressure and the reading and writing. My current area of research is different to that of my new lab (although there are some overlapping themes and lab techniques). The new lab is smaller compared to my current one and to be honest the institute is not super well known or renown. I am quite an overthinker and I am a little worried about my mental health and feeling lonely for the next three years as well as my job prospects afterwards. Starting during the pandemic does not help either! Any tips/ has anyone felt this way before?
RESPONSE A: Professor here. There's some good advice here. I'm just chiming in to emphasize (and normalize) finding a good therapist. Most faculty need it, too, whether or not they seek it out. And remember: there are very few completely irreversible decisions in life. I'm sure you'll do well, but there is *absolutely nothing wrong or weak* about leaving graduate school. I wish people would understand that **it's the same as leaving any unfulfilling job**, despite all the cultural baggage that emphasizes how "special" and "unique" academics are. Good luck with everything.
RESPONSE B: Hi! I'm in the same boat as you are. I just wanted to say that you're not alone in your feelings of anxiety and nervousness -- there's a lot of us who are starting a new commitment during a time that's especially anxiety-inducing. I myself have had sleepless nights thinking about all of these factors and how it'll affect my life moving forward, but I'm trying to remain flexible and keep my goals in plain sight. I know the road ahead will be rife with challenges and struggles, and it's up to me to make sure that it's also filled with victories, smiles, and new relationships and memories. Feel free to pm me if you ever want to talk/vent things out with someone. Best of luck to you :)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Nervous about starting PhD Hi all, I am due to start my PhD soon and I am really nervous and questioning whether I have made the right choice. I enjoy research and currently work as a research assistant. I will be moving cities to start a PhD in a new lab. I am really questioning whether I am suited for study - I am already dreading the pressure and the reading and writing. My current area of research is different to that of my new lab (although there are some overlapping themes and lab techniques). The new lab is smaller compared to my current one and to be honest the institute is not super well known or renown. I am quite an overthinker and I am a little worried about my mental health and feeling lonely for the next three years as well as my job prospects afterwards. Starting during the pandemic does not help either! Any tips/ has anyone felt this way before?
RESPONSE A: Hello there. I am going to offer an opposite perspective for you: \- The new lab is smaller, so you'll get more 1 on 1 time with your PI. You can form closer relationships. If you are working with good people, you will be fine. \- It's normal to worried about feeling lonely, but you're going out into the world to start a new life. I think a lot of science is always holding on to that sense of curiosity and wonderment. There's so many things waiting out there for you - ideas, places, and people you'll fall in love with. Be excited for the future. You worked for this. It'll all work out.
RESPONSE B: Professor here. There's some good advice here. I'm just chiming in to emphasize (and normalize) finding a good therapist. Most faculty need it, too, whether or not they seek it out. And remember: there are very few completely irreversible decisions in life. I'm sure you'll do well, but there is *absolutely nothing wrong or weak* about leaving graduate school. I wish people would understand that **it's the same as leaving any unfulfilling job**, despite all the cultural baggage that emphasizes how "special" and "unique" academics are. Good luck with everything.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Nervous about starting PhD Hi all, I am due to start my PhD soon and I am really nervous and questioning whether I have made the right choice. I enjoy research and currently work as a research assistant. I will be moving cities to start a PhD in a new lab. I am really questioning whether I am suited for study - I am already dreading the pressure and the reading and writing. My current area of research is different to that of my new lab (although there are some overlapping themes and lab techniques). The new lab is smaller compared to my current one and to be honest the institute is not super well known or renown. I am quite an overthinker and I am a little worried about my mental health and feeling lonely for the next three years as well as my job prospects afterwards. Starting during the pandemic does not help either! Any tips/ has anyone felt this way before?
RESPONSE A: I was relentless about making my cohort a social group. Don’t be afraid to reach out to your fellow students about meeting up (maybe outdoors because covid). A strong cohort is a great way to stay grounded
RESPONSE B: Professor here. There's some good advice here. I'm just chiming in to emphasize (and normalize) finding a good therapist. Most faculty need it, too, whether or not they seek it out. And remember: there are very few completely irreversible decisions in life. I'm sure you'll do well, but there is *absolutely nothing wrong or weak* about leaving graduate school. I wish people would understand that **it's the same as leaving any unfulfilling job**, despite all the cultural baggage that emphasizes how "special" and "unique" academics are. Good luck with everything.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Nervous about starting PhD Hi all, I am due to start my PhD soon and I am really nervous and questioning whether I have made the right choice. I enjoy research and currently work as a research assistant. I will be moving cities to start a PhD in a new lab. I am really questioning whether I am suited for study - I am already dreading the pressure and the reading and writing. My current area of research is different to that of my new lab (although there are some overlapping themes and lab techniques). The new lab is smaller compared to my current one and to be honest the institute is not super well known or renown. I am quite an overthinker and I am a little worried about my mental health and feeling lonely for the next three years as well as my job prospects afterwards. Starting during the pandemic does not help either! Any tips/ has anyone felt this way before?
RESPONSE A: Professor here. There's some good advice here. I'm just chiming in to emphasize (and normalize) finding a good therapist. Most faculty need it, too, whether or not they seek it out. And remember: there are very few completely irreversible decisions in life. I'm sure you'll do well, but there is *absolutely nothing wrong or weak* about leaving graduate school. I wish people would understand that **it's the same as leaving any unfulfilling job**, despite all the cultural baggage that emphasizes how "special" and "unique" academics are. Good luck with everything.
RESPONSE B: I agree a lot with with u/jogam has said, but I really want to emphasize something: your university and your advisor both believe that you would do well, which is why they picked you. This will be challenging, as you will be in a new city and you will honestly be studying something that makes you uncomfortable (something you don't know). But if you can get to the point of being accepted into a PhD program, that program, with all of its administrators and other PhD's, think you can do well. And they are rooting for you
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Nervous about starting PhD Hi all, I am due to start my PhD soon and I am really nervous and questioning whether I have made the right choice. I enjoy research and currently work as a research assistant. I will be moving cities to start a PhD in a new lab. I am really questioning whether I am suited for study - I am already dreading the pressure and the reading and writing. My current area of research is different to that of my new lab (although there are some overlapping themes and lab techniques). The new lab is smaller compared to my current one and to be honest the institute is not super well known or renown. I am quite an overthinker and I am a little worried about my mental health and feeling lonely for the next three years as well as my job prospects afterwards. Starting during the pandemic does not help either! Any tips/ has anyone felt this way before?
RESPONSE A: Hello there. I am going to offer an opposite perspective for you: \- The new lab is smaller, so you'll get more 1 on 1 time with your PI. You can form closer relationships. If you are working with good people, you will be fine. \- It's normal to worried about feeling lonely, but you're going out into the world to start a new life. I think a lot of science is always holding on to that sense of curiosity and wonderment. There's so many things waiting out there for you - ideas, places, and people you'll fall in love with. Be excited for the future. You worked for this. It'll all work out.
RESPONSE B: I agree a lot with with u/jogam has said, but I really want to emphasize something: your university and your advisor both believe that you would do well, which is why they picked you. This will be challenging, as you will be in a new city and you will honestly be studying something that makes you uncomfortable (something you don't know). But if you can get to the point of being accepted into a PhD program, that program, with all of its administrators and other PhD's, think you can do well. And they are rooting for you
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I had a "campus" interview for a TT position where the chair of the department (not the search) asked me to send a startup budget before they interviewed everyone/made me a formal offer. Should I be working on finishing this for her before an offer is made? Specifically, both full day interviews I had people spoke as if I would get the job after my seminar. When speaking to others on the job market, people have told me this is typical and doesn't always result in an offer. I don't know if this is typical, but wondering if others would actually go through the effort of laying out the startup budget for a job they don't have yet just for the hope it makes me more attractive for the position.
RESPONSE A: My dept has asked this before in interviews. It’s mostly so we can start negotiating upwards for an appropriate pot of money. Also take note that you should be asking for something reasonable for the dept and university size. If you propose significantly higher than they are imagining, they could conclude you don’t understand the how building a research program will work there. Significantly less, and they may conclude you aren’t “high powered” enough. So make sure you’re targeting an appropriate range for uni and dept size.
RESPONSE B: I can't offer any informed opinion on how this might affect your chances, but as someone who will be on the market soon it seems like an easy choice to do this for them. It can only help your chances, which in this job market seems worth it, and it may well help you when you start a permanent position regardless of whether or not it's this one.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What is the worst way in which you screwed up in an interview? As the title says. Curious to hear about the different interview experiences encountered. How as a candidate, have you screwed up in an interview? Or as an interviewer, what are the worst things you've encountered during an interview?
RESPONSE A: I had been unemployed for 6 months when I had an interview with my former PI. He asked me if I had experience with a particular procedure and I said no but I'm eager to learn new things. He then asked me why I applied for a job I wasn't qualified for. I pointed out that my skills and experience were in black and white on the resume in front of him, so why would he interview a person without the experience he's looking for? Things went downhill from there. We exchanged some snark and eventually I burst into tears of frustration as I'd been on dozens of interviews over the past several months, as, as it seemed, a quota filler. I snapped, "if you have no intention of hiring me, just tell me right now so I can go home and go back to bed." He ended up hiring me 🤷 I was his research assistant until he retired.
RESPONSE B: I was in a dinner once and the subject of a clinical trial came up, and I complained of this one trial where the host institution kept kicking back our treatment plans for petty reasons for a pediatric patient who we’d already started treating, requiring us (well, me) to scramble and make the required changes for the next day, just so it could happen all over again. Turns out that guy was heading said clinical trial and was probably the person who kept kicking back our plans. Oops. Then there’s the time I went to a university and they gave us a DVD of the history of the place, and I referred to it as a “propaganda video” to one of the interviewers. Sorta proud of that one.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What is the worst way in which you screwed up in an interview? As the title says. Curious to hear about the different interview experiences encountered. How as a candidate, have you screwed up in an interview? Or as an interviewer, what are the worst things you've encountered during an interview?
RESPONSE A: I had been unemployed for 6 months when I had an interview with my former PI. He asked me if I had experience with a particular procedure and I said no but I'm eager to learn new things. He then asked me why I applied for a job I wasn't qualified for. I pointed out that my skills and experience were in black and white on the resume in front of him, so why would he interview a person without the experience he's looking for? Things went downhill from there. We exchanged some snark and eventually I burst into tears of frustration as I'd been on dozens of interviews over the past several months, as, as it seemed, a quota filler. I snapped, "if you have no intention of hiring me, just tell me right now so I can go home and go back to bed." He ended up hiring me 🤷 I was his research assistant until he retired.
RESPONSE B: This was not academia, but I interviewed for an internship once. I really didn't want the internship, but I needed it to satisfy some university requirements. The interview went okay, it didn't feel particularly short or long - about a half hour by my estimation. The interviewer then asked me if I wanted to look around the place for a bit, and I said "No, actually I have to go." Looked at my watch and only five minutes had gone by. Her face was filled with disgust. I did not get a call back.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What is the worst way in which you screwed up in an interview? As the title says. Curious to hear about the different interview experiences encountered. How as a candidate, have you screwed up in an interview? Or as an interviewer, what are the worst things you've encountered during an interview?
RESPONSE A: We interviewed a guy who asked about the gym. Then he turned to a colleague of mine and told him, "You obviously don't use the gym." My colleague was not skinny but also not overweight. Needless to say, this dude didn't get an offer.
RESPONSE B: I had been unemployed for 6 months when I had an interview with my former PI. He asked me if I had experience with a particular procedure and I said no but I'm eager to learn new things. He then asked me why I applied for a job I wasn't qualified for. I pointed out that my skills and experience were in black and white on the resume in front of him, so why would he interview a person without the experience he's looking for? Things went downhill from there. We exchanged some snark and eventually I burst into tears of frustration as I'd been on dozens of interviews over the past several months, as, as it seemed, a quota filler. I snapped, "if you have no intention of hiring me, just tell me right now so I can go home and go back to bed." He ended up hiring me 🤷 I was his research assistant until he retired.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What is the worst way in which you screwed up in an interview? As the title says. Curious to hear about the different interview experiences encountered. How as a candidate, have you screwed up in an interview? Or as an interviewer, what are the worst things you've encountered during an interview?
RESPONSE A: I had been unemployed for 6 months when I had an interview with my former PI. He asked me if I had experience with a particular procedure and I said no but I'm eager to learn new things. He then asked me why I applied for a job I wasn't qualified for. I pointed out that my skills and experience were in black and white on the resume in front of him, so why would he interview a person without the experience he's looking for? Things went downhill from there. We exchanged some snark and eventually I burst into tears of frustration as I'd been on dozens of interviews over the past several months, as, as it seemed, a quota filler. I snapped, "if you have no intention of hiring me, just tell me right now so I can go home and go back to bed." He ended up hiring me 🤷 I was his research assistant until he retired.
RESPONSE B: Having chaired and served on numerous interview committees, the thing that seems to torpedo many candidates is when it comes time at the end for them to ask us questions and all they can do is focus on how much will they be paid, what are the benefits, when do they get vacation, etc. (Literally, no other questions!) Valid questions but for HR not the hiring committee! I also just remembered a doozy from a recent interview. We asked a question about how they implement equity practices in the classroom. The person began their answer with, “Well, I’m certainly not a racist” then proceeded to talk about “brown people” and how they treat everyone the same. /cringe
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What is the worst way in which you screwed up in an interview? As the title says. Curious to hear about the different interview experiences encountered. How as a candidate, have you screwed up in an interview? Or as an interviewer, what are the worst things you've encountered during an interview?
RESPONSE A: I had been unemployed for 6 months when I had an interview with my former PI. He asked me if I had experience with a particular procedure and I said no but I'm eager to learn new things. He then asked me why I applied for a job I wasn't qualified for. I pointed out that my skills and experience were in black and white on the resume in front of him, so why would he interview a person without the experience he's looking for? Things went downhill from there. We exchanged some snark and eventually I burst into tears of frustration as I'd been on dozens of interviews over the past several months, as, as it seemed, a quota filler. I snapped, "if you have no intention of hiring me, just tell me right now so I can go home and go back to bed." He ended up hiring me 🤷 I was his research assistant until he retired.
RESPONSE B: I once did a phone interview. They asked which cognitive tests I was familiar with administering, and I just totally blanked. Like that Scrubs episode where JD literally forgets that he's even on the spot and starts thinking about something totally unrelated. Eventually, all I could recall was Verbal Fluency, which if you're a psychologist you will appreciate is quite ironic.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: as many accolades, research reexperiences, and letters of rec as I can before I apply again. That is what brings me here. As a teacher I have summers COMPLETELY OFF. I am currently searching for Summer Post-Baccalaureate Internships and Research Programs preferably in Experimental Particle Physics (I prefer theoretical, but I know it's harder to get into) OR PhD Bridge Programs with a stipend during the regular Fall and Spring semesters. Thankfully other than money, I have no obligations or restrictions on where I can work, live, or travel to. I am open to living and working anywhere as long as it gets me closer to my goals. Thank you to anyone who takes the time to respond and good luck to everyone else on their grad school journeys! **TL;DR - I want to go to grad school for a PhD in Physics. 2 years since my undergrad. A few random research experiences. Currently a high school physics teacher. ISO Summer Physics Research Programs.**
RESPONSE A: Two thoughst: You might want to pay someone to look at your application materials, but it sounds like something is very wrong with them. Sure, Ivy league schools are competitive, but if you are applying to grad schools of lower ranking and not getting any offers, then something must be wrong with your applications. If you want to improve your chances of getting into a top ranked school and can afford it, you might consider an MS program as a stepping stone.
RESPONSE B: Many high schools will pay for their teachers to get a masters. That is a place to start. The thing to remember is getting into a PhD program is hard and it is just as likely that you can't find a match with a PI. I graduated with a BS (3.4 overall, 3.7 in primary major), I have two MS degrees (3.7 and 4.0), 20 years of research experience, several years of teaching, 9 publications (including one in press in Nature Human Behavior and another recently published in Proceedings in the National Academy of Sciences) and a book due out in a few months. Last year I got 2 interviews of 25 and no acceptances. I have applied 11 times and working on round 12.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: a PhD in Physics. 2 years since my undergrad. A few random research experiences. Currently a high school physics teacher. ISO Summer Physics Research Programs.**
RESPONSE A: As people have mentioned, are there stepping stone research MA programs in this area? In my field, there are great MA programs who help prep the students to get into PhD programs. They are funded (not as well funded as PhD programs).
RESPONSE B: I did physics for my undergrad and I am currently doing my PhD at an Ivy League school so I kind have a sense of what you are going through. Here are some things. How are your letters of recommendation? Those are singularly the most important thing for a PhD application. Who are they from? People you did research with? Your undergrad advisor? Who? Secondly what’s your physics GRE score? Physics PhD programs are extremely competitive and physics programs at the graduate level are typically very small due to the limited funding. What field of physics are you trying to look into? I know you said you did photonics in TMDs (funny enough I did something similar with my undergrad) but are you trying to stay involved in that at the graduate level? Sorry I just read that you are primarily interested in Particle physics PhD programs. I want to be honest and tell you the particle physics is probably top 3 most competitive areas of physics to get into. Your GPA will make it hard even for lower ranked schools. Theoretical could be even more challenging but it’s also in the top 3 most difficult to get into. You will have to show some distinction in other areas such as research experience which I know you said you have but maybe you need to do a better job of communicating the value of those experiences. Have you considered other programs? I switched from physics too EE and I have been loving it. Just because switch to an engineer department doesn’t mean you can’t work with physicist especially if the professor you are working with has multiple appointments across the departments at their school. This is just my experience and what I know going through what you’re going through. If anyone reads this and sees something wrong please correct me! If you have any further questions OP I can attempt to answer them.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I'm supposed to finish my PhD this year in Molecular Neuroscience, but I want to leave academia after. What jobs can I look for? I have decided to finish my PhD but leave academia after that.The field has become too stressful and it's taken a heavy toll on my mental and physical health. I have decided to seek jobs outside of academic research now but I never thought about this before and I don't know where to start. Most of my skills lie in molecular biology lab experience. I know how to do minipreps or transcription or PCR mutations and I became experienced in two electrode voltage clamp in the past 3 years. However I don't have any computer programming knowledge, I'm taking an online course in Python programming, but it's difficult to keep up with my work schedule and mental health state. But I want to seek out realistic options of what jobs I could look and apply for. I would appreciate a nudge in any direction. Thanks a lot!!
RESPONSE A: So I googled “molecular neuroscience jobs” and skipped over the academic ones. The first page had 10 or so startup or pharm or biotech listings. But, you should ask your dissertation advisor about recommendations for jobs in industry. That’s the best place to go…
RESPONSE B: There's load of options out there for you, and it depends what you want to do. There are lots of organisations that like PhDs even if they're not necessary for the job. Organisations: * Government Funders * Research/medical charities * Foundations * Civil service * Universities (adminstration) * Consultancies * Think tanks * Pharma * Start-ups * Biotech *Journals Jobs: * Tech transfer * Policy * Public engagement * Government affairs * Science Comms * Portfolio management for funders * Strategy * Grants management * Editor * Administration * Consultant * Scientist * Project manager * Research management * Programme management * Impact and evaluation * Compliance Good luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: project was based on. Now they’re writing up and they’ve gone back to check their choices for the discussion. With their better experience they’ve realised they made the wrong choices. How do they defend their thesis if they know they didn’t make the right choices? They’ve written about their retrospective insight and offered suggestions about what they would have done differently. Anyone have any experience with this? :) thank you!
RESPONSE A: The whole point of research is to learn something new and share it with the world. It sounds like your friend learned something. If it is novel and interesting and would be of value to others, that is successful research and worth sharing. The point is to focus on what was learned through the process and use it to teach others. It doesn’t matter if it happened through good or bad decisions or right or wrong choices.
RESPONSE B: I think this is a very vague description of the problem and it is hard to give good advice with so little information. Is the thesis already written and is the question only related to the defense? The defense should not be very different from the written thesis, the same arguments can be used both in the written form and in the oral defense. In what way did the choices in the beginning affect the outcome in the end? Is/was there no way to make different choices throughout the PhD? I don’t know in what field your friend is, but is there an option to do a few final experiments? If possible, I would suggest to only start writing up once the results allow it and are somewhat conclusive. Usually, there are ways to present results in a conclusive way, even though it does not seem like it at first. You can for example change the order of your experiments (assuming your friend did some experiments), instead of describing them chronologically, they can be rearranged to form a conclusive story. Ideally your friend should talk to someone more experienced in their respective field. I am also not sure whether choices can be really “wrong” in a PhD. Maybe it is an unconventional approach, maybe it leaves too many open questions, maybe it is just replicating what has been shown before... But regardless some scientific insight can be gained from the results. I certainly would not call them “wrong” choices in their thesis.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do I defend my PhD where I made the wrong choices at the start due to inexperience? Asking for a friend- My friend is writing up their thesis. Their project didn’t work out very well. They transitioned into a new field and had no experience in this field. Although this is exciting and can work out, the supervision and teaching in the fundamental techniques for this field wasn’t great and they were hurried into making the first important choices that their project was based on. Now they’re writing up and they’ve gone back to check their choices for the discussion. With their better experience they’ve realised they made the wrong choices. How do they defend their thesis if they know they didn’t make the right choices? They’ve written about their retrospective insight and offered suggestions about what they would have done differently. Anyone have any experience with this? :) thank you!
RESPONSE A: Switched fields? Like completely, or changed topics/advisor? I mean I think a lot of us made mistakes in our dissertations that we only realize in hindsight. I was very up front about that in my limitations section. I'm not really sure what else could be done
RESPONSE B: The whole point of research is to learn something new and share it with the world. It sounds like your friend learned something. If it is novel and interesting and would be of value to others, that is successful research and worth sharing. The point is to focus on what was learned through the process and use it to teach others. It doesn’t matter if it happened through good or bad decisions or right or wrong choices.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: for the coming fall OR I can apply to fast-track to a PhD. If I fast-track, I won't get a master's degree, but I can use all the research I've done so far in my master's towards my PhD instead. I would need to do 3 more courses, but I'd likely shave about a year off of my total time. I love working with my supervisor, he's been amazing to work with so far! The one big reason I can think of to not fast track is to go somewhere else for my PhD. My school is at least top 50 in my field, but my supervisor thinks I could potentially do better. If I want to fast-track, I need to make that decision as soon as possible, definitely by the end of the term, which is sooner than I'd hear back from any other schools. Is it worth it to fast track to PhD and lose out on potential offers from elsewhere, or should I go through the application process for PhDs and add a year to my timeline for a chance at a higher-scored school?
RESPONSE A: I think the extra year doesn't really matter in the long run. What matters is which option gives you the better PhD project/advisor/resources/University sort of in that order of importance. You want to use your PhD to maximize your skills, network and publishing record, and if you can do that at a top university even better. But most importantly, a lab environment/supervisor that you can learn in/from.
RESPONSE B: My advice would be to not fast track. In addition to the reasons, you have suggested - the more time you have to prepare for your Ph.D. program the better. Use the extra year of your master's to work on your research, writing, and networking skills. Take some time to develop your teaching/pick up some service learning. Also more broadly, and not to sound patronising, but just giving yourself time to live/grow at that age is important. As the other user in the thread said, the year doesn't really matter in the long run in this industry - what does matter is that you are developing yourself professionally, growing, and taking advantage of the resources/opportunities you have.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: , or should I go through the application process for PhDs and add a year to my timeline for a chance at a higher-scored school?
RESPONSE A: I think the extra year doesn't really matter in the long run. What matters is which option gives you the better PhD project/advisor/resources/University sort of in that order of importance. You want to use your PhD to maximize your skills, network and publishing record, and if you can do that at a top university even better. But most importantly, a lab environment/supervisor that you can learn in/from.
RESPONSE B: The extra year in the long run is not a big deal. But also realize that if you have a great relationship with your PI that can be far more invaluable than any school placement. A PhD is a long and close commitment primarily to your PI and then your committee and if you have one that empowers you and helps you achieve your goals then it can be better than being at a 'better' school. A bad PI or committee can make your life a living hell and contributes to the high PhD attrition rate statistics. I would also evaluate your long term goals. Do you want to go into academia after? If so what is your current PI's publishing record and scope, because that can be more valuable than a higher tier school (some top tier researchers are at smaller schools and their research teams are prized more than being another cog at a more prestigious school especially if you are empowered to produce more first author papers than you otherwise would have). Is it industry? Then shoot for schools that have ties to industry. Are you not sure? Then I would sit down and seriously do some thinking about it if you have not. It is ok to still not be 100% on which path you ultimately want but I would at least think about and where you want to steer your life, because once you're done with the PhD you won't be old by any means but you also won't be super young either and you don't want to be spending several years in what can be a very high stress environment for something that in the end you will not want and won't help you achieve what you desire from life.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: should i finish my masters or skip to phd? hello! I m very conflicted and I thought I d seek out some advice. I just finished my first year of my masters and I have the option to either finish my masters and apply for phds for the coming fall OR I can apply to fast-track to a PhD. If I fast-track, I won't get a master's degree, but I can use all the research I've done so far in my master's towards my PhD instead. I would need to do 3 more courses, but I'd likely shave about a year off of my total time. I love working with my supervisor, he's been amazing to work with so far! The one big reason I can think of to not fast track is to go somewhere else for my PhD. My school is at least top 50 in my field, but my supervisor thinks I could potentially do better. If I want to fast-track, I need to make that decision as soon as possible, definitely by the end of the term, which is sooner than I'd hear back from any other schools. Is it worth it to fast track to PhD and lose out on potential offers from elsewhere, or should I go through the application process for PhDs and add a year to my timeline for a chance at a higher-scored school?
RESPONSE A: Finish the masters. Writing the thesis is an excellent practice and it will also really let you know if you still like it enough for a PhD after that intensive process. In less optimistic outlook: also finish masters, because you never know what life might throw at you. Many people don’t finish their PhD. If this happens to you you’ll still have your masters.
RESPONSE B: You should enjoy the process of learning during PhD, no need to rush it and if you have opportunity to move on a PhD now. You will be more than capable of getting another!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I want to fast-track, I need to make that decision as soon as possible, definitely by the end of the term, which is sooner than I'd hear back from any other schools. Is it worth it to fast track to PhD and lose out on potential offers from elsewhere, or should I go through the application process for PhDs and add a year to my timeline for a chance at a higher-scored school?
RESPONSE A: Won't you get an MS if you switch to the PhD program but master out? It seems like the opportunity to get an MS isn't lost, it's just that you'd be joining the PhD program on the assumption that you'll be completing it and thus getting a PhD instead. First, it sounds like you love your program. To find another program twice as good as the one you're in now, you'd have to do the research to find and investigate it and apply to it, get in, and turn out to have been correct in your assessment. Maybe you'd find a better position, but if you think there's a < 50% chance, switching programs is probably not the right move. So let's ignore the value of looking around at other options. That means that you need to consider the financial cost of an extra year of MS tuition, plus a lost year of post-PhD salary. If your MS tuition is $20,000/year and you'd earn $70,000 post-PhD, you're paying $90,000 if you don't fast track. The big reason I can see to not fast track is if you think there's a decent chance you don't want to do a PhD at all, and this becomes apparent to you over the next year. But you seem set on a PhD. Overall, if I was in your shoes, I'd fast-track.
RESPONSE B: Finish the masters. Writing the thesis is an excellent practice and it will also really let you know if you still like it enough for a PhD after that intensive process. In less optimistic outlook: also finish masters, because you never know what life might throw at you. Many people don’t finish their PhD. If this happens to you you’ll still have your masters.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: reason I can think of to not fast track is to go somewhere else for my PhD. My school is at least top 50 in my field, but my supervisor thinks I could potentially do better. If I want to fast-track, I need to make that decision as soon as possible, definitely by the end of the term, which is sooner than I'd hear back from any other schools. Is it worth it to fast track to PhD and lose out on potential offers from elsewhere, or should I go through the application process for PhDs and add a year to my timeline for a chance at a higher-scored school?
RESPONSE A: Won't you get an MS if you switch to the PhD program but master out? It seems like the opportunity to get an MS isn't lost, it's just that you'd be joining the PhD program on the assumption that you'll be completing it and thus getting a PhD instead. First, it sounds like you love your program. To find another program twice as good as the one you're in now, you'd have to do the research to find and investigate it and apply to it, get in, and turn out to have been correct in your assessment. Maybe you'd find a better position, but if you think there's a < 50% chance, switching programs is probably not the right move. So let's ignore the value of looking around at other options. That means that you need to consider the financial cost of an extra year of MS tuition, plus a lost year of post-PhD salary. If your MS tuition is $20,000/year and you'd earn $70,000 post-PhD, you're paying $90,000 if you don't fast track. The big reason I can see to not fast track is if you think there's a decent chance you don't want to do a PhD at all, and this becomes apparent to you over the next year. But you seem set on a PhD. Overall, if I was in your shoes, I'd fast-track.
RESPONSE B: You should enjoy the process of learning during PhD, no need to rush it and if you have opportunity to move on a PhD now. You will be more than capable of getting another!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it worth trying to become a professor? I’m a PhD student in a clinical psychology program, and I’m primarily in a clinical psychology program because I wanted to be sure I had prospects outside of academia. My true passion is neuroscience, and I want desperately to be a neuroscience/neuropsychology researcher/professor in the future. I really just want some validation that becoming a professor nowadays is even a remote possibility, as that’s what I really want out of all of this.
RESPONSE A: Best to take risks while you're young, otherwise you'll have a lifetime of doubt
RESPONSE B: I'm an almost-clinician-scientist in my last PhD year. Someone somewhere gets a professorship, even though those odds are abysmally low in some fields. Just to add - being a clinician-scientist is often a better position to be in than a pure researcher with a PhD for a few reasons. Clinical programs prefer to hire clinicians from their own disciplines. Some fields like my home discipline and related disciplines also require a certain proportion of faculty to be PhD-level researchers in order to retain accreditation from our national organizations. You may also even find faculty roles in non-neuroscience or -psych departments that need PhD-level researchers. We have a few neuroscientists and psychologists who've jumped over to TT jobs in my home discipline and learned how to do science relevant to our clinical practice.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it worth trying to become a professor? I’m a PhD student in a clinical psychology program, and I’m primarily in a clinical psychology program because I wanted to be sure I had prospects outside of academia. My true passion is neuroscience, and I want desperately to be a neuroscience/neuropsychology researcher/professor in the future. I really just want some validation that becoming a professor nowadays is even a remote possibility, as that’s what I really want out of all of this.
RESPONSE A: There are over 240 clinical psychology professorship jobs posted this year alone (jobs wiki), and LOTS of universities have had a ton of trouble getting any applicants for their clinical positions. My university had multiple years of failed searches, due to few applications. Like u/manova and some other people have mentioned, clinical psychology is one field where qualified applicants can really have their choice of positions. Part of that is certainly because being a professor typically pays less than clinical psychologists' other career options. But if you are willing to put up with lower pay in exchange for being a professor (and especially if you are open to working at an R2, a position with more teaching, etc.), it's easily do-able for someone who is already in a clinical psych PhD. Publish something, and you should be good. I think the sweet spot for a clinical psychologist might be a part-time university affiliation and a part-time private practice. My university was even open to hiring someone as a part-time tenure-track professor for clinical psych, because we were so desperate for someone to teach our clinical-related classes. Get the best of both worlds!
RESPONSE B: If your true passion is in neuro, you shouldn’t be in a clinical program. You won’t get hired for neuro stuff, unless you score some insane post docs. Now, if you wanted to know how the market was for clinical psych profs, it’s great, even straight out of grad school.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Non-EU student applying for PhD at UK university - how hard is it to get funding? Hi everyone, I’m looking to apply for a PhD at a UK university, to start in September 2020. But I’m a non-EU student. And that’s starting to worry me. How easy is it to get funding as a non-EU student? If a student is good enough to receive a PhD offer, then will they usually be good enough to receive the funding as well? Do you know any non-EU students who have / haven’t received funding? I don’t want to set my heart on this if I’m unlikely to get funding because, without funding, I simply can’t afford to go. Any advice, anecdotes or resources would be amazing. Thank you so much!
RESPONSE A: From what I've seen, with sufficient pressure/effort on the part of your group/institution, you can apply for (and receive) funding equivalent to a Home/EU student from some sources (others are explicitly excluded), but you'll still be charged international student fees by the institution. That leaves a pretty large shortfall (£10k plus) that you'll need to source either personally, or from your home country via an appropriate scheme. > If a student is good enough to receive a PhD offer, then will they usually be good enough to receive the funding as well? This isn't really how funding works, at least, not in medical/bioscience. There are many more people applying for PhD studentships for their candidates than there is funding, and it varies enormously between disciplines. It might be an idea to give more details about your interest and discipline!
RESPONSE B: On FindAPhD.com they list who funding is available for, in terms of UK-Only, EU, or Worldwide - though I believe worldwide is significantly less common than EU. It's not uncommon for non-EU students to bring their own funding, with the most typical example being Chinese students funded by the Chinese Scholarship Council, though I also know of a Mexican student and a Brazilian student to be funded from their home country.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: To become a scientist often takes more than 6 years of education how do they maintain sanity balancing both work and schoolwork? All the pressure I can see why scientists are joked to be mad. But serious I have a super obsessed interest in science. If I wanted to go in curious how many manage.
RESPONSE A: After undergrad and maybe the first year or so of grad school, it's just another job. Sure, you have classes, but it's more like a meeting chatting about research than an undergrad class. Scientists are crazy because they have to research AND teach AND get grants on fairly low salaries and ofte frequently have to move in their career paths
RESPONSE B: Bold of you to assume we maintain sanity. The short answer is: not everyone does. The rate of mental illness (especially anxiety, depression, and other mood disorders) among graduate students, post-docs, and academic researchers is way above average. We're not immune to stress. We're not superhuman. It's a hard job. it's very competitive. it requires a lot of multi-tasking and time management. it requires us to be self-starters who can get work done without reminders.The goals are very open ended and vague. Sometimes we're the ones who have to come up with our own goals. That sounds great right? Freedom to do whatever research you want. But it's actually incredibly stressful, because coming up with a good idea for a project, that nobody else has ever thought of, is actually very hard. In most jobs, you have a boss who says "do this thing" or "make that thing". you are given a goal. But imagine a job where your boss says "do... something, it's up to you, but it better be completely original and it better work, and you'll need to convince someone else to pay for it"
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: To become a scientist often takes more than 6 years of education how do they maintain sanity balancing both work and schoolwork? All the pressure I can see why scientists are joked to be mad. But serious I have a super obsessed interest in science. If I wanted to go in curious how many manage.
RESPONSE A: Bold of you to assume we maintain sanity. The short answer is: not everyone does. The rate of mental illness (especially anxiety, depression, and other mood disorders) among graduate students, post-docs, and academic researchers is way above average. We're not immune to stress. We're not superhuman. It's a hard job. it's very competitive. it requires a lot of multi-tasking and time management. it requires us to be self-starters who can get work done without reminders.The goals are very open ended and vague. Sometimes we're the ones who have to come up with our own goals. That sounds great right? Freedom to do whatever research you want. But it's actually incredibly stressful, because coming up with a good idea for a project, that nobody else has ever thought of, is actually very hard. In most jobs, you have a boss who says "do this thing" or "make that thing". you are given a goal. But imagine a job where your boss says "do... something, it's up to you, but it better be completely original and it better work, and you'll need to convince someone else to pay for it"
RESPONSE B: Only 2 years of coursework. Three years of pure research. It’s not that bad.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: To become a scientist often takes more than 6 years of education how do they maintain sanity balancing both work and schoolwork? All the pressure I can see why scientists are joked to be mad. But serious I have a super obsessed interest in science. If I wanted to go in curious how many manage.
RESPONSE A: Bold of you to assume we maintain sanity. The short answer is: not everyone does. The rate of mental illness (especially anxiety, depression, and other mood disorders) among graduate students, post-docs, and academic researchers is way above average. We're not immune to stress. We're not superhuman. It's a hard job. it's very competitive. it requires a lot of multi-tasking and time management. it requires us to be self-starters who can get work done without reminders.The goals are very open ended and vague. Sometimes we're the ones who have to come up with our own goals. That sounds great right? Freedom to do whatever research you want. But it's actually incredibly stressful, because coming up with a good idea for a project, that nobody else has ever thought of, is actually very hard. In most jobs, you have a boss who says "do this thing" or "make that thing". you are given a goal. But imagine a job where your boss says "do... something, it's up to you, but it better be completely original and it better work, and you'll need to convince someone else to pay for it"
RESPONSE B: Not in a constructive matter, unfortunately. Burnout and substance abuse are high. I have two advanced degrees and working on a post-graduate certificate while teaching two part time jobs. Most days are perfectly fine, and the workload is reasonable. Some days, deadlines avalanche, and any little misstep in timing will cause a cascade of consequences.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: To become a scientist often takes more than 6 years of education how do they maintain sanity balancing both work and schoolwork? All the pressure I can see why scientists are joked to be mad. But serious I have a super obsessed interest in science. If I wanted to go in curious how many manage.
RESPONSE A: Only 2 years of coursework. Three years of pure research. It’s not that bad.
RESPONSE B: After undergrad and maybe the first year or so of grad school, it's just another job. Sure, you have classes, but it's more like a meeting chatting about research than an undergrad class. Scientists are crazy because they have to research AND teach AND get grants on fairly low salaries and ofte frequently have to move in their career paths
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Have you ever received a call back from a search committee months after not hearing from them or not getting an offer? If so, what reasons did they give for this delay? This is my exact situation, but I was not given a reason except that the SC failed to make a decision in time. The thing is, I really want this job, but the fact they called me so late and not on time makes me wonder if they really want me or value me. I'd hate to go to a place where I am not wanted. Just curious to know your thoughts on this.
RESPONSE A: As someone who had been on many hiring committees let me say that you really have no idea what the committee was thinking. I have been on committees where the top candidate was only the slightest bit ahead of the runner up and we really would have hired both if we could have. Also, they would have most likely failed the search if they didn't like you at all. It's better to try again than to pick someone you think won't fit in well. You were most likely second choice and first choice took a long time to decide before turning it down. But don't feel that this is a slight, you may have been just a hair behind the first choice. The main point is do YOU think it will be a good fit. If yes, then take it.
RESPONSE B: Yes. From a school where the department was tiny and mostly run by the dean, who had no understanding of the timing of the job market in my field.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Have you ever received a call back from a search committee months after not hearing from them or not getting an offer? If so, what reasons did they give for this delay? This is my exact situation, but I was not given a reason except that the SC failed to make a decision in time. The thing is, I really want this job, but the fact they called me so late and not on time makes me wonder if they really want me or value me. I'd hate to go to a place where I am not wanted. Just curious to know your thoughts on this.
RESPONSE A: Yes. From a school where the department was tiny and mostly run by the dean, who had no understanding of the timing of the job market in my field.
RESPONSE B: I was rejected from a job offer because I didn't make their top four short-list. Then all those candidates were unable to take that position because they had better offers elsewhere, or were somehow unsuited for the position. I got a very friendly email saying that they were re-evaluating their search and even though they had already rejected me, where I was in the job search. They gave me a chance to explain why my publication list was shorter than they had been looking for, and we had a skype call. In the end the timing wasn't really right to explore this position further - I already had a job offer with more resources to consider. But it was professional, kind, and honest. We each understood where the other one came from.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Have you ever received a call back from a search committee months after not hearing from them or not getting an offer? If so, what reasons did they give for this delay? This is my exact situation, but I was not given a reason except that the SC failed to make a decision in time. The thing is, I really want this job, but the fact they called me so late and not on time makes me wonder if they really want me or value me. I'd hate to go to a place where I am not wanted. Just curious to know your thoughts on this.
RESPONSE A: Yes. From a school where the department was tiny and mostly run by the dean, who had no understanding of the timing of the job market in my field.
RESPONSE B: Did they give you an offer? Then take it. You were probably their second choice, and their first choice left them hanging for a long time before turning them down. If they are willing to hire you at all, they want you. I've been on several search committees and we generally rank order our preferences in case the first choice or two turns us down, but also have taken people off the list entirely because they would be terrible. So if they gave you an offer, they think you are good enough. It's nothing personal if you weren't first on the list, that's just the way this profession goes.
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.