label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
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: Department chair here. I agree with all the other comments. I have seen umpteen searches and all sorts of things happen. Often the top 3, 4, 5, are REALLY close. A door has opened; walk right in.
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 |
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: Department chair here. I agree with all the other comments. I have seen umpteen searches and all sorts of things happen. Often the top 3, 4, 5, are REALLY close. A door has opened; walk right in.
RESPONSE B: Search committees are very imprecise. In the last one I was on, we had 8 people after screening interviews we wanted to bring to campus.... Obviously that can't happen. It's possible to have a large number of really qualified candidates for the position, and it's possible that the search committee has to move through that list. We ended up on our fourth choice because the other three had different plans (one exited academia!).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I resigned from my postdoc position and have 2 weeks left. My boss said he will "harass me with calls/emails" after I leave for work on a paper. Should I report him to HR for this language? Those are his exact words from the call. This has been a really toxic workplace since day 1 which is why I resigned, but I did not tell them why I quit. When asked of my future plans, I just said that the balls are up in the air and I'm still thinking about it. The statement he made was with regard to a co-first author collaborative paper with another lab. I told them very clearly that I will submit a draft before I leave. His words made me really uncomfortable, they're a definite escalation from his previous behavior so I'm considering reporting it. If not, I always planned on writing the following email on my last day. Should I reword it to clarify I'm no longer his employee? "Thank you again for the opportunity to work here. I submitted the draft as discussed to x and y, and will stay in touch with both to ensure completion of this paper. My personal email [email protected] (and not my cell #) will be the best way to get in touch with me, I will respond as I'm able to depending on my availability. "
RESPONSE A: This sounds really stressful. I would leave out the part about "not my cell#" but then screen all my phone calls and keep a record of any harassment. The university will want to protect him, so definitely collect a lot of evidence if you think it will go to Ombuds or a formal complaint.
RESPONSE B: Are you a native English speaker? This is a pretty common idiom, on par with "I've been bugging him to send me the manuscript." Harass is a synonym here for 'pester'. It is not a literal threat to harass you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I resigned from my postdoc position and have 2 weeks left. My boss said he will "harass me with calls/emails" after I leave for work on a paper. Should I report him to HR for this language? Those are his exact words from the call. This has been a really toxic workplace since day 1 which is why I resigned, but I did not tell them why I quit. When asked of my future plans, I just said that the balls are up in the air and I'm still thinking about it. The statement he made was with regard to a co-first author collaborative paper with another lab. I told them very clearly that I will submit a draft before I leave. His words made me really uncomfortable, they're a definite escalation from his previous behavior so I'm considering reporting it. If not, I always planned on writing the following email on my last day. Should I reword it to clarify I'm no longer his employee? "Thank you again for the opportunity to work here. I submitted the draft as discussed to x and y, and will stay in touch with both to ensure completion of this paper. My personal email [email protected] (and not my cell #) will be the best way to get in touch with me, I will respond as I'm able to depending on my availability. "
RESPONSE A: Your boss sounds like an ass, but threatening to harass you to finish a paper isn’t particularly actionable. I would send him the email you described (minus “and not my cell #”), then block his number so email is the only way he can reach you. If his emails become harassing, block them too.
RESPONSE B: Are you a native English speaker? This is a pretty common idiom, on par with "I've been bugging him to send me the manuscript." Harass is a synonym here for 'pester'. It is not a literal threat to harass you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How to get an unfinished abandoned work available for reference I was working in a different lab in the first year of my Ph.D. and I made a network/model which was better than the baseline but wasn't a significant contribution to the field and hence could not publish it. Now I am in a different lab but my previous labmate (working in a different lab) is using the same network as a comparison to his own model. He is explaining the network so I feel that my work is being used but not credited. Can I publish the unfinished work (model) under archive or somewhere else (GitHub) that my previous labmate could refer to?
RESPONSE A: There's Zenodo, https://zenodo.org/, which gives you a citable DOI for a GitHub repository.
RESPONSE B: Your model yielding improved results and being used for continued work is pretty much the definition of "significant contribution"
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: conflicted - I could: 1. Reject the paper with generic comments to authors and editor (not novel enough, etc). 2. Reject with no comments to authors, but with a letter to the editor telling them about the plagiarism. 3. Refuse to review - claim conflict of interest that I hadn't noticed when I first accepted to review. Something I wish I could consider doing, but obviously won't, due to the ethics and anonymity of peer-review: 4. Contact my acquaintance who is co-author, and alert them about what I assume the first author did. They'd probably set things straight somehow. I am not bothered that much about being plagiarised. It's just a sentence after all, and I don't want to seem petty. Also, the first author is probably a junior scientist. At one hand, I think they should learn that this is unacceptable. On the other hand, I don't want to be haste to go with option (2), because I don't know what the consequences of that might be (I wouldn't want to be the reason they're blacklisted or ruin their reputation for example). They may have simply not learned properly that this is not how one writes a paper. It might be a remnant of undergraduate writing habits. It's wrong in undergrad as well, but I guess it happens a lot more often and goes unnoticed/unpunished.
RESPONSE A: Hey u/vsturtle, I'm also conflicted here, since it is only one sentence. So, the first thing I would do is to check and re-check that they only did it once. If you are positively sure that they only plagiarized you once, I would not report them for plagiarism, and go with either option 1 and most likely option 3.
RESPONSE B: Here is my concern. You currently know that they plagiarised one of your sentences. Maybe not the biggest of big deals. That doesn't mean it is the only thing they plagiarised across the whole paper though. There could be other instances from other sources that you don't recognise since they're not yours. Finding one instance of plagiarism is enough for me to take a much more suspicious view of the whole document.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: hap made it all the more obvious and silly. Now here are my options and why I'm conflicted - I could: 1. Reject the paper with generic comments to authors and editor (not novel enough, etc). 2. Reject with no comments to authors, but with a letter to the editor telling them about the plagiarism. 3. Refuse to review - claim conflict of interest that I hadn't noticed when I first accepted to review. Something I wish I could consider doing, but obviously won't, due to the ethics and anonymity of peer-review: 4. Contact my acquaintance who is co-author, and alert them about what I assume the first author did. They'd probably set things straight somehow. I am not bothered that much about being plagiarised. It's just a sentence after all, and I don't want to seem petty. Also, the first author is probably a junior scientist. At one hand, I think they should learn that this is unacceptable. On the other hand, I don't want to be haste to go with option (2), because I don't know what the consequences of that might be (I wouldn't want to be the reason they're blacklisted or ruin their reputation for example). They may have simply not learned properly that this is not how one writes a paper. It might be a remnant of undergraduate writing habits. It's wrong in undergrad as well, but I guess it happens a lot more often and goes unnoticed/unpunished.
RESPONSE A: Here is my concern. You currently know that they plagiarised one of your sentences. Maybe not the biggest of big deals. That doesn't mean it is the only thing they plagiarised across the whole paper though. There could be other instances from other sources that you don't recognise since they're not yours. Finding one instance of plagiarism is enough for me to take a much more suspicious view of the whole document.
RESPONSE B: I would go for option 2 and report them for plagiarism. If they did this with at least one sentence of your work, they likely did this with other works. As a reviewer, it is your responsibility to report this to the editor and let them make any larger decisions about what action must be taken.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: authors, but with a letter to the editor telling them about the plagiarism. 3. Refuse to review - claim conflict of interest that I hadn't noticed when I first accepted to review. Something I wish I could consider doing, but obviously won't, due to the ethics and anonymity of peer-review: 4. Contact my acquaintance who is co-author, and alert them about what I assume the first author did. They'd probably set things straight somehow. I am not bothered that much about being plagiarised. It's just a sentence after all, and I don't want to seem petty. Also, the first author is probably a junior scientist. At one hand, I think they should learn that this is unacceptable. On the other hand, I don't want to be haste to go with option (2), because I don't know what the consequences of that might be (I wouldn't want to be the reason they're blacklisted or ruin their reputation for example). They may have simply not learned properly that this is not how one writes a paper. It might be a remnant of undergraduate writing habits. It's wrong in undergrad as well, but I guess it happens a lot more often and goes unnoticed/unpunished.
RESPONSE A: I'd go with #2. You could tell the editor that you're not exactly sure where the line would be drawn on plagiarism, but that you've identified passages that seem uncomfortably similar to previous works (and those are just the ones that you've noticed, there may be more). I don't think "blacklisting" in a landscape with countless peer-reviewed journals is really a concern; but at the very least, the editor should share their concerns with the lead author, and hopefully they'll learn not to borrow so handily from other sources.
RESPONSE B: Hey u/vsturtle, I'm also conflicted here, since it is only one sentence. So, the first thing I would do is to check and re-check that they only did it once. If you are positively sure that they only plagiarized you once, I would not report them for plagiarism, and go with either option 1 and most likely option 3.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: generic comments to authors and editor (not novel enough, etc). 2. Reject with no comments to authors, but with a letter to the editor telling them about the plagiarism. 3. Refuse to review - claim conflict of interest that I hadn't noticed when I first accepted to review. Something I wish I could consider doing, but obviously won't, due to the ethics and anonymity of peer-review: 4. Contact my acquaintance who is co-author, and alert them about what I assume the first author did. They'd probably set things straight somehow. I am not bothered that much about being plagiarised. It's just a sentence after all, and I don't want to seem petty. Also, the first author is probably a junior scientist. At one hand, I think they should learn that this is unacceptable. On the other hand, I don't want to be haste to go with option (2), because I don't know what the consequences of that might be (I wouldn't want to be the reason they're blacklisted or ruin their reputation for example). They may have simply not learned properly that this is not how one writes a paper. It might be a remnant of undergraduate writing habits. It's wrong in undergrad as well, but I guess it happens a lot more often and goes unnoticed/unpunished.
RESPONSE A: I'd go with #2. You could tell the editor that you're not exactly sure where the line would be drawn on plagiarism, but that you've identified passages that seem uncomfortably similar to previous works (and those are just the ones that you've noticed, there may be more). I don't think "blacklisting" in a landscape with countless peer-reviewed journals is really a concern; but at the very least, the editor should share their concerns with the lead author, and hopefully they'll learn not to borrow so handily from other sources.
RESPONSE B: I would go for option 2 and report them for plagiarism. If they did this with at least one sentence of your work, they likely did this with other works. As a reviewer, it is your responsibility to report this to the editor and let them make any larger decisions about what action must be taken.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 1. Reject the paper with generic comments to authors and editor (not novel enough, etc). 2. Reject with no comments to authors, but with a letter to the editor telling them about the plagiarism. 3. Refuse to review - claim conflict of interest that I hadn't noticed when I first accepted to review. Something I wish I could consider doing, but obviously won't, due to the ethics and anonymity of peer-review: 4. Contact my acquaintance who is co-author, and alert them about what I assume the first author did. They'd probably set things straight somehow. I am not bothered that much about being plagiarised. It's just a sentence after all, and I don't want to seem petty. Also, the first author is probably a junior scientist. At one hand, I think they should learn that this is unacceptable. On the other hand, I don't want to be haste to go with option (2), because I don't know what the consequences of that might be (I wouldn't want to be the reason they're blacklisted or ruin their reputation for example). They may have simply not learned properly that this is not how one writes a paper. It might be a remnant of undergraduate writing habits. It's wrong in undergrad as well, but I guess it happens a lot more often and goes unnoticed/unpunished.
RESPONSE A: Email the editor with your concerns and evidence. Many (most?) journals have procedures for dealing with plagiarism and other ethical concerns that are beyond the scope of the peer review process.
RESPONSE B: There's another option, which is a variant of option 1: reject, but with specific comments about improper citations. Failure to cite enough/properly is a perfectly valid reason to reject. You can also likely phrase that in a way that isn't overly accusatory but that your acquaintance will understand and address. That said, option 2 looks like a strong option. I understand your concern about this author perhaps not knowing the difference, but I'm skeptical: my graduate and undergraduate department, my advisor, and many of my professors have all set aside time to make sure that we know how to avoid plagiarism. Possibly an accident, but at this level, less likely.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: . No real mea culpa or "please explain to me what I'm doing wrong," just that he'll go 'fix it'. After his second round of edits it seems like he's removed most of the plagiarism but some parts still exist. I'm pretty flabbergasted at this point. I talk to my professor and agree to outline all the portions he had plagiarized. It just seemed like my partner was completely clueless about the seriousness of this, or didn't care. School administration wants me to testify about this and my partner has been blowing up my phone trying to talk to me, because I think he has a disciplinary hearing tomorrow. He's texting me telling me he only put copied parts in there as a kind of placeholder until he filled it in with his own words. He never once said this to me and that practice in and of itself sounds rather suspect. Seems like he's freaking and really wants to talk to me. This whole episode is making me feel ill wondering if I did the right thing. I'm even considering returning his call telling him my side of the story, but my gut tells me I should probably not speak to him. Did I do the right thing? And what would you have done differently?
RESPONSE A: Graduate level course. It is virtually impossible that he has made it to graduate level mathematics courses without even being conceptually aware that plagiarism is against most university rules. I can't tell you not to feel bad about what you did; emotions aren't always rational, and when someone is freaking out and blowing up your phone it's hard to avoid it. The best way to think about it is that he made a choice to plagiarize and he made a choice to do it on a shared assignment. If you hadn't caught it, you could have ended up in trouble too. *He knew that* and he did it anyway. You gave him ample opportunity to fix what he did; two warnings. Everything you did was correct, and anything consequences that he faces because of this are *his fault*, not yours.
RESPONSE B: I almost thought you meant your SO by the title....that would be really dramatic
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: this looks pretty bad and I confront him about it. He looks somewhat embarrassed, but smiles it off and says he just needs to add citations. He says he has fixed his portions but when I check them, the plagiarized sections are mostly intact, and all he has really added are inaccurate citations. i.e., he found a passage from a website, but then attributed it to a wholly different paper. I talk to him about it again, this time being much more explicit about the fact that he was plagiarizing. No real mea culpa or "please explain to me what I'm doing wrong," just that he'll go 'fix it'. After his second round of edits it seems like he's removed most of the plagiarism but some parts still exist. I'm pretty flabbergasted at this point. I talk to my professor and agree to outline all the portions he had plagiarized. It just seemed like my partner was completely clueless about the seriousness of this, or didn't care. School administration wants me to testify about this and my partner has been blowing up my phone trying to talk to me, because I think he has a disciplinary hearing tomorrow. He's texting me telling me he only put copied parts in there as a kind of placeholder until he filled it in with his own words. He never once said this to me and that practice in and of itself sounds rather suspect. Seems like he's freaking and really wants to talk to me. This whole episode is making me feel ill wondering if I did the right thing. I'm even considering returning his call telling him my side of the story, but my gut tells me I should probably not speak to him. Did I do the right thing? And what would you have done differently?
RESPONSE A: If you noticed his bizarre writing style, your teacher would have too. You did the right thing and have no obligation to talk to him about it. You warned him that he was obviously plagiarizing, the fact that he didn't fix his work is 100% on him.
RESPONSE B: I almost thought you meant your SO by the title....that would be really dramatic
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 33% plagiarized. So this looks pretty bad and I confront him about it. He looks somewhat embarrassed, but smiles it off and says he just needs to add citations. He says he has fixed his portions but when I check them, the plagiarized sections are mostly intact, and all he has really added are inaccurate citations. i.e., he found a passage from a website, but then attributed it to a wholly different paper. I talk to him about it again, this time being much more explicit about the fact that he was plagiarizing. No real mea culpa or "please explain to me what I'm doing wrong," just that he'll go 'fix it'. After his second round of edits it seems like he's removed most of the plagiarism but some parts still exist. I'm pretty flabbergasted at this point. I talk to my professor and agree to outline all the portions he had plagiarized. It just seemed like my partner was completely clueless about the seriousness of this, or didn't care. School administration wants me to testify about this and my partner has been blowing up my phone trying to talk to me, because I think he has a disciplinary hearing tomorrow. He's texting me telling me he only put copied parts in there as a kind of placeholder until he filled it in with his own words. He never once said this to me and that practice in and of itself sounds rather suspect. Seems like he's freaking and really wants to talk to me. This whole episode is making me feel ill wondering if I did the right thing. I'm even considering returning his call telling him my side of the story, but my gut tells me I should probably not speak to him. Did I do the right thing? And what would you have done differently?
RESPONSE A: I almost thought you meant your SO by the title....that would be really dramatic
RESPONSE B: I'm an English professor. You absolutely and without question did the right thing. You warned him more than once, and he was jeopardizing your performance by cheating. Rest easy. I wish you better partners in the future.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: a website, but then attributed it to a wholly different paper. I talk to him about it again, this time being much more explicit about the fact that he was plagiarizing. No real mea culpa or "please explain to me what I'm doing wrong," just that he'll go 'fix it'. After his second round of edits it seems like he's removed most of the plagiarism but some parts still exist. I'm pretty flabbergasted at this point. I talk to my professor and agree to outline all the portions he had plagiarized. It just seemed like my partner was completely clueless about the seriousness of this, or didn't care. School administration wants me to testify about this and my partner has been blowing up my phone trying to talk to me, because I think he has a disciplinary hearing tomorrow. He's texting me telling me he only put copied parts in there as a kind of placeholder until he filled it in with his own words. He never once said this to me and that practice in and of itself sounds rather suspect. Seems like he's freaking and really wants to talk to me. This whole episode is making me feel ill wondering if I did the right thing. I'm even considering returning his call telling him my side of the story, but my gut tells me I should probably not speak to him. Did I do the right thing? And what would you have done differently?
RESPONSE A: It really sucks when someone who is supposed to be your peer engages in such egregious misconduct. You don't want the responsibility of having to be like this person's boss, however if you take your own studies seriously you unfortunately have to. You have every right to be mad at him for putting you in this position, and don't let him manipulate the narrative into one where you caused the problem. If he is someone who has a childish notion of us-against-them, why is he taking graduate level courses in the first place? Is he planning on being a con man later in life?
RESPONSE B: I almost thought you meant your SO by the title....that would be really dramatic
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: lly different paper. I talk to him about it again, this time being much more explicit about the fact that he was plagiarizing. No real mea culpa or "please explain to me what I'm doing wrong," just that he'll go 'fix it'. After his second round of edits it seems like he's removed most of the plagiarism but some parts still exist. I'm pretty flabbergasted at this point. I talk to my professor and agree to outline all the portions he had plagiarized. It just seemed like my partner was completely clueless about the seriousness of this, or didn't care. School administration wants me to testify about this and my partner has been blowing up my phone trying to talk to me, because I think he has a disciplinary hearing tomorrow. He's texting me telling me he only put copied parts in there as a kind of placeholder until he filled it in with his own words. He never once said this to me and that practice in and of itself sounds rather suspect. Seems like he's freaking and really wants to talk to me. This whole episode is making me feel ill wondering if I did the right thing. I'm even considering returning his call telling him my side of the story, but my gut tells me I should probably not speak to him. Did I do the right thing? And what would you have done differently?
RESPONSE A: You absolutely did the right thing. Let's suppose you did nothing and just turned in the paper as is. There's a high chance that your professor, like you, would be immediately suspicious. If you knowingly turned in plagiarized work, even if your partner was the one who "wrote" the plagiarized parts, you yourself would be responsible. Even if you had no clue the parts were plagiarized and turned it in, it may be very hard to clear your name. Most people don't like ratting on someone else. But you gave this person a chance and he was seriously jeopardizing your own academic standing. You did the only reasonable thing in this situation.
RESPONSE B: I almost thought you meant your SO by the title....that would be really dramatic
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: At my department there is a strong stereotype about my race-gender combo 'doing fraud' and 'plagiarizing'. Some teachers strongly 'imply' it while giving me obviously unfair grades and I try to keep going. Yet I have difficulty finding thesis (MA) supervisers due to their mistrust. What should I do?
RESPONSE A: It's usually pretty easy to prove to your supervisors that your work is your own. They can tell because: -- Your thought process in conference matches the work you are handing in. -- Your English ability in your emails matches your abilities in your handed-in work. -- You are able to discuss your written work at the same level of knowledge that it is written at. If there is a wide discrepancy between what you are handing in and the abilities you demonstrate on a daily basis, of course there is going to be suspicion. I have known many plagiarists who prefer to blame their plagiarism on racism. I guess in today's environment that is their best bet. Clearly this thread is an exhibit of how easy it would be for a true plagiarist to generate sympathy by claiming racism.
RESPONSE B: What, exactly, is this race-gender stereotype? I think this piece is crucial in order to give you a good answer.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: it quits?
RESPONSE A: I decided to leave academia in January, which was a few weeks after I defended my dissertation and midway through my first cycle on the market. A few different things converged, but overall, I got tired of the way the market seemed to dictate my future. I felt like instead of actively creating (much less living) the life that I wanted, I was just waiting around, hoping that the gods of the academic job market would "let me" have it, eg, "let me" move to the specific part of the country I wanted to live in, "let me" find secure, well-paying work in a reasonable timeframe, etc. I guess I just had this moment where I was like, why am I doing this? If I know where I want to live, then why aren't I just focusing on trying to move there? If I know I *don't* want to live in XYZ place or teach at XYZ kind of school, then why am I applying for jobs there? And eventually I came to the conclusion that an academic career, as it exists now, was an obstacle to the rest of my life, instead of enriching the rest of my life.
RESPONSE B: I was feeling out the idea well before I defended. Then was pretty much settled on “I guess I’ll try a year on the market after I defend, just to say I tried,” because everyone told me I owed it to myself not to “give up.” Then the pandemic hit right after I defended and I spent the year actively avoiding trying to work on turning any chapters of my dissertation into journal articles and just realized I actively hate the whole publish or perish dynamic of academia and I wasn’t “giving up” by saying that it wasn’t for me. I went ahead and skipped the academic market in favor of applying to a handful of librarian and rare books/special collections jobs alongside applying to a masters program for library and information science (which had always been my intended backup plan since I’d worked for my university’s Rare Books department for several years while ABD). I had my second round interview for a Humanities Librarian position a few weeks ago and am currently waiting on hearing from the rest.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: At what point did you decide to leave academia? What was the breaking point for you? I've been on the job market for 4 years since getting my PhD (humanities/social sciences). As the years go on, I'm realizing there might not be a (secure salaried) job for me in the field. When did you decide to call it quits?
RESPONSE A: I decided when I graduated that I’d give myself 3 years on the job market in transient or part time positions before looking for other options. I’d seen so many people trapped in “one more year” land and thought it was better to decide up front rather than put myself in a position of convincing myself to do one more go around Thankfully, I landed a place in that last year but we’d been firming up plans for moving on.
RESPONSE B: I decided to leave academia in January, which was a few weeks after I defended my dissertation and midway through my first cycle on the market. A few different things converged, but overall, I got tired of the way the market seemed to dictate my future. I felt like instead of actively creating (much less living) the life that I wanted, I was just waiting around, hoping that the gods of the academic job market would "let me" have it, eg, "let me" move to the specific part of the country I wanted to live in, "let me" find secure, well-paying work in a reasonable timeframe, etc. I guess I just had this moment where I was like, why am I doing this? If I know where I want to live, then why aren't I just focusing on trying to move there? If I know I *don't* want to live in XYZ place or teach at XYZ kind of school, then why am I applying for jobs there? And eventually I came to the conclusion that an academic career, as it exists now, was an obstacle to the rest of my life, instead of enriching the rest of my life.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: At what point did you decide to leave academia? What was the breaking point for you? I've been on the job market for 4 years since getting my PhD (humanities/social sciences). As the years go on, I'm realizing there might not be a (secure salaried) job for me in the field. When did you decide to call it quits?
RESPONSE A: I started my PhD (lit.theory) right before the 2008 financial crisis started. My country (Greece) was the worst hit by it and, when I finished in 2012, we were in the middle of our own crisis (well, beginning-to-middle). A rule the IMF imposed was that for every 10 civil servants that leave (either by pension or otherwise) 1 can be hired. Since all universities here are public (and free), uni teachers were included in that rule. I immediately realized it wasn't happening and I found another job that permitted me to not completely give up, though. I became a translator and a private tutor (both part-time jobs where I could make my own schedule) and still kept writing articles, going to conferences. I even organized one (with great success I might add). And then, in 2017, I sent a desperate email to my former supervisor. I was basically asking, 'Is there hope?' His answer was an emphatic no. He told me that a few years before there were 27 teachers in his department. There were now 14. That's when I gave up. I finished my obligations (some reviews, a conference, a chapter and co-editing a book) and never looked back. I still have connections in academia and they ask me to do easy stuff, which I do, but other than that I'm not even looking at job postings. At all. Haven't for years.
RESPONSE B: Just out of curiosity, since I am just entering the job market: What have you been doing for work during those four years? Did you remain in academia as an adjunct or lecturer? Did you try something else while you continued applying? Thanks for sharing!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: At what point did you decide to leave academia? What was the breaking point for you? I've been on the job market for 4 years since getting my PhD (humanities/social sciences). As the years go on, I'm realizing there might not be a (secure salaried) job for me in the field. When did you decide to call it quits?
RESPONSE A: The second I realised just how much I could get paid in the corporate world thanks to my PhD.
RESPONSE B: Just out of curiosity, since I am just entering the job market: What have you been doing for work during those four years? Did you remain in academia as an adjunct or lecturer? Did you try something else while you continued applying? Thanks for sharing!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: At what point did you decide to leave academia? What was the breaking point for you? I've been on the job market for 4 years since getting my PhD (humanities/social sciences). As the years go on, I'm realizing there might not be a (secure salaried) job for me in the field. When did you decide to call it quits?
RESPONSE A: Just out of curiosity, since I am just entering the job market: What have you been doing for work during those four years? Did you remain in academia as an adjunct or lecturer? Did you try something else while you continued applying? Thanks for sharing!
RESPONSE B: I had an arm injury that I didn't know how bad it was. And I had one chance to go to a doctor and get diagnosed, before going away to travel. I got pulled in for an emergency meeting with a Dean and a student that the student didn't show for, and didn't get it diagnosed in time. I'd severed my bicep and now have a permanent chunk missing from my arm. At the same time, one of the more senior professors I work with had a heart attack in exam season (the school had unreasonable expectations, with everyone expected to mark hundreds of scripts within a week). All of the admin staff were like "yeah it's that time of year, it happens a lot"
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: lot for another few years, then maybe get a TT offer, then maybe get tenure". I'm probably in an ok position for TT at *some* point as long as I can get a few more solid publications out, but it still feels like a huge **IF** that is years down the line with extra uncertainties attached to it. I'm also worried about the stress of trying to start a family while trying to get tenure; I feel like I've only heard stories of my professors getting up/going to sleep at 5am/midnight just to get work done with the kids asleep. I'm curious how others, especially post-docs that initially wanted to stay in academia, decided to continue with their career and what swayed you. At the moment, I just feel kind of lost with it all.
RESPONSE A: Hey, can I DM you some things I've written on this topic? I don't want to link my Reddit user name to my actual identity but it might be helpful for you...
RESPONSE B: The truth no one inside is willing to tell you: get out of academia and live your life! There are fulfilling careers elsewhere. There are intelligent people who like to learn and work hard everywhere. You will find them. You can get paid more (might not sound important, I know it didn’t to me when I was younger, but it is vital for achieving simple life goals you may have), stress a lot less, live wherever you want, and the list goes on. My life got better when I gave up adjuncting and my goal to eventually teach full time. My friends who stayed are not living the dream like I suspected they would be, they are underpaid and admit they are unhappy 10 years later. I wish I had left sooner. People my age are much further along on the career path I’m now on. But I try not to dwell on that! I’m happy now and I bring special skills with me from my days in academia that others in my position don’t have. This is just one opinion, I’m sure there are many! But I think it’s an important one to hear and I know when I decided to leave, no one on the inside was supportive of that decision, and I would’ve liked to hear this.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: publications out, but it still feels like a huge **IF** that is years down the line with extra uncertainties attached to it. I'm also worried about the stress of trying to start a family while trying to get tenure; I feel like I've only heard stories of my professors getting up/going to sleep at 5am/midnight just to get work done with the kids asleep. I'm curious how others, especially post-docs that initially wanted to stay in academia, decided to continue with their career and what swayed you. At the moment, I just feel kind of lost with it all.
RESPONSE A: I was in metabolic engineering / microbiology. Had 25+ papers (about 10 first author), pre-doc and post-doc grants, teaching experience, etc. Applied to four R1 universities and got interviews at three. Lost one position to literally my old PI (it was an open rank position; and yeah he didn't tell me ahead of time despite also writing a rec letter for me), lost the second to an old labmate that was about 3-4 years ahead of me, and lost the last one to someone ten years ahead of me. This was all around my third year of postdoccing. I'm sure I could land a decent TT position if I'd applied to more over the next year or so. Didn't feel like doing more rounds of that schlock. Left for industry. I work 35-40 hours a week and make what an associate professor would make. My job is fun, my coworkers are almost all nice people, and I don't ever think about work outside of work. The work I do is directly beneficial to people and without our work, patients in clinical settings would be in absolutely worse shape. I spend a lot of my free time with my wife and toddler or on my hobbies. I'm not going back to academia. So, it's a very personal decision, but in almost all instances I believe industry work will be more conducive to a healthy work-life balance.
RESPONSE B: Hey, can I DM you some things I've written on this topic? I don't want to link my Reddit user name to my actual identity but it might be helpful for you...
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: you. At the moment, I just feel kind of lost with it all.
RESPONSE A: I was in metabolic engineering / microbiology. Had 25+ papers (about 10 first author), pre-doc and post-doc grants, teaching experience, etc. Applied to four R1 universities and got interviews at three. Lost one position to literally my old PI (it was an open rank position; and yeah he didn't tell me ahead of time despite also writing a rec letter for me), lost the second to an old labmate that was about 3-4 years ahead of me, and lost the last one to someone ten years ahead of me. This was all around my third year of postdoccing. I'm sure I could land a decent TT position if I'd applied to more over the next year or so. Didn't feel like doing more rounds of that schlock. Left for industry. I work 35-40 hours a week and make what an associate professor would make. My job is fun, my coworkers are almost all nice people, and I don't ever think about work outside of work. The work I do is directly beneficial to people and without our work, patients in clinical settings would be in absolutely worse shape. I spend a lot of my free time with my wife and toddler or on my hobbies. I'm not going back to academia. So, it's a very personal decision, but in almost all instances I believe industry work will be more conducive to a healthy work-life balance.
RESPONSE B: Honestly, it sounds like you’re in a great position. Why not try both directions? Keep doing what you’re doing, but put in applications for a range of both industry and academia. Maybe academia works out, maybe you get the chance for the *coolest* thing to do in industry. You’re right that it’s incredibly hard to predict how things work out in academia, but it doesn’t have to be a momentous “I. have. left. the. field!” statement right now. You can see what options are out there before making a final decison. That’s what I did; it worked out in academia in the end, but barring that one job offer, industry would have been great.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: scientist in a lab for a long time. I overcame a lot of obstacles and now I’m part of a cancer research lab at an amazing institute, it’s a real privilege to be there. My thesis is due in January. About a year ago I realised maybe research isn’t for me after all, and I have been really struggling with it. I feel like a failure, I feel unfaithful to everyone who has helped me or mentored me, for thinking that after all this time and effort I’ve discovered that maybe I don’t actually want to be a scientist after all. I am not afraid of hard work, when it is my passion. But I don’t think cancer/research is my true passion. And I feel horrible for wishing my degree was over so I could leave this all behind... when I know it’s a huge privilege to be able to get an education and work in such an important field. Like did I just waste my and everyone else’s time and money? After all the effort to learn how to be a cancer researcher, my heart tells me it’s not happy and I wish I was doing something else. I feel horrible about it. Any advice is welcome... thank you and I’m so sorry for the negativity.
RESPONSE A: Moved across the US for a quiche tech job to partner a PhD student under our PI. PhD student is already buddy buddy with PI, brilliant & more practically knowledgeable than myself, but riddled with personal issues. Drops her PhD and PI fires me to give her my job offering a reference and a sorry. Never again.
RESPONSE B: I realized it while doing my first postdoc when I needed to teach a class to bridge a funding hiccup. While the experience was rewarding (after a fashion), it was clear that it wasn't for me. I took a job a national lab and never looked back. Follow your instincts. If the job isn't right for you, don't do it. You'll just be miserable and burn out. Since it's just a few more months to go, by all means, finish your Ph.D. And then move on with your life.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: research lab at an amazing institute, it’s a real privilege to be there. My thesis is due in January. About a year ago I realised maybe research isn’t for me after all, and I have been really struggling with it. I feel like a failure, I feel unfaithful to everyone who has helped me or mentored me, for thinking that after all this time and effort I’ve discovered that maybe I don’t actually want to be a scientist after all. I am not afraid of hard work, when it is my passion. But I don’t think cancer/research is my true passion. And I feel horrible for wishing my degree was over so I could leave this all behind... when I know it’s a huge privilege to be able to get an education and work in such an important field. Like did I just waste my and everyone else’s time and money? After all the effort to learn how to be a cancer researcher, my heart tells me it’s not happy and I wish I was doing something else. I feel horrible about it. Any advice is welcome... thank you and I’m so sorry for the negativity.
RESPONSE A: Hey, I'm in a similar situation at the moment and just wante to tell you you're not alone. I'm planning on taking a break in industry, as I've rolled from undergrad to PhD without ever experiencing anything else. It would be good to at least try something else so then I won't always be wondering. I could always returned to academia - very few decisions at this point in our careers are truly permanent :) Best of luck to you with thesis writing!
RESPONSE B: I realized it while doing my first postdoc when I needed to teach a class to bridge a funding hiccup. While the experience was rewarding (after a fashion), it was clear that it wasn't for me. I took a job a national lab and never looked back. Follow your instincts. If the job isn't right for you, don't do it. You'll just be miserable and burn out. Since it's just a few more months to go, by all means, finish your Ph.D. And then move on with your life.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: a lot of obstacles and now I’m part of a cancer research lab at an amazing institute, it’s a real privilege to be there. My thesis is due in January. About a year ago I realised maybe research isn’t for me after all, and I have been really struggling with it. I feel like a failure, I feel unfaithful to everyone who has helped me or mentored me, for thinking that after all this time and effort I’ve discovered that maybe I don’t actually want to be a scientist after all. I am not afraid of hard work, when it is my passion. But I don’t think cancer/research is my true passion. And I feel horrible for wishing my degree was over so I could leave this all behind... when I know it’s a huge privilege to be able to get an education and work in such an important field. Like did I just waste my and everyone else’s time and money? After all the effort to learn how to be a cancer researcher, my heart tells me it’s not happy and I wish I was doing something else. I feel horrible about it. Any advice is welcome... thank you and I’m so sorry for the negativity.
RESPONSE A: I realized it in 2012 when the AVP head of our unit made me choose on candidate over the one I wanted to hire - jeez it was a long slow hard ride until it got so awful - I left to go to a doctor’s appointment and found I was in a depression, completely stopped eating, lost about 40lbs - down to 88lbs, no energy - FMLA for 12 weeks, then quit.
RESPONSE B: I realized it while doing my first postdoc when I needed to teach a class to bridge a funding hiccup. While the experience was rewarding (after a fashion), it was clear that it wasn't for me. I took a job a national lab and never looked back. Follow your instincts. If the job isn't right for you, don't do it. You'll just be miserable and burn out. Since it's just a few more months to go, by all means, finish your Ph.D. And then move on with your life.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I have been really struggling with it. I feel like a failure, I feel unfaithful to everyone who has helped me or mentored me, for thinking that after all this time and effort I’ve discovered that maybe I don’t actually want to be a scientist after all. I am not afraid of hard work, when it is my passion. But I don’t think cancer/research is my true passion. And I feel horrible for wishing my degree was over so I could leave this all behind... when I know it’s a huge privilege to be able to get an education and work in such an important field. Like did I just waste my and everyone else’s time and money? After all the effort to learn how to be a cancer researcher, my heart tells me it’s not happy and I wish I was doing something else. I feel horrible about it. Any advice is welcome... thank you and I’m so sorry for the negativity.
RESPONSE A: I realized it while doing my first postdoc when I needed to teach a class to bridge a funding hiccup. While the experience was rewarding (after a fashion), it was clear that it wasn't for me. I took a job a national lab and never looked back. Follow your instincts. If the job isn't right for you, don't do it. You'll just be miserable and burn out. Since it's just a few more months to go, by all means, finish your Ph.D. And then move on with your life.
RESPONSE B: Been there. Leaving academia was the best thing I ever done. Finished my MA thesis, started my PhD, already submitted a proposal and had a lot of things planned before dropping it. Felt 0 guilt because the main reason I dropped it was being underpaid and feeling underappreciated by my advisor, who I previously respected a lot. Once I realized my entire life in academia is going to consist of begging for money and kissing the undeserving asses of strangers for said money, I completely lost interest. I now work in the industry for twice the pay + company perks, and I will still get to do research at some point in the company. Never going back to uni.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Am I a fool to leave academia? I will preface this by saying I know this is a decision I must make myself for myself, I’m just hoping to hear some of your perspectives. I was lucky to have a great PI and very productive PhD. Academia forever was my goal when I started, so I also worked hard to network and build my mentoring experience and skills. My connections are solid and I feel like I have an ok shot at a professor position (a slight advantage in a very competitive field, that is). Yet, the glow of academia faded once I got pregnant and had my baby. I realize how much the PIs I know think about their work... all the time. The pressure in the early years trying to secure tenure seems huge, and a few have told me they missed out on a lot of family life. I want to love my work but not be consumed by it. I want my child to have my full attention when we’re at home. I don’t think academia is compatible with this. I am staring down the decision of postdoc or biotech industry positions. Leaving academia feels right, but difficult because I worked so hard to be a good candidate, and I feel like once I leave the door is closed. How many of you are working on choosing between industry and academia? Any advice from those who have been through it?
RESPONSE A: I left and haven’t looked back. I work for a consulting firm and even though the work is unrelated to my area I still use my research and writing skills daily. My work life balance is amazing and I get to work from home. Best decision I ever made!
RESPONSE B: I left academia two years ago and took up a position in R&D. I had a reasonable track record, good employment prospects, but it came at the cost of working myself into the ground. Since leaving I've never been happier. Excellent work life balance, still contribute to science through publications and have developed several products that are in everyday use. I'll never go back to the academic shit show.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: ?
RESPONSE A: I want to recommend national labs ... better work life balance, less stress, more pay, and you still get to do research (with more collaborative focus) and publish papers. You may also have opportunities to mentor summer students.
RESPONSE B: I'm currently a senior postdoc and am considering my future plans - whether to go into biotech or academia. I've done well enough that I have a solid chance of success in either. I've also recently had a child. So in these respects, I think we're in a similar boat. Since my field is applicable clinically, I'm ok with either option, research-wise. My wife is also a postdoc, and we've been realizing since we've had a baby that an academic postdoc position (in a big lab, with money, especially by year 2-3) might be the most flexible occupation. I took almost 5 months off for paternity leave and nobody cared. We probably don't even work 35 hours/week and nobody cares. Just make sure that you join a lab with an understanding PI. I think, at this point for me, if I can get a great academic TT position, I'll take it because I can always transition to industry after several years and start out at a much higher position in industry. Also, my 4-5 year of academic postdoc (with a well-known PI, publishing well) seems to be well received in industry as well so much so that I'm getting recruited by big pharma/biotech companies pretty regularly. So don't think that an academic postdoc is a waste of time. But you might want to choose a PI that's well known, loaded with cash, and has a lot of industry connections. For me, my PI can call the heads of departments at big pharmas and that alone gets me an interview automatically (I do get a long very well with my PI and have published well). The one obvious negative about academic postdoc is the pay. Not much you can do about that. To me, what it comes down to is, flexibility or money? Of course, if your interest is very very basic science, then academia might be the better option for you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: he would have started interviewing candidates, and maybe hired one. Then the clock is really ticking because my boss can't afford to pay for two of me. During the first of those six months I would not have been able to interview anywhere, because no company would be willing to hire me six months out. Maybe 2-3 months from the deadline I could start interviewing. Knowing what I know now, I would have been unemployed for several months. Why should I have taken all the risk? So what do you all think, was I out of line? I know I burned a bridge, and I can never use my current boss as a reference, but I already thought I could never use him as a reference so I don't think this has changed very much except the level of hostility.
RESPONSE A: Look, I don't even work in academia. I've never even commented here, just lurked. But the lesson you taught your boss is universal, it's the same one I taught my store manager when I decided to go back for my MS: Never rest the future of your career entirely on the person below you. *Especially* if the person below you is young and too smart for their position. Most especially if you do not treat them well. My boss was pissed too- I upended plans for his promotion, moving, buying a house, having a baby... Absolutely none of which was my responsibility. The same goes for you- we can all only be responsible for the development of ourselves and sometimes those below us. We never owe career advancement to those above us. Never.
RESPONSE B: You need to do what you need to do for yourself. Your old boss was an asshole, and you are honoring your contract. That’s all you are obligated to do. If your old boss cared about you as much as he cares about himself, he would have treated you better. Unfortunately, he is too stupid to realize that it was in his own best interest to do so. Now he will reap the reward for his stupidity. It’s not your responsibility to work that shitty job for low wages to save his career. If he needed you so badly, the stupid bastard should have treated you well and paid you what you are worth.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: didn't trust him. I don't think there are many industry jobs out there that will want to hire me and then be ok with waiting several months before I start. And I had no idea if I could even find an industry job in my field that I would have wanted to take. And if I HAD told my boss I wanted to leave, what would have happened? My boss says, ok, I need you to stay here six more months. Then he would have started interviewing candidates, and maybe hired one. Then the clock is really ticking because my boss can't afford to pay for two of me. During the first of those six months I would not have been able to interview anywhere, because no company would be willing to hire me six months out. Maybe 2-3 months from the deadline I could start interviewing. Knowing what I know now, I would have been unemployed for several months. Why should I have taken all the risk? So what do you all think, was I out of line? I know I burned a bridge, and I can never use my current boss as a reference, but I already thought I could never use him as a reference so I don't think this has changed very much except the level of hostility.
RESPONSE A: You come first and have the right to take your considerable skills elsewhere. Who cares if you've inconvenienced some guy who was a dick to you. You and your own wellbeing are the priority!
RESPONSE B: Look, I don't even work in academia. I've never even commented here, just lurked. But the lesson you taught your boss is universal, it's the same one I taught my store manager when I decided to go back for my MS: Never rest the future of your career entirely on the person below you. *Especially* if the person below you is young and too smart for their position. Most especially if you do not treat them well. My boss was pissed too- I upended plans for his promotion, moving, buying a house, having a baby... Absolutely none of which was my responsibility. The same goes for you- we can all only be responsible for the development of ourselves and sometimes those below us. We never owe career advancement to those above us. Never.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: that nature. I get that it would have been nice to have given him some warning. I wish I felt I could have. But I didn't trust him. I don't think there are many industry jobs out there that will want to hire me and then be ok with waiting several months before I start. And I had no idea if I could even find an industry job in my field that I would have wanted to take. And if I HAD told my boss I wanted to leave, what would have happened? My boss says, ok, I need you to stay here six more months. Then he would have started interviewing candidates, and maybe hired one. Then the clock is really ticking because my boss can't afford to pay for two of me. During the first of those six months I would not have been able to interview anywhere, because no company would be willing to hire me six months out. Maybe 2-3 months from the deadline I could start interviewing. Knowing what I know now, I would have been unemployed for several months. Why should I have taken all the risk? So what do you all think, was I out of line? I know I burned a bridge, and I can never use my current boss as a reference, but I already thought I could never use him as a reference so I don't think this has changed very much except the level of hostility.
RESPONSE A: Look, I don't even work in academia. I've never even commented here, just lurked. But the lesson you taught your boss is universal, it's the same one I taught my store manager when I decided to go back for my MS: Never rest the future of your career entirely on the person below you. *Especially* if the person below you is young and too smart for their position. Most especially if you do not treat them well. My boss was pissed too- I upended plans for his promotion, moving, buying a house, having a baby... Absolutely none of which was my responsibility. The same goes for you- we can all only be responsible for the development of ourselves and sometimes those below us. We never owe career advancement to those above us. Never.
RESPONSE B: You did the right things. Enjoy your new job, hope they treat you better!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: ASAP. I asked if I could have a break between my current job, they said a short break would be ok, but one month was too long. So I told my boss I was leaving, gave the minimum notice my contract requires (more than a week, less than a month), and now my boss is absolutely pissed. He tells me it will take him many months to find a replacement, and asks if I could wait a few months before leaving. That I should have told him I was leaving to let him plan for this. That I was ruining his career. Other things of that nature. I get that it would have been nice to have given him some warning. I wish I felt I could have. But I didn't trust him. I don't think there are many industry jobs out there that will want to hire me and then be ok with waiting several months before I start. And I had no idea if I could even find an industry job in my field that I would have wanted to take. And if I HAD told my boss I wanted to leave, what would have happened? My boss says, ok, I need you to stay here six more months. Then he would have started interviewing candidates, and maybe hired one. Then the clock is really ticking because my boss can't afford to pay for two of me. During the first of those six months I would not have been able to interview anywhere, because no company would be willing to hire me six months out. Maybe 2-3 months from the deadline I could start interviewing. Knowing what I know now, I would have been unemployed for several months. Why should I have taken all the risk? So what do you all think, was I out of line? I know I burned a bridge, and I can never use my current boss as a reference, but I already thought I could never use him as a reference so I don't think this has changed very much except the level of hostility.
RESPONSE A: Don't feel the least bit bad. Your boss would chew you up and spit you out if given the chance. You don't owe them shit.
RESPONSE B: You did the right things. Enjoy your new job, hope they treat you better!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I get that it would have been nice to have given him some warning. I wish I felt I could have. But I didn't trust him. I don't think there are many industry jobs out there that will want to hire me and then be ok with waiting several months before I start. And I had no idea if I could even find an industry job in my field that I would have wanted to take. And if I HAD told my boss I wanted to leave, what would have happened? My boss says, ok, I need you to stay here six more months. Then he would have started interviewing candidates, and maybe hired one. Then the clock is really ticking because my boss can't afford to pay for two of me. During the first of those six months I would not have been able to interview anywhere, because no company would be willing to hire me six months out. Maybe 2-3 months from the deadline I could start interviewing. Knowing what I know now, I would have been unemployed for several months. Why should I have taken all the risk? So what do you all think, was I out of line? I know I burned a bridge, and I can never use my current boss as a reference, but I already thought I could never use him as a reference so I don't think this has changed very much except the level of hostility.
RESPONSE A: You need to do what you need to do for yourself. Your old boss was an asshole, and you are honoring your contract. That’s all you are obligated to do. If your old boss cared about you as much as he cares about himself, he would have treated you better. Unfortunately, he is too stupid to realize that it was in his own best interest to do so. Now he will reap the reward for his stupidity. It’s not your responsibility to work that shitty job for low wages to save his career. If he needed you so badly, the stupid bastard should have treated you well and paid you what you are worth.
RESPONSE B: You come first and have the right to take your considerable skills elsewhere. Who cares if you've inconvenienced some guy who was a dick to you. You and your own wellbeing are the priority!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: To the dog owners: How has dog ownership complicated your life in academia, especially during post-docs I’m in physics so making this STEM specific I’m considering adopting a Labrador and am conflicted because I’m really not sure where I’ll end up after the PhD and the last thing I want is to have to give it up. What has been your experience with dog ownership during an early academic career? I’m also interested in perspectives by those in industry if any are here, or have bounced between industry and academia.
RESPONSE A: Having a dog during my phd has been wholly positive. It helps with boundaries (I need to go home, my dog needs a walk; no I cannot stay extra hours, my dog has a vet appointment today, etc), she provides unconditional love, and she ensures I get outside and get some exercise every day. I had to move across the country for my phd and of course she came with me. She’ll come with me for all of the next steps too! If you don’t have the flexibility in your work-life balance at all, I might not recommend- they are living breathing creatures that need a solid portion of your day. But it’s very doable and has only enhanced my experience (molecular biology phd at a state school)
RESPONSE B: I have two dogs and one I brought back from South Africa. If you're used to taking care of dogs, it's not really an issue. I've had dogs my whole life. I am trying to do a postdoc in Sweden and plan on bringing them with me. KLM transports animals for a pretty low rate. I had to send the South African dog back through a shipping service which was expensive, but that was only bc the airline I flew with didn't allow dogs. I can't find any reason why I would have to get rid of my dogs, they'll always come with me and it's worth the expense.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: give it up. What has been your experience with dog ownership during an early academic career? I’m also interested in perspectives by those in industry if any are here, or have bounced between industry and academia.
RESPONSE A: I got a greyhound in grad school and she was the perfect grad student dog—low maintenance, loved to sleep all day in her crate whether I was there or not, didn’t need too much exercise but still needed to go out 3 times a day and get fed so she made sure I always had breaks. It was so wonderful coming home to a friend. She was so easy that I knew she would adapt to my schedule. However, I would definitely make sure you budget for boarding if you’re going to be traveling frequently—depending on where you live it can be quite expensive. I am a firm believer that adopting a dog is forever (except in the most unexpected and dire of situations). So if you think there’s a possibility that you will have to give the dog up, don’t adopt. It sounds harsh, but older dogs in rescues are harder to get adopted and it can be very difficult for them if they are bonded to you. Shit happens so I understand that sometimes people have to do what’s best for the dog, but it seems like you think there’s a likelihood that you will need to rehome the dog, which concerns me a little. Maybe try fostering first?
RESPONSE B: Having a dog during my phd has been wholly positive. It helps with boundaries (I need to go home, my dog needs a walk; no I cannot stay extra hours, my dog has a vet appointment today, etc), she provides unconditional love, and she ensures I get outside and get some exercise every day. I had to move across the country for my phd and of course she came with me. She’ll come with me for all of the next steps too! If you don’t have the flexibility in your work-life balance at all, I might not recommend- they are living breathing creatures that need a solid portion of your day. But it’s very doable and has only enhanced my experience (molecular biology phd at a state school)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: To the dog owners: How has dog ownership complicated your life in academia, especially during post-docs I’m in physics so making this STEM specific I’m considering adopting a Labrador and am conflicted because I’m really not sure where I’ll end up after the PhD and the last thing I want is to have to give it up. What has been your experience with dog ownership during an early academic career? I’m also interested in perspectives by those in industry if any are here, or have bounced between industry and academia.
RESPONSE A: I’m also a physics postdoc and my wife and I have a dog that we moved with us internationally when I started my postdoc. The move was a pain logistically, and quite expensive, but it hasn’t caused any real issues with work. My hours are quite flexible and my wife works primarily from home so we’ve had no problems making sure someone is home to walk her.
RESPONSE B: Having a dog during my phd has been wholly positive. It helps with boundaries (I need to go home, my dog needs a walk; no I cannot stay extra hours, my dog has a vet appointment today, etc), she provides unconditional love, and she ensures I get outside and get some exercise every day. I had to move across the country for my phd and of course she came with me. She’ll come with me for all of the next steps too! If you don’t have the flexibility in your work-life balance at all, I might not recommend- they are living breathing creatures that need a solid portion of your day. But it’s very doable and has only enhanced my experience (molecular biology phd at a state school)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: To the dog owners: How has dog ownership complicated your life in academia, especially during post-docs I’m in physics so making this STEM specific I’m considering adopting a Labrador and am conflicted because I’m really not sure where I’ll end up after the PhD and the last thing I want is to have to give it up. What has been your experience with dog ownership during an early academic career? I’m also interested in perspectives by those in industry if any are here, or have bounced between industry and academia.
RESPONSE A: I got my older dog right before I started undergrad & she’s kept me going through everything. Got my younger dog the last year of grad school. I don’t think I could have done it all without their love & support! Plus, they make me have to come home! My PhD mentor used to joke that my dog was the only thing that got me out of the lab. I’d give up anything before giving up my dogs. They’re the best part of my life
RESPONSE B: Having a dog during my phd has been wholly positive. It helps with boundaries (I need to go home, my dog needs a walk; no I cannot stay extra hours, my dog has a vet appointment today, etc), she provides unconditional love, and she ensures I get outside and get some exercise every day. I had to move across the country for my phd and of course she came with me. She’ll come with me for all of the next steps too! If you don’t have the flexibility in your work-life balance at all, I might not recommend- they are living breathing creatures that need a solid portion of your day. But it’s very doable and has only enhanced my experience (molecular biology phd at a state school)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: For those of you who have sent guest speaker invitations by email, how quickly do they typically get back to you? I’m just curious to learn this as I’m working on an event for the first time.
RESPONSE A: Day or two usually, if your invitation is clear
RESPONSE B: Highly variable!. Anywhere from 5 min to 3 weeks to never.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: For those of you who have sent guest speaker invitations by email, how quickly do they typically get back to you? I’m just curious to learn this as I’m working on an event for the first time.
RESPONSE A: One was almost immediate, one came three months after the event had passed.
RESPONSE B: Day or two usually, if your invitation is clear
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: For those of you who have sent guest speaker invitations by email, how quickly do they typically get back to you? I’m just curious to learn this as I’m working on an event for the first time.
RESPONSE A: who are you? does your email look spammy? does your conference/department have *direct* relevance to me or enough *genuine* status or worth that it doesn't matter? if the answer to these questions is wrong, the answer to your question is NEVER.
RESPONSE B: Day or two usually, if your invitation is clear
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: For those of you who have sent guest speaker invitations by email, how quickly do they typically get back to you? I’m just curious to learn this as I’m working on an event for the first time.
RESPONSE A: who are you? does your email look spammy? does your conference/department have *direct* relevance to me or enough *genuine* status or worth that it doesn't matter? if the answer to these questions is wrong, the answer to your question is NEVER.
RESPONSE B: If you don't get a response in a few days, consider that your email might be stuck in their spam folder. I try to go through mine once a week, because I get mail misdirected there.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: For those of you who have sent guest speaker invitations by email, how quickly do they typically get back to you? I’m just curious to learn this as I’m working on an event for the first time.
RESPONSE A: Unless you're a very reputable organisation, it's straight to spam, so never. Unless you state exactly what an invitation means (do o get paid, do I get housing, do you pay for transport, do you wave the conference fee...), it sounds predatory, then it's never. Otherwise, it depends on the season and the people you invite.
RESPONSE B: 1 - 3 days from the ones who were interested. Between a day and never (mostly never) from the ones who weren't.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: class time where you couldn't access an AI bot) we may benefit from giving up the "arms race" and returning to a model of oral examinations. Each student meets with the instructor (small classes) or 1-2 TAs in a team of several (larger classes) and basically take an oral examination. Examinations can be recorded for review if there are complains/questions afterward. But then I thought about how many students these days have anxiety-related or similar concerns if not full out accommodations and how much that would probably increase if students knew they'd regularly have to do oral examinations. Additionally, it may be hard to have every student receive fair, equal-difficulty tests without giving them the same questions to answer, yet if you give them all the same questions it would be difficult to prevent early test takers from telling others what they will be asked. So I am curious, what do y'all see as the way forward in a world of AI bots doing homework?
RESPONSE A: Even before ChatGPT, many students were using human experts to do their work for them. Including exams. ChatGPT just makes it cheaper and faster. I think oral exams are the only way to ensure that the person standing in front of you is the person doing the work. I think oral exams are also completely impractical from a professor workload perspective. I can give a 2-hour exam to a class of 50 and grade it in 10 hours of my time. To do that as an oral exam would take weeks. So I would be forced to ask the students fewer questions, so if they get unlucky and blow just one concept they could fail. Oral exams are also incredibly stressful and unfair to students with social anxiety, and physical appearance, accent, etc. will inevitably lead to unconscious bias in grading. We like to pretend we’re immune to this stuff but we’re not. Oral exams are the only way forward. They are also impossible. Where does that leave us? Damned if I know.
RESPONSE B: Flip the classroom. It solves everything. Have the students learn the material as "homework" and work problems (write essays, explain what they've learned, defend their ideas, etc.) in class.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: benefit from giving up the "arms race" and returning to a model of oral examinations. Each student meets with the instructor (small classes) or 1-2 TAs in a team of several (larger classes) and basically take an oral examination. Examinations can be recorded for review if there are complains/questions afterward. But then I thought about how many students these days have anxiety-related or similar concerns if not full out accommodations and how much that would probably increase if students knew they'd regularly have to do oral examinations. Additionally, it may be hard to have every student receive fair, equal-difficulty tests without giving them the same questions to answer, yet if you give them all the same questions it would be difficult to prevent early test takers from telling others what they will be asked. So I am curious, what do y'all see as the way forward in a world of AI bots doing homework?
RESPONSE A: Homework will be done purely for learning/practice. All graded work will be done in person or proctored remotely in a way monitors their production of the work (e.g., multiple cameras will monitor their face, body, and fingers typing).
RESPONSE B: Even before ChatGPT, many students were using human experts to do their work for them. Including exams. ChatGPT just makes it cheaper and faster. I think oral exams are the only way to ensure that the person standing in front of you is the person doing the work. I think oral exams are also completely impractical from a professor workload perspective. I can give a 2-hour exam to a class of 50 and grade it in 10 hours of my time. To do that as an oral exam would take weeks. So I would be forced to ask the students fewer questions, so if they get unlucky and blow just one concept they could fail. Oral exams are also incredibly stressful and unfair to students with social anxiety, and physical appearance, accent, etc. will inevitably lead to unconscious bias in grading. We like to pretend we’re immune to this stuff but we’re not. Oral exams are the only way forward. They are also impossible. Where does that leave us? Damned if I know.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: in many fields that might ask you to write a paper (as opposed to sit an exam during class time where you couldn't access an AI bot) we may benefit from giving up the "arms race" and returning to a model of oral examinations. Each student meets with the instructor (small classes) or 1-2 TAs in a team of several (larger classes) and basically take an oral examination. Examinations can be recorded for review if there are complains/questions afterward. But then I thought about how many students these days have anxiety-related or similar concerns if not full out accommodations and how much that would probably increase if students knew they'd regularly have to do oral examinations. Additionally, it may be hard to have every student receive fair, equal-difficulty tests without giving them the same questions to answer, yet if you give them all the same questions it would be difficult to prevent early test takers from telling others what they will be asked. So I am curious, what do y'all see as the way forward in a world of AI bots doing homework?
RESPONSE A: Show your work. Turn in your outline, research notes, maybe a rough draft, along with your paper.
RESPONSE B: Even before ChatGPT, many students were using human experts to do their work for them. Including exams. ChatGPT just makes it cheaper and faster. I think oral exams are the only way to ensure that the person standing in front of you is the person doing the work. I think oral exams are also completely impractical from a professor workload perspective. I can give a 2-hour exam to a class of 50 and grade it in 10 hours of my time. To do that as an oral exam would take weeks. So I would be forced to ask the students fewer questions, so if they get unlucky and blow just one concept they could fail. Oral exams are also incredibly stressful and unfair to students with social anxiety, and physical appearance, accent, etc. will inevitably lead to unconscious bias in grading. We like to pretend we’re immune to this stuff but we’re not. Oral exams are the only way forward. They are also impossible. Where does that leave us? Damned if I know.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Do You Expect PhD Stipends to Increase in the Near Future? I am a first-year Masters student (social sciences), interested in pursuing a PhD after a few years in the field. Every time I research stipends, I am... scared. At my university (R1, U.S. Northeast), the Grad Student Union is working hard to rally around increased stipends. Given current inflation and workers' rights entering the public discourse (?), do you expect stipends to raise in the coming years? (Asking both for selfish reasons, and genuine curiosity.) For clarity: Not just increasing to meet inflation, but a general increase which surpasses that. Interested in any thoughts!!
RESPONSE A: Because Academia is international, I thought that I should share some info from Norway. Here a PhD-student is regarded as an employee and current yearly salary is 49k in Usd, minimum, regardless off field. An academic career is not usually in demand, and particular in the field of engineering we have very many international phds. However, the public finance is under increasing pressure so the next 5 years will be a bit harder, but the salary will not drop, it will only be fewer posistions.
RESPONSE B: It's unclear, but if they do increase past inflation, what will likely happen is that there will be far fewer paid TA-ships or TA-ships.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I got excited because I always gain a lot of knowledge from these. However, the manuscript was a complete wreck. Just to point-out some issues I had with it: - Some latex math expressions were not even compiled right, instead the PDF showed garbage. - Some figures had no captions. (No Figure 1: bla bla) - Some references in the text to Figures where obviously wrong, pointing to figures that made no sense. - The basic english spelling and grammar errors. I'm not a native english-speaker myself, so I normally check the "I'm not able to judge", but man, it was bad. Seriously bad. - The figures were rasterized to the point that I could not even read some stuff even zooming-in the PDF. And thats just formatting... Moving into conceptual issues, the paper clearly stated that they surpassed a previous work by other authors. That raised some eyebrows. I though "bold", whatever, let's see. What bothered me was the *tone*. It was super assertive, demeaning the efforts of the other authors. Well shit, their manuscript was utter shit to begin with. **We are at page 3 of 10...**. At this point, I thought "enough". I logged-in, commented a little bit about the severe lack of care put into the manuscript and gave it a Reject grade. So, what makes you stop midway of peer reviewing a paper to simply grade it with a Reject?
RESPONSE A: Laughably bad grammar is a frequent offender. Sometimes it's a more conceptual issue, like if a paper's experiment doesn't answer the question the author claims it to.
RESPONSE B: All of the issues you mentioned could be addressed in the camera ready version. To me they are not by themselves reasons to reject a paper. I try to evaluate the results and/or ideas. Some authors can be from a different country. If in addition to the above the results or ideas raise eyebrows (e.g. incomplete methodology, hiding details, non-reproducable, no publicly available code, dataset etc) I would reject it on the prior that it is also badly written.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: issues, the paper clearly stated that they surpassed a previous work by other authors. That raised some eyebrows. I though "bold", whatever, let's see. What bothered me was the *tone*. It was super assertive, demeaning the efforts of the other authors. Well shit, their manuscript was utter shit to begin with. **We are at page 3 of 10...**. At this point, I thought "enough". I logged-in, commented a little bit about the severe lack of care put into the manuscript and gave it a Reject grade. So, what makes you stop midway of peer reviewing a paper to simply grade it with a Reject?
RESPONSE A: All of the issues you mentioned could be addressed in the camera ready version. To me they are not by themselves reasons to reject a paper. I try to evaluate the results and/or ideas. Some authors can be from a different country. If in addition to the above the results or ideas raise eyebrows (e.g. incomplete methodology, hiding details, non-reproducable, no publicly available code, dataset etc) I would reject it on the prior that it is also badly written.
RESPONSE B: The last paper I rejected was without a doubt the worst paper I have ever reviewed. I would have given it a solid B+ if it was turned in as an undergraduate assignment in my numerical analysis class. It took several rewrites before I was satisfied with the review because every time I finished it, I reread what I had written and it so scathing I might as well have insulted the author's mothers. So it took a few rounds of softening in order to say what most definitely needed to be said, without worrying about making anyone suicidal. But it was fucking bad. With that in mind, I knew I would recommend rejection by the 2nd page since this was a prestigious journal and even if they addressed the many problems in the paper, the result they were TRYING to produce was still not very interesting. But I did read the entire paper and gave feedback on every aspect which hopefully they found useful when preparing it for submission in a lower impact journal, assuming they fix the mistakes/problems.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: a relatively high IF journal in my field. I got excited because I always gain a lot of knowledge from these. However, the manuscript was a complete wreck. Just to point-out some issues I had with it: - Some latex math expressions were not even compiled right, instead the PDF showed garbage. - Some figures had no captions. (No Figure 1: bla bla) - Some references in the text to Figures where obviously wrong, pointing to figures that made no sense. - The basic english spelling and grammar errors. I'm not a native english-speaker myself, so I normally check the "I'm not able to judge", but man, it was bad. Seriously bad. - The figures were rasterized to the point that I could not even read some stuff even zooming-in the PDF. And thats just formatting... Moving into conceptual issues, the paper clearly stated that they surpassed a previous work by other authors. That raised some eyebrows. I though "bold", whatever, let's see. What bothered me was the *tone*. It was super assertive, demeaning the efforts of the other authors. Well shit, their manuscript was utter shit to begin with. **We are at page 3 of 10...**. At this point, I thought "enough". I logged-in, commented a little bit about the severe lack of care put into the manuscript and gave it a Reject grade. So, what makes you stop midway of peer reviewing a paper to simply grade it with a Reject?
RESPONSE A: Shit, now I’m worried you are reviewing my manuscript. Luckily, I don’t have any figures in my paper. Phew.
RESPONSE B: All of the issues you mentioned could be addressed in the camera ready version. To me they are not by themselves reasons to reject a paper. I try to evaluate the results and/or ideas. Some authors can be from a different country. If in addition to the above the results or ideas raise eyebrows (e.g. incomplete methodology, hiding details, non-reproducable, no publicly available code, dataset etc) I would reject it on the prior that it is also badly written.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: . Recently I got a request do a peer review for a relatively high IF journal in my field. I got excited because I always gain a lot of knowledge from these. However, the manuscript was a complete wreck. Just to point-out some issues I had with it: - Some latex math expressions were not even compiled right, instead the PDF showed garbage. - Some figures had no captions. (No Figure 1: bla bla) - Some references in the text to Figures where obviously wrong, pointing to figures that made no sense. - The basic english spelling and grammar errors. I'm not a native english-speaker myself, so I normally check the "I'm not able to judge", but man, it was bad. Seriously bad. - The figures were rasterized to the point that I could not even read some stuff even zooming-in the PDF. And thats just formatting... Moving into conceptual issues, the paper clearly stated that they surpassed a previous work by other authors. That raised some eyebrows. I though "bold", whatever, let's see. What bothered me was the *tone*. It was super assertive, demeaning the efforts of the other authors. Well shit, their manuscript was utter shit to begin with. **We are at page 3 of 10...**. At this point, I thought "enough". I logged-in, commented a little bit about the severe lack of care put into the manuscript and gave it a Reject grade. So, what makes you stop midway of peer reviewing a paper to simply grade it with a Reject?
RESPONSE A: Laughably bad grammar is a frequent offender. Sometimes it's a more conceptual issue, like if a paper's experiment doesn't answer the question the author claims it to.
RESPONSE B: If the paper is as bad as you describe, then the editor has failed in their duty. They should have made a desk reject decision, perhaps with pointers for improvements. Still, frankly I would be more concerned about the journal's backstage. If this were me, I would withdraw from reviewing this particular time. I try not to get dirty through another person's mess.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I could not even read some stuff even zooming-in the PDF. And thats just formatting... Moving into conceptual issues, the paper clearly stated that they surpassed a previous work by other authors. That raised some eyebrows. I though "bold", whatever, let's see. What bothered me was the *tone*. It was super assertive, demeaning the efforts of the other authors. Well shit, their manuscript was utter shit to begin with. **We are at page 3 of 10...**. At this point, I thought "enough". I logged-in, commented a little bit about the severe lack of care put into the manuscript and gave it a Reject grade. So, what makes you stop midway of peer reviewing a paper to simply grade it with a Reject?
RESPONSE A: If the paper is as bad as you describe, then the editor has failed in their duty. They should have made a desk reject decision, perhaps with pointers for improvements. Still, frankly I would be more concerned about the journal's backstage. If this were me, I would withdraw from reviewing this particular time. I try not to get dirty through another person's mess.
RESPONSE B: The last paper I rejected was without a doubt the worst paper I have ever reviewed. I would have given it a solid B+ if it was turned in as an undergraduate assignment in my numerical analysis class. It took several rewrites before I was satisfied with the review because every time I finished it, I reread what I had written and it so scathing I might as well have insulted the author's mothers. So it took a few rounds of softening in order to say what most definitely needed to be said, without worrying about making anyone suicidal. But it was fucking bad. With that in mind, I knew I would recommend rejection by the 2nd page since this was a prestigious journal and even if they addressed the many problems in the paper, the result they were TRYING to produce was still not very interesting. But I did read the entire paper and gave feedback on every aspect which hopefully they found useful when preparing it for submission in a lower impact journal, assuming they fix the mistakes/problems.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Examples of email signatures relaying you do not expect others to reply to your email send after hours For better or worse, it is easier for me to send emails on weekends and evenings to collaborators and students than during business hours. I do a lot of my writing during evenings/weekends - this is just going to be the reality until I become more efficient or get more grant funding If I wait until Monday AM, I spend half the day sending emails from the work I've done over the weekend I do not want others to think I expect a response immediately, especially students Any examples of email signatures about not expecting an immediate response? Most I find online are related to "I work flexible work hours, I do not expect an immediate response." I may be splitting hairs but I don't work flexible hours - I'm just always working
RESPONSE A: Here's one from an email I recently received: "Although I may have sent this message at a convenient time, it is not my expectation that you read, respond, or follow up on this email outside your working hours."
RESPONSE B: I dont know whether Boomerang tool is compatible with your professional email, but it works well with gmail. You can set the desired time to send an email and take rest..
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Examples of email signatures relaying you do not expect others to reply to your email send after hours For better or worse, it is easier for me to send emails on weekends and evenings to collaborators and students than during business hours. I do a lot of my writing during evenings/weekends - this is just going to be the reality until I become more efficient or get more grant funding If I wait until Monday AM, I spend half the day sending emails from the work I've done over the weekend I do not want others to think I expect a response immediately, especially students Any examples of email signatures about not expecting an immediate response? Most I find online are related to "I work flexible work hours, I do not expect an immediate response." I may be splitting hairs but I don't work flexible hours - I'm just always working
RESPONSE A: The examples people gave are good ! as a student, i think it's my business if i still end up reading my mails on the weekend or late hours (i have a bad habit of doing so), but if it's students that you have in classes you can also tell them that you may reach out outside of working hours but you dont expect them to do the same. Also does this mean that if a student reaches out on weekends you might be able to answer their question ? it can be an advantage for us during assignments etc ! Usually my professors never respond outside of working hours, im the one that has to wait for monday to start (which is totally normal and expected, it makes me want to discipline myself to do the same).
RESPONSE B: From someone in a managerial role at the institution I work at: "I encourage and respect boundaries that support self-preservation, well-being, care-taking, and personal time/time off. If you receive an action-oriented message from me during a time when you are practicing and/or engaged in these activities, please hold your response until you return to work. Thank you!" ​ ETA: Boundary setting like this has been challenging at times in my org, so while theirs may be longer than some, the explanation made it sit better with some folks.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Examples of email signatures relaying you do not expect others to reply to your email send after hours For better or worse, it is easier for me to send emails on weekends and evenings to collaborators and students than during business hours. I do a lot of my writing during evenings/weekends - this is just going to be the reality until I become more efficient or get more grant funding If I wait until Monday AM, I spend half the day sending emails from the work I've done over the weekend I do not want others to think I expect a response immediately, especially students Any examples of email signatures about not expecting an immediate response? Most I find online are related to "I work flexible work hours, I do not expect an immediate response." I may be splitting hairs but I don't work flexible hours - I'm just always working
RESPONSE A: I dont know whether Boomerang tool is compatible with your professional email, but it works well with gmail. You can set the desired time to send an email and take rest..
RESPONSE B: From someone in a managerial role at the institution I work at: "I encourage and respect boundaries that support self-preservation, well-being, care-taking, and personal time/time off. If you receive an action-oriented message from me during a time when you are practicing and/or engaged in these activities, please hold your response until you return to work. Thank you!" ​ ETA: Boundary setting like this has been challenging at times in my org, so while theirs may be longer than some, the explanation made it sit better with some folks.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Examples of email signatures relaying you do not expect others to reply to your email send after hours For better or worse, it is easier for me to send emails on weekends and evenings to collaborators and students than during business hours. I do a lot of my writing during evenings/weekends - this is just going to be the reality until I become more efficient or get more grant funding If I wait until Monday AM, I spend half the day sending emails from the work I've done over the weekend I do not want others to think I expect a response immediately, especially students Any examples of email signatures about not expecting an immediate response? Most I find online are related to "I work flexible work hours, I do not expect an immediate response." I may be splitting hairs but I don't work flexible hours - I'm just always working
RESPONSE A: I think the simple ones suggested in other comments here are pretty good. I've seen some that are weirdly long and flowery and those always feel very weird to me.
RESPONSE B: From someone in a managerial role at the institution I work at: "I encourage and respect boundaries that support self-preservation, well-being, care-taking, and personal time/time off. If you receive an action-oriented message from me during a time when you are practicing and/or engaged in these activities, please hold your response until you return to work. Thank you!" ​ ETA: Boundary setting like this has been challenging at times in my org, so while theirs may be longer than some, the explanation made it sit better with some folks.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Examples of email signatures relaying you do not expect others to reply to your email send after hours For better or worse, it is easier for me to send emails on weekends and evenings to collaborators and students than during business hours. I do a lot of my writing during evenings/weekends - this is just going to be the reality until I become more efficient or get more grant funding If I wait until Monday AM, I spend half the day sending emails from the work I've done over the weekend I do not want others to think I expect a response immediately, especially students Any examples of email signatures about not expecting an immediate response? Most I find online are related to "I work flexible work hours, I do not expect an immediate response." I may be splitting hairs but I don't work flexible hours - I'm just always working
RESPONSE A: I appreciate when people put a small note at the top of the email to this effect and I sometimes put one myself. However, Gmail has a new schedule send feature that works marvelously.
RESPONSE B: From someone in a managerial role at the institution I work at: "I encourage and respect boundaries that support self-preservation, well-being, care-taking, and personal time/time off. If you receive an action-oriented message from me during a time when you are practicing and/or engaged in these activities, please hold your response until you return to work. Thank you!" ​ ETA: Boundary setting like this has been challenging at times in my org, so while theirs may be longer than some, the explanation made it sit better with some folks.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: ? It's an interesting comparison for me between last year and this year. Last year at this time, I was in a committed, long-term relationship that I expected would last (I had intentions of asking her to marry me). Because she was still in school, I was trying to remain flexible in where I applied, and the end result was that I probably didn't apply to as many posted positions as I could / should have. This year... well, the relationship ended, and ironically, I think it's been good for me in terms of career aspirations and preparation. In the last year I've submitted (and published) more manuscripts, my CV is looking considerably more competitive for the kinds of positions I'm looking for, and because I'm no longer worrying about someone else w/respect to location, I'm applying to any position that fits my research interests. I don't think I'd be doing any of that if I was in a relationship right now, and even though I miss the companionship, maybe this is the best thing at the moment. How many of you are having to deal with some aspect of this right now (or have in the past)? Any advice, for now or the future?
RESPONSE A: I applied for pretty much every relevant job opening in my field when I finished my Ph.D., despite the fact that I was engaged and my fiancee definitely did not want to move (for example) to the middle of Wisconsin. I figured it would be best to get an offer and then deal with discussions of where to move to, rather than apply only where we would both love to live and then risk getting no offers at all.
RESPONSE B: You need to accept the fact that sacrifices may be made by one or both of you. If the other person is not worth the sacrifice, then maybe that tells you something about the relationship. Honestly, there are other political things that can lead to them pulling strings for the spouse. Maybe not the most romantic way of getting your foot in the door, but yeah. You really have to take a wider perspective on life beyond your personal career ambitions, although sacrifice doesn't necessarily mean you're abandoning it. You might be settling for a top 100 versus a top 20 university, for example.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: where to apply (if at all)? It's an interesting comparison for me between last year and this year. Last year at this time, I was in a committed, long-term relationship that I expected would last (I had intentions of asking her to marry me). Because she was still in school, I was trying to remain flexible in where I applied, and the end result was that I probably didn't apply to as many posted positions as I could / should have. This year... well, the relationship ended, and ironically, I think it's been good for me in terms of career aspirations and preparation. In the last year I've submitted (and published) more manuscripts, my CV is looking considerably more competitive for the kinds of positions I'm looking for, and because I'm no longer worrying about someone else w/respect to location, I'm applying to any position that fits my research interests. I don't think I'd be doing any of that if I was in a relationship right now, and even though I miss the companionship, maybe this is the best thing at the moment. How many of you are having to deal with some aspect of this right now (or have in the past)? Any advice, for now or the future?
RESPONSE A: I applied for pretty much every relevant job opening in my field when I finished my Ph.D., despite the fact that I was engaged and my fiancee definitely did not want to move (for example) to the middle of Wisconsin. I figured it would be best to get an offer and then deal with discussions of where to move to, rather than apply only where we would both love to live and then risk getting no offers at all.
RESPONSE B: I'm in a long term committed relationship pursuing a PhD. The biggest thing that we have to do is make time for each other. Not, let's be in the same room while I work on homework. I have to consciously set aside time for only him because if I do not, there's no relationship. He is also on the path of building his career so we understand things will be different as compared to the laid back schedules of undergrad. It all comes down to both of us making time for each other and being understanding with each other.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: expected would last (I had intentions of asking her to marry me). Because she was still in school, I was trying to remain flexible in where I applied, and the end result was that I probably didn't apply to as many posted positions as I could / should have. This year... well, the relationship ended, and ironically, I think it's been good for me in terms of career aspirations and preparation. In the last year I've submitted (and published) more manuscripts, my CV is looking considerably more competitive for the kinds of positions I'm looking for, and because I'm no longer worrying about someone else w/respect to location, I'm applying to any position that fits my research interests. I don't think I'd be doing any of that if I was in a relationship right now, and even though I miss the companionship, maybe this is the best thing at the moment. How many of you are having to deal with some aspect of this right now (or have in the past)? Any advice, for now or the future?
RESPONSE A: I'm in a long term committed relationship pursuing a PhD. The biggest thing that we have to do is make time for each other. Not, let's be in the same room while I work on homework. I have to consciously set aside time for only him because if I do not, there's no relationship. He is also on the path of building his career so we understand things will be different as compared to the laid back schedules of undergrad. It all comes down to both of us making time for each other and being understanding with each other.
RESPONSE B: When I married my husband I knew I would go where he goes. We moved twice when he was in grad school and again for his post doc. I was tired of moving and being so far from family. So when he started applying for tenure track jobs I did give him some limitations. I refuse to move to Europe again and we have to be able to live in a good school district since we have 2 kids. He told me where he wanted to apply and I have veto power. I don't think I vetoed any of his choices. He got a TT job in central NY.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Does getting a science PhD in Europe put me at a disadvantage for finding a position or post-doc in the USA? I am originally from the USA, but am now doing my PhD in Europe partly at a well-known research institution. I have heard conflicting reports and that some people don't look on the European PhD as equivalent because it is shorter, while others have said that there shouldn't be any fundamental difference between them. A PhD is a PhD. I came here thinking that I would just show my worth through my publications, but now I have started to worry about my future job prospects. Have any of you had to deal with this before?
RESPONSE A: Depends on what you mean by position. But for post-doc as long as you are in a good lab in your field it shouldn't be a problem. Its true if you get the publications, there is no worry, and then you get a chance to live abroad in the county of your choice. But seeing that you are already there and only half-so, I guess you just want confirmation that you made the right choice?
RESPONSE B: It's really like anywhere else IMO. Getting a PhD in chem (let's say) from Podunk U where you only publish 1 paper in 5 years (and let's say normally people in your field have at least 2-3 first authors) in a very low impact journal, then that'll make it difficult. There are a number of excellent European institutions that don't suffer from reputation issues (Max Planck, many of England's institutions, a number in Switzerland, just off the top of my head). If you have desirable skills and relevant ones, then it shouldn't matter too much.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: In Canada (or US), can we decide to go for PhD (or something of that sort) and JUST choose to teach (no research or anything)? Would that even get you tenure or a position at an university?
RESPONSE A: You totally can. In the US (I'm not too sure about Canada), there are two paths to this. The first is as a tenure-track faculty member at a teaching focused institution, often an community college or a regional public institution. The second is as a teaching-track faculty member at an institution that also has a research mission. I've had some past students who have gone this path and did their PhDs specifically to do this. They are happy as clams. There are a couple of challenges in this path. The first is that salaries tend to be low compared to research focused positions, whish is low compared to industry. If you go the path of a teaching-track faculty member at a research institution, you need to do some vetting. There are some institutions where there are secure career paths where you are treated as a valued colleague, and there are others where you are treated like dirt.
RESPONSE B: More or less yes. There are primarily teaching roles at many institutions, ranging from small private colleges to community colleges to public R1 universities. However, tenure is not always attached to these. Some of them have tenure, some have tenure-equivalent but just don't call it that, some have long-term contracts, and some don't really have anything at all to offer job security. If you truly only want to teach and not do any research, your options will be more limited. Even small teaching-focused institutions often have a small research requirement. The good news is that it's generally a very light requirement. For example, the requirement at my current small private college is to publish one paper before I'm up for tenure, which is not hard.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: In Canada (or US), can we decide to go for PhD (or something of that sort) and JUST choose to teach (no research or anything)? Would that even get you tenure or a position at an university?
RESPONSE A: You totally can. In the US (I'm not too sure about Canada), there are two paths to this. The first is as a tenure-track faculty member at a teaching focused institution, often an community college or a regional public institution. The second is as a teaching-track faculty member at an institution that also has a research mission. I've had some past students who have gone this path and did their PhDs specifically to do this. They are happy as clams. There are a couple of challenges in this path. The first is that salaries tend to be low compared to research focused positions, whish is low compared to industry. If you go the path of a teaching-track faculty member at a research institution, you need to do some vetting. There are some institutions where there are secure career paths where you are treated as a valued colleague, and there are others where you are treated like dirt.
RESPONSE B: Some universities have "Teaching master" positions that involve only teaching. However, those positions are paid less than professorships.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it frowned upon to publish a deeper analysis of data? I worked on a past grad student's very nice dataset and did a deeper analysis of the data (it includes a spectral analysis instead of just temporal like the last student did). I want to publish it, but my advisor says even though it is a nice paper and a deeper analysis of the old dataset, journals usually won't accept a re-publication of data. Also, our research team commented a few times that "it needs to be clear why we are publishing a new paper on these data." Is it true that a new paper requires novel data collection? ​ My new analysis amplifies this dataset, so it's confusing why it couldn't be published.
RESPONSE A: The real question is, what will the community learn from your new analysis? If it’s just more of the same, it’s not publishable. If it provides useful new insights, then it may be publishable. The fact that the data is “used” is irrelevant.
RESPONSE B: It sounds like your advisor may not be interested in the project if he's saying something like that. Scientists frequently re-use old datasets in order to answer new questions. In fact, it's wasteful to not re-use datasets that cost hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to collect.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it frowned upon to publish a deeper analysis of data? I worked on a past grad student's very nice dataset and did a deeper analysis of the data (it includes a spectral analysis instead of just temporal like the last student did). I want to publish it, but my advisor says even though it is a nice paper and a deeper analysis of the old dataset, journals usually won't accept a re-publication of data. Also, our research team commented a few times that "it needs to be clear why we are publishing a new paper on these data." Is it true that a new paper requires novel data collection? ​ My new analysis amplifies this dataset, so it's confusing why it couldn't be published.
RESPONSE A: In medicine it is common to find secondary analysis of old data. Not unusual at all.
RESPONSE B: It doesn’t require a novel dataset, it requires a novel understanding or showing a reason why you did what you did with the data. Go back to your question, it’s always the question.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it best to use "we" or "I" in the PhD thesis? I am close to being finished with my PhD thesis, but i have been struggling with this issue lately. My thesis is based on 4 manuscript of which there are multiple co-authors (with me being first author). In those, we use "we" to describe all our actions and thoughts. No problem. In my PhD thesis, my supervisor is encouraging me to use "I" instead of "we" in the discussion/conclusion. This feels very unnatural to me as all the findings are based on the results that "we" found in the manuscripts. This has led me to balance the use of we/I, where I use "I" whenever i describe something only I did (e.g. experiments). And "we" when referring to conclusions. However, i am a bit at loss about what to do. Any seasoned academics that can offer some advice? (My supervisor is out of office, hence why i post the question here and not to my supervisor directly)
RESPONSE A: 1. You are considered the sole author on your thesis. Use 'I'. 2. Later papers based on this work can use 'we' since obviously the work is collaborative. 3. For the love of all that is holy, don't use passive voice.
RESPONSE B: It’s important to make clear what work you really did vs what work was collaborative or pre-existing. It can sometimes be easier to make that explicit with “I” but you can also make it clear with how you write.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it best to use "we" or "I" in the PhD thesis? I am close to being finished with my PhD thesis, but i have been struggling with this issue lately. My thesis is based on 4 manuscript of which there are multiple co-authors (with me being first author). In those, we use "we" to describe all our actions and thoughts. No problem. In my PhD thesis, my supervisor is encouraging me to use "I" instead of "we" in the discussion/conclusion. This feels very unnatural to me as all the findings are based on the results that "we" found in the manuscripts. This has led me to balance the use of we/I, where I use "I" whenever i describe something only I did (e.g. experiments). And "we" when referring to conclusions. However, i am a bit at loss about what to do. Any seasoned academics that can offer some advice? (My supervisor is out of office, hence why i post the question here and not to my supervisor directly)
RESPONSE A: 1. You are considered the sole author on your thesis. Use 'I'. 2. Later papers based on this work can use 'we' since obviously the work is collaborative. 3. For the love of all that is holy, don't use passive voice.
RESPONSE B: You could write everything in passive.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it best to use "we" or "I" in the PhD thesis? I am close to being finished with my PhD thesis, but i have been struggling with this issue lately. My thesis is based on 4 manuscript of which there are multiple co-authors (with me being first author). In those, we use "we" to describe all our actions and thoughts. No problem. In my PhD thesis, my supervisor is encouraging me to use "I" instead of "we" in the discussion/conclusion. This feels very unnatural to me as all the findings are based on the results that "we" found in the manuscripts. This has led me to balance the use of we/I, where I use "I" whenever i describe something only I did (e.g. experiments). And "we" when referring to conclusions. However, i am a bit at loss about what to do. Any seasoned academics that can offer some advice? (My supervisor is out of office, hence why i post the question here and not to my supervisor directly)
RESPONSE A: We had a lot of discussions about this. When things were a collaborative effort, I used *we* to indicate that I did not do these things alone. When it came to things I did alone, I used *I*, especially when it concerned decisions or negative results I cannot blame on anyone else. For general statements I also used *we,* as in I and the reader. *We see that ....*
RESPONSE B: You could write everything in passive.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I'm finishing a master's degree in Philosophy, but even though I would like to have a PhD in the subject I'm not into being an academic. Can anyone tell me if they know someone in a similar situation? What did they do? How did they fare? I'm from Buenos Aires and currently studying Philosophy and Literature(and thinking of starting maths). I find interests in many subjects and I don't have any particular urgence to immediately get a job. Some people have suggested looking into journalism, either doing a master's degree or something like that.
RESPONSE A: Why would you like to have a PhD in the subject? If it is to get a job that requires the PhD, then that might be a good reason to do it. If it is because you want to *do* a PhD, then that could also be a good reason. If you want to have a PhD for the label alone, then do not do it, because you probably will not enjoy the process.
RESPONSE B: If you don't want to be academic, then keep it as a hobby and get a less stessful, better paying job.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I'm finishing a master's degree in Philosophy, but even though I would like to have a PhD in the subject I'm not into being an academic. Can anyone tell me if they know someone in a similar situation? What did they do? How did they fare? I'm from Buenos Aires and currently studying Philosophy and Literature(and thinking of starting maths). I find interests in many subjects and I don't have any particular urgence to immediately get a job. Some people have suggested looking into journalism, either doing a master's degree or something like that.
RESPONSE A: If you don't want to be academic, then keep it as a hobby and get a less stessful, better paying job.
RESPONSE B: You should also consider the matter of finding a job in philosophy when you graduate. My brother was in the US at a top 15 Philosophy PhD program and could not find a job when he graduated for 2 years. He eventually moved overseas so that he could continue working in the field of philosophy at all. When he graduated he said there were 22 possible jobs in his field in all of the US. If this is not something you’re extremely passionate about and if you’re not at a top 5 university, it’s only going to get much harder from here.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: thinking I'd do anything else but "a job" afterwards, however vaguely defined. I made no plans for later at all. My professors' and colleagues' comments have seriously thrown me in doubt whether I didn't do a huge mistake. My parents (both worked themselves up from poor backgrounds, without a college degree) painted an image of PhD studies as a dead-end into poverty and unemployability with short-term contracts only, so I never really considered it. Obviously all deadlines have passed now by a long shot, and as all my friends move on to jobs (mostly non-related office jobs). I wonder if I didn't make a huge mistake by not applying, and whether that window of opportunity isn't closed now for good... or whether I made the right call.
RESPONSE A: I think it's entirely reasonable to a) want to live a bit of a normal life before committing to a PhD and b) want to work out where you want to be and what you want to be doing before doing something so expensive, long and difficult. Being a PhD student has no time limit - you can do it after you retire, or part-time alongside another role if you want to build yourself up in industry. I did my BA and MA back-to-back and I'm glad I took a couple of years to work and travel before starting, as it showed me it's what I really want, and that keeps me going when it's hard as I know I'm on the right path. Many people drop out of PhDs because life is complicated and it sucks to be broke whilst all your friends have jobs and it's so long to go without earning. Don't let people pressure you into studying, but appreciate their comments as 'this is a possible avenue for me in the future'. You're not written off, you're not limiting yourself unless you're following a path because you OUGHT to rather than because you WANT to.
RESPONSE B: I started a PhD at 31. If age is the obstacle, it's not. You can definitely take one or more years to get some working experience and have a glimpse at different career paths as well.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: my parents are against it, all deadlines have passed, and I have an existential crisis now.* I am about to finish my 2 year master's in International Relations at the age of 26 (in my country we graduate at 19 and I did a year of travel). It was such a big deal to me to even get into this program, because I originally have a B.Sc. in psychology and I'm the first one in my direct family line to even see a college from the inside anyhow. The hybris I accused myself of to even attempt a master's! I was so nervous whether I'd even survive the IR program that I spent exactly no time thinking about any further degrees afterwards. Now that the end approaches, professors and my friends at grad school keep asking me why I don't do a PhD. One senior professor even approached me in a pub and said I was an ideal candidate, as I love academic discussions and research. My GPA is good and my supervisor really liked my master's thesis. But I was so focused to even survive the past two years, driven by constant impostor syndrome, that I never spent a second thinking I'd do anything else but "a job" afterwards, however vaguely defined. I made no plans for later at all. My professors' and colleagues' comments have seriously thrown me in doubt whether I didn't do a huge mistake. My parents (both worked themselves up from poor backgrounds, without a college degree) painted an image of PhD studies as a dead-end into poverty and unemployability with short-term contracts only, so I never really considered it. Obviously all deadlines have passed now by a long shot, and as all my friends move on to jobs (mostly non-related office jobs). I wonder if I didn't make a huge mistake by not applying, and whether that window of opportunity isn't closed now for good... or whether I made the right call.
RESPONSE A: I started my PhD in my mid thirties. But don’t do it unless you’re 100% sure this is what you want. Helluva lot harder than a masters.
RESPONSE B: Doing a PhD will also keep you up at night
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: are against it, all deadlines have passed, and I have an existential crisis now.* I am about to finish my 2 year master's in International Relations at the age of 26 (in my country we graduate at 19 and I did a year of travel). It was such a big deal to me to even get into this program, because I originally have a B.Sc. in psychology and I'm the first one in my direct family line to even see a college from the inside anyhow. The hybris I accused myself of to even attempt a master's! I was so nervous whether I'd even survive the IR program that I spent exactly no time thinking about any further degrees afterwards. Now that the end approaches, professors and my friends at grad school keep asking me why I don't do a PhD. One senior professor even approached me in a pub and said I was an ideal candidate, as I love academic discussions and research. My GPA is good and my supervisor really liked my master's thesis. But I was so focused to even survive the past two years, driven by constant impostor syndrome, that I never spent a second thinking I'd do anything else but "a job" afterwards, however vaguely defined. I made no plans for later at all. My professors' and colleagues' comments have seriously thrown me in doubt whether I didn't do a huge mistake. My parents (both worked themselves up from poor backgrounds, without a college degree) painted an image of PhD studies as a dead-end into poverty and unemployability with short-term contracts only, so I never really considered it. Obviously all deadlines have passed now by a long shot, and as all my friends move on to jobs (mostly non-related office jobs). I wonder if I didn't make a huge mistake by not applying, and whether that window of opportunity isn't closed now for good... or whether I made the right call.
RESPONSE A: Doing a PhD will also keep you up at night
RESPONSE B: Why does your age matter? I was in and out of school a lot, eventually started my PhD at 31. If you aren’t sure it’s what you want then that’s ok.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 's thesis. But I was so focused to even survive the past two years, driven by constant impostor syndrome, that I never spent a second thinking I'd do anything else but "a job" afterwards, however vaguely defined. I made no plans for later at all. My professors' and colleagues' comments have seriously thrown me in doubt whether I didn't do a huge mistake. My parents (both worked themselves up from poor backgrounds, without a college degree) painted an image of PhD studies as a dead-end into poverty and unemployability with short-term contracts only, so I never really considered it. Obviously all deadlines have passed now by a long shot, and as all my friends move on to jobs (mostly non-related office jobs). I wonder if I didn't make a huge mistake by not applying, and whether that window of opportunity isn't closed now for good... or whether I made the right call.
RESPONSE A: Doing a PhD will also keep you up at night
RESPONSE B: I think it's entirely reasonable to a) want to live a bit of a normal life before committing to a PhD and b) want to work out where you want to be and what you want to be doing before doing something so expensive, long and difficult. Being a PhD student has no time limit - you can do it after you retire, or part-time alongside another role if you want to build yourself up in industry. I did my BA and MA back-to-back and I'm glad I took a couple of years to work and travel before starting, as it showed me it's what I really want, and that keeps me going when it's hard as I know I'm on the right path. Many people drop out of PhDs because life is complicated and it sucks to be broke whilst all your friends have jobs and it's so long to go without earning. Don't let people pressure you into studying, but appreciate their comments as 'this is a possible avenue for me in the future'. You're not written off, you're not limiting yourself unless you're following a path because you OUGHT to rather than because you WANT to.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: year of travel). It was such a big deal to me to even get into this program, because I originally have a B.Sc. in psychology and I'm the first one in my direct family line to even see a college from the inside anyhow. The hybris I accused myself of to even attempt a master's! I was so nervous whether I'd even survive the IR program that I spent exactly no time thinking about any further degrees afterwards. Now that the end approaches, professors and my friends at grad school keep asking me why I don't do a PhD. One senior professor even approached me in a pub and said I was an ideal candidate, as I love academic discussions and research. My GPA is good and my supervisor really liked my master's thesis. But I was so focused to even survive the past two years, driven by constant impostor syndrome, that I never spent a second thinking I'd do anything else but "a job" afterwards, however vaguely defined. I made no plans for later at all. My professors' and colleagues' comments have seriously thrown me in doubt whether I didn't do a huge mistake. My parents (both worked themselves up from poor backgrounds, without a college degree) painted an image of PhD studies as a dead-end into poverty and unemployability with short-term contracts only, so I never really considered it. Obviously all deadlines have passed now by a long shot, and as all my friends move on to jobs (mostly non-related office jobs). I wonder if I didn't make a huge mistake by not applying, and whether that window of opportunity isn't closed now for good... or whether I made the right call.
RESPONSE A: Professors might want you to do a PhD not because they think it's good for you, but because it's good for them. Don't do it if your not 100% sure. It's a big life changing commitment that most careers do not need and in some cases can hinder.
RESPONSE B: Why does your age matter? I was in and out of school a lot, eventually started my PhD at 31. If you aren’t sure it’s what you want then that’s ok.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: My professor/boss is toxic I recently graduated college and I am an assistant teacher at my university. I started a masters degree but decided to drop it and apply to another program. The professor who I work with (recently head of my department) was also my thesis tutor in the masters and she has been so rude to me ever since I dropped it, saying passive aggressive things like “I couldn’t deal with that master” and “people just want to do easy things”. She’s been toxic overall ever since I started working with her. She tries to manage every aspect of my life and I was feeling trapped in that masters that she decided I had to do, and now she’s mad that I dropped it. How can I put a limit to her? She is my boss and I need to respond to her workwise but I don’t want my whole life to be controlled by her.
RESPONSE A: She is waiting for an apology and recognition of her hard work, and is dropping hints (badly) that you owe her these things. So, write a letter giving her the things she desires. It's called throwing the dog a bone.
RESPONSE B: Some bosses are not supportive of their staff's aspirations and interests because they do not align with their own. If you can't openly discuss why you stopped the masters and move on working together in a positive way then why would you want to continue working for someone repeatedly undermining you like that? OK, so that masters wasn't for you, that's okay, and your boss is disappointed, that's also okay, but if you have explained your decision, they should accept it and not try to make you feel bad. If you don't want to leave, then maybe you have to spell out to them that their comments are upsetting you? Good on you for doing what felt right for you though.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: My Professor Just Asked Me If I Want To Work As A PhD I'm working on my masters project in neuroscience. Currently my work is centered around human IPS cultures and Micro Electrode Arrays, and it's a field of study that I find really interesting. Having completed my first half of the thesis project, my professor just asked me if I wanted to continue working as a PhD after I finished my masters, but in a slightly unrelated field- attention switching in hover flies. I don't know what is the best option, should I take the PhD offer and hope to get into something I find more interesting later on, or should I turn down his offer and hope that I can find a PhD that is perfect for me? I don't really see my future being in insect neurology. Albeit an interesting field of research, I want to work with something that can help people in a more direct sense.
RESPONSE A: Just wanted to clarify, did your professor ask you if you're interested in working as *a* PhD after the master's (i.e. asking about your career goals)? Or was it explicit that they *offered* a PhD position with them?
RESPONSE B: Can you edit your post and state your career goals? Might influence answers.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How soon is now for a tenure-track position? I got my last job because I was one of those people that kept calling to inquire about the job. I'd like to know how soon should I (if I should at all) start calling for updates on this position because it sounds to me too good to be true. They're looking for 3 assistant professors in the same discipline, tenure-track, to potentially start in Aug 2023, the doctoral degree can be finished by the Spring of 2024, and the job has been posted already twice within a semester. The application period ended at the beginning of December and I hope to graduate in the fall of 2023.
RESPONSE A: It can be a slow process. Back end stuff like committee members not compliant to be on search committee so interviews are on hold, etc. I would say just keep moving till you get a call.
RESPONSE B: Well you're certainly not the son and heir of any kind of shyness
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Leaving a PhD Program Hi everyone! I’m currently a first semester PhD student and I am feeling unhappy with my current program. I have been feeling mentally drained from having a difficult transition to a new city, feeling like I don’t fit into the environment and feeling academically inadequate. I’ve experienced some red flags and am considering applying to other schools for Fall 2023. Im not sure how to approach this since all the signs point me to leave, but I am afraid of telling my current program. Advice is greatly appreciated and happy thanksgiving!!
RESPONSE A: I haven’t experienced this, but I watched my mother go through it. Her first doctoral program turned out to be a terrible fit. She agonized over it, but ultimately left and found a different program that was so much better for her. It added a year to her timeline, but now, ten years and tenure later, she has no regrets.
RESPONSE B: You haven’t really described any of the red flags you’ve observed so it’s hard to really advise you on whether or not you should stay. Based on what you have described, it just sounds like you’re having a hard adjustment to a new place and are grappling with the increased intellectual demand of doctoral work. This is normal and expected, and not really a reason to leave unless they are severely affecting your mental health. If you do decide to leave, it will not really affect anyone. Your advisor might have to shift some things around to cover your work duties, but that’s about it. You don’t owe them anything, so don’t feel poorly about leaving if that’s what you choose.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Leaving a PhD Program Hi everyone! I’m currently a first semester PhD student and I am feeling unhappy with my current program. I have been feeling mentally drained from having a difficult transition to a new city, feeling like I don’t fit into the environment and feeling academically inadequate. I’ve experienced some red flags and am considering applying to other schools for Fall 2023. Im not sure how to approach this since all the signs point me to leave, but I am afraid of telling my current program. Advice is greatly appreciated and happy thanksgiving!!
RESPONSE A: You haven’t really described any of the red flags you’ve observed so it’s hard to really advise you on whether or not you should stay. Based on what you have described, it just sounds like you’re having a hard adjustment to a new place and are grappling with the increased intellectual demand of doctoral work. This is normal and expected, and not really a reason to leave unless they are severely affecting your mental health. If you do decide to leave, it will not really affect anyone. Your advisor might have to shift some things around to cover your work duties, but that’s about it. You don’t owe them anything, so don’t feel poorly about leaving if that’s what you choose.
RESPONSE B: The first semester is rough for almost everyone. Almost any situation will have its ups and downs. Switching programs will delay you and can look bad, but if the environment is really bad then moving may be best. However, if it is a situation you can overcome then it might be good to push through and learn from it. Because when you get a job you may have a similar situation and changing jobs may not be as easy.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Leaving a PhD Program Hi everyone! I’m currently a first semester PhD student and I am feeling unhappy with my current program. I have been feeling mentally drained from having a difficult transition to a new city, feeling like I don’t fit into the environment and feeling academically inadequate. I’ve experienced some red flags and am considering applying to other schools for Fall 2023. Im not sure how to approach this since all the signs point me to leave, but I am afraid of telling my current program. Advice is greatly appreciated and happy thanksgiving!!
RESPONSE A: You can always stay for a year or two, get a masters degree and re-apply elsewhere with the additional perspective you have. I think that would work out well.
RESPONSE B: You haven’t really described any of the red flags you’ve observed so it’s hard to really advise you on whether or not you should stay. Based on what you have described, it just sounds like you’re having a hard adjustment to a new place and are grappling with the increased intellectual demand of doctoral work. This is normal and expected, and not really a reason to leave unless they are severely affecting your mental health. If you do decide to leave, it will not really affect anyone. Your advisor might have to shift some things around to cover your work duties, but that’s about it. You don’t owe them anything, so don’t feel poorly about leaving if that’s what you choose.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Leaving a PhD Program Hi everyone! I’m currently a first semester PhD student and I am feeling unhappy with my current program. I have been feeling mentally drained from having a difficult transition to a new city, feeling like I don’t fit into the environment and feeling academically inadequate. I’ve experienced some red flags and am considering applying to other schools for Fall 2023. Im not sure how to approach this since all the signs point me to leave, but I am afraid of telling my current program. Advice is greatly appreciated and happy thanksgiving!!
RESPONSE A: You can always stay for a year or two, get a masters degree and re-apply elsewhere with the additional perspective you have. I think that would work out well.
RESPONSE B: In my program, there's been several students who weren't happy in the program and switched to a different one. Your program probably won't care or hold it against you. I know there are some petty academics, but honestly, most fields are small and everyone in that field knows those petty professors and it probably won't harm you. Most professors and academics you will meet are understanding and want you to succeed and if that means you go to a different program they'll be fine with it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: feeling like I don’t fit into the environment and feeling academically inadequate. I’ve experienced some red flags and am considering applying to other schools for Fall 2023. Im not sure how to approach this since all the signs point me to leave, but I am afraid of telling my current program. Advice is greatly appreciated and happy thanksgiving!!
RESPONSE A: I haven’t experienced this, but I watched my mother go through it. Her first doctoral program turned out to be a terrible fit. She agonized over it, but ultimately left and found a different program that was so much better for her. It added a year to her timeline, but now, ten years and tenure later, she has no regrets.
RESPONSE B: I highly recommend sticking it out for another semester if you can. It sounds like your issue is mostly that it doesn’t feel like home to you? That makes sense because you just moved to a new city where you don’t know anybody and you’re launched into lab/school work immediately. I’m in my first semester and there are times when I question if I made the right choice program wise. My social life hasn’t been the greatest because, well my cohort isn’t the most social. The truth is that it’s a very slim chance other programs will be better. You’ll have to move all over again to another new city and you’ll have to make new friends all over again. You need to give it some time. I’m home with my parents for thanksgiving right now and while it’s great to be back home, it also makes me realize how much I already consider my PhD city to be my home and life. Also if you’re not already in it and can afford it, therapy is also a great outlet to express these feelings and work through some of them. For me, it’s been nice to just have a place to discuss my difficulties with moving away from my family. I suggest sticking it out for another semester and see how it goes. Give it some time and put yourself out there socially. You don’t need to limit your social life to your cohort if you don’t think you vibe with them/that it’s your environment. At the end, have an honest conversation with your advisor/chair.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How can I, a staff candidate, prepare for my interview with the Dean? I have never interviewed in academia and was wondering how to best prepare for an on-campus interview including the dean. I applied for a senior analyst position. Thus far, I have had a phone interview with HR and a zoom panel interview with the hiring committee. This next round will be a panel style interview, but with a smaller panel (2 members of the committee I have already interviewed with) and the dean. I was also told after my campus visit, they would like to schedule a zoom call on another day for me to meet other people who I may miss on the on-campus interview day. What is the likelihood they are seriously considering me, and how can I best prepare for this next round? The position would be a dream come true, and I want to make sure that I prepare as best as possible.
RESPONSE A: I've been on the other side of this. I think they are very seriously considering you. The Dean is super busy, and will interview as few people as possible. I would guess you're one of two candidates. We really struggle to hire and retain academic staff (I'm in the US). There are so many options open to them. We typically want to hire people that will be easy to work with and successful in the job, probably more important than their competency on day one. In the next round, I recommend being honest and forthright, and communicating your enthusiasm for the position. To prepare, I would research as much about the group you're working with as you can. E.g. if it's an engineering college, find out who has big grants, what they're researching and who funds it, who are the college hotshots in terms of funding. Universities like to boast about such things, so their websites should have such information. The point is to show you're familiar with what they do, and what you'll be doing. While you're snooping, see if they've had any financial blunders, messes, lawsuits (probably NOT on their own website). This will help you be ready in case they ask how you'll avoid certain problems. Good luck!
RESPONSE B: Senior analyst…like scientific stuff, or research grant administration?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What do professors/principal investigators expect when meeting with a prospective graduate student? I've been finishing up my graduate applications for Fall 2023 and I was lucky enough to have a few professors offer to meet with me over Zoom. This university in particular recommends that prospective students reach out to potential advisors to talk about doing research and supporting applications. I've done undergraduate research for a majority of the time that I was in undergrad, roughly 3 years out of 4. While I'm not 100% sure of the exact projects that I would to do research on, I still have a good grasp and one of my top lab choices does very similar research to what I am interested in. Even with all of that in mind, I am still feeling very intimidated and nervous. What are professors usually looking for in these meetings and what should I expect? To what degree should I come prepared? For most of these meetings, especially the one with the professor whose research interests align fairly well with mine, I've prepared to discuss their recent publications, as well as ask questions related to them and their lab. Overall I'm fairly nervous, but I would like to present myself as a potential student who is eager to learn and do research in the lab. I'm just unsure of how to go about these meetings and what to expect, such as what questions that I'll be asked, and what questions that I should ask them.
RESPONSE A: A sensible rule of thumb when I engaged prospective grad students was 'can they chat about the subject'? Anyone can form a well-structured and coherent presentation, but someone who knows their stuff can usually have a discussion and give opinions.
RESPONSE B: When I interviewed with people I basically pitched them my idea for a research project and asked whether they might be able to supervise it, or just in general whether our research interests overlap. In my field supervisors often take students who have little to do with their own research as long as it's in the same sort of area.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do you live comfortably as a professor in a big city? Hi all! As in the title, I am curious if it is possible to live comfortably as a professor in a big city, i.e. say one with a 500k+ population. By 'comfortably', I roughly mean being able to buy a (small) house, not be frugal on groceries, eat out 1-2 times a week, and travel 1-2 times a year (domestically). I know an Econ Phd student who has just accepted an assistant professor position with 110K a year in Boston and he said he is really worried about living there with such a salary (maybe this is a 9-month salary). From my search, I also know a few math/stats professors from the Bay area earning around 90-95K, which I believe is not very high given the crazy cost of living there. I know this is a very complicated question since it depends a lot on the specific city, field, institution type (private/public, R1/R2, teaching, etc.), and also the spouse, so I guess I just want to know some perspectives. I am in math/stats if you are curious. In general, I want to see if one can live comfortably as a professor or not, so even if you are not living in a big city, you can also share your stories (I guess expensive college towns like Santa Barbara can be interesting case studies). Thank you so much.
RESPONSE A: You can live okay, but it is never comfortable.
RESPONSE B: In Australian cities (East coast), on an academic salary you can do all of the above fairly comfortably *except* buy a small house near campus. Property prices are ridiculous here, which has put home ownership out of reach of many people, including well-paid professionals.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: in a big city, i.e. say one with a 500k+ population. By 'comfortably', I roughly mean being able to buy a (small) house, not be frugal on groceries, eat out 1-2 times a week, and travel 1-2 times a year (domestically). I know an Econ Phd student who has just accepted an assistant professor position with 110K a year in Boston and he said he is really worried about living there with such a salary (maybe this is a 9-month salary). From my search, I also know a few math/stats professors from the Bay area earning around 90-95K, which I believe is not very high given the crazy cost of living there. I know this is a very complicated question since it depends a lot on the specific city, field, institution type (private/public, R1/R2, teaching, etc.), and also the spouse, so I guess I just want to know some perspectives. I am in math/stats if you are curious. In general, I want to see if one can live comfortably as a professor or not, so even if you are not living in a big city, you can also share your stories (I guess expensive college towns like Santa Barbara can be interesting case studies). Thank you so much.
RESPONSE A: I work at a public in Chicago. Make 77k base, usually another 12k from grants and summer teaching, and another 20k consulting. Wife makes about 80k. Have nice three bedroom house in a pleasant suburb and generally living an upper middle class life. Housing cheaper here than any other large American city for sure.
RESPONSE B: I was able to do this as a postdoc (I didn't buy a house, but I could have on my salary) in Chicago. Besides housing (I had roommates), I was able to do this as a PhD student in New York. If all you want is to be able to travel domestically 1-2 times a year, and eat out 1-2 times a week, you end up saving a lot of money compared to many Americans, who travel a lot and/or eat out a lot.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: professor in a big city? Hi all! As in the title, I am curious if it is possible to live comfortably as a professor in a big city, i.e. say one with a 500k+ population. By 'comfortably', I roughly mean being able to buy a (small) house, not be frugal on groceries, eat out 1-2 times a week, and travel 1-2 times a year (domestically). I know an Econ Phd student who has just accepted an assistant professor position with 110K a year in Boston and he said he is really worried about living there with such a salary (maybe this is a 9-month salary). From my search, I also know a few math/stats professors from the Bay area earning around 90-95K, which I believe is not very high given the crazy cost of living there. I know this is a very complicated question since it depends a lot on the specific city, field, institution type (private/public, R1/R2, teaching, etc.), and also the spouse, so I guess I just want to know some perspectives. I am in math/stats if you are curious. In general, I want to see if one can live comfortably as a professor or not, so even if you are not living in a big city, you can also share your stories (I guess expensive college towns like Santa Barbara can be interesting case studies). Thank you so much.
RESPONSE A: I do. BUT, my spouse makes more than me. It would be difficult to support a family well on my salary. It would, of course, be easier and doable to support myself-only on my salary although I may still need to live further from campus than would be ideal. There are other universities in suburbs of our city. A professor who lives and works there would be okay especially in a two income household.
RESPONSE B: I work at a public in Chicago. Make 77k base, usually another 12k from grants and summer teaching, and another 20k consulting. Wife makes about 80k. Have nice three bedroom house in a pleasant suburb and generally living an upper middle class life. Housing cheaper here than any other large American city for sure.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Do you live comfortably as a professor in a big city? Hi all! As in the title, I am curious if it is possible to live comfortably as a professor in a big city, i.e. say one with a 500k+ population. By 'comfortably', I roughly mean being able to buy a (small) house, not be frugal on groceries, eat out 1-2 times a week, and travel 1-2 times a year (domestically). I know an Econ Phd student who has just accepted an assistant professor position with 110K a year in Boston and he said he is really worried about living there with such a salary (maybe this is a 9-month salary). From my search, I also know a few math/stats professors from the Bay area earning around 90-95K, which I believe is not very high given the crazy cost of living there. I know this is a very complicated question since it depends a lot on the specific city, field, institution type (private/public, R1/R2, teaching, etc.), and also the spouse, so I guess I just want to know some perspectives. I am in math/stats if you are curious. In general, I want to see if one can live comfortably as a professor or not, so even if you are not living in a big city, you can also share your stories (I guess expensive college towns like Santa Barbara can be interesting case studies). Thank you so much.
RESPONSE A: I work at a public in Chicago. Make 77k base, usually another 12k from grants and summer teaching, and another 20k consulting. Wife makes about 80k. Have nice three bedroom house in a pleasant suburb and generally living an upper middle class life. Housing cheaper here than any other large American city for sure.
RESPONSE B: You can live okay, but it is never comfortable.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do you live comfortably as a professor in a big city? Hi all! As in the title, I am curious if it is possible to live comfortably as a professor in a big city, i.e. say one with a 500k+ population. By 'comfortably', I roughly mean being able to buy a (small) house, not be frugal on groceries, eat out 1-2 times a week, and travel 1-2 times a year (domestically). I know an Econ Phd student who has just accepted an assistant professor position with 110K a year in Boston and he said he is really worried about living there with such a salary (maybe this is a 9-month salary). From my search, I also know a few math/stats professors from the Bay area earning around 90-95K, which I believe is not very high given the crazy cost of living there. I know this is a very complicated question since it depends a lot on the specific city, field, institution type (private/public, R1/R2, teaching, etc.), and also the spouse, so I guess I just want to know some perspectives. I am in math/stats if you are curious. In general, I want to see if one can live comfortably as a professor or not, so even if you are not living in a big city, you can also share your stories (I guess expensive college towns like Santa Barbara can be interesting case studies). Thank you so much.
RESPONSE A: I make a very low salary but also live in a low COL area and have a spouse who makes a little more than me. We can afford to do the things you mention.
RESPONSE B: I work at a public in Chicago. Make 77k base, usually another 12k from grants and summer teaching, and another 20k consulting. Wife makes about 80k. Have nice three bedroom house in a pleasant suburb and generally living an upper middle class life. Housing cheaper here than any other large American city for sure.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: In support of a PhD application would it be OK to list a conference publication even though I will have to wait 2 months for the accompanying journal to be published? The paper was accepted, the conference is over and I presented the paper. This annual conference is in its 20th year, it is reputable and the publication usually gets released 2 months after the conference. Should I list it in an application form and/or CV even though it will not be online for another 2 months? Thanks for reading.
RESPONSE A: Yes. Def add the paper in your CV and make a note that it's accepted and in-press
RESPONSE B: I made the mistake of stating a publication that was not published yet and the uni stated it voided my scholarship opportunities because I didn’t state it was such. I got a meeting over zoom to be told I was “falsifying” information. So my suggestion is to explicitly state it’s not published yet so you cover your bases. Need less to say I left the uni for more reasons than this.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: In support of a PhD application would it be OK to list a conference publication even though I will have to wait 2 months for the accompanying journal to be published? The paper was accepted, the conference is over and I presented the paper. This annual conference is in its 20th year, it is reputable and the publication usually gets released 2 months after the conference. Should I list it in an application form and/or CV even though it will not be online for another 2 months? Thanks for reading.
RESPONSE A: Where I am from, it’s okay to ask for a letter of acceptance from the journal.
RESPONSE B: Yes. Def add the paper in your CV and make a note that it's accepted and in-press
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: In support of a PhD application would it be OK to list a conference publication even though I will have to wait 2 months for the accompanying journal to be published? The paper was accepted, the conference is over and I presented the paper. This annual conference is in its 20th year, it is reputable and the publication usually gets released 2 months after the conference. Should I list it in an application form and/or CV even though it will not be online for another 2 months? Thanks for reading.
RESPONSE A: Pretty simple in my field. You list everything and put “forthcoming” for things that are not out yet but have been accepted.
RESPONSE B: I made the mistake of stating a publication that was not published yet and the uni stated it voided my scholarship opportunities because I didn’t state it was such. I got a meeting over zoom to be told I was “falsifying” information. So my suggestion is to explicitly state it’s not published yet so you cover your bases. Need less to say I left the uni for more reasons than this.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: In support of a PhD application would it be OK to list a conference publication even though I will have to wait 2 months for the accompanying journal to be published? The paper was accepted, the conference is over and I presented the paper. This annual conference is in its 20th year, it is reputable and the publication usually gets released 2 months after the conference. Should I list it in an application form and/or CV even though it will not be online for another 2 months? Thanks for reading.
RESPONSE A: Pretty simple in my field. You list everything and put “forthcoming” for things that are not out yet but have been accepted.
RESPONSE B: Where I am from, it’s okay to ask for a letter of acceptance from the journal.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: In support of a PhD application would it be OK to list a conference publication even though I will have to wait 2 months for the accompanying journal to be published? The paper was accepted, the conference is over and I presented the paper. This annual conference is in its 20th year, it is reputable and the publication usually gets released 2 months after the conference. Should I list it in an application form and/or CV even though it will not be online for another 2 months? Thanks for reading.
RESPONSE A: You already presented the work, so it would be acceptable. If you are citing the unpublished content directly, you can put that it is unpublished. APA formatted citations and references, for instance, make distinctions between unpublished and published materials.
RESPONSE B: Where I am from, it’s okay to ask for a letter of acceptance from the journal.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: about it too. A few professors underlined the fact that I do not have any experience related to their specific subject, and some of them asked since I am a non-eu citizen would it be difficult for me to get visa. ​ After all my interviews, I felt like I did a good job, talked about myself clearly and asked them some questions too. But I failed 4 interviews so obviously I wasn't good enough. What could I do to get better?
RESPONSE A: The thing that jumps out to me is the question about your visa. Are you 100% certain of the visa requirements and any impact being a non-eu citizen would have on funding etc? If I was interviewing you I’d want to be sure you had all that sorted even if you were an amazing candidate in all other aspects.
RESPONSE B: It's not really possible to give any specific advice like this, maybe you just got unlucky. What I look for in PhD students: * someone who is really interested in the topic (the professors seemed to be worried about that because you have no prior experience in their field. Why did you apply to positions different from what you did before? What got you interested in that?) * someone I believe has the capabilities and will to finish (this one is tricky, having past research experience definitely helps but it's also about attitude. And again if you are from a different field you should have some good reasons for applying elsewhere because otherwise it looks like you just applied to everything) * someone with their own ideas (but this is kinda of up to personal preference of the PI. I don't like to micro manage and I want my students too have a certain level of independence) Things that I find don't look good in interviews (apart from not being prepared but this doesn't seem to be your problem): * talking too general (not: I got interdisciplinary research experience, instead: I worked on X which was quite fascinating because it's on the overlap between Y and Z. I had to learn this and that for this project.) * being too eager (as in being fine with and pretending to know everything to please the interviewer, it comes of as dishonest. But this might also be a cultural thing.)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why do I keep failing in my interviews? I am a master's degree student applying for PhD positions for 2 months. I had 4 interviews but I wasn't successful in any of them. During the interviews, I talk about my past research experiences, the techniques I've learned, and I specifically talk about "what did I gain during my internships" for example, an internatiol research experience, working in an multidisciplinary subject etc. I also read about their research topic before the interview and I talk about it too. A few professors underlined the fact that I do not have any experience related to their specific subject, and some of them asked since I am a non-eu citizen would it be difficult for me to get visa. ​ After all my interviews, I felt like I did a good job, talked about myself clearly and asked them some questions too. But I failed 4 interviews so obviously I wasn't good enough. What could I do to get better?
RESPONSE A: One key piece of advice that I was given that changed interviews for me was: Describe and outline everything specifically and with detail, as you have been doing, but then apply it to their position. How will that past experience make you the best candidate for their particular company and in that position. Essentially, spell it out for them even if you think it’s obvious. And don’t just answer their question about the past, but apply it to the future - their office or company will be better with your particular experience and skill because … Do this for every question they ask. This helped me a lot.
RESPONSE B: Don’t be too disheartened OP, I had 8 interviews before I had an offer! And it’s also very early in the year, so wouldn’t be too worried just yet! I got my offer in May for a September start 😮💨
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it okay to contact authors and politely ask them to forward the source for a citation mentioned in their paper? I have a citation that I am looking to read. However, I have tried various approaches to look up the source but they only show up on the authors' papers (and their PhD dissertation). I cannot find the person (whose work I want to read) anywhere. Its just a last name and listing their school has not pointed me to their work. I don't know what else I can do. For anyone curious, it's this: S. Geurts, “Peripheral Play,” Utrecht School of the Arts, Hilversum, 2012.
RESPONSE A: You can try. Worst case, you get no answer.
RESPONSE B: That could be a dissertation. Ask your university librarian for help accessing it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it okay to contact authors and politely ask them to forward the source for a citation mentioned in their paper? I have a citation that I am looking to read. However, I have tried various approaches to look up the source but they only show up on the authors' papers (and their PhD dissertation). I cannot find the person (whose work I want to read) anywhere. Its just a last name and listing their school has not pointed me to their work. I don't know what else I can do. For anyone curious, it's this: S. Geurts, “Peripheral Play,” Utrecht School of the Arts, Hilversum, 2012.
RESPONSE A: ~~Try contacting Utrecht's library. They say on their website that they've changed their publication system and so student theses might be difficult to find, and on the linked page they give an email address to contact.~~ As u/Sassy_Pumpkin points out, I selected the wrong institution in Utrecht. Unfortunately the publication in question does not exist in the HKU online publications listings, nor do they seem to invite queries quite as openly as UU.
RESPONSE B: You can try. Worst case, you get no answer.
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.