label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
B | POST: I've been accepted to present a paper at an online conference in 3 weeks, but the organizers are not answering my questions! I'm very excited to be presenting my first paper at an International Conference in my field. I have 20 mins to give an online presentation of my PhD research. My big question is - do I need to prepare slides, or will this be a video based conference? I guess only the organizers can answer that question, but I think everyone is still on holiday. What is the general trend these days? Should I plan for slides? That would suit me better than a direct feed of my talking face. Lol. Any suggestions?
RESPONSE A: Definitely can't go wrong preparing slides especially if it's a big conference
RESPONSE B: Wouldn't you need slides regardless? I can't imagine that 20 minutes of your face talking is going to be very engaging on zoom. I've done two online conferences since the pandemic started, and everyone has had slides. In fact, I've never attended a talk online or otherwise that didn't include slides to demonstrate what the person is talking about.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: paper (no IF yet). Therefore I accepted to review. ​ I tried not to be harsh in the review, as the journal is small and the authors were from a very small non -reasearch focused team, like it was their first paper ever. But the paper was completely wrong, in all aspects. English was terrible, structure was surreal and, anyway, what they tried to do was completely wrong (they misunderstood the basics of what they were doing work). Just to give you an example, the abstract was written like they were telling a story, and it included sentences like "we used script.sh to generate data file processedData.bin" (where script.sh, it appears, is a script they developed and nowhere they stated what it was doing and how). I was not very harsh in the review but I was very clear in the "comments to the editor". ​ Despite this clear, huge problems, I was informed that the paper was accepted pending a "major" revision, but what they asked them was very simple. I'm pretty puzzled by this behavior. Should I start thinking that this reputable editor is behaving like a predatory one?
RESPONSE A: > I researched it and I found out that the editor of this journal is a famous, big, completely legit, publisher of a scientific society. Ah. Well, maybe fire them an email to make sure that they *know* they are the editor of this journal. Scam journals will just take good people in the field and adhere them to the board without their knowledge. Or, they convincingly construct false personas that do not exist at all but have a very convincing (fake) CV. Predatory journals (and just garbage journals) are a plague. If you think you're a part of one, you probably are.
RESPONSE B: Did the editor base their decision only on your review? Have you seen other reviewers' comments, if there are any? Are you possibly from a different (sub)field than authors + editor? Does publication cost significantly more money than other open access articles? Because it's open access, have you checked already published articles for similar "clearly wrong" approaches?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: . However the journal was a brand new one, one of the open source ones that claim to focus on rapid publication, provided that the research is sound while not making judgments on future significance on the paper (no IF yet). Therefore I accepted to review. ​ I tried not to be harsh in the review, as the journal is small and the authors were from a very small non -reasearch focused team, like it was their first paper ever. But the paper was completely wrong, in all aspects. English was terrible, structure was surreal and, anyway, what they tried to do was completely wrong (they misunderstood the basics of what they were doing work). Just to give you an example, the abstract was written like they were telling a story, and it included sentences like "we used script.sh to generate data file processedData.bin" (where script.sh, it appears, is a script they developed and nowhere they stated what it was doing and how). I was not very harsh in the review but I was very clear in the "comments to the editor". ​ Despite this clear, huge problems, I was informed that the paper was accepted pending a "major" revision, but what they asked them was very simple. I'm pretty puzzled by this behavior. Should I start thinking that this reputable editor is behaving like a predatory one?
RESPONSE A: > I researched it and I found out that the editor of this journal is a famous, big, completely legit, publisher of a scientific society. Ah. Well, maybe fire them an email to make sure that they *know* they are the editor of this journal. Scam journals will just take good people in the field and adhere them to the board without their knowledge. Or, they convincingly construct false personas that do not exist at all but have a very convincing (fake) CV. Predatory journals (and just garbage journals) are a plague. If you think you're a part of one, you probably are.
RESPONSE B: Predatory journals often claim to have members on their editorial team who are not actually on the team at all. I would contact this bigwig to confirm and express your concerns.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: from a very small non -reasearch focused team, like it was their first paper ever. But the paper was completely wrong, in all aspects. English was terrible, structure was surreal and, anyway, what they tried to do was completely wrong (they misunderstood the basics of what they were doing work). Just to give you an example, the abstract was written like they were telling a story, and it included sentences like "we used script.sh to generate data file processedData.bin" (where script.sh, it appears, is a script they developed and nowhere they stated what it was doing and how). I was not very harsh in the review but I was very clear in the "comments to the editor". ​ Despite this clear, huge problems, I was informed that the paper was accepted pending a "major" revision, but what they asked them was very simple. I'm pretty puzzled by this behavior. Should I start thinking that this reputable editor is behaving like a predatory one?
RESPONSE A: > I researched it and I found out that the editor of this journal is a famous, big, completely legit, publisher of a scientific society. Ah. Well, maybe fire them an email to make sure that they *know* they are the editor of this journal. Scam journals will just take good people in the field and adhere them to the board without their knowledge. Or, they convincingly construct false personas that do not exist at all but have a very convincing (fake) CV. Predatory journals (and just garbage journals) are a plague. If you think you're a part of one, you probably are.
RESPONSE B: It just sounds like the editor disagreed with you. Their job is to use their discretion to mitigate overly positive or negative reviews based on their experience and expertise. Without seeing the paper it is hard to say if you were being harsh but the editor seems to have thought so. Did you see the other reviewer(s) comments? Bottom line, in my opinion, is if they send it to review it isn’t a predatory journal (not to say it is a good journal and maybe you’d think twice before submitting there).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: to focus on rapid publication, provided that the research is sound while not making judgments on future significance on the paper (no IF yet). Therefore I accepted to review. ​ I tried not to be harsh in the review, as the journal is small and the authors were from a very small non -reasearch focused team, like it was their first paper ever. But the paper was completely wrong, in all aspects. English was terrible, structure was surreal and, anyway, what they tried to do was completely wrong (they misunderstood the basics of what they were doing work). Just to give you an example, the abstract was written like they were telling a story, and it included sentences like "we used script.sh to generate data file processedData.bin" (where script.sh, it appears, is a script they developed and nowhere they stated what it was doing and how). I was not very harsh in the review but I was very clear in the "comments to the editor". ​ Despite this clear, huge problems, I was informed that the paper was accepted pending a "major" revision, but what they asked them was very simple. I'm pretty puzzled by this behavior. Should I start thinking that this reputable editor is behaving like a predatory one?
RESPONSE A: > I researched it and I found out that the editor of this journal is a famous, big, completely legit, publisher of a scientific society. Ah. Well, maybe fire them an email to make sure that they *know* they are the editor of this journal. Scam journals will just take good people in the field and adhere them to the board without their knowledge. Or, they convincingly construct false personas that do not exist at all but have a very convincing (fake) CV. Predatory journals (and just garbage journals) are a plague. If you think you're a part of one, you probably are.
RESPONSE B: It certainly sounds predatory to me - and I think you know that. I would avoid doing more reviews for these people. This paper sounds like it should have been rejected out of hand, yet it was accepted pending major review? I think it's silly.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: where script.sh, it appears, is a script they developed and nowhere they stated what it was doing and how). I was not very harsh in the review but I was very clear in the "comments to the editor". ​ Despite this clear, huge problems, I was informed that the paper was accepted pending a "major" revision, but what they asked them was very simple. I'm pretty puzzled by this behavior. Should I start thinking that this reputable editor is behaving like a predatory one?
RESPONSE A: Some predatory journals claim to have famous and reputable editors, while the people themselves have no idea that their names are being used in this way and are not actually involved with these journals. So it can still be a predatory journal even if it's flaunting big names. If I were you, I'd look at the publishing house, rather than the editor, and check if the publishing house is on this list: https://beallslist.weebly.com/ If the journal is legit in principle, it's still possible that a paper can get into "major revision" status, even if one of the reviewers rejected it. Just wait for the revision. You'll get to see the other reviewers' comments and that usually helps you understand why the editor made a certain decision. "Major revision" doesn't usually mean the paper is accepted yet. It can still be rejected after a revision. And if the authors don't address the comments appropriately, you can still reject it a second time.
RESPONSE B: > I researched it and I found out that the editor of this journal is a famous, big, completely legit, publisher of a scientific society. Ah. Well, maybe fire them an email to make sure that they *know* they are the editor of this journal. Scam journals will just take good people in the field and adhere them to the board without their knowledge. Or, they convincingly construct false personas that do not exist at all but have a very convincing (fake) CV. Predatory journals (and just garbage journals) are a plague. If you think you're a part of one, you probably are.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: First time writing a paper for publication Hi! I am a grad school student. Me and my supervisor is planning to submit a paper for publication. This is supposed to be my first First Author paper. I wrote the first draft and asked my supervisor for her comments and feedbacks. As expected, I received lots of comments from her and she is also kind enough to proofread the whole manuscript. But as I read the revised paper, I feel like it is not the paper that I wrote anymore and felt like I don't deserve to be its first author. My self-esteem actually sank. Now, my question is, is it normal to feel that way? What do you usually do to boost your confidence in writing, and maybe help you accept it as your own? Thanks.
RESPONSE A: It's actually a good thing that you're getting lots of feedback. I know it doesn't feel that way, but some of my friends have pretty aloof advisors. They get almost no feedback. Students can't grow without feedback.
RESPONSE B: If you supervisor doesn't completely 'destroy' your first draft with edits and suggestions, you're either a genius or they don't care. So it's probably a good sign that they dis this. Also >she is also kind enough to proofread the whole manuscript Not really especially kind, but literally their job as a co-author and supervisor.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: First time writing a paper for publication Hi! I am a grad school student. Me and my supervisor is planning to submit a paper for publication. This is supposed to be my first First Author paper. I wrote the first draft and asked my supervisor for her comments and feedbacks. As expected, I received lots of comments from her and she is also kind enough to proofread the whole manuscript. But as I read the revised paper, I feel like it is not the paper that I wrote anymore and felt like I don't deserve to be its first author. My self-esteem actually sank. Now, my question is, is it normal to feel that way? What do you usually do to boost your confidence in writing, and maybe help you accept it as your own? Thanks.
RESPONSE A: If you supervisor doesn't completely 'destroy' your first draft with edits and suggestions, you're either a genius or they don't care. So it's probably a good sign that they dis this. Also >she is also kind enough to proofread the whole manuscript Not really especially kind, but literally their job as a co-author and supervisor.
RESPONSE B: I am going through the same thing - my PI and co-lead on the left so many comments on my drafts that I felt as if I did not earn the first author spot. I just try and remind myself that their names are going on this paper so it's a reflection on them as well as me, so they want us to put our best feet forward. Also, we are newbies who have lots to learn in terms of how certain fields want things to be written, and other nuances like that which can only be learned through a good amount of experience in the field :)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: First time writing a paper for publication Hi! I am a grad school student. Me and my supervisor is planning to submit a paper for publication. This is supposed to be my first First Author paper. I wrote the first draft and asked my supervisor for her comments and feedbacks. As expected, I received lots of comments from her and she is also kind enough to proofread the whole manuscript. But as I read the revised paper, I feel like it is not the paper that I wrote anymore and felt like I don't deserve to be its first author. My self-esteem actually sank. Now, my question is, is it normal to feel that way? What do you usually do to boost your confidence in writing, and maybe help you accept it as your own? Thanks.
RESPONSE A: 100% it's normal! The first one is a huge learning experience. Try to stay positive through the process, celebrate your small victory when it gets published, and objectively process the lessons that you've learned from your advisors comments/ revisions and apply this lessons in your next papers. This is apart of the process unfortunately and learning a very new skill is quite challenging and humbling oftentimes. One of the other posters is right about you having a good advisor. It would be much more painful to get almost no feedback from your advisor, submit the paper, and get ripped apart by external editors. Hang in there, you got this! My first paper went through about 25 revisions with my co-advisors and it was so painful, so defeating. I had doubts just like you! It's still a work in progress for me even after tens of articles. Every dataset is different and people will often think it should be presented in a different way from how you present it in a paper.
RESPONSE B: If you supervisor doesn't completely 'destroy' your first draft with edits and suggestions, you're either a genius or they don't care. So it's probably a good sign that they dis this. Also >she is also kind enough to proofread the whole manuscript Not really especially kind, but literally their job as a co-author and supervisor.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: First time writing a paper for publication Hi! I am a grad school student. Me and my supervisor is planning to submit a paper for publication. This is supposed to be my first First Author paper. I wrote the first draft and asked my supervisor for her comments and feedbacks. As expected, I received lots of comments from her and she is also kind enough to proofread the whole manuscript. But as I read the revised paper, I feel like it is not the paper that I wrote anymore and felt like I don't deserve to be its first author. My self-esteem actually sank. Now, my question is, is it normal to feel that way? What do you usually do to boost your confidence in writing, and maybe help you accept it as your own? Thanks.
RESPONSE A: It's actually a good thing that you're getting lots of feedback. I know it doesn't feel that way, but some of my friends have pretty aloof advisors. They get almost no feedback. Students can't grow without feedback.
RESPONSE B: I’m getting ready to submit my 5th first author paper. I wrote the first draft, and have been incorporating my advisors feedback, back and forth, for months. In our lab, we get the shiniest version possible then send to all coauthors for their feedback. One of the other coauthors was my masters advisor, and he made over 150 suggestions. A former post doc left well over 50. All to say, it never stops. This is how writing collaboratively works. It’s not a statement on you. It’s a statement that everyone is involved and wants the work to be the best it can be.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: First time writing a paper for publication Hi! I am a grad school student. Me and my supervisor is planning to submit a paper for publication. This is supposed to be my first First Author paper. I wrote the first draft and asked my supervisor for her comments and feedbacks. As expected, I received lots of comments from her and she is also kind enough to proofread the whole manuscript. But as I read the revised paper, I feel like it is not the paper that I wrote anymore and felt like I don't deserve to be its first author. My self-esteem actually sank. Now, my question is, is it normal to feel that way? What do you usually do to boost your confidence in writing, and maybe help you accept it as your own? Thanks.
RESPONSE A: I’m getting ready to submit my 5th first author paper. I wrote the first draft, and have been incorporating my advisors feedback, back and forth, for months. In our lab, we get the shiniest version possible then send to all coauthors for their feedback. One of the other coauthors was my masters advisor, and he made over 150 suggestions. A former post doc left well over 50. All to say, it never stops. This is how writing collaboratively works. It’s not a statement on you. It’s a statement that everyone is involved and wants the work to be the best it can be.
RESPONSE B: I am going through the same thing - my PI and co-lead on the left so many comments on my drafts that I felt as if I did not earn the first author spot. I just try and remind myself that their names are going on this paper so it's a reflection on them as well as me, so they want us to put our best feet forward. Also, we are newbies who have lots to learn in terms of how certain fields want things to be written, and other nuances like that which can only be learned through a good amount of experience in the field :)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: If a reputable conference extends the deadline for abstract submission the day they were due, does that mean the submission rate was low and there's a higher likelihood of mine getting accepted? Title says it all. Please tell me it means mine is likely to be accepted.
RESPONSE A: DO conferences reject papers? I was able a couple of times to get official stats from some of the major conferences in my field (either medical or technical ones) and the acceptance rate was >98%, (including posters obviously... for orals it's very low)
RESPONSE B: It means they got 100 emails asking them to extend the deadline and it was easier to just do it than deal with the fallout.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: If a reputable conference extends the deadline for abstract submission the day they were due, does that mean the submission rate was low and there's a higher likelihood of mine getting accepted? Title says it all. Please tell me it means mine is likely to be accepted.
RESPONSE A: Every conference I've been too, which are the biggest in their field (30k+) attendees, have an almost 100% acceptance rate barring any major problems (plagiarism, no data). This is probably why they end up being the biggest, but a conference isn't supposed to be doing any gatekeeping other than dividing you up into oral or poster presentations.
RESPONSE B: It means they got 100 emails asking them to extend the deadline and it was easier to just do it than deal with the fallout.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: If a reputable conference extends the deadline for abstract submission the day they were due, does that mean the submission rate was low and there's a higher likelihood of mine getting accepted? Title says it all. Please tell me it means mine is likely to be accepted.
RESPONSE A: Every conference I've been too, which are the biggest in their field (30k+) attendees, have an almost 100% acceptance rate barring any major problems (plagiarism, no data). This is probably why they end up being the biggest, but a conference isn't supposed to be doing any gatekeeping other than dividing you up into oral or poster presentations.
RESPONSE B: Society for neuroscience have extended their deadline every year I remember, I also have never heard of an abstract being rejected...
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: If a reputable conference extends the deadline for abstract submission the day they were due, does that mean the submission rate was low and there's a higher likelihood of mine getting accepted? Title says it all. Please tell me it means mine is likely to be accepted.
RESPONSE A: So many different types of submissions extend the deadlines for papers or application submissions that I'm pretty sure it's planned when they set the deadlines. I think they know most people are going to procrastinate and only start writing when the deadline is looming, then likely have a sub-par product ready "in time"... but if they extend the deadline a week or so then all the submissions end up being higher quality. It's the submission equivalent of telling your friends who are always late that the event starts 30min earlier than it actually does.
RESPONSE B: Society for neuroscience have extended their deadline every year I remember, I also have never heard of an abstract being rejected...
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: If a reputable conference extends the deadline for abstract submission the day they were due, does that mean the submission rate was low and there's a higher likelihood of mine getting accepted? Title says it all. Please tell me it means mine is likely to be accepted.
RESPONSE A: Society for neuroscience have extended their deadline every year I remember, I also have never heard of an abstract being rejected...
RESPONSE B: No. It just means they had a lot of people ask for last minute extensions. It's incredibly common for major conferences to extend deadlines.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Have you ever had a paper accepted when one of the reviewers was still recommending'reject'? I just submitted journal paper revisions a few days ago, and this morning was asked for another round of revision by the editor. There are 3 reviewers, 2 recommend accept as is at this stage and 1 recommends reject - with the latter having provided vague comments in the first round and responded again with vague comments on this round. For example: "I am just not convinced that this paper contributes anything novel. The authors have made the paper read better and included more articulate arguments for its novelty, but I simply remain unconvinced". No further elaboration on why. Just that they "remain unconvinced". That was their ONLY comment this time. Also if you're an editor, what is your perspective on this situation and advice for authors in this case?
RESPONSE A: I've refereed papers where I emphatically suggested "reject" and painstakingly wrote out my issues while the other referee basically just wrote a few sentences saying "Not really my field, but looks good" and that paper got in. So it can certainly happen. Ah Sci Reports.
RESPONSE B: If two reviewers disagree, the decision goes to the editor, so this is not at all an uncommon situation. For what it's worth, if a reviewer "remains unconvinced" I would think that an editor would err on the side of letting the paper go to press with the idea of letting the readers form their own judgments - after all, while we hold our work to high standards, no one in a field views a published paper as the unvarnished truth merely because it got printed. That said, I am not an editor, so take that for what it's worth.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: place since basically undergrad. I still want to temporarily move to my dream city, but also want to put down roots somewhere (but not where I am now). Has anybody else ever felt like this? What did you do?
RESPONSE A: Personally, I left academia. That doesn't mean that's what *you* should do. It was the right choice for me. But I was in a postdoc faced with many of the same feelings: I was finishing up year 1 of my postdoc realizing that even though I was an excellent prospect, to be a viable candidate for an academic position in my field I would realistically need to postdoc for 3-4 years, not the two I had planned. I realized I had spent more than half a year writing 6-8 pages of text for an R03 grant; I still had 4 months of work to go, and the most likely outcome was getting rejected and asked to apply again...thus eventually spending a full year and a half on *6-8 pages of text*. (I hated spending so much time polishing papers and grant; it always seemed so inefficient. By the time I publish the results, the data is old!) I dreamed of teaching at an elite small liberal arts college, but aside from them being ridiculously competitive, most of them were located in small college towns several hours from a large city. I really wanted to live in or near an urban area. And I wanted to settle down too - I, too, had been moving around with no permanent home since age 18, and I was tired of it. Worst of all, I knew that unsettled feeling would likely be with me until I got tenure, which could have easily been the next 10 years of my life or more. Looking realistically into my future, I knew none of what I wanted was near-term for me if I stayed - and some of it was unlikely to ever happen. I also personally knew I could be happy outside of academia and indeed in any field, as I'd worked and done internships all through college and grad school. I enjoyed a lot of the things I did, so I knew there were other careers I'd love and I never really felt trapped. So I exited.
RESPONSE B: No one knows how to have a fulfilling life.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Would it be easier to get a place in foreign academia if you get your masters/PhD there? Hello, I am currently studying psychology and I am looking for options for working in academia abroad. Would it be easier to have an academic career in a foreign country if I got my masters/PhD there? Any help would be appreciated.
RESPONSE A: > Would it be easier to have an academic career in a foreign country if I got my masters/PhD there? Generally, yes, it will be easier to get a position in a country you've had some experience in. As long as you use your time there well, you'll have developed a local network, learned about how the education system works there, developed familiarity/experience with the relevant funding agencies, and gained proficiency in the local language. That said, as another commenter has pointed out, it's more important to go somewhere highly-reputable internationally and to get a strong publication record. If you can do that in the country where you want to work afterwards, even better.
RESPONSE B: Aside from USA, I have always observed: Study overseas (postgrad at least) return to home country and it’s easier to establish. Having said that, it wouldn’t be worthwhile unless you’re talking top international institutions. And even if you have that unless you manage to get good publications you have no chance. Just remember however anyone tries to paint it, academia is basically a lottery. People way smarter and more successful than me are essentially permadocs that can’t make it and it fucking sucks.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it true that if you can't network and don't have social skills than it is unlikely you will get a postdoc or a job even if you are a genius in your field? So I have heard from people in Academia that networking is vital to getting a job or postdoc in Academia or even a PhD. If you do not know well-renowned scientists then you are out of luck. Therefore, advanced social skills and some oiling/charisma is important. If you don't have those then even if you are the next Einstein you would probably not even get a PhD or postdoc let alone a job. Can someone confirm whether this is true and to what extent?
RESPONSE A: Some social skills are important, because most forms of Academia do involve human interaction. Papers need to be presented, classes need to be taught. Stuff like that. But its possible to do well in Academia even if you're socially awkward. As long as your skill is evident, and your published material is high quality, chances are you can do all right. I'm speaking as a history person though. No promises on what its like on the science side of things, where labs and stuff come into play
RESPONSE B: I think there's a huge gap between "having some social skills" and "advanced social skills/oiling" being needed. Academia is about the work, but it's also a field that is inherently people based, especially in many of the sciences. You need to be able to work with peers on committees and across the university, you need to be able to develop collaborations, you need to be able to manage a group of workers, and you need to be able to interface with students. You're also hired into a position where you're going to be in close proximity with the same other people (co-workers) a lot, so being able to at the very least not be a drain during those interactions is hugely important. Do you need to be the most charismatic person around? No. But you do need to have some social skills, and have more positive than negative interactions with those around you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it true that if you can't network and don't have social skills than it is unlikely you will get a postdoc or a job even if you are a genius in your field? So I have heard from people in Academia that networking is vital to getting a job or postdoc in Academia or even a PhD. If you do not know well-renowned scientists then you are out of luck. Therefore, advanced social skills and some oiling/charisma is important. If you don't have those then even if you are the next Einstein you would probably not even get a PhD or postdoc let alone a job. Can someone confirm whether this is true and to what extent?
RESPONSE A: It's a little surprising to me that someone looking at postdocs would view life/career in such a extremest and binary ways. This is not all or nothing. Networking and social skills are vital for any profession and really life in general. It's a set of skills you acquire and hone over time. This isn't the NFL combine, where you either have "it" or you don't. Also "If you do not know well-renowned scientists then you are out of luck." is VERY different from networking. And isn't even remotely true.
RESPONSE B: No. I just emailed a bunch of people and I got a good postdoc. The email has to be targeted and good enogh to grab their attention. The CV has to be competitive. Your reccomendation has to be good. But none of these must be out of the world, just good and competitive. Then you get interviewed. Social skills help of course because everyone wants to hire someone more likable, but that's all. My postdoctoral advisor had never heard of my phd advisor. I did not network well.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it true that if you can't network and don't have social skills than it is unlikely you will get a postdoc or a job even if you are a genius in your field? So I have heard from people in Academia that networking is vital to getting a job or postdoc in Academia or even a PhD. If you do not know well-renowned scientists then you are out of luck. Therefore, advanced social skills and some oiling/charisma is important. If you don't have those then even if you are the next Einstein you would probably not even get a PhD or postdoc let alone a job. Can someone confirm whether this is true and to what extent?
RESPONSE A: It's a little surprising to me that someone looking at postdocs would view life/career in such a extremest and binary ways. This is not all or nothing. Networking and social skills are vital for any profession and really life in general. It's a set of skills you acquire and hone over time. This isn't the NFL combine, where you either have "it" or you don't. Also "If you do not know well-renowned scientists then you are out of luck." is VERY different from networking. And isn't even remotely true.
RESPONSE B: It's less networking for us than can you make it through a three or four day long job interview without revealing yourself to be completely unbearable to spend time with. If we hire you, I have to spend the next 3 to 30 years of my life going to meetings with you. I don't care if you are a rockstar, if you're also sort of a dick, I'm not likely to vote for you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How much are you feeling like academic system is making you not being effective in society and how much are you feeling that you are able to be reaching the public?? so i was seeing idea that academics are being 'neutered'..is this lining up with the experience YOURE having or is this sounding like a big exaggeration to you or..?? im not trying to insult academia and say it is being remove from society but im being curious that your own experience is being about this?? https://join.substack.com/p/is-there-hope-for-truth >So it’s a deeply dysfunctional system that neuters academics; removes them from the real world; removes them from practical political engagement; and removes them from practical political questions. i am wondering if this is being part of your own experience too or just sounds like a unfair thing to be saying thank you and sorry if this is being rude question..im just trying to get some opinion not trying to be anti intellectual or anti academic..i appreciate your responses.
RESPONSE A: To be honest, I’ve always found the obsession with policy relevance on the part of some academics to be off-putting. If I had wanted to engage with real world policy, I would have looked for a job in the policy realm. But I didn’t because I don’t care for that. I want to think and write about things that interest me in a detached way. Advocacy and activism have their places, I suppose, but I think they can also blind you.
RESPONSE B: Academic world does not remove us from political engagement. Politicians, often only have bare minimum education required to be a politician, block or remove academics from political sphere. Because most academics do not enjoy the political games and want to address problems head on. About being effective in social situations, I don't feel ineffective at all. I can pretty much communicate with anyone from any background. But knowledge itself sets a gap between us and non academics. So you need to not go on and on about say Quantum mechanics while talking to someone who has an undergrad and little interest in the subject. If you don't, well you will have a problem reaching them.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: the experience YOURE having or is this sounding like a big exaggeration to you or..?? im not trying to insult academia and say it is being remove from society but im being curious that your own experience is being about this?? https://join.substack.com/p/is-there-hope-for-truth >So it’s a deeply dysfunctional system that neuters academics; removes them from the real world; removes them from practical political engagement; and removes them from practical political questions. i am wondering if this is being part of your own experience too or just sounds like a unfair thing to be saying thank you and sorry if this is being rude question..im just trying to get some opinion not trying to be anti intellectual or anti academic..i appreciate your responses.
RESPONSE A: Academic world does not remove us from political engagement. Politicians, often only have bare minimum education required to be a politician, block or remove academics from political sphere. Because most academics do not enjoy the political games and want to address problems head on. About being effective in social situations, I don't feel ineffective at all. I can pretty much communicate with anyone from any background. But knowledge itself sets a gap between us and non academics. So you need to not go on and on about say Quantum mechanics while talking to someone who has an undergrad and little interest in the subject. If you don't, well you will have a problem reaching them.
RESPONSE B: I never understood this "you don't live in the real world" phrase. I don't understand what that means. I pay taxes in the real world, buy groceries in the real world, have an apartment in the real world, and go cycling and kayaking in the real world. I'm not politically engaged because I hate politics and politicians, but I do reach 'the general public' by being here in subreddits about my field and trying to engage with people interested in my field answering their questions. You could claim that I'm not writing books for the general public, and that's true. But that has more to do with the fact that I'm not a good writer and I hate writing. Writing is the part I hate about my job.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What does the salary at each rung of the academic career ladder look like in your country? Non-native English speaker here. I was wondering, how the salary structure looks like in your country. That is, what is the typical/median/average salary for a Post Doc, Lecturer, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor etc. I am not sure what are all the titles/rungs in the academic ladder of your country. So please provide the title of the rung, the salary in each and the amount of time needed to get yourself to the next rung.
RESPONSE A: In my field (medical physics) you’d start with a post MSc/PhD 2-year training program that pays 50-80k. Your first job would likely be around 135-150K at instructor/assistant professor level. Within 5-10 years you’d progress to 180-200k at associate, and could reasonably expect to end up around 220-250K if you become full professor (more if you’re a chair). I’m told the people who go into private practice make more
RESPONSE B: United States, and my figures are based on big research state universities (because their salaries are searchable on the web), not small liberal arts colleges. Postdoc: ~$45k Assistant professor: ~$65-80k Associate professor: ~$80-110k Professor: ~$100-150k Grant-winning master: ~$150-300k Grant-winning superstar: ~$300k-1000k Nobel laureate: ~$600k-? (Steven Weinberg's salary at UT Austin)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What does the salary at each rung of the academic career ladder look like in your country? Non-native English speaker here. I was wondering, how the salary structure looks like in your country. That is, what is the typical/median/average salary for a Post Doc, Lecturer, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor etc. I am not sure what are all the titles/rungs in the academic ladder of your country. So please provide the title of the rung, the salary in each and the amount of time needed to get yourself to the next rung.
RESPONSE A: United States, and my figures are based on big research state universities (because their salaries are searchable on the web), not small liberal arts colleges. Postdoc: ~$45k Assistant professor: ~$65-80k Associate professor: ~$80-110k Professor: ~$100-150k Grant-winning master: ~$150-300k Grant-winning superstar: ~$300k-1000k Nobel laureate: ~$600k-? (Steven Weinberg's salary at UT Austin)
RESPONSE B: In the USA this varies sooooo much depending on type of school: CC (community college), state college/university, public R1 research university, SLAC (small liberal arts college), private R1 research university, Ivy League school. It can also vary by region of the US, with cost of living. You can browse a lot of the pay info via the Chronicle of Higher Ed. https://data.chronicle.com
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What does the salary at each rung of the academic career ladder look like in your country? Non-native English speaker here. I was wondering, how the salary structure looks like in your country. That is, what is the typical/median/average salary for a Post Doc, Lecturer, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor etc. I am not sure what are all the titles/rungs in the academic ladder of your country. So please provide the title of the rung, the salary in each and the amount of time needed to get yourself to the next rung.
RESPONSE A: This question is incredibly open ended. It varies drastically depending on field. However, most public university salaries are easily discovered via a Google search. The boost between untenured to tenured can be anything from $0 to, say, $15-20K or more, depending on your salary.
RESPONSE B: United States, and my figures are based on big research state universities (because their salaries are searchable on the web), not small liberal arts colleges. Postdoc: ~$45k Assistant professor: ~$65-80k Associate professor: ~$80-110k Professor: ~$100-150k Grant-winning master: ~$150-300k Grant-winning superstar: ~$300k-1000k Nobel laureate: ~$600k-? (Steven Weinberg's salary at UT Austin)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What does the salary at each rung of the academic career ladder look like in your country? Non-native English speaker here. I was wondering, how the salary structure looks like in your country. That is, what is the typical/median/average salary for a Post Doc, Lecturer, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor etc. I am not sure what are all the titles/rungs in the academic ladder of your country. So please provide the title of the rung, the salary in each and the amount of time needed to get yourself to the next rung.
RESPONSE A: numbers from my job search this year All in USD$ Post doc (engineering) 53 (my current salary nsf funded) to 63 k (incoming post doc salary industry funded contract) Lecturer (gen chem/military academy) 88k Assistant Prof (chemistry tenure track PUI R2 schools) 70 - 75k interestingly this range was for both private and public schools in the midwest and north east. Seems low. Would probably be higher with a nature paper or two. Next step: three to five years to tenure. $? Unsure... All of these came with healthcare. Other benefits vary. Edit: post doc can track into lecturer or asst prof. Two to three years for that transition. Alternatively can probably go from PhD to lecturer but would not warrant that high a salary. Those are for physical science/engineering
RESPONSE B: United States, and my figures are based on big research state universities (because their salaries are searchable on the web), not small liberal arts colleges. Postdoc: ~$45k Assistant professor: ~$65-80k Associate professor: ~$80-110k Professor: ~$100-150k Grant-winning master: ~$150-300k Grant-winning superstar: ~$300k-1000k Nobel laureate: ~$600k-? (Steven Weinberg's salary at UT Austin)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Assistant Professor, Associate Professor etc. I am not sure what are all the titles/rungs in the academic ladder of your country. So please provide the title of the rung, the salary in each and the amount of time needed to get yourself to the next rung.
RESPONSE A: numbers from my job search this year All in USD$ Post doc (engineering) 53 (my current salary nsf funded) to 63 k (incoming post doc salary industry funded contract) Lecturer (gen chem/military academy) 88k Assistant Prof (chemistry tenure track PUI R2 schools) 70 - 75k interestingly this range was for both private and public schools in the midwest and north east. Seems low. Would probably be higher with a nature paper or two. Next step: three to five years to tenure. $? Unsure... All of these came with healthcare. Other benefits vary. Edit: post doc can track into lecturer or asst prof. Two to three years for that transition. Alternatively can probably go from PhD to lecturer but would not warrant that high a salary. Those are for physical science/engineering
RESPONSE B: In the UK there is a single nationally negotiated pay scale. https://www.ucu.org.uk/he_singlepayspine However, each uni has its own way of applying it. Most unis group together 6-8 bands or so and that’s the salary range for each stage. eg as a lecturer you might have a 30-36(ish) range. Senior Lecturer 36-45, etc. When you start, each year you automatically go up a band until you hit the top of the grade, then you just get the annual increase (usually 1-2%) each year. Or you can apply to be promoted to the next grade. My uni used to have automatic progression from Lecturer to SL after a few years but now they have stopped that. As for gross salary though, keep in mind the cost of living in places, and the demand. UK academic pay is pretty poor compared with other parts of the world. Australia looks good until you factor in housing etc costs, and costs of travel, healthcare etc. Salary is not the be all and end all!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Does anybody function at different times to other colleagues and thus feels left out? I have been wondering if this is a common thing in departments. Feeling of being left out if you work at a slightly different secedual to everyone else. Like having lunch at different times. Or tea and coffee. I feel that the disconnect can affect the academic relationships. I know people but I feel that I dont KNOW them if that makes sense. Dunno if thats just me or its commonplace. Was wondering if this is the case.
RESPONSE A: I hate interacting with colleagues
RESPONSE B: I recently moved from the UK to Germany and here, every single day, someone will go around and ask everyone if they're coming to lunch. I don't know if it's a cultural thing or specific to my lab, but it's great! Everywhere I worked in the UK people ate either alone or in much more closed friendship groups. When I eventually move back home, this is definitely one thing that I want to keep going. Ask your colleagues if they want to go for lunch, and make it clear you're willing to wait for a little while if they're busy right now. I get that it might be awkward at first but after a couple of weeks everyone will know the deal.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Does anybody function at different times to other colleagues and thus feels left out? I have been wondering if this is a common thing in departments. Feeling of being left out if you work at a slightly different secedual to everyone else. Like having lunch at different times. Or tea and coffee. I feel that the disconnect can affect the academic relationships. I know people but I feel that I dont KNOW them if that makes sense. Dunno if thats just me or its commonplace. Was wondering if this is the case.
RESPONSE A: I hate interacting with colleagues
RESPONSE B: I'm in a department of eight...basically none of us is on the same schedule: we all teach at different times, mostly eat lunch at our desks, and as almost all of us have kids (of varying ages) some are here early after morning dropoff and others work late so they can take kids home after practices/rehearsals/etc. We pass in the halls during the day on occasion but otherwise it's only in department meetings that we all see one another. Now that summer is coming, however, we'll tend to be much more social. We don't have summer classes so are only here for research or meetings. It's much more common for us to have lunch together in the summers as a result. I don't think anyone feels left out. We're all teaching on varied schedules so it's rare for more than a couple of us to be in the offices at the same time. We do get together socially outside of work, which is great, but that only happens maybe once a month. Potlucks, an evening at the tap room, or perhaps a trivia event (we do play as a team and often win) are the core of our social interactions.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: nouns from “I” to “we” in my slides to be presented to our industrial collaborators, where I talked about my progress. He did not contribute to that work and made it seem like that work was a group effort. * Very pushy in deciding how things on MY part should be done. * Creates a sense of panic and rush (This project is on a short deadline, but still, the behavior is too much). * Generally, being a micromanager. Again, we are both at the identical rank. I want to be left alone and not deal with this behavior. He is not my manager, and I handle my tasks in a certain way, and this behavior affects my productivity. Having weekly meetings where I present my work and receive feedback is fine with me and is appreciated, but none of this other BS he is doing. I have been trying to push back by arguing my points and explaining that I disagree with his approach, but he is relentless and getting on my nerves. Final note: Our PI is absent and likely does not want to be involved. The PI never indicated that I should report to this other postdoc. So this behavior is unwarranted from what I can tell. **Question**: How do I deal with this? I have been trying to remain calm, but it is getting challenging, affecting my productivity as I am constantly angry and frustrated with his behavior. I am afraid I will have to confront him and put him in his place, but I would like to leave that as a last resort and try to resolve this amicably.
RESPONSE A: Have you, instead of just arguing against his approach which might give the impression that his input is justified/wanted, politely told the other Postdoc to back off? You should definitely raise this with your PI. Even if they do not get involved directly, you do not want them to hear about this only from the other Postdoc. Write a professional (no accusations) email describing the situation, and ask for clarification on both your roles and possibly a meeting with the three of you. Once that happened I would stop reacting to any requests. Just say "I have this under control." and do your thing. Don't discuss.
RESPONSE B: Polite and firm
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I want to publish some op-eds based on my expertise, but I'm terrified but I'm terrified of losing my privacy or getting doxxed. What have you done? I have several op-eds that range from very, very, controversial topics (not controversial to my field, but to parts of the public) and some that are fairly mild, but might annoy some large organizations. I was considering creating a fake identity for the most controversial, but I also would like the money and maybe to find some likeminded people to network with for if I decide to move into journalism. Does anybody have any advice about the potential safety issues of putting your name on public controversial work?
RESPONSE A: By "very, very controversial" are we talking controversial in an academic sense, or is this a euphamism for views regarded by most people as morally reprehensible?
RESPONSE B: Does your organization have a PR manager? At least we can't publish anything work-related or sign with the name of the employer without running it past PR first. To prepare for publication, things to take into account are for example correct phrasing and word choice. Also, your scientific stance has to be well-defined and you'll have to be able to motivate it with accessible references, if you don't want it to seem like some random guy's opinion.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I want to publish some op-eds based on my expertise, but I'm terrified but I'm terrified of losing my privacy or getting doxxed. What have you done? I have several op-eds that range from very, very, controversial topics (not controversial to my field, but to parts of the public) and some that are fairly mild, but might annoy some large organizations. I was considering creating a fake identity for the most controversial, but I also would like the money and maybe to find some likeminded people to network with for if I decide to move into journalism. Does anybody have any advice about the potential safety issues of putting your name on public controversial work?
RESPONSE A: If you publish an op-ed you will necessarily lose your privacy, you are publishing this publicly . You can’t create a fake identity for a serious journalistic piece, it is n’t a reddit sub. You have asked such things here before , some of them numerous times. If you are not current associated with a university, nobody can restrain you from making a bad decision as you are not in their employ, but your online presence is likely to be a factor in your employment process if you want to get employed. You can’t be doxed, because you real name and credentials need be freely given - doxing is when your ID is secret because you are on an anonymous site. Journalism isn’t anonymous. Nor are any credentials that you might have that would lend gravitas to your op ed. You need to take some journalism classes.
RESPONSE B: Does your organization have a PR manager? At least we can't publish anything work-related or sign with the name of the employer without running it past PR first. To prepare for publication, things to take into account are for example correct phrasing and word choice. Also, your scientific stance has to be well-defined and you'll have to be able to motivate it with accessible references, if you don't want it to seem like some random guy's opinion.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 'm terrified of losing my privacy or getting doxxed. What have you done? I have several op-eds that range from very, very, controversial topics (not controversial to my field, but to parts of the public) and some that are fairly mild, but might annoy some large organizations. I was considering creating a fake identity for the most controversial, but I also would like the money and maybe to find some likeminded people to network with for if I decide to move into journalism. Does anybody have any advice about the potential safety issues of putting your name on public controversial work?
RESPONSE A: Does your organization have a PR manager? At least we can't publish anything work-related or sign with the name of the employer without running it past PR first. To prepare for publication, things to take into account are for example correct phrasing and word choice. Also, your scientific stance has to be well-defined and you'll have to be able to motivate it with accessible references, if you don't want it to seem like some random guy's opinion.
RESPONSE B: You've posted this here twice before, and on several other subs. Why do you keep asking? If you're an actual recognised expert odds are anyone in the field will know you wrote it. If you're not an expert it's unlikely anyone's going to really care what you write. If you're really not willing to stand by your views just because you're scared of the backlash then unless there's a strong public interest in what you're publishing (like firm evidence of wrong doing from a politician or a company) as opposed to you just have strong unpopular views, then being anonymous will almost certainly undermine any credibility you might have. There are anonymous bloggers and writers, the Secret Barrister comes to mind, and the Guardian runs a "secret [insert profession] column but with these they are writing criticisms of the sectors and policymakers within those sectors that they work in and face very real retaliation in their professional lives for raising these issues which also have a strong public interest. Frankly at this point, piss or get off the pot. Publish or don't, but stop asking everyone the same questions over and over.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: topics (not controversial to my field, but to parts of the public) and some that are fairly mild, but might annoy some large organizations. I was considering creating a fake identity for the most controversial, but I also would like the money and maybe to find some likeminded people to network with for if I decide to move into journalism. Does anybody have any advice about the potential safety issues of putting your name on public controversial work?
RESPONSE A: I *had* a coworker that quite frequently posted op-eds under a pseudonym in the local newspaper. All it took was a few complaints for their real name to come out and for the University to go into damage control mode. Members of the public will inevitably try to insinuate that you speak for the Univerity on this matter. Do not underestimate the vitriol of the politically active stranger, or an organization that could put pressure on your employer and future employers. So long as you are okay with the potential consequences (be they positive or negative) of what you say, then I say go for it.
RESPONSE B: You've posted this here twice before, and on several other subs. Why do you keep asking? If you're an actual recognised expert odds are anyone in the field will know you wrote it. If you're not an expert it's unlikely anyone's going to really care what you write. If you're really not willing to stand by your views just because you're scared of the backlash then unless there's a strong public interest in what you're publishing (like firm evidence of wrong doing from a politician or a company) as opposed to you just have strong unpopular views, then being anonymous will almost certainly undermine any credibility you might have. There are anonymous bloggers and writers, the Secret Barrister comes to mind, and the Guardian runs a "secret [insert profession] column but with these they are writing criticisms of the sectors and policymakers within those sectors that they work in and face very real retaliation in their professional lives for raising these issues which also have a strong public interest. Frankly at this point, piss or get off the pot. Publish or don't, but stop asking everyone the same questions over and over.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Do professors ever try to make their classes extra hard/extra low effort so students stop taking them and they have less teaching responsibilities? So it seems like most professors at major research institutions (i.e. state schools) sorta just care about research and have these teaching obligations foisted on them. Do professors purposely try to make their classes suck so that less people sign up for them and thus they have less teaching obligations (by virtue of cutting down their class sizes)?
RESPONSE A: No but I did work as a TA for a prof at a large public school who had a habit of warning students on the first day of class about how difficult the course was and most people were going to get a C. About 25% of the class would drop that day. He said he was doing everyone a favor by weeding them out..academia is a toxic hot mess.
RESPONSE B: Haha, no.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: , I think I could get along with the PI but at some point he also strikes me as a bit stressed, neurotic and a bit irritable. I also know I cannot rely on him for ideas very much. He does have high standards and aims for the top journals. He is new at that University (but not a young PI) and has been working on his research direction for 3-4 years. It is hard to assess how it is going but it does seem a bit lagging behind IMO. ​ Needless to say, I was under pressure from my personal and academic circle to choose Option A and reject Option B, and I did a couple of days ago (have not signed yet). But now I am having serious second thoughts. I even thought about contacting Option B and see if it is still on the table... Am I making a serious mistake here by going for Option A?
RESPONSE A: Not all the glitters is gold, but a lot of what glitters is cold. Your best bet is to speak to every postdoc in option A first. More importantly, speak to the postdocs who already left. How many had papers in a timely manner? How many years do most of the postdoc stay? How many have had successful F32s or K99/R00s? Just because the PI is big has ZERO bearing on their postdocs having a better chance of getting into academia. But it will look nice for industry. While that sounds odd, it's mostly due to selection bias. Most of the postdocs won't find professorships, but we hear about the small few who did. Get those numbers. I would choose a solid supportive mentor over a fancy name every time. When you're at the top, sometimes you'll find that the way they got their isn't the way you'd feel comfortable with. Choose wisely!
RESPONSE B: It is worth talking with the prospective postdoc mentors about your professional goals, and see how they see themselves as helpful in reaching them. If mentor A is lukewarm to the goal, or thinks his network is weak for getting you a good placement, then the biggest benefits of that option look a lot less effective.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: To professors and their grader: How much effort do you put into grading a student's homework/project/exam? I'm very curious as a student to how much effort do professors and also their graders put into grading a homework/project/exam for undergraduates in STEM majors mainly. Does the intensity of grading change with the number of students, type of project, or something else?
RESPONSE A: Depends on the class. Grading 1/3 of the exam content from a lower level genetics class (as both a TA and later a hired on grader) that had 150-200 students took about as much time to grade as the upper level developmental genetics class (as a TA) with 50 students because the questions of the latter were more in-depth and subjective than the lower level class. Still tried to be thorough and accurate in grading both, because grades are important.
RESPONSE B: Depends on the assignment - the type, detail, and TBH point value. For a 5-10 pt assignment, half the time I just give full credit to anyone that hands it in. FOr a 25-50 point assignment with subjective answers, I aim for about 10 min max per paper. 100 point assignments are very rare, but those I give more comments and read more thorough. It also depends on where we are in the semester - early on I give more feedback so that (hopefully) students can improve. This (hopefully) pays off in the end of the semester, when all the students are turning in A work.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: ) our work did not produce the results we wanted (b) other senior collaborators were handling personal issues which delayed my work, and they did not give way for me to get the work done on time either. So for my sup., accusing me seemed to be the easiest thing for their job/position. I actually stood up for myself without losing my cool and mentioned the failures that provoked their actions. I also mentioned postponing won't solve our scientific challenge. In the end, I decided to postpone because I cannot work to get the thesis done in a month in such a toxic-unsupportive work environment. I sought help from the dept rep. and it somehow helped to find a middle ground. The greatest help I got from is from another senior (female) researcher at the dept in my field. Her support is still available for me to bank on. The entire incident broke me, I became depressed and found it hard to cope with (even now). I have decided that if something like that happens again, I will take it up with the head of the department and quit my PhD, even though I have spent 5 years on this degree.
RESPONSE A: You are in Sweden, are you not? Don't you have a reference person? They should have helped you in this case - that is their role. FYI your *Examinator/Examiner* (examinatorn) is the one handling the defense schedule; not your supervisor. You should talk to them. You can trigger the defense at any time. You also count as staff. You should consider talking to HR and occupational healthcare (they do more than healthcare). Your university also has an ombudsman for PhD students (doktorandombudsman) and you should have also access to union representatives. Try to consult them too. I know it is hard, but there is a large support network and procedures in place to help students. In many ways, in Sweden, students have more power than supervisors (you can even switch them *at any point of time*). COnsider getting mental health help and consulting external people before rushing to 'quitting' or anything else.
RESPONSE B: Hang in there sis, sending you hugs and good vibes.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: ) our work did not produce the results we wanted (b) other senior collaborators were handling personal issues which delayed my work, and they did not give way for me to get the work done on time either. So for my sup., accusing me seemed to be the easiest thing for their job/position. I actually stood up for myself without losing my cool and mentioned the failures that provoked their actions. I also mentioned postponing won't solve our scientific challenge. In the end, I decided to postpone because I cannot work to get the thesis done in a month in such a toxic-unsupportive work environment. I sought help from the dept rep. and it somehow helped to find a middle ground. The greatest help I got from is from another senior (female) researcher at the dept in my field. Her support is still available for me to bank on. The entire incident broke me, I became depressed and found it hard to cope with (even now). I have decided that if something like that happens again, I will take it up with the head of the department and quit my PhD, even though I have spent 5 years on this degree.
RESPONSE A: So, some advice that may or may not resonate with you: if you really want to get your PhD, but are considering quitting, stop putting up with people's shit. Some people are just bullies, but have no backbone and if you push back against them, they back down. What's the worst thing that can happen, you get kicked out of the program? You're already ok with that. But, the best thing that can happen is you get your PhD. The best thing that can happen if you quit is you just get out. Definitely do make sure you prioritize your mental health, you ultimately know what's best for you, but if you take on an "I don't give a fuck" attitude, it's going to help a ton. Good luck.
RESPONSE B: Just to say I'm sorry you're going through this. Its unconscionable to me that this kind of discrimination exists and that academia allows it to continue. You deserve your PhD and as a male, I sent you my support.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: serious and very helpful responses. I wanted to update on it. 1 week before the official booking of the thesis defence, I was shouted at by my sup. in essence, saying that I have not performed my activities as a PhD and hence need to work more and *postpone* my defence. This came not as a surprise since (a) our work did not produce the results we wanted (b) other senior collaborators were handling personal issues which delayed my work, and they did not give way for me to get the work done on time either. So for my sup., accusing me seemed to be the easiest thing for their job/position. I actually stood up for myself without losing my cool and mentioned the failures that provoked their actions. I also mentioned postponing won't solve our scientific challenge. In the end, I decided to postpone because I cannot work to get the thesis done in a month in such a toxic-unsupportive work environment. I sought help from the dept rep. and it somehow helped to find a middle ground. The greatest help I got from is from another senior (female) researcher at the dept in my field. Her support is still available for me to bank on. The entire incident broke me, I became depressed and found it hard to cope with (even now). I have decided that if something like that happens again, I will take it up with the head of the department and quit my PhD, even though I have spent 5 years on this degree.
RESPONSE A: Just to say I'm sorry you're going through this. Its unconscionable to me that this kind of discrimination exists and that academia allows it to continue. You deserve your PhD and as a male, I sent you my support.
RESPONSE B: I'm sorry to hear you are in conflict with your supervisor. The department chair is the correct person to notify in these cases. However, your claim of misogyny was unsupported by either of your posts. I would caution against the assumption that conflict between different genders is always the result of sexism. Such rationale dampens the appropriate response to valid cases of discrimination i.e. a boy-who-cried-wolf situation.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What is the reason for outright hostility and ad hominem attacks on Twitter between academics and does this behavior disappoint you? I am an undergraduate student that is seriously looking at the potential of going into academia. It isn't affecting my decision one way or the other, but when I look at Twitter it is honestly disappointing to see how much outright negativity, personal attacks, and bad-faith arguments exist between academics. I understand that these individuals are human too like the rest of us, but I would have thought that this would be the one environment where an individual is judged on the merit of the argument rather than the individual themself. Is it just an inevitability of how social media makes individuals act? ​ I can give specific examples if necessary, but I would say it's become a widespread enough phenomena that it's most likely not. ​ To the academics here, what is the reason for outright hostility and ad hominem attacks on Twitter between Professors and others involved in Academia and does this behavior disappoint you? ​ If you disagree with the premise feel free to let me know as well.
RESPONSE A: Equity? 🥹
RESPONSE B: I've never used academic twitter (or twitter in general) and I'm super confused why people use it at all? The only thing I hear about it is that it is super toxic. Why do people voluntarily participate if it's such a cesspool?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What is the reason for outright hostility and ad hominem attacks on Twitter between academics and does this behavior disappoint you? I am an undergraduate student that is seriously looking at the potential of going into academia. It isn't affecting my decision one way or the other, but when I look at Twitter it is honestly disappointing to see how much outright negativity, personal attacks, and bad-faith arguments exist between academics. I understand that these individuals are human too like the rest of us, but I would have thought that this would be the one environment where an individual is judged on the merit of the argument rather than the individual themself. Is it just an inevitability of how social media makes individuals act? ​ I can give specific examples if necessary, but I would say it's become a widespread enough phenomena that it's most likely not. ​ To the academics here, what is the reason for outright hostility and ad hominem attacks on Twitter between Professors and others involved in Academia and does this behavior disappoint you? ​ If you disagree with the premise feel free to let me know as well.
RESPONSE A: Don't make decisions based on Twitter.
RESPONSE B: I've never used academic twitter (or twitter in general) and I'm super confused why people use it at all? The only thing I hear about it is that it is super toxic. Why do people voluntarily participate if it's such a cesspool?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Does anyone know what the deal is with Nature having a maximum article length of only 5 pages? Doesn’t that seem unreasonably restrictive? So I was looking at Nature's guidelines for authors and they list 5 pages as the maximum article length. Exactly what is the point of this limit? To me it just seems like it would be restrictive on content and what can be discussed.
RESPONSE A: Nature publishes short, data-dense reports on robust findings of extremely broad interest and significance, i.e. the sort of studies that are expected to have major implications for many workers across multiple subdisciplines. As such, Nature wants manuscripts to be honed down to just the information that is of interest to that audience. So, you won't necessarily get a thorough and exhaustive examination of the problem and data, but you'll get the greatest hits and the central takehome message. People may complain about that, but realistically journals like Nature, Science, Cell, etc exist because no one can read everything and we need quick easy access to studies which may force us to rethink our approaches or assumptions in adjacent research fields or may force us to update lectures, textbooks, etc.
RESPONSE B: On my phone so can't check easily, but did you look up the guidelines for supplemental materials? Not sure about Nature but I know I've seen short Science papers with dozens of supplemental figures, so they don't count towards the main article length.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Does anyone know what the deal is with Nature having a maximum article length of only 5 pages? Doesn’t that seem unreasonably restrictive? So I was looking at Nature's guidelines for authors and they list 5 pages as the maximum article length. Exactly what is the point of this limit? To me it just seems like it would be restrictive on content and what can be discussed.
RESPONSE A: Nature publishes short, data-dense reports on robust findings of extremely broad interest and significance, i.e. the sort of studies that are expected to have major implications for many workers across multiple subdisciplines. As such, Nature wants manuscripts to be honed down to just the information that is of interest to that audience. So, you won't necessarily get a thorough and exhaustive examination of the problem and data, but you'll get the greatest hits and the central takehome message. People may complain about that, but realistically journals like Nature, Science, Cell, etc exist because no one can read everything and we need quick easy access to studies which may force us to rethink our approaches or assumptions in adjacent research fields or may force us to update lectures, textbooks, etc.
RESPONSE B: Long articles don’t get read, and unread articles don’t get citations. They are just doing what they need to keep their high-impact position.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Does anyone know what the deal is with Nature having a maximum article length of only 5 pages? Doesn’t that seem unreasonably restrictive? So I was looking at Nature's guidelines for authors and they list 5 pages as the maximum article length. Exactly what is the point of this limit? To me it just seems like it would be restrictive on content and what can be discussed.
RESPONSE A: Which is why the supplements are a book. Since nobody ever reads the physical magazine anymore anyway, page limits are a relic of the past. Yet here we are.
RESPONSE B: Nature publishes short, data-dense reports on robust findings of extremely broad interest and significance, i.e. the sort of studies that are expected to have major implications for many workers across multiple subdisciplines. As such, Nature wants manuscripts to be honed down to just the information that is of interest to that audience. So, you won't necessarily get a thorough and exhaustive examination of the problem and data, but you'll get the greatest hits and the central takehome message. People may complain about that, but realistically journals like Nature, Science, Cell, etc exist because no one can read everything and we need quick easy access to studies which may force us to rethink our approaches or assumptions in adjacent research fields or may force us to update lectures, textbooks, etc.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Does anyone know what the deal is with Nature having a maximum article length of only 5 pages? Doesn’t that seem unreasonably restrictive? So I was looking at Nature's guidelines for authors and they list 5 pages as the maximum article length. Exactly what is the point of this limit? To me it just seems like it would be restrictive on content and what can be discussed.
RESPONSE A: Nature publishes short, data-dense reports on robust findings of extremely broad interest and significance, i.e. the sort of studies that are expected to have major implications for many workers across multiple subdisciplines. As such, Nature wants manuscripts to be honed down to just the information that is of interest to that audience. So, you won't necessarily get a thorough and exhaustive examination of the problem and data, but you'll get the greatest hits and the central takehome message. People may complain about that, but realistically journals like Nature, Science, Cell, etc exist because no one can read everything and we need quick easy access to studies which may force us to rethink our approaches or assumptions in adjacent research fields or may force us to update lectures, textbooks, etc.
RESPONSE B: The point is, they still print hard copies. This is the way publishing used to be - EVERYTHING was published as an actual, hold in your hand, hard copy. Now 99% of all journals are on line. If you print hardcopy, space is premium, and hence the limit (these would be mailed all around the world). Here is the thing though, you look at any of those 5 page articles (which are relatively rare as most are much shorter !), and you may find that there is associated on-line materials of hundreds of pages of supporting information. Those papers are like an iceberg.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Does anyone know what the deal is with Nature having a maximum article length of only 5 pages? Doesn’t that seem unreasonably restrictive? So I was looking at Nature's guidelines for authors and they list 5 pages as the maximum article length. Exactly what is the point of this limit? To me it just seems like it would be restrictive on content and what can be discussed.
RESPONSE A: The answer to your question is that yes, it does limit what can be discussed/published to the kind of science that Nature seeks to disseminate. It's a journal that has clear meta-theoretical commitments in terms of axiological, ontology, and epistemology that underpin a largely positivist/post-positivist scientific paradigm. Is it restrictive? Sure, but only as much so as any other journal that has clear parameters around the kind of research that they publish. That's also why there are different journals - to publish different kinds of science.
RESPONSE B: Nature publishes short, data-dense reports on robust findings of extremely broad interest and significance, i.e. the sort of studies that are expected to have major implications for many workers across multiple subdisciplines. As such, Nature wants manuscripts to be honed down to just the information that is of interest to that audience. So, you won't necessarily get a thorough and exhaustive examination of the problem and data, but you'll get the greatest hits and the central takehome message. People may complain about that, but realistically journals like Nature, Science, Cell, etc exist because no one can read everything and we need quick easy access to studies which may force us to rethink our approaches or assumptions in adjacent research fields or may force us to update lectures, textbooks, etc.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: to me. I’m really fortunate that my husband is so supportive of me. We have had a lot of conversations where he made it clear he sees parenting as truly a partnership between us both and would never expect me to do most of the parenting work (very different from what I had in my home growing up). He’s very encouraging of my career goals and would also be an involved parent. Is it possible for both partners to focus on their family and careers in academia? We are even considering starting a family during graduate school- does anyone have experience with this? Is industry a better option for researchers who want plenty of family time?
RESPONSE A: Not directly related to your main question, but both my parents have PhDs, Dad got his 40-50 years ago and was full prof and then Dean for several years before retiring (full prof right across my lifetime basically – 30 years). Mum did her PhD part time over 10 years just after I was born and then had my siblings during that time, then went into public service when she finished. We all turned out fine and never thought anything was amiss or uneven, probably just that mum seemed a bit nerdy writing something mysterious called a “thesis” that I was too young to understand (look at me now, writing my own), and that dad worked in a university but had no idea what he did beyond that. It’s a big commitment for sure (we kids didn’t care or notice), but they both said it was 100% worth all the effort.
RESPONSE B: My wife and I are both successful academic scientists with multiple children (now grown). 1. You need to buy or get help to have consistent child car for at least 40hrs a week. Nanny is the optimal as daycare is variable. Relatives who can help is really helpful 2. Both of you have to share care, although the burden always disproportionately fall on the mother. But, you have to try to alternate care rather than co-parent. 3. Be efficient. I went from 70ish hours a week to 40ish. Make every 15m count. Unfortunately, I really limited my travel, which had some career impact, but you have to compromise something. We got to spend enough time as family and children are well, but they do know all about R01s...ha ha
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: t want to choose which is more important to me. I’m really fortunate that my husband is so supportive of me. We have had a lot of conversations where he made it clear he sees parenting as truly a partnership between us both and would never expect me to do most of the parenting work (very different from what I had in my home growing up). He’s very encouraging of my career goals and would also be an involved parent. Is it possible for both partners to focus on their family and careers in academia? We are even considering starting a family during graduate school- does anyone have experience with this? Is industry a better option for researchers who want plenty of family time?
RESPONSE A: Mine is not a success story. We got good PhD offers from different continents so we decided to delay our family plan. We went on the market and got good TT offers but again in different continents, which we have accepted. In both instances, the best offer we got strictly dominates the others, so we prioritized our careers, hoping to go on the market after 2-3 years. Things are going alright but not stellar, so now we think that in a year or two one of us will have to give up our TT jobs, otherwise it would be tricky to have kids. I think it can be quite difficult to "focus" on both career and family, but if there is the will, there are ways to balance the two.
RESPONSE B: Not directly related to your main question, but both my parents have PhDs, Dad got his 40-50 years ago and was full prof and then Dean for several years before retiring (full prof right across my lifetime basically – 30 years). Mum did her PhD part time over 10 years just after I was born and then had my siblings during that time, then went into public service when she finished. We all turned out fine and never thought anything was amiss or uneven, probably just that mum seemed a bit nerdy writing something mysterious called a “thesis” that I was too young to understand (look at me now, writing my own), and that dad worked in a university but had no idea what he did beyond that. It’s a big commitment for sure (we kids didn’t care or notice), but they both said it was 100% worth all the effort.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: encouraging of my career goals and would also be an involved parent. Is it possible for both partners to focus on their family and careers in academia? We are even considering starting a family during graduate school- does anyone have experience with this? Is industry a better option for researchers who want plenty of family time?
RESPONSE A: Not directly related to your main question, but both my parents have PhDs, Dad got his 40-50 years ago and was full prof and then Dean for several years before retiring (full prof right across my lifetime basically – 30 years). Mum did her PhD part time over 10 years just after I was born and then had my siblings during that time, then went into public service when she finished. We all turned out fine and never thought anything was amiss or uneven, probably just that mum seemed a bit nerdy writing something mysterious called a “thesis” that I was too young to understand (look at me now, writing my own), and that dad worked in a university but had no idea what he did beyond that. It’s a big commitment for sure (we kids didn’t care or notice), but they both said it was 100% worth all the effort.
RESPONSE B: I am in an industry research position at a tech company, so not quite academia (take this with a grain of salt,) but I would say It depends a lot on the domestic expectations of your culture. I find it's particularly common in Indian families because our parents help us raise our kids. My wife's parents moved in with us and helped to bring our kids around when we are busy and have to sit down and work on something until 9pm or so. They also help with cooking and house keeping, and we have neighbors who our kids are friends with, and they will often go there after school if none of us are home. Many times I even involve my kids in my career and take them to events, as well as have them sit and watch me work, so they get a realistic view of adulthood. I am not sure how it is in other cultures, but it's pretty common where I am from. There are a lot of families where both parents are very involved in career and education, including having two parents pursuing Ph.D at the same time, while still having very warm and close family lives.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Article is stuck at the 'With editor' stage. What to do? We submitted a manuscript to a PolSci journal about 2.5 months ago. It is still 'with editor'. What would you do at this stage? Does it make sense to drop a message through EditorialManager system to the editor asking about the status or it's better to wait? The article is short (it's kind of a research note) and a bit 'time sensitive': I believe it would make more sense to publish it sooner while the phenomenon that it describes is still in the stage of active development. I would rather prefer an immediate desk rejection rather than just to sit and wait for a response for almost three months, knowing that it even hasn't reached reviewers yet.
RESPONSE A: This happened to me very recently. I wrote an email to the editor asking if everything is ok and if I can be of further assistance, and they then sent it for review immediately after. I would recommend asking respectfully, showing that you understand they are busy. Also, you can do it sooner next time, after a month or so; 2.5 months is quite a long time. I suppose sometimes they just need a nudge.
RESPONSE B: After a month or two, I basically universally contact the editor (email or using their built-in messenger if they have one) to "inquire about the status of our manuscript." Contact them but don't make it longer than necessary.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Article is stuck at the 'With editor' stage. What to do? We submitted a manuscript to a PolSci journal about 2.5 months ago. It is still 'with editor'. What would you do at this stage? Does it make sense to drop a message through EditorialManager system to the editor asking about the status or it's better to wait? The article is short (it's kind of a research note) and a bit 'time sensitive': I believe it would make more sense to publish it sooner while the phenomenon that it describes is still in the stage of active development. I would rather prefer an immediate desk rejection rather than just to sit and wait for a response for almost three months, knowing that it even hasn't reached reviewers yet.
RESPONSE A: I’m an Editorial Assistant at a medical journal and have processed hundreds of manuscripts, many of them at the “Editor Assigned” stage for two months or more. More often than not, Editors have incredible difficulty finding reviewers. One paper had six reviewers decline to review. Other reasons for the delay is that the Editors are juggling a number of different duties e.g., clinical practice, lectureship etc. I always have to write back saying that the Editor will render a decision as soon as they can.
RESPONSE B: After a month or two, I basically universally contact the editor (email or using their built-in messenger if they have one) to "inquire about the status of our manuscript." Contact them but don't make it longer than necessary.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Article is stuck at the 'With editor' stage. What to do? We submitted a manuscript to a PolSci journal about 2.5 months ago. It is still 'with editor'. What would you do at this stage? Does it make sense to drop a message through EditorialManager system to the editor asking about the status or it's better to wait? The article is short (it's kind of a research note) and a bit 'time sensitive': I believe it would make more sense to publish it sooner while the phenomenon that it describes is still in the stage of active development. I would rather prefer an immediate desk rejection rather than just to sit and wait for a response for almost three months, knowing that it even hasn't reached reviewers yet.
RESPONSE A: Yeah just send the journal a message. Sometimes the handling administrator or editor are on holiday or busy. You can usually get things moving by sending a friendly follow up — I got one pushed through this way a month ago after it was “awaiting editor assignment” for 2 months.
RESPONSE B: I’m an Editorial Assistant at a medical journal and have processed hundreds of manuscripts, many of them at the “Editor Assigned” stage for two months or more. More often than not, Editors have incredible difficulty finding reviewers. One paper had six reviewers decline to review. Other reasons for the delay is that the Editors are juggling a number of different duties e.g., clinical practice, lectureship etc. I always have to write back saying that the Editor will render a decision as soon as they can.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Would it be possible for a person with an IQ of 85, one SD below average but within the normal range, through hard work, to earn a legitimate PhD in *any* field, from a legitimate institution? Is anyone *known* to have achieved this? I would expect that they’d have probably never had reason or opportunity to take an IQ test until after earning the PhD.
RESPONSE A: I am doing my PhD and I have an IQ of about 96. It is less about intelligent but persistence and willing to bite my teeth and continue doing experiment again after crappy result. Most of improvement I did was not because of my intelligent but mostly by trial and "mostly" error, and reading how other people do it anyway. I am pretty incompetent for sure, I mean it took longer for me than others, and I prone to work extra hours in the lab to get it all going, but eventually we get there. I also think to an extense is it is better to accept that you are dumb and have a lot to learn so that you can produce the good result, rather than being overconfidence about yourself though
RESPONSE B: Mid career tenured professor and research chair here - and I have specific learning disorders and have consistently tested for lower than average IQ. My phd was from a reputable r1. I would say that getting a PhD is not that hard (at least in my field where you're given a project from your PI), but getting enough breakthroughs with publications and grants to move from postdoc to your first real academic post takes a lot of grit, creativity, and nerve that I see many intelligent postdocs fail at. Many junior academics can't take the heat of constant failure and criticisms that is inherent to the research world. In short, I don't think intelligence (or cognitive ability) is necessary for a successful academic career. In my position now, it's more important to be creative and have nerve (I think of it as the ability to pick yourself back up after being torn down and rejected).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Would it be possible for a person with an IQ of 85, one SD below average but within the normal range, through hard work, to earn a legitimate PhD in *any* field, from a legitimate institution? Is anyone *known* to have achieved this? I would expect that they’d have probably never had reason or opportunity to take an IQ test until after earning the PhD.
RESPONSE A: Mid career tenured professor and research chair here - and I have specific learning disorders and have consistently tested for lower than average IQ. My phd was from a reputable r1. I would say that getting a PhD is not that hard (at least in my field where you're given a project from your PI), but getting enough breakthroughs with publications and grants to move from postdoc to your first real academic post takes a lot of grit, creativity, and nerve that I see many intelligent postdocs fail at. Many junior academics can't take the heat of constant failure and criticisms that is inherent to the research world. In short, I don't think intelligence (or cognitive ability) is necessary for a successful academic career. In my position now, it's more important to be creative and have nerve (I think of it as the ability to pick yourself back up after being torn down and rejected).
RESPONSE B: You shouldn't be too hard on yourself if you have a bad iq score as there's plenty of evidence that shows those are bunk in terms of showing innate intelligence like they claim to, given you can take it multiple times and get varying results. If you have the drive to do it and see it to completion you should be fine
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Would it be possible for a person with an IQ of 85, one SD below average but within the normal range, through hard work, to earn a legitimate PhD in *any* field, from a legitimate institution? Is anyone *known* to have achieved this? I would expect that they’d have probably never had reason or opportunity to take an IQ test until after earning the PhD.
RESPONSE A: Mid career tenured professor and research chair here - and I have specific learning disorders and have consistently tested for lower than average IQ. My phd was from a reputable r1. I would say that getting a PhD is not that hard (at least in my field where you're given a project from your PI), but getting enough breakthroughs with publications and grants to move from postdoc to your first real academic post takes a lot of grit, creativity, and nerve that I see many intelligent postdocs fail at. Many junior academics can't take the heat of constant failure and criticisms that is inherent to the research world. In short, I don't think intelligence (or cognitive ability) is necessary for a successful academic career. In my position now, it's more important to be creative and have nerve (I think of it as the ability to pick yourself back up after being torn down and rejected).
RESPONSE B: I just wanna say it sounds like you like the SOUND of having a phd. You keep talking about "maybe in this field" or "I'll just do simple data collection". These are the wrong reasons to get a phd and that attitude of wanting something without having sufficient reasons why is what will make you fail at getting a phd, not necessarily your intelligence.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Would it be possible for a person with an IQ of 85, one SD below average but within the normal range, through hard work, to earn a legitimate PhD in *any* field, from a legitimate institution? Is anyone *known* to have achieved this? I would expect that they’d have probably never had reason or opportunity to take an IQ test until after earning the PhD.
RESPONSE A: The IQ test is the BMI scale of weight loss. Just plain numbers without giving any context. Peopl should stop using it as a measure for anything really
RESPONSE B: Mid career tenured professor and research chair here - and I have specific learning disorders and have consistently tested for lower than average IQ. My phd was from a reputable r1. I would say that getting a PhD is not that hard (at least in my field where you're given a project from your PI), but getting enough breakthroughs with publications and grants to move from postdoc to your first real academic post takes a lot of grit, creativity, and nerve that I see many intelligent postdocs fail at. Many junior academics can't take the heat of constant failure and criticisms that is inherent to the research world. In short, I don't think intelligence (or cognitive ability) is necessary for a successful academic career. In my position now, it's more important to be creative and have nerve (I think of it as the ability to pick yourself back up after being torn down and rejected).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Would it be possible for a person with an IQ of 85, one SD below average but within the normal range, through hard work, to earn a legitimate PhD in *any* field, from a legitimate institution? Is anyone *known* to have achieved this? I would expect that they’d have probably never had reason or opportunity to take an IQ test until after earning the PhD.
RESPONSE A: Mid career tenured professor and research chair here - and I have specific learning disorders and have consistently tested for lower than average IQ. My phd was from a reputable r1. I would say that getting a PhD is not that hard (at least in my field where you're given a project from your PI), but getting enough breakthroughs with publications and grants to move from postdoc to your first real academic post takes a lot of grit, creativity, and nerve that I see many intelligent postdocs fail at. Many junior academics can't take the heat of constant failure and criticisms that is inherent to the research world. In short, I don't think intelligence (or cognitive ability) is necessary for a successful academic career. In my position now, it's more important to be creative and have nerve (I think of it as the ability to pick yourself back up after being torn down and rejected).
RESPONSE B: Feeling personally attacked by this post! /s
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: finish my dream and she's worried that something could get in the way of me finishing if I were to take a break. I agree with her and finishing on time is probably my best option. Overall I've been very content with how my PhD has gone and I'm not behind schedule, even after taking almost a whole month away from work. Before my father passed away, I was already feeling a bit of the normal stress and pressure of a PhD student in their final year, but I was extremely motivated and I could handle virtually anything that came at me. But now I just feel so different... like I am suffocating. Dreading the next day, the next task, the next meeting, etc. Each day I feel the motivation draining away more and more and the growing feeling that an inevitable burnout is coming. How can I survive or maybe even try to thrive during these last months? How can I find my motivation again? What are some ways to handle the grief and intense homesickness at the same time as the PhD? For anyone who has faced similar circumstances to any of the above, what helped you the most? Thanks for any and all advice :)
RESPONSE A: I went through something kind of similar. I went back to school to finish my undergraduate degree and my father passed away. I had just started at a new school and didn't know anyone there. Honestly it was really hard to not quit. I just graduated a few weeks ago, and I'm so glad I finished and I know that he would he so proud of me. When he passed, I found a therapist and that was really helpful for me. I'm so sorry for your loss, if you want to talk feel free to DM me.
RESPONSE B: There is a PhD student who was public about the death of his father during his PhD studies. He is fully bilingual and ,similarly to you, was studying abroad. He is currently an Assistant Professor at Yale. On page 11 of his PhD thesis you can read his words about his father. https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt8jv7m3x0/qt8jv7m3x0.pdf?t=pdo223
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: , so I can't really spend a lot in general, let alone visa fees or extra airfare right now. Lastly, my mum is strongly encouraging me to stay and finish since I am so close to the end. She wants to see me finish my dream and she's worried that something could get in the way of me finishing if I were to take a break. I agree with her and finishing on time is probably my best option. Overall I've been very content with how my PhD has gone and I'm not behind schedule, even after taking almost a whole month away from work. Before my father passed away, I was already feeling a bit of the normal stress and pressure of a PhD student in their final year, but I was extremely motivated and I could handle virtually anything that came at me. But now I just feel so different... like I am suffocating. Dreading the next day, the next task, the next meeting, etc. Each day I feel the motivation draining away more and more and the growing feeling that an inevitable burnout is coming. How can I survive or maybe even try to thrive during these last months? How can I find my motivation again? What are some ways to handle the grief and intense homesickness at the same time as the PhD? For anyone who has faced similar circumstances to any of the above, what helped you the most? Thanks for any and all advice :)
RESPONSE A: There is a PhD student who was public about the death of his father during his PhD studies. He is fully bilingual and ,similarly to you, was studying abroad. He is currently an Assistant Professor at Yale. On page 11 of his PhD thesis you can read his words about his father. https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt8jv7m3x0/qt8jv7m3x0.pdf?t=pdo223
RESPONSE B: Hey. Sorry for your loss. I can't begin to imagine what you are going through. I just wanted to motivate you to push forward and try and end it, surely your father would be very proud of that. Also, talk to your supervisor/PI. Make sure he helps you. You are very brave, and you can do it!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: expensive. I'm on a tight budget, especially after flying home on a moment's notice those few months ago, so I can't really spend a lot in general, let alone visa fees or extra airfare right now. Lastly, my mum is strongly encouraging me to stay and finish since I am so close to the end. She wants to see me finish my dream and she's worried that something could get in the way of me finishing if I were to take a break. I agree with her and finishing on time is probably my best option. Overall I've been very content with how my PhD has gone and I'm not behind schedule, even after taking almost a whole month away from work. Before my father passed away, I was already feeling a bit of the normal stress and pressure of a PhD student in their final year, but I was extremely motivated and I could handle virtually anything that came at me. But now I just feel so different... like I am suffocating. Dreading the next day, the next task, the next meeting, etc. Each day I feel the motivation draining away more and more and the growing feeling that an inevitable burnout is coming. How can I survive or maybe even try to thrive during these last months? How can I find my motivation again? What are some ways to handle the grief and intense homesickness at the same time as the PhD? For anyone who has faced similar circumstances to any of the above, what helped you the most? Thanks for any and all advice :)
RESPONSE A: There is a PhD student who was public about the death of his father during his PhD studies. He is fully bilingual and ,similarly to you, was studying abroad. He is currently an Assistant Professor at Yale. On page 11 of his PhD thesis you can read his words about his father. https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt8jv7m3x0/qt8jv7m3x0.pdf?t=pdo223
RESPONSE B: I’m very sorry for your loss. If you don’t exercise already, you might want start jogging in the morning? It will help with your mood and keep you motivated. Good luck and take care.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: , but I was extremely motivated and I could handle virtually anything that came at me. But now I just feel so different... like I am suffocating. Dreading the next day, the next task, the next meeting, etc. Each day I feel the motivation draining away more and more and the growing feeling that an inevitable burnout is coming. How can I survive or maybe even try to thrive during these last months? How can I find my motivation again? What are some ways to handle the grief and intense homesickness at the same time as the PhD? For anyone who has faced similar circumstances to any of the above, what helped you the most? Thanks for any and all advice :)
RESPONSE A: I am studying abroad as well and my father passed away last year (in my 2nd year of phd). I would say that my father was one of the reasons why I chose to pursue my Phd. I used to discuss these things with my father about how to make the next move (my career and stuff, since he was slightly related to my field). After he passed away I didn't know what I was doing and for whom? Why was I in a foreign land with no friends and family? Is my life even worth it anymore? While I am still in a similar situation as you are, in the end, these thoughts don't matter. What I did was to make list of the things that I can do right now? Griefing all day won't help me move forward in my life. I started making small objectives to do in a day. Maybe write an abstract or just a line of my paper. Also, get someone to talk to. Your supervisor or co-worker or other friends not just about your work but your life in general. I don't know if any of these make sense since I am in the same boat as you are in and still trying to figure out who I am. Edit: a word
RESPONSE B: Hey. Sorry for your loss. I can't begin to imagine what you are going through. I just wanted to motivate you to push forward and try and end it, surely your father would be very proud of that. Also, talk to your supervisor/PI. Make sure he helps you. You are very brave, and you can do it!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: father passed away, I was already feeling a bit of the normal stress and pressure of a PhD student in their final year, but I was extremely motivated and I could handle virtually anything that came at me. But now I just feel so different... like I am suffocating. Dreading the next day, the next task, the next meeting, etc. Each day I feel the motivation draining away more and more and the growing feeling that an inevitable burnout is coming. How can I survive or maybe even try to thrive during these last months? How can I find my motivation again? What are some ways to handle the grief and intense homesickness at the same time as the PhD? For anyone who has faced similar circumstances to any of the above, what helped you the most? Thanks for any and all advice :)
RESPONSE A: I’m very sorry for your loss. If you don’t exercise already, you might want start jogging in the morning? It will help with your mood and keep you motivated. Good luck and take care.
RESPONSE B: I am studying abroad as well and my father passed away last year (in my 2nd year of phd). I would say that my father was one of the reasons why I chose to pursue my Phd. I used to discuss these things with my father about how to make the next move (my career and stuff, since he was slightly related to my field). After he passed away I didn't know what I was doing and for whom? Why was I in a foreign land with no friends and family? Is my life even worth it anymore? While I am still in a similar situation as you are, in the end, these thoughts don't matter. What I did was to make list of the things that I can do right now? Griefing all day won't help me move forward in my life. I started making small objectives to do in a day. Maybe write an abstract or just a line of my paper. Also, get someone to talk to. Your supervisor or co-worker or other friends not just about your work but your life in general. I don't know if any of these make sense since I am in the same boat as you are in and still trying to figure out who I am. Edit: a word
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Ever since my advisor passed away, I can't focus on my dissertation, and I'm terrified Original post here I'm very happy that I've been assigned an excellent new dissertation advisor, who's extremely supportive recently. However, I just can't seem to get back to business since my advisor passed away. I want to graduate this year, but mentally, I can't seem to open my documents and continue on. I get very sad whenever I try, and then I end up like, washing dishes. Any advice for getting over this hurdle would be very helpful!
RESPONSE A: You were very close with your PI, and it sucked that they are dead. But what would your PI want you to do? Get stuck procrastinating or be paralyzed by sadness? When you sit down to write, imagine your PI is watching you and feels proud that you are immortalizing their life's passion by converting thoughts and experiments into words and figures. Or meditate. Or drink whiskey.
RESPONSE B: What you are going through is called "bereavement" or "grief", and it is totally normal to feel the way you do. Check out this page and the links on that page under "start here". This page from the National Cancer Institute states that for "most bereaved people having normal grief, symptoms lessen between 6 months and 2 years after the loss." So I would think that you should expect to go through at least a couple of months of reduced productivity. You could look into Student Counseling, most universities offer these services to their students. And it would probably be good to not put more pressure onto yourself by insisting to graduate this year. If it happens, good, if not, then you graduate next year. Finally, I would recommend talking with your new advisor about this. Even if he/she is very supportive, he/she needs to know what you're going through so expectations can be adjusted accordingly.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: in UK universities for several years but always on the professional services side (i.e. not an academic) but so many of the academics seem so downtrodden and disheartened by it all. I'm just curious as to what is it that academics see as the main problems for them day-to-day.
RESPONSE A: Significantly improved job stability and pay. A crackdown on bad behaviours, no more tolerating "lone geniuses" who leave scorched earth behind them with junior staffs' careers left in tatters. Increased funding for PhDs but discourage PIs from taking on self-funded PhDs - or at least put in place safeguards so those students don't just vanish into the system. Make people and project management something that PIs actually have to be good at and that their career advancement is dependent on. Nurture home grown talent and keep staff on through the grades rather than insisting on people leaving for career progression. Provide training for leadership, project management, people management and all the other career skills other industries require their staff to learn. Stop focussing so much on grants and high impact factor publications and allow faculty to take on my high risk, longer term projects. Make sure that you are responsive to complaints and when serious complaints are upheld make sure that the individual involved can't simply walk into another job and pick up their abusive habits where they left off. Introduce staff scientist roles (or equivalents for social sciences and humanities) at different grades so that there is an alternative more stable career track for talented individuals who don't want to be PIs but who can also pick up some of the load from PIs, including teaching, so that PIs can have something approaching a work life balance. Make is easier for people to leave and re-enter academia from other sectors. Encourage parental leave and provide staff to manage teams/projects while PIs are on leave. Increase everyone's pay.
RESPONSE B: Make postdocs more stable. The professor pay issue seems to be a US an UK centric thing. I can't comment on that. Every professor that I've interacted with up here in Canada make 100k+ even as an assistant professor. That doesn't sound like too shabby pay for me.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What major changes would you make to an academic's job if you had carte blanche? I have worked in UK universities for several years but always on the professional services side (i.e. not an academic) but so many of the academics seem so downtrodden and disheartened by it all. I'm just curious as to what is it that academics see as the main problems for them day-to-day.
RESPONSE A: Disciplinary silos have got to go. Social science in particular has been like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic since the 90s.
RESPONSE B: Significantly improved job stability and pay. A crackdown on bad behaviours, no more tolerating "lone geniuses" who leave scorched earth behind them with junior staffs' careers left in tatters. Increased funding for PhDs but discourage PIs from taking on self-funded PhDs - or at least put in place safeguards so those students don't just vanish into the system. Make people and project management something that PIs actually have to be good at and that their career advancement is dependent on. Nurture home grown talent and keep staff on through the grades rather than insisting on people leaving for career progression. Provide training for leadership, project management, people management and all the other career skills other industries require their staff to learn. Stop focussing so much on grants and high impact factor publications and allow faculty to take on my high risk, longer term projects. Make sure that you are responsive to complaints and when serious complaints are upheld make sure that the individual involved can't simply walk into another job and pick up their abusive habits where they left off. Introduce staff scientist roles (or equivalents for social sciences and humanities) at different grades so that there is an alternative more stable career track for talented individuals who don't want to be PIs but who can also pick up some of the load from PIs, including teaching, so that PIs can have something approaching a work life balance. Make is easier for people to leave and re-enter academia from other sectors. Encourage parental leave and provide staff to manage teams/projects while PIs are on leave. Increase everyone's pay.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What major changes would you make to an academic's job if you had carte blanche? I have worked in UK universities for several years but always on the professional services side (i.e. not an academic) but so many of the academics seem so downtrodden and disheartened by it all. I'm just curious as to what is it that academics see as the main problems for them day-to-day.
RESPONSE A: Make postdoc positions more stable. Having to move around because of short contracts sucks for early academics.
RESPONSE B: Disciplinary silos have got to go. Social science in particular has been like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic since the 90s.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What major changes would you make to an academic's job if you had carte blanche? I have worked in UK universities for several years but always on the professional services side (i.e. not an academic) but so many of the academics seem so downtrodden and disheartened by it all. I'm just curious as to what is it that academics see as the main problems for them day-to-day.
RESPONSE A: Postdocs lasting more than 12 months. I am 30 years old with a life. There is no way I am uprooting my entire life to stay only 12 months at another place and then come back. I'd rather drop academia and find a regular job then. On the same not, create both "professor" and "researcher" position. I do not want to teach, I want to do research and guide graduate students, at most help with projects towards scientific education to the general public. I would gladly take a pay cut to a professor's salary if that meant never having to teach classes
RESPONSE B: Long-term contracts: give ecrs 5 yer contracts so they have time to stabilize and have funding gaps covered. If they get a permanent position somewhere else, they 'lose' the 5 year contract.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What major changes would you make to an academic's job if you had carte blanche? I have worked in UK universities for several years but always on the professional services side (i.e. not an academic) but so many of the academics seem so downtrodden and disheartened by it all. I'm just curious as to what is it that academics see as the main problems for them day-to-day.
RESPONSE A: Postdocs lasting more than 12 months. I am 30 years old with a life. There is no way I am uprooting my entire life to stay only 12 months at another place and then come back. I'd rather drop academia and find a regular job then. On the same not, create both "professor" and "researcher" position. I do not want to teach, I want to do research and guide graduate students, at most help with projects towards scientific education to the general public. I would gladly take a pay cut to a professor's salary if that meant never having to teach classes
RESPONSE B: Eliminate the prestige and pedigree bias/monopoly. Have acceptance rounds multiple times a year or at least twice a year. Focus on eliminating bias rather than implementing quotas when hiring for any position or recruiting (similar to how bias would be controlled in an experiment). Eliminate the concept of journals being the criteria for job retention and advancement especially taking into account "high impact" factors. Eliminate most of the administrative bloat and use that money to give more lab autonomy to the different labs. Academic publications original purpose was disseminating knowledge among everyone, not just field experts. Academic publishing should encourage clear communication that is as reachable as possible for as many people, including people outside of the field (without harming the scholarship itself of course). This is especially necessary because people from other disciplines could have valuable input. For example a phycists commenting on a math paper, or a linguist commenting on a math paper. Academic writing should lower the barrier of entry to the bare reasonable minimum.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: anyone. But it's hard not to think that being older is perhaps not helping. On one hand, I am fortunate that I have work, which is better than a lot of people coming into academia. On the other though, I have like others sacrificed a lot of time and stress to get a job as a professor. My question is, do you have any advice about how to market yourself if you are older? Is it a hindrance? Do you know of older people getting hired? Or just any thoughts on improving your job prospects in general? Having a bit of a frustrated moment, but I'm aware that getting a good academic job is tough for pretty much everyone. I feel you if you are in that same boat.
RESPONSE A: I’m in a CS-adjacent field and have never been on a hiring committee where the age of a candidate counted against them. If anything, from my view it’d help the application (can advise students on what industry life is like from first hand experience — something many academics lack). The job market is a shit show this year post-COVID. Lots of positions, but lots of candidates as well. Hang in there and give it a go next year again if you’re up for it. As other said, doing a post-doc can help and is almost expected in many fields. Best advice I can give is to make as many friends as possible in your field and as few enemies. It’s shocking (/sad) how easy it is for one friendly voice on a search committee to carry an application evaluation (or one unfriendly voice to tank it). Edit: words are hard
RESPONSE B: If your private industry experience is also CS then I would think you would be a strong candidate. So many academics have little “real work/real world” experience. Not sure that age would be a factor but that might vary by discipline. I earned my doctorate at 46 and found an assistant prof position. Are you applying at teaching or research institutions? Do you have pedagogy knowledge/practice - or at least know the terminology to talking about teaching/learning? It might be helpful to ask your PhD mentor to give you feedback on your vita.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: , getting seemingly good feedback, etc., sent me a short notice rejecting my application. So while I may still hear from other jobs, I'm feeling sort of back to to square one. Now I'm of course aware that this may be par for the course for just about anyone. But it's hard not to think that being older is perhaps not helping. On one hand, I am fortunate that I have work, which is better than a lot of people coming into academia. On the other though, I have like others sacrificed a lot of time and stress to get a job as a professor. My question is, do you have any advice about how to market yourself if you are older? Is it a hindrance? Do you know of older people getting hired? Or just any thoughts on improving your job prospects in general? Having a bit of a frustrated moment, but I'm aware that getting a good academic job is tough for pretty much everyone. I feel you if you are in that same boat.
RESPONSE A: If your private industry experience is also CS then I would think you would be a strong candidate. So many academics have little “real work/real world” experience. Not sure that age would be a factor but that might vary by discipline. I earned my doctorate at 46 and found an assistant prof position. Are you applying at teaching or research institutions? Do you have pedagogy knowledge/practice - or at least know the terminology to talking about teaching/learning? It might be helpful to ask your PhD mentor to give you feedback on your vita.
RESPONSE B: Much like yourself, I became a CS professor later in life. I found age wasn't a hindrance at all, literally seemed to be a non-issue for each of the three schools I was a faculty member at. Does your research background match the jobs you're applying for? Are you getting any feedback from the schools that aren't interested in you? Have you had your former advisor and former grad school friends review your application materials? Are you sure all of your letter writers are giving you a strong recommendation? I'd suspect that there's a problem other than your age. A lot of schools are desperate for CS faculty these days.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: getting hired? Or just any thoughts on improving your job prospects in general? Having a bit of a frustrated moment, but I'm aware that getting a good academic job is tough for pretty much everyone. I feel you if you are in that same boat.
RESPONSE A: I'll be the dissenting voice here. It really depends upon how old 'older' is. For a tenure track position, I'd bet money that if you are 60, you'll never get an offer (though you might get visiting professorship offers). You've not been specific with your age or the number of years in private industry, so I don't know if you are thinking that 50 or even 40 makes you older. I'm attaching a link to an article on this subject. https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2014/08/13/essay-age-discrimination-faculty-hiring My previous seminary never seemed to hire anyone under 40, but no one over 55 either, so there seemed to be a sweet spot for that institution. My community college and my previous college didn't have specific age ranges, but both tended to only hire older people (50+ in age) if they were already part of the adjunct pool (which goes against what the article above highlights, so, there's that). Emphasize the practical side of your experience, which would be the one area that would be the strongest thing you're bringing against both those younger and those who didn't have a private industry turn. And good luck to you, too! ​ FWIW, I'm doing a doctorate in chaplaincy at Vanderbilt right now, in order to set myself up with something different for my retirement from my current jobs (I'm 57 this year, and hope to retire within the next five years). Several of my cohort colleagues are in their 60s and even a few in their 70s, but none are looking for tenure track out of this degree, nor am I.
RESPONSE B: I doubt that age is the issue. Cast your net far and wide. Community colleges are often forgotten. State schools and technical colleges might also be options.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Would wearing a hijab negatively effect your prospects to get an academic job? Will it negatively effect student's perception of you? I'm a masters student in Islamic and Middle Eastern studies.
RESPONSE A: I actually feel like with your area it might give you an air of legitimacy! But it shouldn't affect you - but as always the people hiring you might be massive bigots
RESPONSE B: Hopefully it wouldn't impact getting a job in Islamic Studies! I can't say for sure it wouldn't, because bigots crop up everywhere. But do not compromise who you are for a job. As for students... some will mind. You can't do anything about that. I teach Psychology of Sex and Gender and have had students take my class who immediately hate me... for researching sex and gender. You can't win 'em all.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Would wearing a hijab negatively effect your prospects to get an academic job? Will it negatively effect student's perception of you? I'm a masters student in Islamic and Middle Eastern studies.
RESPONSE A: I think academia tends to be more open than other fields, I think you’ll be fine. Not to say you won’t ever experience issues, but just be prepared
RESPONSE B: In the US, being visibly Muslim, not just someone who “studies” Muslims, makes it much harder to get an academic job. It doesn’t mean it is impossible, but academy is not immune to White Supremacy and we actually see it quite often expressed by “liberals” as well as “conservatives.” It often comes through American exceptionalism and making comments like “you aren’t like THOSE Muslims.” It also comes out in hiring committees and deans using terms like “we don’t want to be controversial” (indexing your body and clothing are a site of public conversation and debate). That being said there are more than a few Muslim women in hijab within the academy.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: securing a tenure-track job. Additionally, I've also heard that getting a PhD in the humanities and failing to get into academia will leave you stranded because you're nearly thirty without any working experience and essentially you'll be jobless and broke. As I'm not from a rich family, and not particularly confident of my ability to marry a rich person (lol) the future sounds bleak and terrifying. At the same time I don't know if there's anything more important to me than ideas and books--I feel more at home and alive doing coursework than anything else--I'm the kind of person that gets obsessed and will work compulsively, and I also have emotional and mental health issues that make me doubt my ability to find happiness elsewhere. And all of this makes me think my only chance of finding fulfillment is pursuing an academic career. So I'm not sure what I should do. Should I just go for it? Or find something else to do? Are there people here who've left academia and found fulfilling jobs elsewhere? Any advice would be really appreciated!
RESPONSE A: Slow down. You haven't had any undergrad classes and its not clear if you're good at any of the things you want to do. Further, there is political maneuvering involved in academia that you may find yourself unable to perform. You may not want to or have the opportunity for career advancement. Further its not clear if you're undergrad is sufficiently good to do a real job. The opportunities, presented to people at ivy league schools are substantially different from those presented to state school students. Come in to college with an open mind.
RESPONSE B: If you're still in undergrad you can probably pursue those majors and still find some jobs, with the right skillset. Not if your goal is to get a PhD in those disciplines and go into academia... I would strongly advise against it. Even the current crop of PhD graduates is furiously fighting for some spots. Even the "safety" jobs like high schools are getting multiple graduate degree applicants for teaching history /Lit. There are just no jobs. Unless you're the top 0.1% of the top 1%, the future looks bleak.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: at a university. Unfortunately I've read and heard many terrifying stories about the bleak academic job market for the humanities and how even if you're willing to go to the remotest part of the globe to secure a job, you might not even get one, or you might end up jumping from one adjunct position to another without securing a tenure-track job. Additionally, I've also heard that getting a PhD in the humanities and failing to get into academia will leave you stranded because you're nearly thirty without any working experience and essentially you'll be jobless and broke. As I'm not from a rich family, and not particularly confident of my ability to marry a rich person (lol) the future sounds bleak and terrifying. At the same time I don't know if there's anything more important to me than ideas and books--I feel more at home and alive doing coursework than anything else--I'm the kind of person that gets obsessed and will work compulsively, and I also have emotional and mental health issues that make me doubt my ability to find happiness elsewhere. And all of this makes me think my only chance of finding fulfillment is pursuing an academic career. So I'm not sure what I should do. Should I just go for it? Or find something else to do? Are there people here who've left academia and found fulfilling jobs elsewhere? Any advice would be really appreciated!
RESPONSE A: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/96yf9h/monday_methods_why_you_should_not_get_a_history/
RESPONSE B: Slow down. You haven't had any undergrad classes and its not clear if you're good at any of the things you want to do. Further, there is political maneuvering involved in academia that you may find yourself unable to perform. You may not want to or have the opportunity for career advancement. Further its not clear if you're undergrad is sufficiently good to do a real job. The opportunities, presented to people at ivy league schools are substantially different from those presented to state school students. Come in to college with an open mind.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: same time I don't know if there's anything more important to me than ideas and books--I feel more at home and alive doing coursework than anything else--I'm the kind of person that gets obsessed and will work compulsively, and I also have emotional and mental health issues that make me doubt my ability to find happiness elsewhere. And all of this makes me think my only chance of finding fulfillment is pursuing an academic career. So I'm not sure what I should do. Should I just go for it? Or find something else to do? Are there people here who've left academia and found fulfilling jobs elsewhere? Any advice would be really appreciated!
RESPONSE A: I work in university administration so I see a lot of students and academics struggling to find full time, ongoing employment. Having said that, if academia is what you’re truly passionate about then it’s worth giving it a shot. If you don’t, you’ll spend your life wondering what could have been. The most important thing is to have a plan B (and C and D, and probably E too). It’s not true that there are no options for humanities graduates outside of academia. During your degrees, it’s important to speak with your professors, fellow students, and pretty much everyone you meet about career options and potential pathways. Most universities (at least where I’m from) can help you find mentors too, which can be incredibly useful (although they’re not always that great, you might need to try a few before you find one that works for you). If possible, try to get an academic mentor and a mentor who’s studied humanities but who doesn’t work in a university.
RESPONSE B: Slow down. You haven't had any undergrad classes and its not clear if you're good at any of the things you want to do. Further, there is political maneuvering involved in academia that you may find yourself unable to perform. You may not want to or have the opportunity for career advancement. Further its not clear if you're undergrad is sufficiently good to do a real job. The opportunities, presented to people at ivy league schools are substantially different from those presented to state school students. Come in to college with an open mind.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: me than ideas and books--I feel more at home and alive doing coursework than anything else--I'm the kind of person that gets obsessed and will work compulsively, and I also have emotional and mental health issues that make me doubt my ability to find happiness elsewhere. And all of this makes me think my only chance of finding fulfillment is pursuing an academic career. So I'm not sure what I should do. Should I just go for it? Or find something else to do? Are there people here who've left academia and found fulfilling jobs elsewhere? Any advice would be really appreciated!
RESPONSE A: If the bleak market is already giving you anxiety, think long and hard about your undergraduate programme. I was blissfully unaware about the job market for Humanities PhD's. I worried about getting into grad school, not of what came thereafter. (Yes, this was pre-2008.) Although I have been fulltime employed in academia since grad school (by working hard, but frankly also by sheer luck), I constantly worry what or if anything comes next. I also move countries for postdocs every 1-2 years (still no TT in sight at this point). It's a hard and lonely road, which might ultimately lead nowhere. In the meantime, my mid-thirty friends with college degrees are already on their second home and second child (and some even on their second spouse), whereas I am renting and still paying off my student loans. Also, I maybe get to see my family twice a year (if I am lucky). I am not saying you shouldn't follow your dreams, nor do I regret my degree, but I just wish younger me would know what post grad school life would look like (esp. since the constant jobhunt/competition and financial and geographical instability take a huge toll on my general well-being). To be honest, I might have reconsidered. Also, if things don't work out for you in academia, be prepared for a career as a barista (I saw this happen a little too often not to be worried)...
RESPONSE B: I agree with other comments. A major in philosophy will leave you with many options while you continue to think about this. The time for these questions is prior to graduate school.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: ively, and I also have emotional and mental health issues that make me doubt my ability to find happiness elsewhere. And all of this makes me think my only chance of finding fulfillment is pursuing an academic career. So I'm not sure what I should do. Should I just go for it? Or find something else to do? Are there people here who've left academia and found fulfilling jobs elsewhere? Any advice would be really appreciated!
RESPONSE A: If the bleak market is already giving you anxiety, think long and hard about your undergraduate programme. I was blissfully unaware about the job market for Humanities PhD's. I worried about getting into grad school, not of what came thereafter. (Yes, this was pre-2008.) Although I have been fulltime employed in academia since grad school (by working hard, but frankly also by sheer luck), I constantly worry what or if anything comes next. I also move countries for postdocs every 1-2 years (still no TT in sight at this point). It's a hard and lonely road, which might ultimately lead nowhere. In the meantime, my mid-thirty friends with college degrees are already on their second home and second child (and some even on their second spouse), whereas I am renting and still paying off my student loans. Also, I maybe get to see my family twice a year (if I am lucky). I am not saying you shouldn't follow your dreams, nor do I regret my degree, but I just wish younger me would know what post grad school life would look like (esp. since the constant jobhunt/competition and financial and geographical instability take a huge toll on my general well-being). To be honest, I might have reconsidered. Also, if things don't work out for you in academia, be prepared for a career as a barista (I saw this happen a little too often not to be worried)...
RESPONSE B: I often think to myself that I want to get an English Masters, but then I remember that I can just read the books. I know it would be better to have an expert to speak about the book with, but it is cheep to read it by myself. Then I try to talk about books on reddit a lot.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I'm not sure how much better my application would be. I know this has been a super long post, but if anyone's made it to this part, any advice on what I might do? My first instinct is that my parents don't know what they're talking about and that my professors do, but I do think there's more than a kernel of truth that they've already given me bad advice with regards to my PhD applications, and I'm scared to take their advice and find that I've made the same mistake several times in a row.
RESPONSE A: I would trust the experts in the field who actually went to school for physics. They know much more than you parents, who I assume are not physics PhDs...
RESPONSE B: Maybe it's different for physics, but in biology a masters from a great program will go a long, long way toward improving your chances for a PhD program acceptance. Don't forget, you'll also gain access to the academic network your masters advisor has - it may be totally different from your undergraduate advisor's. I'm a little confused by your current advisor's opinion that it won't improve your chances unless you do "significant research", as that's exactly what master's research is (unless this is a non-thesis masters program?). It sounds like they want you to hang around as a tech, which seems like a nonsense opinion to me - you'll probably be doing similar work, but have less to show for it than the masters, which will (should, anyway) come with a stipend, advanced classwork, and maybe teaching experience. Edit: Ah, I've just re-read, and I think I understand your professor's opinion, which is a key point that you glossed over: You have not been offered an assistantship for this master's program, correct? You've buried the lede a bit here; you've been "accepted" to a master's program but, IMO, not really. You should practically never end up paying for a grad degree (MS or PhD). If this is the case, I flip back over to your professor's side.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: entire year's tuition. While paying for the program isn't an issue, I have serious ethical concerns with spending so much money on graduate school, when I would be paid to do the same thing in a PhD program. If I stay here, I think I would also enjoy the job I've been offered, and if I can get some research done on the side and do better on the physics GRE, then I agree that my application would be fairly iron-clad. But there's always the possibility that I can't get anything published, or that I don't do much better on the physics GRE, or maybe even that I get a publication and better physics GRE score but no better results. In addition, funding for the job offer won't go through until May, and while I've been assured that it almost certainly won't happen, there's always the chance that the job doesn't get funded (I have to decide on the master's program within a week, so I'd be crossing my fingers that the job works out). There's even the chance that I get the job, but it doesn't leave me with adequate time to also do research, at which point I'm not sure how much better my application would be. I know this has been a super long post, but if anyone's made it to this part, any advice on what I might do? My first instinct is that my parents don't know what they're talking about and that my professors do, but I do think there's more than a kernel of truth that they've already given me bad advice with regards to my PhD applications, and I'm scared to take their advice and find that I've made the same mistake several times in a row.
RESPONSE A: You have to analyze why you didn't get in. Only time a MS helps is if you had mediocre grades and you need to fix that. However, exposure can help and people who do MS in an institution do get into PhD programs in the same institution if you stand out during the MS.
RESPONSE B: I would trust the experts in the field who actually went to school for physics. They know much more than you parents, who I assume are not physics PhDs...
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 't get anything published, or that I don't do much better on the physics GRE, or maybe even that I get a publication and better physics GRE score but no better results. In addition, funding for the job offer won't go through until May, and while I've been assured that it almost certainly won't happen, there's always the chance that the job doesn't get funded (I have to decide on the master's program within a week, so I'd be crossing my fingers that the job works out). There's even the chance that I get the job, but it doesn't leave me with adequate time to also do research, at which point I'm not sure how much better my application would be. I know this has been a super long post, but if anyone's made it to this part, any advice on what I might do? My first instinct is that my parents don't know what they're talking about and that my professors do, but I do think there's more than a kernel of truth that they've already given me bad advice with regards to my PhD applications, and I'm scared to take their advice and find that I've made the same mistake several times in a row.
RESPONSE A: I would trust the experts in the field who actually went to school for physics. They know much more than you parents, who I assume are not physics PhDs...
RESPONSE B: If the master’s program did not offer you compensation/assistantship of any sort, I think it’s the less ideal option for you at the moment. In this case I agree with your undergrad professors - paying for a graduate degree out of your own pocket is always, to some degree, a red flag. You also mentioned you can still work with your professors on research, even potential publications if you work in the same city. That would be a strong support for your application to a PhD program in the future. Besides, you mentioned you have ethical concerns about paying for the masters - more often than not, concerns like this are conflicting with a great graduate school experience. The choice is your obviously, but if I were you, I would not consider the master’s program at the moment.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: maybe even that I get a publication and better physics GRE score but no better results. In addition, funding for the job offer won't go through until May, and while I've been assured that it almost certainly won't happen, there's always the chance that the job doesn't get funded (I have to decide on the master's program within a week, so I'd be crossing my fingers that the job works out). There's even the chance that I get the job, but it doesn't leave me with adequate time to also do research, at which point I'm not sure how much better my application would be. I know this has been a super long post, but if anyone's made it to this part, any advice on what I might do? My first instinct is that my parents don't know what they're talking about and that my professors do, but I do think there's more than a kernel of truth that they've already given me bad advice with regards to my PhD applications, and I'm scared to take their advice and find that I've made the same mistake several times in a row.
RESPONSE A: > I think the master's program would be an enjoyable experience, and would give me the opportunity to see first-hand if I really want to pursue a physics PhD, or if I'd rather pursue a math PhD or something else entirely. Why do you think a master's will give you insight to see whether or not you want to pursue the PhD?
RESPONSE B: I don't think anyone else has mentioned this yet, so I'll make a suggestion. Depending on how flexible your future plans are, doing an MSc can be a good step towards a PhD, for this reason: outside of the USA, much of the world still considers an MSc as a requirement for entering PhD programs. I can confirm this is the case for physics PhD programs at many Canadian and European universities. So there is this perspective: by doing a Masters, you give yourself a second chance at American PhD programs, as well as making yourself *eligible* for international PhD programs (which often don't ask for GRE results), if that's something you're willing to consider.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: n't an issue, I have serious ethical concerns with spending so much money on graduate school, when I would be paid to do the same thing in a PhD program. If I stay here, I think I would also enjoy the job I've been offered, and if I can get some research done on the side and do better on the physics GRE, then I agree that my application would be fairly iron-clad. But there's always the possibility that I can't get anything published, or that I don't do much better on the physics GRE, or maybe even that I get a publication and better physics GRE score but no better results. In addition, funding for the job offer won't go through until May, and while I've been assured that it almost certainly won't happen, there's always the chance that the job doesn't get funded (I have to decide on the master's program within a week, so I'd be crossing my fingers that the job works out). There's even the chance that I get the job, but it doesn't leave me with adequate time to also do research, at which point I'm not sure how much better my application would be. I know this has been a super long post, but if anyone's made it to this part, any advice on what I might do? My first instinct is that my parents don't know what they're talking about and that my professors do, but I do think there's more than a kernel of truth that they've already given me bad advice with regards to my PhD applications, and I'm scared to take their advice and find that I've made the same mistake several times in a row.
RESPONSE A: **Stop focusing on GRE scores** Focus on getting lab experience and impressing a faculty member to where they'll write you a legitimately good recommendation letter and possibly mention you to contacts in the program you're applying to.
RESPONSE B: Masters is waste if Time if you eventually want to do a PhD. Do the job for the year and reapply for PhD programs. Your parents are trying to help but unless they are tenured professors or work in academia they won't really know the best options.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: get a well paid job that I could do from home, giving me more flexibility with my time. The industry that I’m training to work in is notoriously underpaid and lacks security compared to other sectors with comparable qualifications and experience which makes me think, if I don’t love this what is the point? The thought of carrying this on for another 2.5 years feels so draining, I honestly don’t know how I will do it. I feel like my life is on hold until this is over and being in my early 30s now I am really wanting to put down solid roots and get on with building my life. Has anyone been in a similar position and if so, what did you do? Would it be possible to write up for an MPhil at this stage so it wouldn’t all be for nothing? Any help and/or advice would be gratefully received. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: Feb 2023 is for all intents and purposes tomorrow? Sure you can quit, but if all you have to do is finish off 6 months and write it up what is the point? You should have a significant proportion to write up already. If this isn't the case, and only really you or your supervisor will know then you probably have a significant issue anyway. Facts are having a PhD even outside your field will look good the amount of people sticking PhD after there names for sales jobs...of which their PhD is nothing to do with the product they are sell at all...or the number of companies who go "blah blah 80% of our staff have PhD's" means having it is worth 6 month and then writing and defending. What you have to realise is a PhD isn't some all encompassing thing, it is a means to an end, that is over once it ends and you go do something else.
RESPONSE B: I walked away from a non-funded program for a lot of similar reasons. It just wasn't the right time, there was family stuff happening, and my doubts about what I wanted to do were impacting the quality of my work and my ability to focus and enjoy it. I just think a PhD is way too big a commitment to not be sure or to not be getting the most out of it. Edited to fix a typo
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: t love this what is the point? The thought of carrying this on for another 2.5 years feels so draining, I honestly don’t know how I will do it. I feel like my life is on hold until this is over and being in my early 30s now I am really wanting to put down solid roots and get on with building my life. Has anyone been in a similar position and if so, what did you do? Would it be possible to write up for an MPhil at this stage so it wouldn’t all be for nothing? Any help and/or advice would be gratefully received. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: I did my PhD in the UK and now I coordinate the PhD programme in my department. I would say that a really large number of the PhD researchers I work with experience a similar feeling at some point in year 2 or 3. That was my experience - intense hatred of my subject, regret at having chosen it, feelings like I should do something else with my life. My advice to the PhD researchers I work with is that if it’s only about the topic, try to stick it out and finish the degree. At least then you have options and haven’t wasted your time (you’re so close!!). But if it’s about your mental health and a sense that you genuinely are damaging your wellbeing by remaining in the programme, then it’s time to move on. Remember also that you have the option to take an interruption of your studies. At my university, that’s up to six months. I also would typically advise taking a short interruption before deciding you definitely want out. Maybe you are burnt out and just need a break. It’s a rough decision, but you know yourself best. There’s no shame in deciding it’s not for you, but it’s important to make sure it’s a decision you’ll agree with later (especially if you have funding now).
RESPONSE B: I did, but I wasn't in the same position as you - project had over £3.5m of funding for 4 postgraduate positions and a healthy stipend besides. Made my decision to leave and pursue a totally different career over 10 years ago, but I was a year into it. Happy to discuss over PM if you want.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: underpaid and lacks security compared to other sectors with comparable qualifications and experience which makes me think, if I don’t love this what is the point? The thought of carrying this on for another 2.5 years feels so draining, I honestly don’t know how I will do it. I feel like my life is on hold until this is over and being in my early 30s now I am really wanting to put down solid roots and get on with building my life. Has anyone been in a similar position and if so, what did you do? Would it be possible to write up for an MPhil at this stage so it wouldn’t all be for nothing? Any help and/or advice would be gratefully received. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: I quit a phd in psychology in 2021, I just didn’t like the subject any more and was not interested in it any longer. I felt a great relief when I quit. But your experience might be different.
RESPONSE B: I did my PhD in the UK and now I coordinate the PhD programme in my department. I would say that a really large number of the PhD researchers I work with experience a similar feeling at some point in year 2 or 3. That was my experience - intense hatred of my subject, regret at having chosen it, feelings like I should do something else with my life. My advice to the PhD researchers I work with is that if it’s only about the topic, try to stick it out and finish the degree. At least then you have options and haven’t wasted your time (you’re so close!!). But if it’s about your mental health and a sense that you genuinely are damaging your wellbeing by remaining in the programme, then it’s time to move on. Remember also that you have the option to take an interruption of your studies. At my university, that’s up to six months. I also would typically advise taking a short interruption before deciding you definitely want out. Maybe you are burnt out and just need a break. It’s a rough decision, but you know yourself best. There’s no shame in deciding it’s not for you, but it’s important to make sure it’s a decision you’ll agree with later (especially if you have funding now).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Questions about the financial feasibility of a PhD program with two kids in NYC. ​ Hello everyone. I'm finishing up a second MA in educational leadership and would like to continue my research. I am currently a certified high school teacher of students with disabilities and I thought that I wanted to go into administration. This degree taught me that is probably not the best path for me. I live in NYC and have looked at both EdD programs online (my favorites were Johns Hopkins and Vanderbilt) and in person EdD and PhD programs in the city. It's pretty clear that the EdD programs are not going to give me the research opportunities that I want and the programs that are still interesting enough to pursue are all self funded. I'm currently considering applying to PhD programs that fit my area of interest but I don't have an idea how I'm going to live. Even if the research gets fully funded. What does the stipend look like? Would I be able to work full time as a teacher (not likely)? I have two kids and a supportive partner, my only (current) concern is money. Any insight is appreciated.
RESPONSE A: Do they have on site family housing for postdocs?
RESPONSE B: You should identify the programs you are interested in and directly ask those programs how much financial support they offer their PhD students. That will provide the most accurate information. Some PhD programs allow part time study, other don't--meaning classes are held during the day and students are expected to register for a full load of classes and TA/RA. But the answers to your questions will vary by school/department so it is best to ask those programs directly. Columbia University probably has the largest graduate programs in NYC. Columbia's graduate students recently formed a union and went on a strike which settled earlier this year. By unionizing PhD stipends/benefits became more standardized across the university, although there is still some variation. You can probably find some information about the terms of the settlement (e.g. stipend amounts) using google. At one point the strike was the largest ongoing in the US.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: teacher of students with disabilities and I thought that I wanted to go into administration. This degree taught me that is probably not the best path for me. I live in NYC and have looked at both EdD programs online (my favorites were Johns Hopkins and Vanderbilt) and in person EdD and PhD programs in the city. It's pretty clear that the EdD programs are not going to give me the research opportunities that I want and the programs that are still interesting enough to pursue are all self funded. I'm currently considering applying to PhD programs that fit my area of interest but I don't have an idea how I'm going to live. Even if the research gets fully funded. What does the stipend look like? Would I be able to work full time as a teacher (not likely)? I have two kids and a supportive partner, my only (current) concern is money. Any insight is appreciated.
RESPONSE A: My mentor did a postdoc in NYC and the main reason she could do it with 2 kids and a spouse in service industry was because they made a tidy profit when they sold their house that they purchased during her PhD. Postdocs make a lot more than PhD and it's still not a lot. I'm going to be very honest with you. People, especially woman, that I know who have been successful with PhDs/academia have usually been either older with a nest egg or some type of wealth, have very supportive spouses (like the spouse does everything from budgeting to taking care of the kids. EVERYTHING to make the other spouses PhD happen), a wealthy spouse or spouse already established in a usually very flexible career, or they have Wealthy parents. NGL it's usually a combination of the list above. Also some PhDs do not even allow you to work while on stipend. NYC is really pricey and to answer your question you need to break out a spread sheet and run the numbers. I did it with two kids but we are suffering now playing catch up with savings and paying down incurred debt and I wasn't in an expensive city. Also if you plan on postdocing it'll take longer to start making money.
RESPONSE B: Do they have on site family housing for postdocs?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Just got my PhD offer! What advice can you give to a new student? Hello everyone, I'm so happy I finally got a PhD offer in my field of interest! The University is in the neighbouring state to my current home (I live with my family), only a 1.5hr plane ride away so I don't think it has fully hit me that I'm going to be moving soon. What advice can you give to a new student? It can be as specific or general as you like. I would love to have some things at the back of my mind before starting my course. Short context on the course: it is based in cell biology and I'll be working with drosophila models to characterise a particular signalling pathway. I have been granted a 3-4 year scholarship to fund my stay. General context: I've done a 3-year bachelor degree and 1-year honours research degree. My previous supervisors said I had a real drive and motivation for research which they haven't seen in many students they've mentored. I do tend to be very hard on myself and hate failing. I love writing and going deep into background research to substantiate my experiments, I loved writing my thesis last year and I love presenting at conferences. Thank you so much in advance for your time and advice :)
RESPONSE A: Take One day at a time. Lot of times you’ll think you aren’t progressing…but it’s actually you feel you aren’t progressing. Progression occurs over infinitesimal steps. Enjoy you PhD
RESPONSE B: This will definitely vary from PI to PI. My advisor sold me on his lab by going out of his way to show how he really tried to take a student-centric approach and strive for student success. By the end I discovered that it was all talk and his actions showed that he was most definitely out for himself. There were times I was used and manipulated because I thought he cared about me. This was a hard lesson to learn. Not saying it will happen to you but don't let your guard get too low.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Just got my PhD offer! What advice can you give to a new student? Hello everyone, I'm so happy I finally got a PhD offer in my field of interest! The University is in the neighbouring state to my current home (I live with my family), only a 1.5hr plane ride away so I don't think it has fully hit me that I'm going to be moving soon. What advice can you give to a new student? It can be as specific or general as you like. I would love to have some things at the back of my mind before starting my course. Short context on the course: it is based in cell biology and I'll be working with drosophila models to characterise a particular signalling pathway. I have been granted a 3-4 year scholarship to fund my stay. General context: I've done a 3-year bachelor degree and 1-year honours research degree. My previous supervisors said I had a real drive and motivation for research which they haven't seen in many students they've mentored. I do tend to be very hard on myself and hate failing. I love writing and going deep into background research to substantiate my experiments, I loved writing my thesis last year and I love presenting at conferences. Thank you so much in advance for your time and advice :)
RESPONSE A: If you have a grad employee union, join it!
RESPONSE B: Take One day at a time. Lot of times you’ll think you aren’t progressing…but it’s actually you feel you aren’t progressing. Progression occurs over infinitesimal steps. Enjoy you PhD
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: supervisors said I had a real drive and motivation for research which they haven't seen in many students they've mentored. I do tend to be very hard on myself and hate failing. I love writing and going deep into background research to substantiate my experiments, I loved writing my thesis last year and I love presenting at conferences. Thank you so much in advance for your time and advice :)
RESPONSE A: 1. Get ready to face many failures 2. Get ready to not receiving any "good" comments from the supervisor 3. Expect supervisor(s) will not support you at all (they will for some extent but just get ready for it) 4. You need to come up with your own ideas as you'll realize they're the dumbest people on earth (they're not, but you'll feel it for sure) 5. You'll feel like you're not progressing although you're progressing 6. Supervisor will always say your progress is not enough 7. Most likely you'll write papers and supervisor will put their name as the first author (academic misconduct happens even in Australia, the supervisors will use the papers to get grants from the Australian government) 8. Expect you'll not comeup with any good ideas in the first year (though you have to come-up with something) 9. Since you're in cell biology, expect long months of chemical orders, that can take even 6 months to arrive when you order through the university. 10. You cannot be perfect in your research, just publish what ever the heck you already have as results and hope that the journals will accept it. 11. You'll get incidents that your supervisor use your grants to buy common equipment for the lab and you'll end up not having enough funds to buy your own chemicals (never allow the supervisor to drain your funds, if you allow them, they will, that's how those creatures survive) 12. There will not be a rose-bed environment. Expect very toxic, internal politics driven environment. 13. There will be people in the form of friends who will provide you with bad advise and try to drag you down. Beware of your friends, there are no friends in PhD level. Although you'll have a good time if you're brained enough.
RESPONSE B: If you have a grad employee union, join it!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How many times can I ask the same professor for a recommendation letter, and how to overcome intense discomfort of asking for these letters? Rec letters are always my least favorite part of any application, simply because I feel like an annoyance to my professors/recommenders every time I ask. I have one particular recommender who has written me letters on two different occasions. I have another program coming up that I would love for her to recommend me for, but I'm worried she will be annoyed with my 3rd request. I'd consider asking someone else, but I don't exactly have a huge pool of names to draw from, as I'm very early on in my college career and the opportunity already requires recommendations from multiple people. Is a third request too many? Additionally, how do I overcome my dread of asking for letters, especially when asking the same person multiple different times?
RESPONSE A: Once a professor has written one letter for you, it’s far easier to write additional letters since we don’t start from scratch. So if it makes sense, continue to ask the same person - it will be more work for a new person. However, if you’re a junior or senior, having a person who simply had you in class as a freshmen write a letter doesn’t make sense.
RESPONSE B: I hate asking for letters. It never gets easier. If you’re applying to a lot of similar things you could use a service like Interfolio—letter is uploaded securely and interfolio sends it out as many times as you need to…for an annual fee of course. Asking 3 times though isn’t too much in my opinion (and I write a lot of letters).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How many times can I ask the same professor for a recommendation letter, and how to overcome intense discomfort of asking for these letters? Rec letters are always my least favorite part of any application, simply because I feel like an annoyance to my professors/recommenders every time I ask. I have one particular recommender who has written me letters on two different occasions. I have another program coming up that I would love for her to recommend me for, but I'm worried she will be annoyed with my 3rd request. I'd consider asking someone else, but I don't exactly have a huge pool of names to draw from, as I'm very early on in my college career and the opportunity already requires recommendations from multiple people. Is a third request too many? Additionally, how do I overcome my dread of asking for letters, especially when asking the same person multiple different times?
RESPONSE A: To give context, as a PhD I applied to 120 jobs in two years and my letter writers didn’t bat an eye. Once they have their letter written, more is extremely easy. It’s part of our job. Don’t feel guilty, ask away.
RESPONSE B: Usually I let them know when I ask that I will be applying for more things and to expect to send the same letter to a few places. At least you only have to ask once that way.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How many times can I ask the same professor for a recommendation letter, and how to overcome intense discomfort of asking for these letters? Rec letters are always my least favorite part of any application, simply because I feel like an annoyance to my professors/recommenders every time I ask. I have one particular recommender who has written me letters on two different occasions. I have another program coming up that I would love for her to recommend me for, but I'm worried she will be annoyed with my 3rd request. I'd consider asking someone else, but I don't exactly have a huge pool of names to draw from, as I'm very early on in my college career and the opportunity already requires recommendations from multiple people. Is a third request too many? Additionally, how do I overcome my dread of asking for letters, especially when asking the same person multiple different times?
RESPONSE A: Is this the third *year* in a row you’re asking this person, or the third application in one year?
RESPONSE B: To give context, as a PhD I applied to 120 jobs in two years and my letter writers didn’t bat an eye. Once they have their letter written, more is extremely easy. It’s part of our job. Don’t feel guilty, ask away.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How many times can I ask the same professor for a recommendation letter, and how to overcome intense discomfort of asking for these letters? Rec letters are always my least favorite part of any application, simply because I feel like an annoyance to my professors/recommenders every time I ask. I have one particular recommender who has written me letters on two different occasions. I have another program coming up that I would love for her to recommend me for, but I'm worried she will be annoyed with my 3rd request. I'd consider asking someone else, but I don't exactly have a huge pool of names to draw from, as I'm very early on in my college career and the opportunity already requires recommendations from multiple people. Is a third request too many? Additionally, how do I overcome my dread of asking for letters, especially when asking the same person multiple different times?
RESPONSE A: To give context, as a PhD I applied to 120 jobs in two years and my letter writers didn’t bat an eye. Once they have their letter written, more is extremely easy. It’s part of our job. Don’t feel guilty, ask away.
RESPONSE B: I relate to that feeling of being afraid of annoying my referees. Well, I've asked for recommendation letters from the same academics probably over 20 times by now, truthfully I haven't been keeping a precise count for the sake of my sanity... And my referees haven't killed me yet, lol, they're very nice. When fear comes knocking, throw it away in the name of shamelessness and remember if they didn't want to help you, they wouldn't!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How many times can I ask the same professor for a recommendation letter, and how to overcome intense discomfort of asking for these letters? Rec letters are always my least favorite part of any application, simply because I feel like an annoyance to my professors/recommenders every time I ask. I have one particular recommender who has written me letters on two different occasions. I have another program coming up that I would love for her to recommend me for, but I'm worried she will be annoyed with my 3rd request. I'd consider asking someone else, but I don't exactly have a huge pool of names to draw from, as I'm very early on in my college career and the opportunity already requires recommendations from multiple people. Is a third request too many? Additionally, how do I overcome my dread of asking for letters, especially when asking the same person multiple different times?
RESPONSE A: The discomfort is part of the process. Avoiding it, would mean making more connections and spreading out the professors paying it forward.
RESPONSE B: To give context, as a PhD I applied to 120 jobs in two years and my letter writers didn’t bat an eye. Once they have their letter written, more is extremely easy. It’s part of our job. Don’t feel guilty, ask away.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: have you noticed an increase in students who were clearly forced to major in your field by their parents or other family members? On the internet, and in real life, you will see many people complaining that STEM majors are much harder than non - STEM majors and that the grading is much harder in courses like engineering compared to business or psychology. Is this grade discrepancy really due to a difference in difficulty though? Due to the tech boom and increasing need for health related professionals, the need for software engineers, nurses, and doctors is only growing. Due to the increasing need and high(er) pay, surely that means that more parents are forcing their kids to major in fields like computer science, electrical engineering, nursing, than ever before, right? This happens even when the kid has no interest or ability in math and science. Am I right in saying that this would explain why more people in STEM get bad grades compared to majors like history, anthropology, or accounting?
RESPONSE A: I haven't personally observed more students telling me that their parents forced them in. But I have observed more students being interested in those types of professions and having little exposure to them (thus no idea what to expect) and little preparation from these pandemic-interrupted periods. Math preparation it seems like is especially hard for students to catch up on. You think about it: if someone wants to major in biology or history, they had that in high school. They know what biology is. Most high schools don't have a comprehensive CS curriculum. Many students go in not realizing what course work they will need, and unable to calibrate if this matches their motivations, inclinations, and talents. And so you get to college and you might need to take a bunch of weeder math classes. I don't necessarily view my job as any harder than anyone elses'. But I did have access to high-quality preparation along the way for quantitative work. This is, sadly, less common than it ought to be.
RESPONSE B: Just so happens a friend my mine teaches in this field. She said there has been a decline in students, particularly from public schools. Extra class time, labs and difficult material seems to have dissuaded many. This is according to her.
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.