label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
B | POST: obtained one. What do you think matters more, having done a PhD at a very good university (I mean Cambridge/Oxford league) or having worked with one of the biggest names in your field at a less prestigious university (still top 1% of the world, but not top 5-10 globally). I recently joined a program at a top 1% university where my third supervisor (so, the one least invested) is perhaps the second if not the first most famous person in my field in terms of research output, reputation, etc. This is also the field I see myself staying in, at least for now. My primary and secondary supervisors (it's a DTP, hence the multiple supervisors) are not as big in terms of reputation, but very supportive and knowledgeable, and still recognized and very well appreciated for their work. This PhD was my second best option - I could not join a top 5 of the world university after receiving a conditional offer due to insufficient funding. I notice the thought/realization still haunts me, even though I'm generally very happy with these first few months of my PhD and there haven't been any red flags thus far. My third supervisor, the big name, is not going to be very invested in me - she is incredibly busy. But her name will likely be on my papers, which I see as an advantage. Any thoughts? What do you think matters more or how have either a university's prestige or your link to a very big name in your field impacted your career, motivation, prospects, happiness, etc.? Thanks in advance! :)
RESPONSE A: Networking via your third supervisor could be extremely valuable if nothing else
RESPONSE B: Within academic circles, I'd always prioritize the reputation of the supervisor over the reputation of the university. Your supervisor will be the one writing recommendation letters, not the university. When we hire, we barely look at the university and are more interested in who the supervisor was. And most important of all is the quality of the research of the applicant. Sounds like you have a great situation. In industry, the prestigious university may be more advantageous, simply because it is impossible for a recruiter to know the big names in the many academic fields. But I don't have experience with this.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: in terms of reputation, but very supportive and knowledgeable, and still recognized and very well appreciated for their work. This PhD was my second best option - I could not join a top 5 of the world university after receiving a conditional offer due to insufficient funding. I notice the thought/realization still haunts me, even though I'm generally very happy with these first few months of my PhD and there haven't been any red flags thus far. My third supervisor, the big name, is not going to be very invested in me - she is incredibly busy. But her name will likely be on my papers, which I see as an advantage. Any thoughts? What do you think matters more or how have either a university's prestige or your link to a very big name in your field impacted your career, motivation, prospects, happiness, etc.? Thanks in advance! :)
RESPONSE A: Not a neuroscientist so take this advice with a pinch of salt, but at the career stage you’re at the only thing that matters about your institution is that it facilitates good research from you. Good universities and good supervisors still produce dud PhD graduates. The most important thing for your career now is doing quality science and building networks - both with ECRs at an equivalent stage and with big names in your field. Your supervisor having a good rep can help with the latter, but not as much as you can help yourself by being visible. Social media and conference attendance is great for this. That is to say, don’t fret about your current situation. You’ve 3-4 years to set the next stage of your career up and thinking about what could have been at another university won’t help that.
RESPONSE B: While a fancy uni definitely helps, the work you do is definitely the most important for your future opportunities. Typically that is best served by supportive supervisors, and them having a good reputation in the field also helps. It sounds like you’re well-supported in your current position, and perhaps you’ll be able to leverage that Big Name on your publications. (Source: DPhil from Oxford, postdoc at Cambridge, and now Lecturer at slightly less fancy institution. Many of my colleagues at all of those places had PhDs from non-Oxbridge places.)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: if not the first most famous person in my field in terms of research output, reputation, etc. This is also the field I see myself staying in, at least for now. My primary and secondary supervisors (it's a DTP, hence the multiple supervisors) are not as big in terms of reputation, but very supportive and knowledgeable, and still recognized and very well appreciated for their work. This PhD was my second best option - I could not join a top 5 of the world university after receiving a conditional offer due to insufficient funding. I notice the thought/realization still haunts me, even though I'm generally very happy with these first few months of my PhD and there haven't been any red flags thus far. My third supervisor, the big name, is not going to be very invested in me - she is incredibly busy. But her name will likely be on my papers, which I see as an advantage. Any thoughts? What do you think matters more or how have either a university's prestige or your link to a very big name in your field impacted your career, motivation, prospects, happiness, etc.? Thanks in advance! :)
RESPONSE A: To answer your question, the name of your advisor means more than the university. With that said, what matters significantly more is your relationship with your advisor. Without a good relationship, the names of the advisor or the university mean anything. The big name will be more important for your postdoc.
RESPONSE B: Not a neuroscientist so take this advice with a pinch of salt, but at the career stage you’re at the only thing that matters about your institution is that it facilitates good research from you. Good universities and good supervisors still produce dud PhD graduates. The most important thing for your career now is doing quality science and building networks - both with ECRs at an equivalent stage and with big names in your field. Your supervisor having a good rep can help with the latter, but not as much as you can help yourself by being visible. Social media and conference attendance is great for this. That is to say, don’t fret about your current situation. You’ve 3-4 years to set the next stage of your career up and thinking about what could have been at another university won’t help that.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How long should I wait after being hired in a lab to try and seek graduate education there? I got a job in a prestigious academic life science research lab. They’re a sister institution to a large university and have free flow of faculty and students in multiple grad programs. The lab I was hired in has multiple grad students and the institution is supportive of employees seeking advanced degrees. I start in a couple weeks and I’m wondering how long I should wait to mention that I’d like to do a graduate program and establish a timeline for that. I’m assuming this is understood that I want to pursue higher ed because they asked if that’s something I’d be interested in in my interview. Is there an etiquette in regard to how long I should wait to mention anything? Any advice is welcome.
RESPONSE A: If you are going for a PhD in life science, it is NOT like most other advanced degrees where you can just take classes while you're working/slowly transition to a degree program. You will have to be admitted into the PhD program through the regular application cycle. It will almost certainly be impossible to "establish a timeline" for a graduate program, since you must be admitted through the regular applicant pool first. I am a postdoc a top-5 US biomedical institution. Our research associates/technicians get exactly zero special treatment for PhD programs, are frequently denied admission, and often discouraged to even apply unless their PI can write a strong recommendation for them on the basis of their work.
RESPONSE B: I'm in a similar situation but wanting to ask about remote work. I am not planning to ask about it for at least a year for two reasons. 1) I want to make sure I even like the job before I go through any hurdles. 2) Want them to like/appreciate me to be willing to work with me on this. Also it comes down to company policy, so that should be the first thing to look into.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: a prestigious academic life science research lab. They’re a sister institution to a large university and have free flow of faculty and students in multiple grad programs. The lab I was hired in has multiple grad students and the institution is supportive of employees seeking advanced degrees. I start in a couple weeks and I’m wondering how long I should wait to mention that I’d like to do a graduate program and establish a timeline for that. I’m assuming this is understood that I want to pursue higher ed because they asked if that’s something I’d be interested in in my interview. Is there an etiquette in regard to how long I should wait to mention anything? Any advice is welcome.
RESPONSE A: I'm surprised your medium-term goals wouldn't have come up in your interviews? Assuming you're in an RA-type role and coming directly out of your BSc, going to graduate or medical school is generally the expectation, typically 1-2.5 years after joining. Your supervisor will probably want you to stay on the longer side, as training in biology takes a while. Since you're off-cycle, your boss is probably expecting you to stay 1.5 or 2.5 years and hoping for the latter. You should talk to them from the outset about this and develop a timeline, discuss your expect contributions, how to get on papers/conference presentations to support your graduate applications. If graduate school is your goal, you need to be talking with your supervisor about these sorts of professional development goals on a continual basis.
RESPONSE B: If you are going for a PhD in life science, it is NOT like most other advanced degrees where you can just take classes while you're working/slowly transition to a degree program. You will have to be admitted into the PhD program through the regular application cycle. It will almost certainly be impossible to "establish a timeline" for a graduate program, since you must be admitted through the regular applicant pool first. I am a postdoc a top-5 US biomedical institution. Our research associates/technicians get exactly zero special treatment for PhD programs, are frequently denied admission, and often discouraged to even apply unless their PI can write a strong recommendation for them on the basis of their work.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How long should I wait after being hired in a lab to try and seek graduate education there? I got a job in a prestigious academic life science research lab. They’re a sister institution to a large university and have free flow of faculty and students in multiple grad programs. The lab I was hired in has multiple grad students and the institution is supportive of employees seeking advanced degrees. I start in a couple weeks and I’m wondering how long I should wait to mention that I’d like to do a graduate program and establish a timeline for that. I’m assuming this is understood that I want to pursue higher ed because they asked if that’s something I’d be interested in in my interview. Is there an etiquette in regard to how long I should wait to mention anything? Any advice is welcome.
RESPONSE A: If you are going for a PhD in life science, it is NOT like most other advanced degrees where you can just take classes while you're working/slowly transition to a degree program. You will have to be admitted into the PhD program through the regular application cycle. It will almost certainly be impossible to "establish a timeline" for a graduate program, since you must be admitted through the regular applicant pool first. I am a postdoc a top-5 US biomedical institution. Our research associates/technicians get exactly zero special treatment for PhD programs, are frequently denied admission, and often discouraged to even apply unless their PI can write a strong recommendation for them on the basis of their work.
RESPONSE B: Are you qualified and competitive for the grad program there? You don't get into the grad program at a place where you happen to be a tech or an RA just because you happen to be a tech or RA. Do you think you can do this job full time and also do a grad program in a prestigious life science dept? This will make you look like you only took the job to try to back door into the grad program. You don't typically get tuition benefits for some time though your school may be different. Did you not look at the benefits package that outlines tuition benefits and limitations ?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: degrees. I start in a couple weeks and I’m wondering how long I should wait to mention that I’d like to do a graduate program and establish a timeline for that. I’m assuming this is understood that I want to pursue higher ed because they asked if that’s something I’d be interested in in my interview. Is there an etiquette in regard to how long I should wait to mention anything? Any advice is welcome.
RESPONSE A: I understand not explicitly disclosing this in an initial interview, actually. I made that choice and it actually garnered some less than enthusiastic responses from PIs who were interviewing me. They were not happy that the jobs they were interviewing me for were to help me go on to something else. Needless to say, I did not get those jobs. It's a tricky thing to manage and you have to feel it out sometimes. With that said, since your institution is supportive, then the sooner you start working towards a long term plan for grad school, the better. Training and getting good data takes time and you're on a timeline. Get a solid 2 years in before applying to graduate school. I would not stay for more than 3 years though... When you do apply to graduate school, I would apply to quite a few. You don't always get into the school where you were a tech/research assistant in. This is due to a bunch of reasons that I won't bore you with. Lol. Just my thoughts on the matter.
RESPONSE B: If you are going for a PhD in life science, it is NOT like most other advanced degrees where you can just take classes while you're working/slowly transition to a degree program. You will have to be admitted into the PhD program through the regular application cycle. It will almost certainly be impossible to "establish a timeline" for a graduate program, since you must be admitted through the regular applicant pool first. I am a postdoc a top-5 US biomedical institution. Our research associates/technicians get exactly zero special treatment for PhD programs, are frequently denied admission, and often discouraged to even apply unless their PI can write a strong recommendation for them on the basis of their work.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: In your institution, what are the odds of a PhD candidate getting a pay raise? Hi all, Some background to this question. My PhD candidacy is as an internal employee of the university, so in that position we get full salary, benefits and so on. Now, with that as a starting point. Within this position things have been going quite well and I have luckily been involved in things above and beyond the regular 'workload' of a PhD candidate, e.g. My supervisor and I do a project involving big names in our field from Stanford and Harvard and I've personally had numerous (national) media report on my work, always with of course our faculty's name attached. While I enjoy my job a lot, obviously none of us work just for fun. So I'm contemplating discussing with my direct supervisor or HR to ask for an increase in salary that fits with the work I am doing that benefits both the law faculty and me. My main worry is that they will say: 'Yes you've been doing many things but that is part of any PhD candidacy and does not warrant extra salary.'. However, in that case, no PhD could ever get a salary increase, and that seems ridiculous. So how do you look at this matter?
RESPONSE A: Lol not happening at an individual level.
RESPONSE B: 100% because we work under a national collective bargaining agreement that 1. gives an increase each year to account for the extra year of experience you now have and 2. gives an overall increase to wages most years as a result of the negotiations for the agreement that depends on the overall economic situation in the country and the specific sector. Given the current high inflation it's gonna be 6% by january 1st and another 4% november 1st for next year as far as I can tell. More than the standard increase is very rare. You might negotiate to start at a higher experience level in terms of wage when you get hired, but further increases would have to be from a change in function to a higher paid one.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: In your institution, what are the odds of a PhD candidate getting a pay raise? Hi all, Some background to this question. My PhD candidacy is as an internal employee of the university, so in that position we get full salary, benefits and so on. Now, with that as a starting point. Within this position things have been going quite well and I have luckily been involved in things above and beyond the regular 'workload' of a PhD candidate, e.g. My supervisor and I do a project involving big names in our field from Stanford and Harvard and I've personally had numerous (national) media report on my work, always with of course our faculty's name attached. While I enjoy my job a lot, obviously none of us work just for fun. So I'm contemplating discussing with my direct supervisor or HR to ask for an increase in salary that fits with the work I am doing that benefits both the law faculty and me. My main worry is that they will say: 'Yes you've been doing many things but that is part of any PhD candidacy and does not warrant extra salary.'. However, in that case, no PhD could ever get a salary increase, and that seems ridiculous. So how do you look at this matter?
RESPONSE A: We got one every time the programme we saw as our biggest rival got one after we informed the chair about it ;)
RESPONSE B: Lol not happening at an individual level.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: In your institution, what are the odds of a PhD candidate getting a pay raise? Hi all, Some background to this question. My PhD candidacy is as an internal employee of the university, so in that position we get full salary, benefits and so on. Now, with that as a starting point. Within this position things have been going quite well and I have luckily been involved in things above and beyond the regular 'workload' of a PhD candidate, e.g. My supervisor and I do a project involving big names in our field from Stanford and Harvard and I've personally had numerous (national) media report on my work, always with of course our faculty's name attached. While I enjoy my job a lot, obviously none of us work just for fun. So I'm contemplating discussing with my direct supervisor or HR to ask for an increase in salary that fits with the work I am doing that benefits both the law faculty and me. My main worry is that they will say: 'Yes you've been doing many things but that is part of any PhD candidacy and does not warrant extra salary.'. However, in that case, no PhD could ever get a salary increase, and that seems ridiculous. So how do you look at this matter?
RESPONSE A: I got a raise upon passing candidacy, but that is because I am employed full-time as a research associate rather than as a part of my PhD program and my job is not tied to my studies. When I graduate, I will still be employed but will receive another pay bump and promotion to senior research associate. So, yes, it's possible, but not usually if your employment is directly tied to your studies. And universities typically have raise schedules and less flexibility around when and how much raises can be compared to industry, so ymmv...
RESPONSE B: Somewhere between zero and less than that.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: In your institution, what are the odds of a PhD candidate getting a pay raise? Hi all, Some background to this question. My PhD candidacy is as an internal employee of the university, so in that position we get full salary, benefits and so on. Now, with that as a starting point. Within this position things have been going quite well and I have luckily been involved in things above and beyond the regular 'workload' of a PhD candidate, e.g. My supervisor and I do a project involving big names in our field from Stanford and Harvard and I've personally had numerous (national) media report on my work, always with of course our faculty's name attached. While I enjoy my job a lot, obviously none of us work just for fun. So I'm contemplating discussing with my direct supervisor or HR to ask for an increase in salary that fits with the work I am doing that benefits both the law faculty and me. My main worry is that they will say: 'Yes you've been doing many things but that is part of any PhD candidacy and does not warrant extra salary.'. However, in that case, no PhD could ever get a salary increase, and that seems ridiculous. So how do you look at this matter?
RESPONSE A: Somewhere between zero and less than that.
RESPONSE B: We got one every time the programme we saw as our biggest rival got one after we informed the chair about it ;)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: In your institution, what are the odds of a PhD candidate getting a pay raise? Hi all, Some background to this question. My PhD candidacy is as an internal employee of the university, so in that position we get full salary, benefits and so on. Now, with that as a starting point. Within this position things have been going quite well and I have luckily been involved in things above and beyond the regular 'workload' of a PhD candidate, e.g. My supervisor and I do a project involving big names in our field from Stanford and Harvard and I've personally had numerous (national) media report on my work, always with of course our faculty's name attached. While I enjoy my job a lot, obviously none of us work just for fun. So I'm contemplating discussing with my direct supervisor or HR to ask for an increase in salary that fits with the work I am doing that benefits both the law faculty and me. My main worry is that they will say: 'Yes you've been doing many things but that is part of any PhD candidacy and does not warrant extra salary.'. However, in that case, no PhD could ever get a salary increase, and that seems ridiculous. So how do you look at this matter?
RESPONSE A: Are you unionized or not? If so, you likely get cost of living raises. If not, YMMV. Individual raises for merit? Nope. Even faculty generally can’t get those without coming to the dean with a competing offer.
RESPONSE B: I got a raise upon passing candidacy, but that is because I am employed full-time as a research associate rather than as a part of my PhD program and my job is not tied to my studies. When I graduate, I will still be employed but will receive another pay bump and promotion to senior research associate. So, yes, it's possible, but not usually if your employment is directly tied to your studies. And universities typically have raise schedules and less flexibility around when and how much raises can be compared to industry, so ymmv...
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: PhD students, how busy are you at the end of the semester? Do you get busier when the semester is just about to end? Specify what year you are in as well
RESPONSE A: I don't really have time to answer this to be honest.
RESPONSE B: Depends on whether you’re taking classes, or journal clubs for classes, or ABD. First few years maybe a bit busier if you have final projects. Journal clubs, nah. ABD the semester ceases to have meaning unless you’re a TA and have a heavy grading load
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: PhD students, how busy are you at the end of the semester? Do you get busier when the semester is just about to end? Specify what year you are in as well
RESPONSE A: I don't really have time to answer this to be honest.
RESPONSE B: Thanks for asking. ​ Well I'm just about to submit my thesis, so finishing that off in the evening whilst I started a new job.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: PhD students, how busy are you at the end of the semester? Do you get busier when the semester is just about to end? Specify what year you are in as well
RESPONSE A: End of spring term is tends to be busy because I am usually prepping for conferences. Otherwise it just depends on whether I am teaching and have stuff to grade or not.
RESPONSE B: I don't really have time to answer this to be honest.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: PhD students, how busy are you at the end of the semester? Do you get busier when the semester is just about to end? Specify what year you are in as well
RESPONSE A: I don't really have time to answer this to be honest.
RESPONSE B: I'm a second year, biology... I'm not super busy by design. I didn't take classes this semester so I can focus on getting my experiments to work and my undergrads trained to perform them. The class I taught is a 10 week lab course, I stayed on top of my grading though the semester so it's been a non issue. Now I'm working on grants, which I can then repurpose as my proposal. The try hards that do too much in my department are all stressed out by their own poor planning and lack of communication with their advisor.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: PhD students, how busy are you at the end of the semester? Do you get busier when the semester is just about to end? Specify what year you are in as well
RESPONSE A: I don't really have time to answer this to be honest.
RESPONSE B: Well, let's see: I've worked all day; it's now after dinner, and I still haven't gotten to the most important task on my to-do list. So I'll work on that tonight. It's been like this for a couple of weeks now, and it will continue like this for another two weeks. I'm ABD. Some of my current workload comes from TAships, some from working at the library writing center, and some comes from contracting work I've taken on the side. The latter wasn't necessary for progress in my degree or even for finances, but is crucial experience for what my job will actually look like since I'm not going into academia. It's also just a day here or there, but it adds to the overall workload. You'll notice I didn't even mention my thesis in my current workload. I will get back to making progress on that after this month of extreme business is over. So all-in-all, grad school is busy...especially at the end of the semester, and especially if you're working as a TA and therefore grading final papers and exams.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it inappropriate to give a thank you gift to my supervisor? I'm working on my honours thesis at the moment to be submitted at the end of this year. I had some unexpected problems with my original supervisor, and I now have a new supervisor who has been fantastic. She very much rescued the project and has enabled me to finish it, and has taken me on unexpectedly on top of her existing workload of students/classes etc. I was thinking of getting her some flowers or a small thank you present that I'd give her after the grades are released (regardless of what mark my thesis receives) as a thank you for going above and beyond to help me. Would this be inappropriate? Thanks in advance!
RESPONSE A: On a previous question, another poster made the following statement that I have found helpful: in academia, thank you notes/cards go up the food chain; gifts go down.
RESPONSE B: You bet. But definitely not something that you can buy. Cookies and/or a nice card are the best gifts. As is a thoughtful thank you email since they can put it into their file for things like promotion.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it inappropriate to give a thank you gift to my supervisor? I'm working on my honours thesis at the moment to be submitted at the end of this year. I had some unexpected problems with my original supervisor, and I now have a new supervisor who has been fantastic. She very much rescued the project and has enabled me to finish it, and has taken me on unexpectedly on top of her existing workload of students/classes etc. I was thinking of getting her some flowers or a small thank you present that I'd give her after the grades are released (regardless of what mark my thesis receives) as a thank you for going above and beyond to help me. Would this be inappropriate? Thanks in advance!
RESPONSE A: I gave small gifts to all my favorite professors after I graduated college. As long as the gift is small (<$30) it's fine.
RESPONSE B: You bet. But definitely not something that you can buy. Cookies and/or a nice card are the best gifts. As is a thoughtful thank you email since they can put it into their file for things like promotion.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it inappropriate to give a thank you gift to my supervisor? I'm working on my honours thesis at the moment to be submitted at the end of this year. I had some unexpected problems with my original supervisor, and I now have a new supervisor who has been fantastic. She very much rescued the project and has enabled me to finish it, and has taken me on unexpectedly on top of her existing workload of students/classes etc. I was thinking of getting her some flowers or a small thank you present that I'd give her after the grades are released (regardless of what mark my thesis receives) as a thank you for going above and beyond to help me. Would this be inappropriate? Thanks in advance!
RESPONSE A: You need to check what constitutes a small gift in your country and/or university. In the US, university employees cannot receive gifts valued more than $100, with some schools going down for $50.
RESPONSE B: You bet. But definitely not something that you can buy. Cookies and/or a nice card are the best gifts. As is a thoughtful thank you email since they can put it into their file for things like promotion.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it inappropriate to give a thank you gift to my supervisor? I'm working on my honours thesis at the moment to be submitted at the end of this year. I had some unexpected problems with my original supervisor, and I now have a new supervisor who has been fantastic. She very much rescued the project and has enabled me to finish it, and has taken me on unexpectedly on top of her existing workload of students/classes etc. I was thinking of getting her some flowers or a small thank you present that I'd give her after the grades are released (regardless of what mark my thesis receives) as a thank you for going above and beyond to help me. Would this be inappropriate? Thanks in advance!
RESPONSE A: You bet. But definitely not something that you can buy. Cookies and/or a nice card are the best gifts. As is a thoughtful thank you email since they can put it into their file for things like promotion.
RESPONSE B: A small gift is surely appreciated, especially with a well written note! In the past I received a bottle of wine (actually the student brought a bottle every time he was in town and visited to say hi, for a couple of years!). I also received a nice pen (that I still use). And I would love flowers/plants (but for some reason they are mostly intended for women). Cookies and food in general is also cool.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Does anyone really use something else than Google Scholar (+Forward/Backward Search) and Sci-Hub? Is there anyone who is really using anything else but Google Scholar and forward backward search? I tried using other searches/databases but I will either get the same results or worse results. Is anyone really not using sci-hub? Even if I have access to quite some databases, it seems Sci-Hub is much faster and much more convenient. I am just interested in how other people do research. Like in real, not from any YouTube Tutorial that explains how to do research. What do you really do? Because for me it is basically limited to Scholar + Forward/Backward search and Sci-Hub.
RESPONSE A: What is forward/backward search?
RESPONSE B: I'm in social science and I almost exclusively use JSTOR and my school's library databases, and I'll go directly to major journals if I think they'll have anything close to what I'm looking for. I don't think I've ever used Google Scholar, at least substantially.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Does anyone really use something else than Google Scholar (+Forward/Backward Search) and Sci-Hub? Is there anyone who is really using anything else but Google Scholar and forward backward search? I tried using other searches/databases but I will either get the same results or worse results. Is anyone really not using sci-hub? Even if I have access to quite some databases, it seems Sci-Hub is much faster and much more convenient. I am just interested in how other people do research. Like in real, not from any YouTube Tutorial that explains how to do research. What do you really do? Because for me it is basically limited to Scholar + Forward/Backward search and Sci-Hub.
RESPONSE A: I use Scopus and Google Scholar. I use Scopus for browsing through a researcher's scientific output, since it seems to be the best at attributing work to an individual, doesn't pollute results with conference abstracts like Google Scholar does and doesn't have a lag like Web of Science. I remember Web of Science taking half a year to index my paper and the interface has a very dated 90's, 2000's feel, so I prefer not using it. I know of some people skimming through recent arXiv submissions in their field ever so often and I sometimes check submissions of top researchers in my field to get to know their most recent results before their papers go through the often very lengthy review process. I tend to visit the publisher's website first when looking for a specific paper before going to Sci-Hub. I've found that the publisher's recommended similar articles are sometimes surprisingly helpful. I do also subscribe to tables of contents of several journals in my field and skim them for relevant research.
RESPONSE B: I'm in social science and I almost exclusively use JSTOR and my school's library databases, and I'll go directly to major journals if I think they'll have anything close to what I'm looking for. I don't think I've ever used Google Scholar, at least substantially.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Does anyone really use something else than Google Scholar (+Forward/Backward Search) and Sci-Hub? Is there anyone who is really using anything else but Google Scholar and forward backward search? I tried using other searches/databases but I will either get the same results or worse results. Is anyone really not using sci-hub? Even if I have access to quite some databases, it seems Sci-Hub is much faster and much more convenient. I am just interested in how other people do research. Like in real, not from any YouTube Tutorial that explains how to do research. What do you really do? Because for me it is basically limited to Scholar + Forward/Backward search and Sci-Hub.
RESPONSE A: I use databases specific to my field, such as ERIC (basically the Education equivalent of Pubmed) as well as other more specialized databases (the largest of which is closing unfortunately, which is quite a loss for my field).
RESPONSE B: I'm in social science and I almost exclusively use JSTOR and my school's library databases, and I'll go directly to major journals if I think they'll have anything close to what I'm looking for. I don't think I've ever used Google Scholar, at least substantially.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Does anyone really use something else than Google Scholar (+Forward/Backward Search) and Sci-Hub? Is there anyone who is really using anything else but Google Scholar and forward backward search? I tried using other searches/databases but I will either get the same results or worse results. Is anyone really not using sci-hub? Even if I have access to quite some databases, it seems Sci-Hub is much faster and much more convenient. I am just interested in how other people do research. Like in real, not from any YouTube Tutorial that explains how to do research. What do you really do? Because for me it is basically limited to Scholar + Forward/Backward search and Sci-Hub.
RESPONSE A: I'm in astronomy, so I only use ADS and astro-ph. I've never used sci-hub, and only ever used google scholar to see how different it thinks my citation metrics are from ADS.
RESPONSE B: I'm in social science and I almost exclusively use JSTOR and my school's library databases, and I'll go directly to major journals if I think they'll have anything close to what I'm looking for. I don't think I've ever used Google Scholar, at least substantially.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Does anyone really use something else than Google Scholar (+Forward/Backward Search) and Sci-Hub? Is there anyone who is really using anything else but Google Scholar and forward backward search? I tried using other searches/databases but I will either get the same results or worse results. Is anyone really not using sci-hub? Even if I have access to quite some databases, it seems Sci-Hub is much faster and much more convenient. I am just interested in how other people do research. Like in real, not from any YouTube Tutorial that explains how to do research. What do you really do? Because for me it is basically limited to Scholar + Forward/Backward search and Sci-Hub.
RESPONSE A: I don't use Sci-Hub and not sure why you would if you're part of a major university? (I'm climate science). ​
RESPONSE B: I'm in social science and I almost exclusively use JSTOR and my school's library databases, and I'll go directly to major journals if I think they'll have anything close to what I'm looking for. I don't think I've ever used Google Scholar, at least substantially.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Does submitting journal articles for review give anyone else massive anxiety? I feel like I should be relieved. I've spent over 4 months on this paper(Start preliminary research in september did the bulk of writing in october then gave myself time to edit until now), and now I'm finally done. But I can't get rid of the sneaking suspicion I am going to get rejected. I've been told my writing is good by my professors but I'm not sure it is to the level of being published, especially as an undergrad, and the subject matter of the essay is so specialized I can't submit it to any other journal.
RESPONSE A: Four months to finish a paper, from preliminary research to submission, is quite impressive. Regardless the outcome you should be proud of yourself.
RESPONSE B: It'll get rejected and you will be just like me and every other scientist that has ever submitted a manuscript in the last 50 years. It's OK to be rejected. Take the comments, address them, and resubmit.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Does submitting journal articles for review give anyone else massive anxiety? I feel like I should be relieved. I've spent over 4 months on this paper(Start preliminary research in september did the bulk of writing in october then gave myself time to edit until now), and now I'm finally done. But I can't get rid of the sneaking suspicion I am going to get rejected. I've been told my writing is good by my professors but I'm not sure it is to the level of being published, especially as an undergrad, and the subject matter of the essay is so specialized I can't submit it to any other journal.
RESPONSE A: Four months to finish a paper, from preliminary research to submission, is quite impressive. Regardless the outcome you should be proud of yourself.
RESPONSE B: Submit it now! I am giving you permission to let it go. It’s like the lottery. You cannot win unless you play. Let the reviewers decide if it is worthy. And be prepared to get rejected. That is all part of the process. In academia, you will always get way more rejections than acceptances. And the journal may give you feedback that will help you to determine what to fix and where else to submit it. Best of luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Does submitting journal articles for review give anyone else massive anxiety? I feel like I should be relieved. I've spent over 4 months on this paper(Start preliminary research in september did the bulk of writing in october then gave myself time to edit until now), and now I'm finally done. But I can't get rid of the sneaking suspicion I am going to get rejected. I've been told my writing is good by my professors but I'm not sure it is to the level of being published, especially as an undergrad, and the subject matter of the essay is so specialized I can't submit it to any other journal.
RESPONSE A: If you’re never getting rejected you’re not sending your papers to the right journals. You have to get used to it, even when the reasons for rejection are arbitrary or plain wrong.
RESPONSE B: I feel you!!! My reviewers are taking ages to get back to me and until my supervisor assured me it’s cause they’re “in a holiday mood”, I was so convinced it was because they thought my paper was terrible and boring 😅
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Does submitting journal articles for review give anyone else massive anxiety? I feel like I should be relieved. I've spent over 4 months on this paper(Start preliminary research in september did the bulk of writing in october then gave myself time to edit until now), and now I'm finally done. But I can't get rid of the sneaking suspicion I am going to get rejected. I've been told my writing is good by my professors but I'm not sure it is to the level of being published, especially as an undergrad, and the subject matter of the essay is so specialized I can't submit it to any other journal.
RESPONSE A: If you’re never getting rejected you’re not sending your papers to the right journals. You have to get used to it, even when the reasons for rejection are arbitrary or plain wrong.
RESPONSE B: I had my first ever paper rejected about a month after I submitted it. 1 reviewer was really helpful with their comments, while the other basically told me I don't know how to read and demanded additional tests that were impossible since we didn't have the means and now isn't the time to travel and collaborate. It definitely stung at first, though the silver lining is they asked us to resubmit with major revisions (tbh they weren't that major but whatever). Me and my collaborators worked on it for 2 months and sent it back in a week ago. The worst thing they can say is no and give you some critiques you can use to grow from. They may even suggest journals that are a better fit that you've never heard of so you can make tweaks and send it somewhere it may be better recieved. There's always a niche journal somewhere. Keep your head up!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Does submitting journal articles for review give anyone else massive anxiety? I feel like I should be relieved. I've spent over 4 months on this paper(Start preliminary research in september did the bulk of writing in october then gave myself time to edit until now), and now I'm finally done. But I can't get rid of the sneaking suspicion I am going to get rejected. I've been told my writing is good by my professors but I'm not sure it is to the level of being published, especially as an undergrad, and the subject matter of the essay is so specialized I can't submit it to any other journal.
RESPONSE A: Imagine when you are in bio lab research (I was in molecular biology, electrophisiology, etc, for neuroscience) and papers take more than 1-2 years... sometimes since when you first submit, till you end all referees suggestions it can take an enture year or more!! Yes, it is stressful and frustrating. But you get used to get rejected... and then you discover that each time that happens, the changes you make actually improve your research! So it becomes not so bad!! Good luck!!!
RESPONSE B: A tip for a happy academic life: publication is beyond your control, so celebrate submitting.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Does my PhD Dissertation Really Matter!? Does anyone actually read it?? I'm currently beginning to write my dissertation and wondering if it really matters how much effort I put into it? For 2 reasons: - I would rather spend my time on wrapping up my research and writing my teaching / research statements - I know for a fact that my advisor and committee will barely skim my dissertation and am wondering if anyone else outside of that will even look at it?
RESPONSE A: Won't you be proud of yourself if you do the best you can do? Being honest with yourself? Did you do your dissertation because it's important to you and matters something to you or because everyone does or they told you to do that?
RESPONSE B: Does it matter? Yes Will anyone read it? No
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Does my PhD Dissertation Really Matter!? Does anyone actually read it?? I'm currently beginning to write my dissertation and wondering if it really matters how much effort I put into it? For 2 reasons: - I would rather spend my time on wrapping up my research and writing my teaching / research statements - I know for a fact that my advisor and committee will barely skim my dissertation and am wondering if anyone else outside of that will even look at it?
RESPONSE A: This is a common phase of writing up your thesis, you're nearly done. The main reason to do a good job on it, is that otherwise you'll feel haunted every time you look at your 'Dr.' title, knowing you could have done it properly and didn't. \[at the other end of the spectrum, don't feel like you have to obsess over making the tense of every single sentence consistent with every other one at 3 am - worst case, your examiner will pick you up on it later\]
RESPONSE B: I'm surprised everyone always says that noone will read your PhD thesis. Yes, not many people will, but while working on my master's thesis (EU system) I found PhD theses a good resource: papers are often very concise for someone that's not super deep into the field yet, and other resources don't go into enough depth. PhD theses generally cover all the content of these papers, but in one coherent document and without concessions due to pagelimits or so. Granted, I read about half of each thesis and only looked at 3, but at that ratio you would expect, on average, someone to stumble across your thesis and use it as a guide into the (niche) field. Maybe my approach was just unusual or it could be field-specific whether theses are this useful.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: of it is ACTUALLY USEFUL, or even understandable to the outside world. Like "hey, has anyone checked to see if any of our local governments have actually applied the findings in that last paper on the nitrogen cycle to the upcoming discussions on agricultural subsidies?" "Has anyone actually talked to local city officials about the latest paper on the heat island effect and asked them what they're going to do to implement some of the recommendations?" The answer is usually something vague about scheduling a "workshop" or a "webinar", but little else. Because that's not our job, we just "research", we just "present findings". And after so much resentment towards this building up in me, I've realized the problem isn't that the work itself is bad, the problem is that maybe I'm just not cut out for the work. I've realized I need to DO something. I need to APPLY things to the real world. I've thought for a while that I might like working in local/city government actually taking findings from research and applying them to local environmental issues and communities. Which got me wondering: is it actually part of policymakers' job to just read new research and determine how they can apply it to policies? Does such a job exist in governments (local or otherwise) where someone is literally just paid to comb through new research and determine what findings can be applied to local problems, at what cost and what would be the trade-offs? From where I'm sitting in academia, it certainly doesn't seem like it given the limited interaction my department seems to have with anything related to policy, but maybe we're just really that isolated. If anyone has any suggestions for such jobs, either you already work in one or know of an example of one, I would really love to hear it. I feel in desperate need of some inspiration so I don't end up hating working in this field.
RESPONSE A: Have you checked into your national or the European environmental policy agency?
RESPONSE B: A few people in my PhD cohort work in the UK Civil Service in science advisory roles doing things similar to what you describe. Of course, whether their advice is actually _acted_ upon is another question. The government also apparently doesn't subscribe to any journals lol.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Salary freeze for another year. Anyone else experiencing this? TT faculty here. Our university has kept salaries stagnant for yet another year (they claim it is due to COVID). I was wondering if others are experiencing this and whether it was worth jumping ship to another institution.
RESPONSE A: The CSU and UC systems did receive raises, but other systems I have friends at did not get them.
RESPONSE B: Oddly, we had been flat for 2 years before COVID, then my state school (in the south) got flush with federal dollars during COVID so we actually got across the board raises last year. It was only 2%, but hey, better than nothing, which is what we typically get. Jumping from one TT job to another for a COLA-esque raise seems...ill-advised, but if the jump nets you a significant raise plus more historically consistent raises then sure, why not?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Salary freeze for another year. Anyone else experiencing this? TT faculty here. Our university has kept salaries stagnant for yet another year (they claim it is due to COVID). I was wondering if others are experiencing this and whether it was worth jumping ship to another institution.
RESPONSE A: I was TT in a 2nd tier university that had pay freezes in effect for 3+ years while I was at the Assistant Prof level. I was kicking butt, getting big grants, etc., and planned to stay indefinitely, but the pay freeze totally derailed my ability to get to a sustainable and fair long term base salary. By the time I went up for tenure I realized that the pay they were going to be able to offer me was nowhere near what I needed for the amount of work I was putting in. I got another scientific job offer (non-TT) at 50% higher salary, thinking I could use this to fix my salary and stay, and went to talk to the Dean about getting an adjustment. He told me that they had already spent all of the adjustment money that year. Needless to say I left the university shortly afterwards for and it was a great move both financially and career wise. (I had to move away from extended family, though, and that is another story). TLDR: A pay freeze when inflation is >7% is a big pay cut. One year is not the end of the world but if you are getting the feeling that they aren't able to take care of you properly, you're probably right. You may need to leave (or at least show that you are thinking about it) to get market rate somewhere else.
RESPONSE B: The CSU and UC systems did receive raises, but other systems I have friends at did not get them.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Salary freeze for another year. Anyone else experiencing this? TT faculty here. Our university has kept salaries stagnant for yet another year (they claim it is due to COVID). I was wondering if others are experiencing this and whether it was worth jumping ship to another institution.
RESPONSE A: We're unionized, so the pay indices are based on the collective bargaining agreements already negotiated.
RESPONSE B: I was TT in a 2nd tier university that had pay freezes in effect for 3+ years while I was at the Assistant Prof level. I was kicking butt, getting big grants, etc., and planned to stay indefinitely, but the pay freeze totally derailed my ability to get to a sustainable and fair long term base salary. By the time I went up for tenure I realized that the pay they were going to be able to offer me was nowhere near what I needed for the amount of work I was putting in. I got another scientific job offer (non-TT) at 50% higher salary, thinking I could use this to fix my salary and stay, and went to talk to the Dean about getting an adjustment. He told me that they had already spent all of the adjustment money that year. Needless to say I left the university shortly afterwards for and it was a great move both financially and career wise. (I had to move away from extended family, though, and that is another story). TLDR: A pay freeze when inflation is >7% is a big pay cut. One year is not the end of the world but if you are getting the feeling that they aren't able to take care of you properly, you're probably right. You may need to leave (or at least show that you are thinking about it) to get market rate somewhere else.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Salary freeze for another year. Anyone else experiencing this? TT faculty here. Our university has kept salaries stagnant for yet another year (they claim it is due to COVID). I was wondering if others are experiencing this and whether it was worth jumping ship to another institution.
RESPONSE A: We lost cost of living for two years but will be getting it this year. We did get merit pay opportunities back, but that’s after not having merit pay for over a decade. 😭😭😭
RESPONSE B: I was TT in a 2nd tier university that had pay freezes in effect for 3+ years while I was at the Assistant Prof level. I was kicking butt, getting big grants, etc., and planned to stay indefinitely, but the pay freeze totally derailed my ability to get to a sustainable and fair long term base salary. By the time I went up for tenure I realized that the pay they were going to be able to offer me was nowhere near what I needed for the amount of work I was putting in. I got another scientific job offer (non-TT) at 50% higher salary, thinking I could use this to fix my salary and stay, and went to talk to the Dean about getting an adjustment. He told me that they had already spent all of the adjustment money that year. Needless to say I left the university shortly afterwards for and it was a great move both financially and career wise. (I had to move away from extended family, though, and that is another story). TLDR: A pay freeze when inflation is >7% is a big pay cut. One year is not the end of the world but if you are getting the feeling that they aren't able to take care of you properly, you're probably right. You may need to leave (or at least show that you are thinking about it) to get market rate somewhere else.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Salary freeze for another year. Anyone else experiencing this? TT faculty here. Our university has kept salaries stagnant for yet another year (they claim it is due to COVID). I was wondering if others are experiencing this and whether it was worth jumping ship to another institution.
RESPONSE A: We lost cost of living for two years but will be getting it this year. We did get merit pay opportunities back, but that’s after not having merit pay for over a decade. 😭😭😭
RESPONSE B: We have this ongoing at my university. Was a real slap to the face when we found out our chancellor fast-tracked their own raise to pass 1 day before the freeze went into effect back in 2020. They got a fat bonus of $50k/year. Less than a week later, our faculty and staff government voted in no confidence of them by a 80-20 split.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Can someone who gets an MS be a researcher and publish papers regularly? I am a master's student in the geosciences and so far I am enjoying the research. I was wondering if having a Master's degree would qualify me to do research in the future or if I would need a PhD.
RESPONSE A: I had the same question. I did take the route of academia, but sheer number of independent researchers with high quality paper never fails to surprise me. If you are interested and curious about a problem, affiliation is secondary. You can definitely do a better job than academic counterparts.
RESPONSE B: Just depends on who's money you will be using for the most part. My mom knew the Miami snake man, and he only has a BS in marine biology. That said, his experiments and production costs are relatively low on cost compared to most scientific research. Fame and notoriety can factor in as well, so keep that in mind, but I would say definitely not impossible, especially if you find the research yourself if your nice and wealthy.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: d be incredibly stressed and unhappy for what I'd be required to do. But I still need a job and, as I'm pretty good at what I do, I'd like it to be in academia. What do I do? Are there some jobs for people that just want to "research"? Doing stuff instead of writing reports?
RESPONSE A: I wish I could double up with someone like you. My hyper focus is on writing and editing, but my experiments always go haywire due to some unfocused mistake - recently ran a cell prep and didn't press the "start temperature" button so they were cold the first three hours. I would love to be the person who works on publications for a lab full of experimentalists - the expectation that every scientist do a little of it all causes a lot of people to fall through the cracks I think.
RESPONSE B: I'm in my late 50s and I'm quite sure I have ADHD. Both of my kids have been diagnosed with it and as a kid I had 100% of their symptoms. I struggled mightily with my writing and many of my papers have been written in a panic at the last minute. It has gotten better as I have aged. Here are my suggestions: 1. Learn to hyper-focus on writing. It \*is\* possible. The hardest part is getting started. Learn how to trick yourself into starting. 2. Give yourself early artificial due dates by which you must have things done. Treat them as real. Force yourself to meet them. 3. Collaborate a lot. The pressure of not letting collaborators down seems to help. Plus they do some of the writing. 4. If all else fails, get a soft-funded research position in someone else's lab. They aren't tenure track, but if you are in a good lab they can be extremely secure and don't have the same pressures as TT positions. I have a great soft-money researcher in my lab (really his lab now, because I am too busy for research) who has been my research partner for 20 years. In that role, you don't have to do everything. It's still better if you can write, but there are plenty of positions where it isn't necessary.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: be incredibly stressed and unhappy for what I'd be required to do. But I still need a job and, as I'm pretty good at what I do, I'd like it to be in academia. What do I do? Are there some jobs for people that just want to "research"? Doing stuff instead of writing reports?
RESPONSE A: I'm in my late 50s and I'm quite sure I have ADHD. Both of my kids have been diagnosed with it and as a kid I had 100% of their symptoms. I struggled mightily with my writing and many of my papers have been written in a panic at the last minute. It has gotten better as I have aged. Here are my suggestions: 1. Learn to hyper-focus on writing. It \*is\* possible. The hardest part is getting started. Learn how to trick yourself into starting. 2. Give yourself early artificial due dates by which you must have things done. Treat them as real. Force yourself to meet them. 3. Collaborate a lot. The pressure of not letting collaborators down seems to help. Plus they do some of the writing. 4. If all else fails, get a soft-funded research position in someone else's lab. They aren't tenure track, but if you are in a good lab they can be extremely secure and don't have the same pressures as TT positions. I have a great soft-money researcher in my lab (really his lab now, because I am too busy for research) who has been my research partner for 20 years. In that role, you don't have to do everything. It's still better if you can write, but there are plenty of positions where it isn't necessary.
RESPONSE B: This may not be your view but the way it's written suggests you believe something has changed because you were diagnosed, you're still the same person! I think most early academics prefer research and struggle with writing. In the UK it is possible to be a postdoc forever, however you will only get 3-5 year contracts at a time. Though some big labs always manage to find money to keep postdocs on for decades. Not uncommon and worth doing if you're not bothered about being a PI.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: , I'd be incredibly stressed and unhappy for what I'd be required to do. But I still need a job and, as I'm pretty good at what I do, I'd like it to be in academia. What do I do? Are there some jobs for people that just want to "research"? Doing stuff instead of writing reports?
RESPONSE A: In STEM, wouldn't you say that everything you write is done together with others anyway? Couldn't you find a context where you can be up front with this and do more work in the the group other than writing? Some Nobel Prize winners can't write in English because they may barely speak it, but they can still find cures for cancer and covid, and save the world. In History, Literature etc. things get really hard if you don't write a lot (alone).
RESPONSE B: I'm in my late 50s and I'm quite sure I have ADHD. Both of my kids have been diagnosed with it and as a kid I had 100% of their symptoms. I struggled mightily with my writing and many of my papers have been written in a panic at the last minute. It has gotten better as I have aged. Here are my suggestions: 1. Learn to hyper-focus on writing. It \*is\* possible. The hardest part is getting started. Learn how to trick yourself into starting. 2. Give yourself early artificial due dates by which you must have things done. Treat them as real. Force yourself to meet them. 3. Collaborate a lot. The pressure of not letting collaborators down seems to help. Plus they do some of the writing. 4. If all else fails, get a soft-funded research position in someone else's lab. They aren't tenure track, but if you are in a good lab they can be extremely secure and don't have the same pressures as TT positions. I have a great soft-money researcher in my lab (really his lab now, because I am too busy for research) who has been my research partner for 20 years. In that role, you don't have to do everything. It's still better if you can write, but there are plenty of positions where it isn't necessary.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: * with anything remotely related to writing. Which is quite bad considering that we're required to churn out papers every other day. It's so bad that I don't even have finished writing, let alone submitted or published, papers about projects I've finished. Also, I'm starting to coordinate people, but it turns out planning it's another thing we're not good at. And... I can notice that. At this age, I'd be expected to transition to a permanent position. My h-factor, despite everything, is good enough to compete for TT positions. But, considering what I've said, if I pushed my way to a professorship I'd end up being in a perfect Peter's law situation, rewarded for being good at something by being given a position where I'd truly suck. Also, I'd be incredibly stressed and unhappy for what I'd be required to do. But I still need a job and, as I'm pretty good at what I do, I'd like it to be in academia. What do I do? Are there some jobs for people that just want to "research"? Doing stuff instead of writing reports?
RESPONSE A: Why not just partner up with people who can write, and co-author? I know people that get others to write the actual paper in exchange for second authorship. It's a fair deal that you keep first author if you do most everything else.
RESPONSE B: I sympathize with you. But I have a question that'll probably get me downvoted -- what h-factor value is competitive? I suppose I've seen people being competitive in applications with a range of h's. As for actual advice: if you want to stay in a professor track, my management class teacher would tell you to find someone who's good at the things you're not - someone who's great at writing and getting things out the door. It can be multiple people, or just one you stick with and work well with. Otherwise find a job with a boss who's like that - though my impression is that in research you're mostly expected to write on your own and your boss just signs off on it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is scientific research now a numbers game where the amount of papers published matters more so than the quality? Worked as an engineering consultant in Australia (oil and gas) but left for a few reason one being it was quite political, with many people just protecting their jobs and trying to be relevant. I recently moved to Norway to study a masters in Micro and Nanotechnology. I would really like enter research, but I have been told it is very similar as the workplace. Competition has everyone just pushing papers out, to get funding. People trying to get as many citations as possible. Less collaboration and research is all about making money. Is this a valid view point? Also this is a relevant and interesting documentary about research: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_hwmapWFFw
RESPONSE A: You think it's bad in western countries? Look at academic ranking policies in China. # of papers is king, that's why there's so much plagiarism and BS journals.
RESPONSE B: Yes (although I wouldn't say there's less collaboration). When I look back at the journal papers from say the '80 and before, there is just so much detail and work in there. Nowadays there tends to be more a view of, get an idea out at 70%, collect citations and move on to the next project. There have been schemes to try to change this though. In the UK we have the Research Excellence Framework (REF) which is used to grade research institutions. It certainly has it's flaws, but part of the ranking is for each 'research-active' staff member to submit just 4 items of work. So it could be a journal paper, patent, etc. But citations cannot be mentioned, and journal papers are preferred over letters (which usually have much more citations). So there's recognition of this issue, so that's something. But I don't see how this will go away.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Do British researchers working at American universities write their papers with British or American spelling? Curious
RESPONSE A: As others have said it is mostly the journal - although British journals rarely enforce British spelling on US authors in my experience. Over the years I've gradually shifted to using American spelling in my writing, mostly for consistency.
RESPONSE B: I'm British at a German university and I use American spelling most of the time since that's what my colleagues use.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do British researchers working at American universities write their papers with British or American spelling? Curious
RESPONSE A: I'm British at a German university and I use American spelling most of the time since that's what my colleagues use.
RESPONSE B: Am American in UK university, last article I had accepted into an European journal asked what spelling/grammar convention I followed (American or British) then edited it for that preference. Haven't had issues with submitting papers to international conferences with American English either, though I've had to make sure my authors follow my convention or I follow theirs when doing a paper together.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Do British researchers working at American universities write their papers with British or American spelling? Curious
RESPONSE A: In my experience (mathematics, I'm British but have worked also in Finland and Czech republic, also collaborated with both European and USian colleagues at universities in USA), whoever writes the bulk of the paper gets to decide. As long as the paper is internally consistent, it's fine.
RESPONSE B: I'm British at a German university and I use American spelling most of the time since that's what my colleagues use.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: At what pace do you write research papers? How many hours a day can you write? I'm currently working on a research paper. Just wondering, for those of you in STEM or social science areas- what is your pace of writing? How many pages do you write per day? In other words, if you did not have other major obligations (classes, meetings, etc.), how much could you write in a day? How long would it take you?
RESPONSE A: Depends on the day and the writing, but I can usually do about 4-5 pages of manuscript on a good day, but substantially less on a bad one.
RESPONSE B: I find that for every good day (4-5) pages I have to put in several "bad" days, which consist of reading papers, editing, outlining, playing with data and maybe only writing a few lines. These days are not wasted time. I need them to get the story straight in my head before I can get it out onto the page. They feel tedious as hell though.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: At what pace do you write research papers? How many hours a day can you write? I'm currently working on a research paper. Just wondering, for those of you in STEM or social science areas- what is your pace of writing? How many pages do you write per day? In other words, if you did not have other major obligations (classes, meetings, etc.), how much could you write in a day? How long would it take you?
RESPONSE A: There are some days that it's very, very good (the day my cat had surgery and then I put him down, I wrote 20 single-spaced pages), to days where I stare at the response letter and modify wording for papers. I often don't have major obligations (I really mean this), and maybe on the days I sit down to write get in a good 4-5 pages. But, given revisions with coauthors, one good paper (for, e.g. JML or JEPLMC in my field) takes about 3 months to write for submission. Depending on my coauthors, revisions for resubmission can either take a week or two months.
RESPONSE B: I just got a 35 page dissertation chapter up and I did about 4 pages a day. It took about a week for the lit review and a week for everything else. That was a pretty fast draft for me.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Does your family often put you on the defensive about being in academia For context, I'm a recent STEM PhD graduate now thinking about forgoing an industry position to do a postdoc. Now, I get it - from a practical employment standpoint, both a PhD and postdoc don't really make a lot of sense. There are much easier and direct ways to make good money, neither have fixed timelines for when you're "done", and so on. It can be pretty hard to articulate to someone on the outside why one would bother. Certainly, I'm a grown-ass man. I don't need validation from others to justify doing something I enjoy. But it does get tiring hearing yet again about how you're wasting your life away while you could be buying a giant house like X's son, etc. I've gotten a lot better about rolling with the punches and not getting too defensive about it, but I feel like I'm not the only one who faces relentless skepticism from family about academia as a lifestyle decision. Being in STEM, at least I can point to lucrative exit opportunities in industry. But in a way, that makes it worse since I'm currently considering a doing postdoc instead taking up industry offers.
RESPONSE A: I’m starting my masters year and was doing undergrad research, hoping to apply for a PhD starting 2023. My family called me selfish for pursuing a PhD, say it’s a waste of years, how it’s simply to show i’m ‘better than everyone’ and to brag about intelligence. Say that getting a PhD doesn’t give me life smarts, because it’s not having a child or getting married. I’m still going to be a Woman in Stem tho 🫶🏽
RESPONSE B: This academic world is foreign to many people, but we who live in it know it’s a wonderful world. Hang in there.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: a PhD and postdoc don't really make a lot of sense. There are much easier and direct ways to make good money, neither have fixed timelines for when you're "done", and so on. It can be pretty hard to articulate to someone on the outside why one would bother. Certainly, I'm a grown-ass man. I don't need validation from others to justify doing something I enjoy. But it does get tiring hearing yet again about how you're wasting your life away while you could be buying a giant house like X's son, etc. I've gotten a lot better about rolling with the punches and not getting too defensive about it, but I feel like I'm not the only one who faces relentless skepticism from family about academia as a lifestyle decision. Being in STEM, at least I can point to lucrative exit opportunities in industry. But in a way, that makes it worse since I'm currently considering a doing postdoc instead taking up industry offers.
RESPONSE A: Sorry to hear your family seems unsupportive of your choices. I don’t say this pejoratively, but academia shares many cult-like qualities, as do communities such as those that reside in dojos, nunneries, monasteries, etc. You could say the same for elite classes of professionals, e.g. pro sport teams and artists. I think naturally when you devote so much time to a pursuit, you’re bound to become less relatable to the vast majority of people. I like to think people who choose to go into academia tend to be driven by immaterial reasons, but that might no longer the case in 2022.
RESPONSE B: I’m starting my masters year and was doing undergrad research, hoping to apply for a PhD starting 2023. My family called me selfish for pursuing a PhD, say it’s a waste of years, how it’s simply to show i’m ‘better than everyone’ and to brag about intelligence. Say that getting a PhD doesn’t give me life smarts, because it’s not having a child or getting married. I’m still going to be a Woman in Stem tho 🫶🏽
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Does your family often put you on the defensive about being in academia For context, I'm a recent STEM PhD graduate now thinking about forgoing an industry position to do a postdoc. Now, I get it - from a practical employment standpoint, both a PhD and postdoc don't really make a lot of sense. There are much easier and direct ways to make good money, neither have fixed timelines for when you're "done", and so on. It can be pretty hard to articulate to someone on the outside why one would bother. Certainly, I'm a grown-ass man. I don't need validation from others to justify doing something I enjoy. But it does get tiring hearing yet again about how you're wasting your life away while you could be buying a giant house like X's son, etc. I've gotten a lot better about rolling with the punches and not getting too defensive about it, but I feel like I'm not the only one who faces relentless skepticism from family about academia as a lifestyle decision. Being in STEM, at least I can point to lucrative exit opportunities in industry. But in a way, that makes it worse since I'm currently considering a doing postdoc instead taking up industry offers.
RESPONSE A: I’m starting my masters year and was doing undergrad research, hoping to apply for a PhD starting 2023. My family called me selfish for pursuing a PhD, say it’s a waste of years, how it’s simply to show i’m ‘better than everyone’ and to brag about intelligence. Say that getting a PhD doesn’t give me life smarts, because it’s not having a child or getting married. I’m still going to be a Woman in Stem tho 🫶🏽
RESPONSE B: Sounds like the only thing you're family values are wealth and things. That's a them problem. And one the world needs less of.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Does your family often put you on the defensive about being in academia For context, I'm a recent STEM PhD graduate now thinking about forgoing an industry position to do a postdoc. Now, I get it - from a practical employment standpoint, both a PhD and postdoc don't really make a lot of sense. There are much easier and direct ways to make good money, neither have fixed timelines for when you're "done", and so on. It can be pretty hard to articulate to someone on the outside why one would bother. Certainly, I'm a grown-ass man. I don't need validation from others to justify doing something I enjoy. But it does get tiring hearing yet again about how you're wasting your life away while you could be buying a giant house like X's son, etc. I've gotten a lot better about rolling with the punches and not getting too defensive about it, but I feel like I'm not the only one who faces relentless skepticism from family about academia as a lifestyle decision. Being in STEM, at least I can point to lucrative exit opportunities in industry. But in a way, that makes it worse since I'm currently considering a doing postdoc instead taking up industry offers.
RESPONSE A: I’m starting my masters year and was doing undergrad research, hoping to apply for a PhD starting 2023. My family called me selfish for pursuing a PhD, say it’s a waste of years, how it’s simply to show i’m ‘better than everyone’ and to brag about intelligence. Say that getting a PhD doesn’t give me life smarts, because it’s not having a child or getting married. I’m still going to be a Woman in Stem tho 🫶🏽
RESPONSE B: > But it does get tiring hearing yet again about how you're wasting your life away while you could be buying a giant house like X's son, etc. This is extremely common. Keeping up with the Joneses is a big thing in the world. Out of interest, do you come from an immigrant household?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Does your family often put you on the defensive about being in academia For context, I'm a recent STEM PhD graduate now thinking about forgoing an industry position to do a postdoc. Now, I get it - from a practical employment standpoint, both a PhD and postdoc don't really make a lot of sense. There are much easier and direct ways to make good money, neither have fixed timelines for when you're "done", and so on. It can be pretty hard to articulate to someone on the outside why one would bother. Certainly, I'm a grown-ass man. I don't need validation from others to justify doing something I enjoy. But it does get tiring hearing yet again about how you're wasting your life away while you could be buying a giant house like X's son, etc. I've gotten a lot better about rolling with the punches and not getting too defensive about it, but I feel like I'm not the only one who faces relentless skepticism from family about academia as a lifestyle decision. Being in STEM, at least I can point to lucrative exit opportunities in industry. But in a way, that makes it worse since I'm currently considering a doing postdoc instead taking up industry offers.
RESPONSE A: Yep. I found out that getting a higher degree disqualified me from having an opinion on most things, rather than the opposite. Much less so now that we are all older, thankfully, but it was definitely rough when I first got my degrees.
RESPONSE B: I’m starting my masters year and was doing undergrad research, hoping to apply for a PhD starting 2023. My family called me selfish for pursuing a PhD, say it’s a waste of years, how it’s simply to show i’m ‘better than everyone’ and to brag about intelligence. Say that getting a PhD doesn’t give me life smarts, because it’s not having a child or getting married. I’m still going to be a Woman in Stem tho 🫶🏽
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Being arrested for a social cause - does it impact grad admissions or career in academia? I'm heavily involved in community organizing. I am concerned that one day I may face an unfair arrest for merely peacefully protesting, as I've witnessed other community members be arrested for non-violent action (such as blocking a street; blocking a path and chanting inside a building). Has anyone in academia that's involved in activism and arrested for a social movement find that their arrest has created obstacles in their career or have impacted their admission to graduate programs? For context, I live in the U.S.
RESPONSE A: It will depend on the university and the cause, as well as the details of the arrest. I'm an oldie. Back in the 60s, in California, arrest for Civil Rights protest, or some anti War protest, would count against admission to any University of California campus, but might help with Stanford.
RESPONSE B: In my lab this would be a positive thing
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Being arrested for a social cause - does it impact grad admissions or career in academia? I'm heavily involved in community organizing. I am concerned that one day I may face an unfair arrest for merely peacefully protesting, as I've witnessed other community members be arrested for non-violent action (such as blocking a street; blocking a path and chanting inside a building). Has anyone in academia that's involved in activism and arrested for a social movement find that their arrest has created obstacles in their career or have impacted their admission to graduate programs? For context, I live in the U.S.
RESPONSE A: It will depend on the university and the cause, as well as the details of the arrest. I'm an oldie. Back in the 60s, in California, arrest for Civil Rights protest, or some anti War protest, would count against admission to any University of California campus, but might help with Stanford.
RESPONSE B: I have yet to be arrested for it, but as an active member of my grad student worker union, I have chanted inside buildings here on campus multiple times in my few short years in the program so far. I am not on a search committee, so can't give advice aside from a personal anecdote that I am still in good standing and making good progress towards my phd.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Being arrested for a social cause - does it impact grad admissions or career in academia? I'm heavily involved in community organizing. I am concerned that one day I may face an unfair arrest for merely peacefully protesting, as I've witnessed other community members be arrested for non-violent action (such as blocking a street; blocking a path and chanting inside a building). Has anyone in academia that's involved in activism and arrested for a social movement find that their arrest has created obstacles in their career or have impacted their admission to graduate programs? For context, I live in the U.S.
RESPONSE A: As long as nothing is actively outstanding it shouldn't be an issue. If it is active, explaining the situation should be enough.
RESPONSE B: It will depend on the university and the cause, as well as the details of the arrest. I'm an oldie. Back in the 60s, in California, arrest for Civil Rights protest, or some anti War protest, would count against admission to any University of California campus, but might help with Stanford.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Being arrested for a social cause - does it impact grad admissions or career in academia? I'm heavily involved in community organizing. I am concerned that one day I may face an unfair arrest for merely peacefully protesting, as I've witnessed other community members be arrested for non-violent action (such as blocking a street; blocking a path and chanting inside a building). Has anyone in academia that's involved in activism and arrested for a social movement find that their arrest has created obstacles in their career or have impacted their admission to graduate programs? For context, I live in the U.S.
RESPONSE A: I was arrested at a riot while doing dissertation fieldwork on a social movement and caught felony charges. At first I did have to go thru a disciplinary hearing from my university right after it happened and spread in the media/got to the university thru the grapevine. But my advisor and I got the investigation dropped. Charges are still pending tho, expecting them to be dropped. Thus far it has actually helped me in my research in a lot of ways, like building trust and relationships w ppl in the field, gaining insight into state violence and political repression (not that I’d recommend going thru the things I did w police and in jail by any means), and in some cases drawing other scholars to my work (lol). But I imagine this is a specific kind of situation due to my subfield, in which there have been lots of other researchers who have ended up arrested during fieldwork and lived to tell the tale via their scholarship and continuing on in academia. Hopefully that’ll be me, time will tell😅
RESPONSE B: I have yet to be arrested for it, but as an active member of my grad student worker union, I have chanted inside buildings here on campus multiple times in my few short years in the program so far. I am not on a search committee, so can't give advice aside from a personal anecdote that I am still in good standing and making good progress towards my phd.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Being arrested for a social cause - does it impact grad admissions or career in academia? I'm heavily involved in community organizing. I am concerned that one day I may face an unfair arrest for merely peacefully protesting, as I've witnessed other community members be arrested for non-violent action (such as blocking a street; blocking a path and chanting inside a building). Has anyone in academia that's involved in activism and arrested for a social movement find that their arrest has created obstacles in their career or have impacted their admission to graduate programs? For context, I live in the U.S.
RESPONSE A: As long as nothing is actively outstanding it shouldn't be an issue. If it is active, explaining the situation should be enough.
RESPONSE B: I was arrested at a riot while doing dissertation fieldwork on a social movement and caught felony charges. At first I did have to go thru a disciplinary hearing from my university right after it happened and spread in the media/got to the university thru the grapevine. But my advisor and I got the investigation dropped. Charges are still pending tho, expecting them to be dropped. Thus far it has actually helped me in my research in a lot of ways, like building trust and relationships w ppl in the field, gaining insight into state violence and political repression (not that I’d recommend going thru the things I did w police and in jail by any means), and in some cases drawing other scholars to my work (lol). But I imagine this is a specific kind of situation due to my subfield, in which there have been lots of other researchers who have ended up arrested during fieldwork and lived to tell the tale via their scholarship and continuing on in academia. Hopefully that’ll be me, time will tell😅
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How to deal with detailed student emails that is partly outside the scope of the topic? I am teaching a topic that's mostly within my area but I do not know everything about it by heart. I cover the textbook, give extra readings I am familiar with and mark their assignments with enough feedback. Lately I have been getting demanding and sometimes rambling emails from the same 2-3 students who usually list 8-10 questions. My first instinct is to reply very quickly and some can be easily be found in the lecture recordings or readings. But some are deeper questions about things that are outside the scope. They almost get lost in the footnotes that refer to other footnotes or cases from decades ago, misinterpret them and claim the opposite in the scope of what we actually covered. It takes hours of my day to figure out find what they read, where they went wrong and got confused. I like that they are critical and want to know more about it but it's also taking all of my time and they come back with more questions almost immediately, i feel like a private tutor sometimes. How can I deal with this without looking incompetent or dismissive?
RESPONSE A: Ask them to set an appointment to meet with you, or come to office hours. They shouldn't be expecting an email response to that many questions. Ask them to bring the book/article they are confused about to meeting. It is totally fine to say "this is a conversation better had in office hours. Please swing by so we can chat!"
RESPONSE B: It might help to talk and discuss with the students in-person than replying via email. The interaction is just more efficient and quicker that way.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: am now getting to have my first round of angry student responses over final grading. One student had a pretty arrogant tone in demanding extra points for two qs. One of them is a flat out no since it was multiple choice and it was explicitly mentioned in the instructions that there would be no partial credit in his case of selecting both the right and wrong answer. The other one pertains to the grading rubric for a subjective question. My problem with revealing the grading rubric (from my past experiences working for another instructor as a TA) to the class has been chaotic. Students in that case swarmed Piazza with venomous rants and did not even spare the poor prof in his RateMyProf profile. I do not want to go personally go through that same experience as my prof did right now since I have to start preparing courses for the upcoming quarter. Any advice on dealing with this would be most welcome!
RESPONSE A: The r/Professors sub might be a good place for this!
RESPONSE B: Firstly, the moment you worry about ratemyprofessor bullshit is the moment you ransom yourself to pointless fuckery. Ignore it. Unless you genuinely feel that the rubric is inappropriate, the most you say is that you'll review whether it needs updating for future years - if you're happy with the rubric you say that it's not changing, and you can explain why if you feel so inclined. *DO NOT* get into a bartering situation with students about grades - that way lies madness, and chaos. You are the teacher. What you say goes. Many students are famously terrible at judging their own performance. It is not your job to make students happy; it is your job to educate, and then quantify the students success at learning by enforcing standards. EDIT - and one final point that gets missed - for every loud obnoxious student you make happy by modifying your grading criteria, you upset several quiet conscientious students who just did it right in the first place. Don't pander to loud arseholes; you compromise your efforts, that of other students, as well as your reputation.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How to deal with abrasive student over extra points I just started out as a faculty member for the very first time and I am now getting to have my first round of angry student responses over final grading. One student had a pretty arrogant tone in demanding extra points for two qs. One of them is a flat out no since it was multiple choice and it was explicitly mentioned in the instructions that there would be no partial credit in his case of selecting both the right and wrong answer. The other one pertains to the grading rubric for a subjective question. My problem with revealing the grading rubric (from my past experiences working for another instructor as a TA) to the class has been chaotic. Students in that case swarmed Piazza with venomous rants and did not even spare the poor prof in his RateMyProf profile. I do not want to go personally go through that same experience as my prof did right now since I have to start preparing courses for the upcoming quarter. Any advice on dealing with this would be most welcome!
RESPONSE A: Calc the student’s grade all the way out in Excel. Check to see if granting the question makes a difference in the final grade. At the meeting, first, patiently listen to the student’s concerns. Write them down. State them back and ask if you have everything. Empathize with the student; “It can be frustrating to be so close to the next grade.” If it doesn’t make a difference in the final grade based on the calculations, explain that. If it does, tell the student the reasons why the question did not receive full credit. If you have a rubric you can easily explain why even if you don’t hand over the rubric. At some point you have to say, “I understand this is frustrating but in the interest of fairness to all students, my decision here stands.” If the student goes to admin, show *them* the calculations and/or rubric.
RESPONSE B: It’s pretty awful pedagogy to not share your grading rubric. I’d really rethink that OP. “Do this task but I won’t tell you how I plan to judge you on it.”
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How to deal with abrasive student over extra points I just started out as a faculty member for the very first time and I am now getting to have my first round of angry student responses over final grading. One student had a pretty arrogant tone in demanding extra points for two qs. One of them is a flat out no since it was multiple choice and it was explicitly mentioned in the instructions that there would be no partial credit in his case of selecting both the right and wrong answer. The other one pertains to the grading rubric for a subjective question. My problem with revealing the grading rubric (from my past experiences working for another instructor as a TA) to the class has been chaotic. Students in that case swarmed Piazza with venomous rants and did not even spare the poor prof in his RateMyProf profile. I do not want to go personally go through that same experience as my prof did right now since I have to start preparing courses for the upcoming quarter. Any advice on dealing with this would be most welcome!
RESPONSE A: It’s pretty awful pedagogy to not share your grading rubric. I’d really rethink that OP. “Do this task but I won’t tell you how I plan to judge you on it.”
RESPONSE B: The r/Professors sub might be a good place for this!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How to deal with abrasive student over extra points I just started out as a faculty member for the very first time and I am now getting to have my first round of angry student responses over final grading. One student had a pretty arrogant tone in demanding extra points for two qs. One of them is a flat out no since it was multiple choice and it was explicitly mentioned in the instructions that there would be no partial credit in his case of selecting both the right and wrong answer. The other one pertains to the grading rubric for a subjective question. My problem with revealing the grading rubric (from my past experiences working for another instructor as a TA) to the class has been chaotic. Students in that case swarmed Piazza with venomous rants and did not even spare the poor prof in his RateMyProf profile. I do not want to go personally go through that same experience as my prof did right now since I have to start preparing courses for the upcoming quarter. Any advice on dealing with this would be most welcome!
RESPONSE A: Quote the clear instructions and ask which part exactly they have trouble comprehending.
RESPONSE B: It’s pretty awful pedagogy to not share your grading rubric. I’d really rethink that OP. “Do this task but I won’t tell you how I plan to judge you on it.”
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: find someone else to cover my lecture and two labs on such late notice. It isn't my fault that the class was cancelled. I have already done a lot of work preparing for it for which I feel I deserve to be compensated somehow. What do you all think? What are my options? Thanks a lot /r/AskAcademia.
RESPONSE A: This certainly happens sometimes. At my school we'd know in April that a fall class didn't "make," though, so would have dealt with this months ago by assigning the term hire another course. That's what we do with tenure-track faculty as well, as there are always sections of gen ed classes left open (no instructor assigned) specifically as a cushion in case a class doesn't draw. That said, if we somehow ended up in this situation there would only be two options per the working of our term contracts: either the faculty member would take a 1/6th cut in pay for the year (we measure workload by 6ths on a 3/3 schedule) or more likely we'd find them an extra course for spring semester to make up the difference. At places with interim/January term/winter term adding a course then might work too. While you may feel you "deserve" to be compensated for course prep, all faculty prep courses without compensation all the time. It's called "summer." I've been teaching 25 years and have taught over 30 different courses in that time...the only occasions on which I've been paid for course development have been when we have a grant to develop some new institutional priority. Otherwise it's just part of the job.
RESPONSE B: That doesn't seem too unusual. At the school I teach it often happens that they have to rearange our contracts because they need to add or remove a class due to the number of students. We actually sign our contract at the beggining of the second week of class. I know it can be frustrating to lose a class and the money that goes with it when you spent time getting ready, but you will probably teach it again next semester or next fall, so don't sweat too much about it. If I was you I'd simply teach a class next semester.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How to deal with overwhelming amount of info? I've stopped reading books/articles for international relations these last few weeks because I'm feeling so overwhelmed with all the information—and there's constantly more and more being put out via news. I have narrowed down research interests, but even within those spheres there's copious and endless amounts of information. How do you guys deal with this?
RESPONSE A: I think it helps to let go of the notion that you have to know everything about everything all at once. Read what you can and keep notes, but don't be driven crazy by the mass of publications out there. Remember, that mass does not have one single author, but dozens and dozens of authors and not one of them knows everything. Have a filing system for important information. People seem to like OneNote or EverNote on this sub. I do long hand notes and keep printed copies of papers I think are important. You don't need to have all the information in your brain, just accessible for easy use. There is no shame in rereading a paper.
RESPONSE B: Pomodoro method and meditation
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Email greetings doubts. Do I (a potential PhD student) keep calling a professor, I exchanged several emails with, Dear Professor [name] [surname]? I have been looking for a PhD position since some time and have been talking to various professors about it. I always start the first email with Dear Professor XYZ, and often they say: "you can call me XYZ" which is a bit of a relief since I find it awkward to keep calling a person Dear Professor all over again. But I am also taking to professors who did not say that and either I keep starting emails with their title and full name or I just start saying "hello" to avoid using the name and title ( not ideal neither) since I start to feel as if I am overdoing it with a "Dear Professor" when they say" Hi Kiwitoja". Is there a number of emails exchange after which I can start greeting them less formally? Or is it just in my head that "Dear Professor" starts to sound weird?
RESPONSE A: After the first email, standard practice is to use whatever they put in their signature. If they don’t use their first name in their signature, stick with Prof X or Dr Y, etc. If you use a first name and they would prefer otherwise, they will let you know.
RESPONSE B: If they're using "Hi name" rather than "Dear" and are signing their name as first name rather and Prof X, you can definitely use their first name.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Email greetings doubts. Do I (a potential PhD student) keep calling a professor, I exchanged several emails with, Dear Professor [name] [surname]? I have been looking for a PhD position since some time and have been talking to various professors about it. I always start the first email with Dear Professor XYZ, and often they say: "you can call me XYZ" which is a bit of a relief since I find it awkward to keep calling a person Dear Professor all over again. But I am also taking to professors who did not say that and either I keep starting emails with their title and full name or I just start saying "hello" to avoid using the name and title ( not ideal neither) since I start to feel as if I am overdoing it with a "Dear Professor" when they say" Hi Kiwitoja". Is there a number of emails exchange after which I can start greeting them less formally? Or is it just in my head that "Dear Professor" starts to sound weird?
RESPONSE A: Just keep the "Dear Prof X" until they tell you not to. No prof ever got angry about that, but I know many of my collegues hate it when students start emails with "Hello", "hi", "yo, wats up!?", etc.
RESPONSE B: If they're using "Hi name" rather than "Dear" and are signing their name as first name rather and Prof X, you can definitely use their first name.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Email greetings doubts. Do I (a potential PhD student) keep calling a professor, I exchanged several emails with, Dear Professor [name] [surname]? I have been looking for a PhD position since some time and have been talking to various professors about it. I always start the first email with Dear Professor XYZ, and often they say: "you can call me XYZ" which is a bit of a relief since I find it awkward to keep calling a person Dear Professor all over again. But I am also taking to professors who did not say that and either I keep starting emails with their title and full name or I just start saying "hello" to avoid using the name and title ( not ideal neither) since I start to feel as if I am overdoing it with a "Dear Professor" when they say" Hi Kiwitoja". Is there a number of emails exchange after which I can start greeting them less formally? Or is it just in my head that "Dear Professor" starts to sound weird?
RESPONSE A: If they're using "Hi name" rather than "Dear" and are signing their name as first name rather and Prof X, you can definitely use their first name.
RESPONSE B: It varies from Professor to Professor. Whereas I let my own research students call me by my first name, I hate it when unknown students, or students that are taking one of my classes but are not familiar to me call me by my first name. To me, first-name-basis is something reserved to close relationships. I would suggest you ignore the advice given here and go by Dr. Last Name until he/she gives you green light to go on a first name basis.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Email greetings doubts. Do I (a potential PhD student) keep calling a professor, I exchanged several emails with, Dear Professor [name] [surname]? I have been looking for a PhD position since some time and have been talking to various professors about it. I always start the first email with Dear Professor XYZ, and often they say: "you can call me XYZ" which is a bit of a relief since I find it awkward to keep calling a person Dear Professor all over again. But I am also taking to professors who did not say that and either I keep starting emails with their title and full name or I just start saying "hello" to avoid using the name and title ( not ideal neither) since I start to feel as if I am overdoing it with a "Dear Professor" when they say" Hi Kiwitoja". Is there a number of emails exchange after which I can start greeting them less formally? Or is it just in my head that "Dear Professor" starts to sound weird?
RESPONSE A: If they're using "Hi name" rather than "Dear" and are signing their name as first name rather and Prof X, you can definitely use their first name.
RESPONSE B: The most polite thing is to address them as they sign their emails. Blablabla Best regards, John Dear John, ...
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Email greetings doubts. Do I (a potential PhD student) keep calling a professor, I exchanged several emails with, Dear Professor [name] [surname]? I have been looking for a PhD position since some time and have been talking to various professors about it. I always start the first email with Dear Professor XYZ, and often they say: "you can call me XYZ" which is a bit of a relief since I find it awkward to keep calling a person Dear Professor all over again. But I am also taking to professors who did not say that and either I keep starting emails with their title and full name or I just start saying "hello" to avoid using the name and title ( not ideal neither) since I start to feel as if I am overdoing it with a "Dear Professor" when they say" Hi Kiwitoja". Is there a number of emails exchange after which I can start greeting them less formally? Or is it just in my head that "Dear Professor" starts to sound weird?
RESPONSE A: I usually call them Professor…. Until I actually have met with them in person, and confirm that they are casual about it.
RESPONSE B: The most polite thing is to address them as they sign their emails. Blablabla Best regards, John Dear John, ...
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Do professors view students interviewing them as an inconvenience? TL;DR- Will professors view me asking to interview them about their career as an inconvenience? I am doing a project that requires me to reach out to contacts all around my academic field and interview them regarding their career. However, when I reached out to some of my professors, most were willing to provide me contacts from their networks, but one came back and said that he discourages me from interviewing people within the field. He said that often times professors or other professionals view students asking to interview them as an inconvenience. Is this a common consensus? I feel discouraged to continue with this project now because of this.
RESPONSE A: Poorly thought out, meandering requests with 25 questions? Yes. A handful of carefully thought-out, tightly delimited questions. No
RESPONSE B: I think it depends. If you're asking to talk about their career because you're interested in how they got to where they were, and what advice they might have for someone in your position, I think most people are willing to do it. If you're asking to interview them because of a class project that requires you to do so, you're less likely to get a response. And honestly I get really annoyed when other faculty make "go find someone in your field and interview them" a requirement -- it's a waste of time all around. Overall, it depends on how you approach it and why you want an interview. You're also more likely to get a response if it is someone you know or is at your university, or is someone you were put in touch with, rather than a cold email. Speaking for myself, I'd be very unlikely to respond to a cold email (from a student) asking to interview me.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do professors view students interviewing them as an inconvenience? TL;DR- Will professors view me asking to interview them about their career as an inconvenience? I am doing a project that requires me to reach out to contacts all around my academic field and interview them regarding their career. However, when I reached out to some of my professors, most were willing to provide me contacts from their networks, but one came back and said that he discourages me from interviewing people within the field. He said that often times professors or other professionals view students asking to interview them as an inconvenience. Is this a common consensus? I feel discouraged to continue with this project now because of this.
RESPONSE A: I love been interviewed by students. I really do.
RESPONSE B: Trust me, we won't let you inconvenience us. Professors are very well-practiced at saying no and protecting our time. Just be polite, respectful, and flexible when you ask. Bone up on their research and history and show you know a bit about them as an individual and say why you want to talk to them. Make it clear you will come to them and at their convenience. Allow them a polite and easy way to say no, and you'll be fine.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do professors view students interviewing them as an inconvenience? TL;DR- Will professors view me asking to interview them about their career as an inconvenience? I am doing a project that requires me to reach out to contacts all around my academic field and interview them regarding their career. However, when I reached out to some of my professors, most were willing to provide me contacts from their networks, but one came back and said that he discourages me from interviewing people within the field. He said that often times professors or other professionals view students asking to interview them as an inconvenience. Is this a common consensus? I feel discouraged to continue with this project now because of this.
RESPONSE A: I would only be annoyed if the student gave me short notice, was unreasonable about scheduling, or was ill-prepared with questions.
RESPONSE B: Trust me, we won't let you inconvenience us. Professors are very well-practiced at saying no and protecting our time. Just be polite, respectful, and flexible when you ask. Bone up on their research and history and show you know a bit about them as an individual and say why you want to talk to them. Make it clear you will come to them and at their convenience. Allow them a polite and easy way to say no, and you'll be fine.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do professors view students interviewing them as an inconvenience? TL;DR- Will professors view me asking to interview them about their career as an inconvenience? I am doing a project that requires me to reach out to contacts all around my academic field and interview them regarding their career. However, when I reached out to some of my professors, most were willing to provide me contacts from their networks, but one came back and said that he discourages me from interviewing people within the field. He said that often times professors or other professionals view students asking to interview them as an inconvenience. Is this a common consensus? I feel discouraged to continue with this project now because of this.
RESPONSE A: Some will, some won’t. Wont know which is which until you ask.
RESPONSE B: Trust me, we won't let you inconvenience us. Professors are very well-practiced at saying no and protecting our time. Just be polite, respectful, and flexible when you ask. Bone up on their research and history and show you know a bit about them as an individual and say why you want to talk to them. Make it clear you will come to them and at their convenience. Allow them a polite and easy way to say no, and you'll be fine.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Do professors view students interviewing them as an inconvenience? TL;DR- Will professors view me asking to interview them about their career as an inconvenience? I am doing a project that requires me to reach out to contacts all around my academic field and interview them regarding their career. However, when I reached out to some of my professors, most were willing to provide me contacts from their networks, but one came back and said that he discourages me from interviewing people within the field. He said that often times professors or other professionals view students asking to interview them as an inconvenience. Is this a common consensus? I feel discouraged to continue with this project now because of this.
RESPONSE A: I can't emphasize enough the extent to which a load of professors will be up for talking about themselves for an hour.
RESPONSE B: I don't. I enjoy when I get to talk about the story of how I got where I am, as it was a bit non traditional from the jump. Granted, in the OT field, there isn't much interviewing of professors, but I always enjoy it when it does happen. I even enjoy when grads/alumni reach out when they are done and working to share a moment or ask if what they are feeling is normal.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: that of a grad student than that of a sloppy undergrad?
RESPONSE A: I'm just an adjunct, but was an RA once when I was a kid. From that experience, I would say the utility of an undergraduate RA is really role and person dependent. My role was to do grunt work - data stuff, secondary research, thematic coding, etc. Never touched theory. So the role itself was designed specifically to provide value and for independent work. Clearly not meant to be a charity case. Now I also had well developed technical skills in matlab, work well with limited direction, and am pretty fastidious. If not I think I probably would have been a burden, as prof would need to handhold/teach and double-check work. Not sure if my experience/role is typical for an RA? Tbh I didn't learn much from being an RA - it was more like a part time job for me Anyway, in terms of advice, I suggest you put an emphasis on being fastidious and thorough. It only takes a few careless mistakes for the prof to realize your work can't be relied upon as is.
RESPONSE B: Undergrads are an investment (and summer students, too). What they contribute, honestly, would require less time and effort from my side if I did it myself. But they graduate at some point, and there is a chance they come back and become productive post-grads (either here or somewhere else, while we get somebody else's ex-undergrad). We need people, so we teach them, invest in them and let them get experience. It doesn't pay off in short time scale, but integrated over a longer period - it does. Plus, it's a part of the job - teaching is a relatively one way relationship, you don't get much in return immediately. And, if I can offer one advice - if you want to be helpful, ask direct, focused questions. Not "I don't know", but "How do I do this specific thing?". It speeds things up and shows you put effort into analysing the problem already and have particular issues needing clarification, not that you just didn't pay attention.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I overheard 2 grad students talking about how the undergrads they supervise always ask stupid questions and are generally incapable of working independently. Since I'm working on my senior project with a prof now and that makes me wonder if that's how my prof thinks about me too. How different are senior undergrads and first year grad students in terms of work ethics and ability? How can I make sure the quality of my work is closer to that of a grad student than that of a sloppy undergrad?
RESPONSE A: (Not a professor, but have mentored undergrads.) When mentoring an undergrad, you usually have to spend more time working with them to finish a task than if you had just done the task yourself. However, the work you get to do because you're not spending your time on those tasks is usually much more fun, so it's worth it in the end. Just be pleasant to work with and do your best at your work and people will keep your around and continue reinvesting in you. Mentoring students is actually the best part of my day and the moment when the student seems to "get it" and builds up momentum is always great to see.
RESPONSE B: Undergrads are an investment (and summer students, too). What they contribute, honestly, would require less time and effort from my side if I did it myself. But they graduate at some point, and there is a chance they come back and become productive post-grads (either here or somewhere else, while we get somebody else's ex-undergrad). We need people, so we teach them, invest in them and let them get experience. It doesn't pay off in short time scale, but integrated over a longer period - it does. Plus, it's a part of the job - teaching is a relatively one way relationship, you don't get much in return immediately. And, if I can offer one advice - if you want to be helpful, ask direct, focused questions. Not "I don't know", but "How do I do this specific thing?". It speeds things up and shows you put effort into analysing the problem already and have particular issues needing clarification, not that you just didn't pay attention.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Professors of Reddit, what do you really think about undergrad research students? Are we just a charity case? Do we actually contribute? Today, I overheard 2 grad students talking about how the undergrads they supervise always ask stupid questions and are generally incapable of working independently. Since I'm working on my senior project with a prof now and that makes me wonder if that's how my prof thinks about me too. How different are senior undergrads and first year grad students in terms of work ethics and ability? How can I make sure the quality of my work is closer to that of a grad student than that of a sloppy undergrad?
RESPONSE A: I think it would depend on your field a lot, but also on individual students. Sometimes you get a slightly older student that is very switched on and capable, but other times you can't even rely on one to do the most basic things in the lab without somehow messing it up.. It's generally more of the latter than the former, but like with all things it is a spectrum.
RESPONSE B: Undergrads are an investment (and summer students, too). What they contribute, honestly, would require less time and effort from my side if I did it myself. But they graduate at some point, and there is a chance they come back and become productive post-grads (either here or somewhere else, while we get somebody else's ex-undergrad). We need people, so we teach them, invest in them and let them get experience. It doesn't pay off in short time scale, but integrated over a longer period - it does. Plus, it's a part of the job - teaching is a relatively one way relationship, you don't get much in return immediately. And, if I can offer one advice - if you want to be helpful, ask direct, focused questions. Not "I don't know", but "How do I do this specific thing?". It speeds things up and shows you put effort into analysing the problem already and have particular issues needing clarification, not that you just didn't pay attention.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How to summarize PhD in 15 minute presentation? I will give a 15 minute presentation at a (non-academic, but research field) job interview, overviewing my previous work. I have my thesis defense presentation (exhaustive and long). Any tips on how to shave this down and focus the presentation? I am overwhelmed by the idea.
RESPONSE A: What is your topic, why is it interesting, what did you do, and what have you found out? Don't go into the specifics.
RESPONSE B: So you must run into this at parties. You meet up with someone who has a bachelor in whatever, and they say "Oh you're a PhD student? That's cool. What do you study?" and you have 30 seconds to explain what you do without sounding like a jackoff who's stringing together long words to sound smart. You do the same, except this time you're allowed pictures. Focus on the bare minimums. No one cares about your experimental details. Barest minimum, focus on the **why**, focus on the **results**, focus on **why they should care**. Forget the how (breeze by as fast as humanly possible). For the love of god, don't put any equations in, except one simple equation, and only if you're going to be using it as a prop rather than letting it stand for itself. Less is more. No one's ever been sad that the presentation ended too soon. Less text, more pictures. Less text, more oratory. Less text, less text. Actually, cut down on the text some more. Hope this helps!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How to summarize PhD in 15 minute presentation? I will give a 15 minute presentation at a (non-academic, but research field) job interview, overviewing my previous work. I have my thesis defense presentation (exhaustive and long). Any tips on how to shave this down and focus the presentation? I am overwhelmed by the idea.
RESPONSE A: If your thesis had multiple smaller experiments, either focus on one only, or if you include all then have one slide each, but focus more of the talk on what ties them together.
RESPONSE B: So you must run into this at parties. You meet up with someone who has a bachelor in whatever, and they say "Oh you're a PhD student? That's cool. What do you study?" and you have 30 seconds to explain what you do without sounding like a jackoff who's stringing together long words to sound smart. You do the same, except this time you're allowed pictures. Focus on the bare minimums. No one cares about your experimental details. Barest minimum, focus on the **why**, focus on the **results**, focus on **why they should care**. Forget the how (breeze by as fast as humanly possible). For the love of god, don't put any equations in, except one simple equation, and only if you're going to be using it as a prop rather than letting it stand for itself. Less is more. No one's ever been sad that the presentation ended too soon. Less text, more pictures. Less text, more oratory. Less text, less text. Actually, cut down on the text some more. Hope this helps!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How to summarize PhD in 15 minute presentation? I will give a 15 minute presentation at a (non-academic, but research field) job interview, overviewing my previous work. I have my thesis defense presentation (exhaustive and long). Any tips on how to shave this down and focus the presentation? I am overwhelmed by the idea.
RESPONSE A: If your thesis had multiple smaller experiments, either focus on one only, or if you include all then have one slide each, but focus more of the talk on what ties them together.
RESPONSE B: we do a thing called '3 minute thesis' which is quite a useful exercise because you often get asked to explain your thesis and people aren't going to sit around a listen to you for three hours! University of Queensland started it and their help page might be useful to you https://threeminutethesis.uq.edu.au/resources/3mt-competitor-guide As others have pointed out key is distilling the key points, and tell a story
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How to summarize PhD in 15 minute presentation? I will give a 15 minute presentation at a (non-academic, but research field) job interview, overviewing my previous work. I have my thesis defense presentation (exhaustive and long). Any tips on how to shave this down and focus the presentation? I am overwhelmed by the idea.
RESPONSE A: we do a thing called '3 minute thesis' which is quite a useful exercise because you often get asked to explain your thesis and people aren't going to sit around a listen to you for three hours! University of Queensland started it and their help page might be useful to you https://threeminutethesis.uq.edu.au/resources/3mt-competitor-guide As others have pointed out key is distilling the key points, and tell a story
RESPONSE B: Introduction: 1 min Broad outline of topic: 1 min What research says about the topic: 3 min What you decided to work on and why: 1 min What methods did you choose and why: 2 min What results did you have: 2 min Discussion: 4 min ​ I think this is 14 min. If you time your presentation/rehearse, never make it to 15 because in live it WILL get longer. Aim for 14.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How to summarize PhD in 15 minute presentation? I will give a 15 minute presentation at a (non-academic, but research field) job interview, overviewing my previous work. I have my thesis defense presentation (exhaustive and long). Any tips on how to shave this down and focus the presentation? I am overwhelmed by the idea.
RESPONSE A: If your thesis had multiple smaller experiments, either focus on one only, or if you include all then have one slide each, but focus more of the talk on what ties them together.
RESPONSE B: Because this is a job interview I think some of the other recommendations aren't quite right. I'm in industry now and I think these talks are to answer a few different questions. But you should ask yourself first what the point of this talk is? Do they want to learn about your thesis (unlikely) or the outcomes of your research (unlikely) or maybe they want to see if you can make an engaging presentation in a short period of time (probably) what exactly you did in terms of planning and executing your research (very likely) and how competently you can speak on the topic/respond to questions (probably). When we have talks like this the questions that get asked are more like, "Why did you choose that method. How did that analysis go? Why did you choose that programming language? What's the reasoning behind...?" We want to know how much you did versus your labmates or advisor, how you thought through things, etc. So set up the problem in a slide, maybe two at most, maybe give your background in one slide. Then describe what you did in a clear, easy to follow manner, focusing on parts they care about. It is perfectly fine to skip over parts that don't align with their interests. This is a "resume"-level talk, not a "cv"-level talk.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Can somebody write a dissertation outside of academia, enroll in a Ph.D. program, and submit it? This is purely hypothetical. Let's say somebody really enjoys the humanities (since a hard science would likely require actual lab time) and spends nights and weekends for several years working on a pet project. At the end, he has produced a several hundred page original work, with appropriate research and citations, etc. Would he be able to enroll in a Ph.D. program--maybe a European program where there is no coursework?--and submit his dissertation?
RESPONSE A: No offense, but I think such a student would be likely overestimating the quality of their own work extensively. In over a decade of mentoring graduate students, I’ve never had a single one come in with an undergraduate degrees capable of just banging out a fully formed PhD thesis. Most of them need extensive help and years of training in order to get it right.
RESPONSE B: You'd still actually have to complete the program, and meet it's requirements. Though you could probably use pieces of what you'd written along the way, you'd likely need to significantly change it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Can somebody write a dissertation outside of academia, enroll in a Ph.D. program, and submit it? This is purely hypothetical. Let's say somebody really enjoys the humanities (since a hard science would likely require actual lab time) and spends nights and weekends for several years working on a pet project. At the end, he has produced a several hundred page original work, with appropriate research and citations, etc. Would he be able to enroll in a Ph.D. program--maybe a European program where there is no coursework?--and submit his dissertation?
RESPONSE A: No offense, but I think such a student would be likely overestimating the quality of their own work extensively. In over a decade of mentoring graduate students, I’ve never had a single one come in with an undergraduate degrees capable of just banging out a fully formed PhD thesis. Most of them need extensive help and years of training in order to get it right.
RESPONSE B: I don't think a postgrad program would accept somebody that hasn't even been in pregrad. It seems that even if that person *could* do the work independently (which I highly doubt), to even be considered you need to have a degree.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Can somebody write a dissertation outside of academia, enroll in a Ph.D. program, and submit it? This is purely hypothetical. Let's say somebody really enjoys the humanities (since a hard science would likely require actual lab time) and spends nights and weekends for several years working on a pet project. At the end, he has produced a several hundred page original work, with appropriate research and citations, etc. Would he be able to enroll in a Ph.D. program--maybe a European program where there is no coursework?--and submit his dissertation?
RESPONSE A: I don't think a postgrad program would accept somebody that hasn't even been in pregrad. It seems that even if that person *could* do the work independently (which I highly doubt), to even be considered you need to have a degree.
RESPONSE B: In the U.K., technically yes. See a thesis by publication, it’s a less common but perfectly acceptable route to a PhD. It does, however, have to be published works that have been peer reviewed etc, and is typically done by older, experienced lecturers or researchers who have just never gotten their PhD (and usually working in an experienced group, not by themselves in isolation).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Can somebody write a dissertation outside of academia, enroll in a Ph.D. program, and submit it? This is purely hypothetical. Let's say somebody really enjoys the humanities (since a hard science would likely require actual lab time) and spends nights and weekends for several years working on a pet project. At the end, he has produced a several hundred page original work, with appropriate research and citations, etc. Would he be able to enroll in a Ph.D. program--maybe a European program where there is no coursework?--and submit his dissertation?
RESPONSE A: This would fall under the convention of popular science--or in this case, popular humanities, I suppose. I find it frustrating when people believe that a humanities-based dissertation requires a different (and lower) caliber of research than one in the hard sciences. As others have noted, it would probably be offensive for this reason. By all means, continue with your hobby, but you don't need to earn a PhD to give it a stamp of approval. Just because you've written a couple hundred pages on something by no means makes you an expert.
RESPONSE B: I don't think a postgrad program would accept somebody that hasn't even been in pregrad. It seems that even if that person *could* do the work independently (which I highly doubt), to even be considered you need to have a degree.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: for the planned Aim 2. Now I’m lost and can’t even get a meeting or replies to my emails asking for help. I don’t want to give up, but I don’t know who to turn to or what to do. My Psychology department chair has no real authority over Dr. F. If I tried to go to Dr. F’s department chair, I don’t think they would take me seriously because he has been seen in high regard and Caroline (who is a student in the same department that Dr. F is faculty) is doing well under his mentorship and likes him. Trying to talk to anyone about this makes me feel like the problem student because I already have changed advisors in this program, and I feel so singled out by Dr. F, but all I want is to do sound science and graduate!
RESPONSE A: At the very least an anonymous email to either the committee who overseas animal research, the regulator or your research governance office (depending on how it works with you) outlining the ongoing problems with the animals and naming the individuals, I think is warranted. The other thing here is you need to separate out the wider lab problems from your problems. You're concerned about going to the chair because they like Caroline, but you shouldn't be making your discussion about Caroline. Your issue is you and your PhD. So make the conversation about that. The tighter and narrower you make your complaint the harder it is for them to ignore it and the easier to deal with it.. If you go in and drop all of this on the chair's desk then your PhD is probably going to end up at the bottom of the pile to sort out and will get lost in the resulting debate while you're painted as impossible to work with. Talk to the chair, they agreed to be your adviser, so take them up on it, but only talk about what you need to get done with this PhD. And if you do send an anonymous email, the less you say about it to anyone else the more protected you'll be.
RESPONSE B: Try also r/gradschool for more support. I don’t have any answers for you, but I’m sorry you’re going through this. Is there another faculty member you can ask for help? Or an Ombuds office?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: . I’m supposed to have 2 years left in my degree. I spent the last year teaching myself about this very specific type of enzyme because Dr. F was not assisting in my training. I spent the last year learning the techniques for the planned Aim 2. Now I’m lost and can’t even get a meeting or replies to my emails asking for help. I don’t want to give up, but I don’t know who to turn to or what to do. My Psychology department chair has no real authority over Dr. F. If I tried to go to Dr. F’s department chair, I don’t think they would take me seriously because he has been seen in high regard and Caroline (who is a student in the same department that Dr. F is faculty) is doing well under his mentorship and likes him. Trying to talk to anyone about this makes me feel like the problem student because I already have changed advisors in this program, and I feel so singled out by Dr. F, but all I want is to do sound science and graduate!
RESPONSE A: Wait, you have an external grant? So your advisor isn't even paying for you? > Trying to talk to anyone about this makes me feel like the problem student because I already have changed advisors in this program, and I feel so singled out by Dr. F, but all I want is to do sound science and graduate! Your university almost certainly has an ombudsman, you should talk to them. Your conversations with them will be confidential and non-judgmental. If you get in touch with them they'll explain what their role can be (if they're any good). This is what they're there for! Good luck!
RESPONSE B: I was in a very similar situation during my MSc—my advisor played favorites and I got stuck with an impossible task of a thesis project that I realize in hindsight the lab wasn’t equipped for. On top of all the verbal and psychological abuse. Gather as much evidence as you can and go to your department chair. Ask to be reassigned to another PI. It may mean you’re in school longer, but at this point it sounds like your professor keeps moving the goalposts and is never gonna let you graduate anyway.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: to begin Aim 2 this summer, exclusively about the enzyme. I was supposed to begin my qualifying exams this month. I’m supposed to have 2 years left in my degree. I spent the last year teaching myself about this very specific type of enzyme because Dr. F was not assisting in my training. I spent the last year learning the techniques for the planned Aim 2. Now I’m lost and can’t even get a meeting or replies to my emails asking for help. I don’t want to give up, but I don’t know who to turn to or what to do. My Psychology department chair has no real authority over Dr. F. If I tried to go to Dr. F’s department chair, I don’t think they would take me seriously because he has been seen in high regard and Caroline (who is a student in the same department that Dr. F is faculty) is doing well under his mentorship and likes him. Trying to talk to anyone about this makes me feel like the problem student because I already have changed advisors in this program, and I feel so singled out by Dr. F, but all I want is to do sound science and graduate!
RESPONSE A: Wait, you have an external grant? So your advisor isn't even paying for you? > Trying to talk to anyone about this makes me feel like the problem student because I already have changed advisors in this program, and I feel so singled out by Dr. F, but all I want is to do sound science and graduate! Your university almost certainly has an ombudsman, you should talk to them. Your conversations with them will be confidential and non-judgmental. If you get in touch with them they'll explain what their role can be (if they're any good). This is what they're there for! Good luck!
RESPONSE B: If your university has an ombudsman office, you should meet with someone ASAP. Ombudsman sole focus is to provide you with anonymous advice that is specific to your institution for these types of situations. Godspeed Edit: you can also get an ombudsman to be an impartial moderator in a meeting if you need help getting through to someone. I’ve used this system and have found it extraordinarily effective.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: a side job during a PhD - do universities enforce this? I am a prospective PhD student and I am puzzled about restrictions on outside employment for full time grad students. My prospective university places a limit of 400 hours worked in a year max - excluding research, of course. I understand this is done to encourage students to focus on their research but it is limiting. I have held mindless jobs before that did not distract me at all from studying but the 400 hours rule would prevent me from working more than 1 day a week. My question is: do universities enforce this? Do universities sue grad students or revoke scholarships if they have a side job that goes beyond the max hours? PS: Note that I applied for scholarships. A side job would supplement my scholarship and allow me to build work experience. I
RESPONSE A: It’s going to depend not just on university policy but on individual departments and maybe even individual labs. At my own university different departments handle grad student outside employment very differently. If this is going to make or break your ability to be a student then you need to talk to people in your department and if possible under your specific advisor to find out how outside work is approached.
RESPONSE B: When assessing the benefits and risks of taking an outside job while you're receiving financial support from a program / department / grant, keep in mind that in addition to the rules of the road as written vs the rules of the road as driven, there are also the individual differences / preferences of people who have direct and indirect power over your future. So even if it's okay to take the job and many do so, your PI may think that you're not committed to your work (and their project). Others, who appear to have no power over you, may have a say in subsequent funding decisions -- for instance, when it is time to decide who gets a TA-ship and who doesn't. Also, other graduate students can make noise if they feel that some peers are "getting away" with bending the rules. Finally, even if your professors have no reservations about taking on part time work, consider the benefits of conferring with one or more if you get offered a job. There may be issues you would otherwise not consider.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Restrictions on hours worked at a side job during a PhD - do universities enforce this? I am a prospective PhD student and I am puzzled about restrictions on outside employment for full time grad students. My prospective university places a limit of 400 hours worked in a year max - excluding research, of course. I understand this is done to encourage students to focus on their research but it is limiting. I have held mindless jobs before that did not distract me at all from studying but the 400 hours rule would prevent me from working more than 1 day a week. My question is: do universities enforce this? Do universities sue grad students or revoke scholarships if they have a side job that goes beyond the max hours? PS: Note that I applied for scholarships. A side job would supplement my scholarship and allow me to build work experience. I
RESPONSE A: Maybe it is different today. When I was in Ph.D program they funded tuition and living expenses. We could not work anywhere else.
RESPONSE B: It’s going to depend not just on university policy but on individual departments and maybe even individual labs. At my own university different departments handle grad student outside employment very differently. If this is going to make or break your ability to be a student then you need to talk to people in your department and if possible under your specific advisor to find out how outside work is approached.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Restrictions on hours worked at a side job during a PhD - do universities enforce this? I am a prospective PhD student and I am puzzled about restrictions on outside employment for full time grad students. My prospective university places a limit of 400 hours worked in a year max - excluding research, of course. I understand this is done to encourage students to focus on their research but it is limiting. I have held mindless jobs before that did not distract me at all from studying but the 400 hours rule would prevent me from working more than 1 day a week. My question is: do universities enforce this? Do universities sue grad students or revoke scholarships if they have a side job that goes beyond the max hours? PS: Note that I applied for scholarships. A side job would supplement my scholarship and allow me to build work experience. I
RESPONSE A: Impossible for anybody here to answer this without knowing the university in question and your personal circumstances. The one case in which I'd say the answer is definitely "yes" is if you're on a visa, and your visa places restrictions on how much you can work. You don't want to mess about with visas.
RESPONSE B: It’s going to depend not just on university policy but on individual departments and maybe even individual labs. At my own university different departments handle grad student outside employment very differently. If this is going to make or break your ability to be a student then you need to talk to people in your department and if possible under your specific advisor to find out how outside work is approached.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Restrictions on hours worked at a side job during a PhD - do universities enforce this? I am a prospective PhD student and I am puzzled about restrictions on outside employment for full time grad students. My prospective university places a limit of 400 hours worked in a year max - excluding research, of course. I understand this is done to encourage students to focus on their research but it is limiting. I have held mindless jobs before that did not distract me at all from studying but the 400 hours rule would prevent me from working more than 1 day a week. My question is: do universities enforce this? Do universities sue grad students or revoke scholarships if they have a side job that goes beyond the max hours? PS: Note that I applied for scholarships. A side job would supplement my scholarship and allow me to build work experience. I
RESPONSE A: It’s going to depend not just on university policy but on individual departments and maybe even individual labs. At my own university different departments handle grad student outside employment very differently. If this is going to make or break your ability to be a student then you need to talk to people in your department and if possible under your specific advisor to find out how outside work is approached.
RESPONSE B: Amazing how they want to underpay/not pay you at all for your work, but also adamantly refuse to allow you to earn a proper salary anywhere outside the uni. Almost like they want to purposefully keep you enslaved to them. To your question - in some unis I know this is enforced, in my uni they stopped enforcing it 2 years ago, but it's still difficult convincing your advisor to let you do anything outside of uni. Regardless, if you're being underpaid/not offered a proper salary for your PhD work - leave.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Restrictions on hours worked at a side job during a PhD - do universities enforce this? I am a prospective PhD student and I am puzzled about restrictions on outside employment for full time grad students. My prospective university places a limit of 400 hours worked in a year max - excluding research, of course. I understand this is done to encourage students to focus on their research but it is limiting. I have held mindless jobs before that did not distract me at all from studying but the 400 hours rule would prevent me from working more than 1 day a week. My question is: do universities enforce this? Do universities sue grad students or revoke scholarships if they have a side job that goes beyond the max hours? PS: Note that I applied for scholarships. A side job would supplement my scholarship and allow me to build work experience. I
RESPONSE A: Sometimes. We, professors, also are given rules about other employment. If you are getting your work done, they often look the other way for students. For professors they are not forgiving. The problem you could run into is if you are not very productive and your side job is blamed. You do not need to tell everyone everything. Good luck.
RESPONSE B: Amazing how they want to underpay/not pay you at all for your work, but also adamantly refuse to allow you to earn a proper salary anywhere outside the uni. Almost like they want to purposefully keep you enslaved to them. To your question - in some unis I know this is enforced, in my uni they stopped enforcing it 2 years ago, but it's still difficult convincing your advisor to let you do anything outside of uni. Regardless, if you're being underpaid/not offered a proper salary for your PhD work - leave.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do I hire a PhD or professor for a 1-2 hour interview? I want to talk to a PhD/professor in a very fringe area of psychology and ask them questions about their very specific subject area. Just an hour or two discussion and maybe take some notes/ ask them about the general topic. I'm not a business but I could pay them via venmo/other means. How do I go about doing this?
RESPONSE A: Send them an email. Most people like talking about their research. If they don’t respond, it’s because they receive 100s of emails per day, so you’d better have a convincing project or idea or reason for requesting their time! Pay probably won’t be as convincing as the reason you want their thoughts on said particular area
RESPONSE B: If you were approaching me my main concern would be what you are going to do with those comments. Will they be published anywhere? Quoted in some kind of advertising material? Used in research? I would want to know who you work for or represent. The fact that you are offering to pay for the information sounds very suspicious to be honest - more likely to be associated with promoting or selling something.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: as undergraduates have done extremely well here.” MIT Department of Biology: FAQ About Applying. > >Also Harvard’s admission page: “To qualify for admission, applicants must demonstrate strong enthusiasm and ability for the vigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge. Minimal requirements include a bachelor’s degree and undergraduate preparation in the sciences.” Harvard Division of Medical Sciences: Admissions ​ To me, this sounds woefully idealistic. Maybe MIT/Harvard don't have explicit rules against non-bio people, but I doubt it happens in reality with any statistically relevant frequency. I am asking because I am in an Electrical Engineer major and could switch easily into Physics, but I am eyeing Biomedical graduate school and changing to Biology would basically mean starting over.
RESPONSE A: I've seen some graduate program pre-reqs that seem borderline predatory-- the purpose is clearly to let a ton of applicants in, but after admission (and payment) it does appear to be sink-or-swim. I have mixed feelings about that. Obviously, students are ultimately responsible for learning course material, but you can put administrative safeguards in place to insure candidates have the bare minimum to succeed. That being said, there's value in casting a wide net in the sciences. It's true that grad school will narrow you down to a laser focus, but new perspectives are crucial in driving innovation. Mentoring is incredibly important, but in my experience, the average hammer PI is making more hammers-- even when a screwdriver might be necessary. If I had a nickel for every time I heard "outside the box" as if it were an incantation.
RESPONSE B: "Biology", and even more so "biomedical research" is long past being the cutting up of frogs. Some branches are highly technical in an equipment sense (e.g any of the structural fields), often with labs building and developing their own specialized equipment. A person with a solid grounding in electrical engineering would be welcome into many labs. In general, people with cross field training are quite sought after. You will need to apply yourself to pick up the biology, but it will probably pay off in the long run.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Medical Sciences: Admissions ​ To me, this sounds woefully idealistic. Maybe MIT/Harvard don't have explicit rules against non-bio people, but I doubt it happens in reality with any statistically relevant frequency. I am asking because I am in an Electrical Engineer major and could switch easily into Physics, but I am eyeing Biomedical graduate school and changing to Biology would basically mean starting over.
RESPONSE A: Your research experience matters more than your major. If you're interested in graduate school in biomedical sciences, the best thing you can do for yourself as an undergrad is to join a lab and do research in your area of interest. This doesn't necessarily have to be wet lab research, either; biologists with computational backgrounds are increasingly common. My best friend's undergrad was in bioinformatics/computer science and he's now in a genetics program. There are multiple PIs at my institution who came from engineering backgrounds and now do things like deep-brain stimulation for neurodegenerative diseases. Same is true at other places. Just be aware there will be a learning curve depending on how much biology you pick up in undergrad, and that even though you might have a non-bio major, you still need to learn foundational concepts in biology.
RESPONSE B: I've seen some graduate program pre-reqs that seem borderline predatory-- the purpose is clearly to let a ton of applicants in, but after admission (and payment) it does appear to be sink-or-swim. I have mixed feelings about that. Obviously, students are ultimately responsible for learning course material, but you can put administrative safeguards in place to insure candidates have the bare minimum to succeed. That being said, there's value in casting a wide net in the sciences. It's true that grad school will narrow you down to a laser focus, but new perspectives are crucial in driving innovation. Mentoring is incredibly important, but in my experience, the average hammer PI is making more hammers-- even when a screwdriver might be necessary. If I had a nickel for every time I heard "outside the box" as if it were an incantation.
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.