label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
A | POST: Is there a research database that allows you to search for articles based on the theories or methods of analysis that were used? Specifically for communication studies, please, if anyone has leads. Thank you!
RESPONSE A: Academic librarian here: not that I know of. As others have said, advanced search strings can help with this. I highly recommend chatting with your institution's librarian (or one of them) to request some recommended search strings.
RESPONSE B: This is what keywords are for, but anything that can search through full text will help with coverage.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: or academia in general. I am (minorly) terrified of publicly having no idea how to work on these skills. If anyone is willing to point me in the right direction, I’d be grateful. 1) how do you find conferences in your field? How have you established connections with potential collaborators in these spaces? 2) how do you apply for grants/funding for projects and what are some ways to develop this background? 3) How to get involved with professional societies? Have they been important in your development?
RESPONSE A: Hi, I'm a STEM PI at an R1, and I wrote up these tips for my lab. They cover organization, scheduling, reference management, and time management. Not exactly what you asked, but I hope they are still useful to you! https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YoecFXoC5auoA_Kz_AfdD0dhWmiCeeGR_MEFSDFy0Ok/edit?usp=drivesdk
RESPONSE B: As someone who is also a new PhD student (just started this year), although in history, here's my advice - your university will almost certainly have an events programme aimed at helping PhD students develop their skills. This can range from helping you figure out how to format your thesis on different programs to broader skills like time management, or more specific things like having a Q&A session with publishers. Outside of that, your field may have an organisation specifically for PhD students. History has HistoryLab, run by the Institute for Historical Research, which actively advertises events for PhD students and allows them opportunities to present their research. As for conferences, it's best to talk to your supervisor about that. Less than a month in, my supervisors had already discussed what the most important conferences were for me, but that's because I asked. You're just starting out, your supervisors know that you don't know everything and they're there to guide you. And the upside for conferences is that usually your university will have a travel fund that you can send your expenses to, at least in terms of accommodation and travel costs - although I think some universities do require that you're giving a talk to cover the expenses, so always check first.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How are co-first authorships viewed in academia? If it's mentioned that both authors contributed equally, does the order of the authors' names matter at all?
RESPONSE A: It'll depend on the person, but I always take co-first-authorship to be gaming the system to pad your CV, not really the realistically impossible task of splitting it equally. And if the first authors aren't alphabetical, I'd 100% assume the second first author is not a first author, aye. But I may have done things other people would perceive as salami slicing once or twice, so I can't be too judgemental.
RESPONSE B: My doctoral supervisor who was pre tenure (first mistake of mine) convinced me to list our names alphabetically on the primary article from my field study. Since my last name is at the end of the alphabet this meant she was listed first. There was an asterisk added that said “both authors contributed equally to this paper”. The result is that my dissertation research is forever cited w her name first. That pub helped get her tenure.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How are co-first authorships viewed in academia? If it's mentioned that both authors contributed equally, does the order of the authors' names matter at all?
RESPONSE A: The problem with co-first is that people always refer to the paper as “Smith. 2020” just using the first first author, also, many databases don’t do stars so people won’t even know about the star unless they go to the paper file itself.
RESPONSE B: It'll depend on the person, but I always take co-first-authorship to be gaming the system to pad your CV, not really the realistically impossible task of splitting it equally. And if the first authors aren't alphabetical, I'd 100% assume the second first author is not a first author, aye. But I may have done things other people would perceive as salami slicing once or twice, so I can't be too judgemental.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How are co-first authorships viewed in academia? If it's mentioned that both authors contributed equally, does the order of the authors' names matter at all?
RESPONSE A: First co-author = first author > second co-author >= second author. That’s what I think
RESPONSE B: It'll depend on the person, but I always take co-first-authorship to be gaming the system to pad your CV, not really the realistically impossible task of splitting it equally. And if the first authors aren't alphabetical, I'd 100% assume the second first author is not a first author, aye. But I may have done things other people would perceive as salami slicing once or twice, so I can't be too judgemental.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How are co-first authorships viewed in academia? If it's mentioned that both authors contributed equally, does the order of the authors' names matter at all?
RESPONSE A: It'll depend on the person, but I always take co-first-authorship to be gaming the system to pad your CV, not really the realistically impossible task of splitting it equally. And if the first authors aren't alphabetical, I'd 100% assume the second first author is not a first author, aye. But I may have done things other people would perceive as salami slicing once or twice, so I can't be too judgemental.
RESPONSE B: I recently submitted a co-first author but the only reason I'm happy about it is because we ended up splitting a paper into two papers and so we're swapping co-authorship on them. Sure it's code first author but I think people still only look at who is first unfortunately. Which is sad because we definitely contributed equally but I feel like having duo papers where you swap first authorship is the way to go if possible.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How are co-first authorships viewed in academia? If it's mentioned that both authors contributed equally, does the order of the authors' names matter at all?
RESPONSE A: As a Masters student, PhD student, and Post-doc, it's of high value and basically a winner taken all system. People doing lots of work and contributing ideas obtain little credit, even as 2nd, 3rd, and 4th authors. Having these authorships (2nd and beyond) is of value, but heavy emphasis is placed on first authorships. Co-first (like others have said) are important, but being listed 2nd can really take away the benefit in some people's eyes. Some hiring institutions and grant application reviewers will complain about the lack of first (listed first) authorships. As a senior post-doc to PI, first authorship only tends to matter for reviews in high impact journals. Otherwise, they primarily want the last author position to signify that they managed all the work.
RESPONSE B: It does matter. Maybe not in citations, but it certainly will in your CV. Make sure to clearly highlight co-first author papers and that you contributed equally.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: that was adopted very recently (tenure after 18 months and promotion to Assistant professor 1 after 4 years roughly)? About the fact that you don't necessarily get an associate professor position in the long term? 4. The pay scale for professors there is super straightforward but very much lower than what you'd get in North America. Does the work life balance and tenure after 18 months make it worth it? Curious to know what you all think.
RESPONSE A: >The pay scale for professors there is super straightforward but very much lower than what you'd get in North America. Does the work life balance and tenure after 18 months make it worth it? This is pretty much impossible to compare. Work-life balance isn't the major issue, it is the cost of living long-term. When you don't have to save up for your future children's college, you don't have to pay for health care, child care is heavily subsidized, etc. x 100, the math regarding wages is something else. Also, it depends on how long you plan to stay. 1 year, country A. 5 years, country B, for life, country C. One way of looking at it is like this: Are the two countries comparably equally wealthy? If so, where do tenured Professors place as percentile of national incomes? If they are about the same, the pay is likely comparable.
RESPONSE B: There is no such thing as "the" tenure track system in The Netherlands. There are big differences between universities, faculties and even departments, both in the extent to which they use a tenure track system and, if they do have a tenure track, in the way the tenure track works. There really is a lot of variation. Variation in when tenure is awarded (after 1 year, 2 years, 6 years?). Variation in conditions that need to be met to be succesful in the track (grants, papers, PhD supervision). Variation in what kind of promotions are available during the track (none, or higher level assistant professor, or associate, or associate with a follow-up track to full, or full). So that makes it hard to answer your questions. The one thing that the tracks have in common is that tenure is in principle for life, or actually until retirement age. Why are you asking?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: what are the major differences between R1 and R2 institutions? What are people's experiences in these situations and how do you like your job?
RESPONSE A: R2s that want to become R1s - without spending significant extra cash for support (admin, time, resources, extra people) - are hellholes filled with delusional admins that grind their pretenure faculty to dust and embitter the senior faculty that didn't get a lucky punch with a big grant. They are amongst the *worst* places to work in academia.
RESPONSE B: I'm at a R2 with ambitions to become a R1 (e.g., my department has a PhD program and is likely to have at least one more in the next few years). I prefer R2 over R1 (I did my PhD at a R1) and am against making the move to R1. R2 allows you more flexibility in terms of whether to pursue research vs teaching vs service. The pressure to get grants is not as intense and you can have some "off" years in terms of research productivity and not get hammered. I have some semesters where I focus more on research and others where I focus more on teaching. I don't think I could do this as easily at a R1. With that said, the pay is often significantly lower than what comparable profs make at R1s. Although, like at R1s, if you get lots of grant money, your salary will go up and up. I have some professors in my department who make about what their R1 counterparts make (but they also spend their lives in the lab and writing grants, just like they would be doing at a R1).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: what are the major differences between R1 and R2 institutions? What are people's experiences in these situations and how do you like your job?
RESPONSE A: R2s that want to become R1s - without spending significant extra cash for support (admin, time, resources, extra people) - are hellholes filled with delusional admins that grind their pretenure faculty to dust and embitter the senior faculty that didn't get a lucky punch with a big grant. They are amongst the *worst* places to work in academia.
RESPONSE B: It's a designation between the level of research that's conducted at a doctoral granting university
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: what are the major differences between R1 and R2 institutions? What are people's experiences in these situations and how do you like your job?
RESPONSE A: The amount of Rs
RESPONSE B: It's a designation between the level of research that's conducted at a doctoral granting university
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: what are the major differences between R1 and R2 institutions? What are people's experiences in these situations and how do you like your job?
RESPONSE A: It's a designation between the level of research that's conducted at a doctoral granting university
RESPONSE B: I'm at a R2 with ambitions to become a R1 (e.g., my department has a PhD program and is likely to have at least one more in the next few years). I prefer R2 over R1 (I did my PhD at a R1) and am against making the move to R1. R2 allows you more flexibility in terms of whether to pursue research vs teaching vs service. The pressure to get grants is not as intense and you can have some "off" years in terms of research productivity and not get hammered. I have some semesters where I focus more on research and others where I focus more on teaching. I don't think I could do this as easily at a R1. With that said, the pay is often significantly lower than what comparable profs make at R1s. Although, like at R1s, if you get lots of grant money, your salary will go up and up. I have some professors in my department who make about what their R1 counterparts make (but they also spend their lives in the lab and writing grants, just like they would be doing at a R1).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: what are the major differences between R1 and R2 institutions? What are people's experiences in these situations and how do you like your job?
RESPONSE A: It's a designation between the level of research that's conducted at a doctoral granting university
RESPONSE B: I'm at a R1. I've never worked at a R2 but my understanding is that tenure standards are more stringent when it comes to research at R1s and R1s pay more. Teaching load is often lower at R1s. I teach a 2-2.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: , especially a couple of high-impact manuscript acceptance this last month. Thus, using the ChatGPT I got the draft of two paragraphs that helped a lot to move fast with this manuscript. Because I'm deeply editing these two paragraphs I think there are no ethical concerns about it. However, today I ask the ChatGPT to rewrite the paragraph of the objectives in another manuscript that received a minor review. The major concern is the lack of clarity in the objectives. Thus, I just asked to the ChatGPT rewrite this in a clearer manner and nail it. The paragraph is amazing now and I'm planning to use it directly as it is in the manuscript to send back to the journal. My question however is if I'm pushing the ethical line far from the gray area and if I can be punished in the future for this approach. Please note that I'm talking about a couple of paragraphs (300 words maximum).
RESPONSE A: I’m not sure about ethics but wouldn’t it be easier to get colleagues to proof-read for you and give suggestions? Then you don’t need to worry about whether it’s considered cheating, and you might learn how to write more clearly for the future
RESPONSE B: Anything that increases clarity in academic writing is a huge win. If you can learn from what ChatGPT suggested, that's a win too. My recommendation: add a line in the acknowledgment section: "Thanks to ChatGPT for editing suggestions." (Or however you'd credit a colleague for the same work it did.) Make sure your coauthors know about this. Transparency should help protect you from ethics concerns. Also it would signal to readers that ChatGPT might be useful to them. Note 1: There's a tiny chance that ChatGPT would regurgitate text from another paper verbatim. It's probably worth doing a search for sentences from the text it generates, just to make sure they haven't appeared elsewhere. Note 2: FWIW, there are early indications that it's possible to detect ChatGPT-generated prose automatically. So I would not assume that this is something you could hide. But again, in my view it's not something that needs to be hidden.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: to take it back I felt anxious and blocked. However, I'm currently passing a great moment of my life that brings me back to the joying of scientific writing, especially a couple of high-impact manuscript acceptance this last month. Thus, using the ChatGPT I got the draft of two paragraphs that helped a lot to move fast with this manuscript. Because I'm deeply editing these two paragraphs I think there are no ethical concerns about it. However, today I ask the ChatGPT to rewrite the paragraph of the objectives in another manuscript that received a minor review. The major concern is the lack of clarity in the objectives. Thus, I just asked to the ChatGPT rewrite this in a clearer manner and nail it. The paragraph is amazing now and I'm planning to use it directly as it is in the manuscript to send back to the journal. My question however is if I'm pushing the ethical line far from the gray area and if I can be punished in the future for this approach. Please note that I'm talking about a couple of paragraphs (300 words maximum).
RESPONSE A: Anything that increases clarity in academic writing is a huge win. If you can learn from what ChatGPT suggested, that's a win too. My recommendation: add a line in the acknowledgment section: "Thanks to ChatGPT for editing suggestions." (Or however you'd credit a colleague for the same work it did.) Make sure your coauthors know about this. Transparency should help protect you from ethics concerns. Also it would signal to readers that ChatGPT might be useful to them. Note 1: There's a tiny chance that ChatGPT would regurgitate text from another paper verbatim. It's probably worth doing a search for sentences from the text it generates, just to make sure they haven't appeared elsewhere. Note 2: FWIW, there are early indications that it's possible to detect ChatGPT-generated prose automatically. So I would not assume that this is something you could hide. But again, in my view it's not something that needs to be hidden.
RESPONSE B: Huh. Following because it's an interesting question that I want to know the answers to as well.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Can I use ChatGPT to rewrite one or a couple of paragraphs to resolve reviewers' comments? Am I cheating? I just discovered the ChatGPT3 from OpenAI and I'm in love. It has helped me a lot to overcome a creative block I was facing to finish a manuscript from my PhD where 2 of 3 coauthors (the 2 advisors) are quite absent, and for this reason, I stopped working on this manuscript for 1.5 years. Every time I tried to take it back I felt anxious and blocked. However, I'm currently passing a great moment of my life that brings me back to the joying of scientific writing, especially a couple of high-impact manuscript acceptance this last month. Thus, using the ChatGPT I got the draft of two paragraphs that helped a lot to move fast with this manuscript. Because I'm deeply editing these two paragraphs I think there are no ethical concerns about it. However, today I ask the ChatGPT to rewrite the paragraph of the objectives in another manuscript that received a minor review. The major concern is the lack of clarity in the objectives. Thus, I just asked to the ChatGPT rewrite this in a clearer manner and nail it. The paragraph is amazing now and I'm planning to use it directly as it is in the manuscript to send back to the journal. My question however is if I'm pushing the ethical line far from the gray area and if I can be punished in the future for this approach. Please note that I'm talking about a couple of paragraphs (300 words maximum).
RESPONSE A: I’m not sure about ethics but wouldn’t it be easier to get colleagues to proof-read for you and give suggestions? Then you don’t need to worry about whether it’s considered cheating, and you might learn how to write more clearly for the future
RESPONSE B: I personally think it sounds problematic. There’s a larger problem at hand if you’re turning to ChatGPT to rewrite 300 word sections for clarity. At the end of the day it isn’t your words so you’d need to reference/cite it. Even then as a reviewer I’d be concerned about the rest of the document. Good luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What are the limits of ethics using AI to write a manuscript Short history: Can I use ChatGPT to rewrite one or a couple of paragraphs to resolve reviewers' comments? Am I cheating? I just discovered the ChatGPT3 from OpenAI and I'm in love. It has helped me a lot to overcome a creative block I was facing to finish a manuscript from my PhD where 2 of 3 coauthors (the 2 advisors) are quite absent, and for this reason, I stopped working on this manuscript for 1.5 years. Every time I tried to take it back I felt anxious and blocked. However, I'm currently passing a great moment of my life that brings me back to the joying of scientific writing, especially a couple of high-impact manuscript acceptance this last month. Thus, using the ChatGPT I got the draft of two paragraphs that helped a lot to move fast with this manuscript. Because I'm deeply editing these two paragraphs I think there are no ethical concerns about it. However, today I ask the ChatGPT to rewrite the paragraph of the objectives in another manuscript that received a minor review. The major concern is the lack of clarity in the objectives. Thus, I just asked to the ChatGPT rewrite this in a clearer manner and nail it. The paragraph is amazing now and I'm planning to use it directly as it is in the manuscript to send back to the journal. My question however is if I'm pushing the ethical line far from the gray area and if I can be punished in the future for this approach. Please note that I'm talking about a couple of paragraphs (300 words maximum).
RESPONSE A: Huh. Following because it's an interesting question that I want to know the answers to as well.
RESPONSE B: I personally think it sounds problematic. There’s a larger problem at hand if you’re turning to ChatGPT to rewrite 300 word sections for clarity. At the end of the day it isn’t your words so you’d need to reference/cite it. Even then as a reviewer I’d be concerned about the rest of the document. Good luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: s) are quite absent, and for this reason, I stopped working on this manuscript for 1.5 years. Every time I tried to take it back I felt anxious and blocked. However, I'm currently passing a great moment of my life that brings me back to the joying of scientific writing, especially a couple of high-impact manuscript acceptance this last month. Thus, using the ChatGPT I got the draft of two paragraphs that helped a lot to move fast with this manuscript. Because I'm deeply editing these two paragraphs I think there are no ethical concerns about it. However, today I ask the ChatGPT to rewrite the paragraph of the objectives in another manuscript that received a minor review. The major concern is the lack of clarity in the objectives. Thus, I just asked to the ChatGPT rewrite this in a clearer manner and nail it. The paragraph is amazing now and I'm planning to use it directly as it is in the manuscript to send back to the journal. My question however is if I'm pushing the ethical line far from the gray area and if I can be punished in the future for this approach. Please note that I'm talking about a couple of paragraphs (300 words maximum).
RESPONSE A: I personally think it sounds problematic. There’s a larger problem at hand if you’re turning to ChatGPT to rewrite 300 word sections for clarity. At the end of the day it isn’t your words so you’d need to reference/cite it. Even then as a reviewer I’d be concerned about the rest of the document. Good luck!
RESPONSE B: This is different than a student trying to pass off automated writing as their own, in which case they would violate an academic integrity policy. You’re not stealing anyone’s intellectual property (plagiarism) or withholding credit from another author, and you’re not bound by any policy to not use outside help. I would view this as more akin to using spelling/grammar tools, and it’s fine. It would be a nice move, however would be to add in your acknowledgements section that ChatGPT was used in the preparation of the manuscript, similar to how people acknowledge non-authors that gave feedback on a draft.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What are the best strategies to stay up to date with current research trends? I know about reading papers but really there’s only much that one can get through. And ability to attend all conferences and seminar talks.
RESPONSE A: Every morning and every night, I read the titles and abstracts for papers listed on arxiv, PRL, and PRB. If I don't understand any part of the title, I just skip it as it's likely not in my subfield. If I understand the title, then I read the abstract, so on and so forth. Only 1-2 papers are relevant enough for me to read the full thing each day. Other than that I stay connected with my friends and ask them what they've been up to in order to get an understanding of the academic landscape.
RESPONSE B: The Research Rabbit can be used for that purpose, in addition to Google Scholar alerts. I've got a few folders only and I've only got a few papers suggested in total in the past 2 months or so but they were highly relevant to the seed papers and I was able to print them off straight away after just reading the titles.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: , so I'm also afraid that getting myself involved will make them very worried, and have negative influence on my own future. What do you think of this? Do you think I should be more brave, or do you think I should keep myself out of this? Thanks.
RESPONSE A: To give an opposing perspective, I think it's highly likely that other professors in the department will learn about the complaint, particularly given that its on behalf of an entire class. Working in academia, I've been witness to how quickly word can spread within a department. This professor does not seem like he cares about rules or gives any regard to the consequences of his behavior so while the Dean or HR being involved will probably protect the students to some extent, it will not stop the professor from taking other forms of action against the students which could be very harmful for future endeavors. With all that said, if you're looking at applying to PhD programs, you are probably close to being done with your Masters. You will soon be out of this department and won't be impacted by this professor any longer. If it were me, I would stay out of this. If the professors is so unprofessional, I would second guess getting a recommendation from him, but nonetheless, it seems like you have the right attitude about his behavior (realizing its horrible, but not taking it personally). If this were a situation were you were working directly with or underneath the professor, and were going to do so for the coming years, I would 100% agree that this is an unhealthy and unprofessional environment and that you need to get out. Since this does not seem to be the case (correct me if I'm wrong), like I said, I'd probably stay out of it, or if you feel like you want to get involved, like the other response mentioned, check about privacy rules involved with submitting a formal complaint and understand how you will be protected by the school/HR department before getting involved. Sorry to hear about the bad situation--hope it works out!!!
RESPONSE B: I understand where you're coming from, in your position I would lay low and stay out of trouble. Also, I think that complaining about an old mean faculty member is not such a noble worthy cause that you need to get in trouble over it and stress yourself and your parents.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Are PhD students and Academics allowed to operate a startup on the side in their free time? Is it even possible given the work hours? I was wondering whether its allowed and possible for PhD students and lecturers to work on a startup (eg a regular startup or an invention startup or a research startup) on the side. By allowed, I mean whether academic institutions allow it and if not what will be the consequences if you are caught. For possibility, I mean whether one has the time and energy (after necessities like commute, work, chores etc) to work on a startup business on the side. Please answer for both PhD students as well as Lecturers (the first rung on the academic career)
RESPONSE A: Check with your University. A lot of them have startup incubators now. But generally, if you have a startup with external funding, you will write into a contract that you are paid X% of your salary by the Uni/grants, and y% from startup, and you would have to keep any resources used between them separate. If you do all your startup work from home, that should be simpler, but you should check with your contract and iron out any details before getting started.
RESPONSE B: My PhD programme had a rule that we were only allowed to work for 10 hours a month outside of our department. They basically said "we pay you a pile of money, and expect you to work." Nobody listened except those who had the largest national grants (who didn't care anyways). As long as you're not ostentatious about these sorts of things they can be broken. The reality is that if your business takes off the academic misconduct won't matter, and if it doesn't, nobody will notice. Just don't make it an issue with your supervisor, and don't let it affect your work with anyone in the department. If you're quiet and take reasonable precautions it won't matter. But, be careful with IP. You may well end up not owning it. Most research universities have incubators now, but I'm wary of sending students there. They generally want a slice, like everyone else.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Are PhD students and Academics allowed to operate a startup on the side in their free time? Is it even possible given the work hours? I was wondering whether its allowed and possible for PhD students and lecturers to work on a startup (eg a regular startup or an invention startup or a research startup) on the side. By allowed, I mean whether academic institutions allow it and if not what will be the consequences if you are caught. For possibility, I mean whether one has the time and energy (after necessities like commute, work, chores etc) to work on a startup business on the side. Please answer for both PhD students as well as Lecturers (the first rung on the academic career)
RESPONSE A:
RESPONSE B: Check with your University. A lot of them have startup incubators now. But generally, if you have a startup with external funding, you will write into a contract that you are paid X% of your salary by the Uni/grants, and y% from startup, and you would have to keep any resources used between them separate. If you do all your startup work from home, that should be simpler, but you should check with your contract and iron out any details before getting started.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Are PhD students and Academics allowed to operate a startup on the side in their free time? Is it even possible given the work hours? I was wondering whether its allowed and possible for PhD students and lecturers to work on a startup (eg a regular startup or an invention startup or a research startup) on the side. By allowed, I mean whether academic institutions allow it and if not what will be the consequences if you are caught. For possibility, I mean whether one has the time and energy (after necessities like commute, work, chores etc) to work on a startup business on the side. Please answer for both PhD students as well as Lecturers (the first rung on the academic career)
RESPONSE A:
RESPONSE B: It may depend on your university and your contract - but I know a lot of academics that have worked on start-ups sucessfully from the PhD level to the Professor level. That being said - you have to be very *very* careful that you're not using university or government (i.e., grant bought) resources. Else you'll get boned. You need to be careful you're using only your capital and your assets.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Are PhD students and Academics allowed to operate a startup on the side in their free time? Is it even possible given the work hours? I was wondering whether its allowed and possible for PhD students and lecturers to work on a startup (eg a regular startup or an invention startup or a research startup) on the side. By allowed, I mean whether academic institutions allow it and if not what will be the consequences if you are caught. For possibility, I mean whether one has the time and energy (after necessities like commute, work, chores etc) to work on a startup business on the side. Please answer for both PhD students as well as Lecturers (the first rung on the academic career)
RESPONSE A:
RESPONSE B: I am aware of one faculty member who started a company to market his research and it was quite successful. HOWEVER,... it was run by his son who had an MBA.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: consequences if you are caught. For possibility, I mean whether one has the time and energy (after necessities like commute, work, chores etc) to work on a startup business on the side. Please answer for both PhD students as well as Lecturers (the first rung on the academic career)
RESPONSE A: I was in an interdisciplinary program housed in the Social Sciences and went on to work as a lecturer at a SLAC social sciences department so this may be different for you if you are STEM working in a lab. My PhD program frowned on working outside of the program but they didn't provide me with a living wage, so I had two choices: 1) get into debt 2) work I chose the latter. My now-spouse had a company that I helped run. I also picked up odd jobs - session work (I am a trained musician), freelance writing, tutoring, etc. I found it appalling that a university with an endowment as large as mine was relying on grad student labor while paying poverty wages to grad students so I was open about how much work I was doing. When challenged, I would point out the high cost of living in my region and act genuinely confused and earnestly request help in making a workable budget given my stipend, my rent, and my health care expenses. In retrospect, I should have played the game and pretended that everything was OK and I could *totally* live on $20,000 per year or whatever in one of the most expensive cities in the country. But whatever, this is one of the many hypocrisies in academia that make me glad to be out of it. If I had played the game, it probably would have been fine.
RESPONSE B: I work in an Oxbridge computer science department. Over the years PhD students from the department have had plenty of startups, some of which are reasonably well known companies, and gone on to make good money from them. As far as staff are concerned, there have been plenty of startups (either from research undertaken in the department or outside work), the university actively encourages academic staff at all levels to commercialise their work, and there are quite a few millionaires in the department (although I'm very much not one of them).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: culture: US vs Europe in work/life balance, work hours, and jobs. What are the main differences? I saw some people mentioning that PhD students are considered workers in Europe. As such, they get much better work/life balance expectations. I wanted a few more data points to know if this is indeed a trend.
RESPONSE A: In almost every EU country to start a PhD you have to do a MSc degree for 1-2 years, normally focused on research. After that, you get 3-5 years of PhD programmes. PhD are both students and workers in general, so they get some benefits of being both (fewer or no taxes, fewer or no tuition fees, 20-30 vacation days on top of public holidays, sick leaves, maternity leaves, retirement contributions etc). Generally, working contracts are regulated stating the working hours (around 35-40h/week), obligations and so on. Then of course you will always have the toxic environment where you seem t be condemned to work forever, but in general for my experience both in my country and abroad, and from my friends' experience in almost every EU country, the work-life balance is pretty good, with PIs telling people to take breaks and vacations, supportive staff, and so on. I am used to see my colleagues working even less than me (I usually do 9-19 with many breaks) and doing what they need to do. Salary wise, it greatly depends. Nothern countries pay a lot (Sweden, Netherland, Denmark), Germany can vary, southern countries (France, Italy, Spain) are shitty to that regard. In Sweden, but I think also in Germany (not sure), you can also teach during the PhD BUT you get +20% of PhD time and a separated salary because they consider it an additional job that should not impact your main one.
RESPONSE B: I would say this is generally true, PhD students are salaried employees who, in most European countries, get paid for a fulltime job with full benefits and are not expected to work more than regular hours. Personally, I very rarely crossed the 40-hour threshold. Note that in most European countries, a Master's degree is needed before admission to a PhD programme. The PhD itself is then focused almost entirely on research, not courses.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: US vs Europe in work/life balance, work hours, and jobs. What are the main differences? I saw some people mentioning that PhD students are considered workers in Europe. As such, they get much better work/life balance expectations. I wanted a few more data points to know if this is indeed a trend.
RESPONSE A: In the Netherlands, PhD positions are advertised as jobs. You start out making 2300 EUR per month (gross income) up to 3000 EUR per month in your fourth year. You build up pension and have the same rights and benefits as regular workers at the university. I don't know about the work/life balance. You can only apply for a PhD position when you have a Masters degree (2 years), the PhD is 4 years. Depending on your Masters you may or may not have publications (in review) already. I'm not sure about your competitiveness outside of Europe if you decide to do you PhD in Europe because of the number of publications. Because students already have a Masters degree before applying to PhD positions, you won't take a lot of courses during your PhD. This also means that you become a highly specialied researcher after you finished your PhD, which may impact your competitiveness outside of Europe. While I think you can achieve a better quality of life in the Netherlands as a PhD student, you may be less competitive as a researcher outside of Europe (unless you attend a university that is highly regarded in your field, such as ETH Zurich for stem fields or Wageningen University for environmental/biology/agricultural studies). Disclaimer: I'm not a PhD student, but I am a Masters student from the Netherlands interested in doing a PhD (still unsure whether I want this to be abroad or in my home country, because of the competitiveness of my degree).
RESPONSE B: I would say this is generally true, PhD students are salaried employees who, in most European countries, get paid for a fulltime job with full benefits and are not expected to work more than regular hours. Personally, I very rarely crossed the 40-hour threshold. Note that in most European countries, a Master's degree is needed before admission to a PhD programme. The PhD itself is then focused almost entirely on research, not courses.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: PhD culture: US vs Europe in work/life balance, work hours, and jobs. What are the main differences? I saw some people mentioning that PhD students are considered workers in Europe. As such, they get much better work/life balance expectations. I wanted a few more data points to know if this is indeed a trend.
RESPONSE A: UK person chiming in here (did a PhD in the US and supervise/supervised a number of UK PhD students). So, I'll just provide some comments contrasting UK/US PhD programs. Firstly, as a whole, there is little/no difference in work-life balance between the two. From my anecdotal STEM experience, the UK does not prepare PhD students as well as the US as (a) UK PhD programs are enforced to be much shorter on average \[STEM\] and (b) UK PhD students have fewer learning opportunities \[classes\] available during their program. Point (a) often makes UK PhD grads much less competitive for academic jobs internationally as they have comparatively fewer papers. Point (b) is truly unfortunate because UK students commonly end up being narrowly focused - also in part to point (a). Of note: the funding system for UK PhD students is very poor. For example, GTA-ships are basically minimum wage jobs (e.g., 3-4 hours/week) and, too often, the UK system is exploitive of PhD students in this context. Moreover, the UK PhD is becoming increasingly a 'pay for PhD' venture purchased by wealthy international families. From my vantage, I believe doing a PhD in the US would be a far better opportunity than the UK.
RESPONSE B: I would say this is generally true, PhD students are salaried employees who, in most European countries, get paid for a fulltime job with full benefits and are not expected to work more than regular hours. Personally, I very rarely crossed the 40-hour threshold. Note that in most European countries, a Master's degree is needed before admission to a PhD programme. The PhD itself is then focused almost entirely on research, not courses.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: PhD culture: US vs Europe in work/life balance, work hours, and jobs. What are the main differences? I saw some people mentioning that PhD students are considered workers in Europe. As such, they get much better work/life balance expectations. I wanted a few more data points to know if this is indeed a trend.
RESPONSE A: In Italy you're considered 'personale strutturato', and part of your scholarship will be set aside by gvmt for retirement. However you're still a student somehow, and aren't allowed to officially teach (granted, you might still do it, but your name will not be on the syllabus)
RESPONSE B: It depends from country to country and even between different institutions. It can be very different for each European country. In Czech Republic every PhD student gets scholarship for 4 years. It was only 270€/month and now it is 460€/month which is still less than minimal wage (588€/m). Depending on the field you can apply for positions that have additional funding due to different projects (usually czech grant agency GAČR). If you got one you are lucky. If not you need a second job but it is possible to live even with only the scholarship. PhD students were considered free specialized workforce in the past but this paradigm is definitely changing and supervisors are trying to offer bonus salaries with PhD positions. How much do you work depends on you, your supervisor, your position and number of projects you are working on. There are students that spend most of their time in work even during weekends and then there are those that take it easy. In theory your supervisor is supposed to control your timesheet but you are considered student so there are no work hours if don't have a contract. If you do (because your PhD is part of bigger project) then it is like in normal job.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Maybe this is US specific, but how much are we expected to work over the holidays? I have a toddler and his daycare is out for the holidays. His dad, the usual caretaker when daycare are closed, has a lot of work to do for his own business. This year, due to covid, our university technically has a few days where everyone is taking off unpaid in order to I guess help with the financial strain of covid, so in theory we should have dec 24-Jan 1 off. In practice though, meetings are scheduled in this time. I’m not going to not participate if meetings are scheduled, but I’m definitely a bit unhappy about it. It’s been a hard year and I would’ve liked the time to unwind, instead of this very unclear, unspoken expectation that we do work during this time. Is there a...better way to handle this than just keep my head down and work as much as I feel like I could?
RESPONSE A: "Just a reminder that I am taking unpaid leave next week so will not be available for meetings. See you in January!"
RESPONSE B: I will not work Thursday or Friday. Next week I may look at stuff, but it'll be if I want to. If I don't want to do anything, then I won't. I am US too.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Maybe this is US specific, but how much are we expected to work over the holidays? I have a toddler and his daycare is out for the holidays. His dad, the usual caretaker when daycare are closed, has a lot of work to do for his own business. This year, due to covid, our university technically has a few days where everyone is taking off unpaid in order to I guess help with the financial strain of covid, so in theory we should have dec 24-Jan 1 off. In practice though, meetings are scheduled in this time. I’m not going to not participate if meetings are scheduled, but I’m definitely a bit unhappy about it. It’s been a hard year and I would’ve liked the time to unwind, instead of this very unclear, unspoken expectation that we do work during this time. Is there a...better way to handle this than just keep my head down and work as much as I feel like I could?
RESPONSE A: I'm taking 10 days "off" in that I will be working, but will not be taking meetings. The whole point is that I am not available for meetings. That is the reason I expect to get ahead on my work.
RESPONSE B: "Just a reminder that I am taking unpaid leave next week so will not be available for meetings. See you in January!"
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Maybe this is US specific, but how much are we expected to work over the holidays? I have a toddler and his daycare is out for the holidays. His dad, the usual caretaker when daycare are closed, has a lot of work to do for his own business. This year, due to covid, our university technically has a few days where everyone is taking off unpaid in order to I guess help with the financial strain of covid, so in theory we should have dec 24-Jan 1 off. In practice though, meetings are scheduled in this time. I’m not going to not participate if meetings are scheduled, but I’m definitely a bit unhappy about it. It’s been a hard year and I would’ve liked the time to unwind, instead of this very unclear, unspoken expectation that we do work during this time. Is there a...better way to handle this than just keep my head down and work as much as I feel like I could?
RESPONSE A: It depends on your PI. You need to ask them. Some are cool, some are assholes and make you use your vacation time.
RESPONSE B: "Just a reminder that I am taking unpaid leave next week so will not be available for meetings. See you in January!"
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Maybe this is US specific, but how much are we expected to work over the holidays? I have a toddler and his daycare is out for the holidays. His dad, the usual caretaker when daycare are closed, has a lot of work to do for his own business. This year, due to covid, our university technically has a few days where everyone is taking off unpaid in order to I guess help with the financial strain of covid, so in theory we should have dec 24-Jan 1 off. In practice though, meetings are scheduled in this time. I’m not going to not participate if meetings are scheduled, but I’m definitely a bit unhappy about it. It’s been a hard year and I would’ve liked the time to unwind, instead of this very unclear, unspoken expectation that we do work during this time. Is there a...better way to handle this than just keep my head down and work as much as I feel like I could?
RESPONSE A: My university here in Canada closes Thursday and doesn't reopen until January 4. Classes don't resume until January 11.
RESPONSE B: I will not work Thursday or Friday. Next week I may look at stuff, but it'll be if I want to. If I don't want to do anything, then I won't. I am US too.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Number of working hours in a week How many hours, ideally, should a PhD student be working for, in a week? It probably varies with individuals, research areas, and supervisors, but I have heard many stories of students working 70-80 hours a week for many weeks and wonder whether that’s normal. How does productivity, in general, scale with the number of working hours and when does the law of marginal returns kick in? Is it very field-specific?
RESPONSE A: It's not normal but not that uncommon either. On the other hand 50-60 hr week is normal, while 60 hrs is a lot, it's not unreasonable considering the kind of work we do.
RESPONSE B: If you can make them efficient, 40-50 hours a week should be enough. Even less. Recognise that it’s about how efficient you are with your work rather than how many hours you put in. Set your work related goals rather than time related. And also accept that sometimes, you won’t meet your goals as well. During my PhD, I had whole weeks when I could get nothing done. And other weeks, where I would be able to finish a months work in a week. It should balance out.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Number of working hours in a week How many hours, ideally, should a PhD student be working for, in a week? It probably varies with individuals, research areas, and supervisors, but I have heard many stories of students working 70-80 hours a week for many weeks and wonder whether that’s normal. How does productivity, in general, scale with the number of working hours and when does the law of marginal returns kick in? Is it very field-specific?
RESPONSE A: My funders told me they did not expect me to work more than 35 hours per week. You should not flog yourself simply because you are doing a PhD.
RESPONSE B: You should work the hours that you need to work to get a reasonable workload done - not a STEM person but I average 45 hours a week, some weeks that means 60 hours, others it means 20. I do keep track because if I'm up to 11 tonight working on this article then I'll claw back some time Friday afternoon. More hours doesn't mean more productive, it generally just means more stressed.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Number of working hours in a week How many hours, ideally, should a PhD student be working for, in a week? It probably varies with individuals, research areas, and supervisors, but I have heard many stories of students working 70-80 hours a week for many weeks and wonder whether that’s normal. How does productivity, in general, scale with the number of working hours and when does the law of marginal returns kick in? Is it very field-specific?
RESPONSE A: What do you mean by “working?” Are you including your class work? Is there an assistantship involved? Honestly, 70-80 hours without including class work is insane. Honestly, most of the numbers in this thread are insane. Your time spent in support of a faculty member’s research (e.g., lab time) should be paid and you shouldn’t be working hours that you are not paid. At the very least it should be tied to class credit and the credit hours of that class should be directly tied to effort hours.
RESPONSE B: My funders told me they did not expect me to work more than 35 hours per week. You should not flog yourself simply because you are doing a PhD.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Number of working hours in a week How many hours, ideally, should a PhD student be working for, in a week? It probably varies with individuals, research areas, and supervisors, but I have heard many stories of students working 70-80 hours a week for many weeks and wonder whether that’s normal. How does productivity, in general, scale with the number of working hours and when does the law of marginal returns kick in? Is it very field-specific?
RESPONSE A: My funders told me they did not expect me to work more than 35 hours per week. You should not flog yourself simply because you are doing a PhD.
RESPONSE B: Stick to healthy hours for typical weeks, e.g. less than 50 a week. Ignore what other students are doing, it's unhealthy and unproductive to stay there for crazy amounts of time.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Number of working hours in a week How many hours, ideally, should a PhD student be working for, in a week? It probably varies with individuals, research areas, and supervisors, but I have heard many stories of students working 70-80 hours a week for many weeks and wonder whether that’s normal. How does productivity, in general, scale with the number of working hours and when does the law of marginal returns kick in? Is it very field-specific?
RESPONSE A: My funders told me they did not expect me to work more than 35 hours per week. You should not flog yourself simply because you are doing a PhD.
RESPONSE B: It's not normal but not that uncommon either. On the other hand 50-60 hr week is normal, while 60 hrs is a lot, it's not unreasonable considering the kind of work we do.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I requested a few exam copies, ended up not adopting them, put them out for other professors to take. The publisher now wants me to either adopt the textbooks or pay an invoice? I had no idea these were the terms and did not sign anything, but apparently one must either adopt the textbook, return it, or buy it at a 20% discount. These books looked promising but are not a fit for my classroom and were swept up by other professors once I set them out. Am I *legally* obligated to purchase them/adopt them? Even if they send me an invoice, can I just ignore it indefinitely?
RESPONSE A: I get so many books from publishers that I don't want. I can't imagine trying to send them all back. I would tell the publisher you weren't aware of the policy and that you won't do it again. Someone is just trying to throw their weight around.
RESPONSE B: Why not just return them?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I requested a few exam copies, ended up not adopting them, put them out for other professors to take. The publisher now wants me to either adopt the textbooks or pay an invoice? I had no idea these were the terms and did not sign anything, but apparently one must either adopt the textbook, return it, or buy it at a 20% discount. These books looked promising but are not a fit for my classroom and were swept up by other professors once I set them out. Am I *legally* obligated to purchase them/adopt them? Even if they send me an invoice, can I just ignore it indefinitely?
RESPONSE A: In general, products that are sent as without invoices are considered gifts and can't be charged for. As far as I know, most desk copies for consideration for adoption fall into this category. They can send as many invoices as they want, but they can't collect. More likely, they'll just blacklist you for a few years for more samples.
RESPONSE B: I've had the same thing. I asked a publisher if they had a sample of a video vocabulary series. They asked for an address. Sent me a huge box of stuff that I was not expecting. I sent a thank you for the samples. 2 months later I got a bill for 200. Anything that was opened I had to buy. No warning. No letter in the box. Nothing on their website. I had opened everything. Same as you: i get so many books sent for no reason that I don't know what I have to pay for and what is a sample to get me to use it for my students books...
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I requested a few exam copies, ended up not adopting them, put them out for other professors to take. The publisher now wants me to either adopt the textbooks or pay an invoice? I had no idea these were the terms and did not sign anything, but apparently one must either adopt the textbook, return it, or buy it at a 20% discount. These books looked promising but are not a fit for my classroom and were swept up by other professors once I set them out. Am I *legally* obligated to purchase them/adopt them? Even if they send me an invoice, can I just ignore it indefinitely?
RESPONSE A: In general, products that are sent as without invoices are considered gifts and can't be charged for. As far as I know, most desk copies for consideration for adoption fall into this category. They can send as many invoices as they want, but they can't collect. More likely, they'll just blacklist you for a few years for more samples.
RESPONSE B: Why not just return them?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 'll be starting testosterone hormone therapy in April. Are there any trans academics here, especially in the sciences, who can share their experiences transitioning in academia? I'm lucky that my PI, labmates, and grad school friends are all supportive, but am concerned about how I will be treated in the broader scientific community if people find out I'm trans. I'm in my second year so am optimistic I will pass by the time I finish my PhD, but while in grad school I'll still be going to conferences and networking outside my immediate academic circle. I'm submitting a grant in the next couple of months. I can't change my legal name so my submissions/transcripts being under [feminine birth name] but me being referred to with male pronouns in letters will be a dead giveaway. How likely am I to be discriminated against? Academia is generally liberal, but I've heard from multiple PIs who've sat on study section that people can be petty for all sorts of reasons, and I don't want to paint a target on my back. Should I pretend to be a woman for the time being and have my letter writers refer to me as such just to be safe? In terms of publishing, I have a first author paper from undergrad under my birth name. I now go by my nickname which is a shortened version that's gender neutral (think Alexandra --> Alex), so my initials are the same.
RESPONSE A: You should read some articles by Ben Barres. He was a prominent neuroscientist at Stanford who transitioned early in his career. Unfortunately he passed away a few years ago, but he wrote many articles on his experiences.
RESPONSE B: I don’t have any specific advice or insight for you, but if you aren’t already aware of Ben Barres, I’d suggest looking him up. He was an extremely successful trans (f to m) neuroscientist. He has written pretty extensively on topics that you might find helpful, and was a champion for mentorship of LGBTQ and other underrepresented groups. He even wrote a book called “The Autobiography of a Transgender Scientist.”
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: of months. I can't change my legal name so my submissions/transcripts being under [feminine birth name] but me being referred to with male pronouns in letters will be a dead giveaway. How likely am I to be discriminated against? Academia is generally liberal, but I've heard from multiple PIs who've sat on study section that people can be petty for all sorts of reasons, and I don't want to paint a target on my back. Should I pretend to be a woman for the time being and have my letter writers refer to me as such just to be safe? In terms of publishing, I have a first author paper from undergrad under my birth name. I now go by my nickname which is a shortened version that's gender neutral (think Alexandra --> Alex), so my initials are the same.
RESPONSE A: Pragmatically speaking, as long as you use initials or a gender neutral first name when you publish, you can avoid some degree of discrimination from people who only know you by your work. In the short term, it's probably easier to use female pronouns with people you aren't going to need a ton from anymore by the end of your PhD. But in the long term, if you look visibly male and go by female pronouns, most cis people will think you're a trans woman, and that's a risky place to be. By the time you're looking for postdoc jobs, you probably want your recommenders to use male pronouns and generally do whatever you can to get everything congruent with the way you look and present yourself. If that means dropping your undergrad paper from your cv, hopefully you can get a few more first author papers before then. If you don't think it's likely they'll actually look it up, you could also just list it under your name or initials.
RESPONSE B: You should read some articles by Ben Barres. He was a prominent neuroscientist at Stanford who transitioned early in his career. Unfortunately he passed away a few years ago, but he wrote many articles on his experiences.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: testosterone hormone therapy in April. Are there any trans academics here, especially in the sciences, who can share their experiences transitioning in academia? I'm lucky that my PI, labmates, and grad school friends are all supportive, but am concerned about how I will be treated in the broader scientific community if people find out I'm trans. I'm in my second year so am optimistic I will pass by the time I finish my PhD, but while in grad school I'll still be going to conferences and networking outside my immediate academic circle. I'm submitting a grant in the next couple of months. I can't change my legal name so my submissions/transcripts being under [feminine birth name] but me being referred to with male pronouns in letters will be a dead giveaway. How likely am I to be discriminated against? Academia is generally liberal, but I've heard from multiple PIs who've sat on study section that people can be petty for all sorts of reasons, and I don't want to paint a target on my back. Should I pretend to be a woman for the time being and have my letter writers refer to me as such just to be safe? In terms of publishing, I have a first author paper from undergrad under my birth name. I now go by my nickname which is a shortened version that's gender neutral (think Alexandra --> Alex), so my initials are the same.
RESPONSE A: I'm an FTM grad student too. I was already out as trans when I started undergrad; I'm in humanities and haven't experienced overt transphobia for the most part. I've always gone by a gender-neutral nickname (which I plan to publish under) but my legal name is on transcripts, so I'm well aware that I've got a target painted on my back for discrimination, but I think it just is what it is.
RESPONSE B: You should read some articles by Ben Barres. He was a prominent neuroscientist at Stanford who transitioned early in his career. Unfortunately he passed away a few years ago, but he wrote many articles on his experiences.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: am concerned about how I will be treated in the broader scientific community if people find out I'm trans. I'm in my second year so am optimistic I will pass by the time I finish my PhD, but while in grad school I'll still be going to conferences and networking outside my immediate academic circle. I'm submitting a grant in the next couple of months. I can't change my legal name so my submissions/transcripts being under [feminine birth name] but me being referred to with male pronouns in letters will be a dead giveaway. How likely am I to be discriminated against? Academia is generally liberal, but I've heard from multiple PIs who've sat on study section that people can be petty for all sorts of reasons, and I don't want to paint a target on my back. Should I pretend to be a woman for the time being and have my letter writers refer to me as such just to be safe? In terms of publishing, I have a first author paper from undergrad under my birth name. I now go by my nickname which is a shortened version that's gender neutral (think Alexandra --> Alex), so my initials are the same.
RESPONSE A: I'm an FTM grad student too. I was already out as trans when I started undergrad; I'm in humanities and haven't experienced overt transphobia for the most part. I've always gone by a gender-neutral nickname (which I plan to publish under) but my legal name is on transcripts, so I'm well aware that I've got a target painted on my back for discrimination, but I think it just is what it is.
RESPONSE B: I don’t have any specific advice or insight for you, but if you aren’t already aware of Ben Barres, I’d suggest looking him up. He was an extremely successful trans (f to m) neuroscientist. He has written pretty extensively on topics that you might find helpful, and was a champion for mentorship of LGBTQ and other underrepresented groups. He even wrote a book called “The Autobiography of a Transgender Scientist.”
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Have you ever had a former student tell you that their experience in grad school was so miserable they left the field? Does this happen often? I've heard of it happening twice and I have an opportunity to state the same coming up. In all three stories (mine included) the former students simply took their degrees and found jobs that had nothing to do with the fields they had studied or skills they had learned. Has this happened to you? How did you handle it? Were the alumnais criticisms acted upon?
RESPONSE A: I’m the grad student and I just told my boss this on my last day. He already knew it had sucked for me so he wasn’t surprised.
RESPONSE B: Not an academic (studying for a PhD now) but during my undergrad I worked at a local café. Lovely place and great staff. I was surprised to find that my supervisor was a PhD graduate in my field (chemistry) from Belfast and had done a postdoc at my current department and field. She'd left because she found the atmosphere of academia to be detrimental to her wellbeing. She didn't talk ill of anyone there, didn't dislike the subject, just thought the system and environment weren't good for her.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: the alumnais criticisms acted upon?
RESPONSE A: Not an academic (studying for a PhD now) but during my undergrad I worked at a local café. Lovely place and great staff. I was surprised to find that my supervisor was a PhD graduate in my field (chemistry) from Belfast and had done a postdoc at my current department and field. She'd left because she found the atmosphere of academia to be detrimental to her wellbeing. She didn't talk ill of anyone there, didn't dislike the subject, just thought the system and environment weren't good for her.
RESPONSE B: Well - there's many reasons this can happen. It's not always someone's fault either. Sometimes students enrol in the wrong things for them personally or for the wrong reasons. They just don't necessarily understand that at the time or convince themselves (or others) that it is their dream. There is also a disconnect with how you learn and what is taught. You gotta be self-driven. Being passionate about a field is critical. In user-pay systems it is worse as there is an expectation of what will be given to someone because you are the paying customer. What actually you get from the service provider is an environment and framework to learn in the presence of experts. If you do or don't rise to the challenge is up to the capacity and drive of the individual. Robert M Pirsig describes this in his book 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'. He describes a hypothetical engineering student who fails University and goes out getting a job as an Apprentice. After a few years he encounters a number of problems on the job and realises he needs more training and background so maybe enrols in night school and undertakes a trade approach to get the Engineering knowledge. The point of University is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. Sometimes it's just not for you and this is life. Sometimes the field is wrong for you and this is OK. Sometimes the way you are learning is wrong for you; the wrong time, context, environment or combination. That's OK too - go find your context and environment in your own time. Things like this happen all the time. It's not a failure unless you fail to grow from it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I hear often about grad students basically being paid just enough in stipends to not starve and have a roof by the university, thus providing free labour for a given laboratory. Is this purely U.S based, or does it also apply to Denmark? I'm particularly interested in Denmark, as it has fairly strong laws regarding labour compensation.
RESPONSE A: I'm planning to do my Ph. D. in Hong Kong and the normal student stipend is approximately 16500 HKD. There's no tax but you have to pay the tuition fee so after you cut off the tuition it's like 13000 HKD per month. The average gross salary of Hong Kong is 16,200 HKD so if you cut off the tax from it it seems roughly similar to the Ph. D. scholarship. So I guess a Ph. D. student in Hong Kong is paid approximately the average wage in Hong Kong, which is not too bad. Also there's another (highly competitive) Ph. D. scholarship called HKPFS which pays you even more.
RESPONSE B: Here are the salaries of PhD students at DTU (Technical University of Denmark); other universities would offer similar pays, possibly varying according to the local costs of living. The lowest wage, 26,755 DKK before taxes, would leave you with ~18,000 DKK after taxes (about € 2400 or US$ 2800). (Edit: these are monthly wages) According to The Economic Council of the Labour Movement (ECLM, Danish: Arbejderbevægelses Erhvervsråd, AE) a person with this income would be classified as middle class (source in Danish), although anyone who has completed tertiary education is automatically classified as higher middle class according to the ECLM. Living expenses vary across Denmark; in particular, rent can be quite high in some areas of Copenhagen or Århus, so a significant part of disposable income often goes to housing. Cheaper housing options are often available to grad students though. Also, you write that Denmark has strong laws on labour compensation. In fact, salaries are generally determined by labour agreements rather than through legislation.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I hear often about grad students basically being paid just enough in stipends to not starve and have a roof by the university, thus providing free labour for a given laboratory. Is this purely U.S based, or does it also apply to Denmark? I'm particularly interested in Denmark, as it has fairly strong laws regarding labour compensation.
RESPONSE A: I'm planning to do my Ph. D. in Hong Kong and the normal student stipend is approximately 16500 HKD. There's no tax but you have to pay the tuition fee so after you cut off the tuition it's like 13000 HKD per month. The average gross salary of Hong Kong is 16,200 HKD so if you cut off the tax from it it seems roughly similar to the Ph. D. scholarship. So I guess a Ph. D. student in Hong Kong is paid approximately the average wage in Hong Kong, which is not too bad. Also there's another (highly competitive) Ph. D. scholarship called HKPFS which pays you even more.
RESPONSE B: As a single grad student living in a big city in the US my stipend of $26K/year wasnt enough to even afford a "small" studio. I lived in a one-bedroom apartment which I shared with two other roommates and then I had only enough left to feed myself. Unless you are in rural midwest the stipend of $26K/year is not enough. I remember having health issues and it made the financial situation worse. Stipends of Grad students are not fair.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I hear often about grad students basically being paid just enough in stipends to not starve and have a roof by the university, thus providing free labour for a given laboratory. Is this purely U.S based, or does it also apply to Denmark? I'm particularly interested in Denmark, as it has fairly strong laws regarding labour compensation.
RESPONSE A: I studied in Finland and I got about 35k€ annually pre-tax. My studio apartment was about 7000€ per year, and I spent about 3500-4000€ per year on food, and probably about 1200€ per year on bills such as phone, internet, electricity, etc, bringing my total cost of living to about 12k€ per year. My after-tax income was over double that, so I managed to save a good chunk of my salary even as a graduate student.
RESPONSE B: As a single grad student living in a big city in the US my stipend of $26K/year wasnt enough to even afford a "small" studio. I lived in a one-bedroom apartment which I shared with two other roommates and then I had only enough left to feed myself. Unless you are in rural midwest the stipend of $26K/year is not enough. I remember having health issues and it made the financial situation worse. Stipends of Grad students are not fair.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I hear often about grad students basically being paid just enough in stipends to not starve and have a roof by the university, thus providing free labour for a given laboratory. Is this purely U.S based, or does it also apply to Denmark? I'm particularly interested in Denmark, as it has fairly strong laws regarding labour compensation.
RESPONSE A: The problem (at least in the UK, North America, Australia/NZ etc.) is that there's an awkward tension between the student as consumer (you pay fees, we give you education, qualifications etc.) and the role of the PhD student. Is a PhD about education, and training, and opportunity? In which case there are fees, you pay for that opportunity. We then offer a limited number of scholarships for the best students, but they're small scholarships - enough to live on as a single student with little to no outside responsibilities. And plenty of people don't get a scholarship and so pay their own way through a PhD, paying fees and getting no money at all for doing their PhD. Or is a PhD employment for a junior researcher? In which case they should be paid a living wage, and not charged fees in the first place (whether waived or not). And it then follows that people shouldn't be able to pay their own way through - if its employment you can't have some people being exploited by working for free. The problem with option B) is that there are *way* more PhD places than there are job opportunities. The responsible/ethical approach would appear to be a significant capping of the number of PhD students accepted each year, but with all successful PhD candidates then paid a proper salary and given training in other areas of academia beyond just research (teaching, project management, etc.). But this only works with that significant capping of numbers, and also with no way for students to pay their own way through.
RESPONSE B: I made pennies in the 90’s but compared to what I had as an undergrad I felt like a prince. Plus they have me super cheap housing and tuition remission. Although that’s easy to say twenty years after the fact.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: . I worked through my issues and returned to uni getting straight A’s my last two semesters in senior level classes. This has only risen my GPA up to a 2.37, however. It’ll be a long while before I can even get up to a 3, let alone a 3.5 to be somewhat competitive. I’ve been doing research as well and my professor thinks we can publish in a few months to a year. I really want to apply to grad school, but I’m aware that my low GPA will auto reject me from most schools. I figure my only real option is to just keep retaking classes until my GPA is up to par, but undoing six years worth of damage is a daunting task to say the least. So I ask you, do I have a choice? Is there anything I can do to “wow” grad schools and convince them that my poor GPA is no longer reflective of my ability or maturity level, or should I graduate, find a job, and slowly grind one class at a time until my GPA improves enough to be competitive? Please don’t sugarcoat it, I’m aware of the consequences of my immaturity but I really want to get into grad school (it’s my dream to someday get a Ph.D.) and am willing to do what it takes to atone for those mistakes. Thank you in advance!
RESPONSE A: What do you want to do a phd in? I think it will depend on your field.
RESPONSE B: Your best bet is to probably go to grad school at the same university you currently are (maybe even the same professor you do research under now). You ultimately get selected by that PI (depending on the field) and can likely get further talking to the professors first and explaining and having them commit to you and vouch for your acceptance into the program. I would also look into removing old grades from your gpa. For example, if you transferred, you'd get transfer credits, but the grades wouldn't count into your gpa. Not saying you should transfer, but see if a similar principle could be applied because of the time gap between the good and bad grades.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: returned to uni getting straight A’s my last two semesters in senior level classes. This has only risen my GPA up to a 2.37, however. It’ll be a long while before I can even get up to a 3, let alone a 3.5 to be somewhat competitive. I’ve been doing research as well and my professor thinks we can publish in a few months to a year. I really want to apply to grad school, but I’m aware that my low GPA will auto reject me from most schools. I figure my only real option is to just keep retaking classes until my GPA is up to par, but undoing six years worth of damage is a daunting task to say the least. So I ask you, do I have a choice? Is there anything I can do to “wow” grad schools and convince them that my poor GPA is no longer reflective of my ability or maturity level, or should I graduate, find a job, and slowly grind one class at a time until my GPA improves enough to be competitive? Please don’t sugarcoat it, I’m aware of the consequences of my immaturity but I really want to get into grad school (it’s my dream to someday get a Ph.D.) and am willing to do what it takes to atone for those mistakes. Thank you in advance!
RESPONSE A: Quite a few universities here in Canada only take into account your last two years of full time study when calculating your GPA for grad school admissions. I’m in the arts/humanities—I’m not sure if it would be the same for your field, but it might be worth checking. Direct entry to PhD is rare here, but MAs are generally reasonably funded, and you could be a strong applicant to PhD programs in the US after finishing a Canadian MA with good grades and more research experience if you decide to move back.
RESPONSE B: I think it depends on 1) what uni you go to and want to attend for grad school, 2) your field, 3) what GPA are you likely to graduate with (it was a bit confusing from the post), 4) how willing are you to work and does your field allow it?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: as the title says I had lots of emotional issues my first six years in university, which led to a staggeringly low 1.96 GPA. I took a couple of years off, worked and saw a psychologist in the meantime. I worked through my issues and returned to uni getting straight A’s my last two semesters in senior level classes. This has only risen my GPA up to a 2.37, however. It’ll be a long while before I can even get up to a 3, let alone a 3.5 to be somewhat competitive. I’ve been doing research as well and my professor thinks we can publish in a few months to a year. I really want to apply to grad school, but I’m aware that my low GPA will auto reject me from most schools. I figure my only real option is to just keep retaking classes until my GPA is up to par, but undoing six years worth of damage is a daunting task to say the least. So I ask you, do I have a choice? Is there anything I can do to “wow” grad schools and convince them that my poor GPA is no longer reflective of my ability or maturity level, or should I graduate, find a job, and slowly grind one class at a time until my GPA improves enough to be competitive? Please don’t sugarcoat it, I’m aware of the consequences of my immaturity but I really want to get into grad school (it’s my dream to someday get a Ph.D.) and am willing to do what it takes to atone for those mistakes. Thank you in advance!
RESPONSE A: Quite a few universities here in Canada only take into account your last two years of full time study when calculating your GPA for grad school admissions. I’m in the arts/humanities—I’m not sure if it would be the same for your field, but it might be worth checking. Direct entry to PhD is rare here, but MAs are generally reasonably funded, and you could be a strong applicant to PhD programs in the US after finishing a Canadian MA with good grades and more research experience if you decide to move back.
RESPONSE B: Which country are you studying in?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Professors: have you ever had a grad student advisee disclose mental health issues? How did you react? What changed (if at all) about the advising relationship? Did your opinion of them change (for better or worse)?
RESPONSE A: I opened up to my advisor about chronic depression in my fifth year, took a summer and fall off with his (and the department's) support. Wouldn't have finished if I hadn't. I hope my students feel comfortable coming to me, and I'll be sure to be proactive and advocate the importance of mental health in grad school (and life in general).
RESPONSE B: Yes, but I may it a point to be open to RL discussions with my mentees. This is very much a YMMV situation.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Professors: have you ever had a grad student advisee disclose mental health issues? How did you react? What changed (if at all) about the advising relationship? Did your opinion of them change (for better or worse)?
RESPONSE A: I opened up to my advisor about chronic depression in my fifth year, took a summer and fall off with his (and the department's) support. Wouldn't have finished if I hadn't. I hope my students feel comfortable coming to me, and I'll be sure to be proactive and advocate the importance of mental health in grad school (and life in general).
RESPONSE B: Like others, I’m the student not the professor, I have talked to my advisor about how my Type 1 diabetes effects my mentality and ability to get work done, especially when I have high blood sugar.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Professors: have you ever had a grad student advisee disclose mental health issues? How did you react? What changed (if at all) about the advising relationship? Did your opinion of them change (for better or worse)?
RESPONSE A: I'm a student, not a professor, but I offhand mentioned that I'd been seeking help from a therapist and psychiatrist to my advisor. I mainly mentioned it in the context that "I got myself the help I needed and my head is 100% back in the game" - because, in honesty, the issues I was dealing with had really started to impact the amount/quality of work I was getting done. My advisor had never admonished me for it, but I figured it was worth saying. He reacted nonchalantly ("Oh, that's good"), which is pretty much the norm for my advisor. (We joke in the lab that we can come in to a meeting with either the coolest or shittiest results we've ever had and get the same reaction from him). I've noticed no notable change in his demeanor towards me, except \*maybe\* he's seemed a bit more warm/trusting of me. Of course, that could just be my getting the anxiety under control, soooo...
RESPONSE B: Yes, but I may it a point to be open to RL discussions with my mentees. This is very much a YMMV situation.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: depth than if I were to teach primary/secondary ed levels, and I've found that undergraduate education seems to be very fulfilling since one would be able to work with very diverse student populations and be able to inspire people with the subject material. I've become friendly with several teaching faculty members in my major's department and they all seem extremely happy with their careers, and encouraged me to explore teaching further if it really interests me. I know that to teach at the university level I would at least need a masters degree in the field I want to teach, and that most colleges/universities prefer teaching staff to have a PhD/terminal degree just to be considered for the position. The question at the root of my post is: is it worth is to try to pursue a PhD when what I would like to focus on at this point is teaching, rather than research work? Also; if there's any teaching faculty out there, or research faculty who like the teaching requirement of their job, what is something in particular that you like about your teaching requirements, and what is one thing in particular that you dislike? Thanks in advance to anyone who'd take the time to throw in your two cents!
RESPONSE A: Also consider teaching at a community college. Most require a Master's with PhD preferred. Lots of opportunity to engage with students in small class sizes, with little or no research.
RESPONSE B: Sorry to be harsh but you need to hear a few things. You will need to have a PhD to teach almost anything at a university. You can teach 1000/2000 level classes at a community college with a masters. If you go the PhD/university route you need to research tenure track positions. The bar is pretty high and your research/grant securing abilities will be more important than your teaching abilities. Without tenure you will most likely end up an adjunct. If you go the community college route a PhD will probably increase your chances of being offered a full time position. Regardless you will probably end up an adjunct for a few years before a full time job opens up. I won't go into the details of life as an adjunct but I recommend some reading. Start at r/professors and then check out some duckduckgo searches. Good luck.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: cover topic more in-depth than if I were to teach primary/secondary ed levels, and I've found that undergraduate education seems to be very fulfilling since one would be able to work with very diverse student populations and be able to inspire people with the subject material. I've become friendly with several teaching faculty members in my major's department and they all seem extremely happy with their careers, and encouraged me to explore teaching further if it really interests me. I know that to teach at the university level I would at least need a masters degree in the field I want to teach, and that most colleges/universities prefer teaching staff to have a PhD/terminal degree just to be considered for the position. The question at the root of my post is: is it worth is to try to pursue a PhD when what I would like to focus on at this point is teaching, rather than research work? Also; if there's any teaching faculty out there, or research faculty who like the teaching requirement of their job, what is something in particular that you like about your teaching requirements, and what is one thing in particular that you dislike? Thanks in advance to anyone who'd take the time to throw in your two cents!
RESPONSE A: Sorry to be harsh but you need to hear a few things. You will need to have a PhD to teach almost anything at a university. You can teach 1000/2000 level classes at a community college with a masters. If you go the PhD/university route you need to research tenure track positions. The bar is pretty high and your research/grant securing abilities will be more important than your teaching abilities. Without tenure you will most likely end up an adjunct. If you go the community college route a PhD will probably increase your chances of being offered a full time position. Regardless you will probably end up an adjunct for a few years before a full time job opens up. I won't go into the details of life as an adjunct but I recommend some reading. Start at r/professors and then check out some duckduckgo searches. Good luck.
RESPONSE B: If you want to teach, it is worth it to get a Ph.D. It will open many more doors at many more (and better) places.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: . I am most interested in teaching at the undergraduate level, since it would allow me to cover topic more in-depth than if I were to teach primary/secondary ed levels, and I've found that undergraduate education seems to be very fulfilling since one would be able to work with very diverse student populations and be able to inspire people with the subject material. I've become friendly with several teaching faculty members in my major's department and they all seem extremely happy with their careers, and encouraged me to explore teaching further if it really interests me. I know that to teach at the university level I would at least need a masters degree in the field I want to teach, and that most colleges/universities prefer teaching staff to have a PhD/terminal degree just to be considered for the position. The question at the root of my post is: is it worth is to try to pursue a PhD when what I would like to focus on at this point is teaching, rather than research work? Also; if there's any teaching faculty out there, or research faculty who like the teaching requirement of their job, what is something in particular that you like about your teaching requirements, and what is one thing in particular that you dislike? Thanks in advance to anyone who'd take the time to throw in your two cents!
RESPONSE A: You would be able to teach community college with a masters.
RESPONSE B: Sorry to be harsh but you need to hear a few things. You will need to have a PhD to teach almost anything at a university. You can teach 1000/2000 level classes at a community college with a masters. If you go the PhD/university route you need to research tenure track positions. The bar is pretty high and your research/grant securing abilities will be more important than your teaching abilities. Without tenure you will most likely end up an adjunct. If you go the community college route a PhD will probably increase your chances of being offered a full time position. Regardless you will probably end up an adjunct for a few years before a full time job opens up. I won't go into the details of life as an adjunct but I recommend some reading. Start at r/professors and then check out some duckduckgo searches. Good luck.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: at the root of my post is: is it worth is to try to pursue a PhD when what I would like to focus on at this point is teaching, rather than research work? Also; if there's any teaching faculty out there, or research faculty who like the teaching requirement of their job, what is something in particular that you like about your teaching requirements, and what is one thing in particular that you dislike? Thanks in advance to anyone who'd take the time to throw in your two cents!
RESPONSE A: Also consider teaching at a community college. Most require a Master's with PhD preferred. Lots of opportunity to engage with students in small class sizes, with little or no research.
RESPONSE B: I left industry to get a PhD for this exact reason and I could not possibly be happier. I went from doing something I was good at to something I love. I could go on about various points of advice but here are a few. Find an advisor who is a good teacher and cares about teaching. Be up front about wanting to lead teach (not just TA) at least one course during your PhD. Take time to develop as a teacher, but I wouldn’t do a PhD in science education unless that’s what you want to teach. Instead get involved with outreach groups and take elective courses. Post-PhD, look for schools that are majority undergrad or somehow alternative and teaching-valued. Finding somewhere that will let you concentrate on teaching but still get some meaningful research done is SUPER hard, but they do exist. I would be thinking from the get go about research sub fields that are low overhead and can be done by undergrads or masters students, since most graduate degree granting universities are research first, teaching last. On a similar note, think about carving a small niche in your field. At a teaching heavy university you won’t be able to compete or beat anyone to results, but if you are amongst the few doing what you do, you can still make an impact. You’ll just have to sacrifice research glamour. Anyway, if you wanna teach and think you’ll love it, go for the PhD! Just know that academia is tough and can be disheartening in SO many ways, so being realistic about a back up is important.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: the position. The question at the root of my post is: is it worth is to try to pursue a PhD when what I would like to focus on at this point is teaching, rather than research work? Also; if there's any teaching faculty out there, or research faculty who like the teaching requirement of their job, what is something in particular that you like about your teaching requirements, and what is one thing in particular that you dislike? Thanks in advance to anyone who'd take the time to throw in your two cents!
RESPONSE A: I left industry to get a PhD for this exact reason and I could not possibly be happier. I went from doing something I was good at to something I love. I could go on about various points of advice but here are a few. Find an advisor who is a good teacher and cares about teaching. Be up front about wanting to lead teach (not just TA) at least one course during your PhD. Take time to develop as a teacher, but I wouldn’t do a PhD in science education unless that’s what you want to teach. Instead get involved with outreach groups and take elective courses. Post-PhD, look for schools that are majority undergrad or somehow alternative and teaching-valued. Finding somewhere that will let you concentrate on teaching but still get some meaningful research done is SUPER hard, but they do exist. I would be thinking from the get go about research sub fields that are low overhead and can be done by undergrads or masters students, since most graduate degree granting universities are research first, teaching last. On a similar note, think about carving a small niche in your field. At a teaching heavy university you won’t be able to compete or beat anyone to results, but if you are amongst the few doing what you do, you can still make an impact. You’ll just have to sacrifice research glamour. Anyway, if you wanna teach and think you’ll love it, go for the PhD! Just know that academia is tough and can be disheartening in SO many ways, so being realistic about a back up is important.
RESPONSE B: If you want to teach, it is worth it to get a Ph.D. It will open many more doors at many more (and better) places.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: s academia (teaching/research at the university level) a good career path for someone who prefers to work thoroughly vs. quickly? I really enjoyed doing independent research for my Master's. I've been in the professional world awhile also, and I know that I struggle a bit in fast-paced work environments where I have to move between lots of small projects. However, I'm intellectually curious and my work gets good feedback when it's a bigger project where I have enough time that I'm not cutting corners. I was diagnosed with ADHD as as an adult, so that might be part of why I do better in jobs where I have a fair amount of flexibility on scheduling and work hours. I'm curious if this sounds like it would be compatible with academia? Or do you think this would still cause problems?
RESPONSE A: If “quickly” means you like being done with one thing and moving onto the next, no, it’s likely not suited for you. Depending on the field, you might be working on the same problem for years, and persistence is sometimes more important though speed certainly helps. I think the only exception might be those applied fields where salami slicing contributions into dozen articles a year is encouraged…but that would mean rewriting the same thing over and over with minimal changes.
RESPONSE B: I'm going to be honest with you. It's very difficult. I was also diagnosed as an adult. I did fine through my phd, postdoc, research fellowship. But tenure track has destroyed me. Part of that is that 2/3 years I've been TT have been screwed up by covid. But a lot of its not. The deadlines don't stop. Research proposals (because your job is to get money to pay other people to do research), teaching deadlines, all the billions of committees and meetings and whatever. It's constant. I *wish* I had time to work on something thoroughly but I just can't. There's too many other pressures. I feel bad being negative about this. I honestly had no idea how extreme it would be, especially having to deal with adhd on top of everything. I wish someone had told me 5-10 years ago it would be this overwhelming.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is academia (teaching/research at the university level) a good career path for someone who prefers to work thoroughly vs. quickly? I really enjoyed doing independent research for my Master's. I've been in the professional world awhile also, and I know that I struggle a bit in fast-paced work environments where I have to move between lots of small projects. However, I'm intellectually curious and my work gets good feedback when it's a bigger project where I have enough time that I'm not cutting corners. I was diagnosed with ADHD as as an adult, so that might be part of why I do better in jobs where I have a fair amount of flexibility on scheduling and work hours. I'm curious if this sounds like it would be compatible with academia? Or do you think this would still cause problems?
RESPONSE A: I'm going to be honest with you. It's very difficult. I was also diagnosed as an adult. I did fine through my phd, postdoc, research fellowship. But tenure track has destroyed me. Part of that is that 2/3 years I've been TT have been screwed up by covid. But a lot of its not. The deadlines don't stop. Research proposals (because your job is to get money to pay other people to do research), teaching deadlines, all the billions of committees and meetings and whatever. It's constant. I *wish* I had time to work on something thoroughly but I just can't. There's too many other pressures. I feel bad being negative about this. I honestly had no idea how extreme it would be, especially having to deal with adhd on top of everything. I wish someone had told me 5-10 years ago it would be this overwhelming.
RESPONSE B: Short answer is no. If you are a perfectionist and haven't managed to break yourself of that habit you will spend every waking moment trying to make your work beyond reproach. However, you will be inexperienced and therefore need correction over and over and over.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is academia (teaching/research at the university level) a good career path for someone who prefers to work thoroughly vs. quickly? I really enjoyed doing independent research for my Master's. I've been in the professional world awhile also, and I know that I struggle a bit in fast-paced work environments where I have to move between lots of small projects. However, I'm intellectually curious and my work gets good feedback when it's a bigger project where I have enough time that I'm not cutting corners. I was diagnosed with ADHD as as an adult, so that might be part of why I do better in jobs where I have a fair amount of flexibility on scheduling and work hours. I'm curious if this sounds like it would be compatible with academia? Or do you think this would still cause problems?
RESPONSE A: If “quickly” means you like being done with one thing and moving onto the next, no, it’s likely not suited for you. Depending on the field, you might be working on the same problem for years, and persistence is sometimes more important though speed certainly helps. I think the only exception might be those applied fields where salami slicing contributions into dozen articles a year is encouraged…but that would mean rewriting the same thing over and over with minimal changes.
RESPONSE B: “Move between lots of small projects” is practically the _definition_ of professor.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is academia (teaching/research at the university level) a good career path for someone who prefers to work thoroughly vs. quickly? I really enjoyed doing independent research for my Master's. I've been in the professional world awhile also, and I know that I struggle a bit in fast-paced work environments where I have to move between lots of small projects. However, I'm intellectually curious and my work gets good feedback when it's a bigger project where I have enough time that I'm not cutting corners. I was diagnosed with ADHD as as an adult, so that might be part of why I do better in jobs where I have a fair amount of flexibility on scheduling and work hours. I'm curious if this sounds like it would be compatible with academia? Or do you think this would still cause problems?
RESPONSE A: Academia is dying, don’t plan a career in it.
RESPONSE B: “Move between lots of small projects” is practically the _definition_ of professor.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do universities try to force tenured professors out of the school by giving them more administrative jobs and teaching responsibilities? I have heard that if the tenured professors do not bring in much grants as the university wants, the university tries to make the professor quit by giving him or her too much administrative jobs or teaching responsibilities? Is this true? If so, what is the purpose of the tenure?
RESPONSE A: Nah. Unless they're PITAs in other ways
RESPONSE B: I mean, if you aren't bringing in grants it makes since that your teaching or service would increase. But that isn't usually "to push people out".
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: tenure?
RESPONSE A: Nah. Unless they're PITAs in other ways
RESPONSE B: One of the things most researchers do with grant money is to buy their way out of teaching and administrative responsibilities. Without grant money, they can't do that. That feels to some faculty like they're being punished for having less grant money, but its not the responsibilities that changed, it's their ability to get out of the responsibilities they always had. Many faculty, frankly, pay very little to how any of that works - it's their administrative staff's responsibility to just make sure the budgets work out to buy them out of various obligations, and they more or less forget that's happening until it stops happening. It's also true that the longer a professor has been around, the more knowledge and experience they have about how the university works and the history of certain processes and decisions, and the more valuable that makes them for certain kinds of administrative service and committees. So there's some truth that the longer you're there, the more you are going to get asked to do things like committee service. Just for one example, one role I have at my job is putting together committees to handle a particularly sensitive and confidential kind of investigation. It's not for tenured faculty only, but it is true that we absolutely never seat someone on that committee without them having been around for a long time such that people think well of them, know them to be trustworthy and conscientious, and think highly of their expertise and abilities. So in practice we never call on new faculty for that service; we call on people who have been around a while and built a reputation of highly ethical and reliable service, and in practice a lot of those folks are tenured or close to it. There's some correlation there that might look to an outsider like "this is the kind of job we give to tenured faculty after they've stopped chasing grants so hard." All of that said sure, there's probably a university department somewhere where someone once said "oh my god, X is UNBELIEVABLY annoying and we're not even getting overhead out of them, let's throw admin at them until they quit." But it's not some sort of routine thing that happens, in my experience.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Do universities try to force tenured professors out of the school by giving them more administrative jobs and teaching responsibilities? I have heard that if the tenured professors do not bring in much grants as the university wants, the university tries to make the professor quit by giving him or her too much administrative jobs or teaching responsibilities? Is this true? If so, what is the purpose of the tenure?
RESPONSE A: Someone has to do that work. Why should the people bringing in grants have to do it? Note: I'm not in a grant-funded field, so I don't have that pressure, but *service is something that comes along with being tenured, except at dysfunctional places.* That's because (a) someone needs to do the service and (b) untenured assistant professors need to be protected from too much service or they won't be successful in building their research profile in preparation for tenure. Put 2 and 2 togother... like, literally, who else is going to do the service? (also, those of us who are tenured and who are good at our jobs have figured out how to do the extra service and teaching to protect our junior colleagues, while also being productive at research).
RESPONSE B: Nah. Unless they're PITAs in other ways
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do universities try to force tenured professors out of the school by giving them more administrative jobs and teaching responsibilities? I have heard that if the tenured professors do not bring in much grants as the university wants, the university tries to make the professor quit by giving him or her too much administrative jobs or teaching responsibilities? Is this true? If so, what is the purpose of the tenure?
RESPONSE A: Nah. Unless they're PITAs in other ways
RESPONSE B: At research universities, the teaching load is relatively low, but there is a expectation that one is "research-active," a classification which varies by department and university. This typically reflects a 40%/40%/20% split of one's workload into research, teaching, and service. If one is consistently below that threshold, then one isn't really living up to the 40% research appointment, so the other two components, teaching and service, may be increased upwards to compensate for this. Without tenure, one would have been fired for not living up to the research expectations, as opposed to having the workload split modified.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What's the difference between Journal Articles and Conference papers and how do these fit into one's research life? It's a very general question. Answer however you want
RESPONSE A: This is a field-specific question. Ask people in your field. In Computer Science we publish our best work in Conferences, which are extensively reviewed and are hard to get into. Journals are also peer-reviewed, but not as important or as hard to get into as the top conferences in your field. Other fields are the opposite: journals are hard and preferred and conferences are easy and not so great.
RESPONSE B: Generally, conference is presenting your work which is generally not rigorously peer reviewed. Upcourse some conferences publications will undergo rigorous peer review depending on the area of research. Also, conference gives general idea of what your peers working on in your particular area of research. Its kind of exchanging ideas. On the other hand, journal articles will always undergo rigorous peer review. Example is in conference you can present part of your research, like, simulation part alone or experimental part alone or theoretical study alone. However, in journal article always require validation of one method (simulation against experimental etc). The review process take very long time and multiple review stages are possible. In conferences only one review is enough (oftentimes and depending on the area & conference) to get your papers accepted to be appear in proceedings. That means conferences (most) are preliminary data of particular research. In some cases comprehensive study also presented in conferences. However, journal is always comprehensive.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What's the difference between Journal Articles and Conference papers and how do these fit into one's research life? It's a very general question. Answer however you want
RESPONSE A: It's all over the place, and is highly dependent on fields and even sub-fields, as well as the precise manner of peer review done for conferences (e.g. some conferences only peer-review the abstracts, rather than the papers). *Very* generally, conferences are a lower tier than journal papers, but conference attendance is important for name recognition and networking.
RESPONSE B: Generally, conference is presenting your work which is generally not rigorously peer reviewed. Upcourse some conferences publications will undergo rigorous peer review depending on the area of research. Also, conference gives general idea of what your peers working on in your particular area of research. Its kind of exchanging ideas. On the other hand, journal articles will always undergo rigorous peer review. Example is in conference you can present part of your research, like, simulation part alone or experimental part alone or theoretical study alone. However, in journal article always require validation of one method (simulation against experimental etc). The review process take very long time and multiple review stages are possible. In conferences only one review is enough (oftentimes and depending on the area & conference) to get your papers accepted to be appear in proceedings. That means conferences (most) are preliminary data of particular research. In some cases comprehensive study also presented in conferences. However, journal is always comprehensive.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What are the consequences of posting your article to the web after publication? Say you have the mindset that your work should not have a paywall and that you want more people to see it, but you do not pay the open-access premium to your publisher(s). Besides the ethical implications, what are the legal consequences of leaking your work to the web? Would it truly be difficult to anonymously post a.pdf of the publication on a third-party site like ResearchGate? People mention that acquiescing to email requests for.pdf copies of published works is a gray area. Yet, I suspect that this is how free version pdf's of gated articles end up on the web. Is it generally reasonable to assume that neither publisher nor employer are likely to discover that you leaked a copy of your work for the purpose of costless dissemination?
RESPONSE A: Doesn't one of the for profit publishers (Springer, I think) have a financial interest in Researchgate? Check with your library; they may have a dedicated fund for APCs, or they can help you add the article to your institutional repository.
RESPONSE B: You've got some good advice on here, I'd also just recommend talking to your university librarian. Whenever I publish a paper I reach out to our university librarian, and he coordinates with the journal to get permission to publish a free version to our university's website, which has a repository of all our professors' scholarly works. Apparently they're usually willing to work with universities on this.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I suppose this is a question mostly for folks in fields with longer journal articles - perhaps social sciences and humanities? **When you write a paper, to what extent do you keep a specific target journal in mind?** Specifically, I do research in behavioral sciences, and I'm currently writing up a study of mine. Everything worked out really nicely, and the results are neat - so I have high hopes that I could get the (single-authored) manuscript into a specific journal that is decently highly regarded in my field, though not a crazy reach. The problem is: My papers tend to be on the long side, and this journal has a word count that is around 2/3 of my usual word count. It's not at all impossible to write this article at that length, but I'd only do it for this journal and would leave out many things I'd normally consider pretty relevant. Plus, most journals in my field have no word limit and would be fine with my usual article length (though obviously they'd accept something shorter too). So I'm wondering: What's your workflow? Do you write the article that you think does the study justice and fit it to a journal later? Or do you write an article for your first-choice journal, and amend it to other journals later (or hope that it'll fit the next journal too)?
RESPONSE A: I tend to decide about midway in the writing process. (The study is completed and I have created something a little less than a rough draft.) That way I can adapt to a specific set of requirements (primarily length) without having to undo a lot of stuff. Also, I might make sure to include at least one reference from that specific journal to signal that I know their stuff.
RESPONSE B: Working in biology I write for a specific pre- identified journal, and instruct my students to do the same. Perhaps this is field specific but I find journals have styles and norms which are easier to write too than edit too. I ask my students to identify a journal and then identify two or three example papers from that journal that use similar methods or approaches, and which they think are well written. This is a good way to get them started thinking about how their work will come together into a coherent narrative.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: a specific target journal in mind?** Specifically, I do research in behavioral sciences, and I'm currently writing up a study of mine. Everything worked out really nicely, and the results are neat - so I have high hopes that I could get the (single-authored) manuscript into a specific journal that is decently highly regarded in my field, though not a crazy reach. The problem is: My papers tend to be on the long side, and this journal has a word count that is around 2/3 of my usual word count. It's not at all impossible to write this article at that length, but I'd only do it for this journal and would leave out many things I'd normally consider pretty relevant. Plus, most journals in my field have no word limit and would be fine with my usual article length (though obviously they'd accept something shorter too). So I'm wondering: What's your workflow? Do you write the article that you think does the study justice and fit it to a journal later? Or do you write an article for your first-choice journal, and amend it to other journals later (or hope that it'll fit the next journal too)?
RESPONSE A: For social sciences - I've noticed successful people very much think about the journal first, and there's sometimes even a whole lobbying process with editors behind the scenes. Personally, being a loser, I write what I want and have a set of good, if not \*massively\* high-impact, journals that I've had positive experiences with that I'll usually send things to, selecting targets based more on content. (If there's a clearly preferred journal and it's just a word count issue, I'd definitely not be precious about that. But I like to-the-point papers anyway to be honest.)
RESPONSE B: I tend to decide about midway in the writing process. (The study is completed and I have created something a little less than a rough draft.) That way I can adapt to a specific set of requirements (primarily length) without having to undo a lot of stuff. Also, I might make sure to include at least one reference from that specific journal to signal that I know their stuff.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What would your students be surprised to know about you? I just saw snippet of a Dr. Phil episode surrounding a college professor with a major drinking problem. When I was an undergrad I wasn't close to many of my professors. Most of what we discussed was related to topics within the confines of the major. I knew if they had kids or were married... but nothing overly sentimental, save for stumbling upon that one was going through a bitter divorce. It never really occurred to me that they had problems in their own lives. What would your students (undergrad or grad) be surprised to know about you?
RESPONSE A: I watch a non-zero amount of children's cartoons every day.
RESPONSE B: That in my spare time I perform latin dance in risqué costumes. Well, I usually tell them on the first day of class, so after the initial surprise they get used to it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What would your students be surprised to know about you? I just saw snippet of a Dr. Phil episode surrounding a college professor with a major drinking problem. When I was an undergrad I wasn't close to many of my professors. Most of what we discussed was related to topics within the confines of the major. I knew if they had kids or were married... but nothing overly sentimental, save for stumbling upon that one was going through a bitter divorce. It never really occurred to me that they had problems in their own lives. What would your students (undergrad or grad) be surprised to know about you?
RESPONSE A: Level 100 rogue night elf.
RESPONSE B: The 7 stainless steel bars thru my . . . let's leave it there!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What would your students be surprised to know about you? I just saw snippet of a Dr. Phil episode surrounding a college professor with a major drinking problem. When I was an undergrad I wasn't close to many of my professors. Most of what we discussed was related to topics within the confines of the major. I knew if they had kids or were married... but nothing overly sentimental, save for stumbling upon that one was going through a bitter divorce. It never really occurred to me that they had problems in their own lives. What would your students (undergrad or grad) be surprised to know about you?
RESPONSE A: Level 100 rogue night elf.
RESPONSE B: That in my spare time I perform latin dance in risqué costumes. Well, I usually tell them on the first day of class, so after the initial surprise they get used to it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What would your students be surprised to know about you? I just saw snippet of a Dr. Phil episode surrounding a college professor with a major drinking problem. When I was an undergrad I wasn't close to many of my professors. Most of what we discussed was related to topics within the confines of the major. I knew if they had kids or were married... but nothing overly sentimental, save for stumbling upon that one was going through a bitter divorce. It never really occurred to me that they had problems in their own lives. What would your students (undergrad or grad) be surprised to know about you?
RESPONSE A: That I'm generally a quiet guy who doesn't have a ton of friends and am very content to spend quiet evenings with my wife. This would shock them as in school I am a very outgoing, bombastic, high-energy person who will talk to anyone at any time. I do that so I'm better at my job. It's tiring and the last thing I want to do at home most nights.
RESPONSE B: The 7 stainless steel bars thru my . . . let's leave it there!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What would your students be surprised to know about you? I just saw snippet of a Dr. Phil episode surrounding a college professor with a major drinking problem. When I was an undergrad I wasn't close to many of my professors. Most of what we discussed was related to topics within the confines of the major. I knew if they had kids or were married... but nothing overly sentimental, save for stumbling upon that one was going through a bitter divorce. It never really occurred to me that they had problems in their own lives. What would your students (undergrad or grad) be surprised to know about you?
RESPONSE A: That I'm generally a quiet guy who doesn't have a ton of friends and am very content to spend quiet evenings with my wife. This would shock them as in school I am a very outgoing, bombastic, high-energy person who will talk to anyone at any time. I do that so I'm better at my job. It's tiring and the last thing I want to do at home most nights.
RESPONSE B: That in my spare time I perform latin dance in risqué costumes. Well, I usually tell them on the first day of class, so after the initial surprise they get used to it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: and it has caused them to take longer than average to graduate. It's a pretty bad relationship, and I want to get out. ​ However, I am conscious of how I leave, if I decide to switch advisers. I would love to leave with as little hard feelings and feel empowered by my decision. I am okay to self-deprecate myself in the process to be able to make this an easy to hear decision for my adviser. I don't want to come off as accusatory and I want to empathize with the fact that this isn't an easy feat. Obviously, as you can tell, I have very little soul left in me to even try to fight for respect. ​ Any advice welcomed, especially by professors.
RESPONSE A: I switched advisors at the end of my second year. I was advised to say it was because I had changed my research interests. It wasn't really true, and I don't think my old advisor believed it completely, but having an external reason seemed to help smooth things over. Sounds like you're in a bad situation, in which case I would get out and switch. Just make sure you have found a new advisor before saying goodbye to your old one!
RESPONSE B: Humanities here, and perhaps an example of what not to do, so take with a grain of salt: My original supervisor took a leave of absence to pursue another degree in a semi-connected field (long story), and because it was perceived as a conflict of interest (the thinking went that if we were both students, we'd theoretically be in conflict for scholarships/awards), I was made to switch supervisors. New supervisor was an absolute nightmare, and after two years of treading water with new supervisor (reassurances in person accompanied by in-text feedback that basically amounted to "kill yourself"), my original supervisor indicated they were returning. But new supervisor wouldn't let me return. So I just went behind their back and got all the other signatures I needed. New supervisor was livid, but them's the breaks. EDIT: Fully aware that this is not helpful in any way. I was lucky that new supervisor had little power in the grand scheme of things.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Those of you with a Ph.D./currently enrolled in a Ph.D. program, hindsight is 20/20, so what's one thing you wish you knew prior to entering your first year that would've made a huge difference? I will be a first-year Ph.D. student this coming fall pursuing a degree in sport & exercise psychology. I am curious for those of you who have completed your Ph.D./are current Ph.D. students: * What is one thing you wish you knew prior to starting your program? * Knowing what you know now, what is something (some skill, piece of knowledge/information) that you think if you knew back then, would have been helpful/made the experience/transition into a Ph.D. program a little smoother for you? (Being intentionally a little on the vague side here...)
RESPONSE A: There’s a lot of pressure to publish, but I would advise incoming students to be careful about what they publish early in their careers. Publishing is permanent.
RESPONSE B: Relationships matter, a lot, as much as or more than your science. Network constantly. Show your advisor your best work. At conferences, talk to famous people in your field and be admiring. Do not be critical. Everything is interesting, everyone is working on something cool. Be nice!!!!! Be humble. Read everything. Write early, write often, publish constantly in grad school. NETWORK. Be respectful to your teachers and your colleagues. Be professional. BE NICE. Seriously just be nice.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: prior to entering your first year that would've made a huge difference? I will be a first-year Ph.D. student this coming fall pursuing a degree in sport & exercise psychology. I am curious for those of you who have completed your Ph.D./are current Ph.D. students: * What is one thing you wish you knew prior to starting your program? * Knowing what you know now, what is something (some skill, piece of knowledge/information) that you think if you knew back then, would have been helpful/made the experience/transition into a Ph.D. program a little smoother for you? (Being intentionally a little on the vague side here...)
RESPONSE A: This might sound silly, but knowing exactly what my research focus was going to be has placed me at a great advantage against other students. I'm finishing up my second year now (heavy course load) and all of the papers I've written are publishable articles relevant to my area of interest, allowing me to have a good handle on the literature already. I'm currently finalizing plans for fieldwork, whereas others are still jumbling with ideas. This means that even with a ridiculous course load (no, not bitter at all), I will have my PhD within 4-5 years. Mind you, I am also a "planner," which means that I had my academic timeline prepared before I even got accepted to the program. I'm in the social sciences, and I've known people to enter doctoral studies, run out of funding, and then let their research drag on for a decade. Not everything went as planned, but having a clear end game has helped me get over the many humps I've encountered. All the best!
RESPONSE B: Relationships matter, a lot, as much as or more than your science. Network constantly. Show your advisor your best work. At conferences, talk to famous people in your field and be admiring. Do not be critical. Everything is interesting, everyone is working on something cool. Be nice!!!!! Be humble. Read everything. Write early, write often, publish constantly in grad school. NETWORK. Be respectful to your teachers and your colleagues. Be professional. BE NICE. Seriously just be nice.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Those of you with a Ph.D./currently enrolled in a Ph.D. program, hindsight is 20/20, so what's one thing you wish you knew prior to entering your first year that would've made a huge difference? I will be a first-year Ph.D. student this coming fall pursuing a degree in sport & exercise psychology. I am curious for those of you who have completed your Ph.D./are current Ph.D. students: * What is one thing you wish you knew prior to starting your program? * Knowing what you know now, what is something (some skill, piece of knowledge/information) that you think if you knew back then, would have been helpful/made the experience/transition into a Ph.D. program a little smoother for you? (Being intentionally a little on the vague side here...)
RESPONSE A: Start seeing a psychologist now. Seriously. Even if nothing is "wrong" yet. Get ahead of the grad school anxiety and depression even if it is just checking in with the on campus counselors twice a semester or so. Mental health services for students are usually free or at least heavily subsidized and affordable. Establish a relationship with a counselor so you can safely externalize your emotions when everything is horrible. Studies have shown that depression and anxiety in PhD students is sky high. Set up the emotional infrastructure for yourself before you need and it make sure to maintain it.
RESPONSE B: There’s a lot of pressure to publish, but I would advise incoming students to be careful about what they publish early in their careers. Publishing is permanent.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Those of you with a Ph.D./currently enrolled in a Ph.D. program, hindsight is 20/20, so what's one thing you wish you knew prior to entering your first year that would've made a huge difference? I will be a first-year Ph.D. student this coming fall pursuing a degree in sport & exercise psychology. I am curious for those of you who have completed your Ph.D./are current Ph.D. students: * What is one thing you wish you knew prior to starting your program? * Knowing what you know now, what is something (some skill, piece of knowledge/information) that you think if you knew back then, would have been helpful/made the experience/transition into a Ph.D. program a little smoother for you? (Being intentionally a little on the vague side here...)
RESPONSE A: Don't rush. Being a senior grad student has benefits. Mastering a system and "turning the crank" to produce data is a valuable situation to be in. Spending 6-12 more months in grad school to get another paper is worth it. You don't get an award for being the first one done in your class.
RESPONSE B: Start seeing a psychologist now. Seriously. Even if nothing is "wrong" yet. Get ahead of the grad school anxiety and depression even if it is just checking in with the on campus counselors twice a semester or so. Mental health services for students are usually free or at least heavily subsidized and affordable. Establish a relationship with a counselor so you can safely externalize your emotions when everything is horrible. Studies have shown that depression and anxiety in PhD students is sky high. Set up the emotional infrastructure for yourself before you need and it make sure to maintain it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Those of you with a Ph.D./currently enrolled in a Ph.D. program, hindsight is 20/20, so what's one thing you wish you knew prior to entering your first year that would've made a huge difference? I will be a first-year Ph.D. student this coming fall pursuing a degree in sport & exercise psychology. I am curious for those of you who have completed your Ph.D./are current Ph.D. students: * What is one thing you wish you knew prior to starting your program? * Knowing what you know now, what is something (some skill, piece of knowledge/information) that you think if you knew back then, would have been helpful/made the experience/transition into a Ph.D. program a little smoother for you? (Being intentionally a little on the vague side here...)
RESPONSE A: Knowing that job prospects are pretty bad.
RESPONSE B: Start seeing a psychologist now. Seriously. Even if nothing is "wrong" yet. Get ahead of the grad school anxiety and depression even if it is just checking in with the on campus counselors twice a semester or so. Mental health services for students are usually free or at least heavily subsidized and affordable. Establish a relationship with a counselor so you can safely externalize your emotions when everything is horrible. Studies have shown that depression and anxiety in PhD students is sky high. Set up the emotional infrastructure for yourself before you need and it make sure to maintain it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: papers as either first second or third author in Brain, Annual Review Pharmacology/Tox, ACS, EMBO, National Cancer Institute and similar impact Journals (IF - 10+)
RESPONSE A: I second all the suggestions to go overseas. It shouldn’t be that difficult to be accepted into a PhD program especially if you have a first class honours degree. Check which universities have discretionary acceptance, that is to say, admission is nearly entirely determined by your supervisor, and not by some paper pushing bureaucrat who has to make admissions decisions even know they know nothing about research.
RESPONSE B: > Racking my brains, over the past 7-10 years I don’t believe I have ever met a Black, Asian, or minority ethnic PhD, that got their PhD in the UK. That's odd; I've met loads and I've only been in the UK for 5 years. More relevant, though, is that there is plenty readily available data on the ethnic makeup of postgrad and/or PhD students in the UK (example 1, example 2, example 3, those are just the first few hits on google). For the most part the ratio of BAME to white PhD students is quite similar to the general UK population, although it varies a lot by specific ethniciity and the ratio is lower than in undergrad which is definitely noteworthy. You mentioned that > they don’t even have the decency to tell you why. but this is normal; employers don't contact unsuccessful candidates to tell them why they were not successful, either. It's not the done thing, and it's even less done in the UK than in other countries due to the laws and culture here. You could try phoning up a few of the supervisors and ask if they can offer advice on making your profile stronger for the next year, and *maybe* you'll get some clues as to why. If I had to guess, your list of your qualifications raises one really massive red flag: you've had 6 jobs in 5 years since finishing your MSc. A PhD is about years of focus on a single topic in a single setting, and it's possible that when people look at your CV they think that either you can't focus or you don't get along with others.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: – Healthcare Practitioner - Public Health England 2020 –current - Medical Writer (+ diploma) 7 published papers as either first second or third author in Brain, Annual Review Pharmacology/Tox, ACS, EMBO, National Cancer Institute and similar impact Journals (IF - 10+)
RESPONSE A: > Racking my brains, over the past 7-10 years I don’t believe I have ever met a Black, Asian, or minority ethnic PhD, that got their PhD in the UK. That's odd; I've met loads and I've only been in the UK for 5 years. More relevant, though, is that there is plenty readily available data on the ethnic makeup of postgrad and/or PhD students in the UK (example 1, example 2, example 3, those are just the first few hits on google). For the most part the ratio of BAME to white PhD students is quite similar to the general UK population, although it varies a lot by specific ethniciity and the ratio is lower than in undergrad which is definitely noteworthy. You mentioned that > they don’t even have the decency to tell you why. but this is normal; employers don't contact unsuccessful candidates to tell them why they were not successful, either. It's not the done thing, and it's even less done in the UK than in other countries due to the laws and culture here. You could try phoning up a few of the supervisors and ask if they can offer advice on making your profile stronger for the next year, and *maybe* you'll get some clues as to why. If I had to guess, your list of your qualifications raises one really massive red flag: you've had 6 jobs in 5 years since finishing your MSc. A PhD is about years of focus on a single topic in a single setting, and it's possible that when people look at your CV they think that either you can't focus or you don't get along with others.
RESPONSE B: Honestly, try for a scholarship at an Australian university. Your CV is better than the vast majority of PhD candidates here. Plenty of non-white candidates too. Overall a much fairer spread, and culturally I imagine the jump will be pleasant if you’re from the UK.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: As a private company, how can I get ethical clearance for journal publication? (Not affiliated with university). I am a researcher for a company that focuses on mental health advocacy and support. We want to conduct a study for publication to an academic journal. However, as we are not affiliated with any university, I do not know where we can get the ethical approval from a research committee. Does anyone have experience in this, or knows how we can get this ethical approval?
RESPONSE A: There are third-party IRBs that will review and approve your project; my experience with them is that they are a bit cumbersome and annoying but that's all IRBs, I'd guess. Some other commenters are saying you don't need IRB approval to publish, which is technically true but as someone who does research in mental health, if I was a reviewer of a paper without IRB approval I would a) notice and b) be very unhappy. Another option might be to find a grad student/faculty doing similar-ish research and see if they would be interested in doing a partnership. Obviously this can add many complications and the third-party IRB is likely your simplest way through, but I'm sure there are many people that would jump at the chance to work with an industry partner. Schools of Social Work and Public Health are probably the best places to find these types of researchers; also if you're a telehealth/mhealth company, a School of Information or human-computer interaction researchers would also be a good place to look (i-schools are uncommon, sometimes they have other names).
RESPONSE B: Make sure your manager is fine with the publication of the results. As most times that's proprietary to the company. If the manager says yes then check with legal counsel and export control if you have that department. Then submit for publication. The organization will be your company.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Unpublished Thesis by Publication flagged as plagiarism by a journal editor. What to do? After submitting a manuscript, the editor flagged a large portion as self-plagiarism. Turns out the journal uses TurnItIn and it scraped my alma mater's thesis repo. Thing is, in Australia it's really common to do a thesis by compilation which contains a series of manuscripts intended for submission - my thesis is online, but my old uni says it's not considered published so I shouldn't need to cite it and that it's not plagiarism. I've already reached out to the editor and explained the format and intention of the thesis, (this has happened before and other editors have understood this process), but I'm anticipating the worse. My options could be: 1. Have the editor understand and move the manuscript on for review. 2. Completely rewrite the article. 3. Redact that chapter of my thesis, so it's technically not available (even though it's not published) - with this option, I'm worried TurnItIn will retain the old version, and even if the chapter is not available, it'll still falsely flag as plagiarised. Anyone else run into this situation? Did you have to rewrite? Is redacting a suitable solution?
RESPONSE A: Another Editor here - you should be good to go. You occasionally come across poor editors, if this one turns out to be one bump your explanation up to the Editor in Chief.
RESPONSE B: That's really bizarre. Here in the US (STEM degree), we have the option of doing a dissertation either with or without journal articles. If we choose the "with journal article" format we submit the manuscript(s) in full with the rest of the dissertation. If the article has been published, then of course we include the full citation, but usually, there's an intended journal and the dissertation includes unpublished articles. I'm not sure if redacting would work - TurnItIn is notoriously finicky. Is it possible to show proof of the accepted format of the thesis to the editor? Personally, I might consider choosing another journal just out of spite.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Unpublished Thesis by Publication flagged as plagiarism by a journal editor. What to do? After submitting a manuscript, the editor flagged a large portion as self-plagiarism. Turns out the journal uses TurnItIn and it scraped my alma mater's thesis repo. Thing is, in Australia it's really common to do a thesis by compilation which contains a series of manuscripts intended for submission - my thesis is online, but my old uni says it's not considered published so I shouldn't need to cite it and that it's not plagiarism. I've already reached out to the editor and explained the format and intention of the thesis, (this has happened before and other editors have understood this process), but I'm anticipating the worse. My options could be: 1. Have the editor understand and move the manuscript on for review. 2. Completely rewrite the article. 3. Redact that chapter of my thesis, so it's technically not available (even though it's not published) - with this option, I'm worried TurnItIn will retain the old version, and even if the chapter is not available, it'll still falsely flag as plagiarised. Anyone else run into this situation? Did you have to rewrite? Is redacting a suitable solution?
RESPONSE A: Sounds like an editor misunderstands the standards.
RESPONSE B: Another Editor here - you should be good to go. You occasionally come across poor editors, if this one turns out to be one bump your explanation up to the Editor in Chief.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Unpublished Thesis by Publication flagged as plagiarism by a journal editor. What to do? After submitting a manuscript, the editor flagged a large portion as self-plagiarism. Turns out the journal uses TurnItIn and it scraped my alma mater's thesis repo. Thing is, in Australia it's really common to do a thesis by compilation which contains a series of manuscripts intended for submission - my thesis is online, but my old uni says it's not considered published so I shouldn't need to cite it and that it's not plagiarism. I've already reached out to the editor and explained the format and intention of the thesis, (this has happened before and other editors have understood this process), but I'm anticipating the worse. My options could be: 1. Have the editor understand and move the manuscript on for review. 2. Completely rewrite the article. 3. Redact that chapter of my thesis, so it's technically not available (even though it's not published) - with this option, I'm worried TurnItIn will retain the old version, and even if the chapter is not available, it'll still falsely flag as plagiarised. Anyone else run into this situation? Did you have to rewrite? Is redacting a suitable solution?
RESPONSE A: editor here - yep you should be fine. The system I use makes it fairly hard to discover the exact source of the overlap - you have to do a lot of scrolling - so it's easy to slip up and mistake an unpublished paper for a published one.
RESPONSE B: Another Editor here - you should be good to go. You occasionally come across poor editors, if this one turns out to be one bump your explanation up to the Editor in Chief.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Unpublished Thesis by Publication flagged as plagiarism by a journal editor. What to do? After submitting a manuscript, the editor flagged a large portion as self-plagiarism. Turns out the journal uses TurnItIn and it scraped my alma mater's thesis repo. Thing is, in Australia it's really common to do a thesis by compilation which contains a series of manuscripts intended for submission - my thesis is online, but my old uni says it's not considered published so I shouldn't need to cite it and that it's not plagiarism. I've already reached out to the editor and explained the format and intention of the thesis, (this has happened before and other editors have understood this process), but I'm anticipating the worse. My options could be: 1. Have the editor understand and move the manuscript on for review. 2. Completely rewrite the article. 3. Redact that chapter of my thesis, so it's technically not available (even though it's not published) - with this option, I'm worried TurnItIn will retain the old version, and even if the chapter is not available, it'll still falsely flag as plagiarised. Anyone else run into this situation? Did you have to rewrite? Is redacting a suitable solution?
RESPONSE A: Why is a journal using a tool as ethically compromised as Turnitin?
RESPONSE B: editor here - yep you should be fine. The system I use makes it fairly hard to discover the exact source of the overlap - you have to do a lot of scrolling - so it's easy to slip up and mistake an unpublished paper for a published one.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Unpublished Thesis by Publication flagged as plagiarism by a journal editor. What to do? After submitting a manuscript, the editor flagged a large portion as self-plagiarism. Turns out the journal uses TurnItIn and it scraped my alma mater's thesis repo. Thing is, in Australia it's really common to do a thesis by compilation which contains a series of manuscripts intended for submission - my thesis is online, but my old uni says it's not considered published so I shouldn't need to cite it and that it's not plagiarism. I've already reached out to the editor and explained the format and intention of the thesis, (this has happened before and other editors have understood this process), but I'm anticipating the worse. My options could be: 1. Have the editor understand and move the manuscript on for review. 2. Completely rewrite the article. 3. Redact that chapter of my thesis, so it's technically not available (even though it's not published) - with this option, I'm worried TurnItIn will retain the old version, and even if the chapter is not available, it'll still falsely flag as plagiarised. Anyone else run into this situation? Did you have to rewrite? Is redacting a suitable solution?
RESPONSE A: Sounds like an editor misunderstands the standards.
RESPONSE B: editor here - yep you should be fine. The system I use makes it fairly hard to discover the exact source of the overlap - you have to do a lot of scrolling - so it's easy to slip up and mistake an unpublished paper for a published one.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How old it "too old" for a prospective PhD supervisor? As a preface I haven't actually communicated with the professor in question so it's entirely possible that it's not even an option. I am currently in the process of finishing my master's and looking for a PhD. I know of one professor whose research interests match very closely to mine and I have been following his work for the past few years as well as reading his earlier work. In addition to this, both my bachelor's and master's theses are relevant to what he is doing, and in turn I want to further specialize in his field. My main worry is that the professor is in his early seventies and although it looks from his webpage like he is still accepting phd students and like he is very active publication-wise, I don't know if it would be a good idea in the long term. The general field is theoretical computer science if it plays any role. Is there any general guideline on when a prospective supervisor is too old? Or am I just being ageist and shouldn't take age into account if someone is accepting new students?
RESPONSE A: My PhD advisor was near retirement and a great advisor. He knew his stuff and had plenty of energy. Plus, since he already had tenure, he wasn't particularly high strung when it came to his expectations (I still had to get results, but he wasn't calling me at 7 AM on a Saturday demanding I come to the lab).
RESPONSE B: you will find good and bad professors of pretty much all ages. More important is things like how much funding do they have and how hard do their work to get more, how many publications have they recently published, are they are an advisor they have a management style that clicks with the way you work, do you think you can be successful in the lab, how you get along with the people you will be working with, and the list can go on depending on the field and the person.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How old it "too old" for a prospective PhD supervisor? As a preface I haven't actually communicated with the professor in question so it's entirely possible that it's not even an option. I am currently in the process of finishing my master's and looking for a PhD. I know of one professor whose research interests match very closely to mine and I have been following his work for the past few years as well as reading his earlier work. In addition to this, both my bachelor's and master's theses are relevant to what he is doing, and in turn I want to further specialize in his field. My main worry is that the professor is in his early seventies and although it looks from his webpage like he is still accepting phd students and like he is very active publication-wise, I don't know if it would be a good idea in the long term. The general field is theoretical computer science if it plays any role. Is there any general guideline on when a prospective supervisor is too old? Or am I just being ageist and shouldn't take age into account if someone is accepting new students?
RESPONSE A: There are lots of other good comments here, but I want to add a slightly unpleasant (and morbid) thing about older advisors- they are human beings and despite being academics, they don’t live forever. For a PhD I would be very afraid of my very senior PI passing away or retiring before I finish. Both for the mental component to grief as well as potential of not being able to finish or having difficulty finishing.
RESPONSE B: My PhD advisor was near retirement and a great advisor. He knew his stuff and had plenty of energy. Plus, since he already had tenure, he wasn't particularly high strung when it came to his expectations (I still had to get results, but he wasn't calling me at 7 AM on a Saturday demanding I come to the lab).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: were in charge of hiring professors for their department, what was a big turn off when you met with prospective job applicants?
RESPONSE A: For some schools where research is not the priority, the committee is looking for "fit". Do your priorities fit with the school (appropriate interest in teaching/research). Will you be able to get tenure? Will you be happy there, I.e. Will you stay at the school or are you using the job to get a better job? Will you accept a position if offered?
RESPONSE B: As a grad student -- a candidate for a position where I earned my doctorate spent a lot of time with students, but only wanted to hear department gossip. Who were good/bad professors, who didn't like who, who stabbed who in the back....the only thing she wanted to hear from us. We students certainly had these discussions amongst ourselves but weren't about to dish dirt with an outsider. As a faculty member -- someone who did their research on the program, insults the requirements, and hands us a plan of things that need to be fixed as soon as they are hired. A candidate once told us that hiring her would be the best thing that ever happened to our department. She had two years experience in higher education and was well-published in a journal financed by her husband. She was offended when I suggested that it would be nice to see some of her research replicated by people other than her husband. Had a candidate who referred to African-Americans as "those people." Lack of awareness of appropriate references puts me off before I have a chance to meet the candidate. One person used 2 people who hadn't had contact with her for over 10 years. Her third reference worked at the same college but only socialized with the candidate. After the second story about crazy shopping trips I suddenly remembered I had a meeting to attend. We've had several candidates over the years who did their doctorates at online programs and only used faculty from those programs as references. They would say that the candidates were great students and they were sure they would do well in higher ed, but didn't really know the candidate so couldn't provide much detail. We took a chance and hired one, wished we hadn't.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: data points outside of a toxic department. ​ Thanks for even reading this. Maybe I'm just having trouble giving up on my dreams, but I feel like I'm really at an impasse.
RESPONSE A: First off, this should not happen but as you state it does. I lived similar experiences. It was awful. I now work in an Office that deals with some of the issues I dealt with. And I am working on a broader level to make the situation better. All I mean to say is that there are many people who actually understand what you are saying, and care. I also know that from your perspective it is almost impossible to see all this work. We need more people like you and me involved. And if you want to send me a message, we can discuss. I'm so sorry this happened to you.
RESPONSE B: I totally relate. I also made a run at title ix over my adviser who made point blank comments about how my womanhood made me inherently inferior at using technology and doing science. I also ended up jaded and treated like garbage in the process— to the point where I didn’t file an actual title ix complaint and never would. I consulted with an attorney who explained to me that certain kinds of title ix offenses are essentially impossible to win, even if they actually happened and you aren’t wrong. So, instead, I made the report to my department chair as well as an ombudsperson, and sat through plenty of toxic conversations filled with garbage comments as a result. In the end, the department chair simply didn’t help me at all. Allegedly, he’s going to address the behavior with the professor in question — but it doesn’t help me and he never actually tried on that end. For my part, I actually transferred programs and that was my solution. Like you, I’m mentally beaten down and my confidence is in the hole. But I’m giving it one more go to see if I can make it to the other side and— hopefully— serve as one more decent human entering academia who can help end this kind of behavior. Good luck to you and try not to throw in the towel yet (though I wouldn’t blame you if you did).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: to those of you who burned out, how did you feel and what made you realise you needed time off? I think I might be a little burned out. I'm a second year postdoc way behind schedule and I would like to hear other people's experiences with burnout. How did you feel and how did you overcome it? All opinions welcome and thank you for the responses.
RESPONSE A: I literally stopped caring about shit, dreaded checking email, and had a really hard time mustering the gumption to handle even simple/5 min administrative tasks Edit: overcame by taking a sabbatical at the perfect time, and literally focusing on doing totally different stuff for awhile. It takes awhile to get over the cumulative stress that builds up from years of academia.
RESPONSE B: Exhausted but can’t sleep!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: to those of you who burned out, how did you feel and what made you realise you needed time off? I think I might be a little burned out. I'm a second year postdoc way behind schedule and I would like to hear other people's experiences with burnout. How did you feel and how did you overcome it? All opinions welcome and thank you for the responses.
RESPONSE A: I literally stopped caring about shit, dreaded checking email, and had a really hard time mustering the gumption to handle even simple/5 min administrative tasks Edit: overcame by taking a sabbatical at the perfect time, and literally focusing on doing totally different stuff for awhile. It takes awhile to get over the cumulative stress that builds up from years of academia.
RESPONSE B: I'm in the last 6 or so months of my PhD, and while I don't think I'm burnt out, I'm definitely having a hard time sticking to a routine and staying focused on work. I watched this video yesterday and felt like it hit home - especially the end.
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.