label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
A | POST: Is it true that assistant professors in the US have a high divorce rate? Someone told me that assistant professors in the US have a high divorce rate because of high pressure for tenure and frequently moving to new cities Is that true?
RESPONSE A: There is a running joke among older colleagues about second wives being "tenure" wives due to the first ones leaving during the process. Ignoring the implied sexism of the above statement. My take is this. Being an assistant professor is stressful. it's also the time when most couples are at the stage in life when they are starting families, which is also stressful. Add in low pay and long hours, while living in a new city where you probably don't have a robust social or family network. Plus there is the drinking culture in some programs or departments. That is enough to tax any relationship. Maybe there is a higher divorce rate during the tenure process, maybe the stress is just advertising a process that would have happened a few years down the road, or maybe it is just confirmation bias. It all adds up, personally I wouldn't have been able to do it without the support from my spouse. She had been my rock through moves and new cities. She has sacrificed a lot for me to be where I am. I think about that every time one of my students gets a job in a cool city making an insane salary.
RESPONSE B: It seems reasonable, but I would guess it is an anecdotal statistic.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: your workplace? Is the knowledge you gained during your PhD years central to your work? In particular, is there any way you could do your current work without having gone through the PhD? * If you were offered your current job (or a version of it demanding less experience/knowledge) at the same time you received the offer to your PhD program, in hindsight would you have chosen the job or the PhD? If you had chosen the job, would you have decided to never do a PhD or just delay when you would do your PhD? I am about to begin a job in quantitative finance after I complete my MSc. Internationally it is common for PhD holders (usually from physics or applied mathematics) to work in this area, and I will be working with a few such people. Before I received the job offer, I had prepared myself (mentally at least) to apply for PhD programs in mathematics. I ask because one of my current long-term goals is to complete a PhD in mathematics and then eventually join university faculty, provided I have the right credentials and luck at the time. I am very aware, however, that I might get cold feet about this once I start the job, certainly from a financial perspective and possibly from lifestyle considerations. My primary motivation behind wanting to pursue a PhD (eventually) is that I wish to be technically knowledgeable in my field of work. It would be a dream to contribute original research one day, and for the sake of my career in quantitative finance outside of academia, the PhD is a strong qualification to have. Also, I would find it difficult to even **feel** knowledgeable in quantitative finance without a PhD since it is so common to encounter individuals with them.
RESPONSE A: Yes. My doctorate wasn't just about preparation for a job. My motivation for doing one was so much more. I do believe it taught me how to work independently, how to own work packages and give me the skills to think critically, not just follow the will of my superiors.
RESPONSE B: Yes. My doctorate wasn't just about preparation for a job. My motivation for doing one was so much more. I do believe it taught me how to work independently, how to own work packages and give me the skills to think critically, not just follow the will of my superiors.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: it demanding less experience/knowledge) at the same time you received the offer to your PhD program, in hindsight would you have chosen the job or the PhD? If you had chosen the job, would you have decided to never do a PhD or just delay when you would do your PhD? I am about to begin a job in quantitative finance after I complete my MSc. Internationally it is common for PhD holders (usually from physics or applied mathematics) to work in this area, and I will be working with a few such people. Before I received the job offer, I had prepared myself (mentally at least) to apply for PhD programs in mathematics. I ask because one of my current long-term goals is to complete a PhD in mathematics and then eventually join university faculty, provided I have the right credentials and luck at the time. I am very aware, however, that I might get cold feet about this once I start the job, certainly from a financial perspective and possibly from lifestyle considerations. My primary motivation behind wanting to pursue a PhD (eventually) is that I wish to be technically knowledgeable in my field of work. It would be a dream to contribute original research one day, and for the sake of my career in quantitative finance outside of academia, the PhD is a strong qualification to have. Also, I would find it difficult to even **feel** knowledgeable in quantitative finance without a PhD since it is so common to encounter individuals with them.
RESPONSE A: lol no. A different field, yes. This is barely worth the paper it's printed on. Hell, if I could go back I'd just have done what I had always wanted to do before I allowed others to convince me otherwise.
RESPONSE B: Yes for what I learned about myself, the amazing mental training, the amazing people I met (including my partner) and just the amazing time I had getting paid to live in an amazing city and mentally masturbate all day, every day for years. Professionally, haha, fuck no. I should have gotten a masters and maybe an MBA. Also fuck no, because I have low level PTSD from my misogynistic, bipolar, dick of an advisor and the harrowing bullshit he put me through.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: same time you received the offer to your PhD program, in hindsight would you have chosen the job or the PhD? If you had chosen the job, would you have decided to never do a PhD or just delay when you would do your PhD? I am about to begin a job in quantitative finance after I complete my MSc. Internationally it is common for PhD holders (usually from physics or applied mathematics) to work in this area, and I will be working with a few such people. Before I received the job offer, I had prepared myself (mentally at least) to apply for PhD programs in mathematics. I ask because one of my current long-term goals is to complete a PhD in mathematics and then eventually join university faculty, provided I have the right credentials and luck at the time. I am very aware, however, that I might get cold feet about this once I start the job, certainly from a financial perspective and possibly from lifestyle considerations. My primary motivation behind wanting to pursue a PhD (eventually) is that I wish to be technically knowledgeable in my field of work. It would be a dream to contribute original research one day, and for the sake of my career in quantitative finance outside of academia, the PhD is a strong qualification to have. Also, I would find it difficult to even **feel** knowledgeable in quantitative finance without a PhD since it is so common to encounter individuals with them.
RESPONSE A: Yes for what I learned about myself, the amazing mental training, the amazing people I met (including my partner) and just the amazing time I had getting paid to live in an amazing city and mentally masturbate all day, every day for years. Professionally, haha, fuck no. I should have gotten a masters and maybe an MBA. Also fuck no, because I have low level PTSD from my misogynistic, bipolar, dick of an advisor and the harrowing bullshit he put me through.
RESPONSE B: Yes. My doctorate wasn't just about preparation for a job. My motivation for doing one was so much more. I do believe it taught me how to work independently, how to own work packages and give me the skills to think critically, not just follow the will of my superiors.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: you could do your current work without having gone through the PhD? * If you were offered your current job (or a version of it demanding less experience/knowledge) at the same time you received the offer to your PhD program, in hindsight would you have chosen the job or the PhD? If you had chosen the job, would you have decided to never do a PhD or just delay when you would do your PhD? I am about to begin a job in quantitative finance after I complete my MSc. Internationally it is common for PhD holders (usually from physics or applied mathematics) to work in this area, and I will be working with a few such people. Before I received the job offer, I had prepared myself (mentally at least) to apply for PhD programs in mathematics. I ask because one of my current long-term goals is to complete a PhD in mathematics and then eventually join university faculty, provided I have the right credentials and luck at the time. I am very aware, however, that I might get cold feet about this once I start the job, certainly from a financial perspective and possibly from lifestyle considerations. My primary motivation behind wanting to pursue a PhD (eventually) is that I wish to be technically knowledgeable in my field of work. It would be a dream to contribute original research one day, and for the sake of my career in quantitative finance outside of academia, the PhD is a strong qualification to have. Also, I would find it difficult to even **feel** knowledgeable in quantitative finance without a PhD since it is so common to encounter individuals with them.
RESPONSE A: No It's unnecessary for my current field and I am over qualified. My degree and experience getting it (especially the soft skills developed for communicating) are extremely useful and helped me land this position. However, I do not need my education to perform and many of my peers are non-PhDs. Only time will tell if my education provides additional opportunities as I am only mid-career at the moment.
RESPONSE B: Yes. My doctorate wasn't just about preparation for a job. My motivation for doing one was so much more. I do believe it taught me how to work independently, how to own work packages and give me the skills to think critically, not just follow the will of my superiors.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: gone through the PhD? * If you were offered your current job (or a version of it demanding less experience/knowledge) at the same time you received the offer to your PhD program, in hindsight would you have chosen the job or the PhD? If you had chosen the job, would you have decided to never do a PhD or just delay when you would do your PhD? I am about to begin a job in quantitative finance after I complete my MSc. Internationally it is common for PhD holders (usually from physics or applied mathematics) to work in this area, and I will be working with a few such people. Before I received the job offer, I had prepared myself (mentally at least) to apply for PhD programs in mathematics. I ask because one of my current long-term goals is to complete a PhD in mathematics and then eventually join university faculty, provided I have the right credentials and luck at the time. I am very aware, however, that I might get cold feet about this once I start the job, certainly from a financial perspective and possibly from lifestyle considerations. My primary motivation behind wanting to pursue a PhD (eventually) is that I wish to be technically knowledgeable in my field of work. It would be a dream to contribute original research one day, and for the sake of my career in quantitative finance outside of academia, the PhD is a strong qualification to have. Also, I would find it difficult to even **feel** knowledgeable in quantitative finance without a PhD since it is so common to encounter individuals with them.
RESPONSE A: Engineering PhD at a national lab, and it was totally worth it even though my PhD experience was miserable. I basically function as a professor who doesn't need to teach classes and with, typically better funding. I still get to do lab work when I want, and, by working outside of academia, I meet people day to day who have real problems that need to be solved. Pull technology is always more exciting (and fundable) than push technology.
RESPONSE B: Yes. My doctorate wasn't just about preparation for a job. My motivation for doing one was so much more. I do believe it taught me how to work independently, how to own work packages and give me the skills to think critically, not just follow the will of my superiors.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Starting a phd - what’s one thing you wish you had? Have a friend/colleague starting a phd shortly, need to get them a gift. It’s a science based phd if that makes a difference! Notebook is an obvious choice, would an academic diary be useful? What’s one thing you found most useful and/or wish you had when doing your phd? Thanks!
RESPONSE A: I think this is a question that is really personal and depends on a discipline. But if they work from home and don't have a second screen, I would get them a second screen, lol. I could also use an external drive for all the books I downloaded and never read XD. A good chair that would help their back not break when they write, maybe ? :P
RESPONSE B: I vote for something non-academia related. Money gets tight and so you don't feel like you can splurge on anything so try to think of whatever hobbies they have and maybe get them something for that. Double bonus gift too because it's important for people doing a PhD to do literally anything else besides the PhD. Get them a 10 pass punch card to the local climbing gym, a bike trails guidebook, a bunch of fancy yarn and fabric, etc.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Starting a phd - what’s one thing you wish you had? Have a friend/colleague starting a phd shortly, need to get them a gift. It’s a science based phd if that makes a difference! Notebook is an obvious choice, would an academic diary be useful? What’s one thing you found most useful and/or wish you had when doing your phd? Thanks!
RESPONSE A: Honestly, some nice things for self care. Coffee, tea, something cozy, hand made soap, bath bombs, food, etc. Doing a PhD is extremely stressful for most people.
RESPONSE B: I vote for something non-academia related. Money gets tight and so you don't feel like you can splurge on anything so try to think of whatever hobbies they have and maybe get them something for that. Double bonus gift too because it's important for people doing a PhD to do literally anything else besides the PhD. Get them a 10 pass punch card to the local climbing gym, a bike trails guidebook, a bunch of fancy yarn and fabric, etc.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Starting a phd - what’s one thing you wish you had? Have a friend/colleague starting a phd shortly, need to get them a gift. It’s a science based phd if that makes a difference! Notebook is an obvious choice, would an academic diary be useful? What’s one thing you found most useful and/or wish you had when doing your phd? Thanks!
RESPONSE A: alcohol jk kind of
RESPONSE B: I vote for something non-academia related. Money gets tight and so you don't feel like you can splurge on anything so try to think of whatever hobbies they have and maybe get them something for that. Double bonus gift too because it's important for people doing a PhD to do literally anything else besides the PhD. Get them a 10 pass punch card to the local climbing gym, a bike trails guidebook, a bunch of fancy yarn and fabric, etc.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Starting a phd - what’s one thing you wish you had? Have a friend/colleague starting a phd shortly, need to get them a gift. It’s a science based phd if that makes a difference! Notebook is an obvious choice, would an academic diary be useful? What’s one thing you found most useful and/or wish you had when doing your phd? Thanks!
RESPONSE A: alcohol jk kind of
RESPONSE B: I think this is a question that is really personal and depends on a discipline. But if they work from home and don't have a second screen, I would get them a second screen, lol. I could also use an external drive for all the books I downloaded and never read XD. A good chair that would help their back not break when they write, maybe ? :P
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Starting a phd - what’s one thing you wish you had? Have a friend/colleague starting a phd shortly, need to get them a gift. It’s a science based phd if that makes a difference! Notebook is an obvious choice, would an academic diary be useful? What’s one thing you found most useful and/or wish you had when doing your phd? Thanks!
RESPONSE A: alcohol jk kind of
RESPONSE B: Honestly, some nice things for self care. Coffee, tea, something cozy, hand made soap, bath bombs, food, etc. Doing a PhD is extremely stressful for most people.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Quitting your PhD and starting another later in life? Ten years ago in my early twenties, I started a PhD on a scholarship. I spent four years on it (with a few breaks), before leaving. I don't regret it—leaving literally saved my life, given some significant mental health issues at the time. The area also wasn't an area I loved. I'm now in a much better place than I was, and am starting to retrain in an area I am incredibly energised by. I still want to complete a PhD one day and am wondering whether: A) has anyone here attempted another PhD in similar circumstances, and if so, what was your experience of your second? B) If I pursued a PhD, should I mention that I had previously started and quit a PhD—is that a liability or an indication that I once had the support and confidence of another University?
RESPONSE A: A) I initially considered doing a PhD but got sidetracked and ended up in law. Went back in my now early 40s. It's challenging but also awesome. I think if you had the desire in the first place and you have it again that is a strong indication that this might be a good path for you. B) I'm not sure that I would mention that since they might be afraid that you wouldn't finish. Not sure if others on admission committees here have more to say about this. ETA: disclose your previous PhD if you're obliged to. Didn't consider that this might be required!
RESPONSE B: You would definitely have to disclose you previously attended a phd program: to not do so can be considered academic dishonesty and can get you kicked out of a program later on, not worth it. You can also potentially transfer over some course work if its in a similar area.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Quitting your PhD and starting another later in life? Ten years ago in my early twenties, I started a PhD on a scholarship. I spent four years on it (with a few breaks), before leaving. I don't regret it—leaving literally saved my life, given some significant mental health issues at the time. The area also wasn't an area I loved. I'm now in a much better place than I was, and am starting to retrain in an area I am incredibly energised by. I still want to complete a PhD one day and am wondering whether: A) has anyone here attempted another PhD in similar circumstances, and if so, what was your experience of your second? B) If I pursued a PhD, should I mention that I had previously started and quit a PhD—is that a liability or an indication that I once had the support and confidence of another University?
RESPONSE A: I took a 3 year break and started back in a new area. I still worked for the University so that certainly made things easier. I found the right advisor, support system, and an inspiring topic area. Everything was better about round two. If you have an opportunity at the same University, you might not even have to reapply - I just transferred departments. You got this.
RESPONSE B: A) I initially considered doing a PhD but got sidetracked and ended up in law. Went back in my now early 40s. It's challenging but also awesome. I think if you had the desire in the first place and you have it again that is a strong indication that this might be a good path for you. B) I'm not sure that I would mention that since they might be afraid that you wouldn't finish. Not sure if others on admission committees here have more to say about this. ETA: disclose your previous PhD if you're obliged to. Didn't consider that this might be required!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Quitting your PhD and starting another later in life? Ten years ago in my early twenties, I started a PhD on a scholarship. I spent four years on it (with a few breaks), before leaving. I don't regret it—leaving literally saved my life, given some significant mental health issues at the time. The area also wasn't an area I loved. I'm now in a much better place than I was, and am starting to retrain in an area I am incredibly energised by. I still want to complete a PhD one day and am wondering whether: A) has anyone here attempted another PhD in similar circumstances, and if so, what was your experience of your second? B) If I pursued a PhD, should I mention that I had previously started and quit a PhD—is that a liability or an indication that I once had the support and confidence of another University?
RESPONSE A: As far as whether you should mention it, you will be required to submit (un)official transcripts from every instruction you’ve attended, so they will know before considering you application and just omitting that transcript is seriously bad. It’ll probably reflect a lot better if you address the issue head on.
RESPONSE B: I took a 3 year break and started back in a new area. I still worked for the University so that certainly made things easier. I found the right advisor, support system, and an inspiring topic area. Everything was better about round two. If you have an opportunity at the same University, you might not even have to reapply - I just transferred departments. You got this.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Quitting your PhD and starting another later in life? Ten years ago in my early twenties, I started a PhD on a scholarship. I spent four years on it (with a few breaks), before leaving. I don't regret it—leaving literally saved my life, given some significant mental health issues at the time. The area also wasn't an area I loved. I'm now in a much better place than I was, and am starting to retrain in an area I am incredibly energised by. I still want to complete a PhD one day and am wondering whether: A) has anyone here attempted another PhD in similar circumstances, and if so, what was your experience of your second? B) If I pursued a PhD, should I mention that I had previously started and quit a PhD—is that a liability or an indication that I once had the support and confidence of another University?
RESPONSE A: OP, fwiw, I'm doing exactly that right now. Actually, I started grad school twice before realizing that I didn't care enough about the subject to do that much work in it. Third time was the charm, and this year I will start Ph.D work in a field that actually engages me fully. I am almost 60 years old.
RESPONSE B: The question I'd ask you is the same I ask any undergrad considering a PhD- What are your motivations for getting the degree? Your life is going to suck for a few years, and yes you will meet great people and learn a lot, but you're going to be broke, over worked and stressed out. What are you hoping to get out of that? If there isn't something tangible on the other side, I would advise against getting the degree. If there is a specific job or career track that requires the PhD, then by all means, go for it. I would caution you- if you are in a STEM field, getting a professorship is going to be really tough at an advanced age. The academic institutions practice ageism like no other.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Quitting your PhD and starting another later in life? Ten years ago in my early twenties, I started a PhD on a scholarship. I spent four years on it (with a few breaks), before leaving. I don't regret it—leaving literally saved my life, given some significant mental health issues at the time. The area also wasn't an area I loved. I'm now in a much better place than I was, and am starting to retrain in an area I am incredibly energised by. I still want to complete a PhD one day and am wondering whether: A) has anyone here attempted another PhD in similar circumstances, and if so, what was your experience of your second? B) If I pursued a PhD, should I mention that I had previously started and quit a PhD—is that a liability or an indication that I once had the support and confidence of another University?
RESPONSE A: OP, fwiw, I'm doing exactly that right now. Actually, I started grad school twice before realizing that I didn't care enough about the subject to do that much work in it. Third time was the charm, and this year I will start Ph.D work in a field that actually engages me fully. I am almost 60 years old.
RESPONSE B: As far as whether you should mention it, you will be required to submit (un)official transcripts from every instruction you’ve attended, so they will know before considering you application and just omitting that transcript is seriously bad. It’ll probably reflect a lot better if you address the issue head on.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Recommended laptop? (For postdocs and faculty) Are there particular laptops that you might recommend for postdocs and/or faculty members? More specifically, in STEM and/or social science fields. For context, I have accepted a postdoctoral position, and I have been allotted a stipend for a computer. The stipend is fairly generous, so I could afford a MacBook Pro 14", for instance, but I would like to ask the Reddit academic community what they might recommend.
RESPONSE A: My department is split between windows (3) and Mac (6). Honestly, whatever you like working with.
RESPONSE B: Is there any particular software you need? Stuff that works better on mac vs windows? Mac is the obvious option in my field because of certain software. If you just need general word processing, email, excel, etc, it doesn't really matter. I like my macbook pro & believe nearly all of the grads and post docs have the same. Faculty tend to have cheaper ones because they don't need to do intense data processing.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Recommended laptop? (For postdocs and faculty) Are there particular laptops that you might recommend for postdocs and/or faculty members? More specifically, in STEM and/or social science fields. For context, I have accepted a postdoctoral position, and I have been allotted a stipend for a computer. The stipend is fairly generous, so I could afford a MacBook Pro 14", for instance, but I would like to ask the Reddit academic community what they might recommend.
RESPONSE A: Is there any particular software you need? Stuff that works better on mac vs windows? Mac is the obvious option in my field because of certain software. If you just need general word processing, email, excel, etc, it doesn't really matter. I like my macbook pro & believe nearly all of the grads and post docs have the same. Faculty tend to have cheaper ones because they don't need to do intense data processing.
RESPONSE B: Whatever is the most expensive. If you actually need anything beyond sending emails, making presentations or *maybe* doing some very light computation, you should have dedicated resources for that. The laptop is for clerical stuff, so just go for whatever you like as far as battery/screen size/operating system and spend all of the allocated money, because you will not get it otherwise.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Recommended laptop? (For postdocs and faculty) Are there particular laptops that you might recommend for postdocs and/or faculty members? More specifically, in STEM and/or social science fields. For context, I have accepted a postdoctoral position, and I have been allotted a stipend for a computer. The stipend is fairly generous, so I could afford a MacBook Pro 14", for instance, but I would like to ask the Reddit academic community what they might recommend.
RESPONSE A: Is there any particular software you need? Stuff that works better on mac vs windows? Mac is the obvious option in my field because of certain software. If you just need general word processing, email, excel, etc, it doesn't really matter. I like my macbook pro & believe nearly all of the grads and post docs have the same. Faculty tend to have cheaper ones because they don't need to do intense data processing.
RESPONSE B: Depends what field you’re in. If you’re gonna be using a bunch of technical software then a windows computer is usually a better bet. Otherwise just get the best quality of whatever you want
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Recommended laptop? (For postdocs and faculty) Are there particular laptops that you might recommend for postdocs and/or faculty members? More specifically, in STEM and/or social science fields. For context, I have accepted a postdoctoral position, and I have been allotted a stipend for a computer. The stipend is fairly generous, so I could afford a MacBook Pro 14", for instance, but I would like to ask the Reddit academic community what they might recommend.
RESPONSE A: I used to think all modern laptops had overkill capacity for the type of work I do, and that the only ones who needed to care were gamers. As it turns out editing long videos of recorded lectures (thank you Covid) requires powerful computing as well. Like others have said, you should go with whatever is most common at your workplace. Where I'm at, Mac users run into problems way more often, merely because they are in the minority. There is one "Mac guy" at IT support and maybe twenty PC people. Two of my closest colleagues had to switch back to PC because some of the specialist software wasn't available for Mac or couldn't migrate between platforms. I'm sure the situation is the reverse in other places. I always have at least one cheap private laptop as well for backup, and the difference is huge. I am very satisfied with my work HP EliteBook 840 G7,
RESPONSE B: Whatever is the most expensive. If you actually need anything beyond sending emails, making presentations or *maybe* doing some very light computation, you should have dedicated resources for that. The laptop is for clerical stuff, so just go for whatever you like as far as battery/screen size/operating system and spend all of the allocated money, because you will not get it otherwise.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Recommended laptop? (For postdocs and faculty) Are there particular laptops that you might recommend for postdocs and/or faculty members? More specifically, in STEM and/or social science fields. For context, I have accepted a postdoctoral position, and I have been allotted a stipend for a computer. The stipend is fairly generous, so I could afford a MacBook Pro 14", for instance, but I would like to ask the Reddit academic community what they might recommend.
RESPONSE A: I used to think all modern laptops had overkill capacity for the type of work I do, and that the only ones who needed to care were gamers. As it turns out editing long videos of recorded lectures (thank you Covid) requires powerful computing as well. Like others have said, you should go with whatever is most common at your workplace. Where I'm at, Mac users run into problems way more often, merely because they are in the minority. There is one "Mac guy" at IT support and maybe twenty PC people. Two of my closest colleagues had to switch back to PC because some of the specialist software wasn't available for Mac or couldn't migrate between platforms. I'm sure the situation is the reverse in other places. I always have at least one cheap private laptop as well for backup, and the difference is huge. I am very satisfied with my work HP EliteBook 840 G7,
RESPONSE B: Depends what field you’re in. If you’re gonna be using a bunch of technical software then a windows computer is usually a better bet. Otherwise just get the best quality of whatever you want
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Faculty: What would you think of a new TT hire who backed out of another school after signing their offer letter? School A: dream job at high-caliber school in wonderful location. School B: mediocre school in yucky location. School B made me an early offer with a short deadline, and I signed their offer letter. Now School A has made me an offer. The folks at r/Professors said to choose School A, but maybe I wasn't clear in my post there that I have already signed School B's offer letter, so I thought I'd check with the wider community. **Could backing out on School B harm my reputation with School A (and the rest of my field)? Should I tell School A at any point that I signed the offer letter for School B?** I'm especially interested in POVs from mid/later-career professors, who are the majority at School A.
RESPONSE A: All the comments below are right; you owe loyalty to yourself. but everyone reading this: **don't sign offer letters from places you truly believe to be "mediocre school in yucky location" ** sorry this is not a temp gig. searches take time. you've now screwed over a department and, *more importantly*, candidates who might have had a chance there signed: someone who turned down an offer from a place when it was the only one I had on the table at the time, because I couldn't see myself living there.
RESPONSE B: Was in your same position. I chose the B option (because "honor", lol), and quit after 2 years because it was shit. But I lucked out because I published when I was at B, so I am now at school A at a more senior level. However, in hindsight given how competitive A is, I don't know if I could have climbed the ladder if I had chosen A from the get go. I found that in my field it's much easier to climb diagonally rather than vertically.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: principle and it'd be bad if their record was bad and they were hired anyway, but in this case their record was pretty strong relative to the other candidates. Fortunately I'm not internally involved (I'm non-TT and therefore not on the senate) but it's interesting to observe the magnitude of faculty reaction to this. I feel like if the candidate takes the offer, they'll have the deck stacked against them when going for tenure from the get-go. What do think about this?
RESPONSE A: I definitely hear and understand arguments against hiring graduates of an institution (as in those who did their doctorate/terminal degree there). However I really don't like broad-sweeping rules like the one proposed here. This potential hire sounds like a great exception to the rule, where they did stick around for years and didn't necessarilly "spread their wings", but they did show that they were able to diversify their research sufficiently *and* bring in grant funds. So, I think they should be considered differently than a candidate who, say, did their doctoral degree at school x, post-doc'ed at school y, and then wants to get hired back at school x doing very similar research. As an anecdote, my doctoral program had an associate professor who had finished their PhD at the same institution. They had post-doc'ed at one or two other schools and had held a TT position at a very esteemed program for years before applying back. At the time he was hired, his research was significantly different and "cutting edge" for the field and, thus, was a great addition to the program. So, that's to say I hate to rule out great candidates because of a rule that is overly broad-sweeping in its implications.
RESPONSE B: Sounds like a bad rule to me. I like the idea that external candidates are strongly preferred, but codifying it as a requirement just seems wrong. There are always exceptions, even for PhDs. And for bachelors who return to their alma mater to teach, - I think it's actually extremely refreshing, and great for the students, as it provides some super-cool continuity of experiences.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: grant money, and their focus area seems to be one that the department wants to inherit. There's the additional pressure to not have a second failed search in a row as well. However, the department vote to hire this person passed but just barely. The candidate's case was then approved by the chair and the provost, so the offer was made. The faculty who voted against them didn't accept the decision, however, so they lodged a protest with the academic senate. Further, they are trying to get support from other departments for preventing something like this from happening again by trying to get it formally written into the academic policy and procedures manual that applicants who obtained any of their degrees at the school are ineligible for consideration for any tenure-track position at the school. It's a lot of drama. I can see that some might not like it on principle and it'd be bad if their record was bad and they were hired anyway, but in this case their record was pretty strong relative to the other candidates. Fortunately I'm not internally involved (I'm non-TT and therefore not on the senate) but it's interesting to observe the magnitude of faculty reaction to this. I feel like if the candidate takes the offer, they'll have the deck stacked against them when going for tenure from the get-go. What do think about this?
RESPONSE A: Sounds like a bad rule to me. I like the idea that external candidates are strongly preferred, but codifying it as a requirement just seems wrong. There are always exceptions, even for PhDs. And for bachelors who return to their alma mater to teach, - I think it's actually extremely refreshing, and great for the students, as it provides some super-cool continuity of experiences.
RESPONSE B: When I joined my current schools PhD program, they told me flat out “We will never hire you for a TT position. Go spread your wings.” The idea was for the department to “diversify” by hiring outside grads, and for us to “spread our knowledge”. We just recently got a new chair that I wouldn’t want to work under anyway, so it’s no longer an issue. But I can see why they said that.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: seems to be one that the department wants to inherit. There's the additional pressure to not have a second failed search in a row as well. However, the department vote to hire this person passed but just barely. The candidate's case was then approved by the chair and the provost, so the offer was made. The faculty who voted against them didn't accept the decision, however, so they lodged a protest with the academic senate. Further, they are trying to get support from other departments for preventing something like this from happening again by trying to get it formally written into the academic policy and procedures manual that applicants who obtained any of their degrees at the school are ineligible for consideration for any tenure-track position at the school. It's a lot of drama. I can see that some might not like it on principle and it'd be bad if their record was bad and they were hired anyway, but in this case their record was pretty strong relative to the other candidates. Fortunately I'm not internally involved (I'm non-TT and therefore not on the senate) but it's interesting to observe the magnitude of faculty reaction to this. I feel like if the candidate takes the offer, they'll have the deck stacked against them when going for tenure from the get-go. What do think about this?
RESPONSE A: I’m also against hiring grads from your own graduate program, but I’m also sympathetic to the plight of non-TT faculty. I just think a department needs fresh blood whenever possible to prevent groupthink and stagnation. If this person really wanted a tt position, I would not have recommended them to take a non-tt at their home school. This one is a tough call, but i would not go as far as these faculty have to block it.
RESPONSE B: Sounds like a bad rule to me. I like the idea that external candidates are strongly preferred, but codifying it as a requirement just seems wrong. There are always exceptions, even for PhDs. And for bachelors who return to their alma mater to teach, - I think it's actually extremely refreshing, and great for the students, as it provides some super-cool continuity of experiences.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 's controversial based on my assessment from interviewing them and looking at their CV - they've been publishing a lot even though they don't have their own students, have brought in a bunch of grant money, and their focus area seems to be one that the department wants to inherit. There's the additional pressure to not have a second failed search in a row as well. However, the department vote to hire this person passed but just barely. The candidate's case was then approved by the chair and the provost, so the offer was made. The faculty who voted against them didn't accept the decision, however, so they lodged a protest with the academic senate. Further, they are trying to get support from other departments for preventing something like this from happening again by trying to get it formally written into the academic policy and procedures manual that applicants who obtained any of their degrees at the school are ineligible for consideration for any tenure-track position at the school. It's a lot of drama. I can see that some might not like it on principle and it'd be bad if their record was bad and they were hired anyway, but in this case their record was pretty strong relative to the other candidates. Fortunately I'm not internally involved (I'm non-TT and therefore not on the senate) but it's interesting to observe the magnitude of faculty reaction to this. I feel like if the candidate takes the offer, they'll have the deck stacked against them when going for tenure from the get-go. What do think about this?
RESPONSE A: Here in the Netherlands, it used to be that there was no such thing as internal candidates - you had to go someplace else for tenure after your PhD. I think academic mobility makes a lot of sense. Is the candidate aware of these sentiments?
RESPONSE B: Sounds like a bad rule to me. I like the idea that external candidates are strongly preferred, but codifying it as a requirement just seems wrong. There are always exceptions, even for PhDs. And for bachelors who return to their alma mater to teach, - I think it's actually extremely refreshing, and great for the students, as it provides some super-cool continuity of experiences.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: for any tenure-track position at the school. It's a lot of drama. I can see that some might not like it on principle and it'd be bad if their record was bad and they were hired anyway, but in this case their record was pretty strong relative to the other candidates. Fortunately I'm not internally involved (I'm non-TT and therefore not on the senate) but it's interesting to observe the magnitude of faculty reaction to this. I feel like if the candidate takes the offer, they'll have the deck stacked against them when going for tenure from the get-go. What do think about this?
RESPONSE A: Its decisions like this that force parents out of academia. For example, someone who chose a specific PhD program because it was in close proximity to their parents and siblings and husband wouldn’t want to up and leave because they graduated. My husbands job is here. My parents (aka grandparents/free babysitters) are here. My house that I own is here. My LIFE is here... why should I have to drop everything and start over in another region!?!?!? I went to one of the best schools and couldn’t really stay at this level or move up without leaving the state... should I be forced to choose between my family or career so drastically?
RESPONSE B: Overall, I like the idea of academic mobility and human mobility in general. As others in the thread have rightly pointed out, there are difficulties with being forever viewed as a student, academic inbreeding, and how hiring an internal grad can hurt a departments reputation. However, a big problem I think emerges from how many U.S. universities are often in the middle of small college towns in rural areas. If a candidate is in a small college town, and is for some reason tied to that location (family, spouse's job, or they just like it there), then there aren't that many alternative employment options. It kind of sucks if the only people hiring for PhDs in your town just flat-out reject you for graduating from there. So, I guess my view is that mobility is generally good and should be encouraged. However, a culture that practically mandates mobility can also negatively impact some people's lives.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: PIs/advisers, what's your attitude toward students and postdocs who want to get out of academia? Do you feel like they're wasting your time, because you want to mentor people on the tenure track? Or do you support any end game as long as it makes them happy? Or something else? Would you be bummed to hear that a student or postdoc under your mentorship was planning to get out of the game as soon as the getting was good?
RESPONSE A: It's their life. If they realize that they would be happier doing something other than academia, good for them. I'll help however I can to help them move on to something better for them, even if that means leaving without a degree, because that's the job I signed up for as their advisor.
RESPONSE B: I know several faculty who know their students are interested in Biotech and support them and even encourage it. I though was told by older grad students from day 1 to never mention anything but an academic track, just in case. There are faculty who wouldn't consider taking students into their labs who weren't on the academic or research track.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How many years of postdoc is necessary to be competitive for decent faculty positions in wet lab research fields? I'm starting my PhD soon and want to go down this route, however I see people that have done 6 year postdocs before starting their own lab, and I'd want to avoid that. Because I want to get on with my life and make a decent living sooner rather than later (I have tons of students loans from my masters) I'd hope that a 2 year postdoc would be long enough to be competitive for these professor jobs.
RESPONSE A: In neuroscience I believe it would be something between 2 and 5 years. Below 2 you cannot do a good project, while above 5 years you gradually start becoming "stale". (edit: specified my field)
RESPONSE B: It helps to think of the start up costs. You often see short/no post-docs in areas that can work with a computer and a whiteboard. If you are going to need vivarium costs, -120 freezers, centrifuges, and a multiphoton set up, teaching relief, and tech support they are going to want to see a track record of productivity that is longer than a year or two.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How many years of postdoc is necessary to be competitive for decent faculty positions in wet lab research fields? I'm starting my PhD soon and want to go down this route, however I see people that have done 6 year postdocs before starting their own lab, and I'd want to avoid that. Because I want to get on with my life and make a decent living sooner rather than later (I have tons of students loans from my masters) I'd hope that a 2 year postdoc would be long enough to be competitive for these professor jobs.
RESPONSE A: You also need to define "decent". It's possible to get jobs with no post-doc. There was a recently tenured Chem faculty at Princeton with no postdoc, but she was the exception rather than the rule. Positions with no postdoc are more common at R2/SLACs, and (IMO) growing rather than shrinking. As said, however, it's about your total package in terms of research, research plans, transferrable work, grants, etc. I got interviews this past cycle for jobs that were advertised as requiring a post-doc (I don't have one), as well as those were a post-doc was "strongly preferred". Part of that was already being in a non-TT faculty position, part of that was having a track record of independent funding and transferrable projects that were ready to hit the ground running.
RESPONSE B: It helps to think of the start up costs. You often see short/no post-docs in areas that can work with a computer and a whiteboard. If you are going to need vivarium costs, -120 freezers, centrifuges, and a multiphoton set up, teaching relief, and tech support they are going to want to see a track record of productivity that is longer than a year or two.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I'm a postdoc giving a talk this summer in front of leaders in my field. Is it okay to mention that I'm looking for a faculty job? This will be in front of a bunch of leaders in my field that would very likely be collaborators when I'm faculty somewhere. Would it come off as tacky to mention I'm looking for a job? What about just mentioning that my postdoc is almost over? We're going to a glam journal with the results I'm presenting if it matters.
RESPONSE A: I've seen people give talks and at the end mention that that they're on the job market. I've also seen people who don't say it out loud, just have at the bottom of their last slide ("I'll be on the job market Fall 2017!")
RESPONSE B: Sure. Say something like " I am on the job market" at the end. I have heard that many times at conferences
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How to hire postdocs and technicians I'm opening a biology lab fairly soon and I would like to hire a lab technician and a postdoc. It's not that easy because most people don't know my lab exists, though I have just released a website. Do any of you have any tips for finding good candidates for these positions, or a list of good places to post adverts?
RESPONSE A: If you're not on Twitter, it's actually really, really good for networking and getting the word out about this like this. Depending on your subfield there may be a lot of high profile folks active and happy to retweet your search. By the way, I'm at a US uni, also starting my microbiology lab this year.
RESPONSE B: Is this lab at a university? Have the department post a banner on the home page
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: My advisor told me not to go into academia... I’m a part-time PhD student (social sciences) who is about to submit ethics. At my last advisor meeting I was recommended to not go into academia because it is unrelenting and not kind to the employees. I know there is a lot of posts about this topic (I follow sht academics say), but does anyone see any light at the end of the tunnel?
RESPONSE A: I mean, I wouldn’t expect things to change but it’s not unlivable everywhere. Just far from ideal. Like, I make way less than I would elsewhere and work way too many hours and have little support from the admin, but I do really like what I do and I make enough to support myself and family.
RESPONSE B: There is no light at the end of the tunnel. You either navigate in the darkness or set yourself on fire to light the way.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: My advisor told me not to go into academia... I’m a part-time PhD student (social sciences) who is about to submit ethics. At my last advisor meeting I was recommended to not go into academia because it is unrelenting and not kind to the employees. I know there is a lot of posts about this topic (I follow sht academics say), but does anyone see any light at the end of the tunnel?
RESPONSE A: Like any big decision ask other people for their opinions, do your own research about jobs and conditions, and come to your own decision about your career rather than just listening to one opinion. That being said, your advisor probably knows better than most people about academic careers in your field, especially if they are younger. What they are saying sounds generally true, but it does depend on the specific field and position to some extent.
RESPONSE B: There is no light at the end of the tunnel. You either navigate in the darkness or set yourself on fire to light the way.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What did your post-PhD job/career decision-making process look like? It seems there are so many things to simultaneously think about, e.g. academic vs not, lifestyle, location, feasibility, competition, competency... I'm having a tough time visualizing what any future could look like. Any advice/ techniques/strategies you can recommend to start narrowing it all down? My personal context: International student, final year of STEM (ecology) PhD.
RESPONSE A: There's lot of stuff you can do: * evaluate your skills and strengths, think about what gives you job satisfaction and makes you happy. * read a *lot* of job ads. Pay attention to the ones you find compelling or intersting, and figure out why they interest you. Your job here is not specifically to find jobs to apply to, but to find out what jobs *exist* and what they're looking for. So look beyond the universities, industries or geographical areas you might be initially drawn to. * talk to a lot of people in your field about their experiences And lastly, don't make this decision in the abstract, unless you're certain in the abstract. Instead, you can apply to a lot of different jobs - in different places, different settings - and find out in the interview if the work would actually suit you and if you like the people/place.
RESPONSE B: I had one job offer after one year in a post-doc. Took it because I was debilitatingly poor in my postdoc position. Accepted the job and performed it with stellar reviews. I was miserable because I found out the university I was hired at, lied to me about certain aspects that were negotiated in my hire. I jumped thee fuck off the academia train and am now looking for jobs in government. I also relocated because the city I was in with my prior position was irrationally expensive. I'm jobless for now, but have a number of opportunities lined up, I have support where I am now, and life is marginally better. I'm still healing from the emotional trauma of my prior job, but life is so much better where I am now.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What did your post-PhD job/career decision-making process look like? It seems there are so many things to simultaneously think about, e.g. academic vs not, lifestyle, location, feasibility, competition, competency... I'm having a tough time visualizing what any future could look like. Any advice/ techniques/strategies you can recommend to start narrowing it all down? My personal context: International student, final year of STEM (ecology) PhD.
RESPONSE A: Think about your ideal location, your ideal job, and any other factors important to you. I personally applied widely in locations I loved, applied only to ideal jobs in less-than-idea locations, and let luck sort the rest out. I’m currently in an ideal location at a job I enjoy but don’t necessarily see as permanent.
RESPONSE B: I had one job offer after one year in a post-doc. Took it because I was debilitatingly poor in my postdoc position. Accepted the job and performed it with stellar reviews. I was miserable because I found out the university I was hired at, lied to me about certain aspects that were negotiated in my hire. I jumped thee fuck off the academia train and am now looking for jobs in government. I also relocated because the city I was in with my prior position was irrationally expensive. I'm jobless for now, but have a number of opportunities lined up, I have support where I am now, and life is marginally better. I'm still healing from the emotional trauma of my prior job, but life is so much better where I am now.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What did your post-PhD job/career decision-making process look like? It seems there are so many things to simultaneously think about, e.g. academic vs not, lifestyle, location, feasibility, competition, competency... I'm having a tough time visualizing what any future could look like. Any advice/ techniques/strategies you can recommend to start narrowing it all down? My personal context: International student, final year of STEM (ecology) PhD.
RESPONSE A: Decide on what factor about the job is most important to you. For my first job I had a newborn at home, so I went for the job with a remote option and it was also higher pay. For my second job I wanted a specific location and visa, so I went with the job that sponsored that. I’m still doing science and keeping in my field, but I’m not picking jobs purely out of research interest or publication potential.
RESPONSE B: I had one job offer after one year in a post-doc. Took it because I was debilitatingly poor in my postdoc position. Accepted the job and performed it with stellar reviews. I was miserable because I found out the university I was hired at, lied to me about certain aspects that were negotiated in my hire. I jumped thee fuck off the academia train and am now looking for jobs in government. I also relocated because the city I was in with my prior position was irrationally expensive. I'm jobless for now, but have a number of opportunities lined up, I have support where I am now, and life is marginally better. I'm still healing from the emotional trauma of my prior job, but life is so much better where I am now.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What did your post-PhD job/career decision-making process look like? It seems there are so many things to simultaneously think about, e.g. academic vs not, lifestyle, location, feasibility, competition, competency... I'm having a tough time visualizing what any future could look like. Any advice/ techniques/strategies you can recommend to start narrowing it all down? My personal context: International student, final year of STEM (ecology) PhD.
RESPONSE A: I had one job offer after one year in a post-doc. Took it because I was debilitatingly poor in my postdoc position. Accepted the job and performed it with stellar reviews. I was miserable because I found out the university I was hired at, lied to me about certain aspects that were negotiated in my hire. I jumped thee fuck off the academia train and am now looking for jobs in government. I also relocated because the city I was in with my prior position was irrationally expensive. I'm jobless for now, but have a number of opportunities lined up, I have support where I am now, and life is marginally better. I'm still healing from the emotional trauma of my prior job, but life is so much better where I am now.
RESPONSE B: I was pretty naive. I wanted a TT job and had no interest in being a post doc. I wound up with a lecturer job (U.S.) that eventually got me a TT position a year later. At the time I didn't feel lucky, but I wasn't completely aware of the reality. In hindsight, I feel lucky, but I also hate the direction academia seems to be going in the U.S. so I wonder if I would have been better off getting a real job.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I made a huge mistake in my thesis. What should I do in my oral defense? I’m a university student majoring in economics. Only after summited my thesis that I found out I misread a number in the last step of data analysis, then made a wrong conclusion based on that. I have 3 weeks left until my oral defense, how should I present my mistake? P/s: I emailed my advisor but he didn’t reply (he also not being helpful and get involved much in my writing process)
RESPONSE A: You usually have a short period to submit revisions after the defense. But there is no reason you cannot start writing your revised manuscript now. I would bang out a new results and discussion this week and send it to your advisor to ask permission to send the revisions to your committee (at least in my experience, the committee members aren't going to read your draft until right before the defense). If you are not allowed to send a new version out, then give the presentation with the new conclusions, and highlight that it is different than the copy they have. Then when they want the manuscript revised, you already have that done.
RESPONSE B: I made a big mistake in my comps where I had predicted something in the totally wrong direction, and what I did after consulting with my advisor/other graduate students was send an amended copy ASAP, apologize for the inconvenience, and ask them to read the amended copy (that included highlights of where things were changed) and then addressed it directly in my oral defense too. It wasn't as big of a deal as I made it, and given that you have 3 weeks left to the oral defense, if you could get them a copy of the amended draft by the end of the week then you hopefully will be totally okay! Good luck!!!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I made a huge mistake in my thesis. What should I do in my oral defense? I’m a university student majoring in economics. Only after summited my thesis that I found out I misread a number in the last step of data analysis, then made a wrong conclusion based on that. I have 3 weeks left until my oral defense, how should I present my mistake? P/s: I emailed my advisor but he didn’t reply (he also not being helpful and get involved much in my writing process)
RESPONSE A: I made a big mistake in my comps where I had predicted something in the totally wrong direction, and what I did after consulting with my advisor/other graduate students was send an amended copy ASAP, apologize for the inconvenience, and ask them to read the amended copy (that included highlights of where things were changed) and then addressed it directly in my oral defense too. It wasn't as big of a deal as I made it, and given that you have 3 weeks left to the oral defense, if you could get them a copy of the amended draft by the end of the week then you hopefully will be totally okay! Good luck!!!
RESPONSE B: Does this invalidate a lot of other important things (like will it have a domino effect) or is it mostly an isolated problem?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I made a huge mistake in my thesis. What should I do in my oral defense? I’m a university student majoring in economics. Only after summited my thesis that I found out I misread a number in the last step of data analysis, then made a wrong conclusion based on that. I have 3 weeks left until my oral defense, how should I present my mistake? P/s: I emailed my advisor but he didn’t reply (he also not being helpful and get involved much in my writing process)
RESPONSE A: Your committee wants to hear you speak intelligently about your work. Identifying the mistake, understanding that/how/why it's a mistake, the implications of it in your outcome, and how to fix it all demonstrate a strong understanding of your work and field. They'll probably ask you to revise it before final submission as others have said.
RESPONSE B: I made a big mistake in my comps where I had predicted something in the totally wrong direction, and what I did after consulting with my advisor/other graduate students was send an amended copy ASAP, apologize for the inconvenience, and ask them to read the amended copy (that included highlights of where things were changed) and then addressed it directly in my oral defense too. It wasn't as big of a deal as I made it, and given that you have 3 weeks left to the oral defense, if you could get them a copy of the amended draft by the end of the week then you hopefully will be totally okay! Good luck!!!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Found a mistake in my thesis after the corrections were handed in I have completed my PhD thesis in mathematics, completed my viva and handed in my corrections. However earlier today when I was writing a paper based on one of my chapters I spotted three spelling mistakes. What should I do and can I correct these?
RESPONSE A: If you like, start keeping an errata list on your home page (as I did). Then you've done all you can in alerting your colleagues of (inevitable) errors.
RESPONSE B: "Phosphate Bugger B" lives on in eternity in my thesis. You don't have time to be wasting on these minor things and I promise you there are more than three spelling mistakes in your thesis. Take the pass and move on. Don't go looking for problems. No one cares about spelling mistakes.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Found a mistake in my thesis after the corrections were handed in I have completed my PhD thesis in mathematics, completed my viva and handed in my corrections. However earlier today when I was writing a paper based on one of my chapters I spotted three spelling mistakes. What should I do and can I correct these?
RESPONSE A: "Phosphate Bugger B" lives on in eternity in my thesis. You don't have time to be wasting on these minor things and I promise you there are more than three spelling mistakes in your thesis. Take the pass and move on. Don't go looking for problems. No one cares about spelling mistakes.
RESPONSE B: You'll find more.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Found a mistake in my thesis after the corrections were handed in I have completed my PhD thesis in mathematics, completed my viva and handed in my corrections. However earlier today when I was writing a paper based on one of my chapters I spotted three spelling mistakes. What should I do and can I correct these?
RESPONSE A: Welcome to the club. We’re glad to have you
RESPONSE B: My mentor graduated from University of California Los Angles on the front page of thesis (she told me and I checked this myself) Nobody will figure and if they do they don’t care :p
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Found a mistake in my thesis after the corrections were handed in I have completed my PhD thesis in mathematics, completed my viva and handed in my corrections. However earlier today when I was writing a paper based on one of my chapters I spotted three spelling mistakes. What should I do and can I correct these?
RESPONSE A: you could have actual mistakes in your thesis and it would still be fine
RESPONSE B: My mentor graduated from University of California Los Angles on the front page of thesis (she told me and I checked this myself) Nobody will figure and if they do they don’t care :p
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Found a mistake in my thesis after the corrections were handed in I have completed my PhD thesis in mathematics, completed my viva and handed in my corrections. However earlier today when I was writing a paper based on one of my chapters I spotted three spelling mistakes. What should I do and can I correct these?
RESPONSE A: You were exhausted mentally by the time it was completed. Don't be upset or have anxiety about it. We have all experienced this same feeling when we all spot our first typo. It's totally understandable. Even in manuscripts there are typos. You will be fine and one year from now you will open your thesis and think to yourself... wow I did so much work, how on earth did I manage to write so much, I did really well, I did a great job and I'm proud of myself. For now. That person who mentioned to you a typo, you're free to say f-off silently so they don't hear you & you don't offend anyone. You can also tell anyone who has to read your thesis to further their research to please keep any typos they find to themselves, that you don't want to know about it 😉 It's over. Done & Dusted Be proud of your hard work
RESPONSE B: Welcome to the club. We’re glad to have you
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it normal that a journal expects you to do the copy-editing of your accepted manuscript? The journal contacted me to revise my accepted manuscript to conform to the journal's style, and when I sent them the revised version (admittedly with many details not matching their style) they sent it back to me saying that it has this and that error, and after multiple revisions I asked them whether this is really my job and not theirs, and they insisted that it is my duty as an author. Is it common practice for the author to do the copy-editing with feedback from the journal and not the other way around?
RESPONSE A: In my field, this is typical.
RESPONSE B: I'm an in-house copyeditor for a few academic journals. I see many journals that don't provide such a service though. Authors often tell me they don't get anywhere near the copyediting service that I do in other journals they deal with. Many journals simply don't bother editing them at all (and/or make the authors 'brush it up' to their best of their ability before publication). Some journals also do what you say. I think it really just depends (and often comes down to money).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it normal that a journal expects you to do the copy-editing of your accepted manuscript? The journal contacted me to revise my accepted manuscript to conform to the journal's style, and when I sent them the revised version (admittedly with many details not matching their style) they sent it back to me saying that it has this and that error, and after multiple revisions I asked them whether this is really my job and not theirs, and they insisted that it is my duty as an author. Is it common practice for the author to do the copy-editing with feedback from the journal and not the other way around?
RESPONSE A: Yes. This is 100% normal.
RESPONSE B: I'm an in-house copyeditor for a few academic journals. I see many journals that don't provide such a service though. Authors often tell me they don't get anywhere near the copyediting service that I do in other journals they deal with. Many journals simply don't bother editing them at all (and/or make the authors 'brush it up' to their best of their ability before publication). Some journals also do what you say. I think it really just depends (and often comes down to money).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it normal that a journal expects you to do the copy-editing of your accepted manuscript? The journal contacted me to revise my accepted manuscript to conform to the journal's style, and when I sent them the revised version (admittedly with many details not matching their style) they sent it back to me saying that it has this and that error, and after multiple revisions I asked them whether this is really my job and not theirs, and they insisted that it is my duty as an author. Is it common practice for the author to do the copy-editing with feedback from the journal and not the other way around?
RESPONSE A: It is very common. A few high end journals may still have professional in house copy editors who go over the manuscript - but it is very, very rare now. Increasingly I get sent a link, and have to do the copy editing on line. Clearly there are people who check for format, but they do not copy edit. As an Editor - once I click "accept" on a manuscript it is completely out of my hands. I never see it again, and it is automatically passed to the production team who do the necessary to get it published in its final form. So, whoever is going over your manuscript, it is not the journal, it is the publisher (these are usually distinct entities). To the person who said that our job is literally "editor" - academic journal editors are NOT copy editors. There are many types of editor. We act nearest to a "acquisitions editor", and as noted elsewhere our main concern is academic rigour - not spelling and punctuation.
RESPONSE B: In my field, this is typical.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it normal that a journal expects you to do the copy-editing of your accepted manuscript? The journal contacted me to revise my accepted manuscript to conform to the journal's style, and when I sent them the revised version (admittedly with many details not matching their style) they sent it back to me saying that it has this and that error, and after multiple revisions I asked them whether this is really my job and not theirs, and they insisted that it is my duty as an author. Is it common practice for the author to do the copy-editing with feedback from the journal and not the other way around?
RESPONSE A: Yes. This is 100% normal.
RESPONSE B: It is very common. A few high end journals may still have professional in house copy editors who go over the manuscript - but it is very, very rare now. Increasingly I get sent a link, and have to do the copy editing on line. Clearly there are people who check for format, but they do not copy edit. As an Editor - once I click "accept" on a manuscript it is completely out of my hands. I never see it again, and it is automatically passed to the production team who do the necessary to get it published in its final form. So, whoever is going over your manuscript, it is not the journal, it is the publisher (these are usually distinct entities). To the person who said that our job is literally "editor" - academic journal editors are NOT copy editors. There are many types of editor. We act nearest to a "acquisitions editor", and as noted elsewhere our main concern is academic rigour - not spelling and punctuation.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it normal for a PI to hide the projects your lab mate is in? We are only 2 students in the lab and every lab meeting we go through, my PI always gives updates on the projects I am in but not the ones that are run by my lab mate. Currently I found out that she is running a second set of experiments but this never gets communicated during lab meetings and it makes me wonder whether there are other things she is doing that do not get communicated with during those lab meetings. Is this weird or am I over analyzing the situation?
RESPONSE A: This seems weird to me, but I know some groups are more locked-down. I was once in a meeting of a different lab where they were debating whether they should present something at a conference because they were concerned some other research team might steal it and publish first. Seems like an unhealthy field to me.
RESPONSE B: I personally never tell anyone else what I’m working on until I am almost finished with a project, even within my own group. Too many bad experiences being burned by unscrupulous colleagues.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: your search to one State for a partner? Hello! I am a 2nd year PhD student and am seriously considering pursuing a professorship once I graduate. Please forgive my ignorance around this topic as there's not much conversation about this in my department, and I've really only been in academia for a year now since I went straight into my PhD. From what I understand about faculty positions, people usually apply to as many positions as they can nation wide, and frequently end up moving to the university that gives them the best offer. However, I am in a serious long term relationship, and since I've brought up the idea of a potentially needing to move after my PhD, my partner has emphasized that they want to remain in the state that we are in now (Michigan) long term, maybe indefinitely. So my question is, **is it reasonable to only apply to faculty positions in one state, especially if my goal is to conduct research? How have people navigated having to move around with non-academic partners in the mix?** The moving thing seems like it may be a deal breaker for my partner, but I've heard horror stories of some women looking for faculty positions around their partners and it stagnating their careers which I don't want to do. Any contributions are extremely appreciate as right now I feel like I need to choose either my career or my partner!
RESPONSE A: “Give them the best offer” is optimistic. “Give them *any* offer” is more like it. You’re definitely limiting yourself, but how much is going to depend on your field and research and desired teaching load. Everyone needs people to teach CS courses, or Psych 101! Michigan has some big universities. In general though, the “trailing spouse” thing is a real tough situation and it’s going to depend a lot on your personal situation.
RESPONSE B: My wife had a preference for a very narrow geographic region. However, I made it clear that the search would likely violate that parameter, and she accepted it. So, when I got job offers (both in preferred region and out), we discussed the relative merits. We both agreed moving OUT of the preferred region was best, at that time. 8 years later, and we have had zero regrets.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: limit your search to one State for a partner? Hello! I am a 2nd year PhD student and am seriously considering pursuing a professorship once I graduate. Please forgive my ignorance around this topic as there's not much conversation about this in my department, and I've really only been in academia for a year now since I went straight into my PhD. From what I understand about faculty positions, people usually apply to as many positions as they can nation wide, and frequently end up moving to the university that gives them the best offer. However, I am in a serious long term relationship, and since I've brought up the idea of a potentially needing to move after my PhD, my partner has emphasized that they want to remain in the state that we are in now (Michigan) long term, maybe indefinitely. So my question is, **is it reasonable to only apply to faculty positions in one state, especially if my goal is to conduct research? How have people navigated having to move around with non-academic partners in the mix?** The moving thing seems like it may be a deal breaker for my partner, but I've heard horror stories of some women looking for faculty positions around their partners and it stagnating their careers which I don't want to do. Any contributions are extremely appreciate as right now I feel like I need to choose either my career or my partner!
RESPONSE A: I'm not sure what field you are in, but for most fields, no, it is not reasonable. Even with a nationwide or international search for a faculty position at a research-intensive university, most people don't get any offers. Of course, you could be a superstar in the field and get a job at U of M, who knows. Generally, the non-academic partner with a more flexible job would move to accommodate the academic partner.
RESPONSE B: My wife had a preference for a very narrow geographic region. However, I made it clear that the search would likely violate that parameter, and she accepted it. So, when I got job offers (both in preferred region and out), we discussed the relative merits. We both agreed moving OUT of the preferred region was best, at that time. 8 years later, and we have had zero regrets.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: my goal is to conduct research? How have people navigated having to move around with non-academic partners in the mix?** The moving thing seems like it may be a deal breaker for my partner, but I've heard horror stories of some women looking for faculty positions around their partners and it stagnating their careers which I don't want to do. Any contributions are extremely appreciate as right now I feel like I need to choose either my career or my partner!
RESPONSE A: Super depends on your relationship, your field, and your options. When I was dating my now husband he had a job opp that would take him across the country for a year. We figured out the parameters that I would accept in order to follow him (ie: we would need to be engaged, this is how our finances would work out, etc). He didn’t get the job. Flash forward to me seeking a tenure track job. We were already married by then and his career is very specialized and his field is not available in every state because of state laws, sooo I only looked where we lived. But I also had another career that I was getting paid for before I became a professor, which I realize most people do not. When I got a job, we talked about how that meant now he would be the one who wouldn’t be able to seek jobs elsewhere. Could I have gotten a more exciting job if I had been willing to look nationally and leave him? For sure. But it was never even a question. I’m going up for tenure this year! And our baby turns 2! And our life is great! I think it’s not talked about much because it really isn’t a question of your career as much as it is a question of your relationship, and only you know if this person is the person to limit your professional life for.
RESPONSE B: My wife had a preference for a very narrow geographic region. However, I made it clear that the search would likely violate that parameter, and she accepted it. So, when I got job offers (both in preferred region and out), we discussed the relative merits. We both agreed moving OUT of the preferred region was best, at that time. 8 years later, and we have had zero regrets.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: name on the articles. I have another collaborator who has generously agreed to help me and I can do the work without my former advisor. I want to make it clear that I am not trying to claim credit for work he has done. I just don't want to associate with him in any way. What do you think I should do? I would like to just never contact him ever again and to publish articles without his name on them. Is this acceptable? Could I get in trouble for plagiarism since technically he has contributed to the work, albeit very minimally? Thanks.
RESPONSE A: You mentioned he was fired. I actually went through something weirdly similar, where a colleague was on several of my students’ committees and then got busted on some weird sexual charges and lost their job. Point being; they are no longer part of the academy in general or our institution specifically, so I think there is no longer a professional reason to accommodate them in the authorship team. If you have the data and know-how to publish on your own, my advice would be to just omit them as author and go ahead with a submission to a journal. Edit: I don’t think there is a plagiarism issue at stake here. Remove the offenders contribution and replace with your own or your co-authors. Not a problem for you.
RESPONSE B: Most journals use the ICMJE requirements for authorship. It doesn't sound like your supervisor made a sufficient contribution to be considered an author - if they did not contribute to the final written paper, they do not meet the above requirements. As per these requirements, it doesn't matter whether the person has been fired/ no longer in academia. It sounds like they could potentially meet the requirements to be included in the Acknowledgements, and if you're going to name someone in the Acknowledgments you should have their permission to do so. You should really contact the supervisor and ask to include them in the Acknowledgements. If they say no [edit: and they demand authorship] , you should contact your previous institute and they will be able to assist in your authorship dispute. Source: I work in publishing, so this is how to do things by the book, but I appreciate things often don't get done that way.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: to justify his name on the articles. I have another collaborator who has generously agreed to help me and I can do the work without my former advisor. I want to make it clear that I am not trying to claim credit for work he has done. I just don't want to associate with him in any way. What do you think I should do? I would like to just never contact him ever again and to publish articles without his name on them. Is this acceptable? Could I get in trouble for plagiarism since technically he has contributed to the work, albeit very minimally? Thanks.
RESPONSE A: I have a little different situation where the lab/institute put the student’s name on the publication even after he was kicked out from a title ix investigation for rape and assault of two other students. We complained to the student legal office that his name shouldn’t be on the the conference papers because he was kicked out (and no longer in academia). Their response was “well he worked on it so he should get credit.” Which is just really gross but nobody in the lab cared at all. Which is really gross because he was a joint author with one of the people he assaulted. Justice didn’t really seem served in this situation, but I hope in yours you can leave him off.
RESPONSE B: Most journals use the ICMJE requirements for authorship. It doesn't sound like your supervisor made a sufficient contribution to be considered an author - if they did not contribute to the final written paper, they do not meet the above requirements. As per these requirements, it doesn't matter whether the person has been fired/ no longer in academia. It sounds like they could potentially meet the requirements to be included in the Acknowledgements, and if you're going to name someone in the Acknowledgments you should have their permission to do so. You should really contact the supervisor and ask to include them in the Acknowledgements. If they say no [edit: and they demand authorship] , you should contact your previous institute and they will be able to assist in your authorship dispute. Source: I work in publishing, so this is how to do things by the book, but I appreciate things often don't get done that way.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: s Wikipedia page and it says that he was fired from one of his positions and suspended for six months from the other for repeated sexual harassment towards several people over several years. He never acted inappropriately towards me. I don't think he is interested in men. I do feel some guilt though that I dismissed my feelings towards him when he was probably sexually harassing my coworkers, some of whom are very attractive young women. I feel some guilt that maybe there was something I could have done. The dilemma I'm in is that I want to publish articles from this postdoc, but I don't want to be associated with him in any way. I don't want his name on any of my articles. I don't want to support sexual harassment in any way. Furthermore, his contributions have been minimal, although probably enough to justify his name on the articles. I have another collaborator who has generously agreed to help me and I can do the work without my former advisor. I want to make it clear that I am not trying to claim credit for work he has done. I just don't want to associate with him in any way. What do you think I should do? I would like to just never contact him ever again and to publish articles without his name on them. Is this acceptable? Could I get in trouble for plagiarism since technically he has contributed to the work, albeit very minimally? Thanks.
RESPONSE A: You mentioned he was fired. I actually went through something weirdly similar, where a colleague was on several of my students’ committees and then got busted on some weird sexual charges and lost their job. Point being; they are no longer part of the academy in general or our institution specifically, so I think there is no longer a professional reason to accommodate them in the authorship team. If you have the data and know-how to publish on your own, my advice would be to just omit them as author and go ahead with a submission to a journal. Edit: I don’t think there is a plagiarism issue at stake here. Remove the offenders contribution and replace with your own or your co-authors. Not a problem for you.
RESPONSE B: If he is still in academia and he contributed enough to the work, he should be on the paper.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: my advisor's Wikipedia page and it says that he was fired from one of his positions and suspended for six months from the other for repeated sexual harassment towards several people over several years. He never acted inappropriately towards me. I don't think he is interested in men. I do feel some guilt though that I dismissed my feelings towards him when he was probably sexually harassing my coworkers, some of whom are very attractive young women. I feel some guilt that maybe there was something I could have done. The dilemma I'm in is that I want to publish articles from this postdoc, but I don't want to be associated with him in any way. I don't want his name on any of my articles. I don't want to support sexual harassment in any way. Furthermore, his contributions have been minimal, although probably enough to justify his name on the articles. I have another collaborator who has generously agreed to help me and I can do the work without my former advisor. I want to make it clear that I am not trying to claim credit for work he has done. I just don't want to associate with him in any way. What do you think I should do? I would like to just never contact him ever again and to publish articles without his name on them. Is this acceptable? Could I get in trouble for plagiarism since technically he has contributed to the work, albeit very minimally? Thanks.
RESPONSE A: I have a little different situation where the lab/institute put the student’s name on the publication even after he was kicked out from a title ix investigation for rape and assault of two other students. We complained to the student legal office that his name shouldn’t be on the the conference papers because he was kicked out (and no longer in academia). Their response was “well he worked on it so he should get credit.” Which is just really gross but nobody in the lab cared at all. Which is really gross because he was a joint author with one of the people he assaulted. Justice didn’t really seem served in this situation, but I hope in yours you can leave him off.
RESPONSE B: If he is still in academia and he contributed enough to the work, he should be on the paper.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 's Wikipedia page and it says that he was fired from one of his positions and suspended for six months from the other for repeated sexual harassment towards several people over several years. He never acted inappropriately towards me. I don't think he is interested in men. I do feel some guilt though that I dismissed my feelings towards him when he was probably sexually harassing my coworkers, some of whom are very attractive young women. I feel some guilt that maybe there was something I could have done. The dilemma I'm in is that I want to publish articles from this postdoc, but I don't want to be associated with him in any way. I don't want his name on any of my articles. I don't want to support sexual harassment in any way. Furthermore, his contributions have been minimal, although probably enough to justify his name on the articles. I have another collaborator who has generously agreed to help me and I can do the work without my former advisor. I want to make it clear that I am not trying to claim credit for work he has done. I just don't want to associate with him in any way. What do you think I should do? I would like to just never contact him ever again and to publish articles without his name on them. Is this acceptable? Could I get in trouble for plagiarism since technically he has contributed to the work, albeit very minimally? Thanks.
RESPONSE A: You mentioned he was fired. I actually went through something weirdly similar, where a colleague was on several of my students’ committees and then got busted on some weird sexual charges and lost their job. Point being; they are no longer part of the academy in general or our institution specifically, so I think there is no longer a professional reason to accommodate them in the authorship team. If you have the data and know-how to publish on your own, my advice would be to just omit them as author and go ahead with a submission to a journal. Edit: I don’t think there is a plagiarism issue at stake here. Remove the offenders contribution and replace with your own or your co-authors. Not a problem for you.
RESPONSE B: Was he paying your salary while you were producing this data? If yes, be very careful what you do.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Those who did PhD in your 30's, did it go faster than it otherwise would have? I know PhD lengths vary by field and other factors. I'm wondering if being in your 30's, and presumably being more organized as a result of having completed larger projects, would make the PhD go faster than it otherwise would have?
RESPONSE A: PhD at 36, not a fair comparison, as it wasn’t my first try, but not having kids AND having industry and academic experience made it both super fast, and super productive (I knew how to pick the winners more often, and I was specifically motivated by what could produce an actual product. Finished in 3.
RESPONSE B: I think having a career before grad school allowed me to not completely wrap my whole identity around academia in toxic ways. Also, the project and organization skills I developed through my career definitely were very useful. That said, I can't say for sure if I would have taken longer to finish as a younger grad student.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Those who did PhD in your 30's, did it go faster than it otherwise would have? I know PhD lengths vary by field and other factors. I'm wondering if being in your 30's, and presumably being more organized as a result of having completed larger projects, would make the PhD go faster than it otherwise would have?
RESPONSE A: Having a family balanced out any speed advantage I may have gotten from being an older student. I wouldn't start a PhD expecting to be finished faster than average. That's a recipe for disappointment.
RESPONSE B: I think having a career before grad school allowed me to not completely wrap my whole identity around academia in toxic ways. Also, the project and organization skills I developed through my career definitely were very useful. That said, I can't say for sure if I would have taken longer to finish as a younger grad student.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: , things have gotten so specific, I have no idea where I fit in. I've looked at Internships and they ask for fresh graduates, and here I am in my early 30's, past all that. Having done astrophysics, and realizing how specialized I have become, I want to transition to something with more opportunities, that's why I'd like to be in the data/tech world, where I can use my analytical skills to more practical applications. But I'm so lost and stressed. P.S: I am in Spain, jobs are not plenty here (I strongly not prefer to relocate). So I'm trying to look for remote jobs too but working with international companies. But not sure if that works. Have you been in something similar? I'd appreciate stories, advice, tips, anything.
RESPONSE A: Somewhat similar boat about 4 years ago. Had 6 years postdoc in bioscience and trying to break into industry. I was in California though and my major is computer science, so my odds were a bit different. Even so I'd say: Prepare to send a lot of applications and be ready for plenty of refusals. It's weird, I didn't get many rejections, just got ghosted a lot. I'd suggest applying broadly. I thought the same thing you did regarding data science jobs, but that's not where I ended up. If you're in any physics discipline you most likely have strong mathematical skills. I'd play on that. Check out bigger / well-funded companies that have some research emphasis. I ended up in autonomous driving. I can't recommend my company since we still have a strategy of in-person work, but I know many of the other big players take in remote workers. Also: get into any company in an industry that you like and then move later if you don't like the company. After 2 years in industry the recruiters started knocking.
RESPONSE B: What about seeking jobs in a sympathetic area of industry, such as space-based data collections and analytics? Knowledge of coordinate systems, optics, spectroscopy, image processing, and multi-dimensional data analysis should be helpful. Basically just switching to telescopes and cameras looking down vs. up, etc.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: physics. Currently (and fortunately) I have my post doc job which ends in exactly a year from now. Basically I use telescope to gather data, and analyze it, visualize results, it to understand how nature up there is behaving. I'm trying to transition to the data world (data analysis, data science) and let me tell you, it's looking grim. I haven't done much programming to qualify me for jobs that require building models and algorithms, machine learning, etc. But I'm familiar with dealing with large sets of data. I'm having a hard time converting my academic cv to an industry one and highlighting my skills with no real work experience apart from research. I don't know where to look for jobs apart from LinkedIn, and I feel intimidated by seeing 100-300 applicants, most probably with experience, applying for one position, like why would they pick me. Most jobs have specific requirements too, knowledge of methods and tools, things have gotten so specific, I have no idea where I fit in. I've looked at Internships and they ask for fresh graduates, and here I am in my early 30's, past all that. Having done astrophysics, and realizing how specialized I have become, I want to transition to something with more opportunities, that's why I'd like to be in the data/tech world, where I can use my analytical skills to more practical applications. But I'm so lost and stressed. P.S: I am in Spain, jobs are not plenty here (I strongly not prefer to relocate). So I'm trying to look for remote jobs too but working with international companies. But not sure if that works. Have you been in something similar? I'd appreciate stories, advice, tips, anything.
RESPONSE A: I know you don’t want to relocate, but that is likely going to limit you. I would try and join a construction company in an estimating role (lots of data). Those firms have smart people who are looking for exotic talent like yourself.
RESPONSE B: Don’t feel bad or ask ‘why would they pick me?’ A positive way to think about this is that you bring a unique background and set of skills that most people don’t have.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: strophysics. Currently (and fortunately) I have my post doc job which ends in exactly a year from now. Basically I use telescope to gather data, and analyze it, visualize results, it to understand how nature up there is behaving. I'm trying to transition to the data world (data analysis, data science) and let me tell you, it's looking grim. I haven't done much programming to qualify me for jobs that require building models and algorithms, machine learning, etc. But I'm familiar with dealing with large sets of data. I'm having a hard time converting my academic cv to an industry one and highlighting my skills with no real work experience apart from research. I don't know where to look for jobs apart from LinkedIn, and I feel intimidated by seeing 100-300 applicants, most probably with experience, applying for one position, like why would they pick me. Most jobs have specific requirements too, knowledge of methods and tools, things have gotten so specific, I have no idea where I fit in. I've looked at Internships and they ask for fresh graduates, and here I am in my early 30's, past all that. Having done astrophysics, and realizing how specialized I have become, I want to transition to something with more opportunities, that's why I'd like to be in the data/tech world, where I can use my analytical skills to more practical applications. But I'm so lost and stressed. P.S: I am in Spain, jobs are not plenty here (I strongly not prefer to relocate). So I'm trying to look for remote jobs too but working with international companies. But not sure if that works. Have you been in something similar? I'd appreciate stories, advice, tips, anything.
RESPONSE A: It may be worth your time reaching out to a recruiter who works in your area. I work in a fairly specialised field and have had success in finding work through a recruiter.
RESPONSE B: I know you don’t want to relocate, but that is likely going to limit you. I would try and join a construction company in an estimating role (lots of data). Those firms have smart people who are looking for exotic talent like yourself.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: students probably do/should have more freedom when they're working on newer stuff, right?) Anyway, at this point, I'm not ever sure if I'm going in a good or bad direction, I'm just trying to figure stuff out on my own. And my supervisor isn't terrible, like he'll explain stuff if I ask him to, but he doesn't exactly,,, give me a direction or any indication that the direction *I'm* going in is correct/okay. Is this common? Or should I have asked him to sort of guide me more before? (Also note that I am not working towards an undergrad thesis, it's basically a senior year project, and for those with my major at my university, it's usually research, so it's not supposed to be super intense I think, I might just be working towards a final presentation or something. But I'm still kind of confused about what I'm doing tbh.)
RESPONSE A: I supervise final year (honours) undergrad dissertation projects in a humanities field. As a standard, in a semester, I help them develop their question and their methodology, give them suggested research sources, do a couple of group seminars for how to write a dissertation and reference/cite correctly, and read and comment on one full draft. They end up needing/wanting different levels of guidance: some of them will choose not to attend the group seminars or implement the feedback, others will seek quite a bit of further help and resources. I would like to read multiple drafts or offer more one on one meetings, but to be honest, I’m not paid for it and I can’t afford to do that much unpaid labour no matter how much I want them to do well.
RESPONSE B: He responds to questions, so ask them. Go into his office (preferably during those lone, sad times known as office hours) flop down in a chair, and start talking. "so I was reading/thinking this. What's your view? or How does that work? or Am I getting close?" Then go back and apply it on your own. When you get stuck/unsure, do it again.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: dom" to your students? How much do you normally guide undergrads specifically, or teach them during the duration of a research project. (Like I guess grad students probably do/should have more freedom when they're working on newer stuff, right?) Anyway, at this point, I'm not ever sure if I'm going in a good or bad direction, I'm just trying to figure stuff out on my own. And my supervisor isn't terrible, like he'll explain stuff if I ask him to, but he doesn't exactly,,, give me a direction or any indication that the direction *I'm* going in is correct/okay. Is this common? Or should I have asked him to sort of guide me more before? (Also note that I am not working towards an undergrad thesis, it's basically a senior year project, and for those with my major at my university, it's usually research, so it's not supposed to be super intense I think, I might just be working towards a final presentation or something. But I'm still kind of confused about what I'm doing tbh.)
RESPONSE A: It depends on the constraints of your course/project. If it supposed to be a self-guided learning process with a faculty supervisor, your description of the interaction is about par for the course. If your supervisor is supposed to be taking on a director or mentorship role, they have not fulfilled their side if you have only been assigned a literature review of two papers in one semester. I had a self-guided course in my undergraduate courses where I interacted with the faculty only once before presentation and that was to make sure that I had a reasonable topic and knew how to find good sources and put together a presentation.
RESPONSE B: He responds to questions, so ask them. Go into his office (preferably during those lone, sad times known as office hours) flop down in a chair, and start talking. "so I was reading/thinking this. What's your view? or How does that work? or Am I getting close?" Then go back and apply it on your own. When you get stuck/unsure, do it again.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: or bad direction, I'm just trying to figure stuff out on my own. And my supervisor isn't terrible, like he'll explain stuff if I ask him to, but he doesn't exactly,,, give me a direction or any indication that the direction *I'm* going in is correct/okay. Is this common? Or should I have asked him to sort of guide me more before? (Also note that I am not working towards an undergrad thesis, it's basically a senior year project, and for those with my major at my university, it's usually research, so it's not supposed to be super intense I think, I might just be working towards a final presentation or something. But I'm still kind of confused about what I'm doing tbh.)
RESPONSE A: It depends on the constraints of your course/project. If it supposed to be a self-guided learning process with a faculty supervisor, your description of the interaction is about par for the course. If your supervisor is supposed to be taking on a director or mentorship role, they have not fulfilled their side if you have only been assigned a literature review of two papers in one semester. I had a self-guided course in my undergraduate courses where I interacted with the faculty only once before presentation and that was to make sure that I had a reasonable topic and knew how to find good sources and put together a presentation.
RESPONSE B: I supervise final year (honours) undergrad dissertation projects in a humanities field. As a standard, in a semester, I help them develop their question and their methodology, give them suggested research sources, do a couple of group seminars for how to write a dissertation and reference/cite correctly, and read and comment on one full draft. They end up needing/wanting different levels of guidance: some of them will choose not to attend the group seminars or implement the feedback, others will seek quite a bit of further help and resources. I would like to read multiple drafts or offer more one on one meetings, but to be honest, I’m not paid for it and I can’t afford to do that much unpaid labour no matter how much I want them to do well.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Also note that I am not working towards an undergrad thesis, it's basically a senior year project, and for those with my major at my university, it's usually research, so it's not supposed to be super intense I think, I might just be working towards a final presentation or something. But I'm still kind of confused about what I'm doing tbh.)
RESPONSE A: It depends on the constraints of your course/project. If it supposed to be a self-guided learning process with a faculty supervisor, your description of the interaction is about par for the course. If your supervisor is supposed to be taking on a director or mentorship role, they have not fulfilled their side if you have only been assigned a literature review of two papers in one semester. I had a self-guided course in my undergraduate courses where I interacted with the faculty only once before presentation and that was to make sure that I had a reasonable topic and knew how to find good sources and put together a presentation.
RESPONSE B: I like to keep students just a little out of their depth so they're as self sufficient as they are ready to be. I like to have a quick conversation with them every day they're working on the projects just to check in and make sure they're not totally stuck and going in an unproductive direction. In the times of zoom it's much more of a barrier to just drop in and see how things are without it being a "meeting" that people feel they need to prepare for. But - I like them to try and find things out themselves, read papers (rather than me reading them and explaining second hand), read the user manuals of devices we use rather than me trying to remember the command syntax to tell them etc. Realistically I don't know everything, if it's a technique we're not already doing in the lab, it's possible I have a vague outline from procrastinating on wikipedia or whatever, but I'd be doing the same googling as you, just maybe with a little more big picture understanding. If it's big picture stuff you're not sure about, I'd suggest trying to open that discussion with them explicitly.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Have you published paper(s) that you are ashamed of? I am ashamed of the first paper I ever wrote for publication as a graduate student. By the time I realized my analysis was flawed, the paper had received a revise and resubmit. The results did not replicate using a better analysis, so I pleaded with my supervisors on several occasions to forego publishing the paper. They convinced me to pursue publication without changing the methods because the reviewers did not notice the flaw. Also, without realizing, I engaged in HARKing (hypothesizing after the results are known). I was analyzing an archival data in an exploratory fashion and added hypotheses after obtaining the results and did not think this was bad practice. The paper got published. Now I know better, and I am ashamed. I contributed to the publication crisis and to science in a counterproductive way. I hope nobody ever reads or uses my paper for their research. Can anyone relate?
RESPONSE A: I was publishing research before the replication crisis. So, of course I am. Anyone my age or older who doesn't cringe at least a little at their pre-2010s papers is either unethical, willfully ignorant, or delusional.
RESPONSE B: Some of my early work has been misinterpreted by 'dark enlightenment' and other far right groups to promote their various hateful ideas. So I am very very ashamed of having published papers that could be (mis)used in this way.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Have you published paper(s) that you are ashamed of? I am ashamed of the first paper I ever wrote for publication as a graduate student. By the time I realized my analysis was flawed, the paper had received a revise and resubmit. The results did not replicate using a better analysis, so I pleaded with my supervisors on several occasions to forego publishing the paper. They convinced me to pursue publication without changing the methods because the reviewers did not notice the flaw. Also, without realizing, I engaged in HARKing (hypothesizing after the results are known). I was analyzing an archival data in an exploratory fashion and added hypotheses after obtaining the results and did not think this was bad practice. The paper got published. Now I know better, and I am ashamed. I contributed to the publication crisis and to science in a counterproductive way. I hope nobody ever reads or uses my paper for their research. Can anyone relate?
RESPONSE A: Not paper, but my undergraduate thesis. It was a complete trash. To summarize, I apply X to Y without providing any statistical evidence, just plain result, and no comparison neither. My advisor submitted it to a low-rank journal, which was accepted. I don’t care about it, and do not put it on my CV, but it’s on the Uni archive lmao.
RESPONSE B: HARK is fine for generating hypotheses for future verification or to guide future study. It just has to be explicit.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Where can I find research papers to read for free on the internet? I have been searching for engineering research papers that are available for free on the internet so that I can get used to the format and also learn how to read a research paper. Sadly I wasn't able to find any papers in a pdf format. Is there any website you would recommend?
RESPONSE A: Scihub too but that is piracy.
RESPONSE B: sci-hub.se
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Where can I find research papers to read for free on the internet? I have been searching for engineering research papers that are available for free on the internet so that I can get used to the format and also learn how to read a research paper. Sadly I wasn't able to find any papers in a pdf format. Is there any website you would recommend?
RESPONSE A: sci-hub.se
RESPONSE B: ResearchGate for example, if there is no full PDF ask the author if he can send you one… Have a look at: https://www.scribendi.com/academy/articles/free_online_journal_and_research_databases.en.html If you want a specific paper from someone, just write them an e-mail or something… How it is to me almost every scientist/researcher would be happy to send you a free PDF copy of their paper. They don't publish it in these journals for money because they get nothing, they publish it there for the reputation and the amount of people who would stumble across their research in a well known journal... They are most likely really happy to help you out and its even in their interest -> more readers -> more possible citations...
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Where can I find research papers to read for free on the internet? I have been searching for engineering research papers that are available for free on the internet so that I can get used to the format and also learn how to read a research paper. Sadly I wasn't able to find any papers in a pdf format. Is there any website you would recommend?
RESPONSE A: Google scholar is where I start first. Quite a few papers will have a pdf version that is not behind a paywall, and some will be in an open access journal. If I still can't find the paper in looking for, I consult other commenters advice.
RESPONSE B: "Sadly I wasn't able to find any papers in a pdf format. Is there any website you would recommend?" That is quite surprising. The whole of the open access movement is to ensure that papers are freely available. Search engines may take you to the html page, but there will be a link for the pdf somewhere.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Where can I find research papers to read for free on the internet? I have been searching for engineering research papers that are available for free on the internet so that I can get used to the format and also learn how to read a research paper. Sadly I wasn't able to find any papers in a pdf format. Is there any website you would recommend?
RESPONSE A: Google scholar is where I start first. Quite a few papers will have a pdf version that is not behind a paywall, and some will be in an open access journal. If I still can't find the paper in looking for, I consult other commenters advice.
RESPONSE B: ResearchGate for example, if there is no full PDF ask the author if he can send you one… Have a look at: https://www.scribendi.com/academy/articles/free_online_journal_and_research_databases.en.html If you want a specific paper from someone, just write them an e-mail or something… How it is to me almost every scientist/researcher would be happy to send you a free PDF copy of their paper. They don't publish it in these journals for money because they get nothing, they publish it there for the reputation and the amount of people who would stumble across their research in a well known journal... They are most likely really happy to help you out and its even in their interest -> more readers -> more possible citations...
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Where can I find research papers to read for free on the internet? I have been searching for engineering research papers that are available for free on the internet so that I can get used to the format and also learn how to read a research paper. Sadly I wasn't able to find any papers in a pdf format. Is there any website you would recommend?
RESPONSE A: Everything funded by the EU, and many other funders around the planet, is required to be available open access. You go to the website of the paper and find the "pdf" button. If you're not able to do this yet, then google "how to find research papers" first and read through some guides, and/or go talk to your university's librarians who can teach you this process.
RESPONSE B: Google scholar is where I start first. Quite a few papers will have a pdf version that is not behind a paywall, and some will be in an open access journal. If I still can't find the paper in looking for, I consult other commenters advice.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it academic dishonesty/cheating to use grammarly in tidying up the language in a masters or PhD thesis? Just want to know your input
RESPONSE A: No
RESPONSE B: No. Why would it be? Is it academic abuse to let your friend edit your paper for clarity? Grammarly does not change the substance of the material.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it academic dishonesty/cheating to use grammarly in tidying up the language in a masters or PhD thesis? Just want to know your input
RESPONSE A: If you are super-worried, see if there's a writing center on campus for students, and if they take appointments.
RESPONSE B: No. Why would it be? Is it academic abuse to let your friend edit your paper for clarity? Grammarly does not change the substance of the material.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it academic dishonesty/cheating to use grammarly in tidying up the language in a masters or PhD thesis? Just want to know your input
RESPONSE A: No. Why would it be? Is it academic abuse to let your friend edit your paper for clarity? Grammarly does not change the substance of the material.
RESPONSE B: My thesis office wouldn't accept manuscripts that hadn't been run through it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it academic dishonesty/cheating to use grammarly in tidying up the language in a masters or PhD thesis? Just want to know your input
RESPONSE A: No, I think that is fine. People have been using spell check for decades, for example. As long as the work is your own, and the writing was done by you, this is the same as having an editor.
RESPONSE B: No. Why would it be? Is it academic abuse to let your friend edit your paper for clarity? Grammarly does not change the substance of the material.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it academic dishonesty/cheating to use grammarly in tidying up the language in a masters or PhD thesis? Just want to know your input
RESPONSE A: No. Why would it be? Is it academic abuse to let your friend edit your paper for clarity? Grammarly does not change the substance of the material.
RESPONSE B: Of course not. It just might be a potential source of data leaks and ill adviced from an info sec perspective. But there is no plagiarism or dishonesty.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: the sources they used, and yes I read the thesis they wrote, but after doing so, I always went back to the original source that they used and read what that said, and then I wrote my own. I did not try to copy-paste theirs, and therefore i only cited the original source that they used. As it was empirical studies both of them, the way we conducted it was similar, and I was inspired by them in terms of what was relevant to take into consideration, but I only cited the original source. Was this wrong? Should I have cited the others? TL;DR - I took the method/theory of how others conducted their master thesis and replicated it towards my own master's thesis, and only cited the original source and not the thesis which I found it in. Why is my text a mess? Because it is like my current state of mind, I feel like a nobody, a cheating pig, a girl/guy why cheated his way into his degree. No plagiarism checker such as Turinit found anything wrong with it, but I am so afraid that someone will figure out and report me, even though my thesis is not public. Somebody lynch me for being a shitty person.
RESPONSE A: Do I understand it correctly that what you "copied" from the thesis is merely the structure and references? You read the original sources and you cited them where appropriate, and wrote the whole thing in your own words, right? I wouldn't call that cheating. I take ideas and references from other papers a lot and then don't cite the paper where I found the reference if the aim or novelty of that paper isn't relevant for whatever I'm writing.
RESPONSE B: As I see Master's are a introduction to research, and PhD when you actually learn how to become a researcher and create something new. A master's thesis does not need to be original work like a doctoral dissertation. If you feel that you have an idea how to start a research, read other people's work, and talk about a paper you read, you are at Master's level. Coming up with a methodology to create something new is hard, and is learnt during a PhD.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Should I have cited the others? TL;DR - I took the method/theory of how others conducted their master thesis and replicated it towards my own master's thesis, and only cited the original source and not the thesis which I found it in. Why is my text a mess? Because it is like my current state of mind, I feel like a nobody, a cheating pig, a girl/guy why cheated his way into his degree. No plagiarism checker such as Turinit found anything wrong with it, but I am so afraid that someone will figure out and report me, even though my thesis is not public. Somebody lynch me for being a shitty person.
RESPONSE A: I’m I the only one who thinks this is borderline at best? The thesis should have at least been cited as a source of inspiration. You essentially treated it like a parts shop without ever letting a reader of your work know where you sources those parts. Simply going back to the original sources and citing them is not an appropriate form of attribution. The knowledge required to know who to cite and who not to is important and of value. I am currently dealing with a professor who is taken a literature review I wrote and has now included it in what seems to be a publication where he will be sole author. He might have now, after being showed how it all fits together, read the originals. I would say this is maybe not plagiarism but it’s far from good.
RESPONSE B: No, this does not sound like a case of plagiarism to me. "I use the same research method as theirs, and likewise the same theory." The important question is: was the research method their original invention? If so, then it is plagiarism to use it without giving them credit. If it was a method that they obtained from another source, then you've done all you need to do with regard to honesty by citing the original source. Likewise with theory. If you did find that their thesis was very high quality and helpful, then it's a courtesy to give them a citation in your paper, usually in the "related work" section. But failing to do so is not plagiarism or academic dishonesty.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: As it was empirical studies both of them, the way we conducted it was similar, and I was inspired by them in terms of what was relevant to take into consideration, but I only cited the original source. Was this wrong? Should I have cited the others? TL;DR - I took the method/theory of how others conducted their master thesis and replicated it towards my own master's thesis, and only cited the original source and not the thesis which I found it in. Why is my text a mess? Because it is like my current state of mind, I feel like a nobody, a cheating pig, a girl/guy why cheated his way into his degree. No plagiarism checker such as Turinit found anything wrong with it, but I am so afraid that someone will figure out and report me, even though my thesis is not public. Somebody lynch me for being a shitty person.
RESPONSE A: As I see Master's are a introduction to research, and PhD when you actually learn how to become a researcher and create something new. A master's thesis does not need to be original work like a doctoral dissertation. If you feel that you have an idea how to start a research, read other people's work, and talk about a paper you read, you are at Master's level. Coming up with a methodology to create something new is hard, and is learnt during a PhD.
RESPONSE B: I’m I the only one who thinks this is borderline at best? The thesis should have at least been cited as a source of inspiration. You essentially treated it like a parts shop without ever letting a reader of your work know where you sources those parts. Simply going back to the original sources and citing them is not an appropriate form of attribution. The knowledge required to know who to cite and who not to is important and of value. I am currently dealing with a professor who is taken a literature review I wrote and has now included it in what seems to be a publication where he will be sole author. He might have now, after being showed how it all fits together, read the originals. I would say this is maybe not plagiarism but it’s far from good.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: so afraid that someone will figure out and report me, even though my thesis is not public. Somebody lynch me for being a shitty person.
RESPONSE A: I’m I the only one who thinks this is borderline at best? The thesis should have at least been cited as a source of inspiration. You essentially treated it like a parts shop without ever letting a reader of your work know where you sources those parts. Simply going back to the original sources and citing them is not an appropriate form of attribution. The knowledge required to know who to cite and who not to is important and of value. I am currently dealing with a professor who is taken a literature review I wrote and has now included it in what seems to be a publication where he will be sole author. He might have now, after being showed how it all fits together, read the originals. I would say this is maybe not plagiarism but it’s far from good.
RESPONSE B: What you did was correct. It's fine to use the structure of another thesis, as long as you then use your own words. Citing the original work is also the correct thing to do - when possible you should always cite those who made the original discovery. I would add that for many types of work on the same topic, such as a Master's thesis, there aren't that many 'good' ways to structure the text; you will very frequently recreate the same text structure independently, because it's simply the best way to do so. Plagiarism would be to copy-paste entire segments of another thesis/work. Which according to your explanation, you did not do. So you are fine. In addition, I would add that nobody, literally nobody, will take the time to read all these different theses and compare then to find out if someone cheated (especially if Turnitin didn't find any concerns). You would need to be a politician or celebrity with journalists out to get you for someone to take the time to do that. At the end of the day, whether it's a Master's or a PhD, almost no one will ever read your thesis. It will be you, your supervisor, and the examiner(s). That's pretty much it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How much is a typical PhD stipend in Canada? I'm from the UK where a PhD stipend is minimum £15,609 ($27,215 CAD) per year. I've seen what seems to be the perfect PhD for me, but the stipend is advertised as $21,000 CAD (£12,044). This seems really low to me.! Is this normal/liveable in Canada, or am I right in thinking it's quite low?
RESPONSE A: Based on my experiences travelling in the UK, ignore the exchange rate, it's highly misleading. Those Canadian dollars won't buy you much in the UK, but they'll do *alright* here. That £15k stipend is about half of the UK median salary (£31,461) - the Canadian stipend of $21k is actually more like 65% of median salary in this country ($31,300 after taxes for single individuals). All this to say, I'd reckon those are fairly equivalent in terms of lifestyle they can buy, though it will vary heavily depending on region. Note in particular that in cities like Vancouver and Toronto rent has been getting insanely expensive, but the wages and funding they offer PhD students really doesn't make up for it.
RESPONSE B: What field? This would be very field dependent.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Phd scholarship with no stipend I recently applied for a Phd scholarship. However during the interview they mentioned there was no provision of a stipend to support my living and daily expenses. Plus the university is 600 miles from where I live and I'm not too sure about quitting my job, relocating and looking for another job as I'm not sure I'll find one immediately. Is it OK to turn it down?
RESPONSE A: You can definitely turn it down, but before you do, ask them how other students support themselves during the program. It could be that there are abundant opportunities to teach or do research that will pay a stipend.
RESPONSE B: Yes.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Phd scholarship with no stipend I recently applied for a Phd scholarship. However during the interview they mentioned there was no provision of a stipend to support my living and daily expenses. Plus the university is 600 miles from where I live and I'm not too sure about quitting my job, relocating and looking for another job as I'm not sure I'll find one immediately. Is it OK to turn it down?
RESPONSE A: what do you mean by "phd scholarship?" a scholarship for phd students? Isn't that money for living expenses?
RESPONSE B: You can definitely turn it down, but before you do, ask them how other students support themselves during the program. It could be that there are abundant opportunities to teach or do research that will pay a stipend.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Phd scholarship with no stipend I recently applied for a Phd scholarship. However during the interview they mentioned there was no provision of a stipend to support my living and daily expenses. Plus the university is 600 miles from where I live and I'm not too sure about quitting my job, relocating and looking for another job as I'm not sure I'll find one immediately. Is it OK to turn it down?
RESPONSE A: Are you not eligible for RA/TA'ships alongside the scholarship?
RESPONSE B: Turn it down cold and don't look back.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Phd scholarship with no stipend I recently applied for a Phd scholarship. However during the interview they mentioned there was no provision of a stipend to support my living and daily expenses. Plus the university is 600 miles from where I live and I'm not too sure about quitting my job, relocating and looking for another job as I'm not sure I'll find one immediately. Is it OK to turn it down?
RESPONSE A: what do you mean by "phd scholarship?" a scholarship for phd students? Isn't that money for living expenses?
RESPONSE B: Turn it down cold and don't look back.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Research only / not teaching Most post-postdocs seem to be geared towards teaching in academia as a full professor. Some posts on here even want to teach only, with no research responsibilities. I want the reverse though. Is it possible to stay in academia with no teaching responsibilities? I’m not interested in industry because I like having my own ideas independent of company interests, but also don’t want to teach. Is this at all possible?
RESPONSE A: National labs and research institutes are often primarily staffed by people in these kind of roles.
RESPONSE B: There are faculty positions at universities with minimal teaching responsibilities. For example, faculty may be housed at a research institute, hospital, or think tank, and are expected to supervise grad students and maybe teach a grad course every few years. There are also research chairs (or something similar), and if you can get one they usually reduce teaching load, in some cases to almost nothing. The ability to get these positions depends on your field. It's much easier to find these types of positions in biomedical, science and engineering fields compared to humanities and some social sciences.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Research only / not teaching Most post-postdocs seem to be geared towards teaching in academia as a full professor. Some posts on here even want to teach only, with no research responsibilities. I want the reverse though. Is it possible to stay in academia with no teaching responsibilities? I’m not interested in industry because I like having my own ideas independent of company interests, but also don’t want to teach. Is this at all possible?
RESPONSE A: Yes it is possible, but I suppose the pay is somehow less, because the duties are less. They called it research scientist, people who lead their own research like full professors but without the teaching aspect.
RESPONSE B: National labs and research institutes are often primarily staffed by people in these kind of roles.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Research only / not teaching Most post-postdocs seem to be geared towards teaching in academia as a full professor. Some posts on here even want to teach only, with no research responsibilities. I want the reverse though. Is it possible to stay in academia with no teaching responsibilities? I’m not interested in industry because I like having my own ideas independent of company interests, but also don’t want to teach. Is this at all possible?
RESPONSE A: At my (UK, Russell group) institution, we've three career paths. Teaching, research, and "balanced" which is both. Most permanent academics are on balanced pathway (teaching and research fellows tend to have fixed term contracts). It's not uncommon for balanced pathway to secure research fellowships that essentially buy out all of their teaching time, though. So although nominally on balanced pathway (and if their grant income ran out they'd be expected to teach) they may not have taught for many years.
RESPONSE B: yes, there are many research professor positions at research universities. Generally you will live on soft money which means if you don’t bring in your next grant you won’t have a job
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Research only / not teaching Most post-postdocs seem to be geared towards teaching in academia as a full professor. Some posts on here even want to teach only, with no research responsibilities. I want the reverse though. Is it possible to stay in academia with no teaching responsibilities? I’m not interested in industry because I like having my own ideas independent of company interests, but also don’t want to teach. Is this at all possible?
RESPONSE A: yes, there are many research professor positions at research universities. Generally you will live on soft money which means if you don’t bring in your next grant you won’t have a job
RESPONSE B: They totally exist. They’re highly competitive though because they usually rely on you bringing in big research $$ consistently. Most research runs at a loss to the institution, so unless you’re propelling your universities reputation with your research then it’s much harder to justify your expense. Teaching is a university’s “cash cow”, so if you’re coordinating a couple of subjects then your worth is more more readily justifiable.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Research only / not teaching Most post-postdocs seem to be geared towards teaching in academia as a full professor. Some posts on here even want to teach only, with no research responsibilities. I want the reverse though. Is it possible to stay in academia with no teaching responsibilities? I’m not interested in industry because I like having my own ideas independent of company interests, but also don’t want to teach. Is this at all possible?
RESPONSE A: Yes it is possible, but I suppose the pay is somehow less, because the duties are less. They called it research scientist, people who lead their own research like full professors but without the teaching aspect.
RESPONSE B: yes, there are many research professor positions at research universities. Generally you will live on soft money which means if you don’t bring in your next grant you won’t have a job
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I tell my supervisor I want to quit? I started grad school in 2019 and I feel stuck and inadequate. I am not the most systematic person, nor the smartest. Nonetheless, I'm in good terms with my advisor; she trusted me a pretty cool project that aligned with my interests, and she is expecting me to redo and re-submit a grant next April. The issue is I've been struggling with everything lately: my proposal is shit, I can't manage my time to get my experiments on a timely manner, I've had a manuscript on hold for a year, my first MS student had a VERY bad experience, and my current MS student is just not getting things done. Furthermore, two years ago I thought getting involved in extracurricular activities would be fun, and now I'm pretty much responsible of a super disorganized student chapter. I've thought about it and I realized I'm not a good fit for academia at all. I don't have the skills, and I don't have the drive, so I want out. When do I tell my professor about this? She gave me a bunch of responsabilities and I don't know how to hand them over. Should I tell her about this the day I'm ready to leave? She's paying for my stipend, so I guess the day I tell her will be the last day for my stipend. I'm also going to take vacations in December, so I don't know if I should tell her before leaving, so I don't have to come back. And probably the most important question: should I tell her on April (right after we submit the grant)? I don't want her to struggle with no one available to write it.
RESPONSE A: "Hey, I realized academia is not my thing and I am quitting."
RESPONSE B: Talk about it sooner rather than later. Give your supervisor plenty of time to prepare, to transition your projects and responsibilities over to other people while you're still there to help. Tell them you are willing to stay until after the grant is submitted, if they'd like. The absolute worst thing to do is wait until your last day to tell them, giving them no time to prepare.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Nonetheless, I'm in good terms with my advisor; she trusted me a pretty cool project that aligned with my interests, and she is expecting me to redo and re-submit a grant next April. The issue is I've been struggling with everything lately: my proposal is shit, I can't manage my time to get my experiments on a timely manner, I've had a manuscript on hold for a year, my first MS student had a VERY bad experience, and my current MS student is just not getting things done. Furthermore, two years ago I thought getting involved in extracurricular activities would be fun, and now I'm pretty much responsible of a super disorganized student chapter. I've thought about it and I realized I'm not a good fit for academia at all. I don't have the skills, and I don't have the drive, so I want out. When do I tell my professor about this? She gave me a bunch of responsabilities and I don't know how to hand them over. Should I tell her about this the day I'm ready to leave? She's paying for my stipend, so I guess the day I tell her will be the last day for my stipend. I'm also going to take vacations in December, so I don't know if I should tell her before leaving, so I don't have to come back. And probably the most important question: should I tell her on April (right after we submit the grant)? I don't want her to struggle with no one available to write it.
RESPONSE A: Talk about it sooner rather than later. Give your supervisor plenty of time to prepare, to transition your projects and responsibilities over to other people while you're still there to help. Tell them you are willing to stay until after the grant is submitted, if they'd like. The absolute worst thing to do is wait until your last day to tell them, giving them no time to prepare.
RESPONSE B: Yeah u could be upfront with her. Either u end up quitting or u find a solution together to make this ur thing. Hold ur own though and dont get guilted into staying or feel like u have to stay
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: terms with my advisor; she trusted me a pretty cool project that aligned with my interests, and she is expecting me to redo and re-submit a grant next April. The issue is I've been struggling with everything lately: my proposal is shit, I can't manage my time to get my experiments on a timely manner, I've had a manuscript on hold for a year, my first MS student had a VERY bad experience, and my current MS student is just not getting things done. Furthermore, two years ago I thought getting involved in extracurricular activities would be fun, and now I'm pretty much responsible of a super disorganized student chapter. I've thought about it and I realized I'm not a good fit for academia at all. I don't have the skills, and I don't have the drive, so I want out. When do I tell my professor about this? She gave me a bunch of responsabilities and I don't know how to hand them over. Should I tell her about this the day I'm ready to leave? She's paying for my stipend, so I guess the day I tell her will be the last day for my stipend. I'm also going to take vacations in December, so I don't know if I should tell her before leaving, so I don't have to come back. And probably the most important question: should I tell her on April (right after we submit the grant)? I don't want her to struggle with no one available to write it.
RESPONSE A: Yeah u could be upfront with her. Either u end up quitting or u find a solution together to make this ur thing. Hold ur own though and dont get guilted into staying or feel like u have to stay
RESPONSE B: I have seen a couple of times this situation and the professors have always stayed super cool about the leaving. Just say it the soonest possible and be clear about how much and how long are you willing to help before quitting. For you might be the first time under this dilemma, but for a someone to reach a professorship has had to deal with people struggling about leaving academia several times, from friends to herself.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: the reason someone cannot continue in their major, but at a certain point it is on the student to pay attention and keep up with these things. She is a nice girl and I can tell she's studying and actually trying to succeed. Any advice on how to kindly tell her to pay attention?
RESPONSE A: Are there a lot of students who switch majors in this manner? Is this a particularly large class? If no on the above, then you could couch this conversation in terms of “I know you just switched and I’m looking out for you to help you succeed.” But, the difficulty with this approach, and especially if there are a lot of similar transfers, is that it could lead to accusations of favoritism. It does ultimately fall to the student to keep track of dates and manage their workload but it sounds like you are hoping to look out for this student, so a 1-on-1 conversation after class or during office hours might help relay the message a bit more directly.
RESPONSE B: > Any advice on how to kindly tell her to pay attention? As others have said, it sounds like she's already trying and asking her to "pay attention" will only accomplish making her feel bad about herself and to stop asking for clarification when she misses things. Just as an anecdote: I went through undergrad with undiagnosed ADHD, and I would try my damndest to pay attention and take notes. Even so I would regularly miss things because my mind wanders no matter how hard I try. It only took one professor lecturing me that maybe I should try "paying attention" after I'd asked about something he'd already said for me to pretty much stop asking questions in class even when I was completely lost. Much to my detriment for the rest of my undergrad career. If you want to help her, answer her questions and as others have said, maybe point her to some resources. If you're worried that she's wasting class time, defer her questions until after class or office hours. You say that it is on the student to keep up with these things, but it sounds like she is taking responsibility on herself to make sure she doesn't miss things -- that's why she's asking questions if she misses something.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: due dates, upcoming assignments, and tests in class and through our class website. The student in question seems nervous and anxious when she speaks to me. She asks questions in class after I just explained and gave the answer. She is always asking about due dates after I specifically go over them. She is always venting to her classmates about how hard her workload is and how "lost" she is. I do not want my class to be the reason someone cannot continue in their major, but at a certain point it is on the student to pay attention and keep up with these things. She is a nice girl and I can tell she's studying and actually trying to succeed. Any advice on how to kindly tell her to pay attention?
RESPONSE A: > Any advice on how to kindly tell her to pay attention? As others have said, it sounds like she's already trying and asking her to "pay attention" will only accomplish making her feel bad about herself and to stop asking for clarification when she misses things. Just as an anecdote: I went through undergrad with undiagnosed ADHD, and I would try my damndest to pay attention and take notes. Even so I would regularly miss things because my mind wanders no matter how hard I try. It only took one professor lecturing me that maybe I should try "paying attention" after I'd asked about something he'd already said for me to pretty much stop asking questions in class even when I was completely lost. Much to my detriment for the rest of my undergrad career. If you want to help her, answer her questions and as others have said, maybe point her to some resources. If you're worried that she's wasting class time, defer her questions until after class or office hours. You say that it is on the student to keep up with these things, but it sounds like she is taking responsibility on herself to make sure she doesn't miss things -- that's why she's asking questions if she misses something.
RESPONSE B: It might be helpful if you write down and distribute (website, presentation, pdf, whatever) info about scheduling and such, that way she and others can refer to it if they miss anything. As for coursework-related questions, other comments seem rather insightful.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do I nicely tell a student she needs to pay attention in class? I teach Anatomy and Physiology at a large, public University. I have a student in my class who just switched majors from fine arts to Nursing. My class is hard and also required for the students to continue in the major. I am always sure to remind them of due dates, upcoming assignments, and tests in class and through our class website. The student in question seems nervous and anxious when she speaks to me. She asks questions in class after I just explained and gave the answer. She is always asking about due dates after I specifically go over them. She is always venting to her classmates about how hard her workload is and how "lost" she is. I do not want my class to be the reason someone cannot continue in their major, but at a certain point it is on the student to pay attention and keep up with these things. She is a nice girl and I can tell she's studying and actually trying to succeed. Any advice on how to kindly tell her to pay attention?
RESPONSE A: Maybe say "the next test is on xyz date." Write down xyz date on screen. Tell students "write this down now or enter this into your calendar or take a photo of the due date to remind you." Some students are so overwhelmed that the obvious, which is writing down a due date, is not so obvious in the moment. If that doesnt work, if she asks right after you have announced it, perhaps go to the class and say "Lets phone a friend now, when is the next test students just so we are all clear and there is no confusion." (I mean, if shes asking in front of people, I wouldnt hold back.) My own child was similar (he has ADHD and LD).
RESPONSE B: It might be helpful if you write down and distribute (website, presentation, pdf, whatever) info about scheduling and such, that way she and others can refer to it if they miss anything. As for coursework-related questions, other comments seem rather insightful.
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.