label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
B | POST: Reject a paper for being out of scope as a reviewer? Hi! I have been reviewing a paper, but it is totally out of scope of the journal it was sent by. I do not know if I should directly reject it without reviewing or perform a proper review (for a certain reject decision). Any suggestion?
RESPONSE A: Normally out of the scope descions come from the journal itself. I would do a review and if you want add a comment that the paper seems out of scope
RESPONSE B: This is a question to ask the editor who assigned the review to you. They may have decided that it is in scope or may have decided to leave that up to the reviewers. There is only one way to find out.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Reject a paper for being out of scope as a reviewer? Hi! I have been reviewing a paper, but it is totally out of scope of the journal it was sent by. I do not know if I should directly reject it without reviewing or perform a proper review (for a certain reject decision). Any suggestion?
RESPONSE A: Usually its the work of the editor to control if it suits their journal. You can write to support or directly to editor if you have the contact. Otherwise, I would you review it.
RESPONSE B: Whether a paper is in the scope of the journal is up to the editor. Conduct the review, note your concern, and they’ll decide.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Reject a paper for being out of scope as a reviewer? Hi! I have been reviewing a paper, but it is totally out of scope of the journal it was sent by. I do not know if I should directly reject it without reviewing or perform a proper review (for a certain reject decision). Any suggestion?
RESPONSE A: Whether a paper is in the scope of the journal is up to the editor. Conduct the review, note your concern, and they’ll decide.
RESPONSE B: I'd also echo the mentioning that you personally view it as being out of scope, but review as if it was in scope.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Reject a paper for being out of scope as a reviewer? Hi! I have been reviewing a paper, but it is totally out of scope of the journal it was sent by. I do not know if I should directly reject it without reviewing or perform a proper review (for a certain reject decision). Any suggestion?
RESPONSE A: Depends on what the journal states For the reviews I do I have to justify rejection to the authors and editors I have rejected a paper for being out of scope
RESPONSE B: Whether a paper is in the scope of the journal is up to the editor. Conduct the review, note your concern, and they’ll decide.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Reject a paper for being out of scope as a reviewer? Hi! I have been reviewing a paper, but it is totally out of scope of the journal it was sent by. I do not know if I should directly reject it without reviewing or perform a proper review (for a certain reject decision). Any suggestion?
RESPONSE A: I'd also echo the mentioning that you personally view it as being out of scope, but review as if it was in scope.
RESPONSE B: Sometimes “not a good fit for this journal, but could be a fit somewhere else” is one of the decision options for referees. But I agree with the other advice to check with the editor.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: degree yet, I was talking to friends about our experience of undergraduate study and we agreed that for undergrads one of the worst but most common viewpoints shared across our cohort was the mentality that your grades were only good if others did worse. This we believe stems from the exam grading system for secondary school in the UK, the idea that the top *x*% of candidates get grade *Y*, and grade boundaries shift accordingly. Then when these students go to uni many seem to think collaborating and supporting their fellow classmates somehow makes them worse off when final marks are given, which results in petty sharing of knowledge and in my opinion a less effective higher education system when it happens. What do you think? Do you agree? Does this extend to higher levels of academic work like post-doc positions and PhDs?
RESPONSE A: I am in the social science/interdisciplinary field, so everyone defines/approaches projects differently in their ways. I think cognitive bias can be quite detrimental because that influences whatever they do as academicians. I don't know if it's egocentrism or arrogant ignorance or mixture or something else.. Someone disagreeing with you doesn't mean you are wrong. It means they have different thoughts. Some take it very personally. What I really don't get is it's that person who initiated "disagreement" and the speaker/the other gave a sound response to dismiss the questioner's position, and the questioner doesn't let it go... Also, I think being opinionated and arrogantly ignorant are different. The latter is bad because they try to 'teach' other colleagues or look down on other's ideas or work. ​ A mindset that quantitative methods are superior to qualitative methods is very detrimental in the interdisciplinary field. Some quantitative people get condescending and some qualitative people get overly defensive. ​ I'm not saying these are a common mindset. There are wise scholars who balance it well. But if someone has one of the above, there will be dramas.. ​ Edited for type-o
RESPONSE B: The hyper-critical, overly negative, and everything is on fucking fire mentality.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What do you think is the most detrimental mindset/perspective that is common in academia? Having not completed a postgraduate degree yet, I was talking to friends about our experience of undergraduate study and we agreed that for undergrads one of the worst but most common viewpoints shared across our cohort was the mentality that your grades were only good if others did worse. This we believe stems from the exam grading system for secondary school in the UK, the idea that the top *x*% of candidates get grade *Y*, and grade boundaries shift accordingly. Then when these students go to uni many seem to think collaborating and supporting their fellow classmates somehow makes them worse off when final marks are given, which results in petty sharing of knowledge and in my opinion a less effective higher education system when it happens. What do you think? Do you agree? Does this extend to higher levels of academic work like post-doc positions and PhDs?
RESPONSE A: That the applicability of research doesn't actually matter.
RESPONSE B: The hyper-critical, overly negative, and everything is on fucking fire mentality.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What do you think is the most detrimental mindset/perspective that is common in academia? Having not completed a postgraduate degree yet, I was talking to friends about our experience of undergraduate study and we agreed that for undergrads one of the worst but most common viewpoints shared across our cohort was the mentality that your grades were only good if others did worse. This we believe stems from the exam grading system for secondary school in the UK, the idea that the top *x*% of candidates get grade *Y*, and grade boundaries shift accordingly. Then when these students go to uni many seem to think collaborating and supporting their fellow classmates somehow makes them worse off when final marks are given, which results in petty sharing of knowledge and in my opinion a less effective higher education system when it happens. What do you think? Do you agree? Does this extend to higher levels of academic work like post-doc positions and PhDs?
RESPONSE A: I hate the mindset that you can't move an inch away from your initial hypothesis even if you don't actually have proof. I know that kind of thing is generally acknowledged to be bad practice in science, but it's still so prevalent.
RESPONSE B: The hyper-critical, overly negative, and everything is on fucking fire mentality.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What do you think is the most detrimental mindset/perspective that is common in academia? Having not completed a postgraduate degree yet, I was talking to friends about our experience of undergraduate study and we agreed that for undergrads one of the worst but most common viewpoints shared across our cohort was the mentality that your grades were only good if others did worse. This we believe stems from the exam grading system for secondary school in the UK, the idea that the top *x*% of candidates get grade *Y*, and grade boundaries shift accordingly. Then when these students go to uni many seem to think collaborating and supporting their fellow classmates somehow makes them worse off when final marks are given, which results in petty sharing of knowledge and in my opinion a less effective higher education system when it happens. What do you think? Do you agree? Does this extend to higher levels of academic work like post-doc positions and PhDs?
RESPONSE A: Quantity > quality
RESPONSE B: That the applicability of research doesn't actually matter.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What do you think is the most detrimental mindset/perspective that is common in academia? Having not completed a postgraduate degree yet, I was talking to friends about our experience of undergraduate study and we agreed that for undergrads one of the worst but most common viewpoints shared across our cohort was the mentality that your grades were only good if others did worse. This we believe stems from the exam grading system for secondary school in the UK, the idea that the top *x*% of candidates get grade *Y*, and grade boundaries shift accordingly. Then when these students go to uni many seem to think collaborating and supporting their fellow classmates somehow makes them worse off when final marks are given, which results in petty sharing of knowledge and in my opinion a less effective higher education system when it happens. What do you think? Do you agree? Does this extend to higher levels of academic work like post-doc positions and PhDs?
RESPONSE A: Quantity > quality
RESPONSE B: I hate the mindset that you can't move an inch away from your initial hypothesis even if you don't actually have proof. I know that kind of thing is generally acknowledged to be bad practice in science, but it's still so prevalent.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Discussion: What do you think is the biggest problem in academia right now, and what do you think will be the biggest problem in the future? What needs to change in academia to make it function better? I've read quite a few articles talking about the different problems that are encountered in academia, and I was curious, in your opinion, what is the current biggest issue with academia (as well as any potential solutions there are), and what looks like it might become the biggest problem in the future. Also, what are new solutions and ideas that are helping to change the way academia works? I'll reply too in a little while, but I'll do it in the comments so as to not create any initial bias (also I need time to think about it!) Looking forward to hearing everyone's opinions!
RESPONSE A: Funding & hiring need to be based on more than impact factor. There are no incentives to be good mentors or supervisors, to teach well, to get involved in campus life or the general well-being of the department. The main benefit of academia is the fruitful interactions among intelligent people. Funding & hiring practices need to focus on them. That probably means that administrators and governments will need to get their head out of their ass and think about ways of incentivizing good academics rather than publication factories - which is why it'll never happen
RESPONSE B: Biggest problem now: jobs and money Biggest problem in the future: jobs and money
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: ? What needs to change in academia to make it function better? I've read quite a few articles talking about the different problems that are encountered in academia, and I was curious, in your opinion, what is the current biggest issue with academia (as well as any potential solutions there are), and what looks like it might become the biggest problem in the future. Also, what are new solutions and ideas that are helping to change the way academia works? I'll reply too in a little while, but I'll do it in the comments so as to not create any initial bias (also I need time to think about it!) Looking forward to hearing everyone's opinions!
RESPONSE A: I can't decide on a biggest, but here are a few that come to mind: * Lack of checks to ensure honesty. At the moment we rely a lot on trust and a culture of integrity that people don't just make up scientific results. With more and more pressure to produce, the temptation/incentive to cheat is ever stronger, and there's very little to prevent it. * As many others are mentioning, too much focus on counting output, not enough on quality and rewarding deep, innovative results, quality teaching, mentoring etc. * Again just repeating what others have said: a system that treats students as a commodity, that churns out PhDs without thought to whether there is a career possibility for them, without matching funding at different career levels. Competition and having to work hard is good, but we need to be more honest with students about their prospects, and make the path clearer and easier, so they can focus more on their research. * Open publishing. Science is to me the biggest and longest example of how open sharing of information (vs, say, patenting and protecting results) can actually produce innovation and massive progress. Paid access to journal articles goes against this philosophy, and is quite topical right now, people are looking for and creating alternatives. I don't really have many suggestions for solutions to these problems, but as I see it these are the things we need to be talking about and changing over the next 20 years.
RESPONSE B: There is a lot of dead weight in academia. There are also a lot of behaviors in academia that would normally be unacceptable in a civilized environment.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why do you think that that there are fewer conservatives in academia than in the general population? Several studies have shown that self-selection has some role in more liberals choosing doctoral education than conservatives. Source Why do you believe that conservatives would self-select out of academia?
RESPONSE A: It's a hostile environment for conservative thinking, somewhat not unlike San Francisco. Many there think themselves more enlightened, and in academia perhaps this is carried to the extreme of funding studies to prove such superior thinking. The result in both cases is a sort of monoculture, which only becomes more concentrated over time as it attracts more people who think the same way. And it's hard to see how liberal advisers would mentor conservative students, as they might constantly butt heads. It would be like an atheist mentoring a Christian on a study of the New Testament. Before they even start, both would a priori see the other party as in the wrong on a number of issues.
RESPONSE B: Maybe it has something to do with the fact that there are more conservative intellectuals who go into the private sector (e.g. think tanks, etc.)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why do you think that that there are fewer conservatives in academia than in the general population? Several studies have shown that self-selection has some role in more liberals choosing doctoral education than conservatives. Source Why do you believe that conservatives would self-select out of academia?
RESPONSE A: It's a hostile environment for conservative thinking, somewhat not unlike San Francisco. Many there think themselves more enlightened, and in academia perhaps this is carried to the extreme of funding studies to prove such superior thinking. The result in both cases is a sort of monoculture, which only becomes more concentrated over time as it attracts more people who think the same way. And it's hard to see how liberal advisers would mentor conservative students, as they might constantly butt heads. It would be like an atheist mentoring a Christian on a study of the New Testament. Before they even start, both would a priori see the other party as in the wrong on a number of issues.
RESPONSE B: I suspect the "academic dream" while unrealistic is what draws in many liberals and draws away many conservatives. The prospect of a tenured, secure job with lots of time inspiring students is kind of the white collar version of the classic union job. It's a fantasy that appeals more to a liberal mindset than a conservative one. (As a side note, I generally find conservative and liberal in the US usage pretty unhelpful terms, technically Ron Paul and Pat Robertson are conservatives but their outlooks are quite dissimilar.)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Mental health sufferers in Academia - What advice do you wish to impart to new Grad students (xpost from /r/gradschool I'm a long term sufferer of GAD and OCD. I want to create a blog post for my school sharing my thoughts about mental health disorders and grad school, however I don't want to just preach my own advice. I would love to hear your thoughts, be it a sentence or a few paragraphs that I can use in this blog to try to help others. Anonymity will be given to all posters.
RESPONSE A: Do not blame yourself if your research has undesired outcomes. Make extensive, proper logs of what you did. Make backups. Take time daily to plan and organize.
RESPONSE B: I would not be surprised if I were to be diagnosed with GAD. This cartoon helps me put stress and failure in perspective.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Mental health sufferers in Academia - What advice do you wish to impart to new Grad students (xpost from /r/gradschool I'm a long term sufferer of GAD and OCD. I want to create a blog post for my school sharing my thoughts about mental health disorders and grad school, however I don't want to just preach my own advice. I would love to hear your thoughts, be it a sentence or a few paragraphs that I can use in this blog to try to help others. Anonymity will be given to all posters.
RESPONSE A: Don't be afraid to use your school's mental health services. A lot of people in the outside world would kill to have access to free counselling and psychiatry. Your school wants you to succeed so they're there to help!
RESPONSE B: I would not be surprised if I were to be diagnosed with GAD. This cartoon helps me put stress and failure in perspective.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Grad students of reddit, what 20-minute assignment can you give me that would give me a good sense of what it's like to be in your program? And, what is your program?
RESPONSE A: Just bang your head against a wall for 20 minutes and you will pretty much have the idea.
RESPONSE B: I like this question because it made me think about the long road I've taken to get where I am. I don't do anything at all that could be approached by a layman without, say, a week of hands on teaching for the routine lab work. I don't think the analytical work could be approached by a layman at all. Meanwhile I feel like I don't know anything or how to do anything. So thanks for the boost! I'm in molecular ecology.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Grad students of reddit, what 20-minute assignment can you give me that would give me a good sense of what it's like to be in your program? And, what is your program?
RESPONSE A: Just bang your head against a wall for 20 minutes and you will pretty much have the idea.
RESPONSE B: 20 minutes? Ha!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Grad students of reddit, what 20-minute assignment can you give me that would give me a good sense of what it's like to be in your program? And, what is your program?
RESPONSE A: The closest to twenty minutes I could do for you is give you a short Old English poem and say translate this, but that only gives you a very tiny aspect of what I like to do and not much of what my programs require of me in addition to it. PhD English and MFA Literary Translation here.
RESPONSE B: Just bang your head against a wall for 20 minutes and you will pretty much have the idea.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Grad students of reddit, what 20-minute assignment can you give me that would give me a good sense of what it's like to be in your program? And, what is your program?
RESPONSE A: The closest to twenty minutes I could do for you is give you a short Old English poem and say translate this, but that only gives you a very tiny aspect of what I like to do and not much of what my programs require of me in addition to it. PhD English and MFA Literary Translation here.
RESPONSE B: Sneak into a board meeting at a tech firm and give a presentation on what they do without having a clue who they are or what they do. Get shot down and discovered for the fraud you really are. Repeat weekly for years. Physics.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Grad students of reddit, what 20-minute assignment can you give me that would give me a good sense of what it's like to be in your program? And, what is your program?
RESPONSE A: 20 min doesn't sound like a lot of time. With luck in 20 min I can design one panel for a figure, or write one paragraph of text, or read anything from 1 to one third of a paper, or find 2-5 papers on pubmed for later reading, or maybe troubleshoot one bug from a code, or record 1 cell in a typical experiment, or process some small bit of data. But 20 min is a pixels in the picture, it's not useful on its own.
RESPONSE B: Sneak into a board meeting at a tech firm and give a presentation on what they do without having a clue who they are or what they do. Get shot down and discovered for the fraud you really are. Repeat weekly for years. Physics.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Current grad students: what is your everyday schedule like? For example, how many hours a day do you allocate to doing your readings/working on your thesis? Or the miscellaneous tasks, such as teaching or admin? What are you doing the rest of the time? Context: am a Master's student in the social sciences (psychology specifically). I'm trying to draw up a standard schedule to improve my productivity, and it would be great to hear from everyone to see what works for you all. (I try to allocate at least 2-3 hours every day just for research, but I can't help but feel it's inadequate... (sadface))
RESPONSE A: Grad student with a toddler: * Wake up around 5 am because the toddler wants to be up. * Deal with getting ready for the day and breakfast and whatever the toddler is upset about from 5-7:30 am * Get on the bus with the toddler at 7:40 am to do campus daycare drop-off around 8:30 am * Because campus is currently closed to students due to COVID, get back on the bus and go back home, get home around 9:30 * TA / RA work from 9:30 - 12:00 * Do chores / laundry / food prep / shove food in my face hole from 12:00 - 12:30 * Reading and coursework from 12:30 - 2:45 * Get back on the bus to go to campus to pick up toddler from daycare at 2:45 * Get home with toddler just before 5:00 * Get the toddler fed and watered from 5:00 - 6:00 * Toddler bedtime routine from 6:00 - 7:30 * Do I have any energy left? More reading from 7:30 - 9:00, otherwise collapse in bed * Doomscroll on social media, panic about the amount of work I need to do, and rethink all of my life choices until 10 or so, then pass out
RESPONSE B: Work 2-3 hours / day on research. Spend 13-16 hours / day alternating between goofing off and hating myself for not getting more research done Sleep 6-8 hours
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Current grad students: what is your everyday schedule like? For example, how many hours a day do you allocate to doing your readings/working on your thesis? Or the miscellaneous tasks, such as teaching or admin? What are you doing the rest of the time? Context: am a Master's student in the social sciences (psychology specifically). I'm trying to draw up a standard schedule to improve my productivity, and it would be great to hear from everyone to see what works for you all. (I try to allocate at least 2-3 hours every day just for research, but I can't help but feel it's inadequate... (sadface))
RESPONSE A: Not sure if you’re a woman (although I think her work is really applicable to anyone), but I would check out Cathy Mazak’s podcast academic womxn amplified. She has great advice for structuring your day to day life to put your own research at the center. Like setting aside your most productive hours of the day for “yourself” and then scheduling teaching/admin responsibilities around that.
RESPONSE B: Work 2-3 hours / day on research. Spend 13-16 hours / day alternating between goofing off and hating myself for not getting more research done Sleep 6-8 hours
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Current grad students: what is your everyday schedule like? For example, how many hours a day do you allocate to doing your readings/working on your thesis? Or the miscellaneous tasks, such as teaching or admin? What are you doing the rest of the time? Context: am a Master's student in the social sciences (psychology specifically). I'm trying to draw up a standard schedule to improve my productivity, and it would be great to hear from everyone to see what works for you all. (I try to allocate at least 2-3 hours every day just for research, but I can't help but feel it's inadequate... (sadface))
RESPONSE A: Work 2-3 hours / day on research. Spend 13-16 hours / day alternating between goofing off and hating myself for not getting more research done Sleep 6-8 hours
RESPONSE B: I think 3 hours a day is good, provided it's solid research and not 5 mins reading 5 mins checking your phone. Just do whatever you feel is comfortable and that you won't burn out. My schedule is usually 1 hour of writing in the morning. 1 hour of editing in the afternoon and 1 hour of research/editing in the evening. I also lecture during the day, but I have been doing it a while and have found a good way to balance my schedule and make the grading a breeze.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Current grad students: what is your everyday schedule like? For example, how many hours a day do you allocate to doing your readings/working on your thesis? Or the miscellaneous tasks, such as teaching or admin? What are you doing the rest of the time? Context: am a Master's student in the social sciences (psychology specifically). I'm trying to draw up a standard schedule to improve my productivity, and it would be great to hear from everyone to see what works for you all. (I try to allocate at least 2-3 hours every day just for research, but I can't help but feel it's inadequate... (sadface))
RESPONSE A: it's not much of a schedule, but basically 2-5 hours of actual focused work in 25/5 pomodoro chunks (mostly data analysis for me), 1 hr of misc meetings/calls (lab meeting, journal club, discussing various things with coworkers etc), 1 hr for reading my backlog of papers and/or writing. if i have classes, tack on another 1-5 hours for doing homework/lectures. i really struggle with working from home, so actual work tends towards 2 hours and not 5 lately, but i try to have \~6-7 hours of at least something combined.
RESPONSE B: Work 2-3 hours / day on research. Spend 13-16 hours / day alternating between goofing off and hating myself for not getting more research done Sleep 6-8 hours
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Current grad students: what is your everyday schedule like? For example, how many hours a day do you allocate to doing your readings/working on your thesis? Or the miscellaneous tasks, such as teaching or admin? What are you doing the rest of the time? Context: am a Master's student in the social sciences (psychology specifically). I'm trying to draw up a standard schedule to improve my productivity, and it would be great to hear from everyone to see what works for you all. (I try to allocate at least 2-3 hours every day just for research, but I can't help but feel it's inadequate... (sadface))
RESPONSE A: Work 2-3 hours / day on research. Spend 13-16 hours / day alternating between goofing off and hating myself for not getting more research done Sleep 6-8 hours
RESPONSE B: Wake up at 6 and exercise for 30 min. Work from 9-5, skipping lunch. In my 8 hours, I try to cycle through various priority tasks because I get bored very quickly. Take regular breaks throughout (what I'm doing now). The rest of my day is free. Sleep at 11 PM.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: threatening to quit altogether. I am my PI's first student, and two other students have already quit on top of misuse of university funds. If I leave, my PI will likely have to wait another 2.5 years for a student to graduate and produce any papers. That's 6 years of being a tenure-track professor with no students graduated or publications or presentations from their work. My advisor is incredibly vulnerable. 3. I could switch advisors and go with a non-thesis track degree. This would likely forfeit any publications with my current advisor or our collaborators. My entire thesis is based on a collaboration with a government agency, and our partner at that agency is on my committee. That committee member has been incredibly supportive and understanding, but I doubt I could publish with just them with our data. This option would also still result in a major delay in my graduation. 4. I could quit altogether. I am incredibly frustrated at the moment and thinking somewhat irrationally, but I feel like I am being abused. For my own mental health, I need to be done as soon as possible, and I am very close to prioritizing my own wellbeing over a piece of paper. Any insight would be much appreciated.
RESPONSE A: My two cents: Ask how long in advance your advisor and committee need the drafts prior to your defense. (My committee requested 2 weeks, my dissertation chair wanted it one or two weeks before that.) If you can get it to them on that timeline, do it, defend and be done. If not, you likely can defend and grad this summer. It seems as though defending in April would be tight if you don’t have things analyzed and drafted yet, but maybe not. I don’t know your project. If it takes an extra semester, I’d definitely do the extra semester rather than quit. It sounds like an unfortunate situation but it’s important to remember that sometimes things take longer than desired (sometimes for reasons that aren’t your fault) and it’s important for doc students to drive the train and set/meet the timeline markers well in advance of the deadlines so everyone can agree on them (preferably in writing).
RESPONSE B: When will your draft be submitted to your advisor? And how many drafts has your advisor already reviewed?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: understanding, but I doubt I could publish with just them with our data. This option would also still result in a major delay in my graduation. 4. I could quit altogether. I am incredibly frustrated at the moment and thinking somewhat irrationally, but I feel like I am being abused. For my own mental health, I need to be done as soon as possible, and I am very close to prioritizing my own wellbeing over a piece of paper. Any insight would be much appreciated.
RESPONSE A: When will your draft be submitted to your advisor? And how many drafts has your advisor already reviewed?
RESPONSE B: How many chapters are you planning? This can be very discipline-dependent, but it's February and you have 0 chapters completed. To be frank, it is unlikely you'll be ready to defend mid-April, whether your supervisor has time to review your work or not. If you were 90% finished the entire thing and just waiting on feedback, I think defending mid-April would still be tight. Do you have an option to switch to a part-time track and defend next semester? If you genuinely believe you can write an entire thesis (minus 90% of chapter one) in 6 weeks, then I would do that, but not attempt to defend right then. Just relax and start your job while your supervisor goes over it. The $1k (or whatever the part-time cost of that) is annoying, but at least you'll have the masters at the end of it, and it seems worth it so the last 3 years aren't a total waste. You'll also have a little more time to prepare for defense and chat with the others instead of being on high-alert maximum stress for the next two months (when you're already completely stressed out). Otherwise, I'd probably go with 4, quitting altogether. It's not what I'd probably suggest in other circumstances, but imo you'll burn less bridges leaving than bombing a defense before you leave. I'm also not sure why you care about publications if you're planning to quit academia? (I assume a total career shift is what you meant/intend with the job not caring about your degree). They're useless to you and shouldn't even be a concern.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: leave, my PI will likely have to wait another 2.5 years for a student to graduate and produce any papers. That's 6 years of being a tenure-track professor with no students graduated or publications or presentations from their work. My advisor is incredibly vulnerable. 3. I could switch advisors and go with a non-thesis track degree. This would likely forfeit any publications with my current advisor or our collaborators. My entire thesis is based on a collaboration with a government agency, and our partner at that agency is on my committee. That committee member has been incredibly supportive and understanding, but I doubt I could publish with just them with our data. This option would also still result in a major delay in my graduation. 4. I could quit altogether. I am incredibly frustrated at the moment and thinking somewhat irrationally, but I feel like I am being abused. For my own mental health, I need to be done as soon as possible, and I am very close to prioritizing my own wellbeing over a piece of paper. Any insight would be much appreciated.
RESPONSE A: You could try telling your advisor that you're thinking of quitting if they don't let you graduate this semester. $1000/semester seems like a lot, and the non-thesis option, while an option, will still delay your graduation. I'd talk to your department admin that you're already speaking to and tell them your plans, see if they can force your advisor's hand. Taking two and a half months to review two chapters seems ridiculous, and it sounds to me like they're just dragging you along and denying you funding so they can get more work done through you. I'm sorry this is happening, OP, but if you already have a job lined up that excites you and doesn't depend on your degree, this seems like the best option to save you money, time, and more importantly your mental health.
RESPONSE B: OP, do you have an advisory *committee*? Often when this happens in a PhD program, the student can turn to their faculty committee and see if the other faculty may be more supportive than the chair. If not, anyone else you can talk to whom you trust in your department? For advice.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 6 years of being a tenure-track professor with no students graduated or publications or presentations from their work. My advisor is incredibly vulnerable. 3. I could switch advisors and go with a non-thesis track degree. This would likely forfeit any publications with my current advisor or our collaborators. My entire thesis is based on a collaboration with a government agency, and our partner at that agency is on my committee. That committee member has been incredibly supportive and understanding, but I doubt I could publish with just them with our data. This option would also still result in a major delay in my graduation. 4. I could quit altogether. I am incredibly frustrated at the moment and thinking somewhat irrationally, but I feel like I am being abused. For my own mental health, I need to be done as soon as possible, and I am very close to prioritizing my own wellbeing over a piece of paper. Any insight would be much appreciated.
RESPONSE A: You could try telling your advisor that you're thinking of quitting if they don't let you graduate this semester. $1000/semester seems like a lot, and the non-thesis option, while an option, will still delay your graduation. I'd talk to your department admin that you're already speaking to and tell them your plans, see if they can force your advisor's hand. Taking two and a half months to review two chapters seems ridiculous, and it sounds to me like they're just dragging you along and denying you funding so they can get more work done through you. I'm sorry this is happening, OP, but if you already have a job lined up that excites you and doesn't depend on your degree, this seems like the best option to save you money, time, and more importantly your mental health.
RESPONSE B: You are talking about close to mid-february and you haven't even gotten close to a full draft of your entire thesis?? I had a full draft of my first three chapters by the december of the year before I defeneded, and I still barely defended on time. Good luck, but you need to re-evaluate your expectations based on the amount of work you have completed at this point.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Am i the only one who finds his PhD topic boring sometimes? I am in the library writing my thesis. I am in 3rd year of my PhD and should be able to finish it by next year. I am not sure what is going to happen after that. I feel bored of my topic and also not sure if i am so passionate about it. What would you suggest in such scenario? I don't want to give up my PhD and wish to do good work.
RESPONSE A: Topic and project fatigue is something everyone I know goes through. If writing is becoming a chore and you're worried about quality, take a few days off. Do a side project. Just goof off. Returning to your project after a break tends to give you a somewhat fresh perspective which can help jog your interest.
RESPONSE B: "If you don't hate your PhD at some point, you're not doing it properly" Best (PhD) advice I ever got - really got me through the dark days (months...)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Why do academics choose their profession? I've heard of academics who are not good teachers, or unavailable supervisors, or not interested in mentorship. I know that a substantive portion of academics are not great at research. I heard that the field is really competitive and political, and the money's not great. Then why do academics choose to be academics, i.e. what's the motivation or interest?
RESPONSE A: They feel like they fit in academia. Security in work.
RESPONSE B: I'm not sure where you're finding this trove of academics who are terrible at research. That's generally the motivation and the selection criteria for tenure track jobs at most universities. Mentorship, supervising, and teaching is a side job that gets tacked on for most people. (Caveat being liberal arts colleges that prioritize teaching & don't value research as much)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why do academics choose their profession? I've heard of academics who are not good teachers, or unavailable supervisors, or not interested in mentorship. I know that a substantive portion of academics are not great at research. I heard that the field is really competitive and political, and the money's not great. Then why do academics choose to be academics, i.e. what's the motivation or interest?
RESPONSE A: I mean, if you are asking specifically about people who are bad at and don't care about research, don't care about teaching, and aren't interested in students, then it kinda just seems like a loaded question you asked because you were mad at some professor. I don't know why that person is where they are, other than to say many people don't like where they've gotten in life, perhaps due to false expectations or changes over time. If you mean why aren't all professors interested in research... silly question, right? Interests vary, some are there to teach. If you mean why aren't all professors interested in teaching... silly question, right? Interests vary, some are there to research. If you mean "hey professor, what's your personal reason for teaching"-- I find it much more enjoyable to learn about and present a topic than to take practical action on it. I'm capable of both, as an anatomy instructor and practicing veterinarian, but I find most of my non-academic job is not as interesting as most of my academic job, although of course grading papers can be a chore. I also liked the idea of getting one foot back in the door (I was a veterinarian exclusively for 12 years or so) at a college so that I could get reduced cost of classes if I ever follow through with my little daydream of changing professions, as I really don't like being a veterinarian at all.
RESPONSE B: They feel like they fit in academia. Security in work.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: international students such superficial returns are the only way to get a decent life. Most international students in developing countries often have no other way to earn a living wage to support them their family in their home country, even with an MBA or a Masters. For eg here in Bangladesh, a starting salary for an MBA graduate is USD 250 per month while food costs per person are 140 USD per month and these people have to support a wife, kids etc. So my question is, why do academics have such hatred for people who take on a PhD or become an academic for "superficial" purposes like earning money to support themselves, their family, to immigrate or any other tangible return?
RESPONSE A: This attitude exists in part because there are so many better ways to make more money in the US (for US citizens) than doing a PhD. So from their perspective it seems like one should only do a PhD if you really love it, because otherwise it is a stressful, time-consuming thing that does not pay so well.
RESPONSE B: I think that strongly depends on the academic culture in different countries. The way I understand it, a PhD in the US is basically useless on the job market, unless you want follow a career in academia. As a consequence, not so many Americans get a PhD, and the ones who do do it either for pleasure or enlightenment or because they want to stay in academia. In other countries, a PhD opens completely different possibilities on the job market that are inaccessible without a PhD. As consequence, a lot more people get a PhD, and a larger fraction has no intention of staying in academia, but that is considered "normal" because these PhD programs train people also for that job market outside of academia. This seems to be the case in Bangladesh, but it is similar for instance in Germany (my home country), where certain (high-paying) jobs in industry require a PhD degree. I might be wrong here, but I think the situation in the US is a bit extraordinary. If you go to EU, nobody will tell you that getting a PhD to get a high-paying job is wrong. Because that's what it's for (in part). So don't take it too seriously what people say on the internet.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: so please don't take my question to be a loaded one or take offence to it since its not my intention. Anyways, the thing is, I have seen a lot of posts on /r/AskAcademia and elsewhere on the internet (like Quora) that bluntly tells people to get out of Academia if they do not love their subject and are doing their PhD for some other return like immigration, getting money to feed their families etc. I have even seen in a few posts where academics say that these people are being "absolutely immoral, are a fraud and that they are being unfair to the subject, themselves and their students." And that they "should get out of academia". The words in quotations were actually what was said. I have seen similar words and views from academics among a wide range of social media. You have to keep in mind that for most other jobs wanting such "superficial returns" is seen as acceptable. Not only that, for international students such superficial returns are the only way to get a decent life. Most international students in developing countries often have no other way to earn a living wage to support them their family in their home country, even with an MBA or a Masters. For eg here in Bangladesh, a starting salary for an MBA graduate is USD 250 per month while food costs per person are 140 USD per month and these people have to support a wife, kids etc. So my question is, why do academics have such hatred for people who take on a PhD or become an academic for "superficial" purposes like earning money to support themselves, their family, to immigrate or any other tangible return?
RESPONSE A: This attitude exists in part because there are so many better ways to make more money in the US (for US citizens) than doing a PhD. So from their perspective it seems like one should only do a PhD if you really love it, because otherwise it is a stressful, time-consuming thing that does not pay so well.
RESPONSE B: People are critical of “sellouts” in most creative fields. That, and a PhD is rarely the most efficient path to a stable income. Those motivated mainly by money are likely to deviate from the academic track soonest.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: earn a living wage to support them their family in their home country, even with an MBA or a Masters. For eg here in Bangladesh, a starting salary for an MBA graduate is USD 250 per month while food costs per person are 140 USD per month and these people have to support a wife, kids etc. So my question is, why do academics have such hatred for people who take on a PhD or become an academic for "superficial" purposes like earning money to support themselves, their family, to immigrate or any other tangible return?
RESPONSE A: This attitude exists in part because there are so many better ways to make more money in the US (for US citizens) than doing a PhD. So from their perspective it seems like one should only do a PhD if you really love it, because otherwise it is a stressful, time-consuming thing that does not pay so well.
RESPONSE B: In the humanities, there is the issue of sensational or "hot" lines of inquiry, often of a politicized nature, to which a scholar primarily interested in financial returns, especially quick ones, might therefore be attracted, and pursuit of which by researchers who don't truly love their subject matter--and thus might not care deeply about the ultimate intellectual consequences of their actions--can be detrimental to the reputation and future prospects of entire fields and subfields. Of course, only individuals themselves can know what motivates them. Financial interests and intellectual interests are hardly mutually incompatible--it seems likely that no human has ever lived who didn't have both! Most academics are at least in part doing it for the money, whatever they may tell themselves or others. But generally speaking, there are way better ways to make money than academia, *especially* humanities academia, even for someone with a purely mercenary approach to the latter. I think that what most of the people making the statements you describe are really trying to get at is the idea, which may or may not be well founded, that unless a person is really passionate about a subject, that person is going to become discouraged, disillusioned, and burned out before having significant success of any kind. It's a way of suggesting that the person will be made happier by other pursuits.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: to immigrate or any other tangible return?
RESPONSE A: I've not seen a lot of malice towards people who do PhDs who aren't in it for a love of the subject/academia. I have seen (and said to people myself) a lot of people advising that you only do a PhD if you love the subject **or** if it is necessary for your future goals. And that is because PhDs are hard, and don't come with the same financial compensation that other careers right after undergrad might, and so you need *something* to get you through the hard times, whether is is passion or the pursuit of something more. Another complaint I do see (more at the masters level where it is more prevalent) is people who have to do group work as part of their assessment, and they have supposedly found people who have joined the grad program for "superficial" reasons - to use your term - not to work as hard/be less able/contribute less, which would be understandably frustrating if that is their experience. You do see one or two people occasionally who post about how when they joined PhD programs they thought they'd be surrounded by the greatest thinking minds with whom to have earth shattering discussions, who were then deeply disappointed that their fellow students dared spend part of their social time discussing such mundane things as their weekend plans and their favourite TV shows, as opposed to how best solve all the world's ills. But those people have an unbelievable sense of self importance and should be ignored.
RESPONSE B: I may be wrong, but I think the anger at these students comes from the perception that they lied about their passion to get into the program. Departments can only support so many students, and professors take a risk with each one, hoping they will go above and beyond program requirements to drive a seminal discovery or big publication in their field. Some PhD programs have no check in place to prevent people from joining just to get a free masters. Maybe it's an outdated system, but I think one of the defining features of academia is a sort of unreasonable optimism towards wrangling hard problems despite the low payoff. That attitude is expected of anyone applying. Academic jobs are not normal jobs.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: or any other tangible return?
RESPONSE A: I've never encountered the kind of anger you describe, I and my colleagues all recognise that you need to earn and there's nothing wrong with money being a factor in your decisions. I do think that anyone who does a PhD for the money is a fool, but that's because the success rate of PhD applicants getting through to permanent academic positions is appallingly low. In some disciplines (mainly STEM) you can easily transition into industry, but in most cases you'd be a lot better off if you'd spent the time getting your PhD in industry. So I've no dislike for people entering a PhD for financial reasons, but I think that 9 times out of 10 it's a stupid reason.
RESPONSE B: I've not seen a lot of malice towards people who do PhDs who aren't in it for a love of the subject/academia. I have seen (and said to people myself) a lot of people advising that you only do a PhD if you love the subject **or** if it is necessary for your future goals. And that is because PhDs are hard, and don't come with the same financial compensation that other careers right after undergrad might, and so you need *something* to get you through the hard times, whether is is passion or the pursuit of something more. Another complaint I do see (more at the masters level where it is more prevalent) is people who have to do group work as part of their assessment, and they have supposedly found people who have joined the grad program for "superficial" reasons - to use your term - not to work as hard/be less able/contribute less, which would be understandably frustrating if that is their experience. You do see one or two people occasionally who post about how when they joined PhD programs they thought they'd be surrounded by the greatest thinking minds with whom to have earth shattering discussions, who were then deeply disappointed that their fellow students dared spend part of their social time discussing such mundane things as their weekend plans and their favourite TV shows, as opposed to how best solve all the world's ills. But those people have an unbelievable sense of self importance and should be ignored.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: strictly for academic purposes. I have to say, I admire the courage people have in putting so much of themselves out there and enjoy learning how multidimensional people are. And it's also great for increasing awareness and visibility on a number of issues which are super important and necessary. But there are times where I think certain things are a bit cringe and may be best left not in the public space. My question is: people of academic Twitter - why do you post such personal information and are you afraid of potential negative consequences? Are you concerned it might affect others perception of you in a negative way or your employment prospects? Or has doing this already affected you negatively in some way? Please know these questions come from a place of admiration and curiosity.
RESPONSE A: Zero chance I would ever join my professional and personal lives, in fact I strive to keep them entirely walled off from eachother. I have no desire to 'bring my whole self to work' - no problem with people doing that, but not for me.
RESPONSE B: As an academic you have to sell yourself for attention. So being a pseudo-influencer who doesn't just post "look at my new paper" every few months but also shares other things comes quite naturally as it's simply beneficial to stay active and there's only so much work related stuff you can share, unless you actually want to discuss science in Twitter regularly. I actually observed in myself that while I was a PhD student I tried harder to be active on Twitter because I considered it a good networking tool. Many people in my field are active on there and you can directly chat them up. It's more fun when it's not just with but also for example exchanging receipts for cooking or whatever. I've heard (and said) the phrase "Oh, I know you from Twitter!" a few times. Now that I'm in Industry I actually considered taking my real name off my account again (or even delete it). I also rarely post anymore. There's no more need to advertise myself, I'm comfortably sitting in my department and don't really need to attract a lot of outside attention. So spending my time there, interacting with people that are now outside my field of work suddenly appears a lot less attractive, at least with my clear name.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Academic Twitter users: why do you post personal stories? I'm in a STEM discipline and follow academics on twitter from a range of different fields. I've noticed that some people often post things I would consider to be private or highly personal on their professional accounts, while others keep their accounts strictly for academic purposes. I have to say, I admire the courage people have in putting so much of themselves out there and enjoy learning how multidimensional people are. And it's also great for increasing awareness and visibility on a number of issues which are super important and necessary. But there are times where I think certain things are a bit cringe and may be best left not in the public space. My question is: people of academic Twitter - why do you post such personal information and are you afraid of potential negative consequences? Are you concerned it might affect others perception of you in a negative way or your employment prospects? Or has doing this already affected you negatively in some way? Please know these questions come from a place of admiration and curiosity.
RESPONSE A: Zero chance I would ever join my professional and personal lives, in fact I strive to keep them entirely walled off from eachother. I have no desire to 'bring my whole self to work' - no problem with people doing that, but not for me.
RESPONSE B: Twitter's a social media platform for discussing a wide range of topics. I'm of the opinion that your personal and professional values as an academic should align, so my academic research and my union work and my non-work interests all make up a multifaceted and coherent picture of me on Twitter. Purely work focused accounts look weird to me, like they've lost their way to LinkedIn.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Academic Twitter users: why do you post personal stories? I'm in a STEM discipline and follow academics on twitter from a range of different fields. I've noticed that some people often post things I would consider to be private or highly personal on their professional accounts, while others keep their accounts strictly for academic purposes. I have to say, I admire the courage people have in putting so much of themselves out there and enjoy learning how multidimensional people are. And it's also great for increasing awareness and visibility on a number of issues which are super important and necessary. But there are times where I think certain things are a bit cringe and may be best left not in the public space. My question is: people of academic Twitter - why do you post such personal information and are you afraid of potential negative consequences? Are you concerned it might affect others perception of you in a negative way or your employment prospects? Or has doing this already affected you negatively in some way? Please know these questions come from a place of admiration and curiosity.
RESPONSE A: A lot of people is trying really hard to self- promote on Twitter. Some STEM colleagues post several times a day. I wonder if they still have time left for doing the actual research they preach about…
RESPONSE B: I share a lot about what happened to me and what I go through because people really don't understand a lot of the struggles people from marginalized groups have in academia or with my conditions in general. More people need to talk about them both for the sake of awareness and also because representation matters. Honestly, I'm not afraid of negative repercussions because I'm to the point in my life that if people can't handle me at my lows, they don't deserve to be anywhere near me at my best. Honestly, most of the attention I've gotten from anyone outside of the scene of where the most recent long string of abuse happened has been positive. As far as posting about other interests and sharing memes, I'm more than the sum of my academic journey.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: discipline and follow academics on twitter from a range of different fields. I've noticed that some people often post things I would consider to be private or highly personal on their professional accounts, while others keep their accounts strictly for academic purposes. I have to say, I admire the courage people have in putting so much of themselves out there and enjoy learning how multidimensional people are. And it's also great for increasing awareness and visibility on a number of issues which are super important and necessary. But there are times where I think certain things are a bit cringe and may be best left not in the public space. My question is: people of academic Twitter - why do you post such personal information and are you afraid of potential negative consequences? Are you concerned it might affect others perception of you in a negative way or your employment prospects? Or has doing this already affected you negatively in some way? Please know these questions come from a place of admiration and curiosity.
RESPONSE A: > things I would consider to be private or highly personal Any chance that your perception of what is highly personal is out of step with the rest of society? Serious question. What counts as personal information differs between cultures, generations, communities, and individuals themselves. I'm definitely on the extremely reticent end for cultural and personal reasons (on accounts attached to my name, anyway), and if anything, it has more negative professional consequences than the reverse: people perceive me as aloof and it's harder for me to build rapport with others.
RESPONSE B: I share a lot about what happened to me and what I go through because people really don't understand a lot of the struggles people from marginalized groups have in academia or with my conditions in general. More people need to talk about them both for the sake of awareness and also because representation matters. Honestly, I'm not afraid of negative repercussions because I'm to the point in my life that if people can't handle me at my lows, they don't deserve to be anywhere near me at my best. Honestly, most of the attention I've gotten from anyone outside of the scene of where the most recent long string of abuse happened has been positive. As far as posting about other interests and sharing memes, I'm more than the sum of my academic journey.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Academic Twitter users: why do you post personal stories? I'm in a STEM discipline and follow academics on twitter from a range of different fields. I've noticed that some people often post things I would consider to be private or highly personal on their professional accounts, while others keep their accounts strictly for academic purposes. I have to say, I admire the courage people have in putting so much of themselves out there and enjoy learning how multidimensional people are. And it's also great for increasing awareness and visibility on a number of issues which are super important and necessary. But there are times where I think certain things are a bit cringe and may be best left not in the public space. My question is: people of academic Twitter - why do you post such personal information and are you afraid of potential negative consequences? Are you concerned it might affect others perception of you in a negative way or your employment prospects? Or has doing this already affected you negatively in some way? Please know these questions come from a place of admiration and curiosity.
RESPONSE A: Most of those private stories have to do with their professional lives actually: denied tenure/job impacts their private life, having to move for a job impacts their family and friends. Sometimes I wonder if it would negatively impact me if I share something but unless I would attack a specific University/person, I don't think it is problematic.
RESPONSE B: > things I would consider to be private or highly personal Any chance that your perception of what is highly personal is out of step with the rest of society? Serious question. What counts as personal information differs between cultures, generations, communities, and individuals themselves. I'm definitely on the extremely reticent end for cultural and personal reasons (on accounts attached to my name, anyway), and if anything, it has more negative professional consequences than the reverse: people perceive me as aloof and it's harder for me to build rapport with others.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why do academics take so long to respond to email? I’ve noticed academics take much longer to respond to email than business people. At first I found it infuriating, but now I’m mostly curious as to what is going on. A few of my professor friends tell me they intentionally never respond to email the same day, even if they aren’t busy - and will even send a delayed response set for as much as 1-3 weeks later in order to not appear accessible. Is this phenomenon wide spread or culturally accepted within academia?
RESPONSE A: We're busy as hell and the separate components our work can be fairly varied and unrelated. Most of my day I'm involved in work that's easily derailed by distractions (eg. writing or class prep, grant proposals, etc), and it takes me a long time to get back into it after I've gone to deal with something completely unrelated, like a student email or media request or an administrative issue about next semester's course. So we compartmentalize. Also, yes. Sometimes we have to appear less accessible. I have made the mistake in the past where students have imagined that they have access to me 24/7 and think it's appropriate to make the most outrageous demands of me and my time. I have office hours; I have a lot of other work to do; you're not my only student. Also, if the answers are easily googleable and/or found in the syllabus, I'm not your search service.
RESPONSE B: I put an “embargo” on student emails. You’re going to wait a business day. My colleagues will get responses within a couple of hours. My turn: Why do you expect immediacy? Are there other outlets or methods of reaching your professor?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why do academics take so long to respond to email? I’ve noticed academics take much longer to respond to email than business people. At first I found it infuriating, but now I’m mostly curious as to what is going on. A few of my professor friends tell me they intentionally never respond to email the same day, even if they aren’t busy - and will even send a delayed response set for as much as 1-3 weeks later in order to not appear accessible. Is this phenomenon wide spread or culturally accepted within academia?
RESPONSE A: We're busy as hell and the separate components our work can be fairly varied and unrelated. Most of my day I'm involved in work that's easily derailed by distractions (eg. writing or class prep, grant proposals, etc), and it takes me a long time to get back into it after I've gone to deal with something completely unrelated, like a student email or media request or an administrative issue about next semester's course. So we compartmentalize. Also, yes. Sometimes we have to appear less accessible. I have made the mistake in the past where students have imagined that they have access to me 24/7 and think it's appropriate to make the most outrageous demands of me and my time. I have office hours; I have a lot of other work to do; you're not my only student. Also, if the answers are easily googleable and/or found in the syllabus, I'm not your search service.
RESPONSE B: people who try to spend as much of their day writing tend to take written communication more seriously than those who don't
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why do academics take so long to respond to email? I’ve noticed academics take much longer to respond to email than business people. At first I found it infuriating, but now I’m mostly curious as to what is going on. A few of my professor friends tell me they intentionally never respond to email the same day, even if they aren’t busy - and will even send a delayed response set for as much as 1-3 weeks later in order to not appear accessible. Is this phenomenon wide spread or culturally accepted within academia?
RESPONSE A: We're busy as hell and the separate components our work can be fairly varied and unrelated. Most of my day I'm involved in work that's easily derailed by distractions (eg. writing or class prep, grant proposals, etc), and it takes me a long time to get back into it after I've gone to deal with something completely unrelated, like a student email or media request or an administrative issue about next semester's course. So we compartmentalize. Also, yes. Sometimes we have to appear less accessible. I have made the mistake in the past where students have imagined that they have access to me 24/7 and think it's appropriate to make the most outrageous demands of me and my time. I have office hours; I have a lot of other work to do; you're not my only student. Also, if the answers are easily googleable and/or found in the syllabus, I'm not your search service.
RESPONSE B: There's a number of reasons, depending on what the email is about. It could be that answers are not obvious. It could be a busy time. It could be that you are emailing out of the blue and therefore nor prioritized. It could be that your question or request could be answered by a Google search or by reading the paper you're asking about. It could be that answering to the dozens of internship inquiry by a polite no mostly shows that they do answer emails, which incites more emails... Aldo, comparing to businesses, well, in many cases, businesses answer fast because they have a financial incentive, while academics don't have one (maybe even no incentive at all).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why do academics take so long to respond to email? I’ve noticed academics take much longer to respond to email than business people. At first I found it infuriating, but now I’m mostly curious as to what is going on. A few of my professor friends tell me they intentionally never respond to email the same day, even if they aren’t busy - and will even send a delayed response set for as much as 1-3 weeks later in order to not appear accessible. Is this phenomenon wide spread or culturally accepted within academia?
RESPONSE A: I'm not sure what "business people" you are contacting, but in my experience it is almost impossible to reliably get email responses back from business owners. Also, my husband is a "business person" and I know for a fact he doesn't respond to ever email with the same sense of urgency. Some emails demand a same day response while others don't. If a student or a colleague needs to know something ASAP, I will respond within a couple of hours. If a student emails me a month before the semester ends to ask about their final grade, I will take my sweet old time.
RESPONSE B: Everybody says here they are just busy. Fair enough, but in the industry people are super busy too, and my experiences there were way better in the speed with which people replied to e-mails.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How can I (or should I) correct my advisor on grammar? My advisor makes some basic grammar mistakes when writing manuscripts, and when I edit these mistakes, he reverts my edits to the wrong version. For example, he'll use constructions like "this cause block the result", instead of "this cause *blocks* the result", or "this breakthrough have enabled these results" instead of "this breakthrough *has* enabled these results". I've been working with him for over a year, and it drives me nuts- these are obviously grammar mistakes! (He is a native English speaker, surprisingly). How can I convince him to accept the changes I make to his basic grammar errors? Or should I not fight this battle and wait to challenge him on more important things?
RESPONSE A: Don't use track changes for those fixes. Just edit directly. If asked about any specific change (probably won't happen), just say you noticed a "typo" and fixed it.
RESPONSE B: Why are you editing his manuscripts? Is this a project both your names are going to be on? If it is just him, it doesn’t matter, if it is also you, you might need to highlighter the problem word and comment “agreement” or “wrong case” to make him hyperaware of it and yet responsible for fixing it
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: handle this situation. Any advice would be fantastic. I just need some help in doing this. People have mentioned that lacking a letter from my advisor won't kill my application, but I need to address it in the correct way. Thanks in advance.
RESPONSE A: Don't talk about it. I've never addressed why I do not have a reference letter from a PI. People do not ask me. When I left my first lab, I first found a PI at another university who would take me on as their student and then I applied to the department. I'm not sure your field, but in mine a PI acceptance is the equivalent of the department acceptance (the second is actually contingent on the first, we don't do rotations). Find yourself a PI that will take you, tread lightly if they ask you questions, but never, never freely discuss your former PI with anyone. Let someone form a wonderful opinion of you before you bring in your baggage. Like I have said in your previous post. I am living proof that you do not have to have an advisor write you a letter of recommendation for anything. I have no graduate mentor out of two programs to vouch for me. I have successfully navigated switching programs and finding a highly competitive postdoc programs with extremely formal entry requirements. People who say it's mandatory to address honestly, do not know what they're talking about.
RESPONSE B: I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: - /r/gradschool] [How can I address leaving my old program due to a toxic and unsupportive advisor when I reapply for new programs this fall? \[x-post: \/r\/AskAcademia\] [](#footer)*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))* [](#bot)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do you deal with presentation anxiety. Hello everyone, I am having a hard time with anxiety before scientific presentations. This anxiety feeling along with the fear of failing or do not perform very well keep me blocked, stuck and I can't progress. Do you have any advice to deal with these issues?
RESPONSE A: First, I'll agree with everyone that practice makes perfect. I'll add a bit of advice that worked well for me. I used to always panic, as normally presentations were a Big Deal. No matter how casual the circumstances, i always let my imposter syndrome and anxiety spin the importance of the talk way out of control. I'd make my first mistake, and everything fell to pieces after. The thing is though, talks really aren't that big of a deal for the vast majority of people in the audience. Really think about it. How many talks do you remember when you were an attendee? Maybe bits and pieces, but nothing substantial. I realized that I was blowing things way out of proportion. Why should I care that much if no one else did? That mindset helped me overcome the problems that practice alone couldn't solve.
RESPONSE B: Give more low-stakes talks. See if you can put together a small journal club of peers and just do a rotation where each of you gives a presentation each week while the others critique it and then repeat that as much as you can.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do you deal with presentation anxiety. Hello everyone, I am having a hard time with anxiety before scientific presentations. This anxiety feeling along with the fear of failing or do not perform very well keep me blocked, stuck and I can't progress. Do you have any advice to deal with these issues?
RESPONSE A: Know your subject matter and what questions the audience will ask as much as possible. Not in Academia but I did corporate training for about 20 years from plant floor maintenance software to management tools to analyze data. Knowing my audience was critical to being able to deliver targeted information.
RESPONSE B: First, I'll agree with everyone that practice makes perfect. I'll add a bit of advice that worked well for me. I used to always panic, as normally presentations were a Big Deal. No matter how casual the circumstances, i always let my imposter syndrome and anxiety spin the importance of the talk way out of control. I'd make my first mistake, and everything fell to pieces after. The thing is though, talks really aren't that big of a deal for the vast majority of people in the audience. Really think about it. How many talks do you remember when you were an attendee? Maybe bits and pieces, but nothing substantial. I realized that I was blowing things way out of proportion. Why should I care that much if no one else did? That mindset helped me overcome the problems that practice alone couldn't solve.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do you deal with presentation anxiety. Hello everyone, I am having a hard time with anxiety before scientific presentations. This anxiety feeling along with the fear of failing or do not perform very well keep me blocked, stuck and I can't progress. Do you have any advice to deal with these issues?
RESPONSE A: Agree with the others. Just keep doing it. After a while it becomes much easier
RESPONSE B: First, I'll agree with everyone that practice makes perfect. I'll add a bit of advice that worked well for me. I used to always panic, as normally presentations were a Big Deal. No matter how casual the circumstances, i always let my imposter syndrome and anxiety spin the importance of the talk way out of control. I'd make my first mistake, and everything fell to pieces after. The thing is though, talks really aren't that big of a deal for the vast majority of people in the audience. Really think about it. How many talks do you remember when you were an attendee? Maybe bits and pieces, but nothing substantial. I realized that I was blowing things way out of proportion. Why should I care that much if no one else did? That mindset helped me overcome the problems that practice alone couldn't solve.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do you deal with presentation anxiety. Hello everyone, I am having a hard time with anxiety before scientific presentations. This anxiety feeling along with the fear of failing or do not perform very well keep me blocked, stuck and I can't progress. Do you have any advice to deal with these issues?
RESPONSE A: Know your subject matter and what questions the audience will ask as much as possible. Not in Academia but I did corporate training for about 20 years from plant floor maintenance software to management tools to analyze data. Knowing my audience was critical to being able to deliver targeted information.
RESPONSE B: If you normally drink coffee, wait until after your presentation. Caffeine and anxiety have similar physical symptoms, so when you have both, it's like super mega anxiety.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do you deal with presentation anxiety. Hello everyone, I am having a hard time with anxiety before scientific presentations. This anxiety feeling along with the fear of failing or do not perform very well keep me blocked, stuck and I can't progress. Do you have any advice to deal with these issues?
RESPONSE A: If you normally drink coffee, wait until after your presentation. Caffeine and anxiety have similar physical symptoms, so when you have both, it's like super mega anxiety.
RESPONSE B: Agree with the others. Just keep doing it. After a while it becomes much easier
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: , yet they never ask questions, even if the teacher asks if there are any. Why don't they ask questions? Many times, they ultimately end up doing poorly on quizzes and exams.
RESPONSE A: I think it's more that they don't know that they don't know. The one thing that consistently surprisies me about my students is the level of "unknown unknowns." I teach history and writing to undergrads. They assume the things I want them to understand are simple, transparent, and straightforward, and their understandings of those things end up as such. They approach history as simply a set of information to memorize, and not as knowledge and understanding of events, the interconnections between them, and the multiple interpretations possible given the evidence. It frequently takes bombing a test before they start to understand that they need to think a whole lot deeper about the material. If you really boil it down, however, I think a case can be made that education is a matter of reducing the students' unknown unknowns. If you teach them nothing else, teach them that there is a vast universe out there that they do not know.
RESPONSE B: Three reasons (that may overlap somewhat): 1) Not knowing what question to ask. If you don't understand something, it can be hard to formulate a question that makes sense and will increase your understanding. That's why so many questions you do hear in a classroom are garbled and make no sense, and as a consequence often the teacher fails to understand what the student is missing, or the teacher may just subtly scold them for asking a poorly-formed question. 2) Knowledge that further discussion isn't going to help anything. It may be that the teacher is not good at explaining things in different ways, or hat the concepts being taught are sufficiently complex that they can't be absorbed in a single sitting/lecture, but require further study. In this case, to ask the teacher to repeat his or herself is just wasting time that could be spent covering more material. 3) Maintenance of an image of a good, smart student. Students want to appear to be good and smart in the hopes that teachers will grade them higher. This often works, though less often in STEM fields.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: In a classroom, (especially science, engineering and mathematics), there are students that clearly don't understand the material, yet they never ask questions, even if the teacher asks if there are any. Why don't they ask questions? Many times, they ultimately end up doing poorly on quizzes and exams.
RESPONSE A: Because they don't care.
RESPONSE B: Three reasons (that may overlap somewhat): 1) Not knowing what question to ask. If you don't understand something, it can be hard to formulate a question that makes sense and will increase your understanding. That's why so many questions you do hear in a classroom are garbled and make no sense, and as a consequence often the teacher fails to understand what the student is missing, or the teacher may just subtly scold them for asking a poorly-formed question. 2) Knowledge that further discussion isn't going to help anything. It may be that the teacher is not good at explaining things in different ways, or hat the concepts being taught are sufficiently complex that they can't be absorbed in a single sitting/lecture, but require further study. In this case, to ask the teacher to repeat his or herself is just wasting time that could be spent covering more material. 3) Maintenance of an image of a good, smart student. Students want to appear to be good and smart in the hopes that teachers will grade them higher. This often works, though less often in STEM fields.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: In a classroom, (especially science, engineering and mathematics), there are students that clearly don't understand the material, yet they never ask questions, even if the teacher asks if there are any. Why don't they ask questions? Many times, they ultimately end up doing poorly on quizzes and exams.
RESPONSE A: I think it's more that they don't know that they don't know. The one thing that consistently surprisies me about my students is the level of "unknown unknowns." I teach history and writing to undergrads. They assume the things I want them to understand are simple, transparent, and straightforward, and their understandings of those things end up as such. They approach history as simply a set of information to memorize, and not as knowledge and understanding of events, the interconnections between them, and the multiple interpretations possible given the evidence. It frequently takes bombing a test before they start to understand that they need to think a whole lot deeper about the material. If you really boil it down, however, I think a case can be made that education is a matter of reducing the students' unknown unknowns. If you teach them nothing else, teach them that there is a vast universe out there that they do not know.
RESPONSE B: Because they don't care.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: In a classroom, (especially science, engineering and mathematics), there are students that clearly don't understand the material, yet they never ask questions, even if the teacher asks if there are any. Why don't they ask questions? Many times, they ultimately end up doing poorly on quizzes and exams.
RESPONSE A: Grad student here, so no quizzes and very few exams. When I feel like I'm not on top of the material and my question wouldn't benefit the whole class/would take it off on a tangent, I either go to office hours, e-mail my question, or (most often) compare notes with my friends afterwards. The main thing is, though, that no reasonable questions remain unasked.
RESPONSE B: By the time an instructor asks, "Are there any questions?" the lesson is well over. The kids who *did* get it are ready to go, and the kids who *didn't* get it don't want everyone getting annoyed at their question. One thing I did in my teaching was to make a lottery of names the first day of class. I started teaching and said something basic, like "What's an example of a single-celled organism?" *Crickets* "Come on, someone knows an answer. Just say something!" *Crickets* "Well, I guess I'll have to pull a name!" *Walks over to the cup of names and pulls a slip,* "Ashley! What's an example of a single-celled organism?" It only took three draws out of the "lottery" before people starting shouting answers and asking questions. They didn't want to be directly put on the spot, but knowing other people in the class are sometimes wrong helps them feel more confident. Granted, this works in smaller classrooms. I don't know how to overcome it in a 700 person class.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: In a classroom, (especially science, engineering and mathematics), there are students that clearly don't understand the material, yet they never ask questions, even if the teacher asks if there are any. Why don't they ask questions? Many times, they ultimately end up doing poorly on quizzes and exams.
RESPONSE A: By the time an instructor asks, "Are there any questions?" the lesson is well over. The kids who *did* get it are ready to go, and the kids who *didn't* get it don't want everyone getting annoyed at their question. One thing I did in my teaching was to make a lottery of names the first day of class. I started teaching and said something basic, like "What's an example of a single-celled organism?" *Crickets* "Come on, someone knows an answer. Just say something!" *Crickets* "Well, I guess I'll have to pull a name!" *Walks over to the cup of names and pulls a slip,* "Ashley! What's an example of a single-celled organism?" It only took three draws out of the "lottery" before people starting shouting answers and asking questions. They didn't want to be directly put on the spot, but knowing other people in the class are sometimes wrong helps them feel more confident. Granted, this works in smaller classrooms. I don't know how to overcome it in a 700 person class.
RESPONSE B: Because they don't care.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: If a university has university-wide accreditation, does it matter if the program for a student's major doesn't have an additional accreditation? My daughter's current first choice for her university studies is part of our state universities system, and is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCAHLC). However, I've noticed that some of the programs there also have a separate form of accreditation -- but this is not the case for her two main areas of interest -- biology and physics. She's considering majoring in biology and minoring in physics, and also aims to go for her doctorate and be a researcher, possibly in genetics or microbiology. Does anybody know how important the individual program accreditation is, in a state university with university-wide accreditation?
RESPONSE A: Only certain fields have stand-alone accreditation; most do not. So you will see "ACS Chemistry" as a major at some schools, all legit nursing and education programs are accredited, but the vast majority of majors/programs are not, biology and physics included. As long as you're not in a pre-professional field or one with stand-alone accreditation the gold standard is simply "regional" accreditation for the entire institution, as with the HLC.
RESPONSE B: Biology has ASBMB that covers some of it and does certify programs. Physics has APS, but I don't think they do degree certifications. A quick google looks like a lot of physics is covered under ABET.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it possible to travel/work remotely as a Computer Science ph.d. student? I was considering if I should try to get a Computer Science ph.d. after my master's degree. However, I also want to travel (while still working 40 hours a week on the Ph.d.) ​ **So my question:** * Do you think it would be possible to do a Ph.d. while traveling? Kind of like doing a ph.d. while being a digital nomad?
RESPONSE A: I highly don't advise doing so. Certainly for the first 2 years. You are going to need to have good relationships with your classmates, you will be asking them for letters throughout your career, they should know you and be willing to interrupt their busy schedule to do this without hesitation. Also, about 50% of doctoral students fail. It's harder to fail if you are there. The downside is way larger than the upside.
RESPONSE B: I do it. But I only have a year or so left until I defend and my funding comes externally. I’m a unique case but it is possible. Edit (more to add): I traveled during the fall and worked remotely from different places for 2–4 weeks each. If you can arrange it, i’d recommend it. I presented at a IEEE conference, attended 3 workshops, and had at least weekly meetings with my co-advisors individually, all from Airbnb’s.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: my department is losing faculty, should i be worried? Hi folks, I'm in CS department at an R1 institution. Just this year alone, my dept has lost four faculty (3 assistant professors and 1 full professor) tenure line faculty. Should I be concerned? 2 junior faculty left for research positions in the industry, 1 junior faculty is leaving for a national lab to start a new group Senior faculty left for another academic institution that's slightly more ranked or reputed. My immediate concern is I'm a new junior faculty. Losing this many of my peers feels bad like there is less support system than before. Less junior people who are in the same boat as me (seeking tenure) so less friends of people share stuff within the department. There are still 4-5 junior faculty and my department is planning to hire but just feels bad Should I also try to go to another department where there are more junior faculty? What are some things I should think about? Should I be worried? Thanks in advance for any wisdom.
RESPONSE A: > The rats are leaving the ship, should I be worried? Depends on why the rats are leaving ... is the ship starting to make water? Sounds like they're leaving for greener pastures ... if you don't know who the sucker is, it's you!
RESPONSE B: At the very least this means you shouldn't have too many worries about getting tenure. Universities are notorious for underpaying CS and EE faculty and getting them poached. The trend is only likely to continue in the future as companies are still fighting tooth and nail for elite talent.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: m in CS department at an R1 institution. Just this year alone, my dept has lost four faculty (3 assistant professors and 1 full professor) tenure line faculty. Should I be concerned? 2 junior faculty left for research positions in the industry, 1 junior faculty is leaving for a national lab to start a new group Senior faculty left for another academic institution that's slightly more ranked or reputed. My immediate concern is I'm a new junior faculty. Losing this many of my peers feels bad like there is less support system than before. Less junior people who are in the same boat as me (seeking tenure) so less friends of people share stuff within the department. There are still 4-5 junior faculty and my department is planning to hire but just feels bad Should I also try to go to another department where there are more junior faculty? What are some things I should think about? Should I be worried? Thanks in advance for any wisdom.
RESPONSE A: You are overthinking this. It is extremely normal in CS departments in R1. Especially now that even senior folks can jump ship to other places and make a lot more money. I moved at the cusp of assistant/associate and received a 40% raise. That's just how you do it. My prior department filled my line the next year.
RESPONSE B: Speaking from the other side (I work in tech research) - the job market went to shit on the employer side. It's suddenly become really hard for us to hire researchers. There's the Great Resignation, but there's also the fact that everyone wants us now because 1) we're at the cusp of some shifts in the industry; competing in the metaverse and Web3 and blockchain and all that takes research and 2) a lot of companies made some very public fuckups that could've been avoided with better research. So. We are paying insane amounts of money to attract people to our jobs. Seriously, the market is ridiculous right now. Some of the offers I've seen...! We've also had to raise salaries of all of our existing staff to stop hemorrhaging people to our competitors, who are offering even more insane packages than we are. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with your department.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is that even possible? hi! So I am writing a paper, overall I see progress but it's not ready yet for submission. I got a bit lost in details so I asked my advisors to do an intermediate review. One of them recommended: review your own paper, as if I didn't write it. He recommended to look at it as if I am not an expert in this field, and as if I am looking with it with a fresh view. To what extent is that even possible? Do you guys do this, if yes how? My point is, we always have our own subconscious and conscious mindset, stereotypes, biases, etcetera. I believe it's very hard or maybe even impossible to avoid these. So rather than reviewing my own work, I think there's higher value in asking others for a review. Because they truly have a different view, with higher chance of feedback that I could not think about myself. What do you think?
RESPONSE A: On a one-off basis you are right: it's much easier and quite possibly more effective to have someone else review it independently. In the longer term, being able to take a step back and critique your own work from an "outsider's" point of view is a really valuable skill to develop. Yes it's difficult, and it's very unlikely that you'll ever be able to switch off *all* your biases/stereotypes/etc. But it will make you a much better writer. One tip is to read it slowly. Really *read* it sentence by sentence. For technical terms you use, are these terms something that you would expect anybody in your field to know, or should they be explained in the text? Is it clear from the text what the purpose of each section is (there's nothing more frustrating than being in the middle of some dense details without having the context for *why* this is even important to the overall aims)? Do you find yourself reaching into your own background knowledge to help explain parts to yourself (in which case you may need to include some of that in the paper directly). That sort of thing.
RESPONSE B: Give yourself about a few months of not looking at the paper at all, then review it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Advisor: "Review your own paper as if you didn't write it". Is that even possible? hi! So I am writing a paper, overall I see progress but it's not ready yet for submission. I got a bit lost in details so I asked my advisors to do an intermediate review. One of them recommended: review your own paper, as if I didn't write it. He recommended to look at it as if I am not an expert in this field, and as if I am looking with it with a fresh view. To what extent is that even possible? Do you guys do this, if yes how? My point is, we always have our own subconscious and conscious mindset, stereotypes, biases, etcetera. I believe it's very hard or maybe even impossible to avoid these. So rather than reviewing my own work, I think there's higher value in asking others for a review. Because they truly have a different view, with higher chance of feedback that I could not think about myself. What do you think?
RESPONSE A: Give yourself about a few months of not looking at the paper at all, then review it.
RESPONSE B: This is not only possible but nessisary. I suggest reading it aloud which slows you down and requires you to actually read what you have written. As you do look for assumptions, question each concept from base principals, and look for contradictions. If you sent them your manuscript before they told you this it may also have been a polite way of telling you it needs a lot more work.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I've taken three classes now with a professor I really respect, who has also mentored and encouraged me to pursue further education. He wrote a letter of rec for a study abroad program, is a reader for my thesis, and has accommodated some difficulties and delays I had in turning in term papers. Obviously, I want to thank him, and my intention is not for it to be in an extravagant way. That said, a comment he made in class about a concept he used in his dissertation made me think of an art piece by a photographer I follow. I bought it without giving much thought to appropriateness. We tend to share artistic tastes and the print I bought is both personalized and relevant to the course. As stated in the title, it was $30. I didn't mind the expense because supporting artists and showing gratitude are things I value (further, the artist's profit went to a nonprofit of his choice). Having researched the norms now, I'm worried that such a gift might be too much and make him uncomfortable (especially since he could easily find out the price should he check the artist's Instagram). In addition, I am tenuously planning on asking him to write a letter of recommendation for grad school in the next few years. Giving the impression of attempted bribery is certainly not my intention here. Should I forego the print in favor of just a thank you card? Would it be alright to give the print anyway (perhaps with some context about the price?) (Goes without saying but anything would be given after the semester's grades are in.)
RESPONSE A: I think it’s fine. Letters of recommendation are voluntary and not required for faculty to write. So it’s not the same as grades. You can give a gift in thanks for writing letters anyway because it is above and beyond required work for faculty. I also don’t think it is very expensive. If you said 300 USD I would be very wary but 30 is not expensive honestly.
RESPONSE B: I think it sounds really nice and carefully considered. You could even explain to him your fears - that you will ask him for a favor later but that this art jumped off the wall for him and you didn’t think about how it would look until afterwards.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: write me a letter of recommendation, though my PI wanted me to draft his letter for him (which was understandable, as he runs a big lab and is often busy). However, just recently I sent my PI the draft he requested, and he later replied saying that he didn't think it would be a good idea to give me a recommendation. Talking with him later over the phone, it seems that he believes that an honest letter from him would hurt my chances. He mentioned how I was at the bottom of a class he taught in my first semester (I got a C+), and how I've been late for seminars. Additionally, he pointed out how another student in his lab that mastered out did 50 reactions per week while I did less than 100 in my entire time there. He said he would still be willing to write me a letter of recommendation if I really wanted one, but since he wants to be honest the letter may reflect poorly on me. At this point I'm not sure what to do. I know I underperformed in my Master's degree and his letter might hurt my chances, but I've already submitted him as a reference. Should I still use my PI as a reference? Reach out to the professor who runs the lab? Furthermore, if this job doesn't work out, I'm not sure what to do going forward. I've only worked under one other professor (the one I mentioned earlier from undergrad), and while I think I did good work under him, I'm not sure how I'm going to be able to get a research position with only one good reference, especially with a Master's and no recommendation from my PI. Can I still turn things around? I'm just worried my grad school performance has permanently torpedoed my chances of getting into research.
RESPONSE A: If they don’t want to write it, you don’t want to use it.
RESPONSE B: I was in a similar situation at the end of my PhD. I'll spare you the details, but my PI said he wouldn't write me a recommendation letter. I requested other professors and ex-colleagues for recommendation letters and eventually got the job.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: both of them beforehand about letters, and both agreed to write me a letter of recommendation, though my PI wanted me to draft his letter for him (which was understandable, as he runs a big lab and is often busy). However, just recently I sent my PI the draft he requested, and he later replied saying that he didn't think it would be a good idea to give me a recommendation. Talking with him later over the phone, it seems that he believes that an honest letter from him would hurt my chances. He mentioned how I was at the bottom of a class he taught in my first semester (I got a C+), and how I've been late for seminars. Additionally, he pointed out how another student in his lab that mastered out did 50 reactions per week while I did less than 100 in my entire time there. He said he would still be willing to write me a letter of recommendation if I really wanted one, but since he wants to be honest the letter may reflect poorly on me. At this point I'm not sure what to do. I know I underperformed in my Master's degree and his letter might hurt my chances, but I've already submitted him as a reference. Should I still use my PI as a reference? Reach out to the professor who runs the lab? Furthermore, if this job doesn't work out, I'm not sure what to do going forward. I've only worked under one other professor (the one I mentioned earlier from undergrad), and while I think I did good work under him, I'm not sure how I'm going to be able to get a research position with only one good reference, especially with a Master's and no recommendation from my PI. Can I still turn things around? I'm just worried my grad school performance has permanently torpedoed my chances of getting into research.
RESPONSE A: Given the timing, I'm wondering if this was a reaction to your draft? I'd suggest that it might be worth sitting down with your PI and asking what they thought a reasonable path forward would look like.
RESPONSE B: If they don’t want to write it, you don’t want to use it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: me a letter of recommendation if I really wanted one, but since he wants to be honest the letter may reflect poorly on me. At this point I'm not sure what to do. I know I underperformed in my Master's degree and his letter might hurt my chances, but I've already submitted him as a reference. Should I still use my PI as a reference? Reach out to the professor who runs the lab? Furthermore, if this job doesn't work out, I'm not sure what to do going forward. I've only worked under one other professor (the one I mentioned earlier from undergrad), and while I think I did good work under him, I'm not sure how I'm going to be able to get a research position with only one good reference, especially with a Master's and no recommendation from my PI. Can I still turn things around? I'm just worried my grad school performance has permanently torpedoed my chances of getting into research.
RESPONSE A: As hard as it may be to hear, your advisor is doing you a favor by not writing you this letter. They do not want to write a letter that will sink your chances. You could talk with him as some have suggested but he's not going to suddenly be impressed with you as you under performed. This is a lesson in asking for references. A letter of reference is not from any prof you know, but from one who is impressed with you. In the future, ask someone else to write your letters. As you already submitted his name, you can email the potential job contact and note that your PI is very busy so you would like to add a different person to your reference list. You don't need to tell them that the PI doesn't want to provide a letter. They may just move on to the new name. As you are applying to a non-academic job, you have more flexibility in who writes your letters. Good luck.
RESPONSE B: I was in a similar situation at the end of my PhD. I'll spare you the details, but my PI said he wouldn't write me a recommendation letter. I requested other professors and ex-colleagues for recommendation letters and eventually got the job.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: . He said he would still be willing to write me a letter of recommendation if I really wanted one, but since he wants to be honest the letter may reflect poorly on me. At this point I'm not sure what to do. I know I underperformed in my Master's degree and his letter might hurt my chances, but I've already submitted him as a reference. Should I still use my PI as a reference? Reach out to the professor who runs the lab? Furthermore, if this job doesn't work out, I'm not sure what to do going forward. I've only worked under one other professor (the one I mentioned earlier from undergrad), and while I think I did good work under him, I'm not sure how I'm going to be able to get a research position with only one good reference, especially with a Master's and no recommendation from my PI. Can I still turn things around? I'm just worried my grad school performance has permanently torpedoed my chances of getting into research.
RESPONSE A: As hard as it may be to hear, your advisor is doing you a favor by not writing you this letter. They do not want to write a letter that will sink your chances. You could talk with him as some have suggested but he's not going to suddenly be impressed with you as you under performed. This is a lesson in asking for references. A letter of reference is not from any prof you know, but from one who is impressed with you. In the future, ask someone else to write your letters. As you already submitted his name, you can email the potential job contact and note that your PI is very busy so you would like to add a different person to your reference list. You don't need to tell them that the PI doesn't want to provide a letter. They may just move on to the new name. As you are applying to a non-academic job, you have more flexibility in who writes your letters. Good luck.
RESPONSE B: Given the timing, I'm wondering if this was a reaction to your draft? I'd suggest that it might be worth sitting down with your PI and asking what they thought a reasonable path forward would look like.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it expected to take the seminars taught by your thesis advisor? I need to choose from a very small poll of seminars the ones that I want to take next semester, and my advisor is teaching one of them. None of them have a link with my thesis project, so I really get to choose what I feel like studying. At first, I wasn’t going to take my advisor’s class because I thought it would be extra stress. Anyways my friend in the program implied that it’s kind of rude not to take the seminar and that it is an unsaid expectation to always take the courses taught by your advisor. I’m just really curious to hear other people’s experience doing so (or choosing not to) and I’m wondering what the norm is.
RESPONSE A: A lot of times people will expect you to take your advisor's seminar courses because they are (presumably) going to be very relevant to your research interests. I usually talk about my course plan with my advisor before the start of each semester, and my advisor will directly tell me they are planning to run a seminar course and that I should enroll in it. Your advisor may be less direct, but you could still discuss the classes you're planning on taking and ask what their seminar will be about and whether it would be beneficial for you to take it.
RESPONSE B: I personally don't think so. However, you could ask your advisor for advice on what seminars they would recommend taking. You could say you are having a tough time choosing because none directly relate to your area of research, and would they recommend.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it expected to take the seminars taught by your thesis advisor? I need to choose from a very small poll of seminars the ones that I want to take next semester, and my advisor is teaching one of them. None of them have a link with my thesis project, so I really get to choose what I feel like studying. At first, I wasn’t going to take my advisor’s class because I thought it would be extra stress. Anyways my friend in the program implied that it’s kind of rude not to take the seminar and that it is an unsaid expectation to always take the courses taught by your advisor. I’m just really curious to hear other people’s experience doing so (or choosing not to) and I’m wondering what the norm is.
RESPONSE A: In my program (humanities) we all took seminars from our advisors, especially in the first year. It was a great way to get to know mine better actually and one of my favorite grad classes. Not sure why you'd be actively avoiding yours-- it's a chance to make a stronger connection and prove your ability.
RESPONSE B: no... it doesn't matter
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: norm is.
RESPONSE A: no... it doesn't matter
RESPONSE B: As a professor who has had many several grad students: always *always* take your professor's seminar. **Always.** It's not just about politeness, or flattering the prof, or proving that you share her/his interests, or whatever. It's that: - your advisor is going to be writing letters of recommendation for you, and thus *needs* to see your work. They need to see you making arguments in the seminar, need to see your writing, etc. They need to have the opportunity to see you work so that they can say good things about you. - your advisor will be giving you an MA or PhD exam at some point, and their questions will come from *their* knowledge base... a knowledge base which they share in their seminar. If you miss that, they'll be asking you questions that seem really normal/obvious to them, but will seem to YOU to be coming out of left field. More broadly, you both need to share a knowledge base in order to communicate effectively on scholarly issues. If you really, really don't want to (because it conflicts with another seminar that you are desperate to take), then be sure to talk with your advisor, and explain that you *need* to take this other class. But don't expect your advisor to be happy about it. There was one time when my grad student did *not* take my seminar--it "just didn't sound that interesting" to him...! ... and so he took a different seminar (against my clear and direct advice). Whatever. Then he came up to me a year later, right before his MA exams, and wanted me to do an extra independent study with him to "catch him up" on material for the exam. (which had all been covered in the seminar he skipped....) Uh, sorry. no. You had your shot. Now you just suck it up and do all that work on your own, and interpret it yourself as best you can. (no, he did not pass... he dropped out of the program... but for many reasons, excluding his own personal and psychological issues.)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Tenured prof/scientist is narcissist Literally berates and yells at their research students. It’s a revolving door far beyond scientific no sleep hazing norms. Has zero compassion or empathy - true narcissist. Crushed the architect that reno’d the lab. No one is safe. How do coworkers and students work in this environment- keeping in mind if the prof ever implodes, leaves, or is somehow fired their careers are toast too. Can the professor even get fired as tenured?
RESPONSE A: >Crushed the architect that reno’d the lab. No one is safe. Are they okay? I wish them a swift recovery.
RESPONSE B: Why do people continue to work for him? >How do coworkers and students work in this environment- keeping in mind if the prof ever implodes, leaves, or is somehow fired their careers are toast too. This is often untrue, but something that assholes tell the people working under them to prevent them leaving or "keep them in line".
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Tenured prof/scientist is narcissist Literally berates and yells at their research students. It’s a revolving door far beyond scientific no sleep hazing norms. Has zero compassion or empathy - true narcissist. Crushed the architect that reno’d the lab. No one is safe. How do coworkers and students work in this environment- keeping in mind if the prof ever implodes, leaves, or is somehow fired their careers are toast too. Can the professor even get fired as tenured?
RESPONSE A: Why do people continue to work for him? >How do coworkers and students work in this environment- keeping in mind if the prof ever implodes, leaves, or is somehow fired their careers are toast too. This is often untrue, but something that assholes tell the people working under them to prevent them leaving or "keep them in line".
RESPONSE B: Probably not, as institutions value whatever they gain through having him around over the wellbeing of the students he is abusing. Reporting him could invite retaliation...
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Tenured prof/scientist is narcissist Literally berates and yells at their research students. It’s a revolving door far beyond scientific no sleep hazing norms. Has zero compassion or empathy - true narcissist. Crushed the architect that reno’d the lab. No one is safe. How do coworkers and students work in this environment- keeping in mind if the prof ever implodes, leaves, or is somehow fired their careers are toast too. Can the professor even get fired as tenured?
RESPONSE A: Damn, what school is that?
RESPONSE B: Why do people continue to work for him? >How do coworkers and students work in this environment- keeping in mind if the prof ever implodes, leaves, or is somehow fired their careers are toast too. This is often untrue, but something that assholes tell the people working under them to prevent them leaving or "keep them in line".
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Tenured prof/scientist is narcissist Literally berates and yells at their research students. It’s a revolving door far beyond scientific no sleep hazing norms. Has zero compassion or empathy - true narcissist. Crushed the architect that reno’d the lab. No one is safe. How do coworkers and students work in this environment- keeping in mind if the prof ever implodes, leaves, or is somehow fired their careers are toast too. Can the professor even get fired as tenured?
RESPONSE A: >Crushed the architect that reno’d the lab. No one is safe. Are they okay? I wish them a swift recovery.
RESPONSE B: Record it so you have objective evidence. Audio or video. Then take it to the department chair. If they fail to act keep climbing the ladder that is the chain of command until action is taken.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Tenured prof/scientist is narcissist Literally berates and yells at their research students. It’s a revolving door far beyond scientific no sleep hazing norms. Has zero compassion or empathy - true narcissist. Crushed the architect that reno’d the lab. No one is safe. How do coworkers and students work in this environment- keeping in mind if the prof ever implodes, leaves, or is somehow fired their careers are toast too. Can the professor even get fired as tenured?
RESPONSE A: Record it so you have objective evidence. Audio or video. Then take it to the department chair. If they fail to act keep climbing the ladder that is the chain of command until action is taken.
RESPONSE B: Probably not, as institutions value whatever they gain through having him around over the wellbeing of the students he is abusing. Reporting him could invite retaliation...
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Future of state public universities vs non-elite small liberal arts colleges This is a question about the US. Speaking of the future “collapse” of higher ed because of low enrollment and financial issues, how does a state flagship public university compare with a mid-range small liberal arts college? I work at a flagship state university at a poor state, and my university is facing financial issues. And there are a couple of job openings at some mid-range small liberal arts colleges (ranked 40-60 nationally). If we only consider the possibility of a financial crisis (in which firing tenure track and even tenured faculty would be justified) and job security, is it reasonable to considering moving from the state school to some small liberal arts colleges? I’m in humanities.
RESPONSE A: I think ranking for stability are: #1 top 10 private universities, #2 top 20 public universities, #3 top stem and liberal arts universities (Cal tech, Swarthmore, etc.), #4 top 100 public universities, #5 top 100 private universities, #6 low-tier publics, #7 mid-tier privates, #8 low-tier privates.
RESPONSE B: I'm at a very large R1 and have come to the conclusion that my options are here, another similar size institution, or an elite liberal arts school. I'm primarily administrative at this point and I don't see all lot of the mid tier SLACs surviving, and probably not some smaller, non-flagship l, public schools. I just don't see the enrollment there over the next decade.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Future of state public universities vs non-elite small liberal arts colleges This is a question about the US. Speaking of the future “collapse” of higher ed because of low enrollment and financial issues, how does a state flagship public university compare with a mid-range small liberal arts college? I work at a flagship state university at a poor state, and my university is facing financial issues. And there are a couple of job openings at some mid-range small liberal arts colleges (ranked 40-60 nationally). If we only consider the possibility of a financial crisis (in which firing tenure track and even tenured faculty would be justified) and job security, is it reasonable to considering moving from the state school to some small liberal arts colleges? I’m in humanities.
RESPONSE A: I'd consider the endowment. With a 40-60 ranking nationally and a pretty hefty (a few hundred million $) endowment, they may be well placed to survive the collapse. As people say with alligators.... you don't have to outswim the gator, just the people you're with. Similarly, it's mostly about a school being placed to out-last its competitors.
RESPONSE B: I'm at a very large R1 and have come to the conclusion that my options are here, another similar size institution, or an elite liberal arts school. I'm primarily administrative at this point and I don't see all lot of the mid tier SLACs surviving, and probably not some smaller, non-flagship l, public schools. I just don't see the enrollment there over the next decade.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Corrupt College President Hey, sorry not sure if this is the right place but my college has a real problem with it’s current President. she was just elected last summer and she has done a huge system over-hall at our school. She’s fired faculty who have challenged her views and spoke out in favor of the students, and she is dissolving certain positions and firing high-power positions, only to replace them with her family and friends. She LITERALLY made her own husband a Dean of admissions at the college (which she said he was chosen out of all the canidates to be the most qualified despite him having no experience in admissions or anything similar). There are a large amount of people on the college board that now have a connection to her in some way and she just made the decision to fire the current Dean of the college, who was a very active member of the community. With all the changes she is making to the college as a whole, cutting programs and arbitrarily firing high ranking individuals. The student body, and now many alumni (who the receive their funding from) are outraged and have made a petition to get a revaluation of her competency to run the college. Alumni and students alike are signing this petition and so far we have 350 signatures. My question is, is this actually gonna do anything? And what can we actually do at this point to get her removed? (I go to a private college for the record)
RESPONSE A: If she’s been up to this for a year, it’s just possible the board of trustees hired her to clean house.
RESPONSE B: You could argue to the board of the college (board of trustees, edited for clarity) that she has neglected her fiduciary duty to the college. That is a very serious legal claim, and if it is found to be true the board may have an obligation to fire her.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Corrupt College President Hey, sorry not sure if this is the right place but my college has a real problem with it’s current President. she was just elected last summer and she has done a huge system over-hall at our school. She’s fired faculty who have challenged her views and spoke out in favor of the students, and she is dissolving certain positions and firing high-power positions, only to replace them with her family and friends. She LITERALLY made her own husband a Dean of admissions at the college (which she said he was chosen out of all the canidates to be the most qualified despite him having no experience in admissions or anything similar). There are a large amount of people on the college board that now have a connection to her in some way and she just made the decision to fire the current Dean of the college, who was a very active member of the community. With all the changes she is making to the college as a whole, cutting programs and arbitrarily firing high ranking individuals. The student body, and now many alumni (who the receive their funding from) are outraged and have made a petition to get a revaluation of her competency to run the college. Alumni and students alike are signing this petition and so far we have 350 signatures. My question is, is this actually gonna do anything? And what can we actually do at this point to get her removed? (I go to a private college for the record)
RESPONSE A: You could argue to the board of the college (board of trustees, edited for clarity) that she has neglected her fiduciary duty to the college. That is a very serious legal claim, and if it is found to be true the board may have an obligation to fire her.
RESPONSE B: The president is hired by and is the voice of (works for) the board of trustees. If they’re happy with what the president is doing, nothing will get the president removed. You have to convince them that the president is doing more harm than good, and then hey can fire the president and hire a replacement. Also, 350 signatures isn’t many unless you’ve got some very high powered (read:rich) alumni in there that the school would be afraid of losing.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Why is it so difficult to land a position as a full-time professor at a T20 research university? To my knowledge, tenure-track professorships are increasingly being replaced by contingent faculty, which usually results in many English, philosophy and history Ph.D’s being compelled to pursue positions as adjuncts. Is that...all there is to it?
RESPONSE A: It’s much cheaper for universities to do it that way. And universities in the US are increasingly profit-driven
RESPONSE B: Number of candidates is far greater than the number of positions available, even ignoring adjunctification. If top-20 schools are all graduating, say, 10 PhDs in a particular field each year, then that’s 200 new PhDs. TT positions open up far slower — even if each of them hires 1 new TT each year, that’s only one tenth of new PhDs. And those new PhDs are going to be competing with visitors at other institutions too. It’s just a wildly imbalanced ecosystem
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What's it like to be a non-religious professor at a Jesuit university? I noticed a lot of jobs at Jesuit universities this year. I'm just curious what it's like to work there as a professor if you're not religious.
RESPONSE A: It varies. I worked at one Jesuit institution (R1), and I felt entirely comfortable there as a non-religious person. There were crucifixes in the classrooms and we canceled class for mass on holidays I didn't know existed. But otherwise, the Jesuit mission was framed in ways a non-religious person could support: educate the whole person, use knowledge in service to local or global communities, etc. A lot of the faculty were nuns, monks, and priests. Many of them were on the more liberal end of the spectrum. You can't get away from the fact that it's a Catholic institution, but there weren't a lot of constraints on academic freedom or being open about personal beliefs. What I hear from friends and colleagues who've been at some of the other larger, urban research-focused Jesuit universities is similar. I don't think that necessarily holds true for the smaller Jesuit colleges.
RESPONSE B: I have enjoyed their experiential and reflective practices.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What's it like to be a non-religious professor at a Jesuit university? I noticed a lot of jobs at Jesuit universities this year. I'm just curious what it's like to work there as a professor if you're not religious.
RESPONSE A: I taught at a Jesuit university as an adjunct, and my father is a chaired professor at a Jesuit university, even though we are both (Jewish) atheists, so I can only go based on those two experiences. Day-to-day I don't think you'll notice any major difference between Jesuit and secular schools. I know my father's department really well, and there are very few actual Jesuits among the faculty, though he did tell me there are a couple of priests who are also PhDs who teach on campus. That said, you should get comfortable with prayer at faculty meetings and events (if this bothers you), and (this is more important IMO), I taught a public health course and was explicitly told by the chair that I am not to mention contraception or abortion in the course. Luckily, I was teaching a statistics course, so it wasn't an issue, but there is some limit on academic freedom (and maybe even the kind of research you can do? Not sure). Again, this might be variable between Jesuit institutions, but that was my experience.
RESPONSE B: I have enjoyed their experiential and reflective practices.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What's it like to be a non-religious professor at a Jesuit university? I noticed a lot of jobs at Jesuit universities this year. I'm just curious what it's like to work there as a professor if you're not religious.
RESPONSE A: I hope it's better to be a professor than it is a grad student since the US Jesuit schools ignore federal law on graduate student unionizing. As for religion, I'm a practicing Catholic and the only one in my department. Religion is rarely brought up.
RESPONSE B: I taught at a Jesuit university as an adjunct, and my father is a chaired professor at a Jesuit university, even though we are both (Jewish) atheists, so I can only go based on those two experiences. Day-to-day I don't think you'll notice any major difference between Jesuit and secular schools. I know my father's department really well, and there are very few actual Jesuits among the faculty, though he did tell me there are a couple of priests who are also PhDs who teach on campus. That said, you should get comfortable with prayer at faculty meetings and events (if this bothers you), and (this is more important IMO), I taught a public health course and was explicitly told by the chair that I am not to mention contraception or abortion in the course. Luckily, I was teaching a statistics course, so it wasn't an issue, but there is some limit on academic freedom (and maybe even the kind of research you can do? Not sure). Again, this might be variable between Jesuit institutions, but that was my experience.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What's it like to be a non-religious professor at a Jesuit university? I noticed a lot of jobs at Jesuit universities this year. I'm just curious what it's like to work there as a professor if you're not religious.
RESPONSE A: I have enjoyed their experiential and reflective practices.
RESPONSE B: I (an atheist) taught intro biology at a private Roman Catholic University, albeit located in a very socially liberal place- the only thing they asked of me was to uphold the principles of kindness, compassion and acceptance to all people. The end. We spent a week talking about sex and gender in the class and how the line is incredibly blurry when you look closely. Nobody batted an eye.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What's it like to be a non-religious professor at a Jesuit university? I noticed a lot of jobs at Jesuit universities this year. I'm just curious what it's like to work there as a professor if you're not religious.
RESPONSE A: I (an atheist) taught intro biology at a private Roman Catholic University, albeit located in a very socially liberal place- the only thing they asked of me was to uphold the principles of kindness, compassion and acceptance to all people. The end. We spent a week talking about sex and gender in the class and how the line is incredibly blurry when you look closely. Nobody batted an eye.
RESPONSE B: I hope it's better to be a professor than it is a grad student since the US Jesuit schools ignore federal law on graduate student unionizing. As for religion, I'm a practicing Catholic and the only one in my department. Religion is rarely brought up.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What is the most effective way of addressing student incivilities in the classroom? Lecturer in Health Sciences at a public research university in the US: I have an older student (mid-twenties) in my class who thinks that because he is an adult and is paying a tuition the rules in the class (not talking during class, not leaving early without permission, being on time, not using your cell phone during class) do not apply to him (he actually told me that). Every time I try and enforce the rules in class he tries to turn it around on me by saying I am being rude and disrespectful. I have tried one on one meetings during office hours to address behavior issues and he has been even more disrespectful. What is the most effective way of addressing this bad behavior?
RESPONSE A: Being an inconsiderate asshole is a funny way to show you are an "adult." I wonder if this guy tries this shit in movie theaters, concerts, funerals, etc. "DON'T TELL ME TO GET OFF THE PHONE I AM AN ADULT!"
RESPONSE B: Next time he misbehaves, ask him to leave. If he doesn't, call campus security and have him removed.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How important is it to go to a US university to become successful in Computer Science? TLDR: my friend thinks it's imperative to study in a US University to be successful because US uni's are better for Computer Science than other countries' Uni's. I studied my masters in Neuroscience in Germany, I feel pretty good about my education and current career progression. One of my best friends wanted to do his master's in Computer Science and he applied to a few Unis in USA, He got into USC. Unfortunately he is having trouble getting a Visa, because the authorities have deemed him a potential immigrant and rejected him a visa two times. I suggested to him that he can look into European Universities or Canadian Universities, suggesting that it's better because of free education in many European Unis and also better health care. He says that the best Universities for CS are only in the USA. Is he right? Is it not likely to be as successful in the CS field unless you study in a good US University?
RESPONSE A: Speaking as a US CS Prof., I tend to agree with the friend. There are good CS programs in Europe and Canada, and the best ones are in the US. But the very best one for him is one that he can actually attend.
RESPONSE B: Hahaha, no. He'll be fine in the CS field from a non-American university, and he might also just have a nice life because he won't be rolling in debt too.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How important is it to go to a US university to become successful in Computer Science? TLDR: my friend thinks it's imperative to study in a US University to be successful because US uni's are better for Computer Science than other countries' Uni's. I studied my masters in Neuroscience in Germany, I feel pretty good about my education and current career progression. One of my best friends wanted to do his master's in Computer Science and he applied to a few Unis in USA, He got into USC. Unfortunately he is having trouble getting a Visa, because the authorities have deemed him a potential immigrant and rejected him a visa two times. I suggested to him that he can look into European Universities or Canadian Universities, suggesting that it's better because of free education in many European Unis and also better health care. He says that the best Universities for CS are only in the USA. Is he right? Is it not likely to be as successful in the CS field unless you study in a good US University?
RESPONSE A: Having a good advisor is a hundred times more important than having a "high ranked" university. Also, Computer Science has at least a couple dozen sub-fields, and each university scores differently in each one of those. To throw out completely random and arbitrary examples, MIT may be a world leader in programming languages and compilation, but be considered relatively weak in signal processing. In addition to that, even if you could technically claim that "the best CS departments are in the US", and even if that broad assertion were to be true, the difference would be so ridiculously tiny that it is completely negligible. Top-level schools are top-level schools.
RESPONSE B: Speaking as a US CS Prof., I tend to agree with the friend. There are good CS programs in Europe and Canada, and the best ones are in the US. But the very best one for him is one that he can actually attend.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How important is it to go to a US university to become successful in Computer Science? TLDR: my friend thinks it's imperative to study in a US University to be successful because US uni's are better for Computer Science than other countries' Uni's. I studied my masters in Neuroscience in Germany, I feel pretty good about my education and current career progression. One of my best friends wanted to do his master's in Computer Science and he applied to a few Unis in USA, He got into USC. Unfortunately he is having trouble getting a Visa, because the authorities have deemed him a potential immigrant and rejected him a visa two times. I suggested to him that he can look into European Universities or Canadian Universities, suggesting that it's better because of free education in many European Unis and also better health care. He says that the best Universities for CS are only in the USA. Is he right? Is it not likely to be as successful in the CS field unless you study in a good US University?
RESPONSE A: Speaking as a US CS Prof., I tend to agree with the friend. There are good CS programs in Europe and Canada, and the best ones are in the US. But the very best one for him is one that he can actually attend.
RESPONSE B: University of Waterloo in Ontario is Bill Gates’ favourite school. He visits each year, lots of scholarships and instant employment in Silicon Valley.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How important is it to go to a US university to become successful in Computer Science? TLDR: my friend thinks it's imperative to study in a US University to be successful because US uni's are better for Computer Science than other countries' Uni's. I studied my masters in Neuroscience in Germany, I feel pretty good about my education and current career progression. One of my best friends wanted to do his master's in Computer Science and he applied to a few Unis in USA, He got into USC. Unfortunately he is having trouble getting a Visa, because the authorities have deemed him a potential immigrant and rejected him a visa two times. I suggested to him that he can look into European Universities or Canadian Universities, suggesting that it's better because of free education in many European Unis and also better health care. He says that the best Universities for CS are only in the USA. Is he right? Is it not likely to be as successful in the CS field unless you study in a good US University?
RESPONSE A: Which university did you master in neuroscience and would you recommend the university?
RESPONSE B: University of Waterloo in Ontario is Bill Gates’ favourite school. He visits each year, lots of scholarships and instant employment in Silicon Valley.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How important is it to go to a US university to become successful in Computer Science? TLDR: my friend thinks it's imperative to study in a US University to be successful because US uni's are better for Computer Science than other countries' Uni's. I studied my masters in Neuroscience in Germany, I feel pretty good about my education and current career progression. One of my best friends wanted to do his master's in Computer Science and he applied to a few Unis in USA, He got into USC. Unfortunately he is having trouble getting a Visa, because the authorities have deemed him a potential immigrant and rejected him a visa two times. I suggested to him that he can look into European Universities or Canadian Universities, suggesting that it's better because of free education in many European Unis and also better health care. He says that the best Universities for CS are only in the USA. Is he right? Is it not likely to be as successful in the CS field unless you study in a good US University?
RESPONSE A: One word: Bullshit.
RESPONSE B: Which university did you master in neuroscience and would you recommend the university?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What were the best students you ever had like? Did they go on to do amazing things? Were they also your favourite students, or were your favourite students not necessarily the best ones?
RESPONSE A: Homeschooled. They did.
RESPONSE B: My favourite students are always the ones who challenged me - most of them pissed me off at first but I end up loving their critique of everything - I appreciate their thirst for knowledge and new experiences. They've gone on to do fabulous things, but mostly in social impact roles, which I have huge admiration for. My most financially successful students have usually been polite, well polished from the point of entry, making big money now and their success has no correlation to intelligence - more they fit the mold. I still enjoyed their company because we would have great chats but I has always been more drawn to the changemakers than the ladder climbers (not that these are mutually exclusive, but you get the idea)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What were the best students you ever had like? Did they go on to do amazing things? Were they also your favourite students, or were your favourite students not necessarily the best ones?
RESPONSE A: I've been teaching \~25 years and am still in touch with many of my "favorite" students, who were often (but not always) also among the best students. Several went on to do Ph.D.s, a bunch work in government jobs, many have families now, and it's great to see them share their accomplishments on social media or in emails. What most of them had in common was curiosity-- they wanted to know stuff about the world. Most were also self-directed learning to some extent, i.e. they didn't need or want their hands held, but rather wanted advice on what to explore next. They were also nice people: they did things for others, ranging from inviting a quiet classmate into discussions to spending 2-3 years in the Peace Corps or other volunteer work after college.
RESPONSE B: Homeschooled. They did.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: ? In a few weeks I'll teach as a transgender woman for the first time after a sabbatical during which I also transitioned fully. I am a bit anxious about what teaching and interacting with students will be like. I have interacted with colleagues, dean, provost, etc, since my transition, and it's been a more or less supportive environment in that I've faced blatant sexism but not transphobia... I'm lucky to have tenure and know that my transition will not affect my career advancement in my uni. So it's really just about students and teaching that I'm concerned.
RESPONSE A: I’m not out about being nonbinary with my students, but I find that for other things (such as missing due to illness, or family things, or when students are looking for my thoughts on mental health or racial issues) my students are much more supportive and forgiving of me than I ever would have expected from them. Don’t make a huge deal out of it, but don’t deny or hide it either, just be yourself, and they’ll grow to know and respect you.
RESPONSE B: First of all, congratulations on coming out and beginning the process of teaching as your authentic self! So much of how you navigate this is a matter of personal preference. Teaching is still teaching, and you're every bit as much of an expert in your area as you were before, so you can just do the same things as before and not really change anything. If you prefer to be upfront about your trans identity, you can share that you are a trans woman when you introduce yourself at the beginning of the semester, or when discussing any content that may happen to be relevant to trans people and experiences. It's certainly possible that you will face sexism or transphobia from students. If there are some colleagues or mentors you have, you might consider sharing these concerns with them and getting their advice. Having folks you know you can go to, especially as you navigate sexism or transphobia in the classroom for the first time (which I imagine could be a change) may help. I do hope that you have smooth sailing in the classroom and that students treat you with the respect you deserve.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: s really just about students and teaching that I'm concerned.
RESPONSE A: First of all, congratulations on coming out and beginning the process of teaching as your authentic self! So much of how you navigate this is a matter of personal preference. Teaching is still teaching, and you're every bit as much of an expert in your area as you were before, so you can just do the same things as before and not really change anything. If you prefer to be upfront about your trans identity, you can share that you are a trans woman when you introduce yourself at the beginning of the semester, or when discussing any content that may happen to be relevant to trans people and experiences. It's certainly possible that you will face sexism or transphobia from students. If there are some colleagues or mentors you have, you might consider sharing these concerns with them and getting their advice. Having folks you know you can go to, especially as you navigate sexism or transphobia in the classroom for the first time (which I imagine could be a change) may help. I do hope that you have smooth sailing in the classroom and that students treat you with the respect you deserve.
RESPONSE B: I think back to my first days teaching in grad school, about how nervous I was. I made the biggest mistake a teacher can make that semester; I tried to be their friend. If you’ve ever made the same mistake, as most of us have at least once, you know how hard it is to recover from that. So I say this to you with the best of intentions…this isn’t about you. When you walk into that classroom, it’s about your students. While you might think you need to explain, or shine a light on something you might think is obvious or an elephant in the room, the truth is that no one is going to care one way or the other. Your responsibility is for a quality education for these kids. Don’t be a distraction. The fact that their teacher is transgender doesn’t mean anything to them. It might even make you more popular. I wouldn’t even acknowledge it. Congratulations on transitioning, on having tenure, in your new life. Be happy, be yourself, but you don’t need to be everybody’s friend because you might feel insecure or hesitant.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Have you ever been so excited about a research project? That nighttime comes and you cannot sleep because you are still thinking about it and then the next day you are super tired (lol)
RESPONSE A: Yes. Many, many times. If we’re similar in the slightest, proceed with caution, my friend. It feels great to get excited/obsessed with a project, I can get a lot done. I can also forget to have a “life” of my own, forget to take care of myself and my relationships. I’m 32 and still learning how to find balance without losing that excitement.
RESPONSE B: Yeah, I was but unfortunately couldn't even start it
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Publishing as an unemployed/independent/between-jobs scientist Hi all, title says it all - I'm between jobs and have been keeping myself busy by brushing up on my data science skills and analyzing data that is freely accessible. I found an interesting pattern that I believe is scientifically relevant and should be published, but as I am unaffiliated with any university/company at the moment I have no idea how to go about this. Can I just submit a paper as is without listing affiliation? Has anyone done anything like this?
RESPONSE A: Depends on the topic and your methods. I personally haven't published, nor know anyone that published, as unaffiliated. Affiliation SHOULDN'T matter, but its the politics of science, so anything can happen. **As long as you can generate a study that can be easily replicated, is scientifically and statistically sound, and MOST IMPORTANTLY does not violate ethical or legal statues (ie, human testing without an institutional review), you could take a shot in the dark and see.** Given that generating a paper like this will take you some time, you could probably generate it and have it ready for submission by the time you got your next academic/industry job and avoid the 'what if' situation.
RESPONSE B: Do you have a publication history? If so it should be possible, but you'll get more traction if you can obtain a university email address to submit from, eg most will offer an email extension from your last position that is renewable for quite a long time with minimal justification (requiring support from your last manager). If you can't do that, reach out to the editor of the Journal you want to submit to and ensure they're ok with it, otherwise you'll waste a lot of time in formatting and submission just to get desk rejected.
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.