label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
B | POST: Who should get complimentary copies of my book? After 7 years, my first book is coming out in a month. It’s a history book based on my dissertation. I get 10 complimentary copies and I’m wondering what’s considered proper for gifting. I’ll probably give copies to my dissertation committee members and my chair and boss at my current school (as a thank your for finding my research travel). Who else should I show my professional gratitude to? (All my friends and family said they’ll buy it to help me “make money” off it...)
RESPONSE A: Give a copy or two to the library
RESPONSE B: I negotiated for 20 copies of my first book and still ended up needing more copies. I gave them to immediate family, my diss committee (since it was a revision of the diss), a couple of mentors, two archives where I did most of the work, my hometown Carnegie library, a couple of friends, and some people with whom I stayed for a few weeks at a time on extended research trips. I think this is all pretty personal in the end, since it generally rests on where you think the obligation to recognize support/contributions might extend. Ultimately I needed a few more and found I could get them cheaper on Amazon than with the author's discount from my publisher...but of course then I wouldn't get that sweet, sweet $.85 per copy in royalties.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: advice on quitting phd and job search h hey. I am aphd student at one of the ivy's in the states.i have two MA degrees, one in history and one in africana studies. I am an international student and my soon to be spouse is from the states. I want to quit my PhD and begin working around the greenville, sc area. does anyone have advice on finding jobs inside and outside of universities. For many reasons, but especially for health reasons, I need to leave this program.
RESPONSE A: You might wanna make sure your Green Card and visa issues are squared away before you up and leave the program. If you're on an F1 or any other student visa, it will end the moment you leave the program. You should consult your university's ISO and likely an immigration attorney before making this jump. Handle it wrong and it could become a *very expensive* process to try and get back into the country.
RESPONSE B: With those two degrees you might have luck finding employment as a public historian, working for a local museum or historical site. That said, I would be wary of making a change too soon, in case it is hard to find an employer to sponsor a visa for you (something many international students I know struggle with).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: advice on quitting phd and job search h hey. I am aphd student at one of the ivy's in the states.i have two MA degrees, one in history and one in africana studies. I am an international student and my soon to be spouse is from the states. I want to quit my PhD and begin working around the greenville, sc area. does anyone have advice on finding jobs inside and outside of universities. For many reasons, but especially for health reasons, I need to leave this program.
RESPONSE A: There's a social media account called The Professor Is In that deals with these things; I believe another term is alt-academia. I suggest googling those!
RESPONSE B: You might wanna make sure your Green Card and visa issues are squared away before you up and leave the program. If you're on an F1 or any other student visa, it will end the moment you leave the program. You should consult your university's ISO and likely an immigration attorney before making this jump. Handle it wrong and it could become a *very expensive* process to try and get back into the country.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Going for a one year masters in a field that is quite different from my undergrad. Is there proper etiquette to follow if I want to find a research position for a research unit/prof?
RESPONSE A: I think a few more details would be helpful here for better advice. Which fields, countries, and/or specific programmes/universities are you're looking at?
RESPONSE B: My program was two years and did not allow first years to work in research positions (and discouraged but didn't disallow student employment outside of the department) and in the Summer between the first and second year applications were opened for research positions. We were told about this beforehand. Your best bet is to ask the admin about it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Going for a one year masters in a field that is quite different from my undergrad. Is there proper etiquette to follow if I want to find a research position for a research unit/prof?
RESPONSE A: I think a few more details would be helpful here for better advice. Which fields, countries, and/or specific programmes/universities are you're looking at?
RESPONSE B: Is this a program where you come in knowing what lab/group you'll work with or one that places you after you arrive? If the latter, the admin team and course director ought to be very helpful. They might even contact professors to introduce you and provide guidance on expectations.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: geographically limited myself to southern Europe. When I was a high-schooler I used to dream of doing frontier research in an Ivy-league institution. These days, I have the resume to make that dream a reality but need to reconcile them with my current situation. I got married last year and we want a child. We don't care much for the very low maternity leave in the US, so one of us will stop working to take care of the child. We have done the calculations and this scenario will most definitely leave our budget in the red taking into account emergencies that tend to come up year to year. Therefore, this leaves us no room for savings. Obviously, the US cannot hold a candle to Europe when it comes to quality of life and social safety nets. So raising a family is better off in Europe. Furthermore, I know that Science is just science once you take away all the outer ornamentation. Finally, the European science community is extremely enviable in it's own right. Yet, I know that in my broader field of study, scientists in the US are a few years ahead of those in Europe. So my question is towards academics with families based out of Boston, New York the greater SF area or other equally expensive neighbourhoods. - Are you able to save beyond pennies? - Is my perspective one of grass being greener across the ocean? - Is it possible to occupy a single housing unit (minimum 2 rooms) with a child in places like Boston, SF or New York on a single Post-Doc salary? - Am I worrying over nothing? - What is life like for you as a Post-Doc with a new family in terms of costs? I'm happy with percentages.
RESPONSE A: No, this is not possible, especially since your partner likely won’t have a work visa. A postdoc salary in a major city is low income for one person.
RESPONSE B: The best answers are likely to come from existing postdocs at the places that interest you. My guess is that it is doable, but very, very tight. I would give up entirely on the idea of saving and consider the postdoc itself as an investment in your future.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: the US cannot hold a candle to Europe when it comes to quality of life and social safety nets. So raising a family is better off in Europe. Furthermore, I know that Science is just science once you take away all the outer ornamentation. Finally, the European science community is extremely enviable in it's own right. Yet, I know that in my broader field of study, scientists in the US are a few years ahead of those in Europe. So my question is towards academics with families based out of Boston, New York the greater SF area or other equally expensive neighbourhoods. - Are you able to save beyond pennies? - Is my perspective one of grass being greener across the ocean? - Is it possible to occupy a single housing unit (minimum 2 rooms) with a child in places like Boston, SF or New York on a single Post-Doc salary? - Am I worrying over nothing? - What is life like for you as a Post-Doc with a new family in terms of costs? I'm happy with percentages.
RESPONSE A: Yeah. SF, Boston, New York are not possible. There are people in SF making good money who are living in their cars. That's how bad it is there. I myself recently saw a job in Berkeley but decided not to apply because there is no way I could afford to live there. I'll stay in Europe. The smaller towns can be interesting though. There the cost of living is low, and unlike Americans you don't have to save for your kid's college fund because you can just send them off to college in Europe. US salaries can get obscenly high at tenure track and beyond level, so if considered moving there later in your career, it might be possible. But yeah, the PhD and postdoc way of life in the USA makes me wonder if it isn't just seen as a club for rich kids.
RESPONSE B: The best answers are likely to come from existing postdocs at the places that interest you. My guess is that it is doable, but very, very tight. I would give up entirely on the idea of saving and consider the postdoc itself as an investment in your future.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: with my current situation. I got married last year and we want a child. We don't care much for the very low maternity leave in the US, so one of us will stop working to take care of the child. We have done the calculations and this scenario will most definitely leave our budget in the red taking into account emergencies that tend to come up year to year. Therefore, this leaves us no room for savings. Obviously, the US cannot hold a candle to Europe when it comes to quality of life and social safety nets. So raising a family is better off in Europe. Furthermore, I know that Science is just science once you take away all the outer ornamentation. Finally, the European science community is extremely enviable in it's own right. Yet, I know that in my broader field of study, scientists in the US are a few years ahead of those in Europe. So my question is towards academics with families based out of Boston, New York the greater SF area or other equally expensive neighbourhoods. - Are you able to save beyond pennies? - Is my perspective one of grass being greener across the ocean? - Is it possible to occupy a single housing unit (minimum 2 rooms) with a child in places like Boston, SF or New York on a single Post-Doc salary? - Am I worrying over nothing? - What is life like for you as a Post-Doc with a new family in terms of costs? I'm happy with percentages.
RESPONSE A: As others have mentioned, it’ll be tight. But also consider that applying for grants can augment your salary. For example, after a year or two you could apply for a K99/R00 grant which could increase your salary to 90k per year.
RESPONSE B: We succeeded in having a child on a single $60k USD postdoc income in Los Angeles. In our case, I stayed home with the baby for four years. After my husband landed a TT position I was finally able to finish my Ph.D. Fast forward a few years. Now I'm overeducated, unemployed, and geographically handcuffed to an area saturated with Ph.Ds.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: schooler I used to dream of doing frontier research in an Ivy-league institution. These days, I have the resume to make that dream a reality but need to reconcile them with my current situation. I got married last year and we want a child. We don't care much for the very low maternity leave in the US, so one of us will stop working to take care of the child. We have done the calculations and this scenario will most definitely leave our budget in the red taking into account emergencies that tend to come up year to year. Therefore, this leaves us no room for savings. Obviously, the US cannot hold a candle to Europe when it comes to quality of life and social safety nets. So raising a family is better off in Europe. Furthermore, I know that Science is just science once you take away all the outer ornamentation. Finally, the European science community is extremely enviable in it's own right. Yet, I know that in my broader field of study, scientists in the US are a few years ahead of those in Europe. So my question is towards academics with families based out of Boston, New York the greater SF area or other equally expensive neighbourhoods. - Are you able to save beyond pennies? - Is my perspective one of grass being greener across the ocean? - Is it possible to occupy a single housing unit (minimum 2 rooms) with a child in places like Boston, SF or New York on a single Post-Doc salary? - Am I worrying over nothing? - What is life like for you as a Post-Doc with a new family in terms of costs? I'm happy with percentages.
RESPONSE A: We succeeded in having a child on a single $60k USD postdoc income in Los Angeles. In our case, I stayed home with the baby for four years. After my husband landed a TT position I was finally able to finish my Ph.D. Fast forward a few years. Now I'm overeducated, unemployed, and geographically handcuffed to an area saturated with Ph.Ds.
RESPONSE B: Don't have a kid. Pit it off as long as you can
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: based out of Europe, just finished my PhD and am currently looking for Post-doctoral positions. For my search I have geographically limited myself to southern Europe. When I was a high-schooler I used to dream of doing frontier research in an Ivy-league institution. These days, I have the resume to make that dream a reality but need to reconcile them with my current situation. I got married last year and we want a child. We don't care much for the very low maternity leave in the US, so one of us will stop working to take care of the child. We have done the calculations and this scenario will most definitely leave our budget in the red taking into account emergencies that tend to come up year to year. Therefore, this leaves us no room for savings. Obviously, the US cannot hold a candle to Europe when it comes to quality of life and social safety nets. So raising a family is better off in Europe. Furthermore, I know that Science is just science once you take away all the outer ornamentation. Finally, the European science community is extremely enviable in it's own right. Yet, I know that in my broader field of study, scientists in the US are a few years ahead of those in Europe. So my question is towards academics with families based out of Boston, New York the greater SF area or other equally expensive neighbourhoods. - Are you able to save beyond pennies? - Is my perspective one of grass being greener across the ocean? - Is it possible to occupy a single housing unit (minimum 2 rooms) with a child in places like Boston, SF or New York on a single Post-Doc salary? - Am I worrying over nothing? - What is life like for you as a Post-Doc with a new family in terms of costs? I'm happy with percentages.
RESPONSE A: Don't have a kid. Pit it off as long as you can
RESPONSE B: Rent in those areas can be affordable on a postdoc salary if you're willing to commute. For example, you can look for housing in the suburbs near NYC or Boston, and just budget 2hrs each way going in for work.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: how everything is so bleak. The girl I was with has gone now, I'm unemployed so my work friends have gone, and I feel extremely lonely. I've been looking for suitable work for a year now and to no avail. I feel as if I am mad for not taking advantage of my family's position. I consider myself fairly bright and perfectly capable of achieving any qualification I set out to achieve, but I feel frozen by not knowing what area would be most suitable for me, not having any particular interest in certain professions and being so inexperienced with it all. Where to start? I didn't need to explain my situation in that detail to ask: what advice would you give to someone in my position? Unemployed, 22, capable, fairly intellectual. I feel so lonely and that is my main issue right now. Every option seems depressing and I feel totally stuck. The Access course was all written work and I was dying to do some maths. I am in such an incredibly privileged position and I have no idea what to do with it. I can't waste it. This has become an embarrassing monologue so I apologise, and as I say, if there is a more suitable sub please let me know. What can I do now that would help my employability and chance of security in the future? I feel overwhelmed. I don't want to work labour forever with people who call me a queer for reading books.
RESPONSE A: Have you contacted the National Careers Service? They might be of help. https://nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/Pages/Home.aspx
RESPONSE B: You've written a lot there, but I reached the end having **no idea what *you* want to do**. I can figure that you aren't too happy with manual labour, and that you weren't particularly fond of academic effort either. Have you considered a middle road, getting a Vocational Qualification? Yes, the decision about what to pursue is daunting, but by age 22 you should have an idea about what you *don't* particularly want to pursue. From there, you can decide better what suits you, and then with go for it on a course that combines training and experience.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: and perfectly capable of achieving any qualification I set out to achieve, but I feel frozen by not knowing what area would be most suitable for me, not having any particular interest in certain professions and being so inexperienced with it all. Where to start? I didn't need to explain my situation in that detail to ask: what advice would you give to someone in my position? Unemployed, 22, capable, fairly intellectual. I feel so lonely and that is my main issue right now. Every option seems depressing and I feel totally stuck. The Access course was all written work and I was dying to do some maths. I am in such an incredibly privileged position and I have no idea what to do with it. I can't waste it. This has become an embarrassing monologue so I apologise, and as I say, if there is a more suitable sub please let me know. What can I do now that would help my employability and chance of security in the future? I feel overwhelmed. I don't want to work labour forever with people who call me a queer for reading books.
RESPONSE A: Have you contacted the National Careers Service? They might be of help. https://nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/Pages/Home.aspx
RESPONSE B: 'I attempted to complete an Access to Higher Education course from 2012 to 2013. I failed to finish it. I was tired of the work, I had met a girl that become important to me, excessively so, and I was distracted, and a few of the subjects I was studying had become laborious. I decided that I had chosen the Access course too hastily, and I would leave to continue working.' The Access to HE course is hard. I did one to get into Uni, I worked my socks off and did close to 60,000 words over the year to achieve high enough grades. My recommendation would be to try and go back, pick better options and play to your strengths. It's only a year and that goes past quickly, it will be many hours a night after college times to succeed but it's worth it. Honestly having completed it myself it's a massive confidence boost. If you want any advice then PM me, I've been in your situation.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: payer money to meet with sex workers/escorts/prostitutes Forgive me if this is not the right place, but I thought that it was fine to post this question here because of a similar topic post https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/comments/dixi3u/how_to_handle_sex_worker_background/. I wish to keep my anonymity for reasons I hope you understand. How would you handle this? https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/04/18/man-conned-his-nasa-funded-lab-into-paying-trips-see-prostitutes-escorts-feds-say/ (History of a similar case) If I report this to the FTC or IRS, would that be relevant? I am not an expert in this kind of legal matter. I'll try and do some reading and I am honestly lost and not sure what to do. I don't really feel comfortable with him (the PI) anymore anyways and I am leaving his lab soon. Just honestly feeling stressed and lost and... I'll try my best... I'm just afraid of the repercussions. He has been failing to keep his word and failing to apologize, and I just really need a break from all of this. I'm tired. I apologize for this. I'm sorry. I'll try to keep a level head, I just need some guidance I think.
RESPONSE A: IMO the priority should be the safety of the sex workers -- some of whom may be slaves. Depending upon the pull of your school and the reputation of local LEAs, you might want to escalate immediately to the state / commonwealth level if not the Feds. Again. Human trafficking may be an issue here. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/violent-crime/human-trafficking
RESPONSE B: How far does it go? Are they expensing uber trips while at a conference or are they blowing thousands of dollars that were ear-marked for research?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Desperately need help. My PI is using NIH tax payer money to meet with sex workers/escorts/prostitutes Forgive me if this is not the right place, but I thought that it was fine to post this question here because of a similar topic post https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/comments/dixi3u/how_to_handle_sex_worker_background/. I wish to keep my anonymity for reasons I hope you understand. How would you handle this? https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/04/18/man-conned-his-nasa-funded-lab-into-paying-trips-see-prostitutes-escorts-feds-say/ (History of a similar case) If I report this to the FTC or IRS, would that be relevant? I am not an expert in this kind of legal matter. I'll try and do some reading and I am honestly lost and not sure what to do. I don't really feel comfortable with him (the PI) anymore anyways and I am leaving his lab soon. Just honestly feeling stressed and lost and... I'll try my best... I'm just afraid of the repercussions. He has been failing to keep his word and failing to apologize, and I just really need a break from all of this. I'm tired. I apologize for this. I'm sorry. I'll try to keep a level head, I just need some guidance I think.
RESPONSE A: Ok what the actual fuck ?
RESPONSE B: IMO the priority should be the safety of the sex workers -- some of whom may be slaves. Depending upon the pull of your school and the reputation of local LEAs, you might want to escalate immediately to the state / commonwealth level if not the Feds. Again. Human trafficking may be an issue here. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/violent-crime/human-trafficking
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Desperately need help. My PI is using NIH tax payer money to meet with sex workers/escorts/prostitutes Forgive me if this is not the right place, but I thought that it was fine to post this question here because of a similar topic post https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/comments/dixi3u/how_to_handle_sex_worker_background/. I wish to keep my anonymity for reasons I hope you understand. How would you handle this? https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/04/18/man-conned-his-nasa-funded-lab-into-paying-trips-see-prostitutes-escorts-feds-say/ (History of a similar case) If I report this to the FTC or IRS, would that be relevant? I am not an expert in this kind of legal matter. I'll try and do some reading and I am honestly lost and not sure what to do. I don't really feel comfortable with him (the PI) anymore anyways and I am leaving his lab soon. Just honestly feeling stressed and lost and... I'll try my best... I'm just afraid of the repercussions. He has been failing to keep his word and failing to apologize, and I just really need a break from all of this. I'm tired. I apologize for this. I'm sorry. I'll try to keep a level head, I just need some guidance I think.
RESPONSE A: You should report this to the Office of the Inspector General for the HHS: Link They can deal with any waste, fraud, and abuse of NIH funds. This isn't your university ethics hotline where they may try to bury the issue, this is an arm of the Federal Government with all of the investigative power and ability to refer to federal prosecution.
RESPONSE B: Go to your ethics board
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: wit's end. I'm thinking of just quitting at this point. This is really tough for me, because I really wanted a faculty position post-postdoc, and I've heard it's impossible to get one without a first-author publication. Even if I were somehow to get the publication out of this, what kind of a recommendation letter would I get from her? ​ Has anyone else had experience with an absent PI? Is there a way to salvage this situation I haven't thought of yet? Or is applying to academia from a position in industry the best option here? As a side note, has anyone successfully gone from industry in STEM back to academia?
RESPONSE A: > she still hasn't given me a concrete vision of what she wants to see in the publication When you ask her about this, what does she say? (or does she just not respond to your email?) If you're so seriously about to jump ship, it's a good idea to tell her that. Then she could have one last chance to sign off on that publication and let you stay afloat. Send a short message saying you've noticed it's been tough to keep communication open lately, and because of that you're not sure this manuscript will be submission-ready in time to let you continue in academia. Because you need to consider your future and maybe move to industry to pay the bills. Then say you truly would love to submit it if she says it's ready, you just need to know what her final requirements are. Be straightforward and collaborative, and avoid sounding dramatic. In an unhappy relationship like this I normally wouldn't recommend going out of your way to save the relationship, but it seems worth it in this case where you've been aiming for academia for years and just need ONE thing done for you to continue.
RESPONSE B: My PhD. supervisor ghosted me for 7 months. I "gently" mentioned to the head of the department that I was worried about my supervisor as I knew his daughter had been ill and I hadn't heard back from him in 7 months. Of course, I knew it had nothing to do with his daughter. He emailed me the day after I talked to the head of the department.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: of her latest round of comments. I addressed her comments in the last email I sent her, and since then, she's been totally silent. She also never comes into work because of COVID. ​ I've tried to be as patient and accommodating as possible, but I'm nearing my wit's end. I'm thinking of just quitting at this point. This is really tough for me, because I really wanted a faculty position post-postdoc, and I've heard it's impossible to get one without a first-author publication. Even if I were somehow to get the publication out of this, what kind of a recommendation letter would I get from her? ​ Has anyone else had experience with an absent PI? Is there a way to salvage this situation I haven't thought of yet? Or is applying to academia from a position in industry the best option here? As a side note, has anyone successfully gone from industry in STEM back to academia?
RESPONSE A: This really doesn’t seem like she is doing anything too bad in my opinion. I would maybe relax your expectations and try to work with her. She took a month to get a lot of revisions back but it was over the holidays and she probably was spending most of it with family. It’s the beginning of Feb so it hasn’t been that long and it’s normal to have several rounds of revisions with your PI and then send to co authors and have a couple more rounds. She is helping you a ton in the long run by being particular about getting it as perfected as possible right now. She is thinking if it’s not the best as can be then it has a higher likelihood of being rejected or getting slammed with revisions (which always seems to happen anyways).
RESPONSE B: My PhD. supervisor ghosted me for 7 months. I "gently" mentioned to the head of the department that I was worried about my supervisor as I knew his daughter had been ill and I hadn't heard back from him in 7 months. Of course, I knew it had nothing to do with his daughter. He emailed me the day after I talked to the head of the department.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: my data and the analysis? We had a few rounds of email exchanges/revisions, but she still hasn't given me a concrete vision of what she wants to see in the publication. Every revision I send, it seems there's something new that she nitpicks on. (e.g. 'Move Figure 5 to the supplement', no other context given) ​ I've been emailing her once a week for the past month or so trying to set up a meeting to lay out what needs to be done to submit this manuscript. She said she wouldn't meet with me until I addressed all of her latest round of comments. I addressed her comments in the last email I sent her, and since then, she's been totally silent. She also never comes into work because of COVID. ​ I've tried to be as patient and accommodating as possible, but I'm nearing my wit's end. I'm thinking of just quitting at this point. This is really tough for me, because I really wanted a faculty position post-postdoc, and I've heard it's impossible to get one without a first-author publication. Even if I were somehow to get the publication out of this, what kind of a recommendation letter would I get from her? ​ Has anyone else had experience with an absent PI? Is there a way to salvage this situation I haven't thought of yet? Or is applying to academia from a position in industry the best option here? As a side note, has anyone successfully gone from industry in STEM back to academia?
RESPONSE A: My friend sent his paper to his prof and has to remind him after 3 months and found out he forgot lol. So I think at least your prof replied.
RESPONSE B: My PhD. supervisor ghosted me for 7 months. I "gently" mentioned to the head of the department that I was worried about my supervisor as I knew his daughter had been ill and I hadn't heard back from him in 7 months. Of course, I knew it had nothing to do with his daughter. He emailed me the day after I talked to the head of the department.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: absent PI? Is there a way to salvage this situation I haven't thought of yet? Or is applying to academia from a position in industry the best option here? As a side note, has anyone successfully gone from industry in STEM back to academia?
RESPONSE A: Do you have any collaborators that can take a look at the paper? Or even people in your group who wouldn't mind giving you comments? One possibility is that there's something missing in the paper which your PI isn't doing a good job explaining and is just giving you comments that dance around the issue. Often times these types of problems can be very hard to self-diagnose because you're too close to the paper. That being said, another possibility is that your PI has abandoned her responsibility to you, which would be unfortunate. Are there departmental resources you can seek out? Maybe a 3rd party to mediate and figure out what the issues are/how to resolve them? Not making time to meet with your postdocs is a failure on the PIs part. A weekly meeting is not an unreasonable request.
RESPONSE B: > she still hasn't given me a concrete vision of what she wants to see in the publication When you ask her about this, what does she say? (or does she just not respond to your email?) If you're so seriously about to jump ship, it's a good idea to tell her that. Then she could have one last chance to sign off on that publication and let you stay afloat. Send a short message saying you've noticed it's been tough to keep communication open lately, and because of that you're not sure this manuscript will be submission-ready in time to let you continue in academia. Because you need to consider your future and maybe move to industry to pay the bills. Then say you truly would love to submit it if she says it's ready, you just need to know what her final requirements are. Be straightforward and collaborative, and avoid sounding dramatic. In an unhappy relationship like this I normally wouldn't recommend going out of your way to save the relationship, but it seems worth it in this case where you've been aiming for academia for years and just need ONE thing done for you to continue.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: a faculty position post-postdoc, and I've heard it's impossible to get one without a first-author publication. Even if I were somehow to get the publication out of this, what kind of a recommendation letter would I get from her? ​ Has anyone else had experience with an absent PI? Is there a way to salvage this situation I haven't thought of yet? Or is applying to academia from a position in industry the best option here? As a side note, has anyone successfully gone from industry in STEM back to academia?
RESPONSE A: Do you have any collaborators that can take a look at the paper? Or even people in your group who wouldn't mind giving you comments? One possibility is that there's something missing in the paper which your PI isn't doing a good job explaining and is just giving you comments that dance around the issue. Often times these types of problems can be very hard to self-diagnose because you're too close to the paper. That being said, another possibility is that your PI has abandoned her responsibility to you, which would be unfortunate. Are there departmental resources you can seek out? Maybe a 3rd party to mediate and figure out what the issues are/how to resolve them? Not making time to meet with your postdocs is a failure on the PIs part. A weekly meeting is not an unreasonable request.
RESPONSE B: This really doesn’t seem like she is doing anything too bad in my opinion. I would maybe relax your expectations and try to work with her. She took a month to get a lot of revisions back but it was over the holidays and she probably was spending most of it with family. It’s the beginning of Feb so it hasn’t been that long and it’s normal to have several rounds of revisions with your PI and then send to co authors and have a couple more rounds. She is helping you a ton in the long run by being particular about getting it as perfected as possible right now. She is thinking if it’s not the best as can be then it has a higher likelihood of being rejected or getting slammed with revisions (which always seems to happen anyways).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: that are two pages shorter than the minimum requirement. It's probably my fault. I just don't understand why. We covered the content in class. It's also in the book. The assignment instructions are detailed. There's a rubric. I made it very clear on more than one occasion this is NOT an assignment to do the night before it's due. From my perspective, they have everything they need to succeed. I'm guilty of lecturing far too much, maybe they just aren't motivated or see the value of spending time on the assignments?
RESPONSE A: Have clear rubric, grade accordingly, move on.
RESPONSE B: Most PhD students were passionate and accomplished undergrads who didn't need much handholding or help meeting deadlines, so when they become teachers, I think they're sometimes a little thrown by the fact that the average performance is well below their level. Which is fine. A lot of people will be prioritizing other things over your class, either because they're going through a tough time and have to or because they'd rather fuck around than study (which is a part of growing up too), a lot of people just won't be very good at the skills you're teaching, and for many, your class will be a bullshit elective or a prereq they have to get through to learn the stuff they actually want to learn. And that's fine, we've all been where these students are, and just because you don't have share a pure and all-consuming fire for your discipline doesn't mean that you can't enjoy these students as people, learn something from the interaction, or at least set them free with the gentleman's C. Making the best of whatever situation you're in a super satisfying feeling. I think, along with understanding that not all students are able to perform at the high level you're expecting, it's good to understand that few want to. Few people seriously aim to graduate college with a 3.7 and get a PhD; not all of your students will subscribe to your value system, and that's okay. Yours is not the only one out there. You're not failing these students by giving them an opportunity that they choose not to take advantage of.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: . There's a cost-benefit analysis they go through when writing papers and trying to decide how much time to spend on them. But come on. I'm sick and tired of reading low-effort, first draft, submitted 10 minutes before the deadline assignments that are two pages shorter than the minimum requirement. It's probably my fault. I just don't understand why. We covered the content in class. It's also in the book. The assignment instructions are detailed. There's a rubric. I made it very clear on more than one occasion this is NOT an assignment to do the night before it's due. From my perspective, they have everything they need to succeed. I'm guilty of lecturing far too much, maybe they just aren't motivated or see the value of spending time on the assignments?
RESPONSE A: Have clear rubric, grade accordingly, move on.
RESPONSE B: When I was in my first year of teaching I had to do a didactics course mandatory for all new teachers. A group of maybe 15 people, spread out age wise between 25 and 50. Dedicated, motivated people who loved their new profession. So you'd expect these teachers to do brilliant in this course right? Wrong! Within two weeks we were guilty of all the usual 'student issues'. Glassy stares, digging our heels in because 'what use is this activity supposed to be?'. One of the memorable moments for me was when we were asked if we had done our reading. An uncomfortable silence fell until one man, in his fourties, replied "I got really mad at my students yesterday for not doing their reading but...no I haven't" Why am I telling you this? Mostly to show you this isn't a student thing. It's a human thing. Nearly all of us are prone to procrastinating given the chance. Self discipline is probably the single hardest thing any student learns at uni. Add to that that they are often young, their brains several years away from being fully grown and told that uni is also supposed to be the time of their life, and hopefully some understanding can start to form. And of course that's not even looking at any potential personal circumstances. Hope this helps a bit.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do you guys Afford living in high COL cities? Do you need to take out additional student loans?
RESPONSE A: I live in a high COL city and everyone above the age of 20 seems to move in with their partners within 6 months of dating
RESPONSE B: I feel like this is the rare question on this subreddit which could be answered 100% adequately with a popular meme. Jokes aside, I definitely had to take out a disgusting amount of loans when attending a programme in a high-COL town. Even ‘fully funded’ programs in lower-COL areas often involve (a significant amount of) debt, however. It’s a massive issue.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do you guys Afford living in high COL cities? Do you need to take out additional student loans?
RESPONSE A: I live in a high COL city and everyone above the age of 20 seems to move in with their partners within 6 months of dating
RESPONSE B: Rich family
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do you guys Afford living in high COL cities? Do you need to take out additional student loans?
RESPONSE A: I live in SD, I'm a grad student. I can't afford to live here. I will most likely move once I finish up 🤷🏾♀️ Couple of our research techs work two jobs. Others live with their families.
RESPONSE B: I live in a high COL city and everyone above the age of 20 seems to move in with their partners within 6 months of dating
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do you guys Afford living in high COL cities? Do you need to take out additional student loans?
RESPONSE A: I feel like this is the rare question on this subreddit which could be answered 100% adequately with a popular meme. Jokes aside, I definitely had to take out a disgusting amount of loans when attending a programme in a high-COL town. Even ‘fully funded’ programs in lower-COL areas often involve (a significant amount of) debt, however. It’s a massive issue.
RESPONSE B: Roommates is one way to go
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do you guys Afford living in high COL cities? Do you need to take out additional student loans?
RESPONSE A: I live in SD, I'm a grad student. I can't afford to live here. I will most likely move once I finish up 🤷🏾♀️ Couple of our research techs work two jobs. Others live with their families.
RESPONSE B: Roommates is one way to go
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Can someone explain how some people publish so many papers - both as a prof and especially before becoming a prof? I'm at a highly ranked R1 and my department just hired a new TT assistant professor. In the two preceding years as a postdoc at a prestigious school, he had published an average of **11 journal papers per year**, all in good journals in their field and with about half as first author, **before becoming a prof**. I just can't even imagine having that rate of output unless one is the head of a large center or group and they get their name on every paper that comes out of it - which this person clearly was not. I average 4 per year in good field journals as non-TT associate prof and I'm happy as a clam if I get more than that in a given year. Does this person just work themselves to death all the time? Have some neat mechanism or approach to coming up with publishable ideas? Have access to crazy resources? Have a strong base of connections? Just has a good sense for research? Maybe all of the above? Anyway, for those who publish a bazillion papers per year or see people who do, what gives rise to that level of output?
RESPONSE A: First of all, even as a first author, co-writing helps. I’m also willing to bet that he had most of these in process for a while before they published. Throw in a two year post-doc with minimal teaching and no administrative responsibilities, and one can publish at a good clip, especially if one has the research already done
RESPONSE B: There was a woman who had 30+ publications when she was on the market. I think it was the perfect storm. She was very smart, obviously, but she co-authored, knew how to work her data and datasets, and she was very organized. She did work in crim, health, and sociology so she was able to aim for multiple outlets and had good backups for rejections.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: , **before becoming a prof**. I just can't even imagine having that rate of output unless one is the head of a large center or group and they get their name on every paper that comes out of it - which this person clearly was not. I average 4 per year in good field journals as non-TT associate prof and I'm happy as a clam if I get more than that in a given year. Does this person just work themselves to death all the time? Have some neat mechanism or approach to coming up with publishable ideas? Have access to crazy resources? Have a strong base of connections? Just has a good sense for research? Maybe all of the above? Anyway, for those who publish a bazillion papers per year or see people who do, what gives rise to that level of output?
RESPONSE A: First of all, even as a first author, co-writing helps. I’m also willing to bet that he had most of these in process for a while before they published. Throw in a two year post-doc with minimal teaching and no administrative responsibilities, and one can publish at a good clip, especially if one has the research already done
RESPONSE B: I asked my advisor about this as he has a very high output, but his advisor's output is near inhuman. Like an article a week inhuman. He said it is a mix of a few things. First both have that weird gene where they can sleep 4 to 5 hours a night and wake up refreshed. Second is they never said to no to collobations or projects that will increase their resource access or connections. Finally, both are amazing mentors who know how to break down a paper into easily assignable units to graduate students and can manage many tasks at once by looking at these smaller pieces. Also if a paper is not good enough for a top journal they will rework it for a lessor known one. They see rejection as a sign the paper needs to be reworked not it is unpublishable. Also both have an open policy on lab members running secondary analyses, so often one an experiment is one, a few people break off into different groups and test their own ideas while we wait for the papers to come together.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: field and with about half as first author, **before becoming a prof**. I just can't even imagine having that rate of output unless one is the head of a large center or group and they get their name on every paper that comes out of it - which this person clearly was not. I average 4 per year in good field journals as non-TT associate prof and I'm happy as a clam if I get more than that in a given year. Does this person just work themselves to death all the time? Have some neat mechanism or approach to coming up with publishable ideas? Have access to crazy resources? Have a strong base of connections? Just has a good sense for research? Maybe all of the above? Anyway, for those who publish a bazillion papers per year or see people who do, what gives rise to that level of output?
RESPONSE A: He could have had a bunch of ideas since he was in his undergrad. Maybe he cut his phd thesis in chuncks to publish more (are all papers somewhat related?). Most likely he had connections. Having an advisor who knows an editorial board helps a lot I've heard.
RESPONSE B: I asked my advisor about this as he has a very high output, but his advisor's output is near inhuman. Like an article a week inhuman. He said it is a mix of a few things. First both have that weird gene where they can sleep 4 to 5 hours a night and wake up refreshed. Second is they never said to no to collobations or projects that will increase their resource access or connections. Finally, both are amazing mentors who know how to break down a paper into easily assignable units to graduate students and can manage many tasks at once by looking at these smaller pieces. Also if a paper is not good enough for a top journal they will rework it for a lessor known one. They see rejection as a sign the paper needs to be reworked not it is unpublishable. Also both have an open policy on lab members running secondary analyses, so often one an experiment is one, a few people break off into different groups and test their own ideas while we wait for the papers to come together.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: m at a highly ranked R1 and my department just hired a new TT assistant professor. In the two preceding years as a postdoc at a prestigious school, he had published an average of **11 journal papers per year**, all in good journals in their field and with about half as first author, **before becoming a prof**. I just can't even imagine having that rate of output unless one is the head of a large center or group and they get their name on every paper that comes out of it - which this person clearly was not. I average 4 per year in good field journals as non-TT associate prof and I'm happy as a clam if I get more than that in a given year. Does this person just work themselves to death all the time? Have some neat mechanism or approach to coming up with publishable ideas? Have access to crazy resources? Have a strong base of connections? Just has a good sense for research? Maybe all of the above? Anyway, for those who publish a bazillion papers per year or see people who do, what gives rise to that level of output?
RESPONSE A: First of all, even as a first author, co-writing helps. I’m also willing to bet that he had most of these in process for a while before they published. Throw in a two year post-doc with minimal teaching and no administrative responsibilities, and one can publish at a good clip, especially if one has the research already done
RESPONSE B: A colleague of mine published 6 or 7 papers last year. I follow him in order to understand his methods: 1) He works a lot. He gets to university 7:30 in the morning and works until 10:00 pm after his children went to sleep. He has no social life. 2)He avoids any administrative responsabilties; 3) He focus on publishing. It does not matter if what he is developing is scientifically relevant, he only looks for the easiest way to publish anything. He does not risk new problems, new methods, and so on. He focus on developing that marginally new method which is only a variant of something already known in the field; 4) He coauthors with anybody who asks him for help, in any more or less related field.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: before becoming a prof? I'm at a highly ranked R1 and my department just hired a new TT assistant professor. In the two preceding years as a postdoc at a prestigious school, he had published an average of **11 journal papers per year**, all in good journals in their field and with about half as first author, **before becoming a prof**. I just can't even imagine having that rate of output unless one is the head of a large center or group and they get their name on every paper that comes out of it - which this person clearly was not. I average 4 per year in good field journals as non-TT associate prof and I'm happy as a clam if I get more than that in a given year. Does this person just work themselves to death all the time? Have some neat mechanism or approach to coming up with publishable ideas? Have access to crazy resources? Have a strong base of connections? Just has a good sense for research? Maybe all of the above? Anyway, for those who publish a bazillion papers per year or see people who do, what gives rise to that level of output?
RESPONSE A: He could have had a bunch of ideas since he was in his undergrad. Maybe he cut his phd thesis in chuncks to publish more (are all papers somewhat related?). Most likely he had connections. Having an advisor who knows an editorial board helps a lot I've heard.
RESPONSE B: A colleague of mine published 6 or 7 papers last year. I follow him in order to understand his methods: 1) He works a lot. He gets to university 7:30 in the morning and works until 10:00 pm after his children went to sleep. He has no social life. 2)He avoids any administrative responsabilties; 3) He focus on publishing. It does not matter if what he is developing is scientifically relevant, he only looks for the easiest way to publish anything. He does not risk new problems, new methods, and so on. He focus on developing that marginally new method which is only a variant of something already known in the field; 4) He coauthors with anybody who asks him for help, in any more or less related field.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What is the name norm when publishing if you get married? Just wondering what the general consensus is on what name to publish under if your name changes due to marriage, and there is already work published using the original name. Do most people stick with their maiden name when publishing their work, even if it isn't their legal name?
RESPONSE A: My biased opinion is just keep using your maiden name for publication. I hope your marriage is happy and long-lasting, but in the off chance it isn’t, you don’t wanna have to deal with retroactively changing names on your publications. Of course what you want to do with your legal name and in social settings is entirely up to you.
RESPONSE B: I've noticed this was probably a bigger deal in years past. I've heard lots of faculty seriously discussing the importance of naming oneself appropriately, but I've never seen it come up. Most of the faculty I know have chosen whatever name they want and it hasn't been an issue. There are tons of easy ways to certify those publications are yours without having to worry about this much. I have a trans colleague who has had a bit more trouble because of the shift in gendered first name, but we are strongly encouraged to submit all of our supporting documentation for tenure anyway, so the paper trail is more than enough.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What is the name norm when publishing if you get married? Just wondering what the general consensus is on what name to publish under if your name changes due to marriage, and there is already work published using the original name. Do most people stick with their maiden name when publishing their work, even if it isn't their legal name?
RESPONSE A: Keep your maiden name for work, and your married name for personal stuff. Otherwise you will split your publications across 2 names and anyone doing a search of you is going to come up with a truncated list (people aren't gonna do multiple searches).
RESPONSE B: I've noticed this was probably a bigger deal in years past. I've heard lots of faculty seriously discussing the importance of naming oneself appropriately, but I've never seen it come up. Most of the faculty I know have chosen whatever name they want and it hasn't been an issue. There are tons of easy ways to certify those publications are yours without having to worry about this much. I have a trans colleague who has had a bit more trouble because of the shift in gendered first name, but we are strongly encouraged to submit all of our supporting documentation for tenure anyway, so the paper trail is more than enough.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How much public speaking does being a PhD student include? I will finish my Master's this year and I've always thought I wanted to do a PhD so I could do research. I know you have to do some public speaking, but how much? I have social anxiety but I am able to give presentations (even though I hate it), and I usually get good comments on them from my professors, but the thought of getting questions in front of a crowd scares me. I feel like even though I would have a lot of knowledge in a specific area, there's always someone who asks really complicated questions and I'd feel so stupid if I didn't know how to answer them etc. And I don't mean that I don't know the answer, but thinking quickly and giving a good answer can be difficult. I'm also generally wondering what being a PhD student "looks like"? Because I often hear negative stuff, and I'm wondering *what* is so negative/stressful about it because people never seem to specify that. I'd like to know what I get myself into beforehand so I know if it's actually worth it or not. I only know a few stuff atm but really not enough to know if I'm actually ready to pursue it now that I'm so close.
RESPONSE A: You don't *have* to give presentations, but doing so during conferences etc is part of the job. If you want to work in academia, you will obviously do a lot of teaching too. Have you considered getting outside help regarding this thing?
RESPONSE B: You’ll have to give some presentations in you courses, likely have to give one when you take your comps, you will to defend your dissertation, and will likely be asked to present at conferences. So while not a major element, many critical points require presentations. If you have a lot of anxiety about presentations, I recommend checking out Toastmasters. Toastmasters really helped me get over presentation anxiety. I’m still active in two clubs. There are clubs everywhere around the world, but one of the clubs I’m in meets entirely online, Country Roads Toastmasters, if you just want to check out a meeting to see if it might help you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I am able to give presentations (even though I hate it), and I usually get good comments on them from my professors, but the thought of getting questions in front of a crowd scares me. I feel like even though I would have a lot of knowledge in a specific area, there's always someone who asks really complicated questions and I'd feel so stupid if I didn't know how to answer them etc. And I don't mean that I don't know the answer, but thinking quickly and giving a good answer can be difficult. I'm also generally wondering what being a PhD student "looks like"? Because I often hear negative stuff, and I'm wondering *what* is so negative/stressful about it because people never seem to specify that. I'd like to know what I get myself into beforehand so I know if it's actually worth it or not. I only know a few stuff atm but really not enough to know if I'm actually ready to pursue it now that I'm so close.
RESPONSE A: You don't *have* to give presentations, but doing so during conferences etc is part of the job. If you want to work in academia, you will obviously do a lot of teaching too. Have you considered getting outside help regarding this thing?
RESPONSE B: At least in the biological sciences, giving talks is very important. In your PhD, you'll be giving lab meetings (in front of 5-20 people) as well as talks at conferences (100-1000 people). And if you become a PI, then a good chunk of your job will be giving talks. But don't worry too much about not knowing how to answer the audience's questions or feeling stupid. By the time that you're giving talks, you have studied the subject 100 times more in-depth than anybody else in the room, and the questions they ask will likely be very very basic, stuff that you have thought about hundreds of times. Part of doing a PhD is going from feeling like the professors are "above" you to feeling like you guys are colleagues. And during your PhD, you'll quickly realize that most PIs are so far from experiments that you know a lot more than them (at least the experimental details).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: them etc. And I don't mean that I don't know the answer, but thinking quickly and giving a good answer can be difficult. I'm also generally wondering what being a PhD student "looks like"? Because I often hear negative stuff, and I'm wondering *what* is so negative/stressful about it because people never seem to specify that. I'd like to know what I get myself into beforehand so I know if it's actually worth it or not. I only know a few stuff atm but really not enough to know if I'm actually ready to pursue it now that I'm so close.
RESPONSE A: I totally understand the anxiety. Public speaking is an important part to acquire a phd degree, although you do not have to become like a keynote speaker. I would say skills on any form of communication in general (including oral/written) are important and required. Having said that, I'd like to mention that this requirement alone should NOT become the biggest factor to decide whether you have to pursue the degree or not. You will be trained to properly write and talk during the phd degree program, along with many other things. It could be a good opportunity, because your job (even after your ms degree) will anyway require some presentations and formal communications.
RESPONSE B: At least in the biological sciences, giving talks is very important. In your PhD, you'll be giving lab meetings (in front of 5-20 people) as well as talks at conferences (100-1000 people). And if you become a PI, then a good chunk of your job will be giving talks. But don't worry too much about not knowing how to answer the audience's questions or feeling stupid. By the time that you're giving talks, you have studied the subject 100 times more in-depth than anybody else in the room, and the questions they ask will likely be very very basic, stuff that you have thought about hundreds of times. Part of doing a PhD is going from feeling like the professors are "above" you to feeling like you guys are colleagues. And during your PhD, you'll quickly realize that most PIs are so far from experiments that you know a lot more than them (at least the experimental details).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: except several of the positions allow you to see who has responded and who hasn't and he consistently has not responded to anything since roughly November. We didn't have a falling out or anything... or at least that I know of. The last time I saw him was at my dissertation defense and he was great and even hugged me and said it's been a privilege to work with me. So this is very odd. The ONLY thing I can think of is that late last spring, I applied for a part-time position where they were definitely interested in me and finally emailed him when after 2+ months, they reached out to me and told me that he didn't respond to the several queries he had sent. I emailed him and politely asked if he had gotten them and asked if he was still willing to be a reference and if so, what type of timeline would be reasonable for them to expect it. Very polite. Very unassuming. (I literally spent an hour writing this thing and had someone look over it to make sure I wasn't being rude.) He didn't respond but he submitted his reference an hour after I sent the email. He never followed up with me. The only thing I can think is that maybe this annoyed him. I guess I should find someone else (although he looks great on paper but it is what it is) but I'm tempted to email him and ask if there is something I did. Would this be weird?
RESPONSE A: Might be something as simple as a change in the campus email system, which is sending these requests to spam. Happens to important emails send to me all the time... Definitely worth a reach out, but obviously as diplomatically as possible.
RESPONSE B: Any chance the reference doesn't have to be private? I was applying in Europe for jobs and they had a section to upload a reference letter so I had my PI send me a letter and I used that. Fortunately none of the companies actually checked the references until I was in the end stage of the interview at which point they did required personal call phone reference. Then there was a background check reference and another letter and after 3 times of asking I felt bad. This might not be the case with US though
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Would it be inappropriate/insensitive to ask my department coordinator to notify me in case of a certain professor's death? I'm a grad student, and I'll be finishing in about a month and moving across the country. There was one professor (other than my advisor) who I talked with quite a bit and really care for, but we're not close enough where his family would notify me if he were to pass away. He is 91 years old (and still working!) and has had two major health scares in the past year. I really would want to attend his funeral in the event of his passing, but I'm not sure if it would be insensitive to ask my department coordinator to notify me in that event, since obviously the department members aren't openly discussing the possibility of his death. I just feel like once I graduate no one will remember me/think to contact me, and I would want to be there. Thanks for any advice!
RESPONSE A: If it's hard to keep up with him (i.e. he doesn't use email, etc), keep in touch with the Dept admin assistant. They know EVERYTHiNG.
RESPONSE B: You can always ask to be informed if he ever leaves the university, since you'd like to attend the retirement party. If the coordinator mentions other ways of his "leaving the university" you ask be told of those as well.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: s; I know my supervisor likes being called Dr. in front of other prospective students. That being said, there are other times when I feel it's fairly ambiguous. My department coordinator, for example, always signs off emails with his first name and is super informal with students, yet I continue to call him Dr. because he's never corrected me and I've never really heard any other students call him by his first name. Similarly, my committee members all sign off emails with their first names, but I continue to call them Dr. This gets awkward, because my supervisor is obviously on my committee and I feel weird calling only her by her first name, so I tend to call her Dr. as well. Sorry this turned into a very rambly post lol. Anyway, the question stands: when do you feel it's appropriate to refer to a prof/scientist by their first name?
RESPONSE A: I default to Dr. last-name unless they correct/ask me to use their first name or I am introduced to them with their first name. If I am in front of a bunch of students (classroom, lecture hall, etc), then I would use Dr.
RESPONSE B: I'm a third year PhD student. I only address them by their 'Dr./Prof. Lastname' title unless they explicitly correct me. No exceptions. I'm surprised to see how in the minority I am. Maybe I'm old fashioned (though I'm pretty young!). But I honestly feel much too presumptuous/irreverent doing anything else. And from the perspective of how I'm perceived, I'd much rather err on the side of caution and be thought of as a little too respectful/formal than as a little too disrespectful/presumptuous. FWIW, I come from a family of academics, so I wouldn't attribute this perspective to excessive awe of academia - if anything, I'm more used to thinking of professors as normal people than most of my peers. I just figure that they've worked hard for the title and that they're entitled to have people use it if they want. It's how I'd want to be treated.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Where do you personally drawn the line with calling professors/scientists by their first names? Second year PhD student here. In undergrad, I never called my profs by their first names unless they explicitly told me to. Now that I'm in grad school, there are quite a few profs whom I was introduced to on a first-name basis, thus I continue to call them by their first names (including my supervisor). There are exceptions; I know my supervisor likes being called Dr. in front of other prospective students. That being said, there are other times when I feel it's fairly ambiguous. My department coordinator, for example, always signs off emails with his first name and is super informal with students, yet I continue to call him Dr. because he's never corrected me and I've never really heard any other students call him by his first name. Similarly, my committee members all sign off emails with their first names, but I continue to call them Dr. This gets awkward, because my supervisor is obviously on my committee and I feel weird calling only her by her first name, so I tend to call her Dr. as well. Sorry this turned into a very rambly post lol. Anyway, the question stands: when do you feel it's appropriate to refer to a prof/scientist by their first name?
RESPONSE A: I default to Dr. last-name unless they correct/ask me to use their first name or I am introduced to them with their first name. If I am in front of a bunch of students (classroom, lecture hall, etc), then I would use Dr.
RESPONSE B: I'm a postdoc and I still default to Dr./Professor for anyone who outranks me until correct. I consider signing an email with a first name as a casual/low pressure invitation to use their first name.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Where do you personally drawn the line with calling professors/scientists by their first names? Second year PhD student here. In undergrad, I never called my profs by their first names unless they explicitly told me to. Now that I'm in grad school, there are quite a few profs whom I was introduced to on a first-name basis, thus I continue to call them by their first names (including my supervisor). There are exceptions; I know my supervisor likes being called Dr. in front of other prospective students. That being said, there are other times when I feel it's fairly ambiguous. My department coordinator, for example, always signs off emails with his first name and is super informal with students, yet I continue to call him Dr. because he's never corrected me and I've never really heard any other students call him by his first name. Similarly, my committee members all sign off emails with their first names, but I continue to call them Dr. This gets awkward, because my supervisor is obviously on my committee and I feel weird calling only her by her first name, so I tend to call her Dr. as well. Sorry this turned into a very rambly post lol. Anyway, the question stands: when do you feel it's appropriate to refer to a prof/scientist by their first name?
RESPONSE A: I'm a postdoc and I still default to Dr./Professor for anyone who outranks me until correct. I consider signing an email with a first name as a casual/low pressure invitation to use their first name.
RESPONSE B: Default: Dr. XXX, unless told otherwise. When introducing to a group, Dr. XXX When introducing to a scientist/professional, Dr. XXX When introducing to a non-science person in a social setting, their first name.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: student here. In undergrad, I never called my profs by their first names unless they explicitly told me to. Now that I'm in grad school, there are quite a few profs whom I was introduced to on a first-name basis, thus I continue to call them by their first names (including my supervisor). There are exceptions; I know my supervisor likes being called Dr. in front of other prospective students. That being said, there are other times when I feel it's fairly ambiguous. My department coordinator, for example, always signs off emails with his first name and is super informal with students, yet I continue to call him Dr. because he's never corrected me and I've never really heard any other students call him by his first name. Similarly, my committee members all sign off emails with their first names, but I continue to call them Dr. This gets awkward, because my supervisor is obviously on my committee and I feel weird calling only her by her first name, so I tend to call her Dr. as well. Sorry this turned into a very rambly post lol. Anyway, the question stands: when do you feel it's appropriate to refer to a prof/scientist by their first name?
RESPONSE A: I've never called my professors by their first names unless they've explicitly said "You can call me ___." Every one of them has been introduced to me by their first/last name, they also use their first names when signing off on emails. Even less formal is that our chair will text me from time to time (lately asking how I've been feeling since I'm taking a small break due to being pregnant) and my husband actually does his yardwork for him - even my husband refers to him as Dr. I would say unless you've been told by that individual that they would prefer you speak to each other on a first-name basis it's best to err on the side of caution and keep referring to them as Dr.
RESPONSE B: I'm a postdoc and I still default to Dr./Professor for anyone who outranks me until correct. I consider signing an email with a first name as a casual/low pressure invitation to use their first name.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I never called my profs by their first names unless they explicitly told me to. Now that I'm in grad school, there are quite a few profs whom I was introduced to on a first-name basis, thus I continue to call them by their first names (including my supervisor). There are exceptions; I know my supervisor likes being called Dr. in front of other prospective students. That being said, there are other times when I feel it's fairly ambiguous. My department coordinator, for example, always signs off emails with his first name and is super informal with students, yet I continue to call him Dr. because he's never corrected me and I've never really heard any other students call him by his first name. Similarly, my committee members all sign off emails with their first names, but I continue to call them Dr. This gets awkward, because my supervisor is obviously on my committee and I feel weird calling only her by her first name, so I tend to call her Dr. as well. Sorry this turned into a very rambly post lol. Anyway, the question stands: when do you feel it's appropriate to refer to a prof/scientist by their first name?
RESPONSE A: Personally, I only call a prof by their first name if I've either been explicitly told to do so, or if they are a former mentor from undergrad. I do not call my advisor by his first name, that would be so weird, but we do call our RE by his first name. In contrast, profs I work with outside of my subfield, say regarding outreach or student activities, I usually do call by their first name. I think it all depends on the relationship you have with your advisor, and how formal/informal you are in general. As I'm originally from the southern US, I tend to use sir and ma'am as a default way to address anyone who might be 5 years older than me or more, and people call me out for that out here on the west coast.
RESPONSE B: I'm a postdoc and I still default to Dr./Professor for anyone who outranks me until correct. I consider signing an email with a first name as a casual/low pressure invitation to use their first name.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: it feels like the students lean more toward teaching, but at the same time, I'm at a second or third tier university. I'm wondering what the split is at other universities, and if the split is different based upon what tier the university is, i.e. a big name research university is obviously going to have people who'd rather research.
RESPONSE A: I'm a graduate student at an R1 university, so most of the faculty/advisors focus on research rather than teaching and that kind of reflects on the students. For my department, it's mostly up to the student (with their advisor's approval) to decide if they want to teach. I think most of the students in my department want to teach at least once for the experience, but not necessarily pursue a teaching position after graduating. I think most people are here to do their research, but I've really found more enjoyment in teaching rather than research, so I'm leaning more towards a teaching faculty position. We sometimes have a shortage of TA's because not enough students are applying for the amount of positions available, so I end up getting more sections than a student should be getting in a semester (sigh). The reason for the shortage is that the advisors want their students to do their research and graduate as soon as possible and/or they (student or advisor) have the funding for their student so why do they have to teach? For me, my advisor wants me to teach to pay myself, but it comes at a cost of slow productivity on my end. In short, it seems like the majority of the students in my department enjoy their research more than teaching which makes sense since we're categorized as an R1 university, but I will say that those who have taught already enjoyed their teaching position.
RESPONSE B: At Prestigious University where I worked as a graduate student and post-doc, I was surprised by the fair number of people, especially individuals in my particular cohort, who were so passionate and engaged in their teaching. The job market is so terrible in my humanities field right now, their experiences in teaching have helped them land good jobs. I know people who work in the federal government, for think tanks, private research firms, and at fancy private high schools.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Grad students, what is the split between those in your department who would prefer to primarily research and those who would prefer to primarily teach? At my university, I'd say it feels like the students lean more toward teaching, but at the same time, I'm at a second or third tier university. I'm wondering what the split is at other universities, and if the split is different based upon what tier the university is, i.e. a big name research university is obviously going to have people who'd rather research.
RESPONSE A: I'd say 95% want to do research, 5% teach. I'm at an R2 (although my department is more of an R1).
RESPONSE B: At Prestigious University where I worked as a graduate student and post-doc, I was surprised by the fair number of people, especially individuals in my particular cohort, who were so passionate and engaged in their teaching. The job market is so terrible in my humanities field right now, their experiences in teaching have helped them land good jobs. I know people who work in the federal government, for think tanks, private research firms, and at fancy private high schools.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Grad students, what is the split between those in your department who would prefer to primarily research and those who would prefer to primarily teach? At my university, I'd say it feels like the students lean more toward teaching, but at the same time, I'm at a second or third tier university. I'm wondering what the split is at other universities, and if the split is different based upon what tier the university is, i.e. a big name research university is obviously going to have people who'd rather research.
RESPONSE A: Did grad school at an R1 mid-semi-upper tier in my field. In my dept I'd say slightly over half truly want top-level research-based appointments, the rest want something more teaching focused with less publishing pressure. My dept might be different in that we have a lot of support for teaching from the professors. Everyone has to at least TA for 4 years and they also offer limited lecture positions and encourage us to gain CC experience. But even so, I've found that most who don't want an R1 job later don't openly flaunt the fact that they would rather teach, but when I speak to them one-on-one I'm often surprised how many are in that category. Despite the open support from the faculty for teaching, I guess there's a certain institutional pressure to like research since all the faculty obviously do. Or maybe it's because our job as grad students is research and it doesn't look good if you tell your advisor you don't like what you're doing. Either way, opinions toward wanting research change over the course of grad school (for me and several of my friends). I came in wanting an R1 appointment coming out, and now I'm not even bothering to apply for them because I know it's not what I want.
RESPONSE B: I'd say 95% want to do research, 5% teach. I'm at an R2 (although my department is more of an R1).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Grad students, what is the split between those in your department who would prefer to primarily research and those who would prefer to primarily teach? At my university, I'd say it feels like the students lean more toward teaching, but at the same time, I'm at a second or third tier university. I'm wondering what the split is at other universities, and if the split is different based upon what tier the university is, i.e. a big name research university is obviously going to have people who'd rather research.
RESPONSE A: I did my PhD from an R2 (used to be R1), and everyone said they wanted to pursue research, it was looked down upon if you said you were interested in teaching. People in academia have really bloated egos and their is a very clear hierarchy based on your grants and publications.
RESPONSE B: Did grad school at an R1 mid-semi-upper tier in my field. In my dept I'd say slightly over half truly want top-level research-based appointments, the rest want something more teaching focused with less publishing pressure. My dept might be different in that we have a lot of support for teaching from the professors. Everyone has to at least TA for 4 years and they also offer limited lecture positions and encourage us to gain CC experience. But even so, I've found that most who don't want an R1 job later don't openly flaunt the fact that they would rather teach, but when I speak to them one-on-one I'm often surprised how many are in that category. Despite the open support from the faculty for teaching, I guess there's a certain institutional pressure to like research since all the faculty obviously do. Or maybe it's because our job as grad students is research and it doesn't look good if you tell your advisor you don't like what you're doing. Either way, opinions toward wanting research change over the course of grad school (for me and several of my friends). I came in wanting an R1 appointment coming out, and now I'm not even bothering to apply for them because I know it's not what I want.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do I have to use my full last name in scientific publications? If no, what are the pros and cons? I'm hispanic meaning my legal last name is customarily my father's followed by my mother's. I have been living in another country without this custom for over a decade, and I use my first last name only as much as I can (emails or social media for example, be it Facebook or LinkedIn). The only place I use my 2nd last name is where I'm legally required to (official documents like contracts or signatures). Few are those who know my second last name because I don't present myself with it anywhere. I will soon finish my thesis and next year I will participate in 2 projects where I will potentially co-author 2 or more publications. Is there a way I can make it so I'm only cited by my first last name, both in my thesis and these papers? Could this cause any issues?
RESPONSE A: Just be consistent with which name you use in publications, Google scholar page, Orchid etc. That way others will be able to find your research easily as you progress your career.
RESPONSE B: Spaniard here. When I started publishing I used both surnames and most publishers (and search engines and libraries and other authors citing me and …) messed It up frequently turning my first surname into my middle name. To avoid this, I see two options: either use a hyphen between both surnames (which I see quite frequently in my discipline) or use only your first surname and prepare to explain yourself to your mother’s side of the family. ;-) I am now using only my first surname without any phonetic accents and this has made life a lot easier :)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do I have to use my full last name in scientific publications? If no, what are the pros and cons? I'm hispanic meaning my legal last name is customarily my father's followed by my mother's. I have been living in another country without this custom for over a decade, and I use my first last name only as much as I can (emails or social media for example, be it Facebook or LinkedIn). The only place I use my 2nd last name is where I'm legally required to (official documents like contracts or signatures). Few are those who know my second last name because I don't present myself with it anywhere. I will soon finish my thesis and next year I will participate in 2 projects where I will potentially co-author 2 or more publications. Is there a way I can make it so I'm only cited by my first last name, both in my thesis and these papers? Could this cause any issues?
RESPONSE A: Use the name you want to use long term for your career. So long as you aren't trying to misrepresent yourself or defraud anyone, journals do not give a shit what version of your name you use.
RESPONSE B: Spaniard here. When I started publishing I used both surnames and most publishers (and search engines and libraries and other authors citing me and …) messed It up frequently turning my first surname into my middle name. To avoid this, I see two options: either use a hyphen between both surnames (which I see quite frequently in my discipline) or use only your first surname and prepare to explain yourself to your mother’s side of the family. ;-) I am now using only my first surname without any phonetic accents and this has made life a lot easier :)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I can't get an oral presentation at my favourite conference no matter what **tl;dr**: ranting, ranting and "what can I do so that I finally get an oral?" **full version** I've gotten yet again the answer to my submissions to my favorite conference, which I'm going to attend for the 10th time. (virtually this year). And, once again, I got my abstracts accepted only as posters. I don't know what to do anymore. A friend of mine that works in a separate sub-field (hardware instead of software for the same machines) gets an oral every year, even when his group doesn't have any new results! The quality of the orals is like you expect in an academic conference including a 30% utter rubbish, and a 10% "I can't believe someone's so brilliant is in the same room as me". And I'm definitely better than the "utter rubbish" at least! Last year I've submitted an abstract concerning my entry to a challenge and I got a poster about it. Another guy who participated in the same challenge got an oral instead. Yet, I won the challenge, while the other guy that participated got a much lower ranking! The paper describing how I did was that worse than his? (when the selection was made, the challenge results were not available yet) Honestly, what am I doing wrong? BTW, it's an IEEE conference where you are selected on the basis of a short abstract plus a 2 pages summary. Any tricks you're willing to suggest me?
RESPONSE A: Learn to love posters!
RESPONSE B: While the 'present and move on' advice is correct, if it is this systematic it may be that your abstracts are not doing what they should be doing. How do your abstracts compare to those which are getting accepted for oral presentations? Don't compare the presentations; compare the abstracts. Are theirs systematically any different to yours? Think about scope, implications, specificity of findings.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I can't get an oral presentation at my favourite conference no matter what **tl;dr**: ranting, ranting and "what can I do so that I finally get an oral?" **full version** I've gotten yet again the answer to my submissions to my favorite conference, which I'm going to attend for the 10th time. (virtually this year). And, once again, I got my abstracts accepted only as posters. I don't know what to do anymore. A friend of mine that works in a separate sub-field (hardware instead of software for the same machines) gets an oral every year, even when his group doesn't have any new results! The quality of the orals is like you expect in an academic conference including a 30% utter rubbish, and a 10% "I can't believe someone's so brilliant is in the same room as me". And I'm definitely better than the "utter rubbish" at least! Last year I've submitted an abstract concerning my entry to a challenge and I got a poster about it. Another guy who participated in the same challenge got an oral instead. Yet, I won the challenge, while the other guy that participated got a much lower ranking! The paper describing how I did was that worse than his? (when the selection was made, the challenge results were not available yet) Honestly, what am I doing wrong? BTW, it's an IEEE conference where you are selected on the basis of a short abstract plus a 2 pages summary. Any tricks you're willing to suggest me?
RESPONSE A: While the 'present and move on' advice is correct, if it is this systematic it may be that your abstracts are not doing what they should be doing. How do your abstracts compare to those which are getting accepted for oral presentations? Don't compare the presentations; compare the abstracts. Are theirs systematically any different to yours? Think about scope, implications, specificity of findings.
RESPONSE B: I'm in biomedical, and our conferences are divided into sessions each on a different topic. Is that true in your field and does your work (based on the title and abstract) fit neatly in one of those sections?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I can't get an oral presentation at my favourite conference no matter what **tl;dr**: ranting, ranting and "what can I do so that I finally get an oral?" **full version** I've gotten yet again the answer to my submissions to my favorite conference, which I'm going to attend for the 10th time. (virtually this year). And, once again, I got my abstracts accepted only as posters. I don't know what to do anymore. A friend of mine that works in a separate sub-field (hardware instead of software for the same machines) gets an oral every year, even when his group doesn't have any new results! The quality of the orals is like you expect in an academic conference including a 30% utter rubbish, and a 10% "I can't believe someone's so brilliant is in the same room as me". And I'm definitely better than the "utter rubbish" at least! Last year I've submitted an abstract concerning my entry to a challenge and I got a poster about it. Another guy who participated in the same challenge got an oral instead. Yet, I won the challenge, while the other guy that participated got a much lower ranking! The paper describing how I did was that worse than his? (when the selection was made, the challenge results were not available yet) Honestly, what am I doing wrong? BTW, it's an IEEE conference where you are selected on the basis of a short abstract plus a 2 pages summary. Any tricks you're willing to suggest me?
RESPONSE A: Learn to love posters!
RESPONSE B: It sounds like you need someone else in your field to look at your work and tell you if you're missing the mark in some way. The advice we can give anonymously will be very limited because we don't understand the nuances of conferences in your field, and because we can't look at your submission and all the others'. I agree with the other commenter, the consistency does suggest that you're systematically doing something that makes your submissions look worse than others'.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: matter what **tl;dr**: ranting, ranting and "what can I do so that I finally get an oral?" **full version** I've gotten yet again the answer to my submissions to my favorite conference, which I'm going to attend for the 10th time. (virtually this year). And, once again, I got my abstracts accepted only as posters. I don't know what to do anymore. A friend of mine that works in a separate sub-field (hardware instead of software for the same machines) gets an oral every year, even when his group doesn't have any new results! The quality of the orals is like you expect in an academic conference including a 30% utter rubbish, and a 10% "I can't believe someone's so brilliant is in the same room as me". And I'm definitely better than the "utter rubbish" at least! Last year I've submitted an abstract concerning my entry to a challenge and I got a poster about it. Another guy who participated in the same challenge got an oral instead. Yet, I won the challenge, while the other guy that participated got a much lower ranking! The paper describing how I did was that worse than his? (when the selection was made, the challenge results were not available yet) Honestly, what am I doing wrong? BTW, it's an IEEE conference where you are selected on the basis of a short abstract plus a 2 pages summary. Any tricks you're willing to suggest me?
RESPONSE A: I'm in biomedical, and our conferences are divided into sessions each on a different topic. Is that true in your field and does your work (based on the title and abstract) fit neatly in one of those sections?
RESPONSE B: It sounds like you need someone else in your field to look at your work and tell you if you're missing the mark in some way. The advice we can give anonymously will be very limited because we don't understand the nuances of conferences in your field, and because we can't look at your submission and all the others'. I agree with the other commenter, the consistency does suggest that you're systematically doing something that makes your submissions look worse than others'.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: patients every day, can be a bit of a grind (55-60 hours/week). Pay starts higher (maybe 400-450k/year) and will rise quickly for 2 years to 600-800k/year, and then slowly rise after that as I get more efficient over time and/or with inflation. Main benefit is the money, lack of having research projects hang over my head (and having to bring work home with me). Possible downsides are missing the intellectual side of academia and the longer-term outlook that comes with research (i.e. every day/week/month is going to be the same in broad strokes, I'll be doing the same thing in August 2030 as I am in August 2020). ​ Has anyone on this sub left academia after years of being in academia and succeeding at it? I feel like I may be throwing away an opportunity that so many want and so few get.
RESPONSE A: I would submit that the hours you work with the academic job are not the true hours you work. You're **paid** for 45-50 hours a week, but if you have responsibilities like most academics, you exceed those hours. With a private job, the number of hours you have is more fixed. That's not to say that you're not going to exceed them, you will. >I am lukewarm about my research but could continue it. Whatever you do as research, you're going to invest **years** of your life into it. Is it worth spending years researching something you're admitting you're "lukewarm" about.
RESPONSE B: not from the medical field, but i recently left academia after 7 years in the field of higher education admin, and let me tell you - it has been the best decision of my life. i make more money. i work less hours. the work i do feels more appreciated (from clients and employers). there is less politic-ing my way through the work day. moving up in my company actually seems possible. my suggestion is to do it. even if it's "harder" at first - i've never had to pay rent before in my life (i'm 25) - it will be worth it in the long haul.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 70% seeing patients, teaching, and administrative duties. Somewhat more flexible lifestyle due to culture and slower pace (45-50 hours/week). Pay starts at 300k/year and may rise slowly over the next 10-15 years. I am lukewarm about my research but could continue it. The main benefit is getting to stay in an intellectually engaging environment at a top institution for my field, and one where I am comfortable having been in the academic environment for almost 20 years. --Private job: 100% seeing patients every day, can be a bit of a grind (55-60 hours/week). Pay starts higher (maybe 400-450k/year) and will rise quickly for 2 years to 600-800k/year, and then slowly rise after that as I get more efficient over time and/or with inflation. Main benefit is the money, lack of having research projects hang over my head (and having to bring work home with me). Possible downsides are missing the intellectual side of academia and the longer-term outlook that comes with research (i.e. every day/week/month is going to be the same in broad strokes, I'll be doing the same thing in August 2030 as I am in August 2020). ​ Has anyone on this sub left academia after years of being in academia and succeeding at it? I feel like I may be throwing away an opportunity that so many want and so few get.
RESPONSE A: Not on the medical path so I don’t really know: is there one-way street between the two option? Edited to say one-way
RESPONSE B: I would submit that the hours you work with the academic job are not the true hours you work. You're **paid** for 45-50 hours a week, but if you have responsibilities like most academics, you exceed those hours. With a private job, the number of hours you have is more fixed. That's not to say that you're not going to exceed them, you will. >I am lukewarm about my research but could continue it. Whatever you do as research, you're going to invest **years** of your life into it. Is it worth spending years researching something you're admitting you're "lukewarm" about.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: --Private job: 100% seeing patients every day, can be a bit of a grind (55-60 hours/week). Pay starts higher (maybe 400-450k/year) and will rise quickly for 2 years to 600-800k/year, and then slowly rise after that as I get more efficient over time and/or with inflation. Main benefit is the money, lack of having research projects hang over my head (and having to bring work home with me). Possible downsides are missing the intellectual side of academia and the longer-term outlook that comes with research (i.e. every day/week/month is going to be the same in broad strokes, I'll be doing the same thing in August 2030 as I am in August 2020). ​ Has anyone on this sub left academia after years of being in academia and succeeding at it? I feel like I may be throwing away an opportunity that so many want and so few get.
RESPONSE A: I would submit that the hours you work with the academic job are not the true hours you work. You're **paid** for 45-50 hours a week, but if you have responsibilities like most academics, you exceed those hours. With a private job, the number of hours you have is more fixed. That's not to say that you're not going to exceed them, you will. >I am lukewarm about my research but could continue it. Whatever you do as research, you're going to invest **years** of your life into it. Is it worth spending years researching something you're admitting you're "lukewarm" about.
RESPONSE B: I work with a bunch of doctors, both those that do research and those that don't. Some of those that don't are happy with that and just do what they do, but others like doing research so much they still do it in their free time, and the ones that do have some time for research always wish they had more time for it. For me personally, the more limited hours, higher freedom and more intellectually stimulating job would def be worth making less, especially since it isn't like you are going to struggle in any way with 300k/yr. But only you know that you'd prefer.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: jobs: --Academic job: 20-30% research time, 70% seeing patients, teaching, and administrative duties. Somewhat more flexible lifestyle due to culture and slower pace (45-50 hours/week). Pay starts at 300k/year and may rise slowly over the next 10-15 years. I am lukewarm about my research but could continue it. The main benefit is getting to stay in an intellectually engaging environment at a top institution for my field, and one where I am comfortable having been in the academic environment for almost 20 years. --Private job: 100% seeing patients every day, can be a bit of a grind (55-60 hours/week). Pay starts higher (maybe 400-450k/year) and will rise quickly for 2 years to 600-800k/year, and then slowly rise after that as I get more efficient over time and/or with inflation. Main benefit is the money, lack of having research projects hang over my head (and having to bring work home with me). Possible downsides are missing the intellectual side of academia and the longer-term outlook that comes with research (i.e. every day/week/month is going to be the same in broad strokes, I'll be doing the same thing in August 2030 as I am in August 2020). ​ Has anyone on this sub left academia after years of being in academia and succeeding at it? I feel like I may be throwing away an opportunity that so many want and so few get.
RESPONSE A: Out of curiosity, how many and what type of degrees do you have?
RESPONSE B: I would submit that the hours you work with the academic job are not the true hours you work. You're **paid** for 45-50 hours a week, but if you have responsibilities like most academics, you exceed those hours. With a private job, the number of hours you have is more fixed. That's not to say that you're not going to exceed them, you will. >I am lukewarm about my research but could continue it. Whatever you do as research, you're going to invest **years** of your life into it. Is it worth spending years researching something you're admitting you're "lukewarm" about.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: could continue it. The main benefit is getting to stay in an intellectually engaging environment at a top institution for my field, and one where I am comfortable having been in the academic environment for almost 20 years. --Private job: 100% seeing patients every day, can be a bit of a grind (55-60 hours/week). Pay starts higher (maybe 400-450k/year) and will rise quickly for 2 years to 600-800k/year, and then slowly rise after that as I get more efficient over time and/or with inflation. Main benefit is the money, lack of having research projects hang over my head (and having to bring work home with me). Possible downsides are missing the intellectual side of academia and the longer-term outlook that comes with research (i.e. every day/week/month is going to be the same in broad strokes, I'll be doing the same thing in August 2030 as I am in August 2020). ​ Has anyone on this sub left academia after years of being in academia and succeeding at it? I feel like I may be throwing away an opportunity that so many want and so few get.
RESPONSE A: I would submit that the hours you work with the academic job are not the true hours you work. You're **paid** for 45-50 hours a week, but if you have responsibilities like most academics, you exceed those hours. With a private job, the number of hours you have is more fixed. That's not to say that you're not going to exceed them, you will. >I am lukewarm about my research but could continue it. Whatever you do as research, you're going to invest **years** of your life into it. Is it worth spending years researching something you're admitting you're "lukewarm" about.
RESPONSE B: How much do you care about things outside of work? I'm considering leaving academia, but it's because I value family, personal time, mental well-being, etc. more than my career. I'm not in the medical field, so I can't really comment on how the work-life balance shifts between your two options. But my biggest piece of advice is to factor your personal life into the equation.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: always been working for a faculty position, and I don’t know what to do without that. People who’ve left academia, what do you do know? When did you realize that you wanted to leave and how did you go about finding something else? Are things better? ​ tldr: always been on track for faculty position; now I wanna jump ship, but I have no idea where to land.
RESPONSE A: I took a postdoc in a different, but related, field than my PhD as a first step in moving away from my phd study work. I don't recommend it, to be honest, but it did get me the experience I needed to get the job I have now. I probably could have gotten it faster with a master's degree or something, though. You need to apply your research skills to finding a satisfying career path. I would break it down into two tasks... personal research to figure out what you might like and job market research to figure out where you can get a decent job with your expertise (depending on what you want to do, of course). There's lots of books/websites out there about finding what career you might like. I realized I like problem solving more than publishing and shorter-term project more than longer-term, so I'm happy in consulting. To find a job that I liked I did a lot of research by searching job listings for keywords that related to my experience and interests and slowly figured out where I might be able to apply and have my resume fit the needed experience. You can also contact people with similar backgrounds but non-traditional careers and ask for 15 or 30 minute informational interviews to ask about their field and what they look for in people. I've met approachable people in both academia and industry, but I feel like its more acceptable/expected to ask directly in industry. Good luck.
RESPONSE B: If you'd like we can schedule a phone call or a video chat (or maybe just email back and forth) about my process of leaving academia from a high ranking STEM postdoc (and a very, very, very similar life place) about 2 years ago PM me or reply here and we can set something up. I'd be happy to answer anything I can.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: first time? I'm writing a full paper for the first time that will hopefully be published. We know the types of journals that we are looking to get published in and we also have the data to start writing. I'm wondering if there are any tips that you guys can share about writing? Were there any techniques you found useful or tips that were handy for when you sit down and write your paper? I was also wondering about clarity over sounding intelligent. I have been told before that papers should be able to be understood by the general public but a lot of papers that I have read have really flowerly language. It seems like the authors are striving to sound intelligent rather than making it understandable for a non-expert in their topic. Do we really need to care whether normal people can read the paper when writing one?
RESPONSE A: What field you're in, broadly-speaking, can play a factor in this. With that said, I do the following when preparing a manuscript; 1. Think about what story I want to tell; what questions did we ask? What conclusions did we draw? Write these down or even draw it out on a sheet of paper or white board. 2. Layout the figures I need to answer #1 above; do I have all the data I need already, or do I need to go conduct more experiments? 3. Write a rough abstract or outline; maybe 5-7 sentences max summarizing what I envision the paper will be (this'll likely change as you go through drafts) 4. Write up the methods for the completed experiments; this is boring, but easy, and it feels good to get a section done 5. Write up the Results section, as this is just a straight-forward text of the figures 6. Work on the introduction and discussion sections; I tend to go back and forth working on these, with the Results section as my guide for what introduction is appropriate, and the discussion further building and narrating my results 7. Conclusions tend to be short in my field and serve as more of a summary statement of the rest of the paper, so I often leave it as the last step This isn't rigid and varies not only by field as mentioned, but from paper to paper and based on personal preference.
RESPONSE B: This depends heavily on field. What field are you in specifically?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What helped you improve your academic writing skills? I find it takes me a ridiculous amount of time to put the things that are in my head onto paper an a semi-coherent manner, so I'm trying to identify the skills that I could work on in order to improve this!
RESPONSE A: Academic writing itself really.
RESPONSE B: * A two-day seminar with a writing coach during my PhD * The book "Writing for Computer Science" (Zobel) * Having a co-author who is an excellent writer revise my draft, and understand their edits
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Am I editing for a predatory journal? Some background, I was accepted as a fellow into this program which has been... an experience to say the least. The head of the program has been highly unprofessional and at times has bordered on harassment through chat channels. Regardless, part of the fellowship includes an editorial position at the institute's associated journal, which I will link in the comments. I was recently asked to do a full edit (grammar, syntax, etc) of an "accepted" paper which sounds strange to me, as this was never something that was done in any of my previous papers that I submitted for peer review. Is this a normal process? For additional context, the paper I am tasked to edit is of incredibly subpar quality and I am now questioning the entire peer-review process.
RESPONSE A: Honestly if it’s not Sage, Springer, Wiley, or your own org, it’s probably a red flag.
RESPONSE B: Red flags everywhere, so I guess the answer to your question is 'yes'.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Am I editing for a predatory journal? Some background, I was accepted as a fellow into this program which has been... an experience to say the least. The head of the program has been highly unprofessional and at times has bordered on harassment through chat channels. Regardless, part of the fellowship includes an editorial position at the institute's associated journal, which I will link in the comments. I was recently asked to do a full edit (grammar, syntax, etc) of an "accepted" paper which sounds strange to me, as this was never something that was done in any of my previous papers that I submitted for peer review. Is this a normal process? For additional context, the paper I am tasked to edit is of incredibly subpar quality and I am now questioning the entire peer-review process.
RESPONSE A: Yikes. Been published a few times and by no means enough to seriously consider my opinion but grammar, syntax, etc was not part of the peer review. I agree seems sus.
RESPONSE B: Red flags everywhere, so I guess the answer to your question is 'yes'.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Am I editing for a predatory journal? Some background, I was accepted as a fellow into this program which has been... an experience to say the least. The head of the program has been highly unprofessional and at times has bordered on harassment through chat channels. Regardless, part of the fellowship includes an editorial position at the institute's associated journal, which I will link in the comments. I was recently asked to do a full edit (grammar, syntax, etc) of an "accepted" paper which sounds strange to me, as this was never something that was done in any of my previous papers that I submitted for peer review. Is this a normal process? For additional context, the paper I am tasked to edit is of incredibly subpar quality and I am now questioning the entire peer-review process.
RESPONSE A: Honestly if it’s not Sage, Springer, Wiley, or your own org, it’s probably a red flag.
RESPONSE B: Yikes. Been published a few times and by no means enough to seriously consider my opinion but grammar, syntax, etc was not part of the peer review. I agree seems sus.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: with feelings of being 'not good enough' and feeling like I will suck at something important and will end up disappointing people (professors and colleagues) who I look up to- basically crippling self-doubt and an intense fear of failure. It was very important for me to be a hard worker who is good at what she does- given how much importance I attach to my work and how much my self-worth is linked to my performance. Some time into the program, I felt myself burning out and not much later did I realize that 'hustling hard constantly' is not the only way to succeed and also that we do not succeed always. Initially I would find it hard to take any criticism and rejection, despite knowing how it was not about me as a person, but just stuff I need to learn about research and life in general. These experiences made me curious about whether other people in research have similar experiences. With this inspiration, I was able to start a study regarding **'how do people involved in research perceive failure'.** So far, I have collected some data and it has been a very enriching and cathartic experience being able to interview and get to know people with similar experiences. If you could relate to what I am talking about or if you find it interesting, please consider taking a survey for my study here: https://iima.au1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_dbNQixHmTw3TZwq. At the end of the survey, you will receive an option to participate in an interview. Please do consent if you find it interesting wish to support my research. If you have any questions, you can drop me a comment/message. I will get back to you.
RESPONSE A: Interesting you want people's names and initials. Obviously people can just lie, but as someone who spends a fair amount of time thinking about privacy and research participation this seems like an enormous headache for you in terms of proper data protection with zero benefit for the participants and some risk. Can I ask why you've chosen to do that? Just as an FYI I decided not to fill in the survey seeing that.
RESPONSE B: This is really cool. I've just done it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How bad are the prospects for humanities PHDs who want to enter academia? I graduated from an undergrad institution (#78 nationally) with a 3.98 while in the honors program. My major was political science, but I want to switch to humanities. Applied to several grad programs (UC Irvine Culture and Theory, UC Santa Cruz HistCon, UC Berkeley Rhetoric, UChicago MAPH, etc.). I'd like to become an academic eventually. But everyone is warning me about dismal postgrad prospects. How bad is it? If I can get a PHD from a good institution (let's say in the top 20 or 30 institutions), with a good record, what are my odds of eventually landing a tenure track position in the humanities?
RESPONSE A: Did you describe wanting to go into "the humanities" in your application materials? What you're asking is very broad, so I'm curious as to how targeted your applications were.
RESPONSE B: I think you really want to be in a top 10 program. Top 20 is iffy. After that, most people aren’t getting jobs.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How bad are the prospects for humanities PHDs who want to enter academia? I graduated from an undergrad institution (#78 nationally) with a 3.98 while in the honors program. My major was political science, but I want to switch to humanities. Applied to several grad programs (UC Irvine Culture and Theory, UC Santa Cruz HistCon, UC Berkeley Rhetoric, UChicago MAPH, etc.). I'd like to become an academic eventually. But everyone is warning me about dismal postgrad prospects. How bad is it? If I can get a PHD from a good institution (let's say in the top 20 or 30 institutions), with a good record, what are my odds of eventually landing a tenure track position in the humanities?
RESPONSE A: Dismal might be too optimistic. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/08/28/more-humanities-phds-are-awarded-job-openings-are-disappearing
RESPONSE B: I think you really want to be in a top 10 program. Top 20 is iffy. After that, most people aren’t getting jobs.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How bad are the prospects for humanities PHDs who want to enter academia? I graduated from an undergrad institution (#78 nationally) with a 3.98 while in the honors program. My major was political science, but I want to switch to humanities. Applied to several grad programs (UC Irvine Culture and Theory, UC Santa Cruz HistCon, UC Berkeley Rhetoric, UChicago MAPH, etc.). I'd like to become an academic eventually. But everyone is warning me about dismal postgrad prospects. How bad is it? If I can get a PHD from a good institution (let's say in the top 20 or 30 institutions), with a good record, what are my odds of eventually landing a tenure track position in the humanities?
RESPONSE A: I think you really want to be in a top 10 program. Top 20 is iffy. After that, most people aren’t getting jobs.
RESPONSE B: If you can get into a top 20 program, your chances will be better after graduating
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: When did you start a family/when do you plan to start a family? I'll probably be finishing my degrees around age 28 and I'm wondering how other women/men in academia did the whole married with/without kids thing in conjunction with school. So, how did grad school impact your family planning? Did you start a family later than you wanted in order to finish your studies? Did you have problems with a SO who didn't want to wait for you to finish grad school? Did you start your family while IN grad school? Did you get married in grad school then had babies when you finished? I'm really curious about this, please share your stories!
RESPONSE A: I started my family when I was 17! I'm now 37 and in my first year of grad studies. I did the whole thing backwards, but I like it this way. There's no way I could have done it when my kids were younger, and now I have all the life experience, a little bit of wisdom, and great memories to keep me going.
RESPONSE B: I'm curious about this as a woman. I noticed all the female professors I really admired in my undergrad didn't have kids which makes me sad.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: When did you start a family/when do you plan to start a family? I'll probably be finishing my degrees around age 28 and I'm wondering how other women/men in academia did the whole married with/without kids thing in conjunction with school. So, how did grad school impact your family planning? Did you start a family later than you wanted in order to finish your studies? Did you have problems with a SO who didn't want to wait for you to finish grad school? Did you start your family while IN grad school? Did you get married in grad school then had babies when you finished? I'm really curious about this, please share your stories!
RESPONSE A: I was married when I started grad school, and my husband and I decided to wait until I reached candidacy before trying for a family. Field work and lab work is done, so it's just analyzing and writing while pregnant. A friend of mine did this a few years ago and had baby #2 just after her defense. She is now in a tenure track position and seems to be doing well.
RESPONSE B: Honestly, I don't plan on starting a family because having kids holds no appeal to me. However, I've heard if you're a woman in a lab-based science where chemicals can be harmful to a baby, the time at the end of your PhD when you're basically just writing is a great time.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: When did you start a family/when do you plan to start a family? I'll probably be finishing my degrees around age 28 and I'm wondering how other women/men in academia did the whole married with/without kids thing in conjunction with school. So, how did grad school impact your family planning? Did you start a family later than you wanted in order to finish your studies? Did you have problems with a SO who didn't want to wait for you to finish grad school? Did you start your family while IN grad school? Did you get married in grad school then had babies when you finished? I'm really curious about this, please share your stories!
RESPONSE A: Honestly, I don't plan on starting a family because having kids holds no appeal to me. However, I've heard if you're a woman in a lab-based science where chemicals can be harmful to a baby, the time at the end of your PhD when you're basically just writing is a great time.
RESPONSE B: Finished first semester of masters recently, have one 20 month old and one on the way! My wife graduated around the same time we had our first. I think we won't really take school into account that much when it comes to having kids.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: When did you start a family/when do you plan to start a family? I'll probably be finishing my degrees around age 28 and I'm wondering how other women/men in academia did the whole married with/without kids thing in conjunction with school. So, how did grad school impact your family planning? Did you start a family later than you wanted in order to finish your studies? Did you have problems with a SO who didn't want to wait for you to finish grad school? Did you start your family while IN grad school? Did you get married in grad school then had babies when you finished? I'm really curious about this, please share your stories!
RESPONSE A: Got married in my mid-20s in the middle of my Ph.D. Late 20s now, still married and no kids; we're thinking of having kids within a couple of years (so, early 30s at the latest for our first kid). Wife also completed grad school around the time we got married. We delayed starting a family for school, is the short answer.
RESPONSE B: deleted] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.1389 > [What is this?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: When did you start a family/when do you plan to start a family? I'll probably be finishing my degrees around age 28 and I'm wondering how other women/men in academia did the whole married with/without kids thing in conjunction with school. So, how did grad school impact your family planning? Did you start a family later than you wanted in order to finish your studies? Did you have problems with a SO who didn't want to wait for you to finish grad school? Did you start your family while IN grad school? Did you get married in grad school then had babies when you finished? I'm really curious about this, please share your stories!
RESPONSE A: I'm 35m, finished my PhD at 29, got married the same year, had my first kid during my first postdoc at 32 and second just this year. My wife finished grad school around the same time but went into work, which I think was probably easier than if we were both academics. My first postdoc advisor was okay, not great, about me having a kid. My current advisor is excellent. Choose your advisors well.
RESPONSE B: It's not impossible, I know plenty of women who have done it. Often towards the end of grad school, during postdoc, or after tenure. But, let's not pretend this is easy. Female grad students or postdocs with kids are twice as likely to leave academia (source). Women who have children are 22% less likely to get tenure (source).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: When did you first feel comfortable describing yourself as a member of your field rather than a student? At what point did it feel right to start calling yourself a physicist, or a historian, or a mathematician, instead of a physics student, a history student, or a math student?
RESPONSE A: Getting published.
RESPONSE B: When I designed and implemented my own resarch project.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: When did you first feel comfortable describing yourself as a member of your field rather than a student? At what point did it feel right to start calling yourself a physicist, or a historian, or a mathematician, instead of a physics student, a history student, or a math student?
RESPONSE A: While we are all students for life, getting recognition for original work in the form of a dissertation or publication is a standard benchmark.
RESPONSE B: Getting published.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: and department heads and a PEARSON rep corner him mid lecture, and try to humiliate him in front of the class by saying he's failing us for not giving us proper study materials and how badly it'll hurt our careers later on. He held his ground. Announced to the class that the university as a whole has a deal with Pearson, and each department must sign off on how much cash they pledge to make. I'm not sure what the benefits were to the school, but basically professors were told that if a student couldn't afford the materials, they can't afford to take the class. They threatened him, but he laughed at them. Department heads *and* a Pearson rep cornering a professor in the middle of class. Uh-huh. >After that, they would occasionally sit in on our class with a clipboard. One day I was able to sneak a peak, it was just a list of "mistakes". Bullshit mistakes too. "Swore when pen fell." Or "coughed, possibly faked to distract." The Pearson rep was the worst. She would literally just sit in our class and condescendingly ask "and how are they gonna study that at home? What materials? Don't you think homework would help?" Seriously? I can only *maybe* imagine a much less sensationalized version of this happening with a for-profit, bargain basement, student loan-funded ripoff machine fly by night "college."
RESPONSE A: I find this completely unbelievable as well.
RESPONSE B: Professor here. I also find it rather hard to believe, in part because this kind of thing would never happen in my department. If a textbook rep interrupted a lecture like that, or routinely came to class to compile "mistakes," then I would have campus security escort him/her out of the room. In addition, my department head would never side with a publishing rep and threaten me about a textbook. More generally, I have never been pressured to adopt a particular textbook or anything from a particular publisher. Reps stop by my office all the time to advertise their latest textbook or online offering; I politely listen to them and then just go back to work.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Posted from /r/bestof: Textbook publishing / selling is definitely a racket, but this post (linked) sounds like total bullshit to me. Has *anyone* ever heard of this kind of experience from a legitimate source? https://np.reddit.com/r/books/comments/5w0ecd/education_publisher_pearson_reports_biggest_loss/de722g9/?sh=81cc2366&st=IZXKRC7K Some choice quotes: >Two weeks in and department heads and a PEARSON rep corner him mid lecture, and try to humiliate him in front of the class by saying he's failing us for not giving us proper study materials and how badly it'll hurt our careers later on. He held his ground. Announced to the class that the university as a whole has a deal with Pearson, and each department must sign off on how much cash they pledge to make. I'm not sure what the benefits were to the school, but basically professors were told that if a student couldn't afford the materials, they can't afford to take the class. They threatened him, but he laughed at them. Department heads *and* a Pearson rep cornering a professor in the middle of class. Uh-huh. >After that, they would occasionally sit in on our class with a clipboard. One day I was able to sneak a peak, it was just a list of "mistakes". Bullshit mistakes too. "Swore when pen fell." Or "coughed, possibly faked to distract." The Pearson rep was the worst. She would literally just sit in our class and condescendingly ask "and how are they gonna study that at home? What materials? Don't you think homework would help?" Seriously? I can only *maybe* imagine a much less sensationalized version of this happening with a for-profit, bargain basement, student loan-funded ripoff machine fly by night "college."
RESPONSE A: I would be shocked and amazed if this happened.
RESPONSE B: the professor? Albert Einstein.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: this kind of experience from a legitimate source? https://np.reddit.com/r/books/comments/5w0ecd/education_publisher_pearson_reports_biggest_loss/de722g9/?sh=81cc2366&st=IZXKRC7K Some choice quotes: >Two weeks in and department heads and a PEARSON rep corner him mid lecture, and try to humiliate him in front of the class by saying he's failing us for not giving us proper study materials and how badly it'll hurt our careers later on. He held his ground. Announced to the class that the university as a whole has a deal with Pearson, and each department must sign off on how much cash they pledge to make. I'm not sure what the benefits were to the school, but basically professors were told that if a student couldn't afford the materials, they can't afford to take the class. They threatened him, but he laughed at them. Department heads *and* a Pearson rep cornering a professor in the middle of class. Uh-huh. >After that, they would occasionally sit in on our class with a clipboard. One day I was able to sneak a peak, it was just a list of "mistakes". Bullshit mistakes too. "Swore when pen fell." Or "coughed, possibly faked to distract." The Pearson rep was the worst. She would literally just sit in our class and condescendingly ask "and how are they gonna study that at home? What materials? Don't you think homework would help?" Seriously? I can only *maybe* imagine a much less sensationalized version of this happening with a for-profit, bargain basement, student loan-funded ripoff machine fly by night "college."
RESPONSE A: the professor? Albert Einstein.
RESPONSE B: Not a professor, but I've been in a college setting for about 10 years. Never seen or heard of anything like this. I doubt it happened as stated and if it *did* happen then there was some incredible scenario going on that the OP wasn't privy to.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: _publisher_pearson_reports_biggest_loss/de722g9/?sh=81cc2366&st=IZXKRC7K Some choice quotes: >Two weeks in and department heads and a PEARSON rep corner him mid lecture, and try to humiliate him in front of the class by saying he's failing us for not giving us proper study materials and how badly it'll hurt our careers later on. He held his ground. Announced to the class that the university as a whole has a deal with Pearson, and each department must sign off on how much cash they pledge to make. I'm not sure what the benefits were to the school, but basically professors were told that if a student couldn't afford the materials, they can't afford to take the class. They threatened him, but he laughed at them. Department heads *and* a Pearson rep cornering a professor in the middle of class. Uh-huh. >After that, they would occasionally sit in on our class with a clipboard. One day I was able to sneak a peak, it was just a list of "mistakes". Bullshit mistakes too. "Swore when pen fell." Or "coughed, possibly faked to distract." The Pearson rep was the worst. She would literally just sit in our class and condescendingly ask "and how are they gonna study that at home? What materials? Don't you think homework would help?" Seriously? I can only *maybe* imagine a much less sensationalized version of this happening with a for-profit, bargain basement, student loan-funded ripoff machine fly by night "college."
RESPONSE A: While the story is obviously baloney, I do think the response to it is a testament to how screwed students feel in their college courses when it comes to textbook prices and quality of resources.
RESPONSE B: Not a professor, but I've been in a college setting for about 10 years. Never seen or heard of anything like this. I doubt it happened as stated and if it *did* happen then there was some incredible scenario going on that the OP wasn't privy to.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: is it just a detailed account of all the research you’ve done during the program thus far (in which case, what happens if you did some unrelated collaborations)? If I were to take a guess from what I’ve read so far, its that a PhD tackles a (relatively) broader theme and published papers are (relatively) more niche, often complementing the PhD. For example, a person’s PhD could be on, say the use of a new compound to replace a mainstream fertilizer. Then they could supplement their PhD thesis by publishing papers throughout their research that support their claim. So they may have published a paper about how the mainstream fertilizer is actually harmful their first year, another paper on how the said compound demonstrates better yield in controlled experimentation their second/third year, and a final paper on how the compound is more cost effective then most mainstream fertilizers. Then the three papers and all the research done towards them can be used to solidify the student’s PhD defense. Is this example reflective of how a PhD and published papers are supposed to be different? I’d appreciate any input on this!
RESPONSE A: It depends on the program, but the difference between your published papers and a thesis is fairly minor (at least for STEM). Some allow you to use your published papers and just add an intro.
RESPONSE B: Simple: Your PhD thesis is written to a broader audience and doesn't strictly need amazingly novel results. A thesis is evidencing that you approached the work in an Independant and scientific manner. It exists only the evidence to your commitee you are worthy of the title of Dr. In a paper, that's essentially a given. As such, you will write it in a more elaborate way with more time and attention given to the what and the how of the research, rather than just the result. This will include more time on areas the research failed, and how you adapted or overcame it. Papers is this instance are helpful, but not strictly required. You still have to evidence the work done on its own. A paper instead, is presenting a single, or set of linked, results for the purpose of letting others know about and understand the result.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: more niche, often complementing the PhD. For example, a person’s PhD could be on, say the use of a new compound to replace a mainstream fertilizer. Then they could supplement their PhD thesis by publishing papers throughout their research that support their claim. So they may have published a paper about how the mainstream fertilizer is actually harmful their first year, another paper on how the said compound demonstrates better yield in controlled experimentation their second/third year, and a final paper on how the compound is more cost effective then most mainstream fertilizers. Then the three papers and all the research done towards them can be used to solidify the student’s PhD defense. Is this example reflective of how a PhD and published papers are supposed to be different? I’d appreciate any input on this!
RESPONSE A: Actually at my uni it’s common place that your dissertation is basically made from the papers you published as in entire blocks of pages being copied one-to-one. So after 3yrs you’ve published a few papers, write an introduction and some padding to merge the papers and a conclusion and outlook and you’re done.
RESPONSE B: As others have noted, it's much more prevalent in STEM fields to assemble a dissertation as a collection of a handful of published or publishable papers. Sometimes these are linked to each other and build off one another, and sometimes they can exist as distinct papers. You basically weave them together and you've got a dissertation. For me, as a political scientist, I took the more book-like approach. My dissertation consisted of seven chapters, each one an extended version of what you'd see in a single paper: Introduction, Lit Review, Methodology, a chapter detailing the model I was using, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. It was one single major project, and while I didn't then publish the dissertation as a book or even publish single chapters as standalone papers (hard to do with this format), I did use the model I developed for my dissertation in other ways. I doubt you'd take the route I did given the field you're interested in, but I figured I'd throw it out there as another example of how people might construct a dissertation and why it's different from a published paper.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: the three papers and all the research done towards them can be used to solidify the student’s PhD defense. Is this example reflective of how a PhD and published papers are supposed to be different? I’d appreciate any input on this!
RESPONSE A: Simple: Your PhD thesis is written to a broader audience and doesn't strictly need amazingly novel results. A thesis is evidencing that you approached the work in an Independant and scientific manner. It exists only the evidence to your commitee you are worthy of the title of Dr. In a paper, that's essentially a given. As such, you will write it in a more elaborate way with more time and attention given to the what and the how of the research, rather than just the result. This will include more time on areas the research failed, and how you adapted or overcame it. Papers is this instance are helpful, but not strictly required. You still have to evidence the work done on its own. A paper instead, is presenting a single, or set of linked, results for the purpose of letting others know about and understand the result.
RESPONSE B: As others have noted, it's much more prevalent in STEM fields to assemble a dissertation as a collection of a handful of published or publishable papers. Sometimes these are linked to each other and build off one another, and sometimes they can exist as distinct papers. You basically weave them together and you've got a dissertation. For me, as a political scientist, I took the more book-like approach. My dissertation consisted of seven chapters, each one an extended version of what you'd see in a single paper: Introduction, Lit Review, Methodology, a chapter detailing the model I was using, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. It was one single major project, and while I didn't then publish the dissertation as a book or even publish single chapters as standalone papers (hard to do with this format), I did use the model I developed for my dissertation in other ways. I doubt you'd take the route I did given the field you're interested in, but I figured I'd throw it out there as another example of how people might construct a dissertation and why it's different from a published paper.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: read so far, its that a PhD tackles a (relatively) broader theme and published papers are (relatively) more niche, often complementing the PhD. For example, a person’s PhD could be on, say the use of a new compound to replace a mainstream fertilizer. Then they could supplement their PhD thesis by publishing papers throughout their research that support their claim. So they may have published a paper about how the mainstream fertilizer is actually harmful their first year, another paper on how the said compound demonstrates better yield in controlled experimentation their second/third year, and a final paper on how the compound is more cost effective then most mainstream fertilizers. Then the three papers and all the research done towards them can be used to solidify the student’s PhD defense. Is this example reflective of how a PhD and published papers are supposed to be different? I’d appreciate any input on this!
RESPONSE A: Simple: Your PhD thesis is written to a broader audience and doesn't strictly need amazingly novel results. A thesis is evidencing that you approached the work in an Independant and scientific manner. It exists only the evidence to your commitee you are worthy of the title of Dr. In a paper, that's essentially a given. As such, you will write it in a more elaborate way with more time and attention given to the what and the how of the research, rather than just the result. This will include more time on areas the research failed, and how you adapted or overcame it. Papers is this instance are helpful, but not strictly required. You still have to evidence the work done on its own. A paper instead, is presenting a single, or set of linked, results for the purpose of letting others know about and understand the result.
RESPONSE B: There's been a trend for dissertations to be more similar to the writing you'll do throughout your career, i.e. something publishable. Each student should discuss early on with the committee what the scope should be. Ideally the project is a career-builder and definitely not a one-off. Demonstrate your skills and also point to how your line of research can progress after the degree.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: unrelated collaborations)? If I were to take a guess from what I’ve read so far, its that a PhD tackles a (relatively) broader theme and published papers are (relatively) more niche, often complementing the PhD. For example, a person’s PhD could be on, say the use of a new compound to replace a mainstream fertilizer. Then they could supplement their PhD thesis by publishing papers throughout their research that support their claim. So they may have published a paper about how the mainstream fertilizer is actually harmful their first year, another paper on how the said compound demonstrates better yield in controlled experimentation their second/third year, and a final paper on how the compound is more cost effective then most mainstream fertilizers. Then the three papers and all the research done towards them can be used to solidify the student’s PhD defense. Is this example reflective of how a PhD and published papers are supposed to be different? I’d appreciate any input on this!
RESPONSE A: Actually at my uni it’s common place that your dissertation is basically made from the papers you published as in entire blocks of pages being copied one-to-one. So after 3yrs you’ve published a few papers, write an introduction and some padding to merge the papers and a conclusion and outlook and you’re done.
RESPONSE B: Simple: Your PhD thesis is written to a broader audience and doesn't strictly need amazingly novel results. A thesis is evidencing that you approached the work in an Independant and scientific manner. It exists only the evidence to your commitee you are worthy of the title of Dr. In a paper, that's essentially a given. As such, you will write it in a more elaborate way with more time and attention given to the what and the how of the research, rather than just the result. This will include more time on areas the research failed, and how you adapted or overcame it. Papers is this instance are helpful, but not strictly required. You still have to evidence the work done on its own. A paper instead, is presenting a single, or set of linked, results for the purpose of letting others know about and understand the result.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How many papers did you publish during your PhD? I'm planning to apply for PhD programs for Autumn 2019 entry and I was just wondering how many publications people produce during their PhD programs. Obviously this is something that is discipline dependent (I'm interested in developmental and cognitive psychology) but I'm sure there's probably other people from different disciplines who are curious about this too. Also if you are still a PhD student, how many publications have you produced so far and how far into your program are you?
RESPONSE A: 1 first author, 2 other author. I’m in cognitive. Two of my colleagues got post docs with just 1 first author papers at good universities.
RESPONSE B: This is not just field but also specific topic dependent; if for example you are using established methods it's easier to get to a publication stage than if you have to spend 2 years building kit or developing/ evaluating a new method before you can even gather a dataset.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How many papers did you publish during your PhD? I'm planning to apply for PhD programs for Autumn 2019 entry and I was just wondering how many publications people produce during their PhD programs. Obviously this is something that is discipline dependent (I'm interested in developmental and cognitive psychology) but I'm sure there's probably other people from different disciplines who are curious about this too. Also if you are still a PhD student, how many publications have you produced so far and how far into your program are you?
RESPONSE A: 1 first author, 2 other author. I’m in cognitive. Two of my colleagues got post docs with just 1 first author papers at good universities.
RESPONSE B: PhD Sociology here. Defending in November. Five 2nd author, 1 first author, 1 team multi author, no solo. Only took shots at mid-top tier journals in area of specialization. It's taken me 6.5 years to finish, though... so there's that. Edit... 6.5 years, not 7. That makes me feel better ;)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How many papers did you publish during your PhD? I'm planning to apply for PhD programs for Autumn 2019 entry and I was just wondering how many publications people produce during their PhD programs. Obviously this is something that is discipline dependent (I'm interested in developmental and cognitive psychology) but I'm sure there's probably other people from different disciplines who are curious about this too. Also if you are still a PhD student, how many publications have you produced so far and how far into your program are you?
RESPONSE A: Humanities field: * one single-authored journal article * one co-authored journal article * one chapter in an edited collection * one book review
RESPONSE B: Physics, between 5 and 10 first author, less than 20 total.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How many papers did you publish during your PhD? I'm planning to apply for PhD programs for Autumn 2019 entry and I was just wondering how many publications people produce during their PhD programs. Obviously this is something that is discipline dependent (I'm interested in developmental and cognitive psychology) but I'm sure there's probably other people from different disciplines who are curious about this too. Also if you are still a PhD student, how many publications have you produced so far and how far into your program are you?
RESPONSE A: 1 first author, 2 other author. I’m in cognitive. Two of my colleagues got post docs with just 1 first author papers at good universities.
RESPONSE B: Physics, between 5 and 10 first author, less than 20 total.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How many papers did you publish during your PhD? I'm planning to apply for PhD programs for Autumn 2019 entry and I was just wondering how many publications people produce during their PhD programs. Obviously this is something that is discipline dependent (I'm interested in developmental and cognitive psychology) but I'm sure there's probably other people from different disciplines who are curious about this too. Also if you are still a PhD student, how many publications have you produced so far and how far into your program are you?
RESPONSE A: Something like 250 as co-author (among ~800 authors), but only 3 where I actually made a contribution.
RESPONSE B: Humanities field: * one single-authored journal article * one co-authored journal article * one chapter in an edited collection * one book review
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I just graduated with a degree in Political Science and want to transition into a STEM field. I am not sure how to get my foot into the door and would like some advice on how to reach my goal. After receiving my degree in Political Science I have come to the conclusion that I will not be happy doing anything related to the field as a career. I have always been drawn to the sciences, but have been afraid of failure to try. I have finally come to my senses and want to pour my whole life into achieving something under the umbrella of STEM. I want to get my feet wet and figure out which area of study I am really drawn to. Basically I would just like to known if there are any programs out there that offer a sort of post-baccalaureate crash course for the sciences that can set me up for a masters program. I know that there are many for the medical field and was just curious as to whether they existed for what I would like to pursue. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
RESPONSE A: Take coursera or EdX (the MIT platform?) courses for free. I'm pretty sure they have the premed sequence, as well as the calc sequence, and a bunch of introductory STEM courses from all sorts of disciplines. At this point in your life and in educational technology development, you really shouldn't have to pay money to figure out what subject you want to do. > I have finally come to my senses and want to pour my whole life into achieving something under the umbrella of STEM. jsyk, I suffer from this too, and it sounds a lot better/easier when you're sitting on your ass browsing reddit than when you can't solve 60% of a mathematical statistics problem set that's due tomorrow.
RESPONSE B: STEM is a huge field so without specifics ideas from people will be tough.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I just graduated with a degree in Political Science and want to transition into a STEM field. I am not sure how to get my foot into the door and would like some advice on how to reach my goal. After receiving my degree in Political Science I have come to the conclusion that I will not be happy doing anything related to the field as a career. I have always been drawn to the sciences, but have been afraid of failure to try. I have finally come to my senses and want to pour my whole life into achieving something under the umbrella of STEM. I want to get my feet wet and figure out which area of study I am really drawn to. Basically I would just like to known if there are any programs out there that offer a sort of post-baccalaureate crash course for the sciences that can set me up for a masters program. I know that there are many for the medical field and was just curious as to whether they existed for what I would like to pursue. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
RESPONSE A: What's your math background?
RESPONSE B: 1. Pick an actual discipline you want to study. 2. Discover what typical university curriculum in this discipline looks like. 3. Find a local community college. 4. Take first (and second if they offer) year of courses in the discipline at the community college. 5. Find a university that has an MS program in the discipline you want that admits applicants with degrees from other disciplines. 6. Apply and get admitted. 7. Take the remaining preliminary coursework they require. 8. Proceed with getting an MS degree in the field. 9. Make a decision about what you want to do next. Some steps require serious legwork (comparing curricula, finding universities that offer the specific degrees, deciding whether you want to relocate to attend school). This is to be expected: you are, after all, making a life-altering choice. There are other paths, of course - but this path, while not being the shortest, is actually one of the least resistance paths out there.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I just graduated with a degree in Political Science and want to transition into a STEM field. I am not sure how to get my foot into the door and would like some advice on how to reach my goal. After receiving my degree in Political Science I have come to the conclusion that I will not be happy doing anything related to the field as a career. I have always been drawn to the sciences, but have been afraid of failure to try. I have finally come to my senses and want to pour my whole life into achieving something under the umbrella of STEM. I want to get my feet wet and figure out which area of study I am really drawn to. Basically I would just like to known if there are any programs out there that offer a sort of post-baccalaureate crash course for the sciences that can set me up for a masters program. I know that there are many for the medical field and was just curious as to whether they existed for what I would like to pursue. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
RESPONSE A: 1. Pick an actual discipline you want to study. 2. Discover what typical university curriculum in this discipline looks like. 3. Find a local community college. 4. Take first (and second if they offer) year of courses in the discipline at the community college. 5. Find a university that has an MS program in the discipline you want that admits applicants with degrees from other disciplines. 6. Apply and get admitted. 7. Take the remaining preliminary coursework they require. 8. Proceed with getting an MS degree in the field. 9. Make a decision about what you want to do next. Some steps require serious legwork (comparing curricula, finding universities that offer the specific degrees, deciding whether you want to relocate to attend school). This is to be expected: you are, after all, making a life-altering choice. There are other paths, of course - but this path, while not being the shortest, is actually one of the least resistance paths out there.
RESPONSE B: Take a look at the Summer Program in Quantitative Methods of Social Research at Michigan. It offers an excellent crash course for math and stats skills.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I just graduated with a degree in Political Science and want to transition into a STEM field. I am not sure how to get my foot into the door and would like some advice on how to reach my goal. After receiving my degree in Political Science I have come to the conclusion that I will not be happy doing anything related to the field as a career. I have always been drawn to the sciences, but have been afraid of failure to try. I have finally come to my senses and want to pour my whole life into achieving something under the umbrella of STEM. I want to get my feet wet and figure out which area of study I am really drawn to. Basically I would just like to known if there are any programs out there that offer a sort of post-baccalaureate crash course for the sciences that can set me up for a masters program. I know that there are many for the medical field and was just curious as to whether they existed for what I would like to pursue. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
RESPONSE A: 1. Pick an actual discipline you want to study. 2. Discover what typical university curriculum in this discipline looks like. 3. Find a local community college. 4. Take first (and second if they offer) year of courses in the discipline at the community college. 5. Find a university that has an MS program in the discipline you want that admits applicants with degrees from other disciplines. 6. Apply and get admitted. 7. Take the remaining preliminary coursework they require. 8. Proceed with getting an MS degree in the field. 9. Make a decision about what you want to do next. Some steps require serious legwork (comparing curricula, finding universities that offer the specific degrees, deciding whether you want to relocate to attend school). This is to be expected: you are, after all, making a life-altering choice. There are other paths, of course - but this path, while not being the shortest, is actually one of the least resistance paths out there.
RESPONSE B: STEM is a huge field so without specifics ideas from people will be tough.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: to pursue. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
RESPONSE A: 1. Pick an actual discipline you want to study. 2. Discover what typical university curriculum in this discipline looks like. 3. Find a local community college. 4. Take first (and second if they offer) year of courses in the discipline at the community college. 5. Find a university that has an MS program in the discipline you want that admits applicants with degrees from other disciplines. 6. Apply and get admitted. 7. Take the remaining preliminary coursework they require. 8. Proceed with getting an MS degree in the field. 9. Make a decision about what you want to do next. Some steps require serious legwork (comparing curricula, finding universities that offer the specific degrees, deciding whether you want to relocate to attend school). This is to be expected: you are, after all, making a life-altering choice. There are other paths, of course - but this path, while not being the shortest, is actually one of the least resistance paths out there.
RESPONSE B: A crash course in STEM is probably unrealistic, since it covers multiple disciplines that each differentiate again into multiple sub disciplines. The best you could do is maybe some introductory math classes, since a good grasp of that will be required for any science. Honestly though, you should rather look into ways of naturally progressing toward STEM from where you are. I cannot go into more detail, since you haven't really told us what in particular you are interested in. However just generally, why not try to find ways to combine political science and STEM? If you had communication courses, maybe you can find an interesting topic in popularizing sciences for the public. Maybe you might be interested in scientific governance, how government bodies or private companies influence power structures that dictate what scientific endeavors are funded and which aren't. Since you didn't tell us much about how old you are and what you are interested in, it is difficult to give you more precise recommendations. Basically, I think you would fare better trying to find a way to make your already acquired knowledge and skills relevant to some topic that has to do with STEM. I know a lot of people that are very knowledgeable in the political systems that surround big infrastructure projects and the legislation around that. Those people are often times just as important to huge construction projects as a good architect.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: the best letter as our work related most to the internship. I feel like I’ve screwed everything up and I just don’t even know what to do at this point. Any advice?
RESPONSE A: Just be honest and communicate with your professor that the graduate student can’t write the letter, that it might be related to your tight schedule from supporting yourself, and that you hope the professor can speak to your strengths instead. There are a lot of reasons someone will choose not to write a letter. At the end of the day, you don’t want anyone writing you a letter unless they are enthusiastic about you. It’s very possible the grad student knew they couldn’t write you an honest and favorable letter and so they are doing you a kindness (as strange as it seems) by letting you find someone else.
RESPONSE B: You need to speak with the prof. If the grad student isn’t writing the letter bc she feels you dont deserve the rec on account of poor performance, then you deserve to know from the mouth of the grad student. You need to clarify this with the prof. If the reason is bc she wasn’t pleased w your performance or unreliability, then that opens the door for you to discuss contributing factors, such as your heavy schedule. Its also important to have this discussion so there are no surprises going forward. If your performance was subpar in the eyes of the grad student, then the burden is on the grad student to inform you of this so that you improve. She can’t just drop this on you now. You typically want the letter from the prof anyway because it’s his/her lab in which you’re working. Its not clear to me why the prof stated a letter from the grad student would be more impactful. In my field, and most bio fields, it’s fairly standard practice for the grad student to help write the letter or write the first draft for an undergrad trainee, then the PI modifies/expands/etc as s/he feels fit & signs off on it. A letter from the grad student would be less impactful than the PI. A letter from the grad student in addition to the prof wouldn’t hurt, though it’s somewhat redundant.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Applying for a PhD after some time in industry. Hello, I am currently nearing the end of my masters degree in physics and am contemplating whether to go into research or industry immediately after graduation. I am pretty sure that at some point I will want to do a PhD but have applied for (and been offered) a good job in industry. I am hesitant as I'm not sure if this will effect my chances of doing a PhD in the future. My question is if a student applied for a PhD program with some time out of academia, say 2-3 years, working in a related industrial field would this be seen as a negative?
RESPONSE A: As a professor, I view it as a positive, but I warn people to be careful about taking on debt during those few years. It is really easy to start living a lifestyle that requires a continued higher level of income, which can make it really hard to go back to school.
RESPONSE B: Depends on the field. In my area of media and communication we have lots of faculty who had professional experience in industry before they got their PhD. Very common, very welcome. Certainly I love hiring people who can bring that extra experience into the professional classes that make up most of our curriculum
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: iarized_application_documents/ I came across a teaching statement from someone who is currently a new assistant professor (at a top 10 university) with the opening paragraph plagiarized verbatim from the teaching statement of another new assistant professor (also at a top 10 university, but further along the tenure process). Both teaching statements are publicly available online at this moment. The rest of the teaching statement was not plagiarized as far as I can tell. My first reaction was that this is not my problem, though I no longer trust any research output from the plagiarizing assistant professor. Over time I feel increasingly unsettled with my finding, and I was wondering if anyone else here has found a way to deal with this? I have very little faith in how university administrations deal with such things, which does color the actions I would like to take.
RESPONSE A: While it's clearly unwise to do it as illustrated here, I feel like it's quite questionable whether "plagiarism" applies to teaching statements. Especially if it's kind of boilerplate stuff. People might even do it in good faith, assuming it's somewhere between not a problem and expected to include certain things. I definitely wonder whether the ethics of this kind of stuff are made clear generally, or if it's just about (knowing) whomever matters' opinion...
RESPONSE B: With 40 years as a professor (21 years as a chair), I thought I would have clear advice for you, but I don't. I mostly have a scorched earth policy about such issues, except when I don't. You haven't mention any concern about repercussions for yourself just concern about wasted time, so I am assuming your status would not be threatened by any action you take. I share your lack of faith in how university administrations deal with such things. You could do an anonymous email to the person's chair and then go on your way, but if I did that I would be left wondering if anything were done. I also share your concern for the field, whatever your field. The clearest action is to send the info to the head of the research office at the university of the offending professor. I think that is what I would do.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: this? I have very little faith in how university administrations deal with such things, which does color the actions I would like to take.
RESPONSE A: While it's clearly unwise to do it as illustrated here, I feel like it's quite questionable whether "plagiarism" applies to teaching statements. Especially if it's kind of boilerplate stuff. People might even do it in good faith, assuming it's somewhere between not a problem and expected to include certain things. I definitely wonder whether the ethics of this kind of stuff are made clear generally, or if it's just about (knowing) whomever matters' opinion...
RESPONSE B: I think that academic plagiarism at any level is so very wrong. A big topic of conversation on the associated Reddit boards is plagiarism among students and what to do about it so academics are very concerned about it among students. If so, how can we not be concerned about it among our colleagues. I was at a 5000 student baccalaureate college as a chair, so VERY different than a top 10 university, but if I found that a new asst. prof. had plagiarized a teaching statement, I would first meet with the asst. prof. to find out what their story was. Assuming it was plagiarized, I'd then meet with my dean, the VPAA and probably the college president and argue that we need to release the person at the end of the academic year. This is because I couldn't trust anything the person did and I don't want somebody like that in my department (or at my college!). I had 38 years teaching and 5 years as a chair before I retired last year, and maybe my retirement shades my response. But, I'd suggest an email to the chair of the department, the dean of the school, and, quite frankly, to the advisor of the person at the institution where they earned their doctorate. That person needs to know about the ethics of the newly-minted PhD who came out of their lab since it's possible that they'll be asked for another letter of support from the person. Obviously you can't control the outcome but you can make them aware of who they have in their midst.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Statement of Faith as required job application document Anyone know what sort of information this sort of document should include? Anyone know anything about statements of faith on a job application? The prompt is: a statement of Christian faith regarding your Christian commitment
RESPONSE A: No gods, no masters: this should be enough.
RESPONSE B: *What!?* Is that legal? You'd never in a million years see something like that in Europe.
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.