label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
A
|
POST: Lots of 80s and 90s who "got it," but also lots of 40s and 50s that just didn't get it. I ended up giving 20% of the final students D/F grades. The negative feedback primarily said "he knows his stuff he just can't teach" and "this was too hard." It's kind of hard to know what to do about this--there is a mental block with chemistry for many of these students, and chemistry isn't important in many of the other subdisciplines. I am not sure how to respond or what to adjust. I felt like my lectures were pretty good, with interaction, etc., but quizzes/exams indicated the issues with many in the bottom half of the class just completely lost. Other things: in another sophomore/junior class in my department, the professor gave out 20 D/Fs (many of the same students perhaps). We have been seeing massive growth in enrollment due to the lucrative career options in my field, so there are more students in these classes now who perhaps aren't as well suited to the discipline. In the previous semester the grading was similar, with mean scores in the 60s and a bimodal distribution from a senior faculty member in the department. I don't know about his review scoring, however.
RESPONSE A: Don't let your end of the year evaluations be the first time your students have the chance to communicate with you about how you are teaching them. If you set up even just one or two in class evaluations during the first and second thirds of the course, then discuss the results and how you're going to address them with the class, you should be able to deal with the negative evaluations in a productive way and hopefully reduce the ones that show up out of the blue at the end.
RESPONSE B: I would suggest finding out how the promotion and tenure committee will be handling the change in process for student evals. When we went to online response, exactly what you're describing happened and no one prepared for it. I was on the P&T committee at the time and we needed to meet a lot after the fact to discuss the impact on our process. Ultimately the university ended up going back to paper evals.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How common is it to have ‘negative’ comments in your pre-tenure review file/teaching evaluation. Without being specific (although I understand the exact nature of the comments obviously matter) are negative written comments in the file from teaching evaluations extremely uncommon? If you get comments recommending changes to your teaching in your file, is that in and of itself a significant sign that tenure is unlikely?
RESPONSE A: Fairly common, especially if you are not male
RESPONSE B: I don't think there's any "one size fits all" answer to this. But as someone who is now engaged in writing pre-tenure evaluations, if we say, "you should make some changes," what we're hoping is, you'll make those changes, see great success, get tenure, hooray. It's not a setup. We advise candidates to "close the loop" on negative evaluations: show that you recognize them, take them seriously enough, and can make changes if necessary. Nobody is born a good teacher; we're all always making changes, if we care about being more effective. Integrate that into your narrative on teaching and it'll be even better than if you always had perfect scores, because it'll show adaptability and growth.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How common is it to have ‘negative’ comments in your pre-tenure review file/teaching evaluation. Without being specific (although I understand the exact nature of the comments obviously matter) are negative written comments in the file from teaching evaluations extremely uncommon? If you get comments recommending changes to your teaching in your file, is that in and of itself a significant sign that tenure is unlikely?
RESPONSE A: Fairly common, especially if you are not male
RESPONSE B: Extremely common. Whether this is a real problem will depend on how negative. If we get a P&T package with no weaknesses and all sunshine and bunnies, it looks like the candidate was not fully vetted and maybe there is something to hide. Listing mild weaknesses is common and not a problem. I recommend you talk with your chair about the specific comments and how to address.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: research thus far have been in neuroscience. I consider myself a neuroscientist and want to continue to work and research in neuroscience, and maybe pursue an academic career after my PhD. However, my current favorite offer was to a Chemistry department (the university is very big on interdisciplinary collaboration, and the project I would be working on is indeed a neuroscience topic; but the PI happens to be in the chemistry department). If I take this offer and become a PhD in chemistry, will that be a problem in the future if I want to pursue a postdoc and then eventually apply for faculty positions in neuroscience? Are there any cons to having "Chemistry" on my degree as opposed to "Neuroscience"? Thank you!
RESPONSE A: In the non academic job market what's important is your skill set. The first thing people will see is your CV, if you say you're a neuroscientist then you are, at least until an interview where you might need to defend that. Branching out will increase your skill set, show you can adapt and that you have broad knowledge of the field. Also, you will not be the same person when you're done as you are now. There's a fair chance you'll change your scientific and career interests at least 17 times between now and when you get your PhD. So, in my opinion, pick the program that's best without putting a huge emphasis on future employment options. In line with other comments here I'll just add - environmental microbiology PhD, cancer research employment...
RESPONSE B: My undergraduate degree was a BA in biochemistry. I got into a graduate program in chemical physics, then joined a lab that did instrument design and atmospheric chemistry. I'm now in a teaching faculty position where I cover physical chemistry labs, analytical chemistry labs, and various other classes. So in my case, the answer is: not that important. For your specific case, when you're looking for positions after graduate school, nobody is going to see the words on your diploma. They're going to look at the journals you published in, the topic of your thesis, and your recommendation letters. If all of those things imply that you're a neuroscientist, you'll be fine.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How important is the "subject/field" of your PhD degree? Hi everyone, I'm very thankful to have gotten some PhD program acceptances, and I'm now in the process of deciding which offer to accept. My main question is, how important is the "field" of your PhD to the career you pursue afterward? All of my training and research thus far have been in neuroscience. I consider myself a neuroscientist and want to continue to work and research in neuroscience, and maybe pursue an academic career after my PhD. However, my current favorite offer was to a Chemistry department (the university is very big on interdisciplinary collaboration, and the project I would be working on is indeed a neuroscience topic; but the PI happens to be in the chemistry department). If I take this offer and become a PhD in chemistry, will that be a problem in the future if I want to pursue a postdoc and then eventually apply for faculty positions in neuroscience? Are there any cons to having "Chemistry" on my degree as opposed to "Neuroscience"? Thank you!
RESPONSE A: It’s all about your project and publications. Of course, your home department will impinge on all other aspects like who your friends will be, stipend, courses required, candidacy process, etc
RESPONSE B: In the non academic job market what's important is your skill set. The first thing people will see is your CV, if you say you're a neuroscientist then you are, at least until an interview where you might need to defend that. Branching out will increase your skill set, show you can adapt and that you have broad knowledge of the field. Also, you will not be the same person when you're done as you are now. There's a fair chance you'll change your scientific and career interests at least 17 times between now and when you get your PhD. So, in my opinion, pick the program that's best without putting a huge emphasis on future employment options. In line with other comments here I'll just add - environmental microbiology PhD, cancer research employment...
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do you keep updated in your field? Especially if you are an independent researcher I received my master about a year ago and currently I am between gigs (research and some other stuff) until I get a better opportunity. I have research interest in a couple of fields that I plan to focus on for a future PhD. However I don't have relevant groups/peers in this field, and no institutional affiliation too. I struggle in keeping myself updated. I have subscribed to a few major journals of my interest. I have made sure to check several author's Google Scholar once a while. I also follow them on Twitter and follow other relevant accounts too (conferences, accounts, and so on). I'm still struggling though. What do you use to keep yourself updated? Maybe RSS feed? Mailing list? Or some other sort of subscription? Thanks in advance! Btw I'm in anthropology/media studies/STS
RESPONSE A: You might consider doing a book review for a journal in your field. This is an easy way to get a "free" copy of a new book, to continue to develop your academic writing skills, to get a low-level publication, etc. Beyond that, setting up alerts on Google Scholar, Academia.edu, ResearchGate, etc. is the way to go.
RESPONSE B: twitter
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How do you keep updated in your field? Especially if you are an independent researcher I received my master about a year ago and currently I am between gigs (research and some other stuff) until I get a better opportunity. I have research interest in a couple of fields that I plan to focus on for a future PhD. However I don't have relevant groups/peers in this field, and no institutional affiliation too. I struggle in keeping myself updated. I have subscribed to a few major journals of my interest. I have made sure to check several author's Google Scholar once a while. I also follow them on Twitter and follow other relevant accounts too (conferences, accounts, and so on). I'm still struggling though. What do you use to keep yourself updated? Maybe RSS feed? Mailing list? Or some other sort of subscription? Thanks in advance! Btw I'm in anthropology/media studies/STS
RESPONSE A: twitter
RESPONSE B: nobody mentions researchgate? follow leaders in the field, see whom they follow and what they find interesting.... if something is difficult to get you can ask the authors directly...
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do you keep updated in your field? Especially if you are an independent researcher I received my master about a year ago and currently I am between gigs (research and some other stuff) until I get a better opportunity. I have research interest in a couple of fields that I plan to focus on for a future PhD. However I don't have relevant groups/peers in this field, and no institutional affiliation too. I struggle in keeping myself updated. I have subscribed to a few major journals of my interest. I have made sure to check several author's Google Scholar once a while. I also follow them on Twitter and follow other relevant accounts too (conferences, accounts, and so on). I'm still struggling though. What do you use to keep yourself updated? Maybe RSS feed? Mailing list? Or some other sort of subscription? Thanks in advance! Btw I'm in anthropology/media studies/STS
RESPONSE A: nobody mentions researchgate? follow leaders in the field, see whom they follow and what they find interesting.... if something is difficult to get you can ask the authors directly...
RESPONSE B: If you find papers of interest that you don’t have access to, email the authors. They’ll usually be glad to send you a pdf.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do you keep updated in your field? Especially if you are an independent researcher I received my master about a year ago and currently I am between gigs (research and some other stuff) until I get a better opportunity. I have research interest in a couple of fields that I plan to focus on for a future PhD. However I don't have relevant groups/peers in this field, and no institutional affiliation too. I struggle in keeping myself updated. I have subscribed to a few major journals of my interest. I have made sure to check several author's Google Scholar once a while. I also follow them on Twitter and follow other relevant accounts too (conferences, accounts, and so on). I'm still struggling though. What do you use to keep yourself updated? Maybe RSS feed? Mailing list? Or some other sort of subscription? Thanks in advance! Btw I'm in anthropology/media studies/STS
RESPONSE A: Subscribe to the relevant journals in your field.
RESPONSE B: twitter
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: This PI/Interviewers behavior struck me as odd and a bit rude. What do I make of it? Had an video call interview with a PI for a post-bacc research job in Psychology/Neuroscience. Some things that seemed a bit off to me: 1. My webcam was on, he left his webcam off. I was essentially talking to a black screen. 2. At the interview he mentioned "let's set up an interview for you with my current research coordinator". A few days later, I sent him a thank you email and brought this up and he said "let's postpone this for now". 3. He asked me what my parents' jobs are/what field they are employed in. 4. He asked me if I consider myself "emotionally stable and willing to work with extremely mentally ill patients". He also asked me if I ever experienced suicidal thoughts or know anyone close to me who died by suicide. I guess this might be reasonable question but I didn't feel like it was necessary to ask both questions (Are you emotionally stable, AND have you ever experienced suicidal thoughts". FYI, I will not be taking this job even if I do get a second interview.
RESPONSE A: \#1 and #2 are perfectly appropriate. \#3 is odd and out of line. \#4 was in part a question about private medical/disability information. In my state it is illegal to ask that while interviewing someone for a job.
RESPONSE B: 1. Weird. Maybe there was an explanation but then why didn’t they give it? 2. Probably the least weird among the four behaviors you list, but certainly suspicious. My instinct is that there is some reason they no longer want you meeting with this other person. Maybe plans changed with the position because of COVID? Maybe they changed their mind about you? Definitely vague. 3. Seems very inappropriate to me. 4. I agree with your comment. I understand asking about someone’s comfort with mental illness if the job involves potentially triggering subject matter. But it does seem out of line to then ask about your own mental health issues.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: This PI/Interviewers behavior struck me as odd and a bit rude. What do I make of it? Had an video call interview with a PI for a post-bacc research job in Psychology/Neuroscience. Some things that seemed a bit off to me: 1. My webcam was on, he left his webcam off. I was essentially talking to a black screen. 2. At the interview he mentioned "let's set up an interview for you with my current research coordinator". A few days later, I sent him a thank you email and brought this up and he said "let's postpone this for now". 3. He asked me what my parents' jobs are/what field they are employed in. 4. He asked me if I consider myself "emotionally stable and willing to work with extremely mentally ill patients". He also asked me if I ever experienced suicidal thoughts or know anyone close to me who died by suicide. I guess this might be reasonable question but I didn't feel like it was necessary to ask both questions (Are you emotionally stable, AND have you ever experienced suicidal thoughts". FYI, I will not be taking this job even if I do get a second interview.
RESPONSE A: I think you dodged a bullet. The other issues are odd but not necessarily red flags, however asking you outright about your personal experience with suicide is extremely inappropriate. If it were a job related to suicide prevention, I can understand being asked about suicide in general, but never, ever so personally.
RESPONSE B: 1. Weird. Maybe there was an explanation but then why didn’t they give it? 2. Probably the least weird among the four behaviors you list, but certainly suspicious. My instinct is that there is some reason they no longer want you meeting with this other person. Maybe plans changed with the position because of COVID? Maybe they changed their mind about you? Definitely vague. 3. Seems very inappropriate to me. 4. I agree with your comment. I understand asking about someone’s comfort with mental illness if the job involves potentially triggering subject matter. But it does seem out of line to then ask about your own mental health issues.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: cam was on, he left his webcam off. I was essentially talking to a black screen. 2. At the interview he mentioned "let's set up an interview for you with my current research coordinator". A few days later, I sent him a thank you email and brought this up and he said "let's postpone this for now". 3. He asked me what my parents' jobs are/what field they are employed in. 4. He asked me if I consider myself "emotionally stable and willing to work with extremely mentally ill patients". He also asked me if I ever experienced suicidal thoughts or know anyone close to me who died by suicide. I guess this might be reasonable question but I didn't feel like it was necessary to ask both questions (Are you emotionally stable, AND have you ever experienced suicidal thoughts". FYI, I will not be taking this job even if I do get a second interview.
RESPONSE A: It seems like a very awkward interview, but maybe you just mentioned the worst points. 1. An interview goes both ways, it is also important for you to see your future PI and evaluate him/her imv. 2. Seems to be brushing you off 3. Strange. Although this question is a part of work contracts in some countries like Germany, interviewers rarely ask this question 4. Again very strange wording and inappropriate/illegal question about your mental health. Bad experience on his part? Or lack of boundaries? Either way, I think your feeling that it was a bit off was correct, probably not a good PI choice for you. Good luck with your next ones!
RESPONSE B: 1. Weird. Maybe there was an explanation but then why didn’t they give it? 2. Probably the least weird among the four behaviors you list, but certainly suspicious. My instinct is that there is some reason they no longer want you meeting with this other person. Maybe plans changed with the position because of COVID? Maybe they changed their mind about you? Definitely vague. 3. Seems very inappropriate to me. 4. I agree with your comment. I understand asking about someone’s comfort with mental illness if the job involves potentially triggering subject matter. But it does seem out of line to then ask about your own mental health issues.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: This PI/Interviewers behavior struck me as odd and a bit rude. What do I make of it? Had an video call interview with a PI for a post-bacc research job in Psychology/Neuroscience. Some things that seemed a bit off to me: 1. My webcam was on, he left his webcam off. I was essentially talking to a black screen. 2. At the interview he mentioned "let's set up an interview for you with my current research coordinator". A few days later, I sent him a thank you email and brought this up and he said "let's postpone this for now". 3. He asked me what my parents' jobs are/what field they are employed in. 4. He asked me if I consider myself "emotionally stable and willing to work with extremely mentally ill patients". He also asked me if I ever experienced suicidal thoughts or know anyone close to me who died by suicide. I guess this might be reasonable question but I didn't feel like it was necessary to ask both questions (Are you emotionally stable, AND have you ever experienced suicidal thoughts". FYI, I will not be taking this job even if I do get a second interview.
RESPONSE A: RedFlagAlert. This is not normal behavior. Try to find another thing. I think it's forbidden to ask personal questions during interviews because of discrimination.
RESPONSE B: 1. Weird. Maybe there was an explanation but then why didn’t they give it? 2. Probably the least weird among the four behaviors you list, but certainly suspicious. My instinct is that there is some reason they no longer want you meeting with this other person. Maybe plans changed with the position because of COVID? Maybe they changed their mind about you? Definitely vague. 3. Seems very inappropriate to me. 4. I agree with your comment. I understand asking about someone’s comfort with mental illness if the job involves potentially triggering subject matter. But it does seem out of line to then ask about your own mental health issues.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What is the logic behind an unemployed PhD being "stale goods on the market"? Quite a few times now I've heard people say that you need to land a position within a year or two of receiving your PhD, because otherwise you become "stale goods on the market" and... your PhD is... worth nothing, I guess?... Can someone explain to me how this makes any sense at all? It seems like the most utterly childish thing.
RESPONSE A: Despite everything being said below, you should also recognise that being unemployed *this past year* is more than understandable and should be easy enough to explain to employers in cover letters and interviews if necessary. Any employer who doesn't give latitude for the absolute insanity of the past year and a half would be very foolish. Quite apart from that, also don't forget to be kind to yourself. It's been a rough time, there is no shame in being unemployed for a while. It's difficult to get back in the market sometimes, but even after a while away, it's still possible. I know because I did it too after my PhD some years ago now.
RESPONSE B: People start to wonder: do you have drive? are your ideas not fundable? publishable? Obviously the wording is terrible. I'd tend to just say "possibly less likely to land a new position" or something more diplomatic.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST:
RESPONSE A: Don't do it. The next thing that'll happen is you'll get nine side gigs just to survive, which means you'll extend the time you're doing it and you won't be giving your attention to it. If you're doing those things, why bother doing it at all? This may sound rude, and I'm sorry for that, but I've just seen a good number of PhDs sidetracked because they think they can do all of it. The trick, I found, was to get to a point where you couldn't move forward at all without the degree— a point at which the money aspect sort of fell away (yes, you'll live like shit for a few years). This isn't the "love what you do and you'll never work" bullshit, but rather the "once you're willing to sacrifice comfort, go for it" model. It's late winter, so you're not applying anywhere now (in the US at least) until later in 2020, right? Think on it a while— ~Someone a few days from defending their dissertation and maybe a little burned out
RESPONSE B: If the goal is go improve your job prospects then you're hardly being a burden by investing in your and your family's future. And don't discount the role that being happy plays in all that - even if it's a wash financially, being happier and more satisfied in the long run is well worth it. That said, what are your post-PhD plans, and are you sure they are realistic? If you are gearing up to something academic then realistically you may end up needing to move to a different institution/city once or twice before finding something stable. That's a critical spousal conversation that is easier to have sooner rather than later. It's also worth talking to others who have done what you are aiming to do, recently, to be sure you are getting the full picture of what you'd be signing on to do. Prospective supervisors are a lousy source of this information, given that many of them got their own jobs in a very different academic climate than the one we live in now.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: degree soon and has no intent of pursuing a PhD, and will soon go on to make a lot of money. I want to be able to help support us and save for a family, but if I go for a PhD, I will essentially will make nothing until we have kids. I also don't want my SO to feel guilty about making so much more $ and feel like he has to support me financially either. I realize it sounds like there's a clear answer to this (don't get a PhD), but my heart is in doing research, and I'm sure I'm not the first person in this position. I just want to hear some other experiences. Thank you very much.
RESPONSE A: Your answer has to be a social one within your relationship. Any way you cut it, a PhD program is going to be significantly less pay and significantly more time demanding than any full time job. Don’t let anyone trick you into believing you can perform side-gigs or part time employment during a full time PhD. You can make it though. It’s going to be a sacrifice, but it’ll be worth it 4 years down the line (if job prospects are promising).
RESPONSE B: If the goal is go improve your job prospects then you're hardly being a burden by investing in your and your family's future. And don't discount the role that being happy plays in all that - even if it's a wash financially, being happier and more satisfied in the long run is well worth it. That said, what are your post-PhD plans, and are you sure they are realistic? If you are gearing up to something academic then realistically you may end up needing to move to a different institution/city once or twice before finding something stable. That's a critical spousal conversation that is easier to have sooner rather than later. It's also worth talking to others who have done what you are aiming to do, recently, to be sure you are getting the full picture of what you'd be signing on to do. Prospective supervisors are a lousy source of this information, given that many of them got their own jobs in a very different academic climate than the one we live in now.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How linear was/is your phd progress? Hello all! So I've been thinking about this recently, as I get to a point where graduation is starting to look possible. I think a lot of incoming grad students come in and hear that the average time to phd is x years and assume, "great, I'll start my project in year one and then burn slowly through until I'm done". Whereas for me and some of my friends, it's been more like: years 1-5: "nope, let's try a different project" year 6: "ooooh I can probably do this in a year" ​ How do y'all feel like you've progressed? Has it been kind of a straight line of chipping down a thesis, or more like a bunch of years fumbling around until you've finally hit the point of being ready to tackle something for real?
RESPONSE A: It took me five years to write my 250 page dissertation. I wrote 100 of those pages in the three weeks leading up to the defense.
RESPONSE B: Mine was quite annoying, jumping around the place. It quite a little different from the original plan, Unfortunately, my home country has a 4 years deadline for full time PhD students.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: year 6: "ooooh I can probably do this in a year" ​ How do y'all feel like you've progressed? Has it been kind of a straight line of chipping down a thesis, or more like a bunch of years fumbling around until you've finally hit the point of being ready to tackle something for real?
RESPONSE A: Mine was quite annoying, jumping around the place. It quite a little different from the original plan, Unfortunately, my home country has a 4 years deadline for full time PhD students.
RESPONSE B: Not very linear at all. My advisor died. I was deployed twice (reservist) and sent away for training a few more times while working on my PhD. We had kids and one of them had significant health challenges in her first few years (5 surgeries, yay!). I had to teach a 3/3 load as a grad student because I had to be the sole breadwinner for the family, since my spouse was never able to find full time work in the area despite ample qualifications (yay college towns), and also our kid was too sick for daycare. I eventually had to leave ABD just to make ends meet. I wish that I had been able to develop the research network and collaborative relationships my peers did. I was always stuck outside. I often couldn't just hang out when asked, and even more often I wasn't even invited. It was especially challenging to watch the other grad students in the program rally to support the female grad students and help them out when they had kids, but completely ignore us while we struggled to keep my daughter alive and were in and out of hospitals, even when we asked for help. I'll probably always be a little bitter about that. It worked out ok. I'm faculty now. I finished my PhD. I have a few publications. My kids are healthy. It was a tough road, and I'll always wonder where I would be if I had a more typical grad school experience. I realize this doesn't really answer your question. I guess I just needed to say it. The answer to your question is that I had three failed plans and fired most of my committee twice before I got something that worked.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: , let's try a different project" year 6: "ooooh I can probably do this in a year" ​ How do y'all feel like you've progressed? Has it been kind of a straight line of chipping down a thesis, or more like a bunch of years fumbling around until you've finally hit the point of being ready to tackle something for real?
RESPONSE A: Not very linear at all. My advisor died. I was deployed twice (reservist) and sent away for training a few more times while working on my PhD. We had kids and one of them had significant health challenges in her first few years (5 surgeries, yay!). I had to teach a 3/3 load as a grad student because I had to be the sole breadwinner for the family, since my spouse was never able to find full time work in the area despite ample qualifications (yay college towns), and also our kid was too sick for daycare. I eventually had to leave ABD just to make ends meet. I wish that I had been able to develop the research network and collaborative relationships my peers did. I was always stuck outside. I often couldn't just hang out when asked, and even more often I wasn't even invited. It was especially challenging to watch the other grad students in the program rally to support the female grad students and help them out when they had kids, but completely ignore us while we struggled to keep my daughter alive and were in and out of hospitals, even when we asked for help. I'll probably always be a little bitter about that. It worked out ok. I'm faculty now. I finished my PhD. I have a few publications. My kids are healthy. It was a tough road, and I'll always wonder where I would be if I had a more typical grad school experience. I realize this doesn't really answer your question. I guess I just needed to say it. The answer to your question is that I had three failed plans and fired most of my committee twice before I got something that worked.
RESPONSE B: I had a major shift in my research area in my second year but now I’m about to finish - and on time!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: help you through the day, and divide your time between various projects, post-doc scouting etc when it came to writing disseratation
RESPONSE A: I just finished mine, so I'm just starting to digest some lessons from the experience. Above all, I recommend putting time and effort into designing a detailed outline that actually reflects the structure of the work you intend to write. This way, you can always write with the larger structure and purpose in mind, breaking the whole thing into smaller parts, each of which you can manage to write in a few days, provided that you have all the research and materials ready. Also, be aware that your actual writing will start to deviate from your original plan, and you may likely fall behind the ambitious goals you set out in the beginning. Take some time each day to think about whether your actual writing is following the outline you created. What is a contingency plan in case things aren't working out? How can you ensure that your objectives are addressed clearly in the end? For a daily schedule, I honestly recommend dedicating your entire day to writing with modest breaks every few hours to get away from the screen/paper (approx. 20 minutes long, excluding meals and sleep). If your outline is well-conceived, and if you've done all your research, the writing stage shouldn't stress you out to the point of exhaustion. If it is, take a step back and reconsider the first two points. If you take too many long-term breaks for other projects, you risk procrastinating and slowing down, which would force you to write more later with less time for revision. Instead, try to get a first draft written earlier on, and then you can come back later and revise periodically.
RESPONSE B: I followed a very structured daily routine, working no more than 8 hours per day in the 9-13, 15-19 periods. When you are not working, if possible, I changed rooms. When writing, I used vìolin music to concentrate better. But the most important thing is to remember: a good dissertation is a done dissertation, a perfect dissertation is never finished. You can do it, you will do it. I repeated the mantra to make it, and I managed. My best wishes for you!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Need final year Ph.D. survival guide: What was your daily routine like during the final year of dissertation? I really want to know how you chalked out your time, tips and tricks to help you through the day, and divide your time between various projects, post-doc scouting etc when it came to writing disseratation
RESPONSE A: I followed a very structured daily routine, working no more than 8 hours per day in the 9-13, 15-19 periods. When you are not working, if possible, I changed rooms. When writing, I used vìolin music to concentrate better. But the most important thing is to remember: a good dissertation is a done dissertation, a perfect dissertation is never finished. You can do it, you will do it. I repeated the mantra to make it, and I managed. My best wishes for you!
RESPONSE B: It was the only time I regularly went to a library. To use the computers mind you :-) Library had duel monitors, comfy chairs, quite setup. Headphones, Spotify Deep focus, and way too much Yerba Mate. That was my life till that dissertation was done.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: like during the final year of dissertation? I really want to know how you chalked out your time, tips and tricks to help you through the day, and divide your time between various projects, post-doc scouting etc when it came to writing disseratation
RESPONSE A: Literally the only advice is to find what works for YOU and stick to it and not let other people's routines or judgement of YOUR routine fuck you up. For example I had my final year during covid. This meant I was going into the lab only when we could (rotating schedule) but since I'm a night owl I often took afternoons and evenings. We pushed through experiments and I would write during every other waking moment, and often work late into the night when the world was quiet and it was just me, the office floor, and my laptop. Mornings were for a workout (if I had time), a meal, emails, etc. Some people will tell you the only way to be productive is to get ready for the day and work a normal work day. Just...ignore the advice. The best thesis is a finished thesis. Do what you need to do, within YOUR living conditions (do you have kids? Spouse who shares the office - I did - pets?) to get it done and stop reading guides on how you should get up 6am and do a HIIT workout and then dress in work attire and be at your desk 8 to 5. Additionally ignore anyone who is not currently or who hasn't already done this. This means junior lab members, technicians, whatever - who may have ideas about when you should be putting in face time. This has been a big issue pre-covid at my institute and has really hindered the writing progress of folks who felt like they had to be "present", even if it wasn't the most productive place for them with a thesis/dissertation deadline looming.
RESPONSE B: It was the only time I regularly went to a library. To use the computers mind you :-) Library had duel monitors, comfy chairs, quite setup. Headphones, Spotify Deep focus, and way too much Yerba Mate. That was my life till that dissertation was done.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Need final year Ph.D. survival guide: What was your daily routine like during the final year of dissertation? I really want to know how you chalked out your time, tips and tricks to help you through the day, and divide your time between various projects, post-doc scouting etc when it came to writing disseratation
RESPONSE A: Go to lab and write/ Facebook, come home and smoke weed, drink, and play videogames. Repeat.
RESPONSE B: wake up panic stare at wall panic go to sleep
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How many papers did you finish a PhD with? (Neuroscience; United States). Just curious how many papers (peer-reviewed journal article) you all finished your PhD with especially from those in neuroscience or the life sciences since it seems to vary so much by field. How many firsts? How many 2nds? Mids? What would you say is a solid number and what number for those students that became PI's? Just trying to figure out a reasonable reach and stretch target for productivity (despite what people say about best-laid plans). Thanks!
RESPONSE A: I was wondering this recently and came across this paper that goes through the average publications of Psychology PhDs, post-docs and new faculty members. I work in Psychology/Neuroscience (neuroimaging and some purely psychology studies) and I'm just finishing my 3rd year with three publications (one 1st author, one 2nd author, one 5th author) and have two in review (one 1st, one 2nd) and more that will be submitted early next year but since I have no idea how long it will take to get them actually published I won't count them here. I've also checked out various people I know (including my supervisor, post-docs, and other academics I've been in contact with) and anywhere between 1-4 first author papers seems normal. 5 is uncommon and those with 5 during the PhD usually only have 1 or none in the year after they finish compared to those with fewer during their PhD who tend to have a few papers published the year after completion. I don't consider non-first author papers so much because in a lot of cases it depends on the size of the lab more than anything else.
RESPONSE B: This is something you yourself can look up on Google scholar. Just check out any "young-er" professor in your field. Most folks will have a "Before starting at XYZ" in their publication list. Good luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: 't get that
RESPONSE A: > I also need a very good rec from him for grad school, so I don't want to put any strain on our relationship. You're not even in grad school yet? I mean, I'm sorry, but you're just a regular hourly employee. Lots of times they get on the paper, but a lot of times they don't because there are simply too many other people involved who did more. Credit needs to go to people who did more planning, recording, and writing than those who just run stats. Sorry, but that's just kind of how it goes. > I put in tons and tons of overtime even though I don't get paid for it, mainly because I expected to be a co-author, so I didn't mind. What made you think you were going to be a co-author? Did the professor say you would? > As a researcher, I produce all the statistical analysis. That means I do all the coding and produce the analytical output. **This really is the bulk of all the work.** Every figure, table, and description was produced from my code. Are you sure? I mean, I hate stats and running SAS too, but c'mon, the bulk of the work? For every project in my field SAS is one of the smaller parts. The biggest issue is actually designing the experiment, funding/purchasing, running the experiment, recording data, and writing. Stats takes a back seat to all of that. Your field may differ, but what if you've overestimated the importance of your work.
RESPONSE B: Can you be more specific about your contributions? If you're serving a purely technical role as part of your job, you may not have as strong a claim for authorship as you think. Did you do any writing? Did you interpret the results or suggest alternate models? From what you describe, it sounds like you are writing the code to perform the analyses requested by the professor. If that's all you've done (not to trivialize how difficult and time-consuming it it), it's probably not enough to warrant authorship. This is of course probably field-dependent and I highly doubt I'm in a field similar to yours.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: any strain on our relationship. What is the best way to go about approaching this? Note: When I say co-author, I really mean author, as in second/third author. I didn't conceptualize the project so of course I don't expect to be lead. tldr - I expected to be a coauthor on a paper I put in the majority of work for, but now it seems like I won't get that
RESPONSE A: So he's the PI, secured the funds, got the data set, decided on the analysis, and is the one writing the actual paper? I think you have your answer right there, I'm afraid.
RESPONSE B: > I also need a very good rec from him for grad school, so I don't want to put any strain on our relationship. You're not even in grad school yet? I mean, I'm sorry, but you're just a regular hourly employee. Lots of times they get on the paper, but a lot of times they don't because there are simply too many other people involved who did more. Credit needs to go to people who did more planning, recording, and writing than those who just run stats. Sorry, but that's just kind of how it goes. > I put in tons and tons of overtime even though I don't get paid for it, mainly because I expected to be a co-author, so I didn't mind. What made you think you were going to be a co-author? Did the professor say you would? > As a researcher, I produce all the statistical analysis. That means I do all the coding and produce the analytical output. **This really is the bulk of all the work.** Every figure, table, and description was produced from my code. Are you sure? I mean, I hate stats and running SAS too, but c'mon, the bulk of the work? For every project in my field SAS is one of the smaller parts. The biggest issue is actually designing the experiment, funding/purchasing, running the experiment, recording data, and writing. Stats takes a back seat to all of that. Your field may differ, but what if you've overestimated the importance of your work.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: , mainly because I expected to be a co-author, so I didn't mind. I really want to approach my professor but I don't know how. He could easily shut me down and there's nothing I can do about it. Authorship is a very sensitive area in academia. I also need a very good rec from him for grad school, so I don't want to put any strain on our relationship. What is the best way to go about approaching this? Note: When I say co-author, I really mean author, as in second/third author. I didn't conceptualize the project so of course I don't expect to be lead. tldr - I expected to be a coauthor on a paper I put in the majority of work for, but now it seems like I won't get that
RESPONSE A: I think it doesn't hurt to ask. I have no idea what your field is, but I put people on my papers who do WAY less than 600 hours of work and don't contribute anything other than doing what I tell them to do. Just ask to meet and then say something like (or if you feel awkward, just send it in an email) "I know we will be submitting the paper on ____ soon. I'm really proud of the work I did and feel like I put in a lot of effort. I did my best to take ownership of my role on the research team. It would mean a lot to me if you would consider including me for middle authorship on this paper." What's the worst that can happen?
RESPONSE B: Can you be more specific about your contributions? If you're serving a purely technical role as part of your job, you may not have as strong a claim for authorship as you think. Did you do any writing? Did you interpret the results or suggest alternate models? From what you describe, it sounds like you are writing the code to perform the analyses requested by the professor. If that's all you've done (not to trivialize how difficult and time-consuming it it), it's probably not enough to warrant authorship. This is of course probably field-dependent and I highly doubt I'm in a field similar to yours.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: I put in the majority of work for, but now it seems like I won't get that
RESPONSE A: I think that you should definitely bring this up to your PI. I would not mention the other prof who has done less... I would just stick to the facts that relate to your authorship. It may be that the work you did does not warrant authorship. You should be able to have a mature, professional conversation with your PI about this issue though. I would meet with him and tell him that you were surprised to learn that you wouldn't be a coauthor on the paper because you thought that your analysis involving X, Y, Z was a significant part of the research. I would make it clear that you don't want to challenge his decision but that you want to understand what sort of contribution warrants authorship since you want to continue on to a PhD. You can also add that you were really hoping to be a coauthor since you feel very invested in the work and that you would be willing help with additional analysis or writing. Based on your description of your efforts, I do think that you deserve to be a coauthor on the paper. Others on here could certainly be correct that you are overestimating your level of contribution though. Either way, it is important to learn how to have these kinds of uncomfortable conversations. As long as you are respectful and approach this from the perspective of wanting to learn how authorship works, I don't see why that should upset the PI or hurt your future LOR.
RESPONSE B: I think it doesn't hurt to ask. I have no idea what your field is, but I put people on my papers who do WAY less than 600 hours of work and don't contribute anything other than doing what I tell them to do. Just ask to meet and then say something like (or if you feel awkward, just send it in an email) "I know we will be submitting the paper on ____ soon. I'm really proud of the work I did and feel like I put in a lot of effort. I did my best to take ownership of my role on the research team. It would mean a lot to me if you would consider including me for middle authorship on this paper." What's the worst that can happen?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: s nothing I can do about it. Authorship is a very sensitive area in academia. I also need a very good rec from him for grad school, so I don't want to put any strain on our relationship. What is the best way to go about approaching this? Note: When I say co-author, I really mean author, as in second/third author. I didn't conceptualize the project so of course I don't expect to be lead. tldr - I expected to be a coauthor on a paper I put in the majority of work for, but now it seems like I won't get that
RESPONSE A: This may be of help: Authorship and responsible conduct in research.
RESPONSE B: > Recently, over the phone, **my professor made it sound like I wouldn't be getting co-authorship on this paper.** Dude, do you know anything about what is going on with your career? I find it pretty strange that so many people are telling you to shut up because a lowly RA shouldn't get authorship on a paper. In my field, it's typical to give RAs, whether they wrote the literature review or copypasted code into Stata, a secondary authorship. It harms no one. I also find it pretty strange that you basically accepted a job without ironing out the terms of your employment. I've been granted coauthorship as "just a regular hourly employee", but it was understood from the negotiation stage that I would receive coauthorship. It was part of my contract, like my salary and my access to institutional resources. You should talk to your professor simply because you have no fucking clue of what is going on, and you are way past due to get one. What does "my professor made it sound like" even mean??? That doesn't tell me anything about whether or not she intends to put your name on the paper, so isn't it a little early for doomsday scenarios and figuring out who's in the wrong? How good of a recommendation letter do you expect to get, really, from a person with whom you've worked for months and still cannot have a frank conversation about the work you're doing?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Why does a PhD in Britain only take 3 years compared to PhDs in America, which are longer?
RESPONSE A: I am doing a PhD in Australia and it is supposed to take me 3(ish) years to complete. I don't have a Masters degree, but did graduate with an Honours degree in my undergrad. Virtually no one here does a Masters before the PhD (unless they didn't do an honours degree). My PhD is shorter than those in North America because I didn't have to do any courses, nor do I have to write a comprehensive exam. I assume it's because they feel that most of the research training and coursework you need for a research degree is covered in your Honours year.
RESPONSE B: The key thing here is that UK *undergraduate* degrees are completely focussed on a single subject; for example if you do a geology batchelors your first year is all geology (earth structure, tectonics, intro to sedimentology, mineralogy, palaeontology, etc), and it only gets more specialised from there. The third year of a BSc has advanced courses in it equivalent to what gets covered in parts of US grad school (advanced sedimentology, volcanology, hydrogeochemistry, seismic processing and interpretation etc etc). There is no cross-department stuff (unless you're enrolled on one of the very few joint programs, in which you'll still only be sitting courses in two departments). Most STEM subjects are also offered as undergraduate masters ('MSci' 4 year courses where the 4th year is all grad-level classes). As such, a PhD is simply research training and experience. You get appointed to a specific project, and you get on with it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why does a PhD in Britain only take 3 years compared to PhDs in America, which are longer?
RESPONSE A: The key thing here is that UK *undergraduate* degrees are completely focussed on a single subject; for example if you do a geology batchelors your first year is all geology (earth structure, tectonics, intro to sedimentology, mineralogy, palaeontology, etc), and it only gets more specialised from there. The third year of a BSc has advanced courses in it equivalent to what gets covered in parts of US grad school (advanced sedimentology, volcanology, hydrogeochemistry, seismic processing and interpretation etc etc). There is no cross-department stuff (unless you're enrolled on one of the very few joint programs, in which you'll still only be sitting courses in two departments). Most STEM subjects are also offered as undergraduate masters ('MSci' 4 year courses where the 4th year is all grad-level classes). As such, a PhD is simply research training and experience. You get appointed to a specific project, and you get on with it.
RESPONSE B: In the US it's common (though not everyone does this) to go straight from undergrad into a PhD program. You get a "non-terminal Master's" on your way to the PhD during this time. In Europe, you get a terminal Master's first, and only then do you go on to a PhD. Again, some students in the US (particularly if they didn't do well enough during their undergrad to get straight into a PhD program) will get a terminal Master's first and then go on to a PhD program, but this does not change the length (5 years on average) that they're there. In the US, *most* terminal Master's programs do not transfer their credits when entering a PhD; although, it can certainly increase your chances of being admitted.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Do you find academic writing readable? HI! Academics write a lot -- papers, theses, grant proposals. How readable to you find them, generally (by readability I mean ease of finding and understanding the first time you read it)? Would you want papers to be more readable? Do you find it challenging to write in simple, clear language?
RESPONSE A: The quality varies. I often read an article and want the writer to just be as concise as possible. I work in a clinical science field, and our journals generally have a 3-4,000 word limit. I force myself to write simple sentences. I encourage others in peer review, instruction, and seminars to be simple and direct. Some things drive me nuts while reading: 1. Overusing Passive voice 2. Writing sentences that are as long as a paragraph 3. Adding entire rows or columns with exact p-values for every estimated parameter to tables 4. Retaining tables and figures that could have been appendices Help me read efficiently :)
RESPONSE B: Dense prose is efficient. In any writing task, it's important to write for your target audience. Articles and grant proposals have word-count limits, and are written for a specific audience that consists of experts in the field. I think everyone who's developed expertise in a field does not struggle anymore in reading the material, even if it was challenging when first learning it. "Do you find it challenging to write in simple, clear language?" I assure you that a person who reads/writes at the 16+ grade level does far better at any level than a typical reader (which for the US is grade 7-8). It is not as if all the years of practice somehow destroys communicative ability.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Do you find academic writing readable? HI! Academics write a lot -- papers, theses, grant proposals. How readable to you find them, generally (by readability I mean ease of finding and understanding the first time you read it)? Would you want papers to be more readable? Do you find it challenging to write in simple, clear language?
RESPONSE A: The quality varies. I often read an article and want the writer to just be as concise as possible. I work in a clinical science field, and our journals generally have a 3-4,000 word limit. I force myself to write simple sentences. I encourage others in peer review, instruction, and seminars to be simple and direct. Some things drive me nuts while reading: 1. Overusing Passive voice 2. Writing sentences that are as long as a paragraph 3. Adding entire rows or columns with exact p-values for every estimated parameter to tables 4. Retaining tables and figures that could have been appendices Help me read efficiently :)
RESPONSE B: When you get in the zone, and you know all the references and the context, they are mostly great. The rest of the time, they can be hard to follow. Getting up to speed can be a challenge!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Do you find academic writing readable? HI! Academics write a lot -- papers, theses, grant proposals. How readable to you find them, generally (by readability I mean ease of finding and understanding the first time you read it)? Would you want papers to be more readable? Do you find it challenging to write in simple, clear language?
RESPONSE A: The quality varies of course but I find most articles in my field quite readable. The thing that I think most non-academics don’t quite understand is that most journal articles are written for other academics who are in our own field and with an overlapping knowledge base. So outsiders find it unreadable bc it’s not written with them in mind. I definitely remember absolutely struggling with some papers in my first year of grad school and then going back a few years later and finding them very easy to read.
RESPONSE B: Dense prose is efficient. In any writing task, it's important to write for your target audience. Articles and grant proposals have word-count limits, and are written for a specific audience that consists of experts in the field. I think everyone who's developed expertise in a field does not struggle anymore in reading the material, even if it was challenging when first learning it. "Do you find it challenging to write in simple, clear language?" I assure you that a person who reads/writes at the 16+ grade level does far better at any level than a typical reader (which for the US is grade 7-8). It is not as if all the years of practice somehow destroys communicative ability.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Do you find academic writing readable? HI! Academics write a lot -- papers, theses, grant proposals. How readable to you find them, generally (by readability I mean ease of finding and understanding the first time you read it)? Would you want papers to be more readable? Do you find it challenging to write in simple, clear language?
RESPONSE A: I always say if it is possible to present an idea for a general audience without losing any of the complexities in your work, then do so. In a perfect world everyone could understand your work. But of course we don't live in such a world. Most of the time readers of academic work will need some prerequisite knowledge of the field. I feel this is more true for STEM subjects.
RESPONSE B: The quality varies of course but I find most articles in my field quite readable. The thing that I think most non-academics don’t quite understand is that most journal articles are written for other academics who are in our own field and with an overlapping knowledge base. So outsiders find it unreadable bc it’s not written with them in mind. I definitely remember absolutely struggling with some papers in my first year of grad school and then going back a few years later and finding them very easy to read.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Do you find academic writing readable? HI! Academics write a lot -- papers, theses, grant proposals. How readable to you find them, generally (by readability I mean ease of finding and understanding the first time you read it)? Would you want papers to be more readable? Do you find it challenging to write in simple, clear language?
RESPONSE A: If I want to learn something, I want to get there quickly. If I want to experience something for itself, enjoying that experience, then I might enjoy that it extends in time. To me this is the central difference between academic writing and fiction. Extracting information vs enjoying the experience. Most published academic writing is readable in that regard! :) There are bad writers in all categories, however, and I suppose the bar is lower in terms of style for academic papers. It would be great if more time was spent on learning how to write clearly, without sacrificing the short form of academic writing.
RESPONSE B: The quality varies of course but I find most articles in my field quite readable. The thing that I think most non-academics don’t quite understand is that most journal articles are written for other academics who are in our own field and with an overlapping knowledge base. So outsiders find it unreadable bc it’s not written with them in mind. I definitely remember absolutely struggling with some papers in my first year of grad school and then going back a few years later and finding them very easy to read.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What would be the consequence if TT ends? https://www.wabe.org/georgia-board-of-regents-approves-changes-to-tenure/ Anyone here with direct knowledge of this?
RESPONSE A: Frankly then academic positions become even less attractive than industry positions. One of the last bulwarks against brain drain to industry was the oft touted academic freedom and job security that comes with tenure. And even then, the industry-academia pay gap is wide enough in many subject areas to make industry a highly attractive option. In my field especially, where industry options are thick on the ground, we lose many brilliant minds to industry because the pay is almost 3x more. When you take away the possibility of tenure? More of the best and brightest will just go into industry. Big corps win again.
RESPONSE B: The most extraordinary thing about getting rid of tenure, imo, is that tenure primarily protects very conservative professors. Universities are inherently very liberal places. That is not going to change regardless of what politicians would like to believe. The professors who most routinely get in trouble with admin are the ones that students complain about, and generally the ones students most complain about are outspoken conservatives. Edit: a word for clarity
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What would be the consequence if TT ends? https://www.wabe.org/georgia-board-of-regents-approves-changes-to-tenure/ Anyone here with direct knowledge of this?
RESPONSE A: Didn't this happen in Wisconsin about 12 years ago? I bet all the great faculty went to Michigan.
RESPONSE B: Frankly then academic positions become even less attractive than industry positions. One of the last bulwarks against brain drain to industry was the oft touted academic freedom and job security that comes with tenure. And even then, the industry-academia pay gap is wide enough in many subject areas to make industry a highly attractive option. In my field especially, where industry options are thick on the ground, we lose many brilliant minds to industry because the pay is almost 3x more. When you take away the possibility of tenure? More of the best and brightest will just go into industry. Big corps win again.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What would be the consequence if TT ends? https://www.wabe.org/georgia-board-of-regents-approves-changes-to-tenure/ Anyone here with direct knowledge of this?
RESPONSE A: The point of tenure is so that academics and research and educate without undue political influence, so if that goes away then research and education will become largely political. Like we’ll have to research/teach whatever the political class wants, like the bullshit about gender, race and sexuality that’s going on now… Edit; ok apparently people can’t read. Race gender and sexuality aren’t bullshit —politicians legislating how to teach and research those topics is bullshit. Like what’s happening in Florida. I would have thought that was pretty clear from my first sentence saying that tenure is to protect academic freedom. Read people
RESPONSE B: Frankly then academic positions become even less attractive than industry positions. One of the last bulwarks against brain drain to industry was the oft touted academic freedom and job security that comes with tenure. And even then, the industry-academia pay gap is wide enough in many subject areas to make industry a highly attractive option. In my field especially, where industry options are thick on the ground, we lose many brilliant minds to industry because the pay is almost 3x more. When you take away the possibility of tenure? More of the best and brightest will just go into industry. Big corps win again.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What would be the consequence if TT ends? https://www.wabe.org/georgia-board-of-regents-approves-changes-to-tenure/ Anyone here with direct knowledge of this?
RESPONSE A: The most extraordinary thing about getting rid of tenure, imo, is that tenure primarily protects very conservative professors. Universities are inherently very liberal places. That is not going to change regardless of what politicians would like to believe. The professors who most routinely get in trouble with admin are the ones that students complain about, and generally the ones students most complain about are outspoken conservatives. Edit: a word for clarity
RESPONSE B: The point of tenure is so that academics and research and educate without undue political influence, so if that goes away then research and education will become largely political. Like we’ll have to research/teach whatever the political class wants, like the bullshit about gender, race and sexuality that’s going on now… Edit; ok apparently people can’t read. Race gender and sexuality aren’t bullshit —politicians legislating how to teach and research those topics is bullshit. Like what’s happening in Florida. I would have thought that was pretty clear from my first sentence saying that tenure is to protect academic freedom. Read people
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: TT ends? https://www.wabe.org/georgia-board-of-regents-approves-changes-to-tenure/ Anyone here with direct knowledge of this?
RESPONSE A: It looks from the article that there are two main changes that are being pushed: First, that "student success" is now included in tenure review, and second that the tenured professor review would now be conducted by the board of regents rather than the departments themselves. For context, I'm in the field of robotics. The student success metric *sounds* like a good idea but I don't think there's a good way of implementing it. Certainly, I am aware of labs where students are churned out with little regard for their future employability, and the proper implementation of this policy would likely help with this. My primary concern here is that the only metric of "success" that will be used will be salary after graduation. This will obviously reflect poorly on humanities and will favor pushing students to industry rather than academia (I'm not saying that one career choice is better than the other). This is also likely to impact the degree to which professors are willing to "take a chance" on students. Without an **extremely** good metric, I can't see this being anything other than a negative. Having the board of regents involved in evaluating professors is just stupid, though. The amount of opportunity for conflicts of interest and political meddling is astronomical. Further, there are many research fields (e.g. theoretical math) where, without an extensive understanding of the field, it is more or less impossible to evaluate the importance and quality of someone's work. In other fields (e.g. biology or sociology) many very important experiments take literal decades; I am extremely concerned that the five year review cycle will make such long-term experiments possible.
RESPONSE B: TT is illegal in the UK, as you can't hire someone then dangle the potential of a permenant job based on performance. Either your hired from day 1 and tenured, or you're on a fixed contract. The US system of TT just breeds toxicity.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Is an online masters degree from a well-respected brick and mortar uni considered lower than a face to face masters degree elsewhere? Is an online masters degree from a well-respected brick and mortar uni considered lower than a face to face masters degree elsewhere? I plan to do a masters degree in marketing, and also build some experience on the side with my own projects.
RESPONSE A: I mean, I think you would just list your MA on your CV not what mode your program was provided in. Unless the degree is from an obvious online-only organization (like Phoenix) I don't know that it would be obvious.
RESPONSE B: nah esp not in todays time. My whole masters was online due to covid
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: probably not build directly off of them. Any thoughts from professors or grad students on how I should be approaching this? Is there anything I should have prepared before the semester starts? What would you expect out of undergrads when handing them literature?
RESPONSE A: What follows is a paraphrased, only-half-in-jest description of how my advisor reads papers: "Read the title and abstract. If it sounds interesting, skip straight to the conclusion. If there are any questions, consult the figures. If you're still interested, read the rest of the paper." ​ That is how I read most papers I come across too - since the vast majority of papers aren't review papers, they typically represent just one small set of results from a long-running research program. If I want to learn more, I backtrack through the references and the authors' publications to find the first paper(s) on the topic in question, and then work my way forwards chronologically from there. Depending on how established the topic is, textbooks and review papers are good places to look too (especially if it's outside my specialty). Effective literature review is a must-have skill (and one that, even after many years of grad school, I'm still learning). More to the point, what I would expect from an undergraduate researcher working with me would be the ability to: summarize a paper following a quick read-through, interpret figures correctly, and use references and library resources to find similar papers or originating papers for an idea/technique/method/etc. I wouldn't expect undergrads to be able to replicate the results of most papers independently, but there are definitely papers in my field (computational plasma physics) that would be within the reach of particularly ambitious students.
RESPONSE B: You should read the abstract, see the figures, read the conclusion, skim the discussion. You should only read the methods if you need insight in how the results were obtained (unnecessary in most cases). You should only read the introduction when trying to get a bigger picture view of the problem & to be pointed at other researchers (also in the discussion). That's essentially it. Abstract + figures does most of the job for most papers.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why do nursing schools and med school mostly teach treatment based information rather than preventive? As I was in nursing school so much of our program was treatment based, and very little was talked about prevention, for example so many people have never had a full lab test that shows all functions in the body. With the human body being so complex it feels like we arn’t taking advantage of all of our resources to keep our patients healthy.
RESPONSE A: Preventative health care is actually public health because its about policies and programmes and politics and funding and behaviour and health economics and social factors... NOT about the individual patient. Most doctors are dealing with the individual patient. We (NL) actually still have public health doctors. You are NOT talking about prevention. You're talking about early detection, and it's actually less effective at reaching the goal than you'd intuitively think. Screening has pros but also a lot of cons and the benefits should be weighed against the risks and costs. I've also had a bunch of lab work done recently and everything is normal. I am sick. I also know I have high cholesterol, but at age 36 the knowledge doesn't add anything extra... and if my entire family (perhaps even almost my entire ethnic group) has it then I'll probably have it too. I'm a primary care doctor practicing curative and 'preventative' (aka treatment of risk factors and screening) care... as well as meddling in actual prevention if I get the chance.
RESPONSE B: Not sure where you’re located, but with one year left of my degree I can comfortably say we’ve had quite a decent focus on preventative teaching (nursing, Canada)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why do nursing schools and med school mostly teach treatment based information rather than preventive? As I was in nursing school so much of our program was treatment based, and very little was talked about prevention, for example so many people have never had a full lab test that shows all functions in the body. With the human body being so complex it feels like we arn’t taking advantage of all of our resources to keep our patients healthy.
RESPONSE A: Preventative health care is actually public health because its about policies and programmes and politics and funding and behaviour and health economics and social factors... NOT about the individual patient. Most doctors are dealing with the individual patient. We (NL) actually still have public health doctors. You are NOT talking about prevention. You're talking about early detection, and it's actually less effective at reaching the goal than you'd intuitively think. Screening has pros but also a lot of cons and the benefits should be weighed against the risks and costs. I've also had a bunch of lab work done recently and everything is normal. I am sick. I also know I have high cholesterol, but at age 36 the knowledge doesn't add anything extra... and if my entire family (perhaps even almost my entire ethnic group) has it then I'll probably have it too. I'm a primary care doctor practicing curative and 'preventative' (aka treatment of risk factors and screening) care... as well as meddling in actual prevention if I get the chance.
RESPONSE B: My honest opinion is that while prevention is important - it should be taught in school, workplaces via HR and public health professionals. The physician's role in preventative care is very limited since prevention requires an adoption of habits that cannot be taught in a 5-10 minute meeting with the doctor or nurse. As a med student, I did learn about prevention but those that I meet now in my clinical years are not coming to the hospital or office with the willingness to pick up new habits such as walking up the stairs or eating their 5 veggies.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: many people have never had a full lab test that shows all functions in the body. With the human body being so complex it feels like we arn’t taking advantage of all of our resources to keep our patients healthy.
RESPONSE A: The primary focus of these schools is to train students to become healthcare providers who can diagnose and treat diseases and injuries. This means that a lot of the curriculum is geared towards teaching students how to recognize and manage different health conditions, rather than how to prevent them. Additionally, the field of medicine is constantly evolving and new treatments are being developed all the time, so there is always a need to keep students up to date on the latest developments in the field. Another reason why prevention is not emphasized as much in nursing and medical schools is that there are many factors that can affect an individual's health, and it can be difficult to identify and address all of these factors. For example, a person's lifestyle choices, such as their diet and exercise habits, can have a significant impact on their health, but it can be challenging to teach students how to effectively address these issues. Additionally, some health conditions, such as genetic disorders, are not preventable, so it can be difficult to develop prevention strategies that are applicable to all patients.
RESPONSE B: Preventative health care is actually public health because its about policies and programmes and politics and funding and behaviour and health economics and social factors... NOT about the individual patient. Most doctors are dealing with the individual patient. We (NL) actually still have public health doctors. You are NOT talking about prevention. You're talking about early detection, and it's actually less effective at reaching the goal than you'd intuitively think. Screening has pros but also a lot of cons and the benefits should be weighed against the risks and costs. I've also had a bunch of lab work done recently and everything is normal. I am sick. I also know I have high cholesterol, but at age 36 the knowledge doesn't add anything extra... and if my entire family (perhaps even almost my entire ethnic group) has it then I'll probably have it too. I'm a primary care doctor practicing curative and 'preventative' (aka treatment of risk factors and screening) care... as well as meddling in actual prevention if I get the chance.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why do nursing schools and med school mostly teach treatment based information rather than preventive? As I was in nursing school so much of our program was treatment based, and very little was talked about prevention, for example so many people have never had a full lab test that shows all functions in the body. With the human body being so complex it feels like we arn’t taking advantage of all of our resources to keep our patients healthy.
RESPONSE A: Preventative health care is actually public health because its about policies and programmes and politics and funding and behaviour and health economics and social factors... NOT about the individual patient. Most doctors are dealing with the individual patient. We (NL) actually still have public health doctors. You are NOT talking about prevention. You're talking about early detection, and it's actually less effective at reaching the goal than you'd intuitively think. Screening has pros but also a lot of cons and the benefits should be weighed against the risks and costs. I've also had a bunch of lab work done recently and everything is normal. I am sick. I also know I have high cholesterol, but at age 36 the knowledge doesn't add anything extra... and if my entire family (perhaps even almost my entire ethnic group) has it then I'll probably have it too. I'm a primary care doctor practicing curative and 'preventative' (aka treatment of risk factors and screening) care... as well as meddling in actual prevention if I get the chance.
RESPONSE B: I would say it's in human nature to react rather then be proactive .. And so we live the same way .. We don't always think of consequence but rather just do and see what happens .. So prevention is not really in our DNA we need to teach that dicipline to ourselves
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Why do nursing schools and med school mostly teach treatment based information rather than preventive? As I was in nursing school so much of our program was treatment based, and very little was talked about prevention, for example so many people have never had a full lab test that shows all functions in the body. With the human body being so complex it feels like we arn’t taking advantage of all of our resources to keep our patients healthy.
RESPONSE A: Dunno, in germany prevention is taught in nursing as well as med school.
RESPONSE B: Preventative health care is actually public health because its about policies and programmes and politics and funding and behaviour and health economics and social factors... NOT about the individual patient. Most doctors are dealing with the individual patient. We (NL) actually still have public health doctors. You are NOT talking about prevention. You're talking about early detection, and it's actually less effective at reaching the goal than you'd intuitively think. Screening has pros but also a lot of cons and the benefits should be weighed against the risks and costs. I've also had a bunch of lab work done recently and everything is normal. I am sick. I also know I have high cholesterol, but at age 36 the knowledge doesn't add anything extra... and if my entire family (perhaps even almost my entire ethnic group) has it then I'll probably have it too. I'm a primary care doctor practicing curative and 'preventative' (aka treatment of risk factors and screening) care... as well as meddling in actual prevention if I get the chance.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: not mentioning my early work. All I have to do is re-frame the latter half of the work. I haven't spoken to my supervisor about this yet as I haven't quite decided how to approach the subject. He did say that my thesis was like a PhD and a half though the other day. So does anyone on AskAcademia have any advice or experiences they would like to share?
RESPONSE A: I would not stress out about it, especially if you've already written it up. This is under the assumption that it's not just plain wrong (or dumb). You'll have weaker and stronger parts of your thesis.
RESPONSE B: Remember this: The point of your thesis is to present an argument and (in your case like mine) suite of experiments which produce interesting findings, which you can then discuss the merits and implications of in the context of existing literature on the subject. The key points here are that you need to demonstrate: 1. You understand the background and framework in the field 2. That you can design and execute experimental work well 3. That you can get results out of it and analyse them effectively 4. That you can make systematic inferences and conclusions about those results, and relate them to other work. 5. That you can rationalise all decisions made during every step. That is it. What it is very definitely NOT is a diary of your PhD. There is no way a thesis for a 3 year PhD should be 1/3 for each year you were doing it - the first year of my PhD contributed less than 5k words of my 36k total, and most of that was lit review which I mostly re-wrote in the last 2 months of writing up anyway. By all means have a brief section going through preliminary work. Highlight what did and didn't work, dump the rest in appendices if you think it's important enough. Focus on the meat and potatoes. In the discussion section by all means go back and review experiments that didn't work and suggest why or improvements that might be made. Also, 75k words is crazy talk. More figures, and trim down your writing. If you can't do it in less than 50k I would suggest you've got bloat in there you really don't need. (Also UK system)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Tips for requesting co-authorship on an academic advisor's paper Hello, About two months before I was to submit my master's thesis my advisor sent me a paper he was working on getting published (already submitted and needing revisions). I found out that it was framed very similarly to my thesis and ran almost the exact same analysis. I believe I part of my research that was to be an original contribution got scooped up into that paper (on top of the theoretical framing I felt we were co-developing for my thesis). I successfully defended the research but need to do revisions on the written thesis and have essentially had to rewrite most of it so that it doesn't seem to be a complete rip off of that paper. I feel like they should have told me prior to two months before that my research overlapped too greatly, and at this point I feel at a loss for wrapping this up unless I cite that paper up and down. I would like to receive credit for that and am wondering if folks here think it is appropriate for me to ask for co-authorship on that publication at this point and any advice for how to go about that. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: Who came up with the topic for your master's thesis? Which paper was started first? I'm wondering if your advisor had this general idea in mind before your thesis.
RESPONSE B: 1. You can ask to be an author if you provided original intellectual content to the paper. Authorship isn't conferred just because you did the same work. 2. I don't see the need to "rewrite much of" your already-defended thesis. Just note as early as necessary in the thesis that similar work from the same group is in press. 3. This sounds like very poor judgment of your advisor to publish (independently of their student) the same work the student is doing. Since your success reflects on their own, at the very least, they're disrupting their own scholarship and career by scooping a mentee. You may wish to get advice from a trusted faculty member (e.g., someone on your committee) on how to proceed.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Tips for requesting co-authorship on an academic advisor's paper Hello, About two months before I was to submit my master's thesis my advisor sent me a paper he was working on getting published (already submitted and needing revisions). I found out that it was framed very similarly to my thesis and ran almost the exact same analysis. I believe I part of my research that was to be an original contribution got scooped up into that paper (on top of the theoretical framing I felt we were co-developing for my thesis). I successfully defended the research but need to do revisions on the written thesis and have essentially had to rewrite most of it so that it doesn't seem to be a complete rip off of that paper. I feel like they should have told me prior to two months before that my research overlapped too greatly, and at this point I feel at a loss for wrapping this up unless I cite that paper up and down. I would like to receive credit for that and am wondering if folks here think it is appropriate for me to ask for co-authorship on that publication at this point and any advice for how to go about that. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: sounds like you got ripped off
RESPONSE B: One thought: instead of asking your advisor to be an author, ask whether he or she thinks it would be appropriate for you to be an author, and why or why not. I think that any of my grad students would feel comfortable asking me such a question, because my answer is part of the mentoring I provide. It's very difficult for us to judge, based on your description here, whether you should ask for co-authorship; your advisor may see things very differently than you. Good luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: co-authorship on an academic advisor's paper Hello, About two months before I was to submit my master's thesis my advisor sent me a paper he was working on getting published (already submitted and needing revisions). I found out that it was framed very similarly to my thesis and ran almost the exact same analysis. I believe I part of my research that was to be an original contribution got scooped up into that paper (on top of the theoretical framing I felt we were co-developing for my thesis). I successfully defended the research but need to do revisions on the written thesis and have essentially had to rewrite most of it so that it doesn't seem to be a complete rip off of that paper. I feel like they should have told me prior to two months before that my research overlapped too greatly, and at this point I feel at a loss for wrapping this up unless I cite that paper up and down. I would like to receive credit for that and am wondering if folks here think it is appropriate for me to ask for co-authorship on that publication at this point and any advice for how to go about that. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: A lot of times in early scholarship advisors sort of guide us in the direction of their work since it’s what they know/do best. It’s not impossible, but from your responses in here it seems unlikely that your advisor borrowed from or ‘scooped’ you. They even sent you their paper to look at- and if it’s already under revision at a journal they had probably been working on it a while. That said, it also seems unlikely that they think they scooped you (esp since they sent you their paper). Perhaps you are focusing on the wrong parts and not seeing the contribution that you are bringing. ask your advisor how to frame it for publication in the context of their paper- they will be a co-author on your thesis pub anyway so likely they see it as a logical next step paper after the paper they are revising. This way they can explain it to you directly (and if they can’t, then I would question their judgment in not steering you in a slightly different direction(.
RESPONSE B: sounds like you got ripped off
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What is the work of an academic librarian like? How much demand is there for librarians in comparison to regular faculty?
RESPONSE A: Not sure about your second question, but here's an interview with a librarian that describes the first: http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/working/2017/02/working_how_does_librarian_laurie_allen_work.html
RESPONSE B: Academic librarians have ranks and promotion, just like faculty. You do a lot of supervising student employees and a lot of teaching how to use libraries effectively. At my school, the librarians come into classes to give lectures on how to find articles, how to recognize what is and isn't peer reviewed, etc. I have my librarian give a guest lecture every semester - it's vital! You work with professors who may want really obscure things and often in other languages. And of course you do the regular librarian things of organizing and updating the collection. Its a really challenging, diverse job.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: So, what are all these magical jobs I can supposedly do with my PhD that aren't academia? Finished my PhD this past summer in microbiology. I've known for a long time that I don't want to be a professor. I like doing bench work, solving problems to get that work done, working with others on large projects, and training people (technicians, grad students, undergrads, whoever). I am incredibly organized and meticulous in my work. I hate writing and I abhor the publishing process. While I don't consider presenting fun, I've been told I'm good at it and that I'm a 'natural teacher'. While I'm fortunate to have gone through a program that supports students who know being a professor isn't for them, there isn't a ton of help figuring out what else you can do. I've got a steady postdoc through to next winter, when my fiance (then husband) and I will move for his postdoc. I know there are options for what I could do next, I just don't really understand what they are. I hear so often 'PhDs can do so many other things', but rarely details on what those other things actually are. I don't know where I fit. What really are my options?
RESPONSE A: I was recently approached by a bureau looking for management consultants. They seemed to want candidates with a research background because of our great "problem solving skills". I was a bit baffled though, like - "dude, what? I go to work every day and am up to my head in different problems, so far I haven't even come close to solving any of them.". Maybe that's the kind of experience they like, though.
RESPONSE B: If clinical work interests you, you could look into what it takes to get certified to be a lab director. It is typically a two year fellowship. There are still some academic options, but a lot of corporate labs as well.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: So, what are all these magical jobs I can supposedly do with my PhD that aren't academia? Finished my PhD this past summer in microbiology. I've known for a long time that I don't want to be a professor. I like doing bench work, solving problems to get that work done, working with others on large projects, and training people (technicians, grad students, undergrads, whoever). I am incredibly organized and meticulous in my work. I hate writing and I abhor the publishing process. While I don't consider presenting fun, I've been told I'm good at it and that I'm a 'natural teacher'. While I'm fortunate to have gone through a program that supports students who know being a professor isn't for them, there isn't a ton of help figuring out what else you can do. I've got a steady postdoc through to next winter, when my fiance (then husband) and I will move for his postdoc. I know there are options for what I could do next, I just don't really understand what they are. I hear so often 'PhDs can do so many other things', but rarely details on what those other things actually are. I don't know where I fit. What really are my options?
RESPONSE A: I'm surprised that no one mentioned government work, such as FDA, CDC etc. As a microbiologist you have a decent skill set to work in a regulatory setting. Biotech is also an option, many new agents are biologics that need fairly good quality control, not to mention medical devices, etc.
RESPONSE B: A friend of mine went into academic library work after getting her science PhD. Typically, a Library Science degree is needed for these positions, but according to her that is changing slowly. She recently shared this postdoctoral fellowship program for people interested in getting into libraries following a PhD.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: [Canada] How long does it take to get a decision on a faculty-level job application? I am a UK-based European academic working in a research-intensive university. I am exploring new similar opportunities in Canada (*thinking of moving there because my partner is Canadian and would like to move there*). For those non-Canadians based in Canada (or those who have experience in the recruitment process), how long does it take from application submission to interview invite (or rejection) and final decision?
RESPONSE A: In my faculty, about five to six months (including interviews if they happen). We’ve had quicker rounds too but there are usually a few months between application date and invitations to present/interview. Like the other poster said, this varies not just by institution but by faculty within institutions.
RESPONSE B: There is often a cycle. So, in my field, you submit applications in the fall, initial interviews and invitations for campus visits in the winter, campus visits late winter (Feb), decisions often two weeks after campus visits. About 4-5 months. At each stage, candidates are eliminated. So, out of, say, 800 candidates, only anout 20 get a winter interview, then only 3 get a campus visit. Good luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: the submitted/published paper with my concerns still highlighted and commented throughout (again). Obviously, though, I think it is too late for these to be considered since it is already on its way to publishing and has been accepted and these changes were already ignored once by the primary author and my former supervisor. Lastly, I thought about just ignoring it since I am in a new field and it is probably more important to have this paper on my 'paper count', despite its poor quality. I have also contemplated asking for my name to be taken off as an author but this seems risky considering its my only paper as of yet and is also pretty aggressive considering the experience of my supervisor and some of the other authors and that this is my first paper. I've been really struggling the past year, and especially now, with wrestling to get them to understand the importance of some of the problems with the analysis and the statistical considerations within the paper. If anyone has any advice on what may be the best thing to do for my career and my sanity I would greatly appreciate hearing any thoughts. And again, sorry about the length.
RESPONSE A: I agree with bigrottentuna and will add two points. 1) this is just your first publication, so don't sweat it too too much. 2) If this is your 5th time posting this and what you have written here is as concise as you can make it, you have a problem. It's possible that the reason you were ignored was simply logorrhea. People will see a wall of text and choose to ignore it rather than invest the effort required to engage with it. For writing your advisor about this problem it may be ok, especially if you are discussing specifics, but generally keeping it short and sweet is a skill worth developing.
RESPONSE B: Write to your former supervisor and be direct and clear about the issues, as you have been here. Don't include the first author in your correspondence --- let your former supervisor deal with him/her. And stop worrying about hierarchy. That's a non-issue. What is an issue is that your name---and your former supervisor's---is about to be associated with an embarrassing paper full of errors. Unless the paper has already appeared in print, it shouldn't be too late to fix it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: shocking and disheartening and has started making me question about my own decision to pursue a PhD. I know statistics would be difficult to find for this. But still, are there statistic on this? That is the percentage of PhD students who completed their PhD late because of abusive conditions?
RESPONSE A: In my field, at least, this would only happen extremely rarely, because the benefits of the cheap labor are conferred on the department and university, not the advisor. Much more common are delays to graduation that are correlated with advisors who aren't as invested as the advisee would like. Whether this is the advisor's fault or not is another question, and I suspect depends on the situation.
RESPONSE B: I would love to know this as well. One of my friends advisors constantly asked her to do things like pick up his friends from the airport, babysit his daughter, and do general errands like make copies. She did not graduate on time and felt that her advisor was purposefully delaying her graduation. Another one of my friends also performed free babysitting and free chauffering for her advisor. She graduated on time, but was deeply in student debt. (Free babysitting prevented her from doing paid work.) Another friend wasn't asked to do free household work, but was constantly asked to meet about her dissertation and go over chapters in granular detail, week after week after week. her advisor eventually revealed that he thought that this was "dating." When she said that this was not her understanding of the situation, he tried to force himself on her. He later faced disciplinary action by the college. Clearly, this delayed her graduation somewhat. Advisors are human. And they are put in a position where they have absolute control over their students' ability to graduate. At my university, and at many universities, there were no guidelines about the most basic aspects of the job: how many hours per week should they meet with their advisees? How many advisees are too many? What sorts of tasks are off limits for them to ask advisees to perform? What sorts of sanctions can they face for asking advisees to do things like babysit? This is a situation ripe for abuse and its naive to think that advisees are never exploited.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: a BA in Philosophy and Economics from a mid-tier state school (but historically prominent in my research area) and an MA in Economics from a heterodox department where I wrote a thesis on anti-essentialist (*i.e.* poststructuralist) Marxism and working class struggle. My interests are in broadly in Marx, continental philosophy, economic justice, and alternative approaches to community development. Despite always dreaming of becoming a philosophy professor, conversations with mentors and others tell me that's a bad idea if I don't want to end up taking whatever job I can find at a tiny rural school. Not that there's anything wrong with that; just not what I'm trying to achieve. My dream is still to enter academia and to be able to teach with some degree of job security and autonomy regarding where my family chooses to live. Would a PhD in a related field be significantly better than pursuing a Philosophy PhD? Here's what I'm thinking... * Economics -- My interests don't fit into mainstream econ *at all,* so would I be able to study what I really want to outside of a heterodox department? * Social Work -- Seems to be the field dealing most directly with community development and economic justice (applications of my current research), but I know nothing about it otherwise. * Sociology -- Recommended by my advisor, but what's the job market really like for someone studying critical theory and community development? * Political Science -- Political theory is a natural fit for me, but again, hardly know anything about the field and job market. * Specialized programs -- like Rutgers-Camden's Public Affairs/Community Development or Vanderbilt's Community Research and Action. How useful are these for ending up in a more mainstream tenure-track position? How can I avoid the job market hell all my friends are going through?
RESPONSE A: It's all terrible.
RESPONSE B: Yep. All PhDs are likely a bad choice for the job market. Do the PhD because you want the knowledge and experience, not because you want to be a professor. The chances of that happening (if you don't go to a top tier school) are vanishingly small.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: research area) and an MA in Economics from a heterodox department where I wrote a thesis on anti-essentialist (*i.e.* poststructuralist) Marxism and working class struggle. My interests are in broadly in Marx, continental philosophy, economic justice, and alternative approaches to community development. Despite always dreaming of becoming a philosophy professor, conversations with mentors and others tell me that's a bad idea if I don't want to end up taking whatever job I can find at a tiny rural school. Not that there's anything wrong with that; just not what I'm trying to achieve. My dream is still to enter academia and to be able to teach with some degree of job security and autonomy regarding where my family chooses to live. Would a PhD in a related field be significantly better than pursuing a Philosophy PhD? Here's what I'm thinking... * Economics -- My interests don't fit into mainstream econ *at all,* so would I be able to study what I really want to outside of a heterodox department? * Social Work -- Seems to be the field dealing most directly with community development and economic justice (applications of my current research), but I know nothing about it otherwise. * Sociology -- Recommended by my advisor, but what's the job market really like for someone studying critical theory and community development? * Political Science -- Political theory is a natural fit for me, but again, hardly know anything about the field and job market. * Specialized programs -- like Rutgers-Camden's Public Affairs/Community Development or Vanderbilt's Community Research and Action. How useful are these for ending up in a more mainstream tenure-track position? How can I avoid the job market hell all my friends are going through?
RESPONSE A: >My dream is still to enter academia and to be able to teach with some degree of job security and autonomy regarding where my family chooses to live. If you manage to a land a tenure-track job the first half of your dream is possible, however with the current state of the job market, the second is significantly less likely. I know very few academics who had autonomy over where they live.
RESPONSE B: It's all terrible.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Academics of Reddit, what was the most influential paper in motivating your thesis? There are probably of course a ton of papers that ended up being a motivation, but if you had to choose a single one, which one would it be?
RESPONSE A: "Datafication, Dataism, and Dataveillance: Big Data Between Scientific Paradigm and Ideology" by José van Dijck. General trends in tech/surveillance had led me to do work in that area (coming from a public law perspective and looking at internet surveillance by state security and intelligence agencies), but that paper came out a few months before I began my PhD and pushed me towards also considering issues to do with corporate surveillance (Google, Facebook, and the like) and how the two relate to each other.
RESPONSE B: Mine was a lack of secondary papers. I wrote about the blues community as a moving force for black musicians in St. Louis and struggled to find conversation about the community. So I made one.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Academics of Reddit, what was the most influential paper in motivating your thesis? There are probably of course a ton of papers that ended up being a motivation, but if you had to choose a single one, which one would it be?
RESPONSE A: Mine was a lack of secondary papers. I wrote about the blues community as a moving force for black musicians in St. Louis and struggled to find conversation about the community. So I made one.
RESPONSE B: I'm only just starting my PhD. But the paper that influenced me to start the PhD was "The Chronnectome: Time-Varying Connectivity Networks as the Next Frontier in fMRI Data Discovery".
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Academics of Reddit, what was the most influential paper in motivating your thesis? There are probably of course a ton of papers that ended up being a motivation, but if you had to choose a single one, which one would it be?
RESPONSE A: Not a paper but a monograph: *Objectivity* by Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison
RESPONSE B: Mine was a lack of secondary papers. I wrote about the blues community as a moving force for black musicians in St. Louis and struggled to find conversation about the community. So I made one.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Academics of Reddit, what was the most influential paper in motivating your thesis? There are probably of course a ton of papers that ended up being a motivation, but if you had to choose a single one, which one would it be?
RESPONSE A: Pyroclastic density currents and the sedimentation of ignimbrites (2002). Not a paper but a geolsoc special publication. Proposed a new paradigm for PDC emplacement, which needed experimental validation.
RESPONSE B: Mine was a lack of secondary papers. I wrote about the blues community as a moving force for black musicians in St. Louis and struggled to find conversation about the community. So I made one.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Academics of Reddit, what was the most influential paper in motivating your thesis? There are probably of course a ton of papers that ended up being a motivation, but if you had to choose a single one, which one would it be?
RESPONSE A: Wright, J. P., & Cullen, F. T. (2004). Employment, peers, and life-course transitions. Justice Quarterly, 21(1), 183-205.
RESPONSE B: Mine was a lack of secondary papers. I wrote about the blues community as a moving force for black musicians in St. Louis and struggled to find conversation about the community. So I made one.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Academics of Reddit, what are your hobbies?
RESPONSE A: Alcohol. Lots and lots of alcohol.
RESPONSE B: cooking, photography, guitar, video games, hiking in the woods (preferably by water) (not necessarily in this order)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Academics of Reddit, what are your hobbies?
RESPONSE A: Alcohol. Lots and lots of alcohol.
RESPONSE B: grad student in math, for the most part, guitar, boxing, reading, and recently magic the gathering
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Academics of Reddit, what are your hobbies?
RESPONSE A: Playing sports, video games, piano, outdoors activities (hiking, kayaking, camping, etc.), reading fiction. A lot of things really.
RESPONSE B: Alcohol. Lots and lots of alcohol.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Academics of Reddit, what are your hobbies?
RESPONSE A: Alcohol. Lots and lots of alcohol.
RESPONSE B: I sing in a choir (not church--either on campus or secular, too much drama in church choirs), take tap and zumba classes, and read novels. Oh and I love roller coasters.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Academics of Reddit, what are your hobbies?
RESPONSE A: Cooking. Doing something creative with an immediate reward is a great contrast from my work life. I also love to play the guitar.
RESPONSE B: cooking, photography, guitar, video games, hiking in the woods (preferably by water) (not necessarily in this order)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Academics of Reddit, what do you wish you'd known at the beginning of grad-school?... about grad-life, the academic universe and everything in-between?
RESPONSE A: That it is foolish to reinvent the wheel. Everyone needs a "bread and butter" project to get finished...any extra ideas can (and should) be tested around the time for the main project. There is no substitute for actually doing the experiment, no matter how unlikely the expected outcome may be.
RESPONSE B: What day to day life would be like as a professor/post doc/whatever you're trying to be. It's never what you think it is as a student. That doesn't have to mean bad, just different.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Paper just got rejected: no matter how many times this happens it still hurts..so Academics of Reddit--what are some things you do to make it not sting so much
RESPONSE A: I was at a panel hosted by the American Historical Review, the flagship journal of the flagship organization for historians, and the editor noted that the articles it publishes are not reflections of the best scholarship, but rather reflections of the academics who can take rejection the best. I thought is was an interesting comment from a journal that has an acceptance rate of less than 9%. So get up, read the comments for the value that is hidden in them, fix the article, and resubmit it.
RESPONSE B: Go do whatever you do to have fun. Usually it's getting drinks and commiserating with friends.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Paper just got rejected: no matter how many times this happens it still hurts..so Academics of Reddit--what are some things you do to make it not sting so much
RESPONSE A: 1) Realize that it happens. 2) See if there were good reasons for rejection (if the editor/reviewers got something wrong, make sure you make it clearer). If they found something weak, strengthen it. 3) Realize this is an opportunity to make an even stronger paper. 4) Revise and submit it to another journal.
RESPONSE B: Three parts Jack Daniel's, one part Martini sweet vermouth, three drops Angostura, one drop Fee Brothers orange, one dripping cherry. Pour over ice. Repeat as needed.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Paper just got rejected: no matter how many times this happens it still hurts..so Academics of Reddit--what are some things you do to make it not sting so much
RESPONSE A: Go do whatever you do to have fun. Usually it's getting drinks and commiserating with friends.
RESPONSE B: 1) Realize that it happens. 2) See if there were good reasons for rejection (if the editor/reviewers got something wrong, make sure you make it clearer). If they found something weak, strengthen it. 3) Realize this is an opportunity to make an even stronger paper. 4) Revise and submit it to another journal.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Paper just got rejected: no matter how many times this happens it still hurts..so Academics of Reddit--what are some things you do to make it not sting so much
RESPONSE A: Go do whatever you do to have fun. Usually it's getting drinks and commiserating with friends.
RESPONSE B: Ungh, I'm in a similar boat, I recently got my work scooped (and in a journal lower than what I was aiming for). That work and mine are really, really similar, so I will have to do some more experiments to get that novelty factor up. The science depression has faded, but it kind of takes a few weeks. I try to work out to keep my mind off it and refocus, and yeah, hang out with friends.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: how do you come to terms with your low post doc salary? do you really just love your research? Or have a dedication to the advancement of science (/insert your field here)? After a grueling 5 years of Phd, I simpy cannot come to terms of going into a post doc that pays $50k (average CAD) when im trying to start a family, get a house, have kids. I just dont see it. Is this supposed to be the expected right of passage to eventually become a professor and make the big bucks? Is this route worth it? is it obtainable? I dont see a light at the end of this tunnel.
RESPONSE A: No professor except for engineering, business and (some) econ professors make big bucks. There are professorial jobs in America which pays 40k per year.
RESPONSE B: Do you expect that you would make big bucks as a professor? I would say that the average academic is never very well paid for the work that is put in. "The big bucks" are in the industry, not in academia. That being said, salaries also vary widely from. Country to country. 50k CAD/year is actually a bit high for some countries, but way below others. I believe Switzerland, Australia and Denmark have some of the highest postdoc (and maybe général academia ?) salaries at close to 100 k CAD/yr. For me (STEM in the EU) the solution was to get a grant that allowed me to have higher salary than I could have otherwise expected. Perhaps this is the way forward for you as well. Or perhaps this is the time to consider whether a postdoc is just the easy solution, or it really is the kind of work you're after.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: how do you come to terms with your low post doc salary? do you really just love your research? Or have a dedication to the advancement of science (/insert your field here)? After a grueling 5 years of Phd, I simpy cannot come to terms of going into a post doc that pays $50k (average CAD) when im trying to start a family, get a house, have kids. I just dont see it. Is this supposed to be the expected right of passage to eventually become a professor and make the big bucks? Is this route worth it? is it obtainable? I dont see a light at the end of this tunnel.
RESPONSE A: I think I'm on the higher end for 1st year postdoc stipends ($64k USD / year) and it honestly feels quite luxurious after making $20-40k throughout the PhD (which itself felt like an awesome bump from the $10-15k I got from ugrad fellowships). It's very much still a training role for me, and all super interesting, so honestly I feel lucky to be getting anything at all! (although my wife is also a 1st year postdoc / resident and is getting a bit more, $70k / year + ~$200/h for relief work, so that helps to pick up my slack lol).
RESPONSE B: The salary is not the problem for me but the lack of job security and having to deal with gatekeepers at every corner.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: how do you come to terms with your low post doc salary? do you really just love your research? Or have a dedication to the advancement of science (/insert your field here)? After a grueling 5 years of Phd, I simpy cannot come to terms of going into a post doc that pays $50k (average CAD) when im trying to start a family, get a house, have kids. I just dont see it. Is this supposed to be the expected right of passage to eventually become a professor and make the big bucks? Is this route worth it? is it obtainable? I dont see a light at the end of this tunnel.
RESPONSE A: The salary is not the problem for me but the lack of job security and having to deal with gatekeepers at every corner.
RESPONSE B: People do it because they love the work and the pay is still OK (and because postdocs are short-term positions). People in CS routinely give up 100k+ positions right out of bachelors to make 30k or less as a PhD student. Why? Because they want a more stimulating job than being a code monkey. People may find this question insulting because the average salary in Canada is like 55k. I agree that a PhD should command a higher than average salary, but that's not the way the world works - desirable jobs simply tend to pay less because more people want them.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: how do you come to terms with your low post doc salary? do you really just love your research? Or have a dedication to the advancement of science (/insert your field here)? After a grueling 5 years of Phd, I simpy cannot come to terms of going into a post doc that pays $50k (average CAD) when im trying to start a family, get a house, have kids. I just dont see it. Is this supposed to be the expected right of passage to eventually become a professor and make the big bucks? Is this route worth it? is it obtainable? I dont see a light at the end of this tunnel.
RESPONSE A: The salary is not the problem for me but the lack of job security and having to deal with gatekeepers at every corner.
RESPONSE B: A postdoc is still an entry-level/trainee position. One that you’re not supposed to stay at for longer than 2-3 years. Like it or not, you don’t see the light at the end of the tunnel, because the tunnel doesn’t end with the PhD in many (most?) scientific fields. You’re facing the same struggles as people that just landed their first jobs in other fields.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: how do you come to terms with your low post doc salary? do you really just love your research? Or have a dedication to the advancement of science (/insert your field here)? After a grueling 5 years of Phd, I simpy cannot come to terms of going into a post doc that pays $50k (average CAD) when im trying to start a family, get a house, have kids. I just dont see it. Is this supposed to be the expected right of passage to eventually become a professor and make the big bucks? Is this route worth it? is it obtainable? I dont see a light at the end of this tunnel.
RESPONSE A: The salary is not the problem for me but the lack of job security and having to deal with gatekeepers at every corner.
RESPONSE B: No professor except for engineering, business and (some) econ professors make big bucks. There are professorial jobs in America which pays 40k per year.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Ethical to take vacation with family on conference trip? There's a conference in a few months that I am planning to go to, and I was planning to take my family (SO, 2 kids age 3 and 10m) because it's in a cool city. The plan is to arrive a few days in advance, have a couple full days before the conference to ourselves, utilize the conference child care program for the 3 year old while I'm attending talks so that my wife can have a couple days to "herself" (10m included) being a tourist in the city. It occurred to me today that this might not be the most ethical thing to do, mainly the child care thing. You do have to pay for it so it's not a free program that I'd be taking advantage of, but I worry that the conference is expecting that to be used for people that *need* to bring their children instead of people that simply *want* to bring their children. I'm still pretty new to the conference world so I wanted to run this by this sub and see what you all think. If it's relevant - I'm in a STEM field in the US at an R1.
RESPONSE A: Your school might have specific requirements about this. But generally its good. I know I was at a place that limited the number of personal days to business days ratio on a funded trip.
RESPONSE B: Totally fine
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Ethical to take vacation with family on conference trip? There's a conference in a few months that I am planning to go to, and I was planning to take my family (SO, 2 kids age 3 and 10m) because it's in a cool city. The plan is to arrive a few days in advance, have a couple full days before the conference to ourselves, utilize the conference child care program for the 3 year old while I'm attending talks so that my wife can have a couple days to "herself" (10m included) being a tourist in the city. It occurred to me today that this might not be the most ethical thing to do, mainly the child care thing. You do have to pay for it so it's not a free program that I'd be taking advantage of, but I worry that the conference is expecting that to be used for people that *need* to bring their children instead of people that simply *want* to bring their children. I'm still pretty new to the conference world so I wanted to run this by this sub and see what you all think. If it's relevant - I'm in a STEM field in the US at an R1.
RESPONSE A: It’s fine. One of the things that is above market / industry average in Academia vs the private sector is these sorts of quality of life benefits. Enjoy them because academics lose out on many other dimensions in terms of compensation, convenience and benefits. It’s there for a reason, no guilt to be had for using it.
RESPONSE B: Totally fine
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Ethical to take vacation with family on conference trip? There's a conference in a few months that I am planning to go to, and I was planning to take my family (SO, 2 kids age 3 and 10m) because it's in a cool city. The plan is to arrive a few days in advance, have a couple full days before the conference to ourselves, utilize the conference child care program for the 3 year old while I'm attending talks so that my wife can have a couple days to "herself" (10m included) being a tourist in the city. It occurred to me today that this might not be the most ethical thing to do, mainly the child care thing. You do have to pay for it so it's not a free program that I'd be taking advantage of, but I worry that the conference is expecting that to be used for people that *need* to bring their children instead of people that simply *want* to bring their children. I'm still pretty new to the conference world so I wanted to run this by this sub and see what you all think. If it's relevant - I'm in a STEM field in the US at an R1.
RESPONSE A: It's fine. Speaking from experience, try not to catch COVID at the conference though.
RESPONSE B: It’s fine. One of the things that is above market / industry average in Academia vs the private sector is these sorts of quality of life benefits. Enjoy them because academics lose out on many other dimensions in terms of compensation, convenience and benefits. It’s there for a reason, no guilt to be had for using it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Ethical to take vacation with family on conference trip? There's a conference in a few months that I am planning to go to, and I was planning to take my family (SO, 2 kids age 3 and 10m) because it's in a cool city. The plan is to arrive a few days in advance, have a couple full days before the conference to ourselves, utilize the conference child care program for the 3 year old while I'm attending talks so that my wife can have a couple days to "herself" (10m included) being a tourist in the city. It occurred to me today that this might not be the most ethical thing to do, mainly the child care thing. You do have to pay for it so it's not a free program that I'd be taking advantage of, but I worry that the conference is expecting that to be used for people that *need* to bring their children instead of people that simply *want* to bring their children. I'm still pretty new to the conference world so I wanted to run this by this sub and see what you all think. If it's relevant - I'm in a STEM field in the US at an R1.
RESPONSE A: As long as the department isn’t subsidizing it, I don’t see a problem. As long as you meet your obligations, they don’t get to dictate what you do with the rest of your time.
RESPONSE B: It’s fine. One of the things that is above market / industry average in Academia vs the private sector is these sorts of quality of life benefits. Enjoy them because academics lose out on many other dimensions in terms of compensation, convenience and benefits. It’s there for a reason, no guilt to be had for using it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Ethical to take vacation with family on conference trip? There's a conference in a few months that I am planning to go to, and I was planning to take my family (SO, 2 kids age 3 and 10m) because it's in a cool city. The plan is to arrive a few days in advance, have a couple full days before the conference to ourselves, utilize the conference child care program for the 3 year old while I'm attending talks so that my wife can have a couple days to "herself" (10m included) being a tourist in the city. It occurred to me today that this might not be the most ethical thing to do, mainly the child care thing. You do have to pay for it so it's not a free program that I'd be taking advantage of, but I worry that the conference is expecting that to be used for people that *need* to bring their children instead of people that simply *want* to bring their children. I'm still pretty new to the conference world so I wanted to run this by this sub and see what you all think. If it's relevant - I'm in a STEM field in the US at an R1.
RESPONSE A: Pretty common, and I see no ethical issues with it. The only thing I'd consider as it gets closer is whether there are extreme space limitations on the childcare that someone else (i.e., single parent post-doc) might need more. As long as you aren't taking a spot from someone who has no other options it seems perfectly fine.
RESPONSE B: It’s fine. One of the things that is above market / industry average in Academia vs the private sector is these sorts of quality of life benefits. Enjoy them because academics lose out on many other dimensions in terms of compensation, convenience and benefits. It’s there for a reason, no guilt to be had for using it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Should I omit "leadership experience" from CV for PhD applications? I am an undergrad looking to apply for PhD programs in CS this fall. I worked as a resident advisor and also served as a web assistant at our college's office of communications at college so far. Should I bother writing these down in my CV that will be used to apply to PhD programs? Or should I still put them there under "Leadership experience"?
RESPONSE A: They’re all good things to include because working independently and using your own judgement to handle things are important skills for PhDs.
RESPONSE B: You should definitely still include them, just put them in a section called "work experience" or "additional experience" or something separate from the research section of your CV. If you're worried about your resume being too cluttered, then you can try to fit each position on a single line.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Should I omit "leadership experience" from CV for PhD applications? I am an undergrad looking to apply for PhD programs in CS this fall. I worked as a resident advisor and also served as a web assistant at our college's office of communications at college so far. Should I bother writing these down in my CV that will be used to apply to PhD programs? Or should I still put them there under "Leadership experience"?
RESPONSE A: Sure, there's certainly space for these kinds of soft skills in a postgraduate application CV. At the very least, they demonstrate responsibility and communication, both important skills for a developing academic.
RESPONSE B: You should definitely still include them, just put them in a section called "work experience" or "additional experience" or something separate from the research section of your CV. If you're worried about your resume being too cluttered, then you can try to fit each position on a single line.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What are some things you prefer to see in an introductory email form a postdoc candidate? I am about to approach faculty that work in areas I find related to my thesis research, but also with applications in completely different domains. I have checked their lab website and the general careers page for each university, and some labs do not have a formal opening. However, my advisor suggests that sometimes such positions arise by agreement between faculty and the candidate, and can be quite flexible. I'm curious if people on here who may receive such emails on a daily basis have some content they definitely need to see in a first email that would catch their attention and foster a meeting with the candidate. Normally, I'd try to meet faculty when they give a talk at my university or at conferences, but this year, I have to shoot my shot with amazing faculty who've never met me. Thank you!
RESPONSE A: Here is a letter template I used- I sent a lot of cold emails and had really good response, even if it was just that they don't have any available funding! Subj: Seeking Post-Doctoral Opportunities Dear Dr. XX, My name is XX and I am a rising XX-year graduate student in XX at XX, working with Dr. XX. I am planning on graduating next spring, and therefore applying to post-doctoral fellowships this upcoming fall. At XX, my research has primarily focused on XYZ. I am particularly interested in XYZ. My dissertation is ABC. I am very interested in your research at XX, and I wanted to introduce myself, see if you think I may be a good fit for your laboratory, and inquire about any potential upcoming post-doctoral fellowship opportunities. I have attached my CV to this email. If there are any upcoming opportunities that may be a good fit for me, I would love to discuss further over email or phone. Thank you for your consideration! Sincerely, <footer>
RESPONSE B: Whatever it will make me say "hey this guy/girl knows how to play the game, will produce top tier publications, and can help me bring money in".
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How bad is it if I can't finish my degree on time? I will finish my MSc physics 1.5 years late than anticipated. Are my prospects for a PhD then completely ruined?
RESPONSE A: I wouldn’t think so. At least not by the timing itself. But if the reasons why it’s taking longer are problematic, then you might want to worry. For example , if you failed or had to retake courses for not getting high enough grades; if you have a lot of incompletes in your transcript that delayed you from taking more advanced classes, those types of things would hurt your chances. So why is it taking you longer than expected?
RESPONSE B: just blame covid
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How bad is it if I can't finish my degree on time? I will finish my MSc physics 1.5 years late than anticipated. Are my prospects for a PhD then completely ruined?
RESPONSE A: Chill out. As long as you're not a complete idiot and your PI thinks you can help advance their career, you're all set. If you are a complete idiot, find a way to make your PI think that you'll help them advance their career and you're all set. It's not nearly as hard as you think, and you don't need to be nearly as smart as you think you do in order to pursue a PhD. Source: helped an MIT EE prof solve his computer problem by plugging it into the wall outlet.
RESPONSE B: At least here in North American people don’t care. Some finished their PhDs in 5 years, others 8. It’s not necessarily the case at all that the people who finished in 5 are more successful in their careers
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How bad is it if I can't finish my degree on time? I will finish my MSc physics 1.5 years late than anticipated. Are my prospects for a PhD then completely ruined?
RESPONSE A: Chill out. As long as you're not a complete idiot and your PI thinks you can help advance their career, you're all set. If you are a complete idiot, find a way to make your PI think that you'll help them advance their career and you're all set. It's not nearly as hard as you think, and you don't need to be nearly as smart as you think you do in order to pursue a PhD. Source: helped an MIT EE prof solve his computer problem by plugging it into the wall outlet.
RESPONSE B: Did you do ~1.5 years more of research during this delay? That is what will primarily matter for top PhDs.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How bad is it if I can't finish my degree on time? I will finish my MSc physics 1.5 years late than anticipated. Are my prospects for a PhD then completely ruined?
RESPONSE A: Lots of people saying it doesn't matter. Not sure where this idea is from. Market is most competitive its ever been for requirements of qualifications and experience. Given the choice between someone who took the typical amount of time versus someone who took X amount of time longer to achieve the same grade? Pretty clear choice to my mind.
RESPONSE B: Hey there, I had problems while doing my MPhys and got low grades one year resulting in my final grade being a 2:2. I was so disappointed since I believe I would never be able to follow my dream and do my PhD. I got a job in the biotech industry and gained invaluable experience. 7 yrs later and I am about to start my fully funded PhD in Biophysics and Neuroscience at the University of Edinburgh. NEVER GIVE UP ON YOUR DREAMS.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: 's not the way it should be? Why be a reviewer for a journal and work for free? Why submit your work for publishers to profit? I understand academia requires the prestige that comes from publishing in such journals, and we do it to progress our careers...but once you become professors, or already established in your fields, why keep enduring these practices if you don't agree with them? Why not make a change, and why aren't there any realistic alternatives for a truly fair publishing space?
RESPONSE A: Why would you change a system that's worked for you? People who succeed in a broken system often refuse to change the system because a) it works for them and b) they feel that anyone who doesn't have to face the same problems they did are getting an unfair advantage. In addition, professors aren't really the right people to drive change. They have relatively little power in this scenario and are still too reliant on the system for their own careers to be able to effect change. Change needs to come from institutions - so funders and universities. Funders through mandating and rewarding alternative ways of publishing and universities through refusing to pay for unfair publishing practices and by rewarding and recognising alternative research outputs to traditional publishing.
RESPONSE B: What is needed/wanted is a way to evaluate the quality and impact of research. There are very few people in the world that can truly understand the importance of most studies. So, journal prestige has become the surrogate measure for quality and significance of one's work. To be free from journals, there needs to be a different way to evaluate quality and impact, and realistically it needs to be relatively quick and easy (or nobody will adopt it). Some options that get mentioned are h-index and total citations. These are probably better, but they are far from perfect. As a side note, convincing people that your work is high quality and high impact doesn't stop being important when you get tenure/established - you still need grants/money and you still need to recruit good students/PDs (who want papers in those journals so they can compete for good postions later). Go a few years without those high profile papers, and the money and students disappear. You're never "safe."
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What would it take for research publications to be free from publishers? Inspired by some recent discussions here, it seems like an overall consensus that publishers explore research work in a pretty unsatisfactory way. Charging exorbitant fees, using our work for their profits, etc. So why do academics perpetuate this cycle, if they all agree that it's not the way it should be? Why be a reviewer for a journal and work for free? Why submit your work for publishers to profit? I understand academia requires the prestige that comes from publishing in such journals, and we do it to progress our careers...but once you become professors, or already established in your fields, why keep enduring these practices if you don't agree with them? Why not make a change, and why aren't there any realistic alternatives for a truly fair publishing space?
RESPONSE A: What is needed/wanted is a way to evaluate the quality and impact of research. There are very few people in the world that can truly understand the importance of most studies. So, journal prestige has become the surrogate measure for quality and significance of one's work. To be free from journals, there needs to be a different way to evaluate quality and impact, and realistically it needs to be relatively quick and easy (or nobody will adopt it). Some options that get mentioned are h-index and total citations. These are probably better, but they are far from perfect. As a side note, convincing people that your work is high quality and high impact doesn't stop being important when you get tenure/established - you still need grants/money and you still need to recruit good students/PDs (who want papers in those journals so they can compete for good postions later). Go a few years without those high profile papers, and the money and students disappear. You're never "safe."
RESPONSE B: I’d invite you to look at the free rider problem.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: our work for their profits, etc. So why do academics perpetuate this cycle, if they all agree that it's not the way it should be? Why be a reviewer for a journal and work for free? Why submit your work for publishers to profit? I understand academia requires the prestige that comes from publishing in such journals, and we do it to progress our careers...but once you become professors, or already established in your fields, why keep enduring these practices if you don't agree with them? Why not make a change, and why aren't there any realistic alternatives for a truly fair publishing space?
RESPONSE A: What is needed/wanted is a way to evaluate the quality and impact of research. There are very few people in the world that can truly understand the importance of most studies. So, journal prestige has become the surrogate measure for quality and significance of one's work. To be free from journals, there needs to be a different way to evaluate quality and impact, and realistically it needs to be relatively quick and easy (or nobody will adopt it). Some options that get mentioned are h-index and total citations. These are probably better, but they are far from perfect. As a side note, convincing people that your work is high quality and high impact doesn't stop being important when you get tenure/established - you still need grants/money and you still need to recruit good students/PDs (who want papers in those journals so they can compete for good postions later). Go a few years without those high profile papers, and the money and students disappear. You're never "safe."
RESPONSE B: Answering why a general alternative isn't used is probably impossible; answering why a specific one isn't used would depend on the specifics. Could a system where people with faculty jobs at pretious universities self-published work for them? Probably, but you'd be locking out most students, postdocs, people at less known universities ... that might be seen as negative. Even though the gatekeeping of peer review isn't perfect, it provides a good zeroeth order test - if you had to personally review everything anyone puts out there, you wouldn't have time for anything else, etc.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What would it take for research publications to be free from publishers? Inspired by some recent discussions here, it seems like an overall consensus that publishers explore research work in a pretty unsatisfactory way. Charging exorbitant fees, using our work for their profits, etc. So why do academics perpetuate this cycle, if they all agree that it's not the way it should be? Why be a reviewer for a journal and work for free? Why submit your work for publishers to profit? I understand academia requires the prestige that comes from publishing in such journals, and we do it to progress our careers...but once you become professors, or already established in your fields, why keep enduring these practices if you don't agree with them? Why not make a change, and why aren't there any realistic alternatives for a truly fair publishing space?
RESPONSE A: “Why not make a change, and why aren't there any realistic alternatives for a truly fair publishing space?” Your second question answers your first. What’s the alternative? There is not a better system on offer. That is a big part of why there isn’t drastic change. It’s one thing to point out a problem. It’s quite another to offer a viable alternative that is better.
RESPONSE B: Answering why a general alternative isn't used is probably impossible; answering why a specific one isn't used would depend on the specifics. Could a system where people with faculty jobs at pretious universities self-published work for them? Probably, but you'd be locking out most students, postdocs, people at less known universities ... that might be seen as negative. Even though the gatekeeping of peer review isn't perfect, it provides a good zeroeth order test - if you had to personally review everything anyone puts out there, you wouldn't have time for anything else, etc.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What would it take for research publications to be free from publishers? Inspired by some recent discussions here, it seems like an overall consensus that publishers explore research work in a pretty unsatisfactory way. Charging exorbitant fees, using our work for their profits, etc. So why do academics perpetuate this cycle, if they all agree that it's not the way it should be? Why be a reviewer for a journal and work for free? Why submit your work for publishers to profit? I understand academia requires the prestige that comes from publishing in such journals, and we do it to progress our careers...but once you become professors, or already established in your fields, why keep enduring these practices if you don't agree with them? Why not make a change, and why aren't there any realistic alternatives for a truly fair publishing space?
RESPONSE A: Why would you change a system that's worked for you? People who succeed in a broken system often refuse to change the system because a) it works for them and b) they feel that anyone who doesn't have to face the same problems they did are getting an unfair advantage. In addition, professors aren't really the right people to drive change. They have relatively little power in this scenario and are still too reliant on the system for their own careers to be able to effect change. Change needs to come from institutions - so funders and universities. Funders through mandating and rewarding alternative ways of publishing and universities through refusing to pay for unfair publishing practices and by rewarding and recognising alternative research outputs to traditional publishing.
RESPONSE B: Answering why a general alternative isn't used is probably impossible; answering why a specific one isn't used would depend on the specifics. Could a system where people with faculty jobs at pretious universities self-published work for them? Probably, but you'd be locking out most students, postdocs, people at less known universities ... that might be seen as negative. Even though the gatekeeping of peer review isn't perfect, it provides a good zeroeth order test - if you had to personally review everything anyone puts out there, you wouldn't have time for anything else, etc.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What skills to develop during PhD? Hello everyone, What specific skills would you suggest develop during PhD? They could be technical or soft ones.
RESPONSE A: Learn R. Learn how to write a journal article for publication and get it published. This includes learning how citation politics work. Learn how to write and win grants. Learn how to avoid the toxic people in your field and school. Learn how to say “no”. Learn to prioritize sleep and health before everything else. Learn a hobby that has nothing to do with your field of study.
RESPONSE B: How to survive on beer, Mike-n-Ikes, and spite for days on end. More seriously; if you are in *any* vaguely data-related field and don't know how to program...get on it. Being able to quickly and efficiently sift through heaps of poorly-organized data collected by someone else is *incredibly* useful. Also, as much as it pains me; the above also includes learning how to manipulate data in Excel. Yes, it's painful, tedious, and a waste of your talents, but in a lot of settings outside of academia that may be the best you have access to until you can build up a library of scripts/functions in your programming language of choice that allow you to function in your workplace's data environment. Also, not really a talent, but; get in the habit of exercising *before* or (at the latest) early on in grad school before things get tough. It's good for both your physical and mental health to work out your frustrations physically.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What skills to develop during PhD? Hello everyone, What specific skills would you suggest develop during PhD? They could be technical or soft ones.
RESPONSE A: Learn programming. It is IMMENSELY useful for data organization compared to doing it manually by spreadsheet software.
RESPONSE B: Specific technical skills are going to be discipline-dependent. Time-management, discipline, learning to say no, accountability, and general people skills would be good things to work on if you're lacking in those areas.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What skills to develop during PhD? Hello everyone, What specific skills would you suggest develop during PhD? They could be technical or soft ones.
RESPONSE A: Specific technical skills are going to be discipline-dependent. Time-management, discipline, learning to say no, accountability, and general people skills would be good things to work on if you're lacking in those areas.
RESPONSE B: Time management. Consistent use of a citation manager. Mastery of a program such Obsidian to help you plan and corral all your work.
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.