label
stringclasses
2 values
request
stringlengths
110
2.68k
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: Not a grad student yet but I work with tons of humanities PhDs. Three additional soft skills according to my colleagues: Learn to present / talk about your research and adapt it to your audience in terms of length, context, jargon etc. Useful at job talks, conferences, or an interview with an industry company. Learn to build your network through meeting people in your field / subfield. How to be memorable, make friends, etc. Learn to maintain your network in your field / subfield, which includes identifying people who don’t have your best interests at heart and being civil with them without attracting gossip. Unfortunately a distinct skill from #2. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: With spring semesters just starting or about to, how comfortable are you with your uni handling bringing in a whole bunch of people during this Omicron surge? What are they doing to make you feel comfortable, if anything? Just curious what other folks are experiencing. My private SLAC uni has more-or-less stated that we're in person unless our city (not likely) or state governor (would never happen) require a lockdown of some kind. What they're doing here is requiring people to wear surgical or KN95 masks indoors, and that's about it. RESPONSE A: State school in Texas here (sigh...) Professors and international students on certain visas are required to attend class in person, but there is a virtual option for everyone else. No mask or vaccine requirements because, well, we can't mandate any of that. Thanks Texas. They are "strongly urging" masks in all common areas and students are mostly compliant. Faculty and staff, not so much. RESPONSE B: I live in Texas. I was teaching on campus in June of 2020 when half the country was still in lockdown. We cannot require masks due to our moron of a governor. Our institution is just wishing us the best of luck, really. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: With spring semesters just starting or about to, how comfortable are you with your uni handling bringing in a whole bunch of people during this Omicron surge? What are they doing to make you feel comfortable, if anything? Just curious what other folks are experiencing. My private SLAC uni has more-or-less stated that we're in person unless our city (not likely) or state governor (would never happen) require a lockdown of some kind. What they're doing here is requiring people to wear surgical or KN95 masks indoors, and that's about it. RESPONSE A: I live in Texas. I was teaching on campus in June of 2020 when half the country was still in lockdown. We cannot require masks due to our moron of a governor. Our institution is just wishing us the best of luck, really. RESPONSE B: I think my uni's policy is, we will wait for someone to die before we go back to remote Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: PhDs of Reddit, what was your Doctoral Program like, and how did you choose it over others? I'm an MA student right now looking at getting my Doctorate Degree in History, so anyone specific to that would be most helpful, but in general, what were classes like? What was your dissertation like? Any other advice would be generally helpful. Regards RESPONSE A: In GENERAL Classes were fine. Dissertation was soul-crushing but ultimately my soul crushed it back. Other advice: look for employment information for History PhDs and talk to recent graduates before you get started. Take it seriously. It's not pretty. RESPONSE B: Unless you have some other means of support, do not get a PhD in the humanities. Seriously. You are almost certainly condemning yourself to a life of poverty, no job security, and no health insurance. This is *not* hyperbole. That said, I loved grad school. Had a great cohort and great faculty. Classes were cooperative and non-competitive. Dissertation process was painful but not horribly so. Now I'm an adjunct. It sucks. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: People with PhDs in economics - what did you end up doing? And would you recommend it? RESPONSE A: I’m an assistant professor at an R1 in the top 50. I got my PhD at a department ranked near the bottom of the top 20. Would I recommend it? It depends. The good news is that employment options for econ PhDs are very robust because, unlike many other disciplines, we have lucrative outside options in the private sector and there is reasonably strong demand for economists in the public sector (central banks, government, stats agencies, etc.). So, for the most part, being able to afford a living after grad school isn’t the concern. There are some positions in the private sector and government that really do require PhDs. But many of them don’t and the opportunity cost of spending 5-6 years in school during your prime earning years is high. In general, I would not advise getting an econ PhD if all you want is to earn more money. The bad news is that, if you have your heart set on an academic position (particularly a research-focused one), then there really are no guarantees. I feel fairly confident in saying that the academic job market for econ is still healthier than it is for many disciplines. However, it takes coming from a well ranked department, a lot of really hard work, and a strong dose of luck to land one of those positions. And most of them are not going to be at a name-brand R1. The median placement for my cohort was an assistant professor gig at a liberal arts college, for example. Go for an econ PhD if (1) it’s fully funded, (2) you have planned out exit ramps should grad school not turn out to be the right choice for you, (3) your expectations for post-grad school options are consistent with the program you are actually in, and (4) you think you might be interested enough in a research question to spend the vast majority of your waking hours for many years working on it. RESPONSE B: Public service and policy work is also a good track. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: to get a visa (6 months) and the expense involved. They even had no idea which visa I was meant to apply for. There are restrictions, such as not leaving the country while the visa is in process, and they've just been very lackadaisical about those, encouraging me to go to conferences and hope for the best when expecting to be let back into the country (I've been in Europe for a while, immigration officers take the rules pretty seriously). For this reason, I'm concerned that they might dismiss my concerns. I plan to bring this up to my supervisors, but I'm not sure when. Do I bring it up now, or a year before my contract ends? Later than that? Does anyone have experience with this? Extra context: getting a new visa just for finishing up the PhD after my contract is over is not something I want to pursue. As I mentioned, it's a massive amount of time and expense. Also I'd then have to worry about finding a temporary job to get me through the thesis writing stage, which is effort that I don't want to spend when I know I don't want to live in this country longterm. RESPONSE A: Depends on the country. In some countries (such as the UK) you are usually supposed to leave the country at the end of the contract, write in your native country or wherever you can, and return just for a couple of days for the defense (on a business/tourist visa, or without a visa if possible). In some countries you are supposed to be funded also for that writing period and get the visa extension for it (it isn't a completely new visa so the procedure should be shorter and simpler, maybe it even won't require you to leave the country). You - and your supervisor - should have been informed about it before you agreed to start your PhD, so the sooner you sort it out the better. And if your school has an international office, they should have been helping you with the visa process from the start, but even if they weren't, get them involved now. RESPONSE B: Where in Europe? Each country has a different system. In the UK and Denmark (the two systems I know) you should write and submit your thesis before your contract ends. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: ." I have carved out a niche for myself in this lab and made myself highly specialised with respect to what the lab traditionally does. This will be my 7th publication in 4.5 years (5th first author). Haven't I done enough to deserve this degree? I feel that my PI, fearing the loss of my expertise (there are only 2 other members of our group, I am senior most) is trying to squeeze any amount of productivity out of me that he can. Essentially I am feeling used and under valued for my labor. Any suggestions for coping and/ or retaining my dignity? Happy to provide more details in the comments RESPONSE A: Oh my god this was essentially my situation last year. Small lab, I had been there the longest and had the most accumulated technical expertise, published way more than enough for my degree and my PI wanted me to stay to elongate a small basically completed project into something bigger at my personal expense. The similarities go on. I went to my committee. Had casual conversations with each of them as well as a conversation with my program director and let them know that my PI was changing the goalposts but I planned to graduate ON TIME and that I had begun discussing postdoctoral fellowship options with potential mentors who had made me offers. I kept the language very nonconfrontational and said something along the lines of "it's great that PI sees so much potential into what started as a communications level project, but I'm going to make sure (other lab member) is properly trained to carry out the rest of PI's vision if he still wants to work on this after I leave." That next committee meeting I didn't even have to lobby for myself because my entire committee was asking why I was still there in front of my PI and asking me about next steps/career goals/etc. Then they pushed the message in the closed door part for me. Your committee is there to help you, if you can trust them to. RESPONSE B: I think a good compromise would be for you to graduate in December as planned but stay on for a short postdoc (with the associated salary bump) to finish the project. Assuming you don't have something else lined up with a conflicting start date. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: Essentially I am feeling used and under valued for my labor. Any suggestions for coping and/ or retaining my dignity? Happy to provide more details in the comments RESPONSE A: This is what the committee is for in the USA. At my Uni, you'd need a majority of the committee to sign off on the dissertation. Meaning if your prof tried to hold you captive you can graduate without his consent. Not a great solution, but if you won't get a LOR from him you can explain the situation to prospective employers, they'll almost always understand. As for now, I'd recommend just saying no. It's a bitch and will cause a lot of friction but if you make clear he ain't getting no more slave labor out of you, and that's that, no negotiations, he has no choice. Also, as always, fuck academia. RESPONSE B: Oh my god this was essentially my situation last year. Small lab, I had been there the longest and had the most accumulated technical expertise, published way more than enough for my degree and my PI wanted me to stay to elongate a small basically completed project into something bigger at my personal expense. The similarities go on. I went to my committee. Had casual conversations with each of them as well as a conversation with my program director and let them know that my PI was changing the goalposts but I planned to graduate ON TIME and that I had begun discussing postdoctoral fellowship options with potential mentors who had made me offers. I kept the language very nonconfrontational and said something along the lines of "it's great that PI sees so much potential into what started as a communications level project, but I'm going to make sure (other lab member) is properly trained to carry out the rest of PI's vision if he still wants to work on this after I leave." That next committee meeting I didn't even have to lobby for myself because my entire committee was asking why I was still there in front of my PI and asking me about next steps/career goals/etc. Then they pushed the message in the closed door part for me. Your committee is there to help you, if you can trust them to. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: he said "I know it's hard, quit whining." I have carved out a niche for myself in this lab and made myself highly specialised with respect to what the lab traditionally does. This will be my 7th publication in 4.5 years (5th first author). Haven't I done enough to deserve this degree? I feel that my PI, fearing the loss of my expertise (there are only 2 other members of our group, I am senior most) is trying to squeeze any amount of productivity out of me that he can. Essentially I am feeling used and under valued for my labor. Any suggestions for coping and/ or retaining my dignity? Happy to provide more details in the comments RESPONSE A: He has spent years training you and doesn't want to let you go. I have seen this happen before. Stand up for yourself if you really feel you are right. Also talk to your committee. RESPONSE B: Oh my god this was essentially my situation last year. Small lab, I had been there the longest and had the most accumulated technical expertise, published way more than enough for my degree and my PI wanted me to stay to elongate a small basically completed project into something bigger at my personal expense. The similarities go on. I went to my committee. Had casual conversations with each of them as well as a conversation with my program director and let them know that my PI was changing the goalposts but I planned to graduate ON TIME and that I had begun discussing postdoctoral fellowship options with potential mentors who had made me offers. I kept the language very nonconfrontational and said something along the lines of "it's great that PI sees so much potential into what started as a communications level project, but I'm going to make sure (other lab member) is properly trained to carry out the rest of PI's vision if he still wants to work on this after I leave." That next committee meeting I didn't even have to lobby for myself because my entire committee was asking why I was still there in front of my PI and asking me about next steps/career goals/etc. Then they pushed the message in the closed door part for me. Your committee is there to help you, if you can trust them to. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: 7th publication in 4.5 years (5th first author). Haven't I done enough to deserve this degree? I feel that my PI, fearing the loss of my expertise (there are only 2 other members of our group, I am senior most) is trying to squeeze any amount of productivity out of me that he can. Essentially I am feeling used and under valued for my labor. Any suggestions for coping and/ or retaining my dignity? Happy to provide more details in the comments RESPONSE A: Oh my god this was essentially my situation last year. Small lab, I had been there the longest and had the most accumulated technical expertise, published way more than enough for my degree and my PI wanted me to stay to elongate a small basically completed project into something bigger at my personal expense. The similarities go on. I went to my committee. Had casual conversations with each of them as well as a conversation with my program director and let them know that my PI was changing the goalposts but I planned to graduate ON TIME and that I had begun discussing postdoctoral fellowship options with potential mentors who had made me offers. I kept the language very nonconfrontational and said something along the lines of "it's great that PI sees so much potential into what started as a communications level project, but I'm going to make sure (other lab member) is properly trained to carry out the rest of PI's vision if he still wants to work on this after I leave." That next committee meeting I didn't even have to lobby for myself because my entire committee was asking why I was still there in front of my PI and asking me about next steps/career goals/etc. Then they pushed the message in the closed door part for me. Your committee is there to help you, if you can trust them to. RESPONSE B: > "I know it's hard, quit whining." Sounds like he tried to exit the conversation by saying something deeply inappropriate. You are free to open the conversation again and come back to your previous agreement. Be assertive. If necessary, repeat the same single point over and over, like a vinyl record player that is caught in a loop, until he gets tired with it and eventually gives in. Good luck! Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: with respect to what the lab traditionally does. This will be my 7th publication in 4.5 years (5th first author). Haven't I done enough to deserve this degree? I feel that my PI, fearing the loss of my expertise (there are only 2 other members of our group, I am senior most) is trying to squeeze any amount of productivity out of me that he can. Essentially I am feeling used and under valued for my labor. Any suggestions for coping and/ or retaining my dignity? Happy to provide more details in the comments RESPONSE A: This is a situation where you definitely need to talk to someone you trust from your committee, or the graduate student coordinator from the University. Or if you have a co-supervisor of course speak to them in the first instance. It would be very challenging for your supervisor to argue to your committee that you didn't have enough to graduate with 5 first author papers. RESPONSE B: Oh my god this was essentially my situation last year. Small lab, I had been there the longest and had the most accumulated technical expertise, published way more than enough for my degree and my PI wanted me to stay to elongate a small basically completed project into something bigger at my personal expense. The similarities go on. I went to my committee. Had casual conversations with each of them as well as a conversation with my program director and let them know that my PI was changing the goalposts but I planned to graduate ON TIME and that I had begun discussing postdoctoral fellowship options with potential mentors who had made me offers. I kept the language very nonconfrontational and said something along the lines of "it's great that PI sees so much potential into what started as a communications level project, but I'm going to make sure (other lab member) is properly trained to carry out the rest of PI's vision if he still wants to work on this after I leave." That next committee meeting I didn't even have to lobby for myself because my entire committee was asking why I was still there in front of my PI and asking me about next steps/career goals/etc. Then they pushed the message in the closed door part for me. Your committee is there to help you, if you can trust them to. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: lab. Perhaps the worst part of it all is the constant attack he exerts on our work ethic - he has complained to me I don't work hard enough when I hadn't slept in two days. Working in his lab more than I am technically able to by university regulation on top of a full course load in a demanding major and nothing I do is good enough for him. Today he texted me explaining that his expectations are that I work no less than 72 hours per week with the level of productivity that would be expected of a postdoc at a big-name group at an ivy-league university. I swear to god I am not making that up. I have the texts. Again, I am an undergrad. I love the science. I love what I do. I intend to go on to grad school, and I'll quite frankly need a letter of recommendation from him to get into a good one. But I am at my wit's end dealing with this dude. What do I do? RESPONSE A: Most schools have a hard 20 hours a week rule in the contracts. IF you school does, you may want to talk to your advisor about it nicely, than perhaps talk to your Ombudsman for advise. Also remember his letter is only as good as what he will write. If his letters of recommendation are basically average, you are torturing yourself for nothing. On the plus side, after this, graduate school itself should be a walk in the park once you have an experienced advisor who knows how to scaffold you to bring out your best. RESPONSE B: "No less than 72 hours" that is ridiculous even for a grad student who has no course work (though people do it), let alone an undergrad with a full course load. I think it is time to let this position go. I know you might lose a chance on a letter, but frankly, if he's showing that he is never happy with anything you do, he's probably not going to write a very great letter, and it's not worth the stress he is putting you under. Try and peacefully leave as best as you can - I am sure you can still use the experience from your research position in the future too. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: my boss/advisor is degrading to a point of complete nonfunctionality and I'm not sure what to do. Everyone in the group has long had issues with his management style - he micromanages and yet complains that you don't get anything done, tells you not to set up certain experiments and then complains at you for not doing what he told you to not do. He routinely texts us at 2AM to chastise us for little things we did wrong in lab. Perhaps the worst part of it all is the constant attack he exerts on our work ethic - he has complained to me I don't work hard enough when I hadn't slept in two days. Working in his lab more than I am technically able to by university regulation on top of a full course load in a demanding major and nothing I do is good enough for him. Today he texted me explaining that his expectations are that I work no less than 72 hours per week with the level of productivity that would be expected of a postdoc at a big-name group at an ivy-league university. I swear to god I am not making that up. I have the texts. Again, I am an undergrad. I love the science. I love what I do. I intend to go on to grad school, and I'll quite frankly need a letter of recommendation from him to get into a good one. But I am at my wit's end dealing with this dude. What do I do? RESPONSE A: Get the hell out! RESPONSE B: "No less than 72 hours" that is ridiculous even for a grad student who has no course work (though people do it), let alone an undergrad with a full course load. I think it is time to let this position go. I know you might lose a chance on a letter, but frankly, if he's showing that he is never happy with anything you do, he's probably not going to write a very great letter, and it's not worth the stress he is putting you under. Try and peacefully leave as best as you can - I am sure you can still use the experience from your research position in the future too. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: in two days. Working in his lab more than I am technically able to by university regulation on top of a full course load in a demanding major and nothing I do is good enough for him. Today he texted me explaining that his expectations are that I work no less than 72 hours per week with the level of productivity that would be expected of a postdoc at a big-name group at an ivy-league university. I swear to god I am not making that up. I have the texts. Again, I am an undergrad. I love the science. I love what I do. I intend to go on to grad school, and I'll quite frankly need a letter of recommendation from him to get into a good one. But I am at my wit's end dealing with this dude. What do I do? RESPONSE A: > paid research position Reframe this as any other paid job. If you don't like the expectations, quit. Are you paid by the hour and getting overtime? If not, that's unacceptable. You're not his PhD student, you haven't sunk four years into this lab. Quit and move on because it already sounds like a good letter isn't a strong possibility \(unless you're willing to kill yourself trying to meet his unreasonable expectations\). RESPONSE B: Wow, as someone who has a PhD and has experience mentoring undergrads, I’m very dismayed at some of the comments. I’m going to skip right onto the 72 hour work-week. Anyone who claims that an undergraduate should spend 72 hours a week, every week, in doing research does NOT need to be in charge of undergraduate researchers. There is a difference between challenging your mentees and abusing them. Given the description above, your mentor is abusing their position in power to wring every last bit of productivity out of you. They do NOT have your best personal, education, nor career interests in mind at all. Talk to the ombudsman and/or whomever is in charge of undergraduate research or work-study program. Keep the texts and emails and use them as proof of your statements. The behaviors you describe are not normal and not necessary for you to gain valuable research experience. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: for pursuing this action. The effects of working with my advisor have been apparent, and nearly everyone I see comments on how beaten down I've been during my time with that advisor. I don't want this behavior to continue. Even if it doesn't help me anymore, I would feel terrible knowing that my advisor will continue treating people like crap. I know I am not the first, as senior labmates have shared their horror stories of working with this advisor. But I hate that this pattern is continuing. On the other hand, I am scared to report my advisor. Even if it is anonymous, I am terrified of any consequences that may arise from proceeding with a complaint. I DO want to continue in academia, which is truly a small world. I don't want to add more fuel to the fire when I am already dealing with the flames full force. At this point, I just want to leave. My fiancé and I are planning to move to get away from everything that has happened here, but we can't go quite yet. I felt elated once I decided to finally quit this program, but yet I'm still here, and I cannot run just yet. Any advice would be fantastic. As you can tell, this has been wearing me down for years. Thanks in advance. RESPONSE A: First I just wanted to say good luck, its not easy to work up the courage to leave a shitty advisor. I was in a similar situation. I think if its going to cause you more anxiety, don't bother reporting him. If we're being honest, nothing is going to happen to this guy if he has tenure. I've seen supervisors get away with worse treatment of students. Its sad but I think few departments would do much about it. So you may be putting yourself out there for nothing. RESPONSE B: My sister is in the same position, but her PI allowed for one grad student (male) to physically assault my sister (and actively puts them on projects together). I wish someone wpuld jave complained about him before she moved across the country where she has no support system to work under him. I have so many more stories about him too. Ultimately, everyone else is right - do what will be best for you in the long run. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: just anxious about the editing and if my last questions are any good etc. it’s just making me freak out a bit and I’m to much of an anxious person to go to anybody else - if There was anybody else. I suppose the upside is that I’m almost done, but I haven’t even done an overall conclusion and beginning yet and again - all the editing. I don’t even know if I should be adding my lit review to it as well. I need an adult ya’ll lol RESPONSE A: > He sent a message through two weeks ago and I just haven’t heard anything back since. I mean, how many messages have you sent in two weeks? Surely you only meet them weekly anyways, so this should represent one or at most two missing responses. Maybe they just had a busy week. Maybe they had an unexpected family emergency. If you've been inundating them with emails and anxiety, maybe they're just stepping back to see if you can solve some basic problems yourself. That's an important skill to develop, after all. > I haven’t even done an overall conclusion and beginning yet and again - all the editing. I don’t even know if I should be adding my lit review to it as well. So get cracking. Instead of wasting time worrying about this, just *finish* it. You have tons of time - you've got weeks, and a conclusion and introduction can be finished off in a couple of days. As for what to include, you must have access to some kind of examples. Go look at them to see the typical stucture used in your field/department/university. RESPONSE B: Send an email saying that you haven't heard anything from him in a while and you just wanted to make sure he's alright. Don't even mention your thesis, just ask whether he's OK. If he's not, then maybe he'll let you in on what's going on. If he is, and he's just been dropping the ball, this ought to get his attention, but it will do so in a way that comes off as you simply caring about his well-being. Good luck! Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: I'm 20 and finishing my bachelors degree this year, is it ok to get a second degree before going to masters I'm studying maths and I plan to get a masters in physics, but I wanna get a second degree in physics so I'm prepared for my masters, and plan to do investigation (in physics) eventually. My parents think I will be too old to pursue an investigation career if I get a second degree instead of starting my masters next year. If I do spend 3 more years getting a degree in physics will I be too old to pursue a PHD and investigation career? RESPONSE A: > investigation career What is an investigation career? Is that a translational thing and you're talking about research? You're doing yourself no favours doing a second bachelor's. Go straight to the masters. RESPONSE B: Why a second degree though? There are longer masters programs, supplementary courses, etc. > I just don’t think I would be prepared for a masters next year. I understand that feeling, but just speak to Graduate Admissions people and your advisors; they've seen these things many, many times before. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: I'm 20 and finishing my bachelors degree this year, is it ok to get a second degree before going to masters I'm studying maths and I plan to get a masters in physics, but I wanna get a second degree in physics so I'm prepared for my masters, and plan to do investigation (in physics) eventually. My parents think I will be too old to pursue an investigation career if I get a second degree instead of starting my masters next year. If I do spend 3 more years getting a degree in physics will I be too old to pursue a PHD and investigation career? RESPONSE A: I’m not in your field, but am an academic. It seems odd to me to spend the time and money on a second bachelors degree. If you’re good enough to get into grad school for physics as is, do it. RESPONSE B: Why a second degree though? There are longer masters programs, supplementary courses, etc. > I just don’t think I would be prepared for a masters next year. I understand that feeling, but just speak to Graduate Admissions people and your advisors; they've seen these things many, many times before. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: I'm 20 and finishing my bachelors degree this year, is it ok to get a second degree before going to masters I'm studying maths and I plan to get a masters in physics, but I wanna get a second degree in physics so I'm prepared for my masters, and plan to do investigation (in physics) eventually. My parents think I will be too old to pursue an investigation career if I get a second degree instead of starting my masters next year. If I do spend 3 more years getting a degree in physics will I be too old to pursue a PHD and investigation career? RESPONSE A: not really old, but probably unnecessary to do another undergraduate degree RESPONSE B: Why a second degree though? There are longer masters programs, supplementary courses, etc. > I just don’t think I would be prepared for a masters next year. I understand that feeling, but just speak to Graduate Admissions people and your advisors; they've seen these things many, many times before. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: I'm 20 and finishing my bachelors degree this year, is it ok to get a second degree before going to masters I'm studying maths and I plan to get a masters in physics, but I wanna get a second degree in physics so I'm prepared for my masters, and plan to do investigation (in physics) eventually. My parents think I will be too old to pursue an investigation career if I get a second degree instead of starting my masters next year. If I do spend 3 more years getting a degree in physics will I be too old to pursue a PHD and investigation career? RESPONSE A: Nope RESPONSE B: Degrees are expensive. You’ll probably do okay in a MS or PhD in physics with what you already have under your belt. BUT I fully understand wanting to prepare yourself for your grad program. I suggest using your local public library to find texts and free online lessons for various physics topics. AND finding a job to get some money (and experience) saved up in the meantime because… Degrees are expensive lol Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: I'm 20 and finishing my bachelors degree this year, is it ok to get a second degree before going to masters I'm studying maths and I plan to get a masters in physics, but I wanna get a second degree in physics so I'm prepared for my masters, and plan to do investigation (in physics) eventually. My parents think I will be too old to pursue an investigation career if I get a second degree instead of starting my masters next year. If I do spend 3 more years getting a degree in physics will I be too old to pursue a PHD and investigation career? RESPONSE A: I think you can go straight to masters in physics because physics isn't physics, it is actually math RESPONSE B: Nope Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: Tenured or TT faculty: if you were offered another job and approached your administrator for a counteroffer, what would their reaction be? Admins, if one of your faculty were offered another job, what would your reaction be? I’m especially curious to hear from anyone who has gone through this process, and if they turned down the offer, whether their environment at the institution changed after the conversations. RESPONSE A: "Congratulations! I wish you all the best at NewUni." I could keep my job, probably with no hard feelings, but there are no counter offers here. RESPONSE B: Not admin, but as a grad student there were at least four situations I knew of where search candidates were clearly not interested in the position and the interview was a bargaining chip in the home department. One was in the department and interviewing elsewhere, until getting an offer from the university to 'stay'. So I think it's part of the 'game', but the rules of the 'game' depend on a lot of social factors that will likely be specific to your case. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: (very competitive) selection process. And I was fine with it until now, where I really feel like I’m not good enough to go through it smoothly, and I’m not sure anymore I can take the stress of it. Is this a common feeling? Or is it the sign that I should get out and pick a different career path? Because right now I feel like I’m in flight mode and would leave my job in a heartbeat if it weren’t for the fact that I genuinely like my co-authors and don’t want to leave them hanging. Thanks a ton. RESPONSE A: You're burnt out. This happens to the best of us and sometimes creeps up unexpectedly. I would recommend not changing careers until you've actually taken some time off and have rested. Take two weeks off work. If you sleep, eat well, exercise, and come back still feeling this way, then maybe another career option is something to seriously consider. RESPONSE B: It's such a tough time right now and you don't need to have been through the worst of the worst to feel stressed and tired and burnt out. Mental health isn't a competition, you feel, how you feel. So personally I don't think liking your coauthors and not wanting to let them down is a particularly good reason to stay in a career. There are good people in lots of jobs and people move on all the time so they won't be your coauthors for very long. That's not to say you should jack in your job and quit but I do think you might want to really think about what you want to do. It took me over a year to decide to jump from research into a different career, which did end up being at a research institute but doing something quite different and I have no regrets and not sure why I needed to take so long to decide! I recommend this a lot but if you can afford it try having a few sessions with a career coach. They can help you identify the things that are important to you about your career and get you thinking about options and next steps but in a manageable way, plus it can be a bit of light therapy just talking through your feelings and issues with a sympathetic professional. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: ing to-do list. Personally-wise, the pandemic was associated for me with a lot of traumatic moves cross continents and 8 months without a real home, so the idea of having to move to a new place at the end of my postdoc and then eventually at the end of my tenure track possibly is making the future terribly stressful in my eyes. None of this comes from my work environment, and more from my feeling that academia is a constant (very competitive) selection process. And I was fine with it until now, where I really feel like I’m not good enough to go through it smoothly, and I’m not sure anymore I can take the stress of it. Is this a common feeling? Or is it the sign that I should get out and pick a different career path? Because right now I feel like I’m in flight mode and would leave my job in a heartbeat if it weren’t for the fact that I genuinely like my co-authors and don’t want to leave them hanging. Thanks a ton. RESPONSE A: You're burnt out. This happens to the best of us and sometimes creeps up unexpectedly. I would recommend not changing careers until you've actually taken some time off and have rested. Take two weeks off work. If you sleep, eat well, exercise, and come back still feeling this way, then maybe another career option is something to seriously consider. RESPONSE B: This is totally understandable. Academia and the constant rat race does it to you. The thing is, even if you beat the competition and land an AP job, which in itself isn't going to be easy in this market, the game will only continue. Academia isn't for everyone and I think it is perfectly fine to recognize those feelings and look for something else. The good news is, as an economist, you will have an easier time transitioning to industry or government jobs as your skillset is in high demand. I'm a sociologist, on my second tenure track and feel very similar. Took me a while to act on it, but I'm applying and already getting bites (and so far, feels way easier than any academic job market I've been on). Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: doing well. However, I have recently started smoking marijuana recreationally. After much sober and honest introspection, I've come to the conclusion that I am not abusing the substance or using it heavily. However, I am slightly worried as to whether using it even a few times a week (by my definition that's smoking once a day in the evening around 2-4 days a week) will harm my performance, my capability to reason abstractly, my health, etc. I enjoy marijuana because it helps me to relax and keep my thoughts away from my work (I am an *immensely* neurotic person). However, if I have good reasons to drop it, I'll bite the bullet and do so. ​ So, do any of you have any experience balancing marijuana use with gradschool, or any advice on this matter? RESPONSE A: My only comment is inhaling anything burning can be carcinogenic, so maybe you want to try an oil or cooking with it instead? Just to save your lungs :) RESPONSE B: I've been a cannabis addict since age 17, smoking daily all through college, grad school, postdoc, TT faculty, etc. I've sobered up completely once or twice (it takes 3 months), and I take short breaks when I travel. It is one of the least harmful drugs, but it can be both psychologically and physiologically addicting, and it reduces my research output. I wish I never started it, but it did help me get through some difficult times and I might not be alive today without it. Anyway, if you've just started recently and are already up to 2-4 times a week then I am a little concerned that it is an addiction that could escalate. I don't think it causes any significant cumulative mental damage. But the danger is in how harmless it is, which makes it tempting to use it with higher frequency, which can decrease productivity. It is also a psychedelic and so it can slowly warp your thoughts over time to be less in line with what people would consider sane or normal. I don't mean to demonize it, and the negatives are all relatively minor so you may just decide that the positives outweigh them. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: to the conclusion that I am not abusing the substance or using it heavily. However, I am slightly worried as to whether using it even a few times a week (by my definition that's smoking once a day in the evening around 2-4 days a week) will harm my performance, my capability to reason abstractly, my health, etc. I enjoy marijuana because it helps me to relax and keep my thoughts away from my work (I am an *immensely* neurotic person). However, if I have good reasons to drop it, I'll bite the bullet and do so. ​ So, do any of you have any experience balancing marijuana use with gradschool, or any advice on this matter? RESPONSE A: As other have stated, only do it after you get your work done. On a positive note, it can be helpful for thinking of new ideas. While many of the ideas will either be crap or hard to implement in a practical paper, they can generate good ideas and help you think more deeply about the subject matter. RESPONSE B: I've been a cannabis addict since age 17, smoking daily all through college, grad school, postdoc, TT faculty, etc. I've sobered up completely once or twice (it takes 3 months), and I take short breaks when I travel. It is one of the least harmful drugs, but it can be both psychologically and physiologically addicting, and it reduces my research output. I wish I never started it, but it did help me get through some difficult times and I might not be alive today without it. Anyway, if you've just started recently and are already up to 2-4 times a week then I am a little concerned that it is an addiction that could escalate. I don't think it causes any significant cumulative mental damage. But the danger is in how harmless it is, which makes it tempting to use it with higher frequency, which can decrease productivity. It is also a psychedelic and so it can slowly warp your thoughts over time to be less in line with what people would consider sane or normal. I don't mean to demonize it, and the negatives are all relatively minor so you may just decide that the positives outweigh them. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: Will occasionally smoking marijuana affect my performance as a grad student? First off, I'm not sure if this post violates rules 1 and/or 3. I apologize if it does, but I'm frankly not sure. ​ I'm currently in an MA program. I'm doing quite well, and want to continue doing well. However, I have recently started smoking marijuana recreationally. After much sober and honest introspection, I've come to the conclusion that I am not abusing the substance or using it heavily. However, I am slightly worried as to whether using it even a few times a week (by my definition that's smoking once a day in the evening around 2-4 days a week) will harm my performance, my capability to reason abstractly, my health, etc. I enjoy marijuana because it helps me to relax and keep my thoughts away from my work (I am an *immensely* neurotic person). However, if I have good reasons to drop it, I'll bite the bullet and do so. ​ So, do any of you have any experience balancing marijuana use with gradschool, or any advice on this matter? RESPONSE A: My only comment is inhaling anything burning can be carcinogenic, so maybe you want to try an oil or cooking with it instead? Just to save your lungs :) RESPONSE B: As other have stated, only do it after you get your work done. On a positive note, it can be helpful for thinking of new ideas. While many of the ideas will either be crap or hard to implement in a practical paper, they can generate good ideas and help you think more deeply about the subject matter. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: Will occasionally smoking marijuana affect my performance as a grad student? First off, I'm not sure if this post violates rules 1 and/or 3. I apologize if it does, but I'm frankly not sure. ​ I'm currently in an MA program. I'm doing quite well, and want to continue doing well. However, I have recently started smoking marijuana recreationally. After much sober and honest introspection, I've come to the conclusion that I am not abusing the substance or using it heavily. However, I am slightly worried as to whether using it even a few times a week (by my definition that's smoking once a day in the evening around 2-4 days a week) will harm my performance, my capability to reason abstractly, my health, etc. I enjoy marijuana because it helps me to relax and keep my thoughts away from my work (I am an *immensely* neurotic person). However, if I have good reasons to drop it, I'll bite the bullet and do so. ​ So, do any of you have any experience balancing marijuana use with gradschool, or any advice on this matter? RESPONSE A: Only possible issue is that if you're in a field where you may have a job that requires a security clearance one day, they ask for all illegal drug use in the last 7 years (and its counted as illegal no matter where you live because its federally illegal). They're usually ok with experimenting with pot but if you are habitually doing it they might have problems RESPONSE B: I know many people with PhDs who use cannabis regularly. If you are organized and get your work done, what's the issue? Alcohol and opiates are far more likely to derail your studies than smoking pot. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: Will occasionally smoking marijuana affect my performance as a grad student? First off, I'm not sure if this post violates rules 1 and/or 3. I apologize if it does, but I'm frankly not sure. ​ I'm currently in an MA program. I'm doing quite well, and want to continue doing well. However, I have recently started smoking marijuana recreationally. After much sober and honest introspection, I've come to the conclusion that I am not abusing the substance or using it heavily. However, I am slightly worried as to whether using it even a few times a week (by my definition that's smoking once a day in the evening around 2-4 days a week) will harm my performance, my capability to reason abstractly, my health, etc. I enjoy marijuana because it helps me to relax and keep my thoughts away from my work (I am an *immensely* neurotic person). However, if I have good reasons to drop it, I'll bite the bullet and do so. ​ So, do any of you have any experience balancing marijuana use with gradschool, or any advice on this matter? RESPONSE A: As a grad student, surely you're capable of conducting this experiment to know for yourself. RESPONSE B: I know many people with PhDs who use cannabis regularly. If you are organized and get your work done, what's the issue? Alcohol and opiates are far more likely to derail your studies than smoking pot. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: Would it be inappropriate to give my professor/mentor a small gift? I know this question has been asked a bunch of times, but I figured I would ask since my situation is a little unique and I will almost certainly continue working and corresponding with my professor in the future. Basically, I graduated in May, and I have taken two courses with my professor as an upperclassman and spent a year writing an honors thesis with them as my advisor. They have been a great professor, and as my advisor we met most weeks one-on-one during my senior year for my thesis and for mentorship (post-grad/grad school plans, advice in the field, etc) since I plan on applying to PhDs in the field next year. This has all been over Zoom, which has been a little strange (we spoke maybe twice pre-pandemic), but I have really appreciated their help. I also work with them on a long-term research project part-time and remotely at the moment, and plan to meet with them outside of that scope in the future. I was thinking of giving them a handwritten thank-you card and a topical mug (related to their research interests, it's unique and cheap, $10) when I meet with them around the beginning of the fall semester. Is the mug too much? Would this be a source of awkwardness moving forward? Thanks so much! RESPONSE A: A handwritten card would be spectacular. Also, you might send an email to the chair and dean expressing your gratitude for the professor's help and guidance. I was a chair and I LOVED getting nice notes concerning faculty; I would not only tell the faculty member that I had received it but also put the information in their annual evaluations. That's part of the permanent record and is very useful for promotions, tenure and raises. RESPONSE B: This sounds lovely. It’s not at all necessary, but a thoughtful gift is always a sweet gesture. Personally, I’m a big fan of thank you cards! Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: Would it be inappropriate to give my professor/mentor a small gift? I know this question has been asked a bunch of times, but I figured I would ask since my situation is a little unique and I will almost certainly continue working and corresponding with my professor in the future. Basically, I graduated in May, and I have taken two courses with my professor as an upperclassman and spent a year writing an honors thesis with them as my advisor. They have been a great professor, and as my advisor we met most weeks one-on-one during my senior year for my thesis and for mentorship (post-grad/grad school plans, advice in the field, etc) since I plan on applying to PhDs in the field next year. This has all been over Zoom, which has been a little strange (we spoke maybe twice pre-pandemic), but I have really appreciated their help. I also work with them on a long-term research project part-time and remotely at the moment, and plan to meet with them outside of that scope in the future. I was thinking of giving them a handwritten thank-you card and a topical mug (related to their research interests, it's unique and cheap, $10) when I meet with them around the beginning of the fall semester. Is the mug too much? Would this be a source of awkwardness moving forward? Thanks so much! RESPONSE A: Should be fine! RESPONSE B: A handwritten card would be spectacular. Also, you might send an email to the chair and dean expressing your gratitude for the professor's help and guidance. I was a chair and I LOVED getting nice notes concerning faculty; I would not only tell the faculty member that I had received it but also put the information in their annual evaluations. That's part of the permanent record and is very useful for promotions, tenure and raises. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: Would it be inappropriate to give my professor/mentor a small gift? I know this question has been asked a bunch of times, but I figured I would ask since my situation is a little unique and I will almost certainly continue working and corresponding with my professor in the future. Basically, I graduated in May, and I have taken two courses with my professor as an upperclassman and spent a year writing an honors thesis with them as my advisor. They have been a great professor, and as my advisor we met most weeks one-on-one during my senior year for my thesis and for mentorship (post-grad/grad school plans, advice in the field, etc) since I plan on applying to PhDs in the field next year. This has all been over Zoom, which has been a little strange (we spoke maybe twice pre-pandemic), but I have really appreciated their help. I also work with them on a long-term research project part-time and remotely at the moment, and plan to meet with them outside of that scope in the future. I was thinking of giving them a handwritten thank-you card and a topical mug (related to their research interests, it's unique and cheap, $10) when I meet with them around the beginning of the fall semester. Is the mug too much? Would this be a source of awkwardness moving forward? Thanks so much! RESPONSE A: No, it's very wholesome! RESPONSE B: A handwritten card would be spectacular. Also, you might send an email to the chair and dean expressing your gratitude for the professor's help and guidance. I was a chair and I LOVED getting nice notes concerning faculty; I would not only tell the faculty member that I had received it but also put the information in their annual evaluations. That's part of the permanent record and is very useful for promotions, tenure and raises. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: gift for professor as a postdoc I will be leaving my PI's lab after 6 years. Going to an industry job which he had referred me to. Want to show my appreciation. We are not super close on a personal level but definitely chat on a regular basis and joke around. Budget wise I would say up to $500. A nice pen feels a bit cliche. But honestly don't know what else to get. Want to go for something unique and personal. Bobblehead? Feels like could be a miss. Thoughts welcome! RESPONSE A: To me $500 is way too much. I'd think a bottle of wine or liquor if they drink, a gift certificate to a restaurant, a good book, etc., would be appropriate. Most meaningful may be your handwritten words in a card. RESPONSE B: Could you take them out on a really nice dinner? It could be a nice time to chat and get a formal closure, it shows your thanks, and you leave on a good note. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: gift for professor as a postdoc I will be leaving my PI's lab after 6 years. Going to an industry job which he had referred me to. Want to show my appreciation. We are not super close on a personal level but definitely chat on a regular basis and joke around. Budget wise I would say up to $500. A nice pen feels a bit cliche. But honestly don't know what else to get. Want to go for something unique and personal. Bobblehead? Feels like could be a miss. Thoughts welcome! RESPONSE A: Maybe sth that says "I know you are busy and I really appreciate the time and effort, so this will make your life a bit easier". I am thinking of sth like a voucher to get his car super-cleaned, a touch up for his leather briefcase, having that special conference poster framed, ... RESPONSE B: Over 6 years you must have learned enough about them to have a better insight than a board of strangers? I’d also suggest that a $50 gift that was thoughtful would be better than a $500 generic thing. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: gift for professor as a postdoc I will be leaving my PI's lab after 6 years. Going to an industry job which he had referred me to. Want to show my appreciation. We are not super close on a personal level but definitely chat on a regular basis and joke around. Budget wise I would say up to $500. A nice pen feels a bit cliche. But honestly don't know what else to get. Want to go for something unique and personal. Bobblehead? Feels like could be a miss. Thoughts welcome! RESPONSE A: Please be cautious about gifts. Although rarely pursued, gifts to professors, even years later, can be perceived as "bribes," especially with the context of some later contention among faculty. I really, really, really wanted to give something material to the professor who shepherded me throughout my MS, but his protégé warned me that it would be improper. The only real peer of this Ph.D. student confirmed the assertion. The protégé's advice was to write a kind letter instead. Edit: a letter RESPONSE B: What I did: there was a magazine article that was iconic in my field, cited all the time. I went and found an original copy of the magazine from 1963 - hard to find - and gave it to him. Cost me $3.00. It was not the cost, it was the thought, that he now had an original copy of this article. Doing something meaningful is a better thank-you than doing something summary (a bottle of wine) or expensive. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: gift for professor as a postdoc I will be leaving my PI's lab after 6 years. Going to an industry job which he had referred me to. Want to show my appreciation. We are not super close on a personal level but definitely chat on a regular basis and joke around. Budget wise I would say up to $500. A nice pen feels a bit cliche. But honestly don't know what else to get. Want to go for something unique and personal. Bobblehead? Feels like could be a miss. Thoughts welcome! RESPONSE A: Maybe sth that says "I know you are busy and I really appreciate the time and effort, so this will make your life a bit easier". I am thinking of sth like a voucher to get his car super-cleaned, a touch up for his leather briefcase, having that special conference poster framed, ... RESPONSE B: What I did: there was a magazine article that was iconic in my field, cited all the time. I went and found an original copy of the magazine from 1963 - hard to find - and gave it to him. Cost me $3.00. It was not the cost, it was the thought, that he now had an original copy of this article. Doing something meaningful is a better thank-you than doing something summary (a bottle of wine) or expensive. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: gift for professor as a postdoc I will be leaving my PI's lab after 6 years. Going to an industry job which he had referred me to. Want to show my appreciation. We are not super close on a personal level but definitely chat on a regular basis and joke around. Budget wise I would say up to $500. A nice pen feels a bit cliche. But honestly don't know what else to get. Want to go for something unique and personal. Bobblehead? Feels like could be a miss. Thoughts welcome! RESPONSE A: I got a great idea for my prof by talking to his secretary. I gave him ticket to a classic concert... RESPONSE B: What I did: there was a magazine article that was iconic in my field, cited all the time. I went and found an original copy of the magazine from 1963 - hard to find - and gave it to him. Cost me $3.00. It was not the cost, it was the thought, that he now had an original copy of this article. Doing something meaningful is a better thank-you than doing something summary (a bottle of wine) or expensive. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: Concerns about medical condition and going to job talk/interviews at universities (USA) This question is for those of you who have served on hiring committees. I have a stomach issue that requires I take a pill in order for *things to work*. I have to take it at a certain time, the stars have to be aligned just right, etc etc etc. I am a candidate on the market and I am very concerned about upcoming job talks, full day meetings, etc. My current univ does 2.5 days per person. Meaning that the person comes in and spends an evening, full day, half day and then flies home. That would not work for my pewp sched. How do I handle this, logistically? I am freaking out. (I am using a throwaway for obvious reasons). RESPONSE A: Can't you excuse yourself between meetings and take the pill without mentioning it to anyone? How tight is the timing - to the minute? To the hour? RESPONSE B: There is always some particular person who is in charge of a visiting candidate's schedule -- generally either a secretary or a member of the search committee. When you are invited for a job interview, ask for name & contact info for this person. Then contact that person as soon as possible, and tell them that you need breaks at certain times (which you specify). If pressed on why, say it's for "medical reasons". Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: Concerns about medical condition and going to job talk/interviews at universities (USA) This question is for those of you who have served on hiring committees. I have a stomach issue that requires I take a pill in order for *things to work*. I have to take it at a certain time, the stars have to be aligned just right, etc etc etc. I am a candidate on the market and I am very concerned about upcoming job talks, full day meetings, etc. My current univ does 2.5 days per person. Meaning that the person comes in and spends an evening, full day, half day and then flies home. That would not work for my pewp sched. How do I handle this, logistically? I am freaking out. (I am using a throwaway for obvious reasons). RESPONSE A: I'll just mention, I had a couple of interviews like this recently at different institutions. Both were 2+ full days. I am breastfeeding my baby and while away from her I need to pump every 3-4 hours for 30 min. I mentioned this to the search committee chairs, and they both added subtle break times for me. Everyone was discreet and polite, and I still had the full interview experience. Just let the committee chair know up front of your needs and what they can do to accommodate you. In my experience, they were happy to provide whatever I needed with notice. As a side note, they both offered me TT positions and now I have to decide between them! RESPONSE B: Can't you excuse yourself between meetings and take the pill without mentioning it to anyone? How tight is the timing - to the minute? To the hour? Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: How can you overcome information overload? As a PhD candidate trying to write my dissertation in politics and security, I have problem with information overload on the internet sources. I always e-mail the sources that I come across to myself. Sometimes I am deviating from the main path of my dissertation methodology. How can I solve this problem? I try to write my thesis with 4 hours working in a day. I need recommendations. RESPONSE A: I loved Zotero. I used a lot of key words so I could filter by what I needed at the time. It cut down some of the overload for me. RESPONSE B: You will need a theoretical framework first. Then, you need to find the gap that your research will fill. This will most likely require a literature review. Finally, you will need to frame the specific research question within that gap. Without this you may float around quite a bit and that won’t help the reader of your dissertation. Hope this helps. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: How much do professors memorize? Can professors recall the famous theorems of their field without consulting a textbook? What about papers? Do they remember all the nitty gritty details of every important paper they read? Should the focus be on getting a broad picture overview of everything or should it be on gaining the ability to actually recall stuff without consulting external resources? RESPONSE A: One of the best pieces of advice my advisor gave me during my PhD was that I needed to act more like a scientist and less like a student - best advice I’ve ever gotten! I wouldn’t call it memorization, it’s definitely a process of just being so immersed in the field that the information is filed away in your mind and there’s no need to memorize it. Of course that’s not to say you don’t need to do the Google search now and again or consult a textbook or the literature, but by and large, the knowledge of the crux of your field becomes second nature, in my experience anyway. In STEM, memorizing doesn’t get you very far anyway! The more you read and learn and learn how to think, it’s an almost seamless transition. RESPONSE B: As with anyone else I suppose, most of us remember the things we use frequently or have recently read, and tend to have to look up stuff we haven't used in a couple months or years. Then of course there's a few who know everything. I know the boiling points of probably two dozen common lab solvents off the top of my head, but I'd probably have to look up a lot of the abbreviations for the amino acids even though I memorized them all once upon a time. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: How much do professors memorize? Can professors recall the famous theorems of their field without consulting a textbook? What about papers? Do they remember all the nitty gritty details of every important paper they read? Should the focus be on getting a broad picture overview of everything or should it be on gaining the ability to actually recall stuff without consulting external resources? RESPONSE A: One of the best pieces of advice my advisor gave me during my PhD was that I needed to act more like a scientist and less like a student - best advice I’ve ever gotten! I wouldn’t call it memorization, it’s definitely a process of just being so immersed in the field that the information is filed away in your mind and there’s no need to memorize it. Of course that’s not to say you don’t need to do the Google search now and again or consult a textbook or the literature, but by and large, the knowledge of the crux of your field becomes second nature, in my experience anyway. In STEM, memorizing doesn’t get you very far anyway! The more you read and learn and learn how to think, it’s an almost seamless transition. RESPONSE B: I'm not in STEM, but over time I came to know by heart most of the details pertinent both to my research and my teaching. I'm middle-aged and so way over that 10,000 hours of exposure at this point that people talk about. I will look up things like a monarch's year ranges from time to time to double-check, but over time you just naturally memorize the things you use. My suggestion for this is just to do your best work and pay attention; you will start to have a working knowledge of your field. This is what expertise is. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: How much do professors memorize? Can professors recall the famous theorems of their field without consulting a textbook? What about papers? Do they remember all the nitty gritty details of every important paper they read? Should the focus be on getting a broad picture overview of everything or should it be on gaining the ability to actually recall stuff without consulting external resources? RESPONSE A: One of the best pieces of advice my advisor gave me during my PhD was that I needed to act more like a scientist and less like a student - best advice I’ve ever gotten! I wouldn’t call it memorization, it’s definitely a process of just being so immersed in the field that the information is filed away in your mind and there’s no need to memorize it. Of course that’s not to say you don’t need to do the Google search now and again or consult a textbook or the literature, but by and large, the knowledge of the crux of your field becomes second nature, in my experience anyway. In STEM, memorizing doesn’t get you very far anyway! The more you read and learn and learn how to think, it’s an almost seamless transition. RESPONSE B: I had this feeling while studying for my week of oral and written exams while waiting to have my gall bladder removed. While a teaching fellow, you start to feel pretty good about yourself because you know the material you teach and in which you take courses. The exams are designed to pull you back down to earth by the experienced who have given you way too long book lists, crazy research, and the kitchen sink for exams. I passed. Then off to gall bladder surgery. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: How much do professors memorize? Can professors recall the famous theorems of their field without consulting a textbook? What about papers? Do they remember all the nitty gritty details of every important paper they read? Should the focus be on getting a broad picture overview of everything or should it be on gaining the ability to actually recall stuff without consulting external resources? RESPONSE A: As with anyone else I suppose, most of us remember the things we use frequently or have recently read, and tend to have to look up stuff we haven't used in a couple months or years. Then of course there's a few who know everything. I know the boiling points of probably two dozen common lab solvents off the top of my head, but I'd probably have to look up a lot of the abbreviations for the amino acids even though I memorized them all once upon a time. RESPONSE B: I had this feeling while studying for my week of oral and written exams while waiting to have my gall bladder removed. While a teaching fellow, you start to feel pretty good about yourself because you know the material you teach and in which you take courses. The exams are designed to pull you back down to earth by the experienced who have given you way too long book lists, crazy research, and the kitchen sink for exams. I passed. Then off to gall bladder surgery. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: How much do professors memorize? Can professors recall the famous theorems of their field without consulting a textbook? What about papers? Do they remember all the nitty gritty details of every important paper they read? Should the focus be on getting a broad picture overview of everything or should it be on gaining the ability to actually recall stuff without consulting external resources? RESPONSE A: >Should the focus be on getting a broad picture overview of everything or should it be on gaining the ability to actually recall stuff without consulting external resources? It sounds like you got it --- definitely the former. You'll be surprised how many of the details can come back if you tell yourself the story that contextualizes each theorem. Sometimes the motivation for a theorem can be separate from its proof, but sometimes the proof sketch can really help build the intuition too. Catchphrases also help. For example (I assume you're in math cuz you used the word "theorem" :P), I remember the First Isomorphism Theorem with catchphrases like "modding out by the kernel makes a map injective", or "normal subgroups are exactly the kernels of surjective homomorphisms", etc. I don't force myself to remember the symbolic theorem. The philosophy is more important. RESPONSE B: I had this feeling while studying for my week of oral and written exams while waiting to have my gall bladder removed. While a teaching fellow, you start to feel pretty good about yourself because you know the material you teach and in which you take courses. The exams are designed to pull you back down to earth by the experienced who have given you way too long book lists, crazy research, and the kitchen sink for exams. I passed. Then off to gall bladder surgery. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: How do you go from a thought/concept to proper terms when searching for information? I often run into a problem where I'm working on something and I have this idea in my head that I want to pursue but I don't know the right terms for it. For example, while doing my statistical analyses I know I want to study the effect of something measured at the same time as my response variable but also measured at a time interval before it, and somehow I cannot come up with the right term to describe it (it is a lagged effect, which I know because I described my plans to my prof and he told me the correct term). Or I'll be writing my introduction/discussion and I know that A is correlated/caused by B due to process C. I know that because I understand how process C works, but I don't know the correct term for it. So I will use terms describing process C to find information about it, but generally won't actually find good information because whatever data base I'm using would prefer it if I use "process C". I mostly run into this issue when searching for appropriate statistical approaches, because I know what relationship I want to describe, but I don't know the word for it. Actually, I feel like I have the same issue now trying to convey my question/problem... Anyway, if you recognise my issue, please let me know if there's a way get better at finding the right terms when searching for information. :) RESPONSE A: You could Google at the best of your ability to find use cases -> Google Scholar for papers that did that -> Read the papers and see the terms they used RESPONSE B: Ask a librarian for suggestions, they are good at this! Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: How do you go from a thought/concept to proper terms when searching for information? I often run into a problem where I'm working on something and I have this idea in my head that I want to pursue but I don't know the right terms for it. For example, while doing my statistical analyses I know I want to study the effect of something measured at the same time as my response variable but also measured at a time interval before it, and somehow I cannot come up with the right term to describe it (it is a lagged effect, which I know because I described my plans to my prof and he told me the correct term). Or I'll be writing my introduction/discussion and I know that A is correlated/caused by B due to process C. I know that because I understand how process C works, but I don't know the correct term for it. So I will use terms describing process C to find information about it, but generally won't actually find good information because whatever data base I'm using would prefer it if I use "process C". I mostly run into this issue when searching for appropriate statistical approaches, because I know what relationship I want to describe, but I don't know the word for it. Actually, I feel like I have the same issue now trying to convey my question/problem... Anyway, if you recognise my issue, please let me know if there's a way get better at finding the right terms when searching for information. :) RESPONSE A: Active reading and conversation. The more you read in your field (and read in some way that you'll remember what you read), the more this kind of language will become second-nature to you. When you're still stuck like that, that's exactly what your conversation with you colleagues is for, and why scholarship doesn't really work as a solitary pursuit. RESPONSE B: You could Google at the best of your ability to find use cases -> Google Scholar for papers that did that -> Read the papers and see the terms they used Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: How do you go from a thought/concept to proper terms when searching for information? I often run into a problem where I'm working on something and I have this idea in my head that I want to pursue but I don't know the right terms for it. For example, while doing my statistical analyses I know I want to study the effect of something measured at the same time as my response variable but also measured at a time interval before it, and somehow I cannot come up with the right term to describe it (it is a lagged effect, which I know because I described my plans to my prof and he told me the correct term). Or I'll be writing my introduction/discussion and I know that A is correlated/caused by B due to process C. I know that because I understand how process C works, but I don't know the correct term for it. So I will use terms describing process C to find information about it, but generally won't actually find good information because whatever data base I'm using would prefer it if I use "process C". I mostly run into this issue when searching for appropriate statistical approaches, because I know what relationship I want to describe, but I don't know the word for it. Actually, I feel like I have the same issue now trying to convey my question/problem... Anyway, if you recognise my issue, please let me know if there's a way get better at finding the right terms when searching for information. :) RESPONSE A: You could Google at the best of your ability to find use cases -> Google Scholar for papers that did that -> Read the papers and see the terms they used RESPONSE B: Sometimes the only thing that works is repetitive Googling, trying to describe your problem and then adapting the search terms untill you come closer to what you 're looking for. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: How do you pay attention to talks/take information in? So I am going to my first conference (im doing a phd in particle theory) in a couple of weeks and I find it fairly difficult to not get distracted during talks/ lectures (during undergrad I got most of my knowledge from books/notes). What do people do to get the most out of conferences/talks in general? RESPONSE A: In person? Or online? If online, I take notes screenshots & make sure I download the materials they link (if any). RESPONSE B: I have many, many notebooks filled with notes taken from conference presentations. Note taking helps me follow the prez and also helps me to follow up on references (or my own ideas inspired by said prez). As another poster noted, for online events, I’ll take screenshots (I’ll photograph slides at in-person events, though you might want to ask the speaker for permission to do so) of relevant slides for my records. As for how to get the most out of talks, the presenters often include their email addresses or social media info in their slides. If you come across someone whose work intersects meaningfully with your own, you might want to follow them on Twitter (common in my field), or even email them to follow up. This builds your network and can even lead to interesting/useful opportunities for collaboration. It’s also a great way to start planning for a postdoc, etc. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: the pros/cons of grad studies and hear about what you wish people had told you about it. RESPONSE A: 1. You do not, nor should you, kill yourself for the degree. If you burn out in grad school it will likely derail your career. 2. Related to 1, do not take on more than you can realistically do. That does not mean “do working 14 hour days 7 days a week.” Everything will seem exciting and important. It’s not if (a) your mental and physical health take a dive and (b) you cannot realistically complete the work without shortcuts. Have seen published papers pulled because people bit off wayyyy more and ended up cutting a corner that hugely affected their results. 3. Make sure you can work with your PI. If they are the type that will shame people for not being at the lab on the weekends, every weekend, not the PI you want. Also, set clear boundaries with your PI. If you have to have one day a week not answering messages or being in touch, clearly state that. 4. If either of you plan to teach, seek out a mentor specifically for that. Most profs have no idea how to teach well, yet they will pat themselves on the back for it. Find someone the students like and learn from those profs. Find any workshops that will help you learn pedagogy. And don’t fall for the new and shiny. We know people don’t learn auditory/visual etc. but that concept remains in teaching. 5. As you go, you will realize how little you actually know. If this doesn’t happen, rethink your knowledge. I was so arrogant and could have learned so much more if I hadn’t been an asshole know it all. I was brought way low with my postdoc. Wasn’t pretty but had to happen. You want to be aware of your ignorance. If you state any facts, understand and no where they come from. If you only have a passing knowledge, talk to others that are experts. 6. Don’t be afraid to reach out to others in the field. Most will help in any they can. RESPONSE B: How tough it would be mentally and how big a strain it could be on your physical health. Make time to take care of yourself. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: you about it. RESPONSE A: In your situation the need to explicitly commit time to your relationship. Graduate degrees are notorious relationship killers and rather than bringing you together through shared experience, your relationship may wither from neglect. Carve out time together. RESPONSE B: 1. You do not, nor should you, kill yourself for the degree. If you burn out in grad school it will likely derail your career. 2. Related to 1, do not take on more than you can realistically do. That does not mean “do working 14 hour days 7 days a week.” Everything will seem exciting and important. It’s not if (a) your mental and physical health take a dive and (b) you cannot realistically complete the work without shortcuts. Have seen published papers pulled because people bit off wayyyy more and ended up cutting a corner that hugely affected their results. 3. Make sure you can work with your PI. If they are the type that will shame people for not being at the lab on the weekends, every weekend, not the PI you want. Also, set clear boundaries with your PI. If you have to have one day a week not answering messages or being in touch, clearly state that. 4. If either of you plan to teach, seek out a mentor specifically for that. Most profs have no idea how to teach well, yet they will pat themselves on the back for it. Find someone the students like and learn from those profs. Find any workshops that will help you learn pedagogy. And don’t fall for the new and shiny. We know people don’t learn auditory/visual etc. but that concept remains in teaching. 5. As you go, you will realize how little you actually know. If this doesn’t happen, rethink your knowledge. I was so arrogant and could have learned so much more if I hadn’t been an asshole know it all. I was brought way low with my postdoc. Wasn’t pretty but had to happen. You want to be aware of your ignorance. If you state any facts, understand and no where they come from. If you only have a passing knowledge, talk to others that are experts. 6. Don’t be afraid to reach out to others in the field. Most will help in any they can. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: What do you wish someone had told you before you started your graduate program? I’m in the process of applying for my MA and my boyfriend is currently applying for his PhD. My end goal is to work in academia. I’m hoping to get general advise on the pros/cons of grad studies and hear about what you wish people had told you about it. RESPONSE A: Be weary of professors with strong egos i.e. avoid the big guys in charge. They tend to assert their dominance and you don’t want to be on the other side of that. Had to remove someone from my committee after they harassed me during my qualifying exam, while all the other professors sat by and watched. Some even emailed me afterwards to say I was going a good job and not to let what happened in the qual get me down. Chill nice easy going professors are who you want to surround yourself with. It is a long process and you don’t want an egomaniac to be in your circle. They will also go to great lengths to protect their image. I know a guy that got assaulted in his lab and the PI did nothing and warned everyone not to tell anyone or they would be fired. Some sketch shit goes on behind the scenes in academia. It can be a wonderful experience if you surround yourself with good hardworking nice people. RESPONSE B: How tough it would be mentally and how big a strain it could be on your physical health. Make time to take care of yourself. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: What do you wish you had done from day one of your PhD? I'm about to start a PhD in computational plasma physics in September, and I'm looking to start with as good a system as I can from day one. So what do you wish you had done or used from day one? Networking? Filing? Certain coding practices? Clarifying something with your supervisor? I'm interested in anything RESPONSE A: Documented everything I read and kept a copy of it, with some sort of short summary paragraph or keywords attached. Made a folder for "not useful article", so I didn't end up reading it again (still with at least the key words attached, in case it became useful later). Set up alerts from google scholar/library/css feed for new articles. Met with the librarian to learn the quirks of the databases I was going to be using in my field and to help set up the alerts previously mentioned. I did all this later, but it would have save so much time had I started first thing. RESPONSE B: Publish! Produce/collaborate on new research and get it out the door -- and do it sooner rather than later. The bigger the head-start you can get on this before you hit the job market, the better. Work on publishable content when you're too burnt out with your main project. Work on it as a hobby. Work on it when you should be doing other things. Present shorter versions of your articles as conference papers. Turn your conference papers into articles. Your CV is going to need content, and this is something you can (and should) take seriously from the very start. This is especially true given how long academic publishing can sometimes take: it is entirely possible to write and submit something in your first year that won't even end up appearing in print until your third or fourth, ludicrous though it may sound. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: What do you wish you had done from day one of your PhD? I'm about to start a PhD in computational plasma physics in September, and I'm looking to start with as good a system as I can from day one. So what do you wish you had done or used from day one? Networking? Filing? Certain coding practices? Clarifying something with your supervisor? I'm interested in anything RESPONSE A: I wish I would not have overlooked the negative interactions I had with my advisor. I would have jumped ship (changed advisors) within the first year rather than after five years. I would have created a stronger support network outside of graduate school students within my program. I would have started writing from day one. RESPONSE B: Also, do not get tempted too much by the PhD martyrdom. Some people get lost a bit too much in lamenting all the shit parts of grad school. And yes, it's good to vent sometimes, but when you encounter problems, try to solve them (and not just by putting in more time), rather than wallow. Talk to people who can help in your department (or ask for help in places like this), don't go at things alone. Sure, the thesis you have to write yourself, but when you get stuck there is no shame in reaching out. As much as I liked PhD comics for example, I was careful not to get drawn in by the sentiment (not sure how to explain this better). Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: What do you wish you had done from day one of your PhD? I'm about to start a PhD in computational plasma physics in September, and I'm looking to start with as good a system as I can from day one. So what do you wish you had done or used from day one? Networking? Filing? Certain coding practices? Clarifying something with your supervisor? I'm interested in anything RESPONSE A: Also, do not get tempted too much by the PhD martyrdom. Some people get lost a bit too much in lamenting all the shit parts of grad school. And yes, it's good to vent sometimes, but when you encounter problems, try to solve them (and not just by putting in more time), rather than wallow. Talk to people who can help in your department (or ask for help in places like this), don't go at things alone. Sure, the thesis you have to write yourself, but when you get stuck there is no shame in reaching out. As much as I liked PhD comics for example, I was careful not to get drawn in by the sentiment (not sure how to explain this better). RESPONSE B: I'd say to really focus on what it is you want to do and work toward that. If you want to teach, focus on getting teaching experience and working on that. If you want a research position, make sure to publish your dissertation. Focus on your dissertation first and foremost because that's why you're there. Personally, I wish I had networked more. Go to conferences and present your work and have fun but make sure to meet some people in your field and get your name out there. It could come in handy later or you could find co-authors. Finally, make sure to enjoy the time you have. This can be a rough time in your life with all the work ahead but you'll also forge some strong bonds because you'll be going through the same thing with other students. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: What do you wish you had done from day one of your PhD? I'm about to start a PhD in computational plasma physics in September, and I'm looking to start with as good a system as I can from day one. So what do you wish you had done or used from day one? Networking? Filing? Certain coding practices? Clarifying something with your supervisor? I'm interested in anything RESPONSE A: Work for some practical/applied skills as well as proper academia. If you major in demography, take a course in gis...if you're all about linguistic anthropology take some courses in computational linguistics...etc. in the event you can't get a job in academia you will have some private sector skills RESPONSE B: Also, do not get tempted too much by the PhD martyrdom. Some people get lost a bit too much in lamenting all the shit parts of grad school. And yes, it's good to vent sometimes, but when you encounter problems, try to solve them (and not just by putting in more time), rather than wallow. Talk to people who can help in your department (or ask for help in places like this), don't go at things alone. Sure, the thesis you have to write yourself, but when you get stuck there is no shame in reaching out. As much as I liked PhD comics for example, I was careful not to get drawn in by the sentiment (not sure how to explain this better). Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: What do you wish you knew during your job hunt? Hi academics. I'm starting that magic period where I start applying for my first real, tenure track job. I know that the hiring process is different for each discipline, country and university, but for those who have been through the process before, I'd love to know what one thing you wish you knew before you start the process. RESPONSE A: That the jobs I thought I really, really wanted when the job ads came out were not at all the jobs I wanted after interviewing. Also: the interviewing part wasn't really that bad, especially campus visits. I had several that were even fun! Edit: also, also: stay the heck away from the academic jobs wiki. It will drive you insane, constantly checking and checking for information. The worst part is, the info. is sometimes wrong. Someone incorrectly updated the wiki to say the job I have now had been offered to and taken by someone else, but it hadn't been (I was later made their first offer). RESPONSE B: Try not to have your first interview be for the place you really want to work for. There is a lot of valuable experience that comes from going through the interview process, so if you feel like you'd pass on a particular job opening, it's still a good idea to apply and interview for it. Get all of your interview-stupid out of the way before taking interviews for good jobs. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: In academic publishing, ideally you want a table to appear on the same page that it is referred to in the text. If this is not possible due to the size of the table bumping the in-text mention to the next page, is it better to have the table or its mention come on the page before the other? In academic publishing, ideally you want a table to appear on the same page that it is referred to in the text. If this is not possible due to the size of the table bumping the in-text mention to the next page, is it better to have the table or its mention come on the page before the other? RESPONSE A: Ideally; all tables and figures should be located *after* the point in the text where they are first mentioned. RESPONSE B: If you do have control, I'd say the mention coming first is fairly standard practice. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: If they publish a paper based on Tony's [big dataset], will Tony be an author? Basic question because I'm curious and mostly confused about authorship, ownership of data etc. Let's say Tony performed a lengthy experiment resulting in [insert big dataset] as well as analyses, then published a paper with the result of these analyses and other experiments related to it. Then maybe Tony leaves the lab, but other scientists work on his [big dataset] and publish another paper based on analyses on it and other stuff. What's the standard? Should Tony be automatically included in this paper, as the person that "produced" this [big dataset]? RESPONSE A: There's another option: If the data goes into an institutional repository that assigns a DOI, then the data set would be cited by the authors of the next paper. RESPONSE B: According to ICJME criteria, no. They recommend authorship credit should be reserved for people meeting all of the following criteria: 1. substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2. drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3. final approval of the version to be published. In your example, Tony would only meet criteria 1 and should be acknowledged (and cited, where appropriate) rather than given authorship credit. In journals that follow an interpretation of ICJME authorship guidelines, giving Tony authorship in the example you gave would be unethical and against journal policies. Re: ownership of data, data is almost always owned by the university/company that paid Tony to collect the data, and there may be requirements from the funding agency that data be accessible/shared for other researchers to do additional analyses on. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: If they publish a paper based on Tony's [big dataset], will Tony be an author? Basic question because I'm curious and mostly confused about authorship, ownership of data etc. Let's say Tony performed a lengthy experiment resulting in [insert big dataset] as well as analyses, then published a paper with the result of these analyses and other experiments related to it. Then maybe Tony leaves the lab, but other scientists work on his [big dataset] and publish another paper based on analyses on it and other stuff. What's the standard? Should Tony be automatically included in this paper, as the person that "produced" this [big dataset]? RESPONSE A: Probably, but authorship is very field and group dependent. There’s a difference between who should be an author and who often is included. RESPONSE B: There's another option: If the data goes into an institutional repository that assigns a DOI, then the data set would be cited by the authors of the next paper. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: If they publish a paper based on Tony's [big dataset], will Tony be an author? Basic question because I'm curious and mostly confused about authorship, ownership of data etc. Let's say Tony performed a lengthy experiment resulting in [insert big dataset] as well as analyses, then published a paper with the result of these analyses and other experiments related to it. Then maybe Tony leaves the lab, but other scientists work on his [big dataset] and publish another paper based on analyses on it and other stuff. What's the standard? Should Tony be automatically included in this paper, as the person that "produced" this [big dataset]? RESPONSE A: According to ICJME criteria, no. They recommend authorship credit should be reserved for people meeting all of the following criteria: 1. substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2. drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3. final approval of the version to be published. In your example, Tony would only meet criteria 1 and should be acknowledged (and cited, where appropriate) rather than given authorship credit. In journals that follow an interpretation of ICJME authorship guidelines, giving Tony authorship in the example you gave would be unethical and against journal policies. Re: ownership of data, data is almost always owned by the university/company that paid Tony to collect the data, and there may be requirements from the funding agency that data be accessible/shared for other researchers to do additional analyses on. RESPONSE B: I think Tony should at the very least be asked if he wants to be involved on the project. If you didn't have Tony's dataset you wouldn't have a paper, he contributed substantially to your research and should be asked to collaborate on any paper using his data. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: If they publish a paper based on Tony's [big dataset], will Tony be an author? Basic question because I'm curious and mostly confused about authorship, ownership of data etc. Let's say Tony performed a lengthy experiment resulting in [insert big dataset] as well as analyses, then published a paper with the result of these analyses and other experiments related to it. Then maybe Tony leaves the lab, but other scientists work on his [big dataset] and publish another paper based on analyses on it and other stuff. What's the standard? Should Tony be automatically included in this paper, as the person that "produced" this [big dataset]? RESPONSE A: I think Tony should at the very least be asked if he wants to be involved on the project. If you didn't have Tony's dataset you wouldn't have a paper, he contributed substantially to your research and should be asked to collaborate on any paper using his data. RESPONSE B: There is no standard. In the labs I’ve worked in, Tony would’ve had to somehow contribute to the writing of the article, too, to merit authorship. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: If they publish a paper based on Tony's [big dataset], will Tony be an author? Basic question because I'm curious and mostly confused about authorship, ownership of data etc. Let's say Tony performed a lengthy experiment resulting in [insert big dataset] as well as analyses, then published a paper with the result of these analyses and other experiments related to it. Then maybe Tony leaves the lab, but other scientists work on his [big dataset] and publish another paper based on analyses on it and other stuff. What's the standard? Should Tony be automatically included in this paper, as the person that "produced" this [big dataset]? RESPONSE A: Probably, but authorship is very field and group dependent. There’s a difference between who should be an author and who often is included. RESPONSE B: I think Tony should at the very least be asked if he wants to be involved on the project. If you didn't have Tony's dataset you wouldn't have a paper, he contributed substantially to your research and should be asked to collaborate on any paper using his data. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: Why do researchers publish to paywalled journals if they're not getting paid? Is it just the prestige of the journals, or do they have some legit advantages? What's so special about these paywalled journals and publishers? What are some popular pro-open-access alternatives? RESPONSE A: You may call it prestige, but it is really about careers. Why would an athlete join the best team possible? Why would an author publish with a high end publisher rather than self-publish? These things are changing rapidly, but no one submits to "paywall" journals just to feel special. RESPONSE B: The most prestigious journals (Nature and Science) are paywalled. Open access and double open access are relatively new developments. >What are some popular pro-open-access alternatives? Varies by field. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: Why do researchers publish to paywalled journals if they're not getting paid? Is it just the prestige of the journals, or do they have some legit advantages? What's so special about these paywalled journals and publishers? What are some popular pro-open-access alternatives? RESPONSE A: You may call it prestige, but it is really about careers. Why would an athlete join the best team possible? Why would an author publish with a high end publisher rather than self-publish? These things are changing rapidly, but no one submits to "paywall" journals just to feel special. RESPONSE B: I've never heard of a researcher getting paid to publish in a journal. The options are submitting a manuscript for free or submitting a manuscript for a fee. A lot of these free-to-publish journals then pass the fees they might have ordinarily charged the authors onto the readers. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: Why do researchers publish to paywalled journals if they're not getting paid? Is it just the prestige of the journals, or do they have some legit advantages? What's so special about these paywalled journals and publishers? What are some popular pro-open-access alternatives? RESPONSE A: The most prestigious journals (Nature and Science) are paywalled. Open access and double open access are relatively new developments. >What are some popular pro-open-access alternatives? Varies by field. RESPONSE B: Yep, the prestige. (edited to specify: the prestige being what basically makes your career. We're not doing it to 'feel special', but because publishing in prestigious journals is how you gage how successful a scientist is.) The entire system or paywalled journals is an ancient behemoth that needs to die already. But, well. Academia does not exactly change very quickly. And... It would help if we could all agree on what to replace the current system with, which so far, hasn't been the case. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: Why do researchers publish to paywalled journals if they're not getting paid? Is it just the prestige of the journals, or do they have some legit advantages? What's so special about these paywalled journals and publishers? What are some popular pro-open-access alternatives? RESPONSE A: Yep, the prestige. (edited to specify: the prestige being what basically makes your career. We're not doing it to 'feel special', but because publishing in prestigious journals is how you gage how successful a scientist is.) The entire system or paywalled journals is an ancient behemoth that needs to die already. But, well. Academia does not exactly change very quickly. And... It would help if we could all agree on what to replace the current system with, which so far, hasn't been the case. RESPONSE B: I've never heard of a researcher getting paid to publish in a journal. The options are submitting a manuscript for free or submitting a manuscript for a fee. A lot of these free-to-publish journals then pass the fees they might have ordinarily charged the authors onto the readers. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: Why do researchers publish to paywalled journals if they're not getting paid? Is it just the prestige of the journals, or do they have some legit advantages? What's so special about these paywalled journals and publishers? What are some popular pro-open-access alternatives? RESPONSE A: I've never heard of a researcher getting paid to publish in a journal. The options are submitting a manuscript for free or submitting a manuscript for a fee. A lot of these free-to-publish journals then pass the fees they might have ordinarily charged the authors onto the readers. RESPONSE B: It's much cheaper. Open source is expensive. Journals push the cost of not having the paywall onto researchers and ultimately (often) taxpayers. Some researchers would rather spend their money on research, especially with preprints, pubmed requirement, personal copy pdfs, scihub. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: How to research publications of potential PhD supervisors? Say I have a running list of faculty names whose research work I want to look at in order to short list whose research aligns with my topic of interest. This is the approach I tend to take Go to google scholar Researchgate Orcid Google Uni website but the ones I am interested in have next to no data in their sites. Is this the most comprehensive/ exhaustive list? If I search at all these, can I say with confidence I have seen all there is to see? If after all this I don’t find a topic of my research, is it safe to conclude the particular profesor has not worked on this topic at all? RESPONSE A: I do not know if this applies to all fields and countries, but the department should publish a list of publications each year. that list of publications should be pretty complete, since money (for the department) depends on it. however, this is only published once a year RESPONSE B: > Go to google scholar Researchgate Orcid Google Uni website but the ones I am interested in have next to no data in their sites. If you can't find anything about their publications through the usual means, it's likely other people can't either. So even if they did publish something, no one knows about it and that publication is having no impact. I'd say this is a big red flag. Publications are one of the most important things for a PI, so it doesn't make sense that they would be hiding them. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: How to research publications of potential PhD supervisors? Say I have a running list of faculty names whose research work I want to look at in order to short list whose research aligns with my topic of interest. This is the approach I tend to take Go to google scholar Researchgate Orcid Google Uni website but the ones I am interested in have next to no data in their sites. Is this the most comprehensive/ exhaustive list? If I search at all these, can I say with confidence I have seen all there is to see? If after all this I don’t find a topic of my research, is it safe to conclude the particular profesor has not worked on this topic at all? RESPONSE A: If you can't easily find *any* publications then that itself is a red flag, my publications list is the only bit of my staff profile page I regularly update (granted its through an ORCID plugin but still) RESPONSE B: I do not know if this applies to all fields and countries, but the department should publish a list of publications each year. that list of publications should be pretty complete, since money (for the department) depends on it. however, this is only published once a year Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: How to research publications of potential PhD supervisors? Say I have a running list of faculty names whose research work I want to look at in order to short list whose research aligns with my topic of interest. This is the approach I tend to take Go to google scholar Researchgate Orcid Google Uni website but the ones I am interested in have next to no data in their sites. Is this the most comprehensive/ exhaustive list? If I search at all these, can I say with confidence I have seen all there is to see? If after all this I don’t find a topic of my research, is it safe to conclude the particular profesor has not worked on this topic at all? RESPONSE A: Yeesh even my sad publication history is on scholar and I'm basically a nobody in my field. Gonna go with red flag here. Have you tried the various pubmed around the world? I know of an American and European version but I bet there's more out there. RESPONSE B: I’ve never seen an academic in my fields (sociology and anthropology) without a publicly available CV. Is this not common practice in most fields? Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: How to research publications of potential PhD supervisors? Say I have a running list of faculty names whose research work I want to look at in order to short list whose research aligns with my topic of interest. This is the approach I tend to take Go to google scholar Researchgate Orcid Google Uni website but the ones I am interested in have next to no data in their sites. Is this the most comprehensive/ exhaustive list? If I search at all these, can I say with confidence I have seen all there is to see? If after all this I don’t find a topic of my research, is it safe to conclude the particular profesor has not worked on this topic at all? RESPONSE A: Yeesh even my sad publication history is on scholar and I'm basically a nobody in my field. Gonna go with red flag here. Have you tried the various pubmed around the world? I know of an American and European version but I bet there's more out there. RESPONSE B: I do not know if this applies to all fields and countries, but the department should publish a list of publications each year. that list of publications should be pretty complete, since money (for the department) depends on it. however, this is only published once a year Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: How to research publications of potential PhD supervisors? Say I have a running list of faculty names whose research work I want to look at in order to short list whose research aligns with my topic of interest. This is the approach I tend to take Go to google scholar Researchgate Orcid Google Uni website but the ones I am interested in have next to no data in their sites. Is this the most comprehensive/ exhaustive list? If I search at all these, can I say with confidence I have seen all there is to see? If after all this I don’t find a topic of my research, is it safe to conclude the particular profesor has not worked on this topic at all? RESPONSE A: If it aint on google scholar it don't exist. RESPONSE B: I do not know if this applies to all fields and countries, but the department should publish a list of publications each year. that list of publications should be pretty complete, since money (for the department) depends on it. however, this is only published once a year Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: red flags? Hi everyone, I have a few interviews set up with potential PhD supervisors overseas (my field is organic chemistry). Obviously I know that being interested in the project is important, but I've also read so many horror stories about how having a bad PhD advisor can essentially ruin your career. I'd obviously like to avoid this at all costs and really make sure that the advisor is kind, understanding, reliable and doesn't work their students into the ground. Do any of you have any suggestions on how to figure out if the advisor is a good fit? Are their any particular questions you'd recommend asking in your interview? Anything you wish you'd known about your advisor before you started your PhD? Any advice would be very much appreciated. RESPONSE A: \- how often the advisor meets with their students \- how much feedback they give on papers/thesis chapter \- whether there are known advisor/advisee issues that routinely take place \- whether they are available to give advice on job hunting after graduation, and by that I mean even a small chat about it RESPONSE B: So many red flags possible...I'll try to give some clues I wish I knew before: 1. High turnover of people (difficult to see but you can maybe ask lab-members) 2. Very low turnover of people (the forever students, people who cant publish...) 3. Only very high-impact papers but few per year (most projects not published or merged) 4. People having same projects and competing towards the same goal 5. Very general projects or proposals (the projects you are proposed) 6. People of the lab are unfriendly, snappy or tense about talking about the lab 7. Few collaborations (can see it on publications) 8. Short collaborations (only one paper with each lab) 9. Lab-head is very unavailable for talk and email 10. People leave the lab without publications 11. Students don´t publish first author, only staff scientists 12. Long-term staff scientists or post docs dont publish co-last with the head 13. Lot's of drama in the lab, fights and insults. Bullying. 14. People work all the time 15. How many people have "succeeded" after the lab. Do they stay in touch with their old lab? Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: Questions for potential PhD supervisors to help identify red flags? Hi everyone, I have a few interviews set up with potential PhD supervisors overseas (my field is organic chemistry). Obviously I know that being interested in the project is important, but I've also read so many horror stories about how having a bad PhD advisor can essentially ruin your career. I'd obviously like to avoid this at all costs and really make sure that the advisor is kind, understanding, reliable and doesn't work their students into the ground. Do any of you have any suggestions on how to figure out if the advisor is a good fit? Are their any particular questions you'd recommend asking in your interview? Anything you wish you'd known about your advisor before you started your PhD? Any advice would be very much appreciated. RESPONSE A: Ask if you can meet their current students/postdocs to chat to them after the interview or before you start. If they don't let you spend time alone with them, huge red flag. This is what my PhD supervisor did with new people. The current people are unlikely to say bad things, but if they don't say good things, pay attention to that. And don't work in a lab where two people working there are married/partners, especially if one is the supervisor. It's hell. RESPONSE B: \- how often the advisor meets with their students \- how much feedback they give on papers/thesis chapter \- whether there are known advisor/advisee issues that routinely take place \- whether they are available to give advice on job hunting after graduation, and by that I mean even a small chat about it Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: handled the situation. So in a nut shell, a new student entered the graduate program in my department this past year. For some reason, this student thought it was a good idea to begin to bash my research and my labs research in pretty public settings. He started off by saying loudly at several recruitment sessions that we didn't know what they are doing and that our data was crap. The thing that has really annoyed me is that he has been directly bad mouthing my project. He went as far as to approach several other incoming students and tell them to not go near our group, we have no idea what we are doing (In more specifics language to our research). Things ended up getting back to me and my labmates and everyone was pretty annoyed. It wasn't an isolated incident either -- things kept coming back to us for the last 8 months. Outside of getting annoyed, no one really did much about it because we are a very successful research group and don't have much to prove to a 1st year grad student. However, it turns out that this student is now lobbying hard to join a lab that we collaborate very closely with. This would mean I would have to work closely with this person who has been bad mouthing me and even train them. How would you approach this situation? Would you confront them? Try to block their entry into the sister lab? Ignore it and stop being a baby? I appreciate the advice! RESPONSE A: > However, it turns out that this student is now lobbying hard to join a lab that we collaborate very closely with. Is that a close enough collaboration to call them up and say "hey, this dude is an asshole"? RESPONSE B: Can you try confronting them if it's important (it seems like it will be)? "I have heard rumors that you haven't been impressed with my lab's output - if we are going to work together in Sister Lab, I think it's good to hear out your ideas"... Are you the PI? If so I think it would be reasonable to calmly discuss this situation with the Sister Lab PI. Not to sabotage the student's chances, but to not have to say "I should have said something" later on. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: in my department who has gone around bad mouthing me and my groups research. I'm sure this isn't a unique situation, so I'd love to hear how other people handled the situation. So in a nut shell, a new student entered the graduate program in my department this past year. For some reason, this student thought it was a good idea to begin to bash my research and my labs research in pretty public settings. He started off by saying loudly at several recruitment sessions that we didn't know what they are doing and that our data was crap. The thing that has really annoyed me is that he has been directly bad mouthing my project. He went as far as to approach several other incoming students and tell them to not go near our group, we have no idea what we are doing (In more specifics language to our research). Things ended up getting back to me and my labmates and everyone was pretty annoyed. It wasn't an isolated incident either -- things kept coming back to us for the last 8 months. Outside of getting annoyed, no one really did much about it because we are a very successful research group and don't have much to prove to a 1st year grad student. However, it turns out that this student is now lobbying hard to join a lab that we collaborate very closely with. This would mean I would have to work closely with this person who has been bad mouthing me and even train them. How would you approach this situation? Would you confront them? Try to block their entry into the sister lab? Ignore it and stop being a baby? I appreciate the advice! RESPONSE A: I stop citing them. Take that h-index! RESPONSE B: Can you try confronting them if it's important (it seems like it will be)? "I have heard rumors that you haven't been impressed with my lab's output - if we are going to work together in Sister Lab, I think it's good to hear out your ideas"... Are you the PI? If so I think it would be reasonable to calmly discuss this situation with the Sister Lab PI. Not to sabotage the student's chances, but to not have to say "I should have said something" later on. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: Do you write in a very linear fashion? I was thinking about how all my writing on computers these days has bits switched between the beginning, middle, and end, and I often think of something to write in the middle or end before writing something in the beginning. I also end up deleting a lot. When I was younger I wrote with pen and paper so I always wrote in linear fashion but I was not writing essays. I also have trouble writing and conversing with others because I have a bad habit of producing abstract thoughts that I can't think immediately think of examples for. For example,.... this haha I can write essays - particularly science essays - fine if I am given weeks. I failed high school English because I could not write two essays analysing specific readings in three hours. RESPONSE A: Hand writing still gives me more linear thought than typing. I usually have to write out essays then copy them into word document form. RESPONSE B: I have terrible ADHD but have just leaned into it at this point and am able to work with it— and, I think, to make it work for me in many ways. I see that you said it’s causing you to take too long with your writing, but I’ve had the opposite experience. As long as I map out the various parts of a paper before starting, it stays reasonably organized, even when I’m constantly switching around to different parts. I’ve found that trying to write from beginning to end w/o skipping around stifling / sometimes just undoable, and the result for me is that it ends up taking me waaayyy longer to write that way. Can I ask whether you map out the various points of a paper before you start writing the actual sentences, or go into it freestyle? Just freestyling takes me forever, so I start with a solid basis for every paragraph (usually make notes to myself about what each will cover and then write at least one sentence for each section, set them in order, and build around those sentences). Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: When you write, how much time do you actually spend writing? I've been feeling lately that, when I have full days available to devote to writing, I get much more writing done with three hours of focused work per day than when spending the full day at my desk trying to write, writing a bit, getting distracted, writing a bit more, etc. On the one hand, I'm sort of pleased with this discovery. My recent writing days have been more productive than before, and at the same time I've had so much more free time. On the other hand, I feel like a slacker. If I can get one section of writing (e.g.) done in 3 hours, shouldn't I force myself to spend at least another three hours and tackle a second section? In the past that's exactly what I would have done, but I'm starting to think that just the intention of spending 6 hours writing makes even the first hour less productive. Just as with intense exercise, it's easier to force yourself to keep focused if you know it's just for a little while. I'd love to hear how others approach writing time and the self-imposed pressure to spend time trying to write. RESPONSE A: can't talk writing RESPONSE B: I have learned that about 2.5 hours is the right amount of time for me. Enough to get focused and hold the architecture of the paper in my mind. Longer than that, and I start to write jibberish. If I tried to write 8 hours at a stretch, I would have garbage at the end. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: When you write, how much time do you actually spend writing? I've been feeling lately that, when I have full days available to devote to writing, I get much more writing done with three hours of focused work per day than when spending the full day at my desk trying to write, writing a bit, getting distracted, writing a bit more, etc. On the one hand, I'm sort of pleased with this discovery. My recent writing days have been more productive than before, and at the same time I've had so much more free time. On the other hand, I feel like a slacker. If I can get one section of writing (e.g.) done in 3 hours, shouldn't I force myself to spend at least another three hours and tackle a second section? In the past that's exactly what I would have done, but I'm starting to think that just the intention of spending 6 hours writing makes even the first hour less productive. Just as with intense exercise, it's easier to force yourself to keep focused if you know it's just for a little while. I'd love to hear how others approach writing time and the self-imposed pressure to spend time trying to write. RESPONSE A: Sounds like you might find the Pomodoro technique useful if you're not already familiar with it. RESPONSE B: can't talk writing Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: When you write, how much time do you actually spend writing? I've been feeling lately that, when I have full days available to devote to writing, I get much more writing done with three hours of focused work per day than when spending the full day at my desk trying to write, writing a bit, getting distracted, writing a bit more, etc. On the one hand, I'm sort of pleased with this discovery. My recent writing days have been more productive than before, and at the same time I've had so much more free time. On the other hand, I feel like a slacker. If I can get one section of writing (e.g.) done in 3 hours, shouldn't I force myself to spend at least another three hours and tackle a second section? In the past that's exactly what I would have done, but I'm starting to think that just the intention of spending 6 hours writing makes even the first hour less productive. Just as with intense exercise, it's easier to force yourself to keep focused if you know it's just for a little while. I'd love to hear how others approach writing time and the self-imposed pressure to spend time trying to write. RESPONSE A: Sounds like you might find the Pomodoro technique useful if you're not already familiar with it. RESPONSE B: Hey, I'm in the same boat! I had all summer to finish my thesis (and to be fair, I finished everything but the Discussion) and have made more headway in the first few weeks of the term than I did in all of July and August. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: When you write, how much time do you actually spend writing? I've been feeling lately that, when I have full days available to devote to writing, I get much more writing done with three hours of focused work per day than when spending the full day at my desk trying to write, writing a bit, getting distracted, writing a bit more, etc. On the one hand, I'm sort of pleased with this discovery. My recent writing days have been more productive than before, and at the same time I've had so much more free time. On the other hand, I feel like a slacker. If I can get one section of writing (e.g.) done in 3 hours, shouldn't I force myself to spend at least another three hours and tackle a second section? In the past that's exactly what I would have done, but I'm starting to think that just the intention of spending 6 hours writing makes even the first hour less productive. Just as with intense exercise, it's easier to force yourself to keep focused if you know it's just for a little while. I'd love to hear how others approach writing time and the self-imposed pressure to spend time trying to write. RESPONSE A: I have learned that about 2.5 hours is the right amount of time for me. Enough to get focused and hold the architecture of the paper in my mind. Longer than that, and I start to write jibberish. If I tried to write 8 hours at a stretch, I would have garbage at the end. RESPONSE B: Sounds like you might find the Pomodoro technique useful if you're not already familiar with it. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: When you write, how much time do you actually spend writing? I've been feeling lately that, when I have full days available to devote to writing, I get much more writing done with three hours of focused work per day than when spending the full day at my desk trying to write, writing a bit, getting distracted, writing a bit more, etc. On the one hand, I'm sort of pleased with this discovery. My recent writing days have been more productive than before, and at the same time I've had so much more free time. On the other hand, I feel like a slacker. If I can get one section of writing (e.g.) done in 3 hours, shouldn't I force myself to spend at least another three hours and tackle a second section? In the past that's exactly what I would have done, but I'm starting to think that just the intention of spending 6 hours writing makes even the first hour less productive. Just as with intense exercise, it's easier to force yourself to keep focused if you know it's just for a little while. I'd love to hear how others approach writing time and the self-imposed pressure to spend time trying to write. RESPONSE A: Sounds like you might find the Pomodoro technique useful if you're not already familiar with it. RESPONSE B: Write a paragraph a day. If you're inspired, go beyond. If not, stop at the end of the paragraph. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: How do people find out/search for post doc positions? As per title, I'm in STEM, finishing a PhD working in electrochemistry. Just how do people find out about post doc positions in othe laboratories/countries? I only personally know very few groups in my own country, but I would prefer to try and do a post doc in another country, both for the experience of going abroad, knowing a need lab/work environment, network, etc. With this in mind, just how do people know when/where these opportunities are known? I don't know anyone in a foreign group so I have no friends to ask for. For EU countries I know about the erasmus mundus program, but that doesn't include all of their universities. For north america and asian countries, I have no idea really. My best idea so far, besides posting this question here, was to search on twitter to see which authors/groups (that I know by name, from reading their work) are present, and if they have posted a message about there being a post doc position available. RESPONSE A: Speaking for the US, many faculty have a lab website where they will have an "opportunities" section or something similar where they list whether they are currently accepting applications for undergrad/grad/postdoc researchers. Of course this requires being familiar with some names in your field so you know where to look. Hopefully this is also something you can ask your PhD advisor about, and/or your university has a career resources center for grad students? RESPONSE B: - ask your supervisor if he heard something - job vacancy subscription fees - professional associations in the respective countries might have a job site/newsletter - and finally and this I can't recommend enough, if there's a group that you read about or otherwise found out about that looks cool but has nothing advertised on their website, STILL EMAIL THEM. They might have an opening. They might make one for you. They might have interest in writing a grant application for your job with you. You never know. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: How do people find out/search for post doc positions? As per title, I'm in STEM, finishing a PhD working in electrochemistry. Just how do people find out about post doc positions in othe laboratories/countries? I only personally know very few groups in my own country, but I would prefer to try and do a post doc in another country, both for the experience of going abroad, knowing a need lab/work environment, network, etc. With this in mind, just how do people know when/where these opportunities are known? I don't know anyone in a foreign group so I have no friends to ask for. For EU countries I know about the erasmus mundus program, but that doesn't include all of their universities. For north america and asian countries, I have no idea really. My best idea so far, besides posting this question here, was to search on twitter to see which authors/groups (that I know by name, from reading their work) are present, and if they have posted a message about there being a post doc position available. RESPONSE A: - ask your supervisor if he heard something - job vacancy subscription fees - professional associations in the respective countries might have a job site/newsletter - and finally and this I can't recommend enough, if there's a group that you read about or otherwise found out about that looks cool but has nothing advertised on their website, STILL EMAIL THEM. They might have an opening. They might make one for you. They might have interest in writing a grant application for your job with you. You never know. RESPONSE B: Twitter is probably your best bet. In my field, we also had a forum. However, the best way is to reach out to the PI you are interested in working with and attach your CV, write what you did in your PhD, why you are interested in their lab, and whether they can skype with you to briefly discuss opportunities. Hope that helps! Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: Are scholars allowed to make dubious and unsubstantiated claims in the abstract, if it's for context or background rather than the focus of the paper, or are they expected to maintain higher standards of fact checking and accuracy in general? RESPONSE A: If you think this is a question with a grey area, then you probably don't know what 'dubious and unsubstantiated' means. RESPONSE B: Are you basically asking how click-baity you can make your abstract s? Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: Are you done if you don't get any grants? (UK, Psych) This grant thing is quite confusing to me and any in general content that could help me understand it is appreciated. So, from what I've gathered, grants are quite competitive and you have like 10-15% chance, meaning that it's quite possible that you'd never get a grant. Let's say you did your best and failed to get grants, what happens then? does that mean academia is not for you? RESPONSE A: It likely means that you work in a post-92 and teach a lot but still get to research or you work in an RG on a teaching only contract. Psych is a popular teaching area so people still have careers. RESPONSE B: In the UK, there is less of a need to get research funding from grants. Thanks to the dual-funding system, your research time is guaranteed at the time you sign your contract. Afterall, you can't buy yourself out of teaching completely. The main advantage of external funding is that you can hire PhDs and postdocs. If you have a good research (publications), teaching, and admin record you can get to senior researcher --don't forget, there is no tenure in the UK and passing the probation period is a matter of you not breaking any institutional work policies. In theory, you don't need any external funding to make to full professor, but in reality it is unlikely to make to Reader if you lack any external funding. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: Are you done if you don't get any grants? (UK, Psych) This grant thing is quite confusing to me and any in general content that could help me understand it is appreciated. So, from what I've gathered, grants are quite competitive and you have like 10-15% chance, meaning that it's quite possible that you'd never get a grant. Let's say you did your best and failed to get grants, what happens then? does that mean academia is not for you? RESPONSE A: It likely means that you work in a post-92 and teach a lot but still get to research or you work in an RG on a teaching only contract. Psych is a popular teaching area so people still have careers. RESPONSE B: Well, yeah, if your institution requires research, and you can't get external funds to support research, you likely won't get tenured. I've seen tenure track faculty (US) not get reappointed *before* tenure due to lousy performance. It's a crappy system and I am charting my way out. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: Are you done if you don't get any grants? (UK, Psych) This grant thing is quite confusing to me and any in general content that could help me understand it is appreciated. So, from what I've gathered, grants are quite competitive and you have like 10-15% chance, meaning that it's quite possible that you'd never get a grant. Let's say you did your best and failed to get grants, what happens then? does that mean academia is not for you? RESPONSE A: /r/AskAcademiaUK RESPONSE B: To write grant proposals is something quite different from writing research, and even research proposals in general. Sometimes highly competent researchers never crack the code. Many people merely write proposals about something allegedly important that they are interested in and want to work with. Other people write more in-depth about the importance of the project but are quite vague on the details on the methodology side. The job isn't just to convince reviewers that it is important and that you are the right person for the job. You need to help them in their internal argument why the other 90 % is less important and less risky. To give you money instead of many others, they need to feel certain that you have a realistic plan and that it is detailed enough on the methodology side. Also, you need to see these 90-10 numbers in perspective. You don't have to think of it as 90 % of the applicants should go and find something else to do, and that only 10 % are "worthy". You could just as well think of it that you have to apply 10 times for every successful grant on average. (In truth, the reality is somewhere in between, of course. Some people are obviously more successful than others in this.) Some people's route to success is to collaborate with the right people, especially in the beginning. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: Are you done if you don't get any grants? (UK, Psych) This grant thing is quite confusing to me and any in general content that could help me understand it is appreciated. So, from what I've gathered, grants are quite competitive and you have like 10-15% chance, meaning that it's quite possible that you'd never get a grant. Let's say you did your best and failed to get grants, what happens then? does that mean academia is not for you? RESPONSE A: Maybe RESPONSE B: To write grant proposals is something quite different from writing research, and even research proposals in general. Sometimes highly competent researchers never crack the code. Many people merely write proposals about something allegedly important that they are interested in and want to work with. Other people write more in-depth about the importance of the project but are quite vague on the details on the methodology side. The job isn't just to convince reviewers that it is important and that you are the right person for the job. You need to help them in their internal argument why the other 90 % is less important and less risky. To give you money instead of many others, they need to feel certain that you have a realistic plan and that it is detailed enough on the methodology side. Also, you need to see these 90-10 numbers in perspective. You don't have to think of it as 90 % of the applicants should go and find something else to do, and that only 10 % are "worthy". You could just as well think of it that you have to apply 10 times for every successful grant on average. (In truth, the reality is somewhere in between, of course. Some people are obviously more successful than others in this.) Some people's route to success is to collaborate with the right people, especially in the beginning. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: Can’t get a response from my PI I recently started a graduate program and have a PI who almost never responds to me. This time, I need a signature from them, and I had already let them know about this deadline last month. They never answered those original emails (but should be aware of the deadline because it’s a school-wide deadline). This PI is also notoriously not in their office, so I can’t just go in person to discuss this. So a few days ago I sent another email to remind them and re-attach the docs that needed signing, still no response. I’m starting to worry as the deadline is getting really close and I have not received any response. I’ve only ever received a response from them when I was still choosing my PI, or if I’ve sent a few reminder emails. How do I go about this? Any opinions? RESPONSE A: I can't be of much help with this but I will say, I started giving my PI from grad school fake deadlines. If something was due in 4 weeks, I'd tell them the deadline is in 3 weeks. I'd inevitably get whatever I needed from them *exactly* 3 weeks later, which gave me a week buffer so I wasn't stressing. RESPONSE B: If you are a PI and you are reading this, do **NOT EVER** put your students or advisees in this position. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: Can’t get a response from my PI I recently started a graduate program and have a PI who almost never responds to me. This time, I need a signature from them, and I had already let them know about this deadline last month. They never answered those original emails (but should be aware of the deadline because it’s a school-wide deadline). This PI is also notoriously not in their office, so I can’t just go in person to discuss this. So a few days ago I sent another email to remind them and re-attach the docs that needed signing, still no response. I’m starting to worry as the deadline is getting really close and I have not received any response. I’ve only ever received a response from them when I was still choosing my PI, or if I’ve sent a few reminder emails. How do I go about this? Any opinions? RESPONSE A: Do you have weekly/bi-weekly/monthly one-on-one meetings with your PI? If you do, you can bring it up then. If not, that's a red flag, and you might want to consider switching labs. RESPONSE B: If you are a PI and you are reading this, do **NOT EVER** put your students or advisees in this position. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: Can’t get a response from my PI I recently started a graduate program and have a PI who almost never responds to me. This time, I need a signature from them, and I had already let them know about this deadline last month. They never answered those original emails (but should be aware of the deadline because it’s a school-wide deadline). This PI is also notoriously not in their office, so I can’t just go in person to discuss this. So a few days ago I sent another email to remind them and re-attach the docs that needed signing, still no response. I’m starting to worry as the deadline is getting really close and I have not received any response. I’ve only ever received a response from them when I was still choosing my PI, or if I’ve sent a few reminder emails. How do I go about this? Any opinions? RESPONSE A: You might want to find out what’s the best way to communicate with them from their close(st) colleagues. If this person runs a group then their group members know how to get them to talk. If it’s too urgent right now, text them or/and call them. I am in a similar situation with my academic advisor. I know how frustrating and painful this could be. RESPONSE B: Do you have a grad college representative you can talk to? This is not okay. In the meantime you can try to strong arm them. If they don't respond keep sending the same email or versions of several times. That way you have a record of attempts, and if they don't respond, screenshot all of the unanswered emails and send it to them. I had to do this when my adviser didn't read my dissertation draft for 6 months. I sent my adviser an email saying "I have reached out regarding edits x times and I have not received even a response back (see below). According to the grad college rules, you are required to respond with edits within three weeks. If I do not receive these by x date, I will not be on track to graduate. " After that he got his shit together. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: very high, but we can live in subsidized student housing until I graduate. Currently we are living on my stipend and saving my spouse’s paychecks. We expect to have at least a 10% down payment saved by graduation. Probably could save more but we’d have to back off on retirement savings for a while. Would it be unreasonable for us to be able to buy a small condo directly after my graduation? I’d very likely have a job lined up (past students in my lab had no problems finding local employment) but would not actually start until a bit after graduation. In theory we’d love to close on a condo shortly before I graduate so that we can move in directly. This is both to avoid outrageous rent prices and having to move twice. It’s not so much that we can’t afford rent, but we both know that home ownership is a goal for us, so we’d rather start putting our money toward that instead of rent. Has anyone else gone this route? Any experiences and advice appreciated. RESPONSE A: We bought our first (and current) home when I was in grad school. Just make sure you will not need to move for at least a few years. Otherwise it's not a smart investment. Not many grad students can be confident about being able to find a job in the same city as their PhD program, but if that's not an issue for you, go for it. This is a good time for mortgages (low interest rates) and I completely understand the desire to build equity. Also, waiting to put down 20% may not make a lot of sense, because there is an opportunity cost to consider (again, interest rates are very low right now). I suggest going to r/realestate for advice on that. RESPONSE B: Do a 20% down payment as you will save substantially on the required mortgage insurance, if that means putting off buying till you have the 20% saved up, so be it...don’t sacrifice the retirement savings. And yes this is the rote we did, we moved eventually from the town we were both studying in but were able to sell and make a good profit to do a down payment on our dream house in the city we both landed dream jobs in. Which response is better? RESPONSE
A
POST: to increase in the next couple of years. Our city also offers several assistance programs for first-time homebuyers below a certain income threshold, which we would definitely exceed once I start my first post-PhD job. Rent in our SoCal city is very high, but we can live in subsidized student housing until I graduate. Currently we are living on my stipend and saving my spouse’s paychecks. We expect to have at least a 10% down payment saved by graduation. Probably could save more but we’d have to back off on retirement savings for a while. Would it be unreasonable for us to be able to buy a small condo directly after my graduation? I’d very likely have a job lined up (past students in my lab had no problems finding local employment) but would not actually start until a bit after graduation. In theory we’d love to close on a condo shortly before I graduate so that we can move in directly. This is both to avoid outrageous rent prices and having to move twice. It’s not so much that we can’t afford rent, but we both know that home ownership is a goal for us, so we’d rather start putting our money toward that instead of rent. Has anyone else gone this route? Any experiences and advice appreciated. RESPONSE A: We bought our first (and current) home when I was in grad school. Just make sure you will not need to move for at least a few years. Otherwise it's not a smart investment. Not many grad students can be confident about being able to find a job in the same city as their PhD program, but if that's not an issue for you, go for it. This is a good time for mortgages (low interest rates) and I completely understand the desire to build equity. Also, waiting to put down 20% may not make a lot of sense, because there is an opportunity cost to consider (again, interest rates are very low right now). I suggest going to r/realestate for advice on that. RESPONSE B: I'm planning on going this route as well - ditto what the other commenter said about waiting and saving up more for a larger down payment, the reduced interest rate will pay off in the end. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: will stay in my current city as it’s a major hub for my field. I’m also married to a non student with an engineering job. Current household income = $70k gross (all W-2). My spouse's income is very likely to increase in the next couple of years. Our city also offers several assistance programs for first-time homebuyers below a certain income threshold, which we would definitely exceed once I start my first post-PhD job. Rent in our SoCal city is very high, but we can live in subsidized student housing until I graduate. Currently we are living on my stipend and saving my spouse’s paychecks. We expect to have at least a 10% down payment saved by graduation. Probably could save more but we’d have to back off on retirement savings for a while. Would it be unreasonable for us to be able to buy a small condo directly after my graduation? I’d very likely have a job lined up (past students in my lab had no problems finding local employment) but would not actually start until a bit after graduation. In theory we’d love to close on a condo shortly before I graduate so that we can move in directly. This is both to avoid outrageous rent prices and having to move twice. It’s not so much that we can’t afford rent, but we both know that home ownership is a goal for us, so we’d rather start putting our money toward that instead of rent. Has anyone else gone this route? Any experiences and advice appreciated. RESPONSE A: I'm planning on going this route as well - ditto what the other commenter said about waiting and saving up more for a larger down payment, the reduced interest rate will pay off in the end. RESPONSE B: Make sure you’re going to live there for at least a few years to build equity; run the numbers on income, what % of your net the mortgage, insurance, and fees would be each month, etc. Don’t forget that owning has a big upkeep investment (of time and sweat), as well; depending on property, you may need to be ready to fix/maintain a lot of things that a renter would outsource (for free) to her landlord. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: to a non student with an engineering job. Current household income = $70k gross (all W-2). My spouse's income is very likely to increase in the next couple of years. Our city also offers several assistance programs for first-time homebuyers below a certain income threshold, which we would definitely exceed once I start my first post-PhD job. Rent in our SoCal city is very high, but we can live in subsidized student housing until I graduate. Currently we are living on my stipend and saving my spouse’s paychecks. We expect to have at least a 10% down payment saved by graduation. Probably could save more but we’d have to back off on retirement savings for a while. Would it be unreasonable for us to be able to buy a small condo directly after my graduation? I’d very likely have a job lined up (past students in my lab had no problems finding local employment) but would not actually start until a bit after graduation. In theory we’d love to close on a condo shortly before I graduate so that we can move in directly. This is both to avoid outrageous rent prices and having to move twice. It’s not so much that we can’t afford rent, but we both know that home ownership is a goal for us, so we’d rather start putting our money toward that instead of rent. Has anyone else gone this route? Any experiences and advice appreciated. RESPONSE A: I'm planning on going this route as well - ditto what the other commenter said about waiting and saving up more for a larger down payment, the reduced interest rate will pay off in the end. RESPONSE B: If you're living in Southern California, then even a small condo will likely be very expensive, so the main question is whether you can qualify for a loan on the basis of a combined income of $70K. A 10% down payment is quite respectable for a first time homebuyer, and if the rate of appreciation in real estate continues, then it probably isn't worth it to delay your purchase in order to save up a 20% downpayment, particularly given the low interest rates. But, you're talking about 3-4 years down the road, and things can change dramatically over that time. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: is very high, but we can live in subsidized student housing until I graduate. Currently we are living on my stipend and saving my spouse’s paychecks. We expect to have at least a 10% down payment saved by graduation. Probably could save more but we’d have to back off on retirement savings for a while. Would it be unreasonable for us to be able to buy a small condo directly after my graduation? I’d very likely have a job lined up (past students in my lab had no problems finding local employment) but would not actually start until a bit after graduation. In theory we’d love to close on a condo shortly before I graduate so that we can move in directly. This is both to avoid outrageous rent prices and having to move twice. It’s not so much that we can’t afford rent, but we both know that home ownership is a goal for us, so we’d rather start putting our money toward that instead of rent. Has anyone else gone this route? Any experiences and advice appreciated. RESPONSE A: My partner and I did this. I started my PhD program this year and we bought our home in September. What made it possible was having a good chunk saved and my part-time job. If you have savings, the hardest piece as a grad student will be demonstrating that you can pay the mortgage. If possible, try to find a flexible job that you can work up to 20 hours a week but don’t have to/won’t receive pressure to. That way you can honestly say your income could be as high as 20 hours a week at that job if you hit hard times. RESPONSE B: If you're living in Southern California, then even a small condo will likely be very expensive, so the main question is whether you can qualify for a loan on the basis of a combined income of $70K. A 10% down payment is quite respectable for a first time homebuyer, and if the rate of appreciation in real estate continues, then it probably isn't worth it to delay your purchase in order to save up a 20% downpayment, particularly given the low interest rates. But, you're talking about 3-4 years down the road, and things can change dramatically over that time. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: hr days) and working from home one day a week doing writing, reading, data workup, experiment planning, etc. I really liked this schedule as it allowed me to principally focus on lab when I was there and then focus on desk-related work once a week. Additionally, it gave me freedom to have weekends to spend time with family, friends, and enjoy hobbies to keep myself sane! However, now that I have started my postdoc, this schedule seems to be viewed as lazy and not putting enough work in. My new advisor is younger and more hands-on, but before joining the lab, I clarified that her metric for evaluation was on project progress rather than hours worked. My question is whether you think working this schedule is unreasonable or not enough for a postdoc. My standpoint is that if I can complete the work necessary to move my projects forward at a reasonable pace, then the hours worked in lab is irrelevant. However, I also understand that for many labs, the culture for postdocs is to have a very high output that necessitates longer hours in lab. For context, I am a chemist with plans on going into industry after my postdoc. Thanks for your input! RESPONSE A: It is not necessarily unreasonable, and I get that it works for a lot of people, but each lab has their own culture and way of doing things. There could be many reasons they want you around. First, you are new and you do need to establish trust and show your work ethic. If you are new, there also might not be many papers to be working on yet. They might also want you around because they have more impromptu discussions and value that face to face time. As a postdoc, they might also want you around to help others and be a positive presence overall for the lab. Running my lab through COVID, I'm happy that many were productive at home, but I am also aware of all the intangible things that were lost not having face to face interactions. My advice is give it time. Get settled, get to know your labmates and supervisor, let them see your work ethic, and re-examine it down the road. RESPONSE B: 4x12 is already more than you should work, TBH. Which response is better? RESPONSE
B
POST: sonable to Work From Home One Day a Week as a Postdoc? Hi All, So I recently started a postdoc and so far I really enjoy the research! During my PhD, my advisor was very hands off and allowed us to make our own schedule. I was good at setting my own hours and found that I worked efficiently and well by working 4 long days in lab (12-15 hr days) and working from home one day a week doing writing, reading, data workup, experiment planning, etc. I really liked this schedule as it allowed me to principally focus on lab when I was there and then focus on desk-related work once a week. Additionally, it gave me freedom to have weekends to spend time with family, friends, and enjoy hobbies to keep myself sane! However, now that I have started my postdoc, this schedule seems to be viewed as lazy and not putting enough work in. My new advisor is younger and more hands-on, but before joining the lab, I clarified that her metric for evaluation was on project progress rather than hours worked. My question is whether you think working this schedule is unreasonable or not enough for a postdoc. My standpoint is that if I can complete the work necessary to move my projects forward at a reasonable pace, then the hours worked in lab is irrelevant. However, I also understand that for many labs, the culture for postdocs is to have a very high output that necessitates longer hours in lab. For context, I am a chemist with plans on going into industry after my postdoc. Thanks for your input! RESPONSE A: I think the PI will really set the lab culture and could see a younger one with a smaller group pushing their postdocs for more hours in the office/lab. It helps inspire younger students and push the groups output. A very famous and established PI with a large group and lab would typically be all about output not time (their labs/offices are usually always occupied during allowed hours anyway because of shared space/equipment/etc). So it depends on the group. Just have an honest discussion about what they expect and how you would like to manage your time. RESPONSE B: 4x12 is already more than you should work, TBH. Which response is better? RESPONSE