label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
A
|
POST: What can I do to advance the cause of open access?
RESPONSE A: Have your papers (preprints) available on arXiv or similar sites, and encourage others to do it too. It does not solve all problems, but it's a good first step that's both effective and easy to do for anyone.
RESPONSE B: Cite papers from open access journals. And promote them at tenure and promotion committee meetings.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Faculty members who work at teaching colleges, what kind of cover letters are the most appealing to you? What do they contain? Any advise is appreciated.
RESPONSE A: I get super bitter when I read between the lines and realize that the candidate washed out of a search for a position at an R1 school, and is defaulting to teaching. Your cover letter should explain how teaching has been a part of your life for awhile, and that your doctorate was gained in service of the desire to teach.
RESPONSE B: Your cover letter should respond to every point in the job ad: point-by-point call attention to how you satisfy every required and preferred qualification. This approach shows you actually read the requirements, that you cared enough to write a specific letter for this job, and that you DO meet the qualifications. One of the qualifications at a teaching institution will concern your teaching experience so state your qualifications. Very factually with no BS, but also don't be modest.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What tools do you use in organising your day and writing your dissertation as a PhD/postdoc researcher?
RESPONSE A: I like going to a cafe to write and resist the urge to turn on the wifi. Harder to get distracted by lab work, and I can't just walk away from my laptop. It's also much harder to fall asleep in a cafe compared to, say, a library--I think it's the caffeine and social stigma of it all!
RESPONSE B: It takes me a long time to get into the mode where I'm getting good work done. So I cleared off entire days that were just about writing. If writing wasn't the first thing I did when I woke up after breakfast, writing wasn't going to get done. So even if something else had to get done (chores, errands, etc) I always made sure they went second to writing.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why do Graduate Robes feel so CHEAP? I’m about to graduate from my Masters and the gown feels so CHEAP. What gives?
RESPONSE A: You wear a Master’s or Bachelor’s robe once. You might wear a Doctoral robe 1-4x per year for decades if faculty. So, there is an order of magnitude difference in cost and quality.
RESPONSE B: You get what you pay for. You can easy shell out $1000 or more for high quality doctoral robes.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why do Graduate Robes feel so CHEAP? I’m about to graduate from my Masters and the gown feels so CHEAP. What gives?
RESPONSE A: You wear a Master’s or Bachelor’s robe once. You might wear a Doctoral robe 1-4x per year for decades if faculty. So, there is an order of magnitude difference in cost and quality.
RESPONSE B: You wear it once and people say you need it, thats why. Why make it out of satin?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why do Graduate Robes feel so CHEAP? I’m about to graduate from my Masters and the gown feels so CHEAP. What gives?
RESPONSE A: You wear a Master’s or Bachelor’s robe once. You might wear a Doctoral robe 1-4x per year for decades if faculty. So, there is an order of magnitude difference in cost and quality.
RESPONSE B: I'm sure they're actually cheap (just not for the end user).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How to transition to calling PI by first name? I have known my PI for two years as a student, and this year I will start working in his lab as a research coordinator. I only ever call him Dr. X, but it seems strange to keep calling him by that when I am not an undergraduate student any more. He also signs his emails with his first name, but I don't know if this means that he's giving me permission to refer to him by it. It feels like one of those situations where too much time has passed and now I feel super awkward asking him if I can call him by his name after all this time haha. Should I ask him through email if it's okay to call him by his first name, or should I just start doing it?
RESPONSE A: "Where are the coffee mugs, Peter? Can I call you Peter?"
RESPONSE B: I was in a similar position and I just started doing it. I don’t think there’s any need to ask for permission.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How to transition to calling PI by first name? I have known my PI for two years as a student, and this year I will start working in his lab as a research coordinator. I only ever call him Dr. X, but it seems strange to keep calling him by that when I am not an undergraduate student any more. He also signs his emails with his first name, but I don't know if this means that he's giving me permission to refer to him by it. It feels like one of those situations where too much time has passed and now I feel super awkward asking him if I can call him by his name after all this time haha. Should I ask him through email if it's okay to call him by his first name, or should I just start doing it?
RESPONSE A: Just start doing it. You are peers
RESPONSE B: "Where are the coffee mugs, Peter? Can I call you Peter?"
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How to transition to calling PI by first name? I have known my PI for two years as a student, and this year I will start working in his lab as a research coordinator. I only ever call him Dr. X, but it seems strange to keep calling him by that when I am not an undergraduate student any more. He also signs his emails with his first name, but I don't know if this means that he's giving me permission to refer to him by it. It feels like one of those situations where too much time has passed and now I feel super awkward asking him if I can call him by his name after all this time haha. Should I ask him through email if it's okay to call him by his first name, or should I just start doing it?
RESPONSE A: Has he ever said anything like “Please call me Firstname!” I’m a senior/old professor and I have to do that with new young colleagues a few times before it sticks. That said, I know other professors who wish to be called “Professor Lastname” by everyone. I don’t know which category your PI falls into. How does everyone else at different levels address him? Observe that and you may get your answer.
RESPONSE B: I was in a similar position and I just started doing it. I don’t think there’s any need to ask for permission.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How to transition to calling PI by first name? I have known my PI for two years as a student, and this year I will start working in his lab as a research coordinator. I only ever call him Dr. X, but it seems strange to keep calling him by that when I am not an undergraduate student any more. He also signs his emails with his first name, but I don't know if this means that he's giving me permission to refer to him by it. It feels like one of those situations where too much time has passed and now I feel super awkward asking him if I can call him by his name after all this time haha. Should I ask him through email if it's okay to call him by his first name, or should I just start doing it?
RESPONSE A: Has he ever said anything like “Please call me Firstname!” I’m a senior/old professor and I have to do that with new young colleagues a few times before it sticks. That said, I know other professors who wish to be called “Professor Lastname” by everyone. I don’t know which category your PI falls into. How does everyone else at different levels address him? Observe that and you may get your answer.
RESPONSE B: Just start doing it. You are peers
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How to transition to calling PI by first name? I have known my PI for two years as a student, and this year I will start working in his lab as a research coordinator. I only ever call him Dr. X, but it seems strange to keep calling him by that when I am not an undergraduate student any more. He also signs his emails with his first name, but I don't know if this means that he's giving me permission to refer to him by it. It feels like one of those situations where too much time has passed and now I feel super awkward asking him if I can call him by his name after all this time haha. Should I ask him through email if it's okay to call him by his first name, or should I just start doing it?
RESPONSE A: Just start doing it. You are peers
RESPONSE B: This is something I think students put more time / effort / worry into than it's worth. You're fine going either way - if he signs his emails with his first name, he's implicitly giving you permission to use it. Society is becoming more informal, but people always appreciate being treated with respect. Even if you can justify calling him by his first name, calling him Dr. X until he encourages you to call him by his first name isn't a terrible idea. In the future, calling supervisors and any significant others' parents by their formal name isn't likely to lead you astray...
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: We are four Stanford students looking to improve academic publishing and we want to hear from you! We are four students (incl. three MBAs and two PhDs), all of us fed up with academic publishing and embarking on a project to improve the process. But before we start building anything, we want to hear from as many scientists as possible. We'd love to hear your thoughts on what the biggest issues are. (The amount of time it takes? The opacity of peer reviews? The Elsevier racket?) Please leave your comments below, or PM me to arrange a short interview.
RESPONSE A: "Publish or perish" has replaced a community's pursuit of enlightenment. (this is on the academic and not the publisher side)
RESPONSE B: These issues are going to vary journal to journal. IEEE, OSA, APL have pretty good turn around time. No matter what you do, anonymous peer-review is a must have. The thing I'd like to see is what the OSA does, every time you review you get a free month of access. I wish more journals would do that.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: We are four Stanford students looking to improve academic publishing and we want to hear from you! We are four students (incl. three MBAs and two PhDs), all of us fed up with academic publishing and embarking on a project to improve the process. But before we start building anything, we want to hear from as many scientists as possible. We'd love to hear your thoughts on what the biggest issues are. (The amount of time it takes? The opacity of peer reviews? The Elsevier racket?) Please leave your comments below, or PM me to arrange a short interview.
RESPONSE A: These issues are going to vary journal to journal. IEEE, OSA, APL have pretty good turn around time. No matter what you do, anonymous peer-review is a must have. The thing I'd like to see is what the OSA does, every time you review you get a free month of access. I wish more journals would do that.
RESPONSE B: The problems lie in the incentives to game the system. Attempts to inflate the number of publications by breaking papers into pieces, do "one-off" studies that don't really show anything new, manipulate the citation statistics, and selectively manipulate results to show a preconceived conclusion (circular reasoning) are a few examples.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: and two PhDs), all of us fed up with academic publishing and embarking on a project to improve the process. But before we start building anything, we want to hear from as many scientists as possible. We'd love to hear your thoughts on what the biggest issues are. (The amount of time it takes? The opacity of peer reviews? The Elsevier racket?) Please leave your comments below, or PM me to arrange a short interview.
RESPONSE A: * **Cost** - Pay to publish, pay to submit (some journals), and pay to read. All journals should be open access * **Obsession with impact factor** - Everyone. Both with scientists, promotions committees, and the journals themselves. A mediocre paper in a "hot" field will get many more citations than a very solid paper in a less "hot" field * **Reviewer #3** - Just the idea that some anonymous (to you) scientist can dictate new experiments and send you down a path that usually does not add anything to the science, just more busy work. I could go on all day
RESPONSE B: Forgive me if my question is radically out of place, but it felt relevant. First, my topic is undergraduate publication. Second, the discipline for publication is Philosophy. A very well-respected philosophy professor at my well-known and highly-regarded institution (read: i'm trying to keep this low-key) said to me that undergraduate students wanting to publish work, or publish work in Philosophy, were following a fad which they felt would eventually die out. By means of the rest of our conversation, I understood that they implied that it seemed almost an insult to give voice to a student unprepared to add to the literature, as it seemed nearly certain that they would not have covered enough of the breadth of work to complete a realistic project. They also said that many seem to do it for fluff, to make a shiny resume or application for graduate school. My question is: do you feel this is an appropriate response? Is undergraduate publication a "fad" for the sake of praise, but not worthy of any real merit? Is this the case for philosophy, or even for all other undergraduate work? Thank you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How did you fall in love with research/science? I just noticed myself decidedly indifferent regarding an ongoing sports debate because I wanted to read more about this topic I love. From someone who loved sports to now science, it's such a big difference! Did anyone else go through this phase? Anyone have a fun story about falling in love with research? :)
RESPONSE A: I needed a summer job in college and randomly joined a biology lab thinking it would be easy money just washing glassware with no intention of being a researcher. I ended up getting a PhD...
RESPONSE B: From reading/watching too much scifis :)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How did you fall in love with research/science? I just noticed myself decidedly indifferent regarding an ongoing sports debate because I wanted to read more about this topic I love. From someone who loved sports to now science, it's such a big difference! Did anyone else go through this phase? Anyone have a fun story about falling in love with research? :)
RESPONSE A: i developed an amphetamine addiction, thought about what it’d take for me to synthesize myself and therefore gained interest in (pharmacology and) chemistry. i’ve overcome the addiction since but my interest for chemistry stayed. this is my story 😊
RESPONSE B: I’m still an undergrad student so I’m not sure if I’m allowed to answer but last semester the lab portion of a course I and a few other students (chemical and materials engineering) were taking was actually helping the professor out with some research he was doing. We learned the material testing methods and proper scientific literature review and writing while it was actually integrated around a specific topic of interest to the professor.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How did you fall in love with research/science? I just noticed myself decidedly indifferent regarding an ongoing sports debate because I wanted to read more about this topic I love. From someone who loved sports to now science, it's such a big difference! Did anyone else go through this phase? Anyone have a fun story about falling in love with research? :)
RESPONSE A: i developed an amphetamine addiction, thought about what it’d take for me to synthesize myself and therefore gained interest in (pharmacology and) chemistry. i’ve overcome the addiction since but my interest for chemistry stayed. this is my story 😊
RESPONSE B: I didn't ... Is the only thing I can do thanks to the amount of Nationality discrimination in finding a policy related job anywhere in Europe.... At least in academia with all of its rampant toxicity, lack of rewards and lack of innovation, they don't seem to care which passport you were given at birth.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How did you fall in love with research/science? I just noticed myself decidedly indifferent regarding an ongoing sports debate because I wanted to read more about this topic I love. From someone who loved sports to now science, it's such a big difference! Did anyone else go through this phase? Anyone have a fun story about falling in love with research? :)
RESPONSE A: The moment I saw Streptomyces stained with safranin the first time. Just pure elegance.
RESPONSE B: i developed an amphetamine addiction, thought about what it’d take for me to synthesize myself and therefore gained interest in (pharmacology and) chemistry. i’ve overcome the addiction since but my interest for chemistry stayed. this is my story 😊
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How did you fall in love with research/science? I just noticed myself decidedly indifferent regarding an ongoing sports debate because I wanted to read more about this topic I love. From someone who loved sports to now science, it's such a big difference! Did anyone else go through this phase? Anyone have a fun story about falling in love with research? :)
RESPONSE A: From reading/watching too much scifis :)
RESPONSE B: i developed an amphetamine addiction, thought about what it’d take for me to synthesize myself and therefore gained interest in (pharmacology and) chemistry. i’ve overcome the addiction since but my interest for chemistry stayed. this is my story 😊
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: are published are bad: >I view scientific literature through a different lens since writing my first paper. All I kept thinking was that I'm sure there are assholes like me doing whatever they need to just to get this thing published that they hardly care about. and >The best reason to make residents do research is so that they really, really understand how much BS most research actually is. and >If I don't do my terrible, poor-quality, poorly-funded research I can't have the high-quality career I am doing all the other work for. Unfortunately this comports entirely with my experience collaborating with MDs, who seem not at all interested in problems with multiple comparisons or lack of replication.
RESPONSE A: What I think is always missing from those comments is self-awareness. 1) Awareness that they are incredibly intelligent individuals and "bad" research that they produce is probably still OK because they live in a world where the standard is perfection and everyone went to school for over a decade, which warps their self-perception. And 2) self-awareness that if they are putting out junk, that might highlight that there are holes in the peer review process *at the potentially lower-level journals they are publishing in*, but, like OP said, it doesn't mean that there isn't a ton of quality research going in. That's like the dumbest kid at Harvard going, "man, if they let me in, this place must not really have smart people," which ignores that someone has to be the bottom of the barrel, and maybe medical residents publishing out of requirement represent that.
RESPONSE B: >Contrast that to nursing research, where we are actually made to believe we are contributing heavily to the existing body of scientific knowledge. It's all bullshit and I can't stand it. I don't understand this. Not every PhD contributes "heavily" to the existing body of scientific knowledge, but every PhD is expected to contribute at least a little to it---isn't that what a PhD is supposed to signify? If this person is so pessimistic about his or her ability to contribute to the field, then this person should have a master's degree, not a PhD.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: practical, and possible to produce. But apparently, doing research is meaningless hoop-jumping to MDs, who seem to agree that most of the papers they publish are bad, therefore most papers that are published are bad: >I view scientific literature through a different lens since writing my first paper. All I kept thinking was that I'm sure there are assholes like me doing whatever they need to just to get this thing published that they hardly care about. and >The best reason to make residents do research is so that they really, really understand how much BS most research actually is. and >If I don't do my terrible, poor-quality, poorly-funded research I can't have the high-quality career I am doing all the other work for. Unfortunately this comports entirely with my experience collaborating with MDs, who seem not at all interested in problems with multiple comparisons or lack of replication.
RESPONSE A: What I think is always missing from those comments is self-awareness. 1) Awareness that they are incredibly intelligent individuals and "bad" research that they produce is probably still OK because they live in a world where the standard is perfection and everyone went to school for over a decade, which warps their self-perception. And 2) self-awareness that if they are putting out junk, that might highlight that there are holes in the peer review process *at the potentially lower-level journals they are publishing in*, but, like OP said, it doesn't mean that there isn't a ton of quality research going in. That's like the dumbest kid at Harvard going, "man, if they let me in, this place must not really have smart people," which ignores that someone has to be the bottom of the barrel, and maybe medical residents publishing out of requirement represent that.
RESPONSE B: > But apparently, doing research is meaningless hoop-jumping to MDs, who seem to agree that most of the papers they publish are bad I know several MDs who are extremely talented and dedicated researchers. The average resident posting on reddit during their resident at community county hospital will probably have a different take than the superstar prostate cancer researcher at Johns Hopkins or Harvard who is trying to help bring a drug to market.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: We need shorter PhDs and more active thesis committees A new blog post that pushes the idea of shortening North American PhDs and encourages regular checkups on student's career goals (and chances!) throughout their degrees. http://www.universityaffairs.ca/the-black-hole/shorter-phds-and-more-active-thesis-committees/ What do people think? Are degrees too long in North America?
RESPONSE A: I think the issue of longer degree programs and inactive committees go hand in hand. In my department you are done at 5 years or else something is seriously wrong and our committee chair has regular weekly meetings with us for progress. Anything shorter than 5 years seems to put students at a disadvantage, just look at the European PhD system. They are competitive among European universities but seriously lack the competitive edge in American academia because they have less training and less chance to publish and grow. I don't know of any PhD programs that have a set 6+ year plan to degree. It's usually the case that the plan is for five years with systematic problems keeping students from graduating on time. The committees are the problem and the longer times to degree are the outcomes.
RESPONSE B: Shitty committees are a real problem. Mine was great. But I've been on the hiring side of the table for the past 15 years and I can 't tell you how many times I've seen a candidate's application scrapped because a committee member couldn't have been bothered to observe her teaching. More than once I've been involved with mentoring a junior faculty member hired without Ph.D. in hand (strong candidates who are close to defending sometimes make the cut) only to have them screwed by committee who won't provide comments on drafts or won't schedule a defense because they are "too busy." Committees need to be evaluated for promotion and tenure based on their treatment of their graduate students.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: We need shorter PhDs and more active thesis committees A new blog post that pushes the idea of shortening North American PhDs and encourages regular checkups on student's career goals (and chances!) throughout their degrees. http://www.universityaffairs.ca/the-black-hole/shorter-phds-and-more-active-thesis-committees/ What do people think? Are degrees too long in North America?
RESPONSE A: My program has moved from a 6-year, to a 5-year, and now to a 4-year PhD. It's actually not very useful in my opinion -- what's the rush to shorten it? I agree that spending 8 years on a PhD is not necessary, but cramming it into 4 (with 2 years of coursework) is just asking for people not to meet the deadline. Also, it's a lovely idea to ask for committees to be more involved, but realistically, most of them won't be. Without an involved committee, trying to finish in such a short time is extremely difficult.
RESPONSE B: Shitty committees are a real problem. Mine was great. But I've been on the hiring side of the table for the past 15 years and I can 't tell you how many times I've seen a candidate's application scrapped because a committee member couldn't have been bothered to observe her teaching. More than once I've been involved with mentoring a junior faculty member hired without Ph.D. in hand (strong candidates who are close to defending sometimes make the cut) only to have them screwed by committee who won't provide comments on drafts or won't schedule a defense because they are "too busy." Committees need to be evaluated for promotion and tenure based on their treatment of their graduate students.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: We need shorter PhDs and more active thesis committees A new blog post that pushes the idea of shortening North American PhDs and encourages regular checkups on student's career goals (and chances!) throughout their degrees. http://www.universityaffairs.ca/the-black-hole/shorter-phds-and-more-active-thesis-committees/ What do people think? Are degrees too long in North America?
RESPONSE A: Shitty committees are a real problem. Mine was great. But I've been on the hiring side of the table for the past 15 years and I can 't tell you how many times I've seen a candidate's application scrapped because a committee member couldn't have been bothered to observe her teaching. More than once I've been involved with mentoring a junior faculty member hired without Ph.D. in hand (strong candidates who are close to defending sometimes make the cut) only to have them screwed by committee who won't provide comments on drafts or won't schedule a defense because they are "too busy." Committees need to be evaluated for promotion and tenure based on their treatment of their graduate students.
RESPONSE B: My program requires 7 or less. It allows for family and life to happen.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: We need shorter PhDs and more active thesis committees A new blog post that pushes the idea of shortening North American PhDs and encourages regular checkups on student's career goals (and chances!) throughout their degrees. http://www.universityaffairs.ca/the-black-hole/shorter-phds-and-more-active-thesis-committees/ What do people think? Are degrees too long in North America?
RESPONSE A: Degrees in the humanities are too long because so many people have to work (i.e. teach or work a side job) to make ends meet due to lack of funding. I could have finished my Ph.D. in 3-4 years I imagine, but it took me eight because I was teaching half-time in years 4-5 and full time in years 6-8. Free up some of the government cash that keeps STEM labs humming and you might make a difference in that.
RESPONSE B: Shitty committees are a real problem. Mine was great. But I've been on the hiring side of the table for the past 15 years and I can 't tell you how many times I've seen a candidate's application scrapped because a committee member couldn't have been bothered to observe her teaching. More than once I've been involved with mentoring a junior faculty member hired without Ph.D. in hand (strong candidates who are close to defending sometimes make the cut) only to have them screwed by committee who won't provide comments on drafts or won't schedule a defense because they are "too busy." Committees need to be evaluated for promotion and tenure based on their treatment of their graduate students.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: every sentence I write and do not feel very confident. I was wondering if anyone else suffers from this and what they do to overcome it?
RESPONSE A: Welcome to graduate school. It's definitely a new experience. For one, you find out that you're no longer the best of the best. Everybody is the best of the best from their cohort.. :) It's a humbling experience which as others have stated can result in imposter syndrome, particularly when you realize that there are others who are much sharper than you. Graduate school is more than just being the "best". It's about toughing it out. There are many bright and talented graduate students (the best) who don't finish because they lose sight of why they choose to be in graduate school. There were days where i had to remind myself of why i choose to go to grad school when my peers are out there earning $$$ and starting families and living "life". I wanted to be in Academia. So..yeah, 6 years later... i'm here... in Academia... not getting enough sleep (but that's another story for another time) Hold fast. You can do it. Remember why you want to be in graduate school. :)
RESPONSE B: I find I start to feel like this when either my research is going very slowly, or I feel like I am losing grips with what my central research goals are and how to achieve them. I don't know why I find myself in the latter every now and then, but maybe it's the result of overworking my brain on the same thing for too many days in a row. In any event, when I'm feeling this way, I try to talk to either my supervisor or another professor whom I am comfortable with and is also a generally positive person with an absolute love for research. I write down the advice he or she gives me and I usually come out feeling pretty good. Just go surround yourself with some positive people for a while that know what you're going through and you'll survive! And don't worry, you're certainly not alone; I've yet to meet a grad student who hasn't gone through one of these slums before.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I'm in my first semester of my doctoral program. I am kinda freaking out. What do I do? Hello. I am in the middle of writing a few final papers and feel a little lost. I am not sure why, my grades have been fine. I am questioning every sentence I write and do not feel very confident. I was wondering if anyone else suffers from this and what they do to overcome it?
RESPONSE A: Yes, everyone else suffers from this. They overcome it by staying for another couple of semesters and watching the new cohort of students experience the exact same thing. The others who are writing about imposter syndrome are entirely correct. But, from a practical point of view, the way you get over this is through time. Stick it out, find a faculty mentor who you can ask for an honest opinion of how you are doing, and get better each semester.
RESPONSE B: I think one of the most valuable lessons I learned in grad school is that I don't know everything, and it's OK to admit that. Asking questions isn't a sign of weakness, it's a sign of curiosity.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I'm in my first semester of my doctoral program. I am kinda freaking out. What do I do? Hello. I am in the middle of writing a few final papers and feel a little lost. I am not sure why, my grades have been fine. I am questioning every sentence I write and do not feel very confident. I was wondering if anyone else suffers from this and what they do to overcome it?
RESPONSE A: Yes, everyone else suffers from this. They overcome it by staying for another couple of semesters and watching the new cohort of students experience the exact same thing. The others who are writing about imposter syndrome are entirely correct. But, from a practical point of view, the way you get over this is through time. Stick it out, find a faculty mentor who you can ask for an honest opinion of how you are doing, and get better each semester.
RESPONSE B: This didn't hit me until year three. It was a deep, disturbing, discouraging ennui that sort of sucked the life out of me for a couple months. I felt unimportant and insignificant. I was finished with most of my research and all the happiness I'd attached to producing was lost. Like you, my grades were never a problem but I lost all confidence. I am in therapy now and feeling better. I have access to great services through my university and I would suggest you seek yours out as well. I hear group therapy is really helpful too.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I'm in my first semester of my doctoral program. I am kinda freaking out. What do I do? Hello. I am in the middle of writing a few final papers and feel a little lost. I am not sure why, my grades have been fine. I am questioning every sentence I write and do not feel very confident. I was wondering if anyone else suffers from this and what they do to overcome it?
RESPONSE A: Yes, everyone else suffers from this. They overcome it by staying for another couple of semesters and watching the new cohort of students experience the exact same thing. The others who are writing about imposter syndrome are entirely correct. But, from a practical point of view, the way you get over this is through time. Stick it out, find a faculty mentor who you can ask for an honest opinion of how you are doing, and get better each semester.
RESPONSE B: I've only started my doctoral training myself as well. I think it's going alright so far. I did my previous degree in a university which was much lower in the rankings than the current one and comparing to all the rest of my cohort it was one of the worst ones. At the beginning I felt like I shouldn't be there and don't belong there. I was quite anxious that despite doing really well in my previous degree I won't be able to keep good marks at the more prestigious place. But I tried to do my best and so far it's going well.I think at the end of the day it's not about being the best anymore and definitely not comparing yourself to others anymore. It's about seeing things through to the end and getting as much as possible out of the experience of a PhD. Grab all the opportunities that you will come across. As someone said here already people will criticise your work and you should do it yourself. With but never doubt in yourself in your ability to deliver . You got your place in the grad school and there must have been a reason for it. Don't doubt in yourself!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Do I need to ask about acknowledgment in Research Paper - Strained Relationship - In a Pickle I am in a pickle when it comes to writing the acknowledgements of my master's thesis in biology at a small university in the US. The subject of my master's thesis is the same as the subject of my undergraduate thesis, and my undergraduate advisor was instrumental in introducing me to the subject. Here's the problem - after I left undergrad, I had an unfortunate falling out with that professor due to an extremely unfortunate miscommunication. She berated and emotionally abused me, which has taken a harsh toll on me, even more then a year later. I have only spoken to her briefly since then and the prospect of emailing/speak to her makes me physically sick. It feels strange to not acknowledge her in my masters thesis acknowledgements, as she was an extremely important of my research interest into the subject area. However, I don't think I can bring myself to ask her for her permission to acknowledge her, and I feel certain she will read my thesis when it is published, due to the niche topic. Do I not ask her and acknowledge her anyways? Do I not acknowledge her at all? Do I bite the bullet and speak to her despite the cost it will take on my mental health?
RESPONSE A: If it’s an acknowledgement you feel like you need to make, you don’t have to email your old advisor. Just put it in there.
RESPONSE B: You don’t need to ask to acknowledge. She contributed to where you are so a little something is appropriate (if for no other reason than to be collegial). On the other hand if you were treated that poorly… let’s just say that in either case there is no reason for you to reach out to her.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why does it take me so long to understand research papers and what can I do about it The title is pretty much the post. Just for some additional information, I'm a graduate student studying machine learning. Reading research papers is pretty much a daily part of my routine, but sometimes I really doubt my own self because it takes me so long just to understand one paper, whereas I see other people who can read it once (maybe even skim through it) and get the hang of what's going on. Sometimes it takes me even a full day reading one paper. Does anyone else struggle with this? What are some tips that you could give me? Thanks.
RESPONSE A: I’m a mid-career academic who works across disciplines. Don’t worry. Right now there are so many concepts, structures and terms that are brand new to you, so reading a paper is like swallowing a pizza slice covered with metal toppings. As you gradually learn about each of these unfamiliar elements, these indigestible parts begin to become digestible— it gets easier (to digest), but that takes time.
RESPONSE B: I'm a grad student in applied mathematics and reading papers and understanding them properly takes time. Sure, I can get an idea of what the paper is about relatively quickly to a level where I can talk to someone about the contents of the paper but that is entirely different from having read it to a point where I can use their actual results in research.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why does it take me so long to understand research papers and what can I do about it The title is pretty much the post. Just for some additional information, I'm a graduate student studying machine learning. Reading research papers is pretty much a daily part of my routine, but sometimes I really doubt my own self because it takes me so long just to understand one paper, whereas I see other people who can read it once (maybe even skim through it) and get the hang of what's going on. Sometimes it takes me even a full day reading one paper. Does anyone else struggle with this? What are some tips that you could give me? Thanks.
RESPONSE A: Ok this is my approach: My first goal is to try and understand what the paper is about in order to make connections with the knowledge I already have. 1. Read Abstract 2. Read Introduction and see if you are whether you are familiar with the topics discussed 3. by reading introduction in papers you get a very spherical approach and explanation to the topics discussed 4. See how they contributed 5. Now, go through the contents of the paper and spend a few minutes trying to understand their steps 6. Go to the conclusions Now you should have a pretty good idea what the paper is about. Going through the main parts is time consuming, I don't think it's possible to go through all the maths each time. If it is relevant with what you are doing then yes, invest the time and do it by hand.
RESPONSE B: I'm a grad student in applied mathematics and reading papers and understanding them properly takes time. Sure, I can get an idea of what the paper is about relatively quickly to a level where I can talk to someone about the contents of the paper but that is entirely different from having read it to a point where I can use their actual results in research.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How should a PhD student decide which conferences to apply for and when? In a (science) field in which journal publications are the main academic CV metric and conferences are mainly for meeting people and discussing/getting ideas for research in progress. What are some important factors to consider? Such as... Shall I attend only the conferences my advisor also attends? Shall I always attend the conference to which my research fits the most, even if it isn't attended by anyone else from my group and/or is expensive? Which level of (in)completeness of research is optimal to present? Is it better to give a talk at a student conference or present a poster at a main conference? Shall I present variations of most successful research or at each conference something completely new? Shall I save my whole travel budget for the final 1.5-2 years of PhD? Is the quantity or quality of conferences more important? Shall I expect to pay a notable amount for conferences out of my own pocket although I have a separate travel budget? Etc., I don't even know if I am asking the right questions. (And yes, I asked my advisor, he doesn't know - I am his most senior student.)
RESPONSE A: My priorities are: 1. Will I learn anything interesting? 2. Will I meet anyone interesting? 3. Will any of my friends be there? 4. Is it in a cool place? 5. Is there free coffee?
RESPONSE B: I personally favour specific rather than general conferences. I've heard people say the various national meetings are important for getting jobs, but I've never once seen it happen. I have, however, gotten jobs from people I met at conferences about our shared research interests. As a Ph.D. student, I don't think I ever attended a conference my supervisor went to. You already know them, they already know your research, so what's the upshot?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How to come up with focused research questions when reading more and more only makes your topic broader? (Law/phil of law) Hi all, I'm preparing for a PhD proposal and master thesis, which means that I'm spending many hours reading and summarising relevant literature. Now, I feel like I have a good grasp of the literature and the discussions, but I can't for the life of me figure out a focused research questions without wanting to involve a little bit of X and a bit of Y and a bit of Z. What do you do to focus your research question? So once you've read the materials and have a good idea of the state of the art, what process do you use to get to a good focused question?
RESPONSE A: I've got the exact same struggle!
RESPONSE B: My advice is a simple one but very useful: you just need to start writing. Even if you don't have a clear idea about your topic, you need to write. In the end, the only "real work" you'll have is what you write. And when you are writing you feel your problems, you'll have to deal with the "blank page crisis". That will force you to "focus". If you only read and read and take notes, you'll waste time, and you'll end up having to write your thesis in a hurry and in a stressed way. So, my advice: write.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How to come up with focused research questions when reading more and more only makes your topic broader? (Law/phil of law) Hi all, I'm preparing for a PhD proposal and master thesis, which means that I'm spending many hours reading and summarising relevant literature. Now, I feel like I have a good grasp of the literature and the discussions, but I can't for the life of me figure out a focused research questions without wanting to involve a little bit of X and a bit of Y and a bit of Z. What do you do to focus your research question? So once you've read the materials and have a good idea of the state of the art, what process do you use to get to a good focused question?
RESPONSE A: I've got the exact same struggle!
RESPONSE B: It's OK to acknowledge something, but state that it's outside the scope of your research and won't be exploring it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How to come up with focused research questions when reading more and more only makes your topic broader? (Law/phil of law) Hi all, I'm preparing for a PhD proposal and master thesis, which means that I'm spending many hours reading and summarising relevant literature. Now, I feel like I have a good grasp of the literature and the discussions, but I can't for the life of me figure out a focused research questions without wanting to involve a little bit of X and a bit of Y and a bit of Z. What do you do to focus your research question? So once you've read the materials and have a good idea of the state of the art, what process do you use to get to a good focused question?
RESPONSE A: I've got the exact same struggle!
RESPONSE B: Take a look at Wayne Booth's book on research writing, too (The Craft of Research). There's a good chapter on narrowing research questions and formulating some kind of working thesis.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Current or former members of search committees: What are the best and worst things you have seen candidates do? I have a Skype interview next week with an R1 school for a tenure-track job. I'm in the humanities, and I'm an experienced teacher and researcher. Any suggestions for what to do and not do? Or heck, any stories of memorable interviews?
RESPONSE A: There's a lot of great info here, including interview stories, hidden problems with departments, etc. http://academicjobs.wikia.com/wiki/Academic_Jobs_Wiki
RESPONSE B: Make sure you double check your skype profile photo. We interviewed someone whose photo was of him making out with his girlfriend. I'm sure it was an old photo and he had no idea that was the profile pic, but it made a poor impression (obviously)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Current or former members of search committees: What are the best and worst things you have seen candidates do? I have a Skype interview next week with an R1 school for a tenure-track job. I'm in the humanities, and I'm an experienced teacher and researcher. Any suggestions for what to do and not do? Or heck, any stories of memorable interviews?
RESPONSE A: Best: job candidate referenced faculty research in job talk. Worst: job candidate referenced research of recently deceased faculty member whose name and info was still on the department website. Still, in his defense, this was probably the best thing I have ever seen in a job talk because he incorporated it so seamlessly and it did not seem tacked on in any way. Sadly he did not get the job because my colleagues are idiots and voted for someone else who has turned out to be a disappointment and probably won't get tenure. This other candidate got a job at a better school and is having a super career, from what I understand.
RESPONSE B: There's a lot of great info here, including interview stories, hidden problems with departments, etc. http://academicjobs.wikia.com/wiki/Academic_Jobs_Wiki
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: [US] Professor is requesting a doctor’s note for absence. I am better now and have not gone to the doc. Can I receive one after the fact even if I have no proof of being sick prior to appointment? I was unable to attend a class due to stomach flu, but I got better on my own within a few days. Professor is now requesting a doctors note, but I have no proof that I was sick. I hope this is the right sub for this material.
RESPONSE A: Does the class allow for a certain number of unexcused absenses?
RESPONSE B: Check with student health services. Often they will provide a note if you give them a convincing description of the symptoms and are describing a bug they know to be going around.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: [US] Professor is requesting a doctor’s note for absence. I am better now and have not gone to the doc. Can I receive one after the fact even if I have no proof of being sick prior to appointment? I was unable to attend a class due to stomach flu, but I got better on my own within a few days. Professor is now requesting a doctors note, but I have no proof that I was sick. I hope this is the right sub for this material.
RESPONSE A: If you have a pcp you can call and ask if they’ll give you a note after the fact.
RESPONSE B: Check with student health services. Often they will provide a note if you give them a convincing description of the symptoms and are describing a bug they know to be going around.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Is there a better way for society to determine how many PhDs to train/award each year? The rates of PhD holders obtaining a meaningful career in academia have declined precipitously. This makes one wonder whether we are making too many PhDs, which in turn makes me wonder how would we make the "right" number in the first place? Should society even care about making too many PhD holders, or should society look at this the same way we might think society is buying too many iPhones?
RESPONSE A: I don’t envision a scenario where advocating for a less educated population is a good thing, I think if anything there should be less barriers all around for those pursuing additional education. It should be more accessible. Gatekeeping education is not a good idea.
RESPONSE B: Increase number of professorships, decrease number of students, or increase stipend minimums to the point where grad students aren’t just cheaper labor. Personally, I do think the glut of PhDs is a problem because (in my field, in my experience) there wasn’t much added value to that time in grad school compared to same time in industry. I did my PhD in biomedical sciences and think the degree should be focused on the hypothesis generation, experimental design, and grant/publication writing part and less the lab techniques part that dominated my experience. A plentiful pool of grad students has pushed the PhD experience away from the skills that differentiate us and towards skills you could quickly train most undergrads in. Job market wise the PhD is required for some positions and gives you flexibility you wouldn’t otherwise have, but I feel part of it just that there are so many PhDs now that companies can afford to set the bar that high. Same way a bachelors degree is now the rule for careers that don’t in any meaningful way benefit from that education.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is there a better way for society to determine how many PhDs to train/award each year? The rates of PhD holders obtaining a meaningful career in academia have declined precipitously. This makes one wonder whether we are making too many PhDs, which in turn makes me wonder how would we make the "right" number in the first place? Should society even care about making too many PhD holders, or should society look at this the same way we might think society is buying too many iPhones?
RESPONSE A: I think we need to better prepare Phd candidates for careers outside academia. There are fields where these jobs are obvious, and easy to find, but even when that isn’t the case the jobs often exist. I got training on applying to academic jobs, writing a cv, and networking in academic circles. My program could have had someone from the career center help us write resumes, or have panels of non academic PhDs in our field and that would have been incredibly helpful for me.
RESPONSE B: I don’t envision a scenario where advocating for a less educated population is a good thing, I think if anything there should be less barriers all around for those pursuing additional education. It should be more accessible. Gatekeeping education is not a good idea.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Is there a better way for society to determine how many PhDs to train/award each year? The rates of PhD holders obtaining a meaningful career in academia have declined precipitously. This makes one wonder whether we are making too many PhDs, which in turn makes me wonder how would we make the "right" number in the first place? Should society even care about making too many PhD holders, or should society look at this the same way we might think society is buying too many iPhones?
RESPONSE A: I don’t envision a scenario where advocating for a less educated population is a good thing, I think if anything there should be less barriers all around for those pursuing additional education. It should be more accessible. Gatekeeping education is not a good idea.
RESPONSE B: I think we need more. In chemical engineering we see a decline in the number of students wanting to pursue a phd degree. This is an industry that employs in oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, bioengineering, polymers, chemicals, semiconductors, food, dyes, all kinds of material processing and manufacturing and many more. Our students get offers a year before they can graduate. I’m really amazed that we can’t get more students to pursue the phd degree.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is there a better way for society to determine how many PhDs to train/award each year? The rates of PhD holders obtaining a meaningful career in academia have declined precipitously. This makes one wonder whether we are making too many PhDs, which in turn makes me wonder how would we make the "right" number in the first place? Should society even care about making too many PhD holders, or should society look at this the same way we might think society is buying too many iPhones?
RESPONSE A: the problem with regulating the # of PhDs is that assumes all PhDs are more or less equal.
RESPONSE B: I don’t envision a scenario where advocating for a less educated population is a good thing, I think if anything there should be less barriers all around for those pursuing additional education. It should be more accessible. Gatekeeping education is not a good idea.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Is there a better way for society to determine how many PhDs to train/award each year? The rates of PhD holders obtaining a meaningful career in academia have declined precipitously. This makes one wonder whether we are making too many PhDs, which in turn makes me wonder how would we make the "right" number in the first place? Should society even care about making too many PhD holders, or should society look at this the same way we might think society is buying too many iPhones?
RESPONSE A: You want to gatekeep higher education?
RESPONSE B: I think we need to better prepare Phd candidates for careers outside academia. There are fields where these jobs are obvious, and easy to find, but even when that isn’t the case the jobs often exist. I got training on applying to academic jobs, writing a cv, and networking in academic circles. My program could have had someone from the career center help us write resumes, or have panels of non academic PhDs in our field and that would have been incredibly helpful for me.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: getting is very problematic to say the least. There was also very little (or none at all) support from the university for other academic endeavors. The last straw was when they pulled out my book chapters on decolonization for being political - which it is cos duh. They knew from the beginning that my topic is decolonization but never bothered to read about it until it was due for publication. So I've decided to leave. Now am in a dilemma. Should I include this PhD stint in my resume? What will be the repercussions? Also, I am shortlisted for an interview elsewhere. What should I tell them about this matter when this topic comes up?
RESPONSE A: Is it a PhD interview? For job you can just say it didn't feel right to continue, since it wouldn't matter to them much, they would only care about you being a quitter so just cover that aspect. In research, it would be more complicated. I believe you will have to rely somewhat on the interviewers being receptive of exploitary practices in research. If they think of universities and academia to be pure and perfect then it is nearly impossible to convince them that a professor or uni could do any wrong. I have found both types of people so it is just a toss up. Edit: To be clear, if they are receptive of it, then you can be just honest. Professors have also heard all kinds of stories... they have been in academia for more than a decade atleast... it would probably not surprise them what happened. But again, only thing is that some professors think everything is the student's fault.
RESPONSE B: I'm very confused. This whole publication thing is exceeding suspicious and just plain weird to me. It has always been my experience that one's PhD committee is made up exclusively of professors in the field(s) - and, of course, administrative members - and that a dissertation would never reach "publication" before it was accepted by the committee. So...??? Bottom line: Mention the "PhD stint" only if it serves to enhance your credibility during this "interview." Otherwise, especially to those outside of academia, such an explanation may very well come off as a reprisal.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Left PhD Hi guys. Am in a PhD program and I've decided to leave owing to the fact that it did not meet my expectations. There quality of education I am getting is very problematic to say the least. There was also very little (or none at all) support from the university for other academic endeavors. The last straw was when they pulled out my book chapters on decolonization for being political - which it is cos duh. They knew from the beginning that my topic is decolonization but never bothered to read about it until it was due for publication. So I've decided to leave. Now am in a dilemma. Should I include this PhD stint in my resume? What will be the repercussions? Also, I am shortlisted for an interview elsewhere. What should I tell them about this matter when this topic comes up?
RESPONSE A: >Should I include this PhD stint in my resume? Depends how long you were there. 3 months? Nah. 3 years? Maybe.
RESPONSE B: I'm very confused. This whole publication thing is exceeding suspicious and just plain weird to me. It has always been my experience that one's PhD committee is made up exclusively of professors in the field(s) - and, of course, administrative members - and that a dissertation would never reach "publication" before it was accepted by the committee. So...??? Bottom line: Mention the "PhD stint" only if it serves to enhance your credibility during this "interview." Otherwise, especially to those outside of academia, such an explanation may very well come off as a reprisal.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Left PhD Hi guys. Am in a PhD program and I've decided to leave owing to the fact that it did not meet my expectations. There quality of education I am getting is very problematic to say the least. There was also very little (or none at all) support from the university for other academic endeavors. The last straw was when they pulled out my book chapters on decolonization for being political - which it is cos duh. They knew from the beginning that my topic is decolonization but never bothered to read about it until it was due for publication. So I've decided to leave. Now am in a dilemma. Should I include this PhD stint in my resume? What will be the repercussions? Also, I am shortlisted for an interview elsewhere. What should I tell them about this matter when this topic comes up?
RESPONSE A: >Should I include this PhD stint in my resume? Depends how long you were there. 3 months? Nah. 3 years? Maybe.
RESPONSE B: What university is this ? In North America? Name and shame… you quit
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: , the DE-variants perturb the current generation population members with the scaled differences of randomly selected and distinct population members." I did a Google search for the sentence and found that it appeared in all (and more) of the following articles and book chapters, without quotation marks: * page 93 of *Search and Optimization by Metaheuristics* by Du and Swamy (2016) * page 85 of *Clustering and Routing Algorithms for Wireless Sensor Networks* by Kuila and Jana (2018), published by CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group * *A new hybrid differential evolution with simulated annealing and self-adaptive immune operation* by Zhao et al. (2013) in *Computers & Mathematics with Applications*, vol. 66(10). * page 77 of *Uncertainty Quantification and Model Calibration* by Tang et al. (2017), published by InTech * *Nonlinear Dose–Response Modeling of High-Throughput Screening Data Using an Evolutionary Algorithm* by Ma, Bair and Motsinger-Reif (2020) in *Dose Response*, vol. 18(2) * *Adaptive Differential Evolution with p-Best Crossover for Continuous Global Optimization* by Islam et al. (2010), a paper from the International Conference on Swarm, Evolutionary, and Memetic Computing. I know that plagiarism is rife among students, but it's amazing to see published authors recycling the same sentence without attribution. If you found a similar case, would you feel an ethical duty to do something about it? Or is this just the sad state of affairs when university budgets are slashed repeatedly?
RESPONSE A: Not my area, but seems like a description of methods? At least in the literature I'm familiar with, statements from methods are recycled since there are only a handful of ways of saying something.
RESPONSE B: Honestly, I'm a bit shocked that someone who has been caught plagarising their thesis at that stage in the game would only get a "fix this shit". I'm a PhD student myself, but I would expect far worse consequences if I did something similar.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: the following sentence in the thesis: "However, unlike traditional EAs, the DE-variants perturb the current generation population members with the scaled differences of randomly selected and distinct population members." I did a Google search for the sentence and found that it appeared in all (and more) of the following articles and book chapters, without quotation marks: * page 93 of *Search and Optimization by Metaheuristics* by Du and Swamy (2016) * page 85 of *Clustering and Routing Algorithms for Wireless Sensor Networks* by Kuila and Jana (2018), published by CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group * *A new hybrid differential evolution with simulated annealing and self-adaptive immune operation* by Zhao et al. (2013) in *Computers & Mathematics with Applications*, vol. 66(10). * page 77 of *Uncertainty Quantification and Model Calibration* by Tang et al. (2017), published by InTech * *Nonlinear Dose–Response Modeling of High-Throughput Screening Data Using an Evolutionary Algorithm* by Ma, Bair and Motsinger-Reif (2020) in *Dose Response*, vol. 18(2) * *Adaptive Differential Evolution with p-Best Crossover for Continuous Global Optimization* by Islam et al. (2010), a paper from the International Conference on Swarm, Evolutionary, and Memetic Computing. I know that plagiarism is rife among students, but it's amazing to see published authors recycling the same sentence without attribution. If you found a similar case, would you feel an ethical duty to do something about it? Or is this just the sad state of affairs when university budgets are slashed repeatedly?
RESPONSE A: Honestly, I'm a bit shocked that someone who has been caught plagarising their thesis at that stage in the game would only get a "fix this shit". I'm a PhD student myself, but I would expect far worse consequences if I did something similar.
RESPONSE B: I am also really curious to see more takes on this. I don't have enough experience to have an opinion or advice.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: is the amount of plagiarism that seems to go on within the discipline itself. For example, I found the following sentence in the thesis: "However, unlike traditional EAs, the DE-variants perturb the current generation population members with the scaled differences of randomly selected and distinct population members." I did a Google search for the sentence and found that it appeared in all (and more) of the following articles and book chapters, without quotation marks: * page 93 of *Search and Optimization by Metaheuristics* by Du and Swamy (2016) * page 85 of *Clustering and Routing Algorithms for Wireless Sensor Networks* by Kuila and Jana (2018), published by CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group * *A new hybrid differential evolution with simulated annealing and self-adaptive immune operation* by Zhao et al. (2013) in *Computers & Mathematics with Applications*, vol. 66(10). * page 77 of *Uncertainty Quantification and Model Calibration* by Tang et al. (2017), published by InTech * *Nonlinear Dose–Response Modeling of High-Throughput Screening Data Using an Evolutionary Algorithm* by Ma, Bair and Motsinger-Reif (2020) in *Dose Response*, vol. 18(2) * *Adaptive Differential Evolution with p-Best Crossover for Continuous Global Optimization* by Islam et al. (2010), a paper from the International Conference on Swarm, Evolutionary, and Memetic Computing. I know that plagiarism is rife among students, but it's amazing to see published authors recycling the same sentence without attribution. If you found a similar case, would you feel an ethical duty to do something about it? Or is this just the sad state of affairs when university budgets are slashed repeatedly?
RESPONSE A: I am also really curious to see more takes on this. I don't have enough experience to have an opinion or advice.
RESPONSE B: Not my area, but seems like a description of methods? At least in the literature I'm familiar with, statements from methods are recycled since there are only a handful of ways of saying something.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: and distinct population members." I did a Google search for the sentence and found that it appeared in all (and more) of the following articles and book chapters, without quotation marks: * page 93 of *Search and Optimization by Metaheuristics* by Du and Swamy (2016) * page 85 of *Clustering and Routing Algorithms for Wireless Sensor Networks* by Kuila and Jana (2018), published by CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group * *A new hybrid differential evolution with simulated annealing and self-adaptive immune operation* by Zhao et al. (2013) in *Computers & Mathematics with Applications*, vol. 66(10). * page 77 of *Uncertainty Quantification and Model Calibration* by Tang et al. (2017), published by InTech * *Nonlinear Dose–Response Modeling of High-Throughput Screening Data Using an Evolutionary Algorithm* by Ma, Bair and Motsinger-Reif (2020) in *Dose Response*, vol. 18(2) * *Adaptive Differential Evolution with p-Best Crossover for Continuous Global Optimization* by Islam et al. (2010), a paper from the International Conference on Swarm, Evolutionary, and Memetic Computing. I know that plagiarism is rife among students, but it's amazing to see published authors recycling the same sentence without attribution. If you found a similar case, would you feel an ethical duty to do something about it? Or is this just the sad state of affairs when university budgets are slashed repeatedly?
RESPONSE A: My wife is a professional editor and often works with doctoral dissertations at all kinds of institutions, including some of the most prestigious. She often faces this exact dilemma that you do and we talk about it over dinner. Usually she gives a warning to the writer, but on occasions she notifies the advisor. In some cases she has ended up telling the writers that she won't be a part of it if they don't mend their ways.
RESPONSE B: I am also really curious to see more takes on this. I don't have enough experience to have an opinion or advice.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: page 93 of *Search and Optimization by Metaheuristics* by Du and Swamy (2016) * page 85 of *Clustering and Routing Algorithms for Wireless Sensor Networks* by Kuila and Jana (2018), published by CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group * *A new hybrid differential evolution with simulated annealing and self-adaptive immune operation* by Zhao et al. (2013) in *Computers & Mathematics with Applications*, vol. 66(10). * page 77 of *Uncertainty Quantification and Model Calibration* by Tang et al. (2017), published by InTech * *Nonlinear Dose–Response Modeling of High-Throughput Screening Data Using an Evolutionary Algorithm* by Ma, Bair and Motsinger-Reif (2020) in *Dose Response*, vol. 18(2) * *Adaptive Differential Evolution with p-Best Crossover for Continuous Global Optimization* by Islam et al. (2010), a paper from the International Conference on Swarm, Evolutionary, and Memetic Computing. I know that plagiarism is rife among students, but it's amazing to see published authors recycling the same sentence without attribution. If you found a similar case, would you feel an ethical duty to do something about it? Or is this just the sad state of affairs when university budgets are slashed repeatedly?
RESPONSE A: Yeah, I came across this several times as well. I'm always trying to find the primary source but when I do find it, it's very clear the citation in the other article was either just completely copied or referenced in a wrong way that changed meaning of the statement to the authors liking.
RESPONSE B: My wife is a professional editor and often works with doctoral dissertations at all kinds of institutions, including some of the most prestigious. She often faces this exact dilemma that you do and we talk about it over dinner. Usually she gives a warning to the writer, but on occasions she notifies the advisor. In some cases she has ended up telling the writers that she won't be a part of it if they don't mend their ways.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I just got accepted to one PhD program, should I inform the other ones I'm still waiting for that I've been accepted and ask for some sort of counter offer? I've applied to two schools, both of which I would really like to go to. One of them got back to me today with an offer (fully funded). Should I tell the other school? Am I crazy in thinking they might make a counteroffer? Or at least make an offer sooner?
RESPONSE A: You are not going to get a counteroffer and you risk making some people very annoyed. I'd only email if there is a deadline to accept that you risk missing and a school you rank higher has not gotten back to you. Don't use that to negotiate. Just to say something like 'hey I want to go here but have not heard back. I have another offer but this is my top choice. Can you update me on my application status?"
RESPONSE B: I would not contact the other school about this until after you've been accepted, and then, only with extreme caution. I had a bad experience when I attempted to get funding information from one school (that I had been accepted to) while informing them of my fellowship at the other.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I just got accepted to one PhD program, should I inform the other ones I'm still waiting for that I've been accepted and ask for some sort of counter offer? I've applied to two schools, both of which I would really like to go to. One of them got back to me today with an offer (fully funded). Should I tell the other school? Am I crazy in thinking they might make a counteroffer? Or at least make an offer sooner?
RESPONSE A: I work within an academic department. DO NOT DO THIS. I repeat, DO NOT DO THIS. We have an exact amount of fellowship packages that come from upstairs in the dean's office. We have literally no more than that. We cannot give anyone any more than that, no matter the circumstances. Occasionally we'll get a few extra credits or a few thousand to throw towards recruitment, but that's for MA students and not PhD students. It is never tacked onto an existing funding package. You are going to lose your chance for anything, honestly. And the faculty and staff are going to talk shit about you and think you're an arrogant idiot. This isn't like trying to get a job where it's considered bold to do this... it can literally kill your career.
RESPONSE B: I would not contact the other school about this until after you've been accepted, and then, only with extreme caution. I had a bad experience when I attempted to get funding information from one school (that I had been accepted to) while informing them of my fellowship at the other.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Did you have any doubts in pursuing academia? I'm at a crossroads between an academic and industry offer. I have mentally braced for failure in the academic job market but received an offer at a less than ideal location. People in my program and my advisors are biased towards academia that they find it so trivial that I'm considering the industry offer. I don't enjoy teaching and I have mixed emotions over research - while I enjoy the process when things are going my way, I ruminate obsessively when it doesn't. I don't think the latter is very healthy but it seems that most people are willing to accept or even celebrate this in our profession. At this point, I'm quite certain that I'll eventually fail tenure. Is it normal to think this way and still accept an academic job offer? Can people remain and survive in academia while simultaneously suffering from a bad case of impostor syndrome? Industry seems more appealing but I may just be having "a grass is greener" mindset.
RESPONSE A: I am a full professor and felt like you describe when finishing my doctoral study. The years leading up to tenure were difficult and I doubted myself a lot. The best advice I received was that tenure was years away and to focus each day on what I had control over… prepping my courses and writing my papers. What strikes me about your post is that you don’t enjoy teaching and are unsure about research. Pay attention to that. While I agree in principle that one can switch careers at any point, in practical terms the deeper one goes into academia, the harder it is to pull out and pivot to industry. Good luck!
RESPONSE B: I'm a professor at a big state R1 university in the middle of nowhere. I'm planning to move to an industry position in civilization soon. From how you described yourself, I don't think an academic research position will be good for your mental health.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Did you have any doubts in pursuing academia? I'm at a crossroads between an academic and industry offer. I have mentally braced for failure in the academic job market but received an offer at a less than ideal location. People in my program and my advisors are biased towards academia that they find it so trivial that I'm considering the industry offer. I don't enjoy teaching and I have mixed emotions over research - while I enjoy the process when things are going my way, I ruminate obsessively when it doesn't. I don't think the latter is very healthy but it seems that most people are willing to accept or even celebrate this in our profession. At this point, I'm quite certain that I'll eventually fail tenure. Is it normal to think this way and still accept an academic job offer? Can people remain and survive in academia while simultaneously suffering from a bad case of impostor syndrome? Industry seems more appealing but I may just be having "a grass is greener" mindset.
RESPONSE A: You have two great options. Pick what works best for you. Imagine yourself in each role and what a typical day looks like. Think about your long-term career goals. And consider balancing salary and personal satisfaction
RESPONSE B: I am a full professor and felt like you describe when finishing my doctoral study. The years leading up to tenure were difficult and I doubted myself a lot. The best advice I received was that tenure was years away and to focus each day on what I had control over… prepping my courses and writing my papers. What strikes me about your post is that you don’t enjoy teaching and are unsure about research. Pay attention to that. While I agree in principle that one can switch careers at any point, in practical terms the deeper one goes into academia, the harder it is to pull out and pivot to industry. Good luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Did you have any doubts in pursuing academia? I'm at a crossroads between an academic and industry offer. I have mentally braced for failure in the academic job market but received an offer at a less than ideal location. People in my program and my advisors are biased towards academia that they find it so trivial that I'm considering the industry offer. I don't enjoy teaching and I have mixed emotions over research - while I enjoy the process when things are going my way, I ruminate obsessively when it doesn't. I don't think the latter is very healthy but it seems that most people are willing to accept or even celebrate this in our profession. At this point, I'm quite certain that I'll eventually fail tenure. Is it normal to think this way and still accept an academic job offer? Can people remain and survive in academia while simultaneously suffering from a bad case of impostor syndrome? Industry seems more appealing but I may just be having "a grass is greener" mindset.
RESPONSE A: I think the imposter syndrome part is totally normal but given that you don’t enjoy teaching and have mixed feelings about research I think it’s probably best to consider industry very seriously. Research and teaching is the bulk of the job and if it’s not fun, it will make the professor experience feel pretty terrible when you are juggling all of your responsibilities.
RESPONSE B: You have two great options. Pick what works best for you. Imagine yourself in each role and what a typical day looks like. Think about your long-term career goals. And consider balancing salary and personal satisfaction
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Did you have any doubts in pursuing academia? I'm at a crossroads between an academic and industry offer. I have mentally braced for failure in the academic job market but received an offer at a less than ideal location. People in my program and my advisors are biased towards academia that they find it so trivial that I'm considering the industry offer. I don't enjoy teaching and I have mixed emotions over research - while I enjoy the process when things are going my way, I ruminate obsessively when it doesn't. I don't think the latter is very healthy but it seems that most people are willing to accept or even celebrate this in our profession. At this point, I'm quite certain that I'll eventually fail tenure. Is it normal to think this way and still accept an academic job offer? Can people remain and survive in academia while simultaneously suffering from a bad case of impostor syndrome? Industry seems more appealing but I may just be having "a grass is greener" mindset.
RESPONSE A: This related Twitter post from a few days ago, plus the discussion in the replies, may be food for thought: https://twitter.com/ashleyruba/status/1485708682583281666
RESPONSE B: I think the imposter syndrome part is totally normal but given that you don’t enjoy teaching and have mixed feelings about research I think it’s probably best to consider industry very seriously. Research and teaching is the bulk of the job and if it’s not fun, it will make the professor experience feel pretty terrible when you are juggling all of your responsibilities.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Did you have any doubts in pursuing academia? I'm at a crossroads between an academic and industry offer. I have mentally braced for failure in the academic job market but received an offer at a less than ideal location. People in my program and my advisors are biased towards academia that they find it so trivial that I'm considering the industry offer. I don't enjoy teaching and I have mixed emotions over research - while I enjoy the process when things are going my way, I ruminate obsessively when it doesn't. I don't think the latter is very healthy but it seems that most people are willing to accept or even celebrate this in our profession. At this point, I'm quite certain that I'll eventually fail tenure. Is it normal to think this way and still accept an academic job offer? Can people remain and survive in academia while simultaneously suffering from a bad case of impostor syndrome? Industry seems more appealing but I may just be having "a grass is greener" mindset.
RESPONSE A: You have two great options. Pick what works best for you. Imagine yourself in each role and what a typical day looks like. Think about your long-term career goals. And consider balancing salary and personal satisfaction
RESPONSE B: I'm a professor at a big state R1 university in the middle of nowhere. I'm planning to move to an industry position in civilization soon. From how you described yourself, I don't think an academic research position will be good for your mental health.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What causes a university job to be reposted? University employees/HR...were you in a search committee and the job had to be reposted? Can you tell me the reason(s)? I applied for a position for internal candidates only. Three days after my interview, they called to tell me it had to reposted because it needed to be open to all everyone, not just employees. I'm hesitant to apply for a different job that was reposted.
RESPONSE A: Common reasons include, not any hire-able applicants, pool was too small for their liking, messed up on the posted salary, and admin screw-ups. I would bet there was an admin screw up in this case. At my institution there are certain parameters that need to be met in order to do an internal posting (though I have no idea what they are). It could be the same at your institution. You can contact the department/supervisor to ask for more info about the position. They might freely tell you why it had to be reposted.
RESPONSE B: Normally because none of the candidates were appointable. It \*could\* have been an admin screw-up and the funding required it be externally advertised but I'd doubt that.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What causes a university job to be reposted? University employees/HR...were you in a search committee and the job had to be reposted? Can you tell me the reason(s)? I applied for a position for internal candidates only. Three days after my interview, they called to tell me it had to reposted because it needed to be open to all everyone, not just employees. I'm hesitant to apply for a different job that was reposted.
RESPONSE A: Common reasons include, not any hire-able applicants, pool was too small for their liking, messed up on the posted salary, and admin screw-ups. I would bet there was an admin screw up in this case. At my institution there are certain parameters that need to be met in order to do an internal posting (though I have no idea what they are). It could be the same at your institution. You can contact the department/supervisor to ask for more info about the position. They might freely tell you why it had to be reposted.
RESPONSE B: Possibly too few applicants, or not a diverse enough pool of applicants.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What causes a university job to be reposted? University employees/HR...were you in a search committee and the job had to be reposted? Can you tell me the reason(s)? I applied for a position for internal candidates only. Three days after my interview, they called to tell me it had to reposted because it needed to be open to all everyone, not just employees. I'm hesitant to apply for a different job that was reposted.
RESPONSE A: I wouldn’t see any reason to doubt their stated reason—in most cases public universities have to have a full search and can’t just make a position available for internal hire. But even if they’re lying, you have nothing to lose by resubmitting. If something shady is going on you just won’t move forward, but if nothing shady is going on (and it was reposted for the states reason) then you’re fine. There are reasons to repost a job after having first and second round interviews if there are no qualified candidates, but that would be 1-2 months after the posting closes. If they’re reposting within days of it posting there must be a rule violation (like they claim happened) or perhaps just an error in the ad that needed to be updated (imagine if they listed the wrong areas of expertise desired).
RESPONSE B: The internal golden child was ranked below a better qualified external candidate by an external committee. Seen this happen in Scandinavia.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I have heard that academics from North America/Europe who take positions in Australia/New Zealand have difficulty moving back home. Have any of you had experience with this? Is there any truth to it? I am interviewing for what looks like a very good position at a great university in Australia. However, I have heard from a few different people (in different fields) that for some reason moving to Australia/New Zealand tends to have a negative effect on your subsequent career and that people find it very difficult to get positions in North America/Europe afterwards. One of my colleagues told me it was "a black hole of academics". Obviously, that's scared me a little bit as I don't necessarily intend to settle there. This position seems *really* good and I'd love to live in Australia for a while, but I don't want to constrain my options in the future. Has anyone had experience moving to Australia/New Zealand for a position and then moving back?
RESPONSE A: Agree with /u/dapt about networking. If your field has a big international conference, I'd make pains to attend despite the inconvenience. I'd also add that some hiring committees back home might have reservations about flying you all the way out for a campus interview.
RESPONSE B: Not an academic, but the Oceanic economy and society in general is tied very closely to east asia, much more so than the US or Europe.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: I have heard that academics from North America/Europe who take positions in Australia/New Zealand have difficulty moving back home. Have any of you had experience with this? Is there any truth to it? I am interviewing for what looks like a very good position at a great university in Australia. However, I have heard from a few different people (in different fields) that for some reason moving to Australia/New Zealand tends to have a negative effect on your subsequent career and that people find it very difficult to get positions in North America/Europe afterwards. One of my colleagues told me it was "a black hole of academics". Obviously, that's scared me a little bit as I don't necessarily intend to settle there. This position seems *really* good and I'd love to live in Australia for a while, but I don't want to constrain my options in the future. Has anyone had experience moving to Australia/New Zealand for a position and then moving back?
RESPONSE A: It depends on who you are, what your field is, and how successful you are. My mother moved to Aus many years ago, and then subsequently got a job back in Canada as a spousal hire because her husband is a super famous academic in his field and can essentially write his own ticket. They took 5 year contracts here, and have just gone back to Sydney, where he was wooed with a higher salary and better climate.
RESPONSE B: Agree with /u/dapt about networking. If your field has a big international conference, I'd make pains to attend despite the inconvenience. I'd also add that some hiring committees back home might have reservations about flying you all the way out for a campus interview.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I have heard that academics from North America/Europe who take positions in Australia/New Zealand have difficulty moving back home. Have any of you had experience with this? Is there any truth to it? I am interviewing for what looks like a very good position at a great university in Australia. However, I have heard from a few different people (in different fields) that for some reason moving to Australia/New Zealand tends to have a negative effect on your subsequent career and that people find it very difficult to get positions in North America/Europe afterwards. One of my colleagues told me it was "a black hole of academics". Obviously, that's scared me a little bit as I don't necessarily intend to settle there. This position seems *really* good and I'd love to live in Australia for a while, but I don't want to constrain my options in the future. Has anyone had experience moving to Australia/New Zealand for a position and then moving back?
RESPONSE A: It is difficult in my field, biology, because bio faculty at research universities are expected to get NSF and/or NIH grants. If you are no longer in a junior position (e.g. not an assistant professor or equivalent) and are trying moving back to the states, you won't be bringing any such grants with you. But you will be competing with people in the US who may well already have such grants and can move with them. It can be a huge hurdle for senior faculty expats.
RESPONSE B: Not an academic, but the Oceanic economy and society in general is tied very closely to east asia, much more so than the US or Europe.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Looking to study philosophy but I've been out of education for 8 years. Does anyone have any preparation tips for a mature student looking to get back into academia? I'm a 27 year old guy who wants to study again but I'm doubting my own abilities despite attaining good grades throughout my school years. I haven't written an essay for 8 years and I'm worried that if I go back I may not be able to anymore. Part of me feels like I have past my prime and I want to be prepared for the start of term in 2021. What can I do in the next year to not only boost my confidence but also refine skills that have stagnated over the past 8 years? Thanks for reading.
RESPONSE A: You’re never too old for academia I think. I’m in my 30s and just went back for my masters. I’m in my second semester. I’d been out for 6 years and I quit my first masters. I got lucky and found an amazing advisor. I say find some programs you like, contact the professors and go from there.
RESPONSE B: I definitely agree with the other comment here that you're never too old! I would say have a look at some of the philosophy that you already like, and have a snoop about to see what people are doing with it now. There are a few open source journals around, and it might help you to get a feeling of where things are at now. What kind of philosophy are you keen on studying? I would also encourage some funner things to make it feel less high stakes! YouTube videos like crash course, philosophytube and contrapoints are a few I've enjoyed, but there's plenty around to get amongst!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: on academia and came out more discouraged. Perhaps I didn't search deeply enough? If positive opinions didn't exist, then why go into it at all? Are we, as a human population, that pitifully addicted to stressful work environments?
RESPONSE A: I have an area of research that I am passionate about. The research I work on has direct benefits on people's lives, and so that adds to the sense of fulfillment I feel. There are few places outside of academia where I would have the opportunity to work on this line of research. I'm a Ph.D. student, and so what my future will look like is not certain, but thus far, I can say that I am thankful that I get to do the kind of work that I do.
RESPONSE B: I've busted my ass for over a decade in school (BS + PhD). Stressed out for much of it. honestly, I've worked far harder than the vast majority of ppl in my department, and no one would really dispute that. I've made a lot of sacrifices along the way, and put much of my life on hold for this. Just got a TT position, starting in a few weeks, that frankly, doesn't pay that well considering my years of education. But get this: There is a topic that I believe is central to the human experience, that we don't understand very well, that is the center of a massive amount of stigma, shame, and conflict. this was the reason I pursued grad school. And in my new position, I get to continue to research this topic and teach about this topic to today's young people. For me, this is a dream come true, that I've worked very fucking hard to achieve. And when I started college I was old enough to be my fellow students' parent. I'd been working and doing loads of drugs for years before I hit the books. Learning how to study in your 30s is no easy feat, and I suspect I'd lost some brain cells en route. I suppose an advantage I had was I knew why I was studying. So, on a personal level, I feel very positive about the journey so far, and I think in some ways, it's only beginning.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: "This structure has novel features which are of considerable biological interest," Watson & Crick's famous understatement in their 1953 cover letter to Nature. Does anyone have any further such examples? Science writing has been typically passive with the utmost care not to overstate; let the results speak for themselves and all that. So I was wondering, from the most famous or influential papers ever published, what single lines or short passages boil the entire discovery down into such brevity. Would love to read through further examples, if anyone has any. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: This question is probably better suited for /r/science. You may try there for a better response.
RESPONSE B: Not quite the same but Tsiolkovsky, the father of modern rocketry and astronautics wrote in 1903: > This work of mine is far from considering all of the aspects of the problem and does not solve any of the practical problems associated with its realization; however, in the distant future, looking through the fog, I can see prospects which are so intriguing and important it is doubtful that anyone dreams of them today.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: communities--where membership is partly based on intelligence, proficiency, and being able to speak the language of the discipline--pieces of writing become as much or more about presenting one's own qualifications for inclusion in the group than transmission of meaning... I think that very often it stems from insecurity and that people feel that unless they can mimic the particular jargon and style of their peers, they won't be taken seriously, and their ideas won't be taken seriously. Do you believe this to be the case in your field of study?
RESPONSE A: I know a guy who once in their lab meeting cheerfully announced that he now carefully read papers about his topic and is confident that he figured out the usage of language. As in "I don't know why they word it that way but a lot of them use this shared language and I think we should pick that up, too". The PI was unimpressed and just told him "If you don't understand why they word it that way do not copy it because you might accidentally say something you don't want to say". Also "a lot of them" where two or three people. He literally read papers of two or three people, picked up on some "common, shared phrases" he didn't even understand completely and thought he figured out how to boost his papers.
RESPONSE B: This. Absolutely. I'm in a field that borders on stem cell biology, development, and regeneration. There are phrases that you see in almost EVERY paper. Especially in the introduction, but also riddled throughout the discussion. Folks make use of these statements to appease the beliefs (yes beliefs) of individual reviewers. I say beliefs because our individual understanding of our field is largely influenced by our own experience and is narrowed by our conclusions...our scientific worldview if you will. I feel that reviewers are more likely to accept a paper and others are more likely to cite a paper if they feel it matches their understanding/scientific-worldview. Unfortunately, this means that the conclusions drawn sometimes don't follow from the results...which I find infuriating. It's as if reviewers don't actually ask themselves, "what do the data mean?"
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Professor passed away Not a question for academia exactly, just needed some place to get thoughts out/looking for ways to cope I guess. This professor taught me my freshman year & was a big inspiration for me in choosing what I am studying now. We loosely kept in touch after the class and they were so helpful and encouraging in my academic pursuits. I am so shocked and sad but don't know people in my position I feel like I can talk to; it wasn't like we had a tight personal relationship so it'd be weird reaching out to their acquaintances. I just don't know where I can express my grief appropriately and fully. Not sure what I was looking for here, but thanks for reading.
RESPONSE A: Keep it brother. I'm glad to hear he was such an inspiration for you. He was a great human and you should be happy with the time you spent with him :)
RESPONSE B: Sending an email or a message expressing your condolences and explaining that the Professor was a great inspiration for you will not be taken amiss. People will understand. If the Professor was in the same university as you were, they might do a condolence meet or even a memorial event. It will not be weird to attend that either.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Professor passed away Not a question for academia exactly, just needed some place to get thoughts out/looking for ways to cope I guess. This professor taught me my freshman year & was a big inspiration for me in choosing what I am studying now. We loosely kept in touch after the class and they were so helpful and encouraging in my academic pursuits. I am so shocked and sad but don't know people in my position I feel like I can talk to; it wasn't like we had a tight personal relationship so it'd be weird reaching out to their acquaintances. I just don't know where I can express my grief appropriately and fully. Not sure what I was looking for here, but thanks for reading.
RESPONSE A: Sending an email or a message expressing your condolences and explaining that the Professor was a great inspiration for you will not be taken amiss. People will understand. If the Professor was in the same university as you were, they might do a condolence meet or even a memorial event. It will not be weird to attend that either.
RESPONSE B: Surely your university can offer a counselling service. Talk to other students from your class, or to other academics in the faculty. It's not strange to want to talk about your grief, you'll surely find someone who'll lend you an ear! Sorry to hear about the loss.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: work and find a different advisor, who would probably give you a totally different project, which may not be something you even enjoy? I ask because I've been looking at PhD programs to apply, and there are some professors who have research interests that I am interested in, but are around 70-80 years old. I just want to know what the procedure would be then.
RESPONSE A: My university appoints a co-advisor for all advisors who are over 65 years of age. Where I live in India, 65 is the retirement age after which professors may continue as adjunct faculty, so they have a full-time faculty as a co-advisor.
RESPONSE B: This happened in my program when we lost a relatively young (53) prof unexpectedly. All of his students who were ABD got picked up by other faculty and were allowed to finish their dissertations with a new committee; typically one of the existing members too over as chair and a replacement was added. Those who were not as far into their programs were given the option to select a new advisor and continue...those who were close to finishing coursework generally did (we had three years of courses) but those who were only 1-2 years in generally left. After all, the person they had come to study with was gone and under the best of circumstances it would take two years to have a replacement in the classroom. If people don't fall over dead in the saddle but simply retire, it's common practice for them to continue serving on (and even chairing) committees for students who were admitted to work with them. However, there is the likely disadvantage there of the eventual Ph.D. holder not having an active advisor to serve as an advocate on the job market. Or even if you did, how current will her/his information be if she/he got a Ph.D. in 1957? I'd say whatever you do, be sure to build a strong relationship with a committee member that is <60, both as a backup and as a counter to the senior member. I've had friends work with 80+ year old chairs with great results, but one of my college roommates lots his committee chair during his Ph.D. program and it ended up costing him two years ultimately.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do you deal with nonsensical revision suggestions for article submissions? I've submitted an article to a publication and this is the second time I've been told that my article is being recommended for publication "with some revisions", and this is also the second time ONE reviewer has completely gone off the rails with the topic at hand and their suggestions. The first time around, the reviewer suggested things entirely unrelated to the article, saying that I'd be much better if I explored an entirely different path that isn't even within the same discipline. The second time around, the reviewer has made a suggested "correction" that is flat-out incorrect. I'm feeling extremely defeated and I don't know how to proceed.
RESPONSE A: Rebut the referee comments. You don’t have to adopt them if you have firm rationale.
RESPONSE B: I find this depends on the journal's editor. Some are overworked and will just go by whatever the reviewers write, there will likely be enough publishable articles for an issue anyway. Most editors are pretty reasonable though. I had one reviewer give quite a few corrections for Latin translations and all were incorrect. I wrote to the editor and explained the situation and they just said that's fine and the published as it was. Make the argument and see what happens. If it doesn't work, you'll have to go elsewhere and hope they don't ask the same reviewer.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do you deal with nonsensical revision suggestions for article submissions? I've submitted an article to a publication and this is the second time I've been told that my article is being recommended for publication "with some revisions", and this is also the second time ONE reviewer has completely gone off the rails with the topic at hand and their suggestions. The first time around, the reviewer suggested things entirely unrelated to the article, saying that I'd be much better if I explored an entirely different path that isn't even within the same discipline. The second time around, the reviewer has made a suggested "correction" that is flat-out incorrect. I'm feeling extremely defeated and I don't know how to proceed.
RESPONSE A: It is entirely reasonable to rebut a reviewer’s incorrect suggested change. Just be calm, factual, and concise in your response.
RESPONSE B: If you have an accept rather than a revise and resubmit, I'd do well by the good recommendations and either minimally address the bad ones, or write a response to each suggestion as to why you've decided against making the change.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How do you deal with nonsensical revision suggestions for article submissions? I've submitted an article to a publication and this is the second time I've been told that my article is being recommended for publication "with some revisions", and this is also the second time ONE reviewer has completely gone off the rails with the topic at hand and their suggestions. The first time around, the reviewer suggested things entirely unrelated to the article, saying that I'd be much better if I explored an entirely different path that isn't even within the same discipline. The second time around, the reviewer has made a suggested "correction" that is flat-out incorrect. I'm feeling extremely defeated and I don't know how to proceed.
RESPONSE A: If you have an accept rather than a revise and resubmit, I'd do well by the good recommendations and either minimally address the bad ones, or write a response to each suggestion as to why you've decided against making the change.
RESPONSE B: At times when I've had reviewers totally miss the point I've added sentences to the manuscript like: * This is not to say X; rather I am saying Y. * To be clear, I am not arguing X; I am, however, arguing Y. * Although some might interpret this point as X, it is actually the case that Y. * Although some might think X, this would be inaccurate; instead, it is important to understand that Y. Where X=Reviewer's Ungenerous/Inaccurate Assumption I realized over time that while annoying, these reviewer comments can be helpful in that it tells me where and how a reader might misinterpret what I'm saying and show me ways to make my point clearer.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do you deal with nonsensical revision suggestions for article submissions? I've submitted an article to a publication and this is the second time I've been told that my article is being recommended for publication "with some revisions", and this is also the second time ONE reviewer has completely gone off the rails with the topic at hand and their suggestions. The first time around, the reviewer suggested things entirely unrelated to the article, saying that I'd be much better if I explored an entirely different path that isn't even within the same discipline. The second time around, the reviewer has made a suggested "correction" that is flat-out incorrect. I'm feeling extremely defeated and I don't know how to proceed.
RESPONSE A: At times when I've had reviewers totally miss the point I've added sentences to the manuscript like: * This is not to say X; rather I am saying Y. * To be clear, I am not arguing X; I am, however, arguing Y. * Although some might interpret this point as X, it is actually the case that Y. * Although some might think X, this would be inaccurate; instead, it is important to understand that Y. Where X=Reviewer's Ungenerous/Inaccurate Assumption I realized over time that while annoying, these reviewer comments can be helpful in that it tells me where and how a reader might misinterpret what I'm saying and show me ways to make my point clearer.
RESPONSE B: Give what you can, and as much as you can. Often these things can be dealt with by adding a single sentence in the discussion. Even if you do not think it is necessary - give it. Where you flat out cannot agree - rebut the point clearly and concisely.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: I absolutely hate my PhD advisor, and the enviroment I work, but love the field what should I do? So the changing the advisor is impossible, but I just hate him, discussing science with him sucks, i always feel a competition from him it is just not fruitful. I am his first phd student so he is not very experienced, also his ideas were mostly bs. I really absolutely hate working here and working with him. I love my field though I don't know what the fuck I should do.
RESPONSE A: How far in are you? If you’ve got years to go, I would highly recommend talking to a program advisor of some kind. This is your life and you deserve better than to be miserable for 5 years of it. It would be better to change advisors and stay in the field tbh. If you can’t, perhaps could you add a co-advisor. Good luck.
RESPONSE B: I hated my advisor with a passion, had serious conversations with other potential advisers in the department, realized the other options were not better, and then had a very very frank discussion with him about our working relationship. Asked him why he seemed chronically Irritated with me, told him I was unhappy, and then our relationship really turned around. Now, three years out of my PhD, I realize how lucky I was to have him as my advisor.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I absolutely hate my PhD advisor, and the enviroment I work, but love the field what should I do? So the changing the advisor is impossible, but I just hate him, discussing science with him sucks, i always feel a competition from him it is just not fruitful. I am his first phd student so he is not very experienced, also his ideas were mostly bs. I really absolutely hate working here and working with him. I love my field though I don't know what the fuck I should do.
RESPONSE A: I hated my advisor with a passion, had serious conversations with other potential advisers in the department, realized the other options were not better, and then had a very very frank discussion with him about our working relationship. Asked him why he seemed chronically Irritated with me, told him I was unhappy, and then our relationship really turned around. Now, three years out of my PhD, I realize how lucky I was to have him as my advisor.
RESPONSE B: Is there an academic who oversees the PhD programmes in your School? If so, I would arrange to meet with them to discuss changing supervisor. Also, if there is a process whereby you discuss the progress you're making on your thesis in a confidential setting, then I would also raise it there.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I absolutely hate my PhD advisor, and the enviroment I work, but love the field what should I do? So the changing the advisor is impossible, but I just hate him, discussing science with him sucks, i always feel a competition from him it is just not fruitful. I am his first phd student so he is not very experienced, also his ideas were mostly bs. I really absolutely hate working here and working with him. I love my field though I don't know what the fuck I should do.
RESPONSE A: The most influential factor on a PhD student's life is their advisor. You have to work 1 on 1 with these people for 5+ years. That is a really, *really* long time to be miserable. If you are really that miserable then you should look into switching advisors or even switching schools.
RESPONSE B: How far in are you? If you’ve got years to go, I would highly recommend talking to a program advisor of some kind. This is your life and you deserve better than to be miserable for 5 years of it. It would be better to change advisors and stay in the field tbh. If you can’t, perhaps could you add a co-advisor. Good luck.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I absolutely hate my PhD advisor, and the enviroment I work, but love the field what should I do? So the changing the advisor is impossible, but I just hate him, discussing science with him sucks, i always feel a competition from him it is just not fruitful. I am his first phd student so he is not very experienced, also his ideas were mostly bs. I really absolutely hate working here and working with him. I love my field though I don't know what the fuck I should do.
RESPONSE A: The most influential factor on a PhD student's life is their advisor. You have to work 1 on 1 with these people for 5+ years. That is a really, *really* long time to be miserable. If you are really that miserable then you should look into switching advisors or even switching schools.
RESPONSE B: Is there an academic who oversees the PhD programmes in your School? If so, I would arrange to meet with them to discuss changing supervisor. Also, if there is a process whereby you discuss the progress you're making on your thesis in a confidential setting, then I would also raise it there.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I absolutely hate my PhD advisor, and the enviroment I work, but love the field what should I do? So the changing the advisor is impossible, but I just hate him, discussing science with him sucks, i always feel a competition from him it is just not fruitful. I am his first phd student so he is not very experienced, also his ideas were mostly bs. I really absolutely hate working here and working with him. I love my field though I don't know what the fuck I should do.
RESPONSE A: Had a bad advisor relationship, transferring after 3 years and I'm conviced it's for the best: I was mentally poor every day going into work and this is despite the fact that everything else about the environment was good, the reputation was good, and the science was great. Get out of that lab: advisors are what matter most
RESPONSE B: Is there an academic who oversees the PhD programmes in your School? If so, I would arrange to meet with them to discuss changing supervisor. Also, if there is a process whereby you discuss the progress you're making on your thesis in a confidential setting, then I would also raise it there.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: connected to my field of study for the next year (or 2). I chose to take this gap year(s) so that I can recover from "school-environment burnout", come to terms with a nasty case of imposter syndrome, settle personal goals, and formulate a more solid plan for the future. As it currently stands: So far, so good. My intermediate goals are still on track to be very achievable, but its the long term ones that I'm having problems with... During my last 2 years in school, I managed to secure some very interesting on-campus job/research positions, which gave me an in-depth look into the world of academia. I **really** didn't like what I saw. Too much pettiness, personal politics, playing favorites, and backstabbing. Despite this, I still absolutely love my field of study and I have many more research topics, deeper questions, and interests that I want to pursue. I originally wanted to do a PhD, but now I'm not so sure it would be worth dealing with that much petty bullshit. Help?
RESPONSE A: Just so you know. The corporate world is absolutely no different from academia in personal politics, playing favorites, and backstabbing. Grass is always greener, however I'll acknowledge that the money tends to be better on the other side. But then again, its rare that you'll be captivated to the same degree as you will if there's an academic subject that highly interests you. Corporations are there for the money. It IS their primary purpose. Your goals are only allowed insofar as they advance that goal. If there is an opportunity to pursue your subject matter to the end in academia, I say go for it. You have the rest of your life to sell out. But once you do, you may not have the same amount of time left in your life to pursue what interests you as an individual.
RESPONSE B: I have no idea how much of this is true and how much of this is speculative bullshit, but apparently a Ph.D or Masters makes me less likely to get a job as a CS major because they feel like they have to pay me more due to my "qualifications", without any real perceived benefit.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: am fortunately currently employed in an entry-level, non-academic job position, which is deeply connected to my field of study for the next year (or 2). I chose to take this gap year(s) so that I can recover from "school-environment burnout", come to terms with a nasty case of imposter syndrome, settle personal goals, and formulate a more solid plan for the future. As it currently stands: So far, so good. My intermediate goals are still on track to be very achievable, but its the long term ones that I'm having problems with... During my last 2 years in school, I managed to secure some very interesting on-campus job/research positions, which gave me an in-depth look into the world of academia. I **really** didn't like what I saw. Too much pettiness, personal politics, playing favorites, and backstabbing. Despite this, I still absolutely love my field of study and I have many more research topics, deeper questions, and interests that I want to pursue. I originally wanted to do a PhD, but now I'm not so sure it would be worth dealing with that much petty bullshit. Help?
RESPONSE A: Just so you know. The corporate world is absolutely no different from academia in personal politics, playing favorites, and backstabbing. Grass is always greener, however I'll acknowledge that the money tends to be better on the other side. But then again, its rare that you'll be captivated to the same degree as you will if there's an academic subject that highly interests you. Corporations are there for the money. It IS their primary purpose. Your goals are only allowed insofar as they advance that goal. If there is an opportunity to pursue your subject matter to the end in academia, I say go for it. You have the rest of your life to sell out. But once you do, you may not have the same amount of time left in your life to pursue what interests you as an individual.
RESPONSE B: if you have this realization several years into a PhD, I would say its worth toughing it out until the end. Having it before you've even started? I think that's too many years of misery to suffer.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: information and/or humble-brag. Anyways, I graduated this past May after an abnormally long time in undergrad. This was by choice, however, and I am fortunately currently employed in an entry-level, non-academic job position, which is deeply connected to my field of study for the next year (or 2). I chose to take this gap year(s) so that I can recover from "school-environment burnout", come to terms with a nasty case of imposter syndrome, settle personal goals, and formulate a more solid plan for the future. As it currently stands: So far, so good. My intermediate goals are still on track to be very achievable, but its the long term ones that I'm having problems with... During my last 2 years in school, I managed to secure some very interesting on-campus job/research positions, which gave me an in-depth look into the world of academia. I **really** didn't like what I saw. Too much pettiness, personal politics, playing favorites, and backstabbing. Despite this, I still absolutely love my field of study and I have many more research topics, deeper questions, and interests that I want to pursue. I originally wanted to do a PhD, but now I'm not so sure it would be worth dealing with that much petty bullshit. Help?
RESPONSE A: Just so you know. The corporate world is absolutely no different from academia in personal politics, playing favorites, and backstabbing. Grass is always greener, however I'll acknowledge that the money tends to be better on the other side. But then again, its rare that you'll be captivated to the same degree as you will if there's an academic subject that highly interests you. Corporations are there for the money. It IS their primary purpose. Your goals are only allowed insofar as they advance that goal. If there is an opportunity to pursue your subject matter to the end in academia, I say go for it. You have the rest of your life to sell out. But once you do, you may not have the same amount of time left in your life to pursue what interests you as an individual.
RESPONSE B: Depends on your goals, I think. What field is it?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: could deal with for 3 years. However, I have been looking at research fellow jobs to get the idea of how much I could be earning afterwards and turns out that it’s around £30-32k pa. I’m unsure whether it is worth doing a PhD if after so many years of hard work you’re getting payed so little? I would love to know people’s opinions whether it’s worth pursuing one or if I should just get a standard lab job? TL;DR: I enjoy working in labs and I like academia. Not sure if doing a PhD is a good idea money wise.
RESPONSE A: Couple of points. Firstly you don't get wages as a PhD student in the UK, you get a stipend. This is isn't me being pedantic, they're fundamentally different and as such you don't pay tax on that £18k and you won't be required to pay back any student loan. That would put it in the same ball park as the take home pay of an entry-level graduate job, or graduate trainee scheme. Secondly, with a PhD you can go into industry (you can without a PhD too, but a PhD provides more options) or into a host of other careers. Your salary may start out relatively on a par with a postdoc, or it might even be higher, but you can increase your salary relatively rapidly if you make the right moves. In the space of 6 years after I moved from a postdoc to a non-academic track job I doubled my salary and people in my team who are 3 years out of their PhDs are on nearly £50k. You don't need to do a PhD to have a good career but it can be a benefit for jobs in industry, and also all the jobs that sit around science - policy, funding, Comms, public engagement, civil service, research administration etc.
RESPONSE B: Not my field but I'd guess that kind of PhD is quite transportable to the private sector, and that it might well play well there, especially if you're busy and productive. Of course, the wider key to this question depends on funding opportunities and the immediate opportunity costs. Much luck.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Unsure if it’s worth doing a PhD I am a recent first class Biochemistry masters graduate in the UK. I really loved being in research labs doing my final project and I have always been very keen to do a PhD in oncology (I enjoy the academia environment, collaboration, being in a research team etc). The average wage during a PhD is £18k per year, which is disappointing, but something I could deal with for 3 years. However, I have been looking at research fellow jobs to get the idea of how much I could be earning afterwards and turns out that it’s around £30-32k pa. I’m unsure whether it is worth doing a PhD if after so many years of hard work you’re getting payed so little? I would love to know people’s opinions whether it’s worth pursuing one or if I should just get a standard lab job? TL;DR: I enjoy working in labs and I like academia. Not sure if doing a PhD is a good idea money wise.
RESPONSE A: Not my field but I'd guess that kind of PhD is quite transportable to the private sector, and that it might well play well there, especially if you're busy and productive. Of course, the wider key to this question depends on funding opportunities and the immediate opportunity costs. Much luck.
RESPONSE B: I wish our societies cherished intellectuals as much as we did athletes and actors. You definitely deserve to earn way more.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How should I tell my supervisor that my partner has been AWOL for the last three months? Hi all, I'm currently in my undergrad, and have been volunteering on and off with a project. My partner is a close friend, and we both met our supervisor at a conference together. For the last four months, the project has been on hold, and in that time, my partner/friend has disappeared (for circumstances unknown to me). No contact, no response for three months. I've texted, facebooked, phoned her, with no response, and I'm worried because the project is moving forward. My supervisor wants to meet with both of us, and expects both of us for this project. My partner will likely not attend these meetings. *Is there a professional way to let my supervisor know that I have no clue about my partner's whereabouts?* *Also, the project is too large for me to handle on my own, how can I involve others while considering my partner?*
RESPONSE A: Just tell them. You're massively overthinking this.
RESPONSE B: Honestly, just tell your supervisor exactly what you told us. That you have tried contacting your partner and there has been no response. To be professional, don't speculate on why your partner is gone (like scared, got cold feet, quit school). Your supervisor should be able to work with you to find new helpers, as the project is obviously too large. Are you worried about your friend? Three months is a long time to disappear, and you said this was a close friend. Do you have an address or other friends to contact?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: writing potential I've had, and preventing me from talking to someone who might be able to help with it. The worst kind of vicious cycle! Any tips on how to approach my supervisor would be greatly appreciated!
RESPONSE A: I wouldn't really notify your supervisor unless you're about to miss a deadline that you both previously made. Also, the pandemic has affected everyone's productivity, so you're not alone in that way. In terms of your writing, first check in with yourself emotionally. Procrastination is generated by emotions, so, meditate on the specifics of your anxiety and what about it is keeping you from your work. I'm assuming the writing you need to complete is for your dissertation prospectus. If so, I recommend starting with 30 (even 15) minutes a day, every day at the same time, where you sit down and just write your thoughts about your topic. Set a timer on your phone, turn off your ringer, even turn off your wifi, and just write down your ideas. Sometimes this means taking a quote from something you read and writing around it. Other times it's just you writing your thoughts. If you do this everyday, in two weeks you will have pages. You can then read over them and begin to structure and edit them into your larger idea. Good luck and hang in there!
RESPONSE B: tbh I don't really get writer's block either, but if you're struggling to the point of being completely unproductive, you need to tell *someone*. This is how people fall off the wagon, especially in departments that pay their ABDs and otherwise leave them completely alone. The number of friends I have who zoned out on their diss and then showed up to their defense 3 years later with nothing but a wry smile wouldn't fit on one hand. If you're too scared to speak to your supervisor, speak to a colleague, another mentor, a counselor, a writing center staff person, your mom - someone. Ideally you should tell your supervisor, but people have valid reasons not to. The way you do it is, you set up a meeting and you just up and tell them that you chopped down the cherry tree. There's not much else to it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: a central theme. Basically I just finalized the orientation I'm taking), but I haven't actually done any writing since I finished my comp. My partner keeps telling me that I should email my supervisor to talk about this—and I don't disagree—but my supervisor is also someone who consistently puts out work, and I'm not sure that they would understand the complete writing block I've had since our last phone meeting. Basically, my anxiety is both blocking any writing potential I've had, and preventing me from talking to someone who might be able to help with it. The worst kind of vicious cycle! Any tips on how to approach my supervisor would be greatly appreciated!
RESPONSE A: One of my idols is a professor who just absolutely PUMPS out incredible, inspiring work. I luckily also follow her on twitter, where she regularly tweets about how difficult it is for her to write. If I didn't have that window into her personal struggles, I'd have no idea. Maybe your advisor has similarly struggled but found what works for her? Also maybe your advisor is empathetic and kind? (Maybe not....)
RESPONSE B: I wouldn't really notify your supervisor unless you're about to miss a deadline that you both previously made. Also, the pandemic has affected everyone's productivity, so you're not alone in that way. In terms of your writing, first check in with yourself emotionally. Procrastination is generated by emotions, so, meditate on the specifics of your anxiety and what about it is keeping you from your work. I'm assuming the writing you need to complete is for your dissertation prospectus. If so, I recommend starting with 30 (even 15) minutes a day, every day at the same time, where you sit down and just write your thoughts about your topic. Set a timer on your phone, turn off your ringer, even turn off your wifi, and just write down your ideas. Sometimes this means taking a quote from something you read and writing around it. Other times it's just you writing your thoughts. If you do this everyday, in two weeks you will have pages. You can then read over them and begin to structure and edit them into your larger idea. Good luck and hang in there!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: I much prefer being in class in person as Im sure many others do too. I was accepted at the school and am in a Bachelors program with a major in anthropology. I think getting a BA in general anthropology is a good idea because it opens up a few more doors than just archaeology alone. And I think anthro. is easier to sell to a future employer and is good on a resume. I intend to get a masters and if I can find work in the field in the meantime that would be a double win. I would love to go beyond a masters and a definitely want to get involved in research and academic archaeology that involves work over seas. Tl;dr So here I am. I just turned 33. I have solid reasons why I'm so far behind but I still feel awful and feel upset about it but I am not giving up. Even if you dont have any knowledge of archaeology I would still very much like to hear from you. I am the only person I'm my extended family to get this far in school. I dont have friends or siblings whom I can as for advice
RESPONSE A: 33 was my age when I started my PhD...I think that the average age to start at associate prof level is around 35...so absolutely no problem. At university, maturity may be an asset!
RESPONSE B: People always respond: “no, you’re not too old.” I’ll say that the odds of getting an academic job in anthropology or archeology are not good (that’s an understatement) for anyone, regardless of age. While you’re not “too old”, the opportunity cost is much higher for someone your age than for someone who gets their PhD at 30, spends a couple of years on the job market, then decides to cut their losses. If you go the PhD route, you’ll be done at 41 at the earliest, give a few years on the academic job market, you’ll almost be in your mid-40s when you try to move on to something else. It’s hard. You may decide it’s worth the risk, but you should be aware of what you’re up against: the worst job market ever in many academic fields.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Arts to Transfer. and then applied to a state college. I put off going back because of covid. I much prefer being in class in person as Im sure many others do too. I was accepted at the school and am in a Bachelors program with a major in anthropology. I think getting a BA in general anthropology is a good idea because it opens up a few more doors than just archaeology alone. And I think anthro. is easier to sell to a future employer and is good on a resume. I intend to get a masters and if I can find work in the field in the meantime that would be a double win. I would love to go beyond a masters and a definitely want to get involved in research and academic archaeology that involves work over seas. Tl;dr So here I am. I just turned 33. I have solid reasons why I'm so far behind but I still feel awful and feel upset about it but I am not giving up. Even if you dont have any knowledge of archaeology I would still very much like to hear from you. I am the only person I'm my extended family to get this far in school. I dont have friends or siblings whom I can as for advice
RESPONSE A: This gets asked a lot, and the answer is always 'no'.
RESPONSE B: People always respond: “no, you’re not too old.” I’ll say that the odds of getting an academic job in anthropology or archeology are not good (that’s an understatement) for anyone, regardless of age. While you’re not “too old”, the opportunity cost is much higher for someone your age than for someone who gets their PhD at 30, spends a couple of years on the job market, then decides to cut their losses. If you go the PhD route, you’ll be done at 41 at the earliest, give a few years on the academic job market, you’ll almost be in your mid-40s when you try to move on to something else. It’s hard. You may decide it’s worth the risk, but you should be aware of what you’re up against: the worst job market ever in many academic fields.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: working in construction. I didn't get another opportunity to go back to school until I was 27 years old. I loved getting back into school and did quite well and got involved in a number of school related activities, wrote for the paper and tutored college English to ESL students. I too another break after reaching my degree. an AA-T; Associates in Arts to Transfer. and then applied to a state college. I put off going back because of covid. I much prefer being in class in person as Im sure many others do too. I was accepted at the school and am in a Bachelors program with a major in anthropology. I think getting a BA in general anthropology is a good idea because it opens up a few more doors than just archaeology alone. And I think anthro. is easier to sell to a future employer and is good on a resume. I intend to get a masters and if I can find work in the field in the meantime that would be a double win. I would love to go beyond a masters and a definitely want to get involved in research and academic archaeology that involves work over seas. Tl;dr So here I am. I just turned 33. I have solid reasons why I'm so far behind but I still feel awful and feel upset about it but I am not giving up. Even if you dont have any knowledge of archaeology I would still very much like to hear from you. I am the only person I'm my extended family to get this far in school. I dont have friends or siblings whom I can as for advice
RESPONSE A: 33 was my age when I started my PhD...I think that the average age to start at associate prof level is around 35...so absolutely no problem. At university, maturity may be an asset!
RESPONSE B: Another option is to get your masters in archaeology and then go work for a private firm. Many places require archaeology surveys done before construction, especially in New England. With your industry experience, you’d probably be a top candidate for a private lab job. That’s what my cousin has been doing for the past 25 years and has enjoyed it (still gets to present at conferences, publish, etc).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: a number of school related activities, wrote for the paper and tutored college English to ESL students. I too another break after reaching my degree. an AA-T; Associates in Arts to Transfer. and then applied to a state college. I put off going back because of covid. I much prefer being in class in person as Im sure many others do too. I was accepted at the school and am in a Bachelors program with a major in anthropology. I think getting a BA in general anthropology is a good idea because it opens up a few more doors than just archaeology alone. And I think anthro. is easier to sell to a future employer and is good on a resume. I intend to get a masters and if I can find work in the field in the meantime that would be a double win. I would love to go beyond a masters and a definitely want to get involved in research and academic archaeology that involves work over seas. Tl;dr So here I am. I just turned 33. I have solid reasons why I'm so far behind but I still feel awful and feel upset about it but I am not giving up. Even if you dont have any knowledge of archaeology I would still very much like to hear from you. I am the only person I'm my extended family to get this far in school. I dont have friends or siblings whom I can as for advice
RESPONSE A: Yes you can get your PhD still. Getting a TT after will be tough, its the same with anyone wanting to go that route at any age. MS would be quicker and depending where you are you could get a CC job. More teaching, but I now CC profs that did research too. As for the education gap just explain it in your application letters.
RESPONSE B: Another option is to get your masters in archaeology and then go work for a private firm. Many places require archaeology surveys done before construction, especially in New England. With your industry experience, you’d probably be a top candidate for a private lab job. That’s what my cousin has been doing for the past 25 years and has enjoyed it (still gets to present at conferences, publish, etc).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: college after high school. Circumstances lead me in another direction. I went through some difficult things and began working in construction. I didn't get another opportunity to go back to school until I was 27 years old. I loved getting back into school and did quite well and got involved in a number of school related activities, wrote for the paper and tutored college English to ESL students. I too another break after reaching my degree. an AA-T; Associates in Arts to Transfer. and then applied to a state college. I put off going back because of covid. I much prefer being in class in person as Im sure many others do too. I was accepted at the school and am in a Bachelors program with a major in anthropology. I think getting a BA in general anthropology is a good idea because it opens up a few more doors than just archaeology alone. And I think anthro. is easier to sell to a future employer and is good on a resume. I intend to get a masters and if I can find work in the field in the meantime that would be a double win. I would love to go beyond a masters and a definitely want to get involved in research and academic archaeology that involves work over seas. Tl;dr So here I am. I just turned 33. I have solid reasons why I'm so far behind but I still feel awful and feel upset about it but I am not giving up. Even if you dont have any knowledge of archaeology I would still very much like to hear from you. I am the only person I'm my extended family to get this far in school. I dont have friends or siblings whom I can as for advice
RESPONSE A: This gets asked a lot, and the answer is always 'no'.
RESPONSE B: Another option is to get your masters in archaeology and then go work for a private firm. Many places require archaeology surveys done before construction, especially in New England. With your industry experience, you’d probably be a top candidate for a private lab job. That’s what my cousin has been doing for the past 25 years and has enjoyed it (still gets to present at conferences, publish, etc).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: where I could get a position as a post doc and then staff scientist, and literally do what I just described. Do you all have other recommendations of other career paths where I can do some of the things I described? Any areas of industry you would recommend? Or specific start ups, research institutes? I would be so stoked if I could just graduate, and land a job that would allow me to not work for post doc salaries for 3-5 years, and where I could do some meaningful science. Thank you so much for your help!
RESPONSE A: Best bet is to talk to faculty who have had students that go the route you described. Meet with them and then decide if they’re day to day is something you like. If it is, nurture the relationships and apply to similar positions later.
RESPONSE B: If doing research and publishing is primarily what you want then there are also industry research positions out there that offer this. Given though that it will be a lot harder to get them as their pay is often anywhere from 2 to 5 times as high as academia. IMO if you want to focus purely on research then being a scientist is better than being a postdoc. Of course professorship will ultimately have more influence, but that is because being a professor is as much being a quasi-politician as it is being a researcher. In my opinion your research quality will be better when all the stressors are taken care of, which is why a lot of refinement and perfection happens outside of academia. Academia is a lot of paperwork, financial stress and career stress. The fact that progressing from postdoc to professor is almost entirely chance based (unless you have nepotism going for you) is alone something that put me off from it. In a R&D positions you have a clear roadmap from junior scientist to PI with steady progression and a larger research team while at academia its jumping from 6-24 month postdoc to postdoc with absolutely 0 guarantees your career will ever take off. And every time you are on a postdoc contract you have to uproot yourself and delay everything in your life like settling down. It is only worth it if you are willing to pay that price for the mere chance to get the title with its prestige.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: vid times. Obviously, I want to go. Here's my question: I understand that typically, if someone brings their (non-academic) partner to a conference, that partner is expected to be on their own for the majority of the conference, while the partner attending the conference attends talks, engages in networking, etc... And, I'm fine with that. However, seeing as how I am more familiar with the subject matter, and know far more people there than he does, would it still be inappropriate for me to attend talks? I want to introduce him to people! (If I'm being completely honest, I also miss academia very much, and would return if I could afford to quit my job. Part of why I want to attend talks is for the intellectual fulfillment which, it turns out, I am really craving.) So, what is the correct etiquette here? The way I see it, it can go one of three ways: 1) Attend social events only? I'm there because my partner is, and I so I should spend my time like any other non-academic partner would--exploring the city and hanging out on my own. 2) Attend talks given by my friends, but no other non-social events. (Obviously, I would pay the membership fee required to attend the conference.) 3) Attend whatever I want (again, having paid the membership fee to attend), ask questions, meet new people, and basically treat the conference as though I belong there as much as anyone else. I want to do what's best for my partner, ultimately. I wouldn't be attending the conference, purchasing a membership, etc.. if he wasn't going. I know I can be an asset, but I also don't want my presence to come off as rude or inappropriate. Thanks for reading, thanks for responding!
RESPONSE A: 3 all the way. Have fun!
RESPONSE B: Go for it! Just make sure he has time to go to talks outside of your interest, meet people who aren't just your connections, etc. I think the norm of partners going off to explore the city is just because they'd rather do that and paying for the conference would be a waste. Or they have their own work to do. Not your situation.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: to people! (If I'm being completely honest, I also miss academia very much, and would return if I could afford to quit my job. Part of why I want to attend talks is for the intellectual fulfillment which, it turns out, I am really craving.) So, what is the correct etiquette here? The way I see it, it can go one of three ways: 1) Attend social events only? I'm there because my partner is, and I so I should spend my time like any other non-academic partner would--exploring the city and hanging out on my own. 2) Attend talks given by my friends, but no other non-social events. (Obviously, I would pay the membership fee required to attend the conference.) 3) Attend whatever I want (again, having paid the membership fee to attend), ask questions, meet new people, and basically treat the conference as though I belong there as much as anyone else. I want to do what's best for my partner, ultimately. I wouldn't be attending the conference, purchasing a membership, etc.. if he wasn't going. I know I can be an asset, but I also don't want my presence to come off as rude or inappropriate. Thanks for reading, thanks for responding!
RESPONSE A: > I want to introduce him to people! My one concern is that in your enthusiasm you might inadvertently impinge his ability to develop his own skills at developing personal professional relationships. As you know, this skill set includes the ability to introduce oneself to a virtual stranger one knows only through published works and/or professional reputation. And sometimes skill development follows momentary stumbles and miscues. So maybe figure out ways you can "right size" the introductions on a case by case basis. Maybe you encourage him to find his own way for a while with occasional "chalk talks" in the hallway. Maybe you introduce him to someone briefly, and then excuse yourself so they can talk one on on. Maybe, towards the end of the conference you suggest some extra socializing over beverages of choice.
RESPONSE B: Who cares? I don’t mean that disrespectfully. You want to go - your partner wants to go - you’re knowledgeable. You belong. Act like you belong
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: only? I'm there because my partner is, and I so I should spend my time like any other non-academic partner would--exploring the city and hanging out on my own. 2) Attend talks given by my friends, but no other non-social events. (Obviously, I would pay the membership fee required to attend the conference.) 3) Attend whatever I want (again, having paid the membership fee to attend), ask questions, meet new people, and basically treat the conference as though I belong there as much as anyone else. I want to do what's best for my partner, ultimately. I wouldn't be attending the conference, purchasing a membership, etc.. if he wasn't going. I know I can be an asset, but I also don't want my presence to come off as rude or inappropriate. Thanks for reading, thanks for responding!
RESPONSE A: If you're paying the registration fee, then attend any talks or conference evens you want, social or otherwise. Whether you should introduce your partner to people or otherwise socialize *with* your partner should be entirely up to your partner. If he feels it will reflect badly on him in his specific academic field or social circles, then you should take his lead on that and just spend your time catching up with people and socializing as you would if he weren't there too. Assuming he's fine with it, then go forth and socialize together as a couple.
RESPONSE B: > I want to introduce him to people! My one concern is that in your enthusiasm you might inadvertently impinge his ability to develop his own skills at developing personal professional relationships. As you know, this skill set includes the ability to introduce oneself to a virtual stranger one knows only through published works and/or professional reputation. And sometimes skill development follows momentary stumbles and miscues. So maybe figure out ways you can "right size" the introductions on a case by case basis. Maybe you encourage him to find his own way for a while with occasional "chalk talks" in the hallway. Maybe you introduce him to someone briefly, and then excuse yourself so they can talk one on on. Maybe, towards the end of the conference you suggest some extra socializing over beverages of choice.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: subject matter, and know far more people there than he does, would it still be inappropriate for me to attend talks? I want to introduce him to people! (If I'm being completely honest, I also miss academia very much, and would return if I could afford to quit my job. Part of why I want to attend talks is for the intellectual fulfillment which, it turns out, I am really craving.) So, what is the correct etiquette here? The way I see it, it can go one of three ways: 1) Attend social events only? I'm there because my partner is, and I so I should spend my time like any other non-academic partner would--exploring the city and hanging out on my own. 2) Attend talks given by my friends, but no other non-social events. (Obviously, I would pay the membership fee required to attend the conference.) 3) Attend whatever I want (again, having paid the membership fee to attend), ask questions, meet new people, and basically treat the conference as though I belong there as much as anyone else. I want to do what's best for my partner, ultimately. I wouldn't be attending the conference, purchasing a membership, etc.. if he wasn't going. I know I can be an asset, but I also don't want my presence to come off as rude or inappropriate. Thanks for reading, thanks for responding!
RESPONSE A: 3 all the way. Have fun!
RESPONSE B: > I want to introduce him to people! My one concern is that in your enthusiasm you might inadvertently impinge his ability to develop his own skills at developing personal professional relationships. As you know, this skill set includes the ability to introduce oneself to a virtual stranger one knows only through published works and/or professional reputation. And sometimes skill development follows momentary stumbles and miscues. So maybe figure out ways you can "right size" the introductions on a case by case basis. Maybe you encourage him to find his own way for a while with occasional "chalk talks" in the hallway. Maybe you introduce him to someone briefly, and then excuse yourself so they can talk one on on. Maybe, towards the end of the conference you suggest some extra socializing over beverages of choice.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.