label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
B
|
POST: 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: To echo everyone else, (3) is definitely the right option. In 2020 (right before the pandemic), we had someone come to our session at the American Philosophical Association who'd done an MA 20 years before and had just come because she lived in town and had a day off. Not only was no one upset about it, but I'm pretty sure her genuine interest made the day of one of the senior professors.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: On work life balance in academia vs. high demanding jobs I see a lot of rants here about the life of academics, ant the lack of work-life balance when you work in academia. When I'm looking at people working in corporate jobs, representatives, managers etc, I'm not sure that they really have a better balance. What seems to be a potential difference is the pay. But, is pay really a factor in work-life balance? Or, are people just willing to throw their life up for a better pay? For me, once I graduate, I could find a job in the private sector as a manager. But I really question the fact that I would have better life conditions over all.
RESPONSE A: > But, is pay really a factor in work-life balance ? Yes. Pay is the difference between affording child care or not. Which is the difference between having a career and a family, or not. Pay is the difference between a six-month gap in income being an inconvenience, or a life-changing failure. Inconsistency of income is so, so much worse when that income is low. And finally, pay is a fungible, bankable outcome. You can be high-paid with no life for ten years and then leverage your savings into improved quality of life after quitting that job. You can't leverage your academic self-satisfaction into other benefits in later life - and with the state of the property market and other non-indexed inflationary pressures, delaying your income early in life is an enormously disproportionate burden in your middle age.
RESPONSE B: I'd recommend this 2019 survey by Nature for some (self-selected) data on things like motivation and working hours among academics. Summary: academic work is above-average stressful and insecure, but apparently a lot of people want to keep doing it for things like intellectual challenge. I am sure there are comparable datasets for other fields of employment.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: On work life balance in academia vs. high demanding jobs I see a lot of rants here about the life of academics, ant the lack of work-life balance when you work in academia. When I'm looking at people working in corporate jobs, representatives, managers etc, I'm not sure that they really have a better balance. What seems to be a potential difference is the pay. But, is pay really a factor in work-life balance? Or, are people just willing to throw their life up for a better pay? For me, once I graduate, I could find a job in the private sector as a manager. But I really question the fact that I would have better life conditions over all.
RESPONSE A: > But, is pay really a factor in work-life balance ? Yes. Pay is the difference between affording child care or not. Which is the difference between having a career and a family, or not. Pay is the difference between a six-month gap in income being an inconvenience, or a life-changing failure. Inconsistency of income is so, so much worse when that income is low. And finally, pay is a fungible, bankable outcome. You can be high-paid with no life for ten years and then leverage your savings into improved quality of life after quitting that job. You can't leverage your academic self-satisfaction into other benefits in later life - and with the state of the property market and other non-indexed inflationary pressures, delaying your income early in life is an enormously disproportionate burden in your middle age.
RESPONSE B: > But, is pay really a factor in work-life balance ? Is there a difference in working 60 hour weeks for 200k and working 60 hour weeks for 40k? hmmmmm. That's a hard one. > But I really question the fact that I would have better life conditions over all. That depends on so many personal factors that a reddit anon can't reasonably answer that question for you. If you think you'll have a better quality of life in academia, that's dandy. You don't need to convince anyone but yourself.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: On work life balance in academia vs. high demanding jobs I see a lot of rants here about the life of academics, ant the lack of work-life balance when you work in academia. When I'm looking at people working in corporate jobs, representatives, managers etc, I'm not sure that they really have a better balance. What seems to be a potential difference is the pay. But, is pay really a factor in work-life balance? Or, are people just willing to throw their life up for a better pay? For me, once I graduate, I could find a job in the private sector as a manager. But I really question the fact that I would have better life conditions over all.
RESPONSE A: If I'm not wrong many of them don't get paid minimum wage salary? They must have health insurance, parental leave and retirement rights. When I was on a stipend I had none of them and I was expected to work at the weekends because there was no other way to fulfill the high demand in the lab. In other words, there wasn't any kind of acknowledgment.
RESPONSE B: As someone in industry and with lots of friends in industry post-academia, there are an incredible number of jobs in industry that pay well and have a good work-life balance. The world is not so black and white as you make it seem.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: On work life balance in academia vs. high demanding jobs I see a lot of rants here about the life of academics, ant the lack of work-life balance when you work in academia. When I'm looking at people working in corporate jobs, representatives, managers etc, I'm not sure that they really have a better balance. What seems to be a potential difference is the pay. But, is pay really a factor in work-life balance? Or, are people just willing to throw their life up for a better pay? For me, once I graduate, I could find a job in the private sector as a manager. But I really question the fact that I would have better life conditions over all.
RESPONSE A: We need an “AskIndustry” sub for this question
RESPONSE B: As someone in industry and with lots of friends in industry post-academia, there are an incredible number of jobs in industry that pay well and have a good work-life balance. The world is not so black and white as you make it seem.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: On work life balance in academia vs. high demanding jobs I see a lot of rants here about the life of academics, ant the lack of work-life balance when you work in academia. When I'm looking at people working in corporate jobs, representatives, managers etc, I'm not sure that they really have a better balance. What seems to be a potential difference is the pay. But, is pay really a factor in work-life balance? Or, are people just willing to throw their life up for a better pay? For me, once I graduate, I could find a job in the private sector as a manager. But I really question the fact that I would have better life conditions over all.
RESPONSE A: You also have to keep the huge differences within academia in mind. One person can spend huge amounts of talent and energy and time and sacrifice on an academic career and get pretty much nothing back for it; while someone else will be supported to develop what naive people think a typical academic career looks like, all shiny. We can't accurately talk about whether "an academic" would likely be better or worse off outside academia without specifying whether that academic is in the former or the latter group. If you're in the former group (which people tend to figure out after a few years of sacrifice for the benefit of someone of the latter group) then the vast majority of alternative jobs are going to be less painful and more rewarding. If only because you're probably not making stupid, self-harming decisions because of your passion for the work.
RESPONSE B: We need an “AskIndustry” sub for this question
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: proposing this method, then in the early 2000's some more papers fleshing it out. Over the last few years it has become a viable method, with papers about the specifics that make the method possible. And now there are some recent review papers/historical perspectives. What do you think is the best way to begin tackling such a topic? Do you first read the highly cited foundational papers, and then move chronologically through significant advancements? Or do you start with a recent review, and then fill in gaps in the knowledge by reading older works as you need it? My goal is to have a detailed but broad understanding of the topic, and likely some deeper understanding of a few aspects. If I had a more specific goal, I would normally just scan through papers to see if they have what I'm interested in and then read them more deeply as I find them, but that doesn't really work for what I'm trying to do.
RESPONSE A: To get an overview of the entire area, or even a single specific problem, the reviews are pretty good. But, at least in the sciences, there will always be that one paper with very specific reaction conditions or that contradicts the standard position of the rest of the field. So, both, I guess?
RESPONSE B: Whenever I’m working through an area new to me, I think of this article: Ole Bjørn Rekdal, “Academic urban legends” in *Social Studies of Science* “Many of the messages presented in respectable scientific publications are, in fact, based on various forms of rumors. Some of these rumors appear so frequently, and in such complex, colorful, and entertaining ways that we can think of them as academic urban legends. The explanation for this phenomenon is usually that authors have lazily, sloppily, or fraudulently employed sources, and peer reviewers and editors have not discovered these weaknesses in the manuscripts during evaluation. To illustrate this phenomenon, I draw upon a remarkable case in which a decimal point error appears to have misled millions into believing that spinach is a good nutritional source of iron. Through this example, I demonstrate how an academic urban legend can be conceived and born, and can continue to grow and reproduce within academia and beyond.”
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: about people's views when it comes to researching a new topic, especially in molecular biology and similar fields. I am starting to read about a method as preparation for a graduate program. For this topic, there seems to be a few papers published in the 90's proposing this method, then in the early 2000's some more papers fleshing it out. Over the last few years it has become a viable method, with papers about the specifics that make the method possible. And now there are some recent review papers/historical perspectives. What do you think is the best way to begin tackling such a topic? Do you first read the highly cited foundational papers, and then move chronologically through significant advancements? Or do you start with a recent review, and then fill in gaps in the knowledge by reading older works as you need it? My goal is to have a detailed but broad understanding of the topic, and likely some deeper understanding of a few aspects. If I had a more specific goal, I would normally just scan through papers to see if they have what I'm interested in and then read them more deeply as I find them, but that doesn't really work for what I'm trying to do.
RESPONSE A: To get an overview of the entire area, or even a single specific problem, the reviews are pretty good. But, at least in the sciences, there will always be that one paper with very specific reaction conditions or that contradicts the standard position of the rest of the field. So, both, I guess?
RESPONSE B: Start with the new stuff, but the old stuff is well worth looking at, especially now since sci-hub makes it easily accessible. Before sci-hub, getting articles from pre-1996 was often a pain since many universities don't want to shell out extra cash for access to the extended pre-1996 archives. A benefit of looking at older papers is becoming acquainted with lines of research that died out, especially when the dying out occurred despite the research being useful and non-obsolete. Sometimes a hot new technique appears and people abandon what they were doing to jump on the bandwagon. Read as much as you can; don't be afraid of rabbit holes but try to consider what you're reading in the context of present knowledge.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What is the best academic paper you have read in 2018 and why? I'm not looking for any specific discipline, just what you found the most fascinating.
RESPONSE A: ITS ME
RESPONSE B: Idk about “best,” if you mean entirely credible work, but there was a piece by Dr. Sam Parina that made headlines for their research on patients who died in cardiac arrest and the team interviewed those who had died about their experiences. I know these articles can get carried away so I looked in the database for the publication and found it. It was pretty interesting. My grad degree is in the humanities but I also did my undergrad in psychology so I understood the majority of brain talk. It was super interesting, terrifying really. If you have time to read the real thing, it’s pretty informative. If you don’t feel like reading, it basically concluded that under normal circumstances (no brain damage for example), a person can still hear what’s happening after death. They can even hear their time of death being declared. Took me a few days to take it all in.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Accepting a TT offer without negotiation? I recently received a TT offer from an R1 university in the US. The offer (salary, startup funds, etc) are a lot more than I expected and are more than fair. Should I accept the offer immediately? All the advice I can find online seems to suggest that you should ALWAYS negotiate, but are there ever any exceptions to this rule? Has anyone else been in a similar position and accepted immediately?
RESPONSE A: Beyond the $$ amount, go for unlimited time to use startup. Also make sure all funds are in one pot (not limited to a certain amount in each category). Summer salary for a couple years if 9 month appointment. Make sure you are checking with lots of people in similar field. Strange things eat up lots of money, like lab furniture, fringe on grad students is huge, publication fees and travel, etc.
RESPONSE B: No. Negotiate. Get more salary and ask for more grad students and extend the time you have to use the package
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Accepting a TT offer without negotiation? I recently received a TT offer from an R1 university in the US. The offer (salary, startup funds, etc) are a lot more than I expected and are more than fair. Should I accept the offer immediately? All the advice I can find online seems to suggest that you should ALWAYS negotiate, but are there ever any exceptions to this rule? Has anyone else been in a similar position and accepted immediately?
RESPONSE A: Beyond the $$ amount, go for unlimited time to use startup. Also make sure all funds are in one pot (not limited to a certain amount in each category). Summer salary for a couple years if 9 month appointment. Make sure you are checking with lots of people in similar field. Strange things eat up lots of money, like lab furniture, fringe on grad students is huge, publication fees and travel, etc.
RESPONSE B: I would ask somebody in the department what you should ask for. They will know what is possible.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Would "late" application for TT faculty position matter significantly? I was late in applying for a TT faculty position at a US university. Specifically, the submission was done "4 days later" than the review start date that the university specified in their post for the position. I was wondering if this would matter significantly. Their website is still accepting applications for the position, but I was thinking that in the worst case, my application might be clustered in group B to be considered if no one in group A succeeds. Anyone have any similar experience?
RESPONSE A: This is about it. I’m at a school in the first bucket. We can request late applicants but don’t get the packet by default. If the pool is really competitive, we might not ask.
RESPONSE B: It depends on how the application system is set up. At my public research university, a late application would not get reviewed during the initial review cycle, and the system will not release the late applications to us until the next review closing date. We would typically not go back to review the late applications unless the initial pool of applicants was inadequate in some way. Most universities will state that applications submitted by the deadline will receive full consideration, which is another way of saying that late applications may not receive full consideration. The extent to which late applications will be considered will depend on the specific institution, department, and quality of the applicant pool.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Would "late" application for TT faculty position matter significantly? I was late in applying for a TT faculty position at a US university. Specifically, the submission was done "4 days later" than the review start date that the university specified in their post for the position. I was wondering if this would matter significantly. Their website is still accepting applications for the position, but I was thinking that in the worst case, my application might be clustered in group B to be considered if no one in group A succeeds. Anyone have any similar experience?
RESPONSE A: It depends on how the application system is set up. At my public research university, a late application would not get reviewed during the initial review cycle, and the system will not release the late applications to us until the next review closing date. We would typically not go back to review the late applications unless the initial pool of applicants was inadequate in some way. Most universities will state that applications submitted by the deadline will receive full consideration, which is another way of saying that late applications may not receive full consideration. The extent to which late applications will be considered will depend on the specific institution, department, and quality of the applicant pool.
RESPONSE B: When I am on or running a committee, I look at the candidate list until the search is closed.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Would "late" application for TT faculty position matter significantly? I was late in applying for a TT faculty position at a US university. Specifically, the submission was done "4 days later" than the review start date that the university specified in their post for the position. I was wondering if this would matter significantly. Their website is still accepting applications for the position, but I was thinking that in the worst case, my application might be clustered in group B to be considered if no one in group A succeeds. Anyone have any similar experience?
RESPONSE A: At my school, it would often be when we schedule our first committee meeting. Sometimes we schedule it for the day after applications are due, sometimes it could be a week later. So if we have already met to determine the phone interview list, there is a good chance no one would even notice a new application (unless the pool was very small). However, if we are meeting later, there will be some that will wait to review the applicants until the night before, not even notice the submit date, and then in the meeting we will be trying to figure out why some rated a candidate the others don't remember.
RESPONSE B: When I am on or running a committee, I look at the candidate list until the search is closed.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is academia actually as pessimistic as /r/AskAcademia and /r/gradschool make it out to be? One would get the impression from all the grad students suffering from impostor syndrome and all the posts about getting out of academia that academia is full of pessimists...thoughts? I'm only an undergrad, but I've met many grad students and profs, and most seem pretty happy with their choice of career. Maybe the appearance of pessimism just stems from the fact that academia is just a competitive industry? I know it's hard to get a professorial position, and most grad students probably want to become professors.
RESPONSE A: For the lazy: /r/gradschool --- I provide direct links to lesser known subs mentioned in the title if one isn't already provided. Let me know if I need to try harder: /r/LazyLinkerBot
RESPONSE B: I think there are two key points here. First, you are an undergrad, and you are getting a highly selective image here. It would be very unprofessional for a professor or grad student to be brutally honest with an undergrad. I know that my view as undergrad was vastly different than what I have experienced as a grad student (both what I've personally seen and what professor will share with me). As an undergrad, you are not exposed to the bureaucratic hurdles, the petty infighting, the pressure to publish, the lack of control (especially as an a grad student). Second, there is some selection bias in who you are speaking with, especially the professors. They are the luck ones who have found positions (tenure of tenure-track). For me, the problem is not competition itself, but rather than success often depends upon things outside your control (or are arbitrary) or it demands such a high level of conformity that it crushes your soul.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Is academia actually as pessimistic as /r/AskAcademia and /r/gradschool make it out to be? One would get the impression from all the grad students suffering from impostor syndrome and all the posts about getting out of academia that academia is full of pessimists...thoughts? I'm only an undergrad, but I've met many grad students and profs, and most seem pretty happy with their choice of career. Maybe the appearance of pessimism just stems from the fact that academia is just a competitive industry? I know it's hard to get a professorial position, and most grad students probably want to become professors.
RESPONSE A: I've been a professor for close to 20 years now and tell my students straight up that it's not a career path I'd advise anyone to follow. Don't get me wrong; it's a great gig overall, but compared to my peers who followed other paths I am grossly underpaid (and lost 10 years of income while in graduate school to boot) and the work load never drops below 40-50 hours per week except in the summers (when we aren't being paid but are still expected to work). Add to that the very competitive job market and it just doesn't make sense for 99% of the people who think they might like to be professors to go beyond that. The really interesting folks to talk to are the 50 year old associate professors. They have tenure but most are just realizing that they will have to work until age 75 or later to earn enough to live as they'd hoped in retirement, while their friends who went into other fields (tech especially) are already close to retirement. Indeed, I know people who are still paying off their own student loans while they are borrowing *more* money to send their children to college. Pessimism? Not really. Realism? Perhaps.
RESPONSE B: For the lazy: /r/gradschool --- I provide direct links to lesser known subs mentioned in the title if one isn't already provided. Let me know if I need to try harder: /r/LazyLinkerBot
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Is academia actually as pessimistic as /r/AskAcademia and /r/gradschool make it out to be? One would get the impression from all the grad students suffering from impostor syndrome and all the posts about getting out of academia that academia is full of pessimists...thoughts? I'm only an undergrad, but I've met many grad students and profs, and most seem pretty happy with their choice of career. Maybe the appearance of pessimism just stems from the fact that academia is just a competitive industry? I know it's hard to get a professorial position, and most grad students probably want to become professors.
RESPONSE A: Keep in mind that academia is a job, and when people get together and talk about their jobs, it's largely negative.
RESPONSE B: For the lazy: /r/gradschool --- I provide direct links to lesser known subs mentioned in the title if one isn't already provided. Let me know if I need to try harder: /r/LazyLinkerBot
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is academia actually as pessimistic as /r/AskAcademia and /r/gradschool make it out to be? One would get the impression from all the grad students suffering from impostor syndrome and all the posts about getting out of academia that academia is full of pessimists...thoughts? I'm only an undergrad, but I've met many grad students and profs, and most seem pretty happy with their choice of career. Maybe the appearance of pessimism just stems from the fact that academia is just a competitive industry? I know it's hard to get a professorial position, and most grad students probably want to become professors.
RESPONSE A: For the lazy: /r/gradschool --- I provide direct links to lesser known subs mentioned in the title if one isn't already provided. Let me know if I need to try harder: /r/LazyLinkerBot
RESPONSE B: People love to swap horror/war stories. Even when people like their jobs, they like to complain about their jobs even more.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is academia as intellectually stimulating as you thought it would be? (relative to industry) I'm curious whether it is almost always the case that academia is superior to industry for intellectual stimulation/growth, as I've read that a significant portion of your job is bureaucracy/applying for grants/politics/"careerist"-centric. Anecdotally, I do see that, in old age, academics seem to retain their cognitive functions for a longer period, and I wonder if this is due to the life-long intellectual stimulation, and not simply that they were always impressive.
RESPONSE A: Depends on the company and mostly the conversations you have with colleagues I would say
RESPONSE B: I have worked in both academia and industry. The academic environment (in my field) is intellectually stimulating from a scientific discovery point of view. In industry, it's similar but from a more practical problems solving perspective. Ultimately, the difference between academia vs industry depends more on the specific field of study rather than anything else. Good luck.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Is academia as intellectually stimulating as you thought it would be? (relative to industry) I'm curious whether it is almost always the case that academia is superior to industry for intellectual stimulation/growth, as I've read that a significant portion of your job is bureaucracy/applying for grants/politics/"careerist"-centric. Anecdotally, I do see that, in old age, academics seem to retain their cognitive functions for a longer period, and I wonder if this is due to the life-long intellectual stimulation, and not simply that they were always impressive.
RESPONSE A: I have worked in both academia and industry. The academic environment (in my field) is intellectually stimulating from a scientific discovery point of view. In industry, it's similar but from a more practical problems solving perspective. Ultimately, the difference between academia vs industry depends more on the specific field of study rather than anything else. Good luck.
RESPONSE B: In the STEM fields you tend to get stuck doing the same shit with a slight occasional twist on it for the rest of your career. I've never seen professors that had a lot of growth in their area. Honestly I think it's a giant turnoff to see smart, talented people get into their microniche and doing the same stuff (which of course becomes increasingly irrelevant over the years) for decades on end. At least in industry if something doesn't work, it ends right away. In academia, people keep doing the same thing whether it's going anywhere or not.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is academia as intellectually stimulating as you thought it would be? (relative to industry) I'm curious whether it is almost always the case that academia is superior to industry for intellectual stimulation/growth, as I've read that a significant portion of your job is bureaucracy/applying for grants/politics/"careerist"-centric. Anecdotally, I do see that, in old age, academics seem to retain their cognitive functions for a longer period, and I wonder if this is due to the life-long intellectual stimulation, and not simply that they were always impressive.
RESPONSE A: Industry is really all over the place in terms of what you're doing. I don't think anyone can answer this.
RESPONSE B: I’ve been in academia (I did a post-doc) and I left and am currently in industry. I’m a microbiologist by education. I miss talking about the science. I miss getting to explore my own ideas. But part of why I left was that research funding wasn’t based on good/novel/interesting ideas - it was based on obvious potential impact, how senior you were and if you were lucky with your competition and evaluators during the grant cycle. Academic research lost the purity that something is worth researching because you *don’t* know the answer and so you cannot know the *value* the answer may have. In my industry position I am removed from doing the science, but I get to participate in the application and trials that result from research. My challenges are more varied and I have more space to progress and challenge myself differently as I grow. All careers have an aspect of repetition, the difference is whether I want to design a cloning vector for the 1000th time or figure out how to get a client to accept a massive change order so their study can continue. Aside from the subject matter in academia, I found research and industry scratch the same itch. I love problem solving, critical thinking, time management, application of analysis. I get to do this both places but the application is more varied in industry and my job security is much more based on my merit and my ability to apply these skills well than it ever was as a research academic.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: as intellectually stimulating as you thought it would be? (relative to industry) I'm curious whether it is almost always the case that academia is superior to industry for intellectual stimulation/growth, as I've read that a significant portion of your job is bureaucracy/applying for grants/politics/"careerist"-centric. Anecdotally, I do see that, in old age, academics seem to retain their cognitive functions for a longer period, and I wonder if this is due to the life-long intellectual stimulation, and not simply that they were always impressive.
RESPONSE A: From my subfield it is almost never the case. We are resource limited and in denial about it. Academic expectations are comically out of line.
RESPONSE B: I’ve been in academia (I did a post-doc) and I left and am currently in industry. I’m a microbiologist by education. I miss talking about the science. I miss getting to explore my own ideas. But part of why I left was that research funding wasn’t based on good/novel/interesting ideas - it was based on obvious potential impact, how senior you were and if you were lucky with your competition and evaluators during the grant cycle. Academic research lost the purity that something is worth researching because you *don’t* know the answer and so you cannot know the *value* the answer may have. In my industry position I am removed from doing the science, but I get to participate in the application and trials that result from research. My challenges are more varied and I have more space to progress and challenge myself differently as I grow. All careers have an aspect of repetition, the difference is whether I want to design a cloning vector for the 1000th time or figure out how to get a client to accept a massive change order so their study can continue. Aside from the subject matter in academia, I found research and industry scratch the same itch. I love problem solving, critical thinking, time management, application of analysis. I get to do this both places but the application is more varied in industry and my job security is much more based on my merit and my ability to apply these skills well than it ever was as a research academic.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is academia as intellectually stimulating as you thought it would be? (relative to industry) I'm curious whether it is almost always the case that academia is superior to industry for intellectual stimulation/growth, as I've read that a significant portion of your job is bureaucracy/applying for grants/politics/"careerist"-centric. Anecdotally, I do see that, in old age, academics seem to retain their cognitive functions for a longer period, and I wonder if this is due to the life-long intellectual stimulation, and not simply that they were always impressive.
RESPONSE A: Nope.
RESPONSE B: Genuine question - why do academics generally behave like they are special?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: any kind. I guess I'm just wondering what the hell I should do. My passion is in research and writing and I've done everything in my power the last 5 years to go the academic route. BUT I have student loans and medical bills and whatnot, I'm not sure I can wait until I'm 50 to maybe be one of the lucky ones who gets a stable academic position so I can finally make enough to live. I also have a long-term partner and I'll be damned if I have to move every few years for a new post-doc and do the perpetual two-body problem thing. **Is this the reality of being an academic? Are job prospects as bad as I've heard?** I sort of want to "master out" and go into industry but since I spent all my time trying to prepare for a career in academia I sort of missed out on getting any industry experience or gaining a skillset that would be transferable. Not to mention, I sort of pigeon-holed myself by getting a degree in a specific type of Physics. **TL;DR:** First gen student, feeling shame about wanting to "master out" but also not sure if I'd even be able to do that #PigeonHoled. Staying in academia seems like an equally bad idea as far as job-prospects go. Need advice or something, idk.
RESPONSE A: It’s very much field dependent. There is usually the same exact discussion about this every week, just use search if you want a quicker overview.
RESPONSE B: Short answer, yes. For a more in-depth answer, I recommend talking with a trusted advisor in your department that can give you the 'real scoop' about job prospects in your field. If you're still interested in academia as a career, it can be helpful to find new professors who recently completed a round on the job market so they can tell you what it's like (although remember you're talking to the lucky ones who got a job, not the hundreds who didn't). This is what I did as a first-gen student and it helped give me a more grounded idea of what to expect out of heading for the PhD.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: prospects go. Need advice or something, idk.
RESPONSE A: Short answer, yes. For a more in-depth answer, I recommend talking with a trusted advisor in your department that can give you the 'real scoop' about job prospects in your field. If you're still interested in academia as a career, it can be helpful to find new professors who recently completed a round on the job market so they can tell you what it's like (although remember you're talking to the lucky ones who got a job, not the hundreds who didn't). This is what I did as a first-gen student and it helped give me a more grounded idea of what to expect out of heading for the PhD.
RESPONSE B: The math is pretty simple. You can look how many new professors your department hires every year (hint: it's probably around 1 per year for mid-to-large departments, and one every 2-3 years for smaller ones), and compare that to how many people graduate with a PhD from the same program (let's say 10). The ratio of those two is the rough ballpark figure of what are the overall odds for you to be *ever* hired as a professor (e.g. 10%). For the first ~10 years you will be competing against more qualified, more senior candidates for Assistant Professor jobs while grinding at postdocs and building up a cv. Then, after 2-3 postdocs (3 is getting really common in physics) you may land a faculty job **if** your postdocs have been sufficiently productive and you happen to work on a hot topic within your field. It is getting very hard for me to recommend academia as a career to anyone these days. The numbers just don't add up. My simple analysis above doesn't even account for highly qualified foreign candidates who want to move to a country with a higher salary and better scientific funding (i.e. the US). The people who I see making it are those for whom science it truly a 100% driving passion and who value the independence of being a tenured professor over considerations of work-life balance, location (you may end up having to live in a less-than-desirable town), ambition, and so on.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: d if I have to move every few years for a new post-doc and do the perpetual two-body problem thing. **Is this the reality of being an academic? Are job prospects as bad as I've heard?** I sort of want to "master out" and go into industry but since I spent all my time trying to prepare for a career in academia I sort of missed out on getting any industry experience or gaining a skillset that would be transferable. Not to mention, I sort of pigeon-holed myself by getting a degree in a specific type of Physics. **TL;DR:** First gen student, feeling shame about wanting to "master out" but also not sure if I'd even be able to do that #PigeonHoled. Staying in academia seems like an equally bad idea as far as job-prospects go. Need advice or something, idk.
RESPONSE A: Yes, it’s awful and getting worse. That wave of retiring baby boomer professors that was prophesied to free up jobs never materialized because professors don’t retire, and those that die are replaced by adjuncts, non-TT lecturers, and graduate teaching assistants, not professorships. Do. Not. Go into grad school with the goal of becoming a professor at a research university. Have another goal in mind. Do your research on what you can realistically expect after getting that graduate degree. Universities use grad students as cheap labor, this is why there is such a glut of them. This is why an opening in Nowhere State University-Regional Campus has 200 applicants including from top universities. People will say I’m bitter, jaded, cynical, etc., but I’m just being realistic based on objective facts. Going to grad school is fine....for the right reasons, with the right plan, etc. But I am upset at tenured faculty giving career-wrecking advice to naive undergrads. You don’t take wealth-building advice from lottery winners.
RESPONSE B: Yes. However if you do something coding/statistics related (bioinformatics for example), you will have some real juicy job prospects outside academia.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: ones who gets a stable academic position so I can finally make enough to live. I also have a long-term partner and I'll be damned if I have to move every few years for a new post-doc and do the perpetual two-body problem thing. **Is this the reality of being an academic? Are job prospects as bad as I've heard?** I sort of want to "master out" and go into industry but since I spent all my time trying to prepare for a career in academia I sort of missed out on getting any industry experience or gaining a skillset that would be transferable. Not to mention, I sort of pigeon-holed myself by getting a degree in a specific type of Physics. **TL;DR:** First gen student, feeling shame about wanting to "master out" but also not sure if I'd even be able to do that #PigeonHoled. Staying in academia seems like an equally bad idea as far as job-prospects go. Need advice or something, idk.
RESPONSE A: Yes, it’s awful and getting worse. That wave of retiring baby boomer professors that was prophesied to free up jobs never materialized because professors don’t retire, and those that die are replaced by adjuncts, non-TT lecturers, and graduate teaching assistants, not professorships. Do. Not. Go into grad school with the goal of becoming a professor at a research university. Have another goal in mind. Do your research on what you can realistically expect after getting that graduate degree. Universities use grad students as cheap labor, this is why there is such a glut of them. This is why an opening in Nowhere State University-Regional Campus has 200 applicants including from top universities. People will say I’m bitter, jaded, cynical, etc., but I’m just being realistic based on objective facts. Going to grad school is fine....for the right reasons, with the right plan, etc. But I am upset at tenured faculty giving career-wrecking advice to naive undergrads. You don’t take wealth-building advice from lottery winners.
RESPONSE B: Yes.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: 't like him is misrepresenting him. ​ There are two things I'm worried about with this. 1. is it appropriate to message him? Or will it just stir the pot? 2. While my mentor has never been inappropriate with me, I have no idea if that's true for his other mentees. I have no reason to suspect him, but I know that doesn't mean anything. I don't want to "tip" him off if this is part of something actually serious and give him time to cover his tracks...if any of that makes sense. ​ So, academia. What do I do?
RESPONSE A: It's a tough call. Personally, had this happened with my department chair and advisor, I'd have forwarded it to my advisor to give them a heads-up immediately, but everyone's situation and context is different, so I wouldn't necessarily say that *you* should go that route, as only you know the context of the situation and whether your mentor deserves that level of trust and openness from you. The *safest* thing for you is probably to tell your mentor, but in some form that doesn't leave a paper trail, like a virtual meeting or something. *If* you go that route, be sure to tell them basically only what the email says; they probably have a much better sense of department politics than you do, and can presumably fill in the blanks themselves.
RESPONSE B: There is a lot of poor communication at present and although it sounds like someone is trying to stir up some shit, I would still assume that this is the result of miscommunication. In general, it is best not to make more of this kind of thing than it deserves. It would be entirely appropriate to let your mentor know about this, but not at all necessary. It didn't happen and is a non-issue unless someone decides to pursue it further. Given that you have denied it, there is nothing to pursue and it is likely to just go away. The best thing you can do is just let it die a natural death. If your mentor asks, of course you should let him know, but otherwise there is no need to let this false rumor go any further.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: , prior to my current maths bsc i enrolled on and dropped out of a chemistry degree before completing a year. In my current cv I acknowledge this time spent by saying "University of.., BSc Chemistry 2014-2015", I didn't do anything interesting during that time otherwise so if I don't include it I will have a 2 year blank, I'm not keen omission nor addressing it in my personal statement as i believe a gap to be more detrimental, it's ancient history I don't think I have to explain anymore (?). My concern is that I don't want an admissions team to be confused and believe that I completed the degree (it's breaks with my writing convention in the rest of the cv by not listing GPA/grades or describing the degree, instead having no grade and no description). I wonder if anyone has any suggestion for how I handle this? I had considered writing "(No Award)" but I think this term is used elsewhere in academia. Sincerely thanks a lot.
RESPONSE A: Just put your actual degree and "Awarded 20XX". On the actual application, you'll have to list every institution attended and that should clarify it.
RESPONSE B: If there are any credits from that university listed on your current transcript (even if they don't list where they're from), you should keep the university on your CV. Otherwise they may wonder where you got the credits from and why it wasn't included. It wouldn't really reflect poorly on you then because it'd just be a case of you transferring from one institute to another. If you didn't transfer any credits over then you're fine to leave it off entirely. You're not claiming any work completed or achievements earned. However when you fill in online applications, read the questions carefully. If they ask you to list all institutions you've attended then you usually must list the university you dropped out of, even if you didn't earn the degree or count the units. I had to list an undergraduate degree that I didn't complete and gave my reasons for ditching it in the "additional info" section. I don't include this degree on my CV though.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Addressing a false-start undergraduate university degree on a postgraduate academic cv Hey everybody, also Merry Christmas. I am writing an academic cv for postgraduate study in mathematics, prior to my current maths bsc i enrolled on and dropped out of a chemistry degree before completing a year. In my current cv I acknowledge this time spent by saying "University of.., BSc Chemistry 2014-2015", I didn't do anything interesting during that time otherwise so if I don't include it I will have a 2 year blank, I'm not keen omission nor addressing it in my personal statement as i believe a gap to be more detrimental, it's ancient history I don't think I have to explain anymore (?). My concern is that I don't want an admissions team to be confused and believe that I completed the degree (it's breaks with my writing convention in the rest of the cv by not listing GPA/grades or describing the degree, instead having no grade and no description). I wonder if anyone has any suggestion for how I handle this? I had considered writing "(No Award)" but I think this term is used elsewhere in academia. Sincerely thanks a lot.
RESPONSE A: I’d likely not include attendance at this institution on your academic byline as any contribution it made was to your degree at the subsequent institution you attended. I took coursework at another institution AFTER graduating but I don’t list that here either, I list it among the other technical education (separately listed only on my exhaustive CV) I received as I constantly refresh my skill set (e.g., pre-conference training workshops, special training events).
RESPONSE B: Just put your actual degree and "Awarded 20XX". On the actual application, you'll have to list every institution attended and that should clarify it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: preparing my first article for publication and (per usual) am struggling through the intro. My question could be answered with "use a story," "look at the journal requirements," etc. but I'm more interested in the personal antidotes here. For example, do you write the intro first, last, or some other time and why? Do all your introductions follow a set list of beats or do you shake it up from paper to paper? What is an ah-hah moment for introduction writing? Also, I am curious to gage how much info people put in the introduction for a 7,000-10,000 word article (with the caveat that it varies with journal preference). I always assumed that the intro was "state the problem, here's the thesis, here's the roadmap" and boom, launch into the next section. However, I have some well published mentors who write intros that are well over 1,500 words. One final question--how important are introductions for you when you're reading articles? I know that they are supposed to be uber important and need to be strong, but I'm curious how many people heavy-skim or totally skip them? Thanks a lot. Since it's Christmas, merry Christmas and happy winter "break."
RESPONSE A: I generally write the intro later on, I usually run the results then write up methods->results/some discussion->lit review/theory->intro->more discussion/conclusion in that order. Your intro should also have a 'hook' - that is, it should answer the question "who cares?" when I'm reading about your article. Don't only state the problem, also motivate the problem- why is it a problem?
RESPONSE B: I would check out _Genre Analysis_ by John Swales, who discusses a conventional structure for many academic article introductions--more to analyze the structure than to _prescribe_ it, but it's worth considering as a means of helping you form your argument. Here's a brief version of his model: https://yolandasantiagovenegas.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/john-swales-cars-article.pdf
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What's the best advice you know for writing article introductions? Hello, I am a PhD student that does work using ethnographic and qualitative content analysis social science in the USA. I am preparing my first article for publication and (per usual) am struggling through the intro. My question could be answered with "use a story," "look at the journal requirements," etc. but I'm more interested in the personal antidotes here. For example, do you write the intro first, last, or some other time and why? Do all your introductions follow a set list of beats or do you shake it up from paper to paper? What is an ah-hah moment for introduction writing? Also, I am curious to gage how much info people put in the introduction for a 7,000-10,000 word article (with the caveat that it varies with journal preference). I always assumed that the intro was "state the problem, here's the thesis, here's the roadmap" and boom, launch into the next section. However, I have some well published mentors who write intros that are well over 1,500 words. One final question--how important are introductions for you when you're reading articles? I know that they are supposed to be uber important and need to be strong, but I'm curious how many people heavy-skim or totally skip them? Thanks a lot. Since it's Christmas, merry Christmas and happy winter "break."
RESPONSE A: I generally write the intro later on, I usually run the results then write up methods->results/some discussion->lit review/theory->intro->more discussion/conclusion in that order. Your intro should also have a 'hook' - that is, it should answer the question "who cares?" when I'm reading about your article. Don't only state the problem, also motivate the problem- why is it a problem?
RESPONSE B: I keep this link bookmarked because it’s been so helpful every time I’m stuck writing an intro. Particularly, Jakebeal’s answer (the first reply).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What is the best free alternative for Grammarly? or is the Grammarly membership worth it? I have to check my thesis and I am looking for a spell check and grammar check tool. I know Grammarly is popular, but I just need it for a month and the monthly membership for Grammarly is very expensive. Please help me find the free tool for spell check and grammar check.
RESPONSE A: Try Hemingway Editor
RESPONSE B: The free Grammarly takes care of the spellchecking and grammar stuff. Although in my experience, it either misses some things or marks some perfectly fine things (in context) as mistakes. You've got to double-check everything yourself either way. The premium subscription \*mostly\* deals with issues regarding form, flow, etc. of the text. Like if your sentences are too long or something like that. If you only want to spellcheck, take care of typos/ blatant grammatical mistakes, I don't think you need a premium account, since you'll have to double-check everything either way. But, what I suggest is that if you \*really\* want a thorough look at your work and you're willing to spend money on it, try and see if you can find a human editor/proofreader who'll do it for you and see what that'll cost you. A good, experienced professional will be much better than Grammarly, and you'll have given your money to a person instead of a company. That is, if it turns out to be cost-effective for you (I don't know how much premium costs, I'm on a plan through my job.) ETA: The premium version suffers from the same problems that the free version does. It misses stuff and overcorrects some other stuff.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What is the best free alternative for Grammarly? or is the Grammarly membership worth it? I have to check my thesis and I am looking for a spell check and grammar check tool. I know Grammarly is popular, but I just need it for a month and the monthly membership for Grammarly is very expensive. Please help me find the free tool for spell check and grammar check.
RESPONSE A: Grammarly offers a free version. It's not the full version, but its not bad.
RESPONSE B: The free Grammarly takes care of the spellchecking and grammar stuff. Although in my experience, it either misses some things or marks some perfectly fine things (in context) as mistakes. You've got to double-check everything yourself either way. The premium subscription \*mostly\* deals with issues regarding form, flow, etc. of the text. Like if your sentences are too long or something like that. If you only want to spellcheck, take care of typos/ blatant grammatical mistakes, I don't think you need a premium account, since you'll have to double-check everything either way. But, what I suggest is that if you \*really\* want a thorough look at your work and you're willing to spend money on it, try and see if you can find a human editor/proofreader who'll do it for you and see what that'll cost you. A good, experienced professional will be much better than Grammarly, and you'll have given your money to a person instead of a company. That is, if it turns out to be cost-effective for you (I don't know how much premium costs, I'm on a plan through my job.) ETA: The premium version suffers from the same problems that the free version does. It misses stuff and overcorrects some other stuff.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What is the best free alternative for Grammarly? or is the Grammarly membership worth it? I have to check my thesis and I am looking for a spell check and grammar check tool. I know Grammarly is popular, but I just need it for a month and the monthly membership for Grammarly is very expensive. Please help me find the free tool for spell check and grammar check.
RESPONSE A: The free Grammarly takes care of the spellchecking and grammar stuff. Although in my experience, it either misses some things or marks some perfectly fine things (in context) as mistakes. You've got to double-check everything yourself either way. The premium subscription \*mostly\* deals with issues regarding form, flow, etc. of the text. Like if your sentences are too long or something like that. If you only want to spellcheck, take care of typos/ blatant grammatical mistakes, I don't think you need a premium account, since you'll have to double-check everything either way. But, what I suggest is that if you \*really\* want a thorough look at your work and you're willing to spend money on it, try and see if you can find a human editor/proofreader who'll do it for you and see what that'll cost you. A good, experienced professional will be much better than Grammarly, and you'll have given your money to a person instead of a company. That is, if it turns out to be cost-effective for you (I don't know how much premium costs, I'm on a plan through my job.) ETA: The premium version suffers from the same problems that the free version does. It misses stuff and overcorrects some other stuff.
RESPONSE B: Grammarly free version helps enough I would stick to that version
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What is the best free alternative for Grammarly? or is the Grammarly membership worth it? I have to check my thesis and I am looking for a spell check and grammar check tool. I know Grammarly is popular, but I just need it for a month and the monthly membership for Grammarly is very expensive. Please help me find the free tool for spell check and grammar check.
RESPONSE A: Try Hemingway Editor
RESPONSE B: Something that was a total game changer for me was using the Read Aloud function on Microsoft word (I’m assuming they have similar accessibility functions on Mac) but it will read your paper out to you and it’s a good way to check for errors. I find it works better than reading it aloud yourself because your brain will naturally fix errors without you noticing. This catches major errors as well as allowing you to see if something sounds weird even if it’s technically grammatically correct. I use grammarly premium and that works nicely, especially if you want to split the fees with peers and share an account. However, I think I’ll find myself using the Read Aloud function more than grammarly, even though it’s a bit more time consuming.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What is the best free alternative for Grammarly? or is the Grammarly membership worth it? I have to check my thesis and I am looking for a spell check and grammar check tool. I know Grammarly is popular, but I just need it for a month and the monthly membership for Grammarly is very expensive. Please help me find the free tool for spell check and grammar check.
RESPONSE A: LanguageTool.com Is opensource, free (woth a paid version) and works great
RESPONSE B: Something that was a total game changer for me was using the Read Aloud function on Microsoft word (I’m assuming they have similar accessibility functions on Mac) but it will read your paper out to you and it’s a good way to check for errors. I find it works better than reading it aloud yourself because your brain will naturally fix errors without you noticing. This catches major errors as well as allowing you to see if something sounds weird even if it’s technically grammatically correct. I use grammarly premium and that works nicely, especially if you want to split the fees with peers and share an account. However, I think I’ll find myself using the Read Aloud function more than grammarly, even though it’s a bit more time consuming.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: CD. My OCD is with perfectionism, where absolutely everything (seriously everything! ) has to be perfect otherwise it's worthless and I am a failure. My supervisor is aware and is very supportive but he now has a big lab group and new PhD students so I feel his patience may be wearing thin. I know that if I don't go, it will seriously haunt me for the rest of my life and make me feel even more of a failure. However, I am at the stage where I'm hyperventilating and panicking every day and have been for the past few weeks. I gave the same talk a few weeks ago to my department (about 100 people) and the talk bit went brilliantly (everyone thought I was a pro), but I really screwed up the questions and just fumbled my way through answers. Tomorrow, I have about 10 or 15 academics coming to watch me give the talk to provide me with comments on aesthetics and any questions they have, but I'm even terrified about this too.
RESPONSE A: A lot of people get really high anxiety in situations like these, I know that I do sometimes. Perfectionism is one of the worst elements of any career, it can completely paralyze some people and make them afraid to take risks or to severely procrastinate. For me, the keys are to 1) know that its okay to be pretty good but not perfect and 2) its alright to be nervous. Many people asking you questions or talking to you later will be nervous from those things and have the same exact feelings that you do. Think about people that have worked under you, whether undergrads or technicians. I would bet the ones that do the best and that you remember the most aren't the steller, get everything right brilliant Einsteins but instead are the steady producers that do a good job. Usually these people tend to be overconfident and to be blind to a lot of things. You don't have to be brilliant every single time, consistently high and steady performance will allow you reach those heights anyway.
RESPONSE B: I always like to remember that no matter how bad my presentation is, 1) only like 12 people will know, and 2) I'll still be able to put it on my CV.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: I know that if I don't go, it will seriously haunt me for the rest of my life and make me feel even more of a failure. However, I am at the stage where I'm hyperventilating and panicking every day and have been for the past few weeks. I gave the same talk a few weeks ago to my department (about 100 people) and the talk bit went brilliantly (everyone thought I was a pro), but I really screwed up the questions and just fumbled my way through answers. Tomorrow, I have about 10 or 15 academics coming to watch me give the talk to provide me with comments on aesthetics and any questions they have, but I'm even terrified about this too.
RESPONSE A: A lot of people get really high anxiety in situations like these, I know that I do sometimes. Perfectionism is one of the worst elements of any career, it can completely paralyze some people and make them afraid to take risks or to severely procrastinate. For me, the keys are to 1) know that its okay to be pretty good but not perfect and 2) its alright to be nervous. Many people asking you questions or talking to you later will be nervous from those things and have the same exact feelings that you do. Think about people that have worked under you, whether undergrads or technicians. I would bet the ones that do the best and that you remember the most aren't the steller, get everything right brilliant Einsteins but instead are the steady producers that do a good job. Usually these people tend to be overconfident and to be blind to a lot of things. You don't have to be brilliant every single time, consistently high and steady performance will allow you reach those heights anyway.
RESPONSE B: Academia is fundamentally based on not knowing things and muddling through. It is imperitive you come to terms with the fact that nothing in research can be perfect. Presentations exist to showcase work in progress and get feedback. It s not a test of right and wrong, it's an opportunity to share your ideas and get input from others. Presentation is a key part of research, and ultimately you're going to drive yourself crazy if you can't contemplate opening yourself up to criticism.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Professors who run a STEM research lab, what’s your day to day schedule like? Undergrad here. I see what my professors and PI do when I am with them, but I’m wondering what goes on behind the scenes
RESPONSE A: Meetings all day.
RESPONSE B: Grad student not professor but I don't think my PI has been in the lab in over a decade. Not even sure he still has keys. He gets us money and hangs out in Europe.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Prof invites me to travel with her for research but unpaid. Should I take it? Currently an undergrad finishing school at the end of this year. A professor who has similar research interests as I told me about his trip to country X next year for a research project when I visited her office this week. I had been wanting to go to country X for a while, was originally planning to go on my own. The professor mentioned that the cost for living could be subsidized but she have no fundings for my other expenses. Since the country is very underdeveloped, the transport and all other expenses in total are estimated to be around 5k USD for 20-25days. At the same time. I do have job offers lined up after graduation which could help pay off my 15k in student loans. Even though the research project really fits with my future endeavors and will perhaps boost my grad school application and resume. A part of me just don’t feel right about working for “free”. Should i deny this offer or take this as an “opportunity”? Thanks in advance.
RESPONSE A: Depends a little on your field, what the research actually is, and what you hope to gain from it. In archaeology it's common for undergrads to go on 6 week long field schools, and have to pay their own way or find their own funding. It's generally a valuable experience and is considered normal in the field (whether or not it's ethical or reasonable to have undergrads pay for that kind of thing is another discussion). Would it be just you going? Would you be doing something you're really interested in? Would the experience add a lot of value to your resume?
RESPONSE B: Before you throw in the towel, talk with the researcher about your concerns, especially if you are really interested. Also, depending on your school, sometimes there are awards or other funding (not loans!) that you can receive to help with living abroad to conduct research.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Prof invites me to travel with her for research but unpaid. Should I take it? Currently an undergrad finishing school at the end of this year. A professor who has similar research interests as I told me about his trip to country X next year for a research project when I visited her office this week. I had been wanting to go to country X for a while, was originally planning to go on my own. The professor mentioned that the cost for living could be subsidized but she have no fundings for my other expenses. Since the country is very underdeveloped, the transport and all other expenses in total are estimated to be around 5k USD for 20-25days. At the same time. I do have job offers lined up after graduation which could help pay off my 15k in student loans. Even though the research project really fits with my future endeavors and will perhaps boost my grad school application and resume. A part of me just don’t feel right about working for “free”. Should i deny this offer or take this as an “opportunity”? Thanks in advance.
RESPONSE A: Will there be the potential for coauthorship? That's a steep price. But if you can find external funding to get there I'd be less worried about the not being paid part. It is the paying part that seems a bit much.
RESPONSE B: 20-25 days is very short when compared to a job. What tangible experience/result will you get from this to include in your application? What are you going to do between getting back from this trip & going to grad school? Can you still take one of the job offers after? I might go, unpaid for the actual work, if my COL and travel expenses were covered and it didn't jeopardize a longer term opportunity, but definitely not if I had to pay for it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Let's talk about the lab notebook. What's your method? Hello Academics! I'm a new PhD student and would like to ask you to share your method of keeping a lab notebook. Do you use paper notebooks/Word/Latex/special ELN software/other? What do you write inside? Has anybody actually checked it for a patent/paper?
RESPONSE A: Everywhere I have been has had a traditional paper notebook. For things where there are templates for frequent experiments (IHC, PCR, surgery, etc.) this may be copy-pasted into the book or there may be a separate binder for such sheets, with the appropriate binder and experiment name referenced in the lab notebook. There seems to be a bit of wariness of entrusting this data to lab servers and/or the Cloud. I think the feeling is it may be disorganized and/or easily deleted?
RESPONSE B: I use a Moleskine notebook, and black/red/blue pens. I don't think more technologically sophisticated methods provide much benefit. I prefer to be able to write, annotate, and draw diagrams as I go without messing around with toolbars.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Let's talk about the lab notebook. What's your method? Hello Academics! I'm a new PhD student and would like to ask you to share your method of keeping a lab notebook. Do you use paper notebooks/Word/Latex/special ELN software/other? What do you write inside? Has anybody actually checked it for a patent/paper?
RESPONSE A: Two of the labs I've worked at previously provided employees and PhD students with official hardcover notebooks (A4 size). There was a mixture of wet lab and computational people. My current department is all dry lab. They provide a diary (A5) but I keep a separate notebook as well. I have a Dropbox folder where I save important emails (as PDF) and my code is on GitHub or BitBucket.
RESPONSE B: I am obsessive about my lab notebook. I learned the hard way the problems of not keeping good notes. The best advice I can give is: * dates identify everything. If nothing else goes on your tube/sample/whatever, the date should. But that needs to correspond to an entry in your notebook. * remember, the notebook isn't for YOU, it's for who comes after you. I should be able to follow your notes sufficiently to write a paper, find reagents, understand how you made/did things without having to contact you personally to explain it. * write in a heavy pen, you will one day have to photocopy the notebook, plus 10 years later light pen/pencil fades. * the notebook follows the grant, not the person who wrote the notebook. You don't own it!!! * never, ever, ever take your notebook home * always write out full names at least once on the page. It's convenient to use abbreviations, but for someone flipping through trying to find one thing, it can be very confusing. I personally like a professional lab notebook, they are not that much more expensive than the cheaper ones and are more durable. Here's a quick tip, lot's of places will give you a free sample! The book factory is one of my favorite places, I now order from them almost exclusively.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Let's talk about the lab notebook. What's your method? Hello Academics! I'm a new PhD student and would like to ask you to share your method of keeping a lab notebook. Do you use paper notebooks/Word/Latex/special ELN software/other? What do you write inside? Has anybody actually checked it for a patent/paper?
RESPONSE A: Onenote.
RESPONSE B: I am obsessive about my lab notebook. I learned the hard way the problems of not keeping good notes. The best advice I can give is: * dates identify everything. If nothing else goes on your tube/sample/whatever, the date should. But that needs to correspond to an entry in your notebook. * remember, the notebook isn't for YOU, it's for who comes after you. I should be able to follow your notes sufficiently to write a paper, find reagents, understand how you made/did things without having to contact you personally to explain it. * write in a heavy pen, you will one day have to photocopy the notebook, plus 10 years later light pen/pencil fades. * the notebook follows the grant, not the person who wrote the notebook. You don't own it!!! * never, ever, ever take your notebook home * always write out full names at least once on the page. It's convenient to use abbreviations, but for someone flipping through trying to find one thing, it can be very confusing. I personally like a professional lab notebook, they are not that much more expensive than the cheaper ones and are more durable. Here's a quick tip, lot's of places will give you a free sample! The book factory is one of my favorite places, I now order from them almost exclusively.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: the lab is based in, falls under top 30 universities for my subject in the world has made major contributions in the field I am interested in (although the lab is relatively new) The problem lies with the interactions I had with the present PhD students. 2 out of the 3 PhD students in the lab have strictly asked me to apply to other places, they complained about the PI being very dominating and lacking empathy (doesn't help when establishing a new technique or protocol in the lab) and about the lack of facilities. The one phd student who was supportive of the lab did mention that the PI is dominating, but she suggested that being a little diplomatic and portraying your point in different ways can help you get your way with the PI. I attended a progress report of one of the phd student who had given me a negative feedback, he was harshly criticised and I agreed with all of the points that my PI had put forward (basically the presentation sucked and it didn't seem like he was doing a lot of work). I just heard that he is officially going to quit his PhD (I am suspecting he was either fired or it was mutual) I am extremely confused, I love almost everything about this lab, but the testimony from my lab mates seems very stressful. PhD is a long term commitment and I don't know how important is their opinion. Anybody out there who went through something similar or has any advice for me? Thank you! TL, DR: I love the research, the lab in general, but the present PhD students have given me a negative feedback about the lab.
RESPONSE A: Read the other comments here, don't join the lab, thank the current PhD researchers for their valuable opinion, and don't forget to send them a crate of beer for potentially saving you from a few years in hell.
RESPONSE B: My biggest piece of advice to future phd students is to try to get an honest account of the PI from their other PhD students. A bad PI can make or break the students, and I have seen first how bad and malicious PIs ruin the PhDs of good students. If they have no reason to lie to you, then I would consider another project.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: portraying your point in different ways can help you get your way with the PI. I attended a progress report of one of the phd student who had given me a negative feedback, he was harshly criticised and I agreed with all of the points that my PI had put forward (basically the presentation sucked and it didn't seem like he was doing a lot of work). I just heard that he is officially going to quit his PhD (I am suspecting he was either fired or it was mutual) I am extremely confused, I love almost everything about this lab, but the testimony from my lab mates seems very stressful. PhD is a long term commitment and I don't know how important is their opinion. Anybody out there who went through something similar or has any advice for me? Thank you! TL, DR: I love the research, the lab in general, but the present PhD students have given me a negative feedback about the lab.
RESPONSE A: My biggest piece of advice to future phd students is to try to get an honest account of the PI from their other PhD students. A bad PI can make or break the students, and I have seen first how bad and malicious PIs ruin the PhDs of good students. If they have no reason to lie to you, then I would consider another project.
RESPONSE B: If the current grad students are being so direct to tell you to apply elsewhere, definitely listen to them. Their experiences are usually pretty indicative of what yours will be like, or at the very least a bit of a template. It's one thing to think you may not have an amazing advisor relationship, another to have one so bad you're actively trying to prevent people from getting into the same situation. PIs often treat undergrads differently from grad students. This isn't always necessarily bad, but the nature of the relationship is fundamentally different. Also consider that what you want in a lab or advisor (or what would be good for you) might be different for an undergrad experience vs for PhD. Besides the specific situation with the lab, it's also often advised to go somewhere different for PhD than where you did undergrad, at the very least to grow your network and expand your perspective.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What is something you wish you knew before submitting your PhD? I'm in the last month of my PhD, submitting my thesis at the end of February. What is something that you wish someone had told you at the start, the middle, or the end of your own PhD journey?
RESPONSE A: Don’t just get it copyedited or proofread by a colleague. Hire a professional proofreader. If you can afford it, it’s the absolute minimum you need to do. I know somebody who does this work and she is always amazed at how badly proofread the work she gets is. If your good friend doesn’t do this for a living, then you’re not going to get a professional job.
RESPONSE B: That no one will ever read it outside of my committee.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Have you ever bitched about a critical reviewer just to find out it was one of your friends or colleagues you worked with semi-regularly?
RESPONSE A: I know, you just want to tell the story, so why don't you share?
RESPONSE B: This really shouldn't happen, as friends or close colleagues should turn down the review due to conflict of interest.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Have you ever bitched about a critical reviewer just to find out it was one of your friends or colleagues you worked with semi-regularly?
RESPONSE A: No.
RESPONSE B: This really shouldn't happen, as friends or close colleagues should turn down the review due to conflict of interest.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: awful, but... there are so many flaws. My question is, how much is too much criticism? I want to provide the authors with constructive feedback so they can improve their work, but at the same time, I don't want to come across as vicious or cruel. All of my criticisms, for the record, involve major content/methodology issues. I'm not nitpicking for grammar (though I am critiquing where is lack of readability and clarity). But I'm on my eleventh comment and haven't even gotten to the results and discussion yet. Should I trim back the number of comments, even if they're serious concerns, to avoid coming across as too condescending? Or should I try to provide as much constructive feedback as possible, even if I'm writing a tome?
RESPONSE A: With the usual caveat that things might be different in different disciplines... my position would be to go full bore and put all the comments in. Consider this: after publication, this paper will be become part of the established literature, a part of human knowledge for as long as civilization continues. It will also serve as a testament to the authors' abilities. Don't we have some duty to society (who pay for us to do our research) to ensure that everything that gets published is of the best quality we can reasonably manage? And aren't you doing a favor to the author by ensuring that their work, as seen by the their peers and the world at large, contains as few errors and flaws as possible? And finally, isn't it important to maintain the credibility and reliability of your field by ensuring that all the published research is of high quality? These are all pretty high-minded, philosophical arguments, but I personally feel that, in the absence of strong arguments the other way, it's worth trying to uphold those values.
RESPONSE B: You are supposed to critique every aspect of the paper From the grammar and spelling (that's always fun as an engineer), to their methods, how their figures are put together, clarity of the manuscript, references, title, etc. Everything is subject to critique. I've seen some real garbage be submitted to top tier journals, it is our job as a peer-review to guard the gate.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How did this paper pass peer review in ‘94? A friend recently came across this paper from the Diabetes Care Journal (impact factor 19 in 2020) that presents the most basic integration formula as an original method: Tai MM. A mathematical model for the determination of total area under glucose tolerance and other metabolic curves. Diabetes care. 1994 Feb 1 (doi) With 476 citations! Why is the idea of approximating the area under a curve via thin rectangles (an even simpler version of the trapezoidal rule which exists since at least 50 BCE) published as original research? Or why is the application of a 2000+ year old formula to metabolic curves as recently as 1994 deemed novel by this paper’s reviewers?
RESPONSE A: Yes, this is really cringe.
RESPONSE B: This is an extreme example, but well-known stuff from one field being a new thing in another field is very common.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How did this paper pass peer review in ‘94? A friend recently came across this paper from the Diabetes Care Journal (impact factor 19 in 2020) that presents the most basic integration formula as an original method: Tai MM. A mathematical model for the determination of total area under glucose tolerance and other metabolic curves. Diabetes care. 1994 Feb 1 (doi) With 476 citations! Why is the idea of approximating the area under a curve via thin rectangles (an even simpler version of the trapezoidal rule which exists since at least 50 BCE) published as original research? Or why is the application of a 2000+ year old formula to metabolic curves as recently as 1994 deemed novel by this paper’s reviewers?
RESPONSE A: Yes, this is really cringe.
RESPONSE B: While I have trouble believing that metabolics was unaware of the concept of numerical integration, there is value in showing your field a relevant standard technique from another field. Here's a less extreme example from chemistry. I have qualms with the paper and implementation of the code that went along with it (it doesn't actually demonstrate the value of the technique well at all), but automatic differentiation is a well known computer science result that chemistry really should probably use.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How did this paper pass peer review in ‘94? A friend recently came across this paper from the Diabetes Care Journal (impact factor 19 in 2020) that presents the most basic integration formula as an original method: Tai MM. A mathematical model for the determination of total area under glucose tolerance and other metabolic curves. Diabetes care. 1994 Feb 1 (doi) With 476 citations! Why is the idea of approximating the area under a curve via thin rectangles (an even simpler version of the trapezoidal rule which exists since at least 50 BCE) published as original research? Or why is the application of a 2000+ year old formula to metabolic curves as recently as 1994 deemed novel by this paper’s reviewers?
RESPONSE A: Because reviewers aren't omniscient and peer review is a useful but imperfect filter. The nature of research is that in general your scope of knowledge is a mile deep but an inch wide. Reviewers aren't stupid, but they don't know what they don't know. This was doubly true before the era of the internet and search engines. Now, this paper is obviously an extreme example, where someone *should* have known. But I work in a cross-disciplinary field and encounter smaller versions of this regularly. And honestly, I don't really consider it a problem
RESPONSE B: Yes, this is really cringe.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Can we find an ecological alternative to conferences? I was quantifying my CO2 emissions for the year. I've been responsible for about: * 1.3 tons for heat and electricity of my home. * 0.9 tons for transportation * about 1.5 tons for food and miscellanea * A guesstimate of 0.3 tons for the electricity that my academic pc-based job uses That's about 4 tons of CO2. ​ Then I went to 2 conferences this year (1 in the same continent, 1 with an intercontinental flight). That's about 4.5 tons of CO2. To meet a bunch of people for 4 days each. I mean... the networking I do and the things I learn are extremely important for my career. But the environmental impact is completely unjustified. It's totally against both my coscience but also logic to emit more CO2 for a 4 day thing that for heating a home for a year. ​ What do you think about it?
RESPONSE A: AR (augmented reality). Give it 10 years for it to be good enough.
RESPONSE B: I think you can't replace the face to face. Though, you could create collaboration between universities to send a "science collaborator", who stay in touch with you a long time before the conference in order to get your point of view and be able to ask questions you could ask/want to ask. Or organise a same conference in different places, with some meating rooms.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Can we find an ecological alternative to conferences? I was quantifying my CO2 emissions for the year. I've been responsible for about: * 1.3 tons for heat and electricity of my home. * 0.9 tons for transportation * about 1.5 tons for food and miscellanea * A guesstimate of 0.3 tons for the electricity that my academic pc-based job uses That's about 4 tons of CO2. ​ Then I went to 2 conferences this year (1 in the same continent, 1 with an intercontinental flight). That's about 4.5 tons of CO2. To meet a bunch of people for 4 days each. I mean... the networking I do and the things I learn are extremely important for my career. But the environmental impact is completely unjustified. It's totally against both my coscience but also logic to emit more CO2 for a 4 day thing that for heating a home for a year. ​ What do you think about it?
RESPONSE A: It would be nice, but older faculty like using them as vacations, so don't expect much traction. I can't imagine anything that could replace the informal networking that goes on at a good conference.
RESPONSE B: AR (augmented reality). Give it 10 years for it to be good enough.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Can we find an ecological alternative to conferences? I was quantifying my CO2 emissions for the year. I've been responsible for about: * 1.3 tons for heat and electricity of my home. * 0.9 tons for transportation * about 1.5 tons for food and miscellanea * A guesstimate of 0.3 tons for the electricity that my academic pc-based job uses That's about 4 tons of CO2. ​ Then I went to 2 conferences this year (1 in the same continent, 1 with an intercontinental flight). That's about 4.5 tons of CO2. To meet a bunch of people for 4 days each. I mean... the networking I do and the things I learn are extremely important for my career. But the environmental impact is completely unjustified. It's totally against both my coscience but also logic to emit more CO2 for a 4 day thing that for heating a home for a year. ​ What do you think about it?
RESPONSE A: Have you considered carbon offsetting? https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2015/apr/19/how-to-offset-flight-emissions I guess it's the easiest way for conscious scientists to keep traveling. It's not a complete solution, but it's better than nothing.
RESPONSE B: I think you can't replace the face to face. Though, you could create collaboration between universities to send a "science collaborator", who stay in touch with you a long time before the conference in order to get your point of view and be able to ask questions you could ask/want to ask. Or organise a same conference in different places, with some meating rooms.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Can we find an ecological alternative to conferences? I was quantifying my CO2 emissions for the year. I've been responsible for about: * 1.3 tons for heat and electricity of my home. * 0.9 tons for transportation * about 1.5 tons for food and miscellanea * A guesstimate of 0.3 tons for the electricity that my academic pc-based job uses That's about 4 tons of CO2. ​ Then I went to 2 conferences this year (1 in the same continent, 1 with an intercontinental flight). That's about 4.5 tons of CO2. To meet a bunch of people for 4 days each. I mean... the networking I do and the things I learn are extremely important for my career. But the environmental impact is completely unjustified. It's totally against both my coscience but also logic to emit more CO2 for a 4 day thing that for heating a home for a year. ​ What do you think about it?
RESPONSE A: It would be nice, but older faculty like using them as vacations, so don't expect much traction. I can't imagine anything that could replace the informal networking that goes on at a good conference.
RESPONSE B: Have you considered carbon offsetting? https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2015/apr/19/how-to-offset-flight-emissions I guess it's the easiest way for conscious scientists to keep traveling. It's not a complete solution, but it's better than nothing.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Can we find an ecological alternative to conferences? I was quantifying my CO2 emissions for the year. I've been responsible for about: * 1.3 tons for heat and electricity of my home. * 0.9 tons for transportation * about 1.5 tons for food and miscellanea * A guesstimate of 0.3 tons for the electricity that my academic pc-based job uses That's about 4 tons of CO2. ​ Then I went to 2 conferences this year (1 in the same continent, 1 with an intercontinental flight). That's about 4.5 tons of CO2. To meet a bunch of people for 4 days each. I mean... the networking I do and the things I learn are extremely important for my career. But the environmental impact is completely unjustified. It's totally against both my coscience but also logic to emit more CO2 for a 4 day thing that for heating a home for a year. ​ What do you think about it?
RESPONSE A: How much CO2 do you think would have been produced had you stayed home?
RESPONSE B: Have you considered carbon offsetting? https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2015/apr/19/how-to-offset-flight-emissions I guess it's the easiest way for conscious scientists to keep traveling. It's not a complete solution, but it's better than nothing.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: If my proposal was accepted to a conference, can I list this on my academic resume? Just wondering.
RESPONSE A: If you're at the stage of your career where you're asking this question, the answer is yes, absolutely.
RESPONSE B: In my area (musicology/arts) this is standard, yes. I normally put the future date of the conference and "(accepted)" to make the status of this doubly clear.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: If my proposal was accepted to a conference, can I list this on my academic resume? Just wondering.
RESPONSE A: If you're at the stage of your career where you're asking this question, the answer is yes, absolutely.
RESPONSE B: I would say yes. It is an academic output, which is never a bad thing!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: If my proposal was accepted to a conference, can I list this on my academic resume? Just wondering.
RESPONSE A: I'm in the same boat as OP, and I'd like to see a shift in attitudes on this (or, I suppose, support). Although I'm an adjunct, I'm essentially a full-time instructor, and I make an effort to seek out professional development and attend conferences. Last year I applied to, was accepted at, and presented at three. Apparently, my proposals merit recognition, and yet they don't merit the same level of financial support that other faculty receive. The first two were mercifully affordable, but the last one was a well-known conference with an absurd fee. It took me personally cornering the organizer in the bathroom (she happens to work at one of my institutions) to get her to mention that there was an adjunct rate (and why had she withheld this information when dozens of other adjuncts I knew shelled out the standard rate in ignorance?) and even this rate was prohibitively expensive. Our group presentation was about how adjuncts are forced to thieve, trade, and finagle professional development. It's terribly ironic that 2/4 were unable to attend due to fees. Just recently, I won a grant to attend one of the biggest conferences in our field. The grant is awarded by a committee committed to "equality," and yet the grant was for... $150. That barely puts a dent in airfare, let along hotels, transportation, etc. The lack of awareness many FT faculty have about the way adjuncts live and work is ridiculous.
RESPONSE B: I would say yes. It is an academic output, which is never a bad thing!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: If my proposal was accepted to a conference, can I list this on my academic resume? Just wondering.
RESPONSE A: I'm in the same boat as OP, and I'd like to see a shift in attitudes on this (or, I suppose, support). Although I'm an adjunct, I'm essentially a full-time instructor, and I make an effort to seek out professional development and attend conferences. Last year I applied to, was accepted at, and presented at three. Apparently, my proposals merit recognition, and yet they don't merit the same level of financial support that other faculty receive. The first two were mercifully affordable, but the last one was a well-known conference with an absurd fee. It took me personally cornering the organizer in the bathroom (she happens to work at one of my institutions) to get her to mention that there was an adjunct rate (and why had she withheld this information when dozens of other adjuncts I knew shelled out the standard rate in ignorance?) and even this rate was prohibitively expensive. Our group presentation was about how adjuncts are forced to thieve, trade, and finagle professional development. It's terribly ironic that 2/4 were unable to attend due to fees. Just recently, I won a grant to attend one of the biggest conferences in our field. The grant is awarded by a committee committed to "equality," and yet the grant was for... $150. That barely puts a dent in airfare, let along hotels, transportation, etc. The lack of awareness many FT faculty have about the way adjuncts live and work is ridiculous.
RESPONSE B: If you present at a conference, yes. If your proposal is accepted and you don't present, no.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: r/askacademia, let's talk - academic life and mental health issues? Hello r/askacademia...I'm a recent phd graduate, and I'm very concerned about academic life and mental health in general. Two people who were very close to me (my advisor and a friend in academia) have both committed suicide in the past few years. I know a number of other very intelligent, talented academics who have had suicide attempts, inpatient stints, on and off a number of medications for depression, etc. Now, of course, I'm not so naive to think that these issues are exclusive to just the academic world - BUT - I'm wondering if there's a higher prevalence of these issues, and if that's related to: the type of people academia attracts, the pressure of the academic workload and life, or a combination of these, or other factors. The reason I'm posing this question is that it seems like a quiet storm that nobody wants to openly discuss and address, which is very upsetting considering that people I love are dead, or have almost died. Seeing what I've seen, I'm reluctant to continue down an academic career path. r/askacademia - what do you think? Have you had similar experiences/observations?
RESPONSE A: I am really hoping more people answer this! I had issues during my undergrad, but I am concerned again as I get closer to PhD...
RESPONSE B: I find the stress of life in the academy is something I can manage by maintaining an active life outside of the academy. It helps that my spouse is not in the academy, but I also maintain a pretty active yoga/fitness practice and a ton of hobbies (I am a bit of a homesteader and love cooking and baking from scratch). I don't let work eat into my non-working time anymore, except when it's utterly unavoidable due to tight deadlines (e.g., finals week grading). By keeping my work in its place, it's easier to remain in love with it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: it seems like a quiet storm that nobody wants to openly discuss and address, which is very upsetting considering that people I love are dead, or have almost died. Seeing what I've seen, I'm reluctant to continue down an academic career path. r/askacademia - what do you think? Have you had similar experiences/observations?
RESPONSE A: Throwaway for obvious reasons. I have Bipolar II Disorder. In simple terms, it's the less severe variant of Bipolar disorder, in which depressive episodes are more severe than manic episodes. I've attempted suicide multiple times in the past. Once I figured out that I had Bipolar disorder, I got the appropriate treatment, and I'm a lot better. I am a grad student in mathematics. I have a number of friends in real life and on the internet who are in similar positions. To answer your question, no, I don't think it has anything to do with being academic. I've had these issues since I entered puberty, as have most of my friends with similar issues. Bipolar disorder, in particular, is very strongly genetic, so I would likely have these issues regardless of my occupation. The same holds true for schizophrenia or any number of other conditions. I don't have any data on the subject, but my impression is that very bright people who are interested in --- and, able to understand --- things like abstract mathematics tend to be nuts. The majority of my friends are very bright people, so there's obviously sampling bias. Anecdotal example: Kurt Godel, the most brilliant mathematician of the 20th century, was extremely paranoid, to the point that he refused to eat food unless his wife cooked it. One day, his wife got pneumonia and was hospitalized for a couple of months. Godel's wife couldn't prepare food for him, so he literally starved to death. **tl;dr** I don't think it's something caused by academia, it just so happens that really bright people tend to be crazy.
RESPONSE B: I am really hoping more people answer this! I had issues during my undergrad, but I am concerned again as I get closer to PhD...
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What do you do to manage your mental health, esp. during high levels of academic stress? I feel like people in academics have to deal with challenging workloads, difficult people, bureaucracy, and it must take a toll on you mentally. How do you manage to stay functional?
RESPONSE A: Sleep, exercise, pranayama, tm
RESPONSE B: Klonopin and only check email M-F 8-5
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What do you do to manage your mental health, esp. during high levels of academic stress? I feel like people in academics have to deal with challenging workloads, difficult people, bureaucracy, and it must take a toll on you mentally. How do you manage to stay functional?
RESPONSE A: Marijuana and video games.
RESPONSE B: Sleep, exercise, pranayama, tm
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What do you do to manage your mental health, esp. during high levels of academic stress? I feel like people in academics have to deal with challenging workloads, difficult people, bureaucracy, and it must take a toll on you mentally. How do you manage to stay functional?
RESPONSE A: Marijuana and video games.
RESPONSE B: Personally, being on Effexor for all 3 years of my degree has helped me stay rational and more importantly, functional.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: my last name?
RESPONSE A: In my opinion, you should not change your name on marriage if you are an academic. You will want your dissertation and publications to match your legal name or your c.v. will very clearly display out your marital history. If you do change your name, by all means publish the upcoming article under the married name. However, if you get divorced, you might want to still keep that married name--forever. The reason is to avoid sexism. Women with just one last name on their cv, no hyphen, are not displaying their marital status and thus will come in for less judgment. Name never changed? They don't know your marital status. Name hyphenated? They will know you are married. Not a huge deal, most people are, and I would expect a low degree of discrimination. Name changed once? See above. Name changed twice or more? Now all employers know too much about your marital history. Your c.v. with the chronological list of publications will tell the story. It will also be difficult for you to get full credit for your old publications in promotion processes with all the different names. I have seen the debate that goes on in these cases and it can be very, very sexist. For me the decision was simple--treat my name like a man would and don't change it. They don't have to suffer the name-change discrimination so why should I subject myself to it? My family can still address Christmas cards to Mrs. Myhusbandslastname and it's fine. It's just that legally and professionally, my name doesn't reflect my marital history. That said, if you're planning on having kids, it can be an advantage for your last name to match theirs (daycare pickups, etc). You have to choose where you want to have a hassle, in your professional or personal life.
RESPONSE B: You can publish under whatever reasonable name you like. I've worked with several people that published under one name, went by another, and had a different name on their paycheck. I did not change my name so I published, and continue to, under my "maiden" name. Socially, I changed my name.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: attempting to publish my first academic article later on this year. Is there any issue with submitting my article with my current last name as my middle name and my future last name as my last name?
RESPONSE A: In my opinion, you should not change your name on marriage if you are an academic. You will want your dissertation and publications to match your legal name or your c.v. will very clearly display out your marital history. If you do change your name, by all means publish the upcoming article under the married name. However, if you get divorced, you might want to still keep that married name--forever. The reason is to avoid sexism. Women with just one last name on their cv, no hyphen, are not displaying their marital status and thus will come in for less judgment. Name never changed? They don't know your marital status. Name hyphenated? They will know you are married. Not a huge deal, most people are, and I would expect a low degree of discrimination. Name changed once? See above. Name changed twice or more? Now all employers know too much about your marital history. Your c.v. with the chronological list of publications will tell the story. It will also be difficult for you to get full credit for your old publications in promotion processes with all the different names. I have seen the debate that goes on in these cases and it can be very, very sexist. For me the decision was simple--treat my name like a man would and don't change it. They don't have to suffer the name-change discrimination so why should I subject myself to it? My family can still address Christmas cards to Mrs. Myhusbandslastname and it's fine. It's just that legally and professionally, my name doesn't reflect my marital history. That said, if you're planning on having kids, it can be an advantage for your last name to match theirs (daycare pickups, etc). You have to choose where you want to have a hassle, in your professional or personal life.
RESPONSE B: OrcID is your solution. Register with it and the journals you publish in. That way you have a record no matter the name.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: article with my current last name as my middle name and my future last name as my last name?
RESPONSE A: You might save a few minor problems (like citations getting approriately credited to you) by trying to stick to one name. Biggest recommendation is to sign up for an Orcid https://Orcid.org
RESPONSE B: In my opinion, you should not change your name on marriage if you are an academic. You will want your dissertation and publications to match your legal name or your c.v. will very clearly display out your marital history. If you do change your name, by all means publish the upcoming article under the married name. However, if you get divorced, you might want to still keep that married name--forever. The reason is to avoid sexism. Women with just one last name on their cv, no hyphen, are not displaying their marital status and thus will come in for less judgment. Name never changed? They don't know your marital status. Name hyphenated? They will know you are married. Not a huge deal, most people are, and I would expect a low degree of discrimination. Name changed once? See above. Name changed twice or more? Now all employers know too much about your marital history. Your c.v. with the chronological list of publications will tell the story. It will also be difficult for you to get full credit for your old publications in promotion processes with all the different names. I have seen the debate that goes on in these cases and it can be very, very sexist. For me the decision was simple--treat my name like a man would and don't change it. They don't have to suffer the name-change discrimination so why should I subject myself to it? My family can still address Christmas cards to Mrs. Myhusbandslastname and it's fine. It's just that legally and professionally, my name doesn't reflect my marital history. That said, if you're planning on having kids, it can be an advantage for your last name to match theirs (daycare pickups, etc). You have to choose where you want to have a hassle, in your professional or personal life.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: will be attempting to publish my first academic article later on this year. Is there any issue with submitting my article with my current last name as my middle name and my future last name as my last name?
RESPONSE A: My undergrad advisor used to publish under her family name, then she got married and now publish under Familyname - Husbandname
RESPONSE B: In my opinion, you should not change your name on marriage if you are an academic. You will want your dissertation and publications to match your legal name or your c.v. will very clearly display out your marital history. If you do change your name, by all means publish the upcoming article under the married name. However, if you get divorced, you might want to still keep that married name--forever. The reason is to avoid sexism. Women with just one last name on their cv, no hyphen, are not displaying their marital status and thus will come in for less judgment. Name never changed? They don't know your marital status. Name hyphenated? They will know you are married. Not a huge deal, most people are, and I would expect a low degree of discrimination. Name changed once? See above. Name changed twice or more? Now all employers know too much about your marital history. Your c.v. with the chronological list of publications will tell the story. It will also be difficult for you to get full credit for your old publications in promotion processes with all the different names. I have seen the debate that goes on in these cases and it can be very, very sexist. For me the decision was simple--treat my name like a man would and don't change it. They don't have to suffer the name-change discrimination so why should I subject myself to it? My family can still address Christmas cards to Mrs. Myhusbandslastname and it's fine. It's just that legally and professionally, my name doesn't reflect my marital history. That said, if you're planning on having kids, it can be an advantage for your last name to match theirs (daycare pickups, etc). You have to choose where you want to have a hassle, in your professional or personal life.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: University stopped subscribing to Summon Search. How can I use my university credentials to access articles I find through Google Scholar? I used to find the Summon search very convenient as you can filter articles by author names, and much more. It has been replaced by EBSCO, which in my opinion is not as effective. I can search for journals and articles using Scholar but I cannot access it as I can only use my university credentials. Is there a way to do this? University staff has said I've got to use EBSCO and it's really bugging me.
RESPONSE A: In the upper right corner of the Google Scholar homepage, you'll see a little gear. Click on that to get to the setting page. About halfway down, you'll see "Library Links". Type in the name of your school and your library's citation linker should come up. Check it off and hit save. Now you should have links to full text in your Google Scholar results. If this doesn't work, then talk to your library. They need to contact Google to get it set up.
RESPONSE B: Bearing in mind that Google Scholar will search beyond what you have access to through your University credentials, there are ways to route a link to an article through your school, assuming they use a proxy server for off campus access. Go to libx.org and see if your school has a libx tool. If they do, install it and it will let you route any link through your school's proxy. If they don't, you'll have to manually prepend the proxy url in front of the article's url. You can also ask your university librarians to set up a libx edition for your school. Sadly, Summon is very expensive compared to EDS (Ebsco's product) so your library probably had to decide between keeping Summon or canceling journal subscriptions. Alternately, you can keep EDS up in one tab, and search for citations you find in Scholar via EDS. If you have access to the article via any database, EDS should find it for you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: University stopped subscribing to Summon Search. How can I use my university credentials to access articles I find through Google Scholar? I used to find the Summon search very convenient as you can filter articles by author names, and much more. It has been replaced by EBSCO, which in my opinion is not as effective. I can search for journals and articles using Scholar but I cannot access it as I can only use my university credentials. Is there a way to do this? University staff has said I've got to use EBSCO and it's really bugging me.
RESPONSE A: In the upper right corner of the Google Scholar homepage, you'll see a little gear. Click on that to get to the setting page. About halfway down, you'll see "Library Links". Type in the name of your school and your library's citation linker should come up. Check it off and hit save. Now you should have links to full text in your Google Scholar results. If this doesn't work, then talk to your library. They need to contact Google to get it set up.
RESPONSE B: Talk to your librarians.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: as I am. Thanks in advance!
RESPONSE A: Have you tried suggesting other books to read?
RESPONSE B: This is obviously a huge problem, and it's really courageous of you to take it on. I suspect that there's some long-standing problems here—beginning with a commitment to "classic" humanistic study that largely depends on a critical tradition established by white male scholars in the twentieth century. In addition, it's clear that you're being gaslighted—the notion that there are not female philosophers (in both continental and analytic traditions) is patently false and disprovable with a quick google search. So, dismantling what is clearly a deeply entrenched ideology in the very curriculum of a university program is something that will probably require one of a few major things: a) curricular change approved at the dept/program level b) a change in the director that you mentioned picks most of the reading or c) a demand from a large proportion of the students that the readings be revised. Some of these are institutional and are completely out of your control. Nonetheless, I think there's some things that you can do. While the reading group idea is obviously a bit patronizing, there's something to it, at least to the extent that you'd be bringing together some like-minded individuals to study, say, Wollstonecraft, Fuller, Douglass, Du Bois, etc. There's reading lists available online for this kind of curriculum, or you can reach out here if you need help (I'd personally be happy to assist). Once this gets some traction, you'll have allies in the truly venerable goal that you've set. One other idea with which you might be able to approach the institution is the following: think about suggesting the democratization of the program. Ask that students (or a student rep) be involved in the process of selecting texts or inviting speakers, or that you all vote on a particular text/speaker to be added to the curriculum. Even if only a couple texts or speakers each yr are student chosen, you can perhaps start to chip away at these arcane practices. Best of luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: the problem again. Additionally, several of my fellow scholars seem to think I'm overreacting or that the program is trying to bring in diverse speakers, but they won't come because of our reputation (though there's been no evidence that this is the case). I know some of my friends feel the same as I do, but they don't want to rock the boat or make any of the staff upset by criticizing the programming. This mostly flared up because our summer reading list was just announced, and it is once again all white male authors. Am I overreacting? Is there a certain way I can approach this without seeming too confrontational or disrespectful? I know a lot of work goes into making our schedules and choosing books to read, but I want to work with the program to make it better for future students. I'm just nervous, and I feel a bit lonely since no one seems as bothered by the issue as I am. Thanks in advance!
RESPONSE A: I think conservatives are mainly allergic to the idea that you might choose an author or speaker simply *because* of their gender or ethnicity. Whether that's smart or not is up for discussion but I bet that's what they object to. You might be more successful if you specifically look for philosophers who have really good ideas, but seem to get overlooked because they don't fit the mold of what a philosopher "should" look like. Then make your argument based on their ideas, not their gender or ethnicity. I also think that it's probably *true* that there there aren't many historical female philosophers with surviving texts. I wouldn't interpret this as someone saying that women can't be philosophers, though. They are probably just as aware as you are that institutional barriers made it nearly impossible for women to work or publish in the field. Not much can be done about that now, so you may want to look for your non-white-males among more modern scholars. Do you find that the men and women in your program are treated equally? No doubt philosophy is historically male-dominated, but if the program does a good job of encouraging its female students, I consider that a good sign.
RESPONSE B: Have you tried suggesting other books to read?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: public lectures and seminars throughout the year. Every book we've read has been by a white man, and all of our guest speakers have been white (though we had several women speak this past semester for the anniversary of the 19th amendment). I have brought up my issues with the lack of diversity before, but I don't think I'm being taken seriously since I'm new to the program, and I'm one of the few outspoken liberals. Once when I did mention diversity during a philosophy seminar, I was told that there just aren't many female philosophers, and the ones who did exist don't have many, if any, surviving texts, so we couldn't study them. Obviously that wasn't the response I was hoping for, and I didn't feel comfortable bringing up the problem again. Additionally, several of my fellow scholars seem to think I'm overreacting or that the program is trying to bring in diverse speakers, but they won't come because of our reputation (though there's been no evidence that this is the case). I know some of my friends feel the same as I do, but they don't want to rock the boat or make any of the staff upset by criticizing the programming. This mostly flared up because our summer reading list was just announced, and it is once again all white male authors. Am I overreacting? Is there a certain way I can approach this without seeming too confrontational or disrespectful? I know a lot of work goes into making our schedules and choosing books to read, but I want to work with the program to make it better for future students. I'm just nervous, and I feel a bit lonely since no one seems as bothered by the issue as I am. Thanks in advance!
RESPONSE A: Have you tried suggesting other books to read?
RESPONSE B: I’m confused on what their excuse is for having only white guest speakers. It’s one thing to say we don’t have enough surviving historical texts in the subject area from non-white people (although that sounds suspect to me), but saying there’s not currently enough non-white people in the field for them to invite as speakers seems ridiculous to me. Do they really think 50 out of 50 speakers being white is normal?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: I'm about to become a PhD student in one week. What should I do? What resources do you wish you had taken advantage of from day 1? What did you wish you had done from the very beginning. I'm going to be studying biology if that helps. I know everyone's going to have different stories and advice and my'mileage' may vary. Just wanted to see if there would be anything helpful for me, and other new grad students out there who will also be starting soon. Edit: I'm in the US if that means anything.
RESPONSE A: When professors and other grad students try to persuade you that you need to do xyz, there's an assumption embedded in their words about what kind of professional life you're building yourself. For example, lots of people assume you want to be a professor at a research intensive university. Maybe you do, but maybe you have slightly, or even significantly, different goals. The best way to maintain your physical and psychological health is to get really super clear on your purpose. Then, ruthlessly triage your time and energy according to that purpose. For example, I had a season where my biggest priority was finding a productive cross-disciplinary collaboration. I'm in the humanities where collaboration is rare, so during that season I ignored a lot of well-intended advice about the endless list of new disciplinary books some people thought I should be reading. Instead, I made a spreadsheet of a bunch of people on campus who I'd be interested in collaborating with, spent a lot of time going for quick coffees or meetings with interested parties from that list, and eventually found a cross-disciplinary collaboration. I think the best thing you can do for yourself is literally write down what your goals and priorities are. Build a deep habit of making decisions that align with your purpose. So many people get swayed by what others think they need to do with their time. Don't be one of them.
RESPONSE B: Realize that a PhD is going to take a loooooong time and that you should get out of the semester-mentality of undergrad, and treat your PhD as a never-ending job.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: never got the opportunity to publish any of that work. I now have a broader perspective about publishing papers and now I'm wondering whether it is ethical to try publishing my undergrad research. By the way, my current research is not related to my undergrad research. What are your thoughts on this? Is it okay to try publishing my old research as an independent author? If yes, what are some good journals? TIA!
RESPONSE A: I think if the results are worth communicating, then it's worth publishing. I've heard some others talk about minor articles being a waste of space, but I think that's being overly cynical. Since your undergraduate university presumably enabled your research by providing guidance (in the form of a supervisor) and resources, you might consider publishing under an affiliation to that university. We can't help you decide which journal to send it to. You'll have to figure that out yourself. A good start would be to see where the articles which you cite in your research come from, then narrow that down by looking at each journal's aims and scopes; and their recent articles. You'd also have to be realistic wrt journal prestige, IMO.
RESPONSE B: Please, please consult your undergraduate supervisor first before publishing it independently, especially if your previous advisor has any intentions on making your previous results an IP. Someone from my department (a research fellow), published his results independently and was immediately sacked because he published his results before the institution could make it an IP. I’ve had a similar experience as a student (wasn’t intentional or that I acted in bad faith. It was my first experience publishing and I had done it as an urgency to graduate). Anyways... I was told off by my supervisor pretty badly, and I was told that the data belongs to the school, so I had no right to publish it without my supervisor’s knowledge. I did the data collection and analysis, but keep in mind that the school funded your research project. So ya... the data belongs to the school, not you. So please do yourself a favour and avoid all unnecessary trouble by talking to your previous supervisor first. I don’t exactly know how your school culture is like, but it’s pretty strict for mine. Cheers
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Publishing your undergrad research after you're graduated (?) Hello, I'm a tad new to the academic world and I'm currently following my graduate studies. I have done an interesting research when I was an undergrad (related to renewable energy, majoring in engineering) but never got the opportunity to publish any of that work. I now have a broader perspective about publishing papers and now I'm wondering whether it is ethical to try publishing my undergrad research. By the way, my current research is not related to my undergrad research. What are your thoughts on this? Is it okay to try publishing my old research as an independent author? If yes, what are some good journals? TIA!
RESPONSE A: Lot of PhD at my department did so. If its ethical? Depends on tradition of your discipline and workplace. But most important it is "clever", because as an academic you HAVE to publish, and if there is something already done why not? Unfortunately I can not recommend any journal to you, since I am an atropologist
RESPONSE B: Please, please consult your undergraduate supervisor first before publishing it independently, especially if your previous advisor has any intentions on making your previous results an IP. Someone from my department (a research fellow), published his results independently and was immediately sacked because he published his results before the institution could make it an IP. I’ve had a similar experience as a student (wasn’t intentional or that I acted in bad faith. It was my first experience publishing and I had done it as an urgency to graduate). Anyways... I was told off by my supervisor pretty badly, and I was told that the data belongs to the school, so I had no right to publish it without my supervisor’s knowledge. I did the data collection and analysis, but keep in mind that the school funded your research project. So ya... the data belongs to the school, not you. So please do yourself a favour and avoid all unnecessary trouble by talking to your previous supervisor first. I don’t exactly know how your school culture is like, but it’s pretty strict for mine. Cheers
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Publishing your undergrad research after you're graduated (?) Hello, I'm a tad new to the academic world and I'm currently following my graduate studies. I have done an interesting research when I was an undergrad (related to renewable energy, majoring in engineering) but never got the opportunity to publish any of that work. I now have a broader perspective about publishing papers and now I'm wondering whether it is ethical to try publishing my undergrad research. By the way, my current research is not related to my undergrad research. What are your thoughts on this? Is it okay to try publishing my old research as an independent author? If yes, what are some good journals? TIA!
RESPONSE A: You definitely can, this is not unusual. But as others have said, you absolutely need to be in contact with your supervisor, first and foremost because if they were supervising your project, they'll be a co-author and should therefore be involved in the development of the manuscript.
RESPONSE B: Lot of PhD at my department did so. If its ethical? Depends on tradition of your discipline and workplace. But most important it is "clever", because as an academic you HAVE to publish, and if there is something already done why not? Unfortunately I can not recommend any journal to you, since I am an atropologist
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Publishing your undergrad research after you're graduated (?) Hello, I'm a tad new to the academic world and I'm currently following my graduate studies. I have done an interesting research when I was an undergrad (related to renewable energy, majoring in engineering) but never got the opportunity to publish any of that work. I now have a broader perspective about publishing papers and now I'm wondering whether it is ethical to try publishing my undergrad research. By the way, my current research is not related to my undergrad research. What are your thoughts on this? Is it okay to try publishing my old research as an independent author? If yes, what are some good journals? TIA!
RESPONSE A: IMO it's worth writing the work up an submitting it to a journal. Before you do that, though, it's imperative that you speak to your undergraduate supervisor who was on the project with you. If you can get their help with writing it up, even if it's just checking before you submit, it's worth asking. If you don't know what journal to approach first then you can ask your supervisor. Alternatively, write-up the title and abstract and stick it in here: http://jane.biosemantics.org/ That has helped me identify potential journals in the past.
RESPONSE B: Lot of PhD at my department did so. If its ethical? Depends on tradition of your discipline and workplace. But most important it is "clever", because as an academic you HAVE to publish, and if there is something already done why not? Unfortunately I can not recommend any journal to you, since I am an atropologist
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Publishing your undergrad research after you're graduated (?) Hello, I'm a tad new to the academic world and I'm currently following my graduate studies. I have done an interesting research when I was an undergrad (related to renewable energy, majoring in engineering) but never got the opportunity to publish any of that work. I now have a broader perspective about publishing papers and now I'm wondering whether it is ethical to try publishing my undergrad research. By the way, my current research is not related to my undergrad research. What are your thoughts on this? Is it okay to try publishing my old research as an independent author? If yes, what are some good journals? TIA!
RESPONSE A: You should not publish without the consent of your previous mentors. See https://retractionwatch.com/2020/06/15/there-is-no-i-in-data-former-grad-student-has-paper-retracted-after-mentor-objects/
RESPONSE B: Lot of PhD at my department did so. If its ethical? Depends on tradition of your discipline and workplace. But most important it is "clever", because as an academic you HAVE to publish, and if there is something already done why not? Unfortunately I can not recommend any journal to you, since I am an atropologist
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: through. However, this is definitely the exception and not the norm, ESPECIALLY in regard to theory pieces. I feel like I have a pretty decent vocabulary, and I don't just lazily skim (usually). Often I'll read paragraphs very carefully, even entire pages or book chapters, and I come away understanding basically nothing in regard to the article's major concepts and claims. Does this lack of comprehension and feeling of inadequacy eventually go away, or am I just stupid and in the wrong field?
RESPONSE A: The fundamental problem of theory, of understanding it, of debating its existence, stems from (IMO) a conflict between two basic premises. 1. Theory reflects reality 2. Theory creates reality If 1 is true, then theory exists in a reality independent of its names, and names merely serve as a useful label for categorization. If 2 is true, then theory creates "reality", and you need to know the precise framework which someone posed a theory (alternatively described as "a way of understanding") in order to understand that proposed reality. People who don't like theory, don't like it because they believe it "artificially" creates a reality beyond a fundamental one that exists (these also tend to be conservative positions). Some people who like theory, like what the newly constructed realities can say about alternate ways of thinking about the same thing, and view the labels as shorthand for reflecting frameworks that already exists, i.e. "why reinvent the concept/word 'wheel' when one exists?" IMO, you will need to make peace with your relationship with theory and this epistemological question on your own. But I think this reductive framework is a good way of moving past "big words that may or may not mean anything" into "does this theory represent, or does this theory create? And what do I want to do with this way of thinking, either way?"
RESPONSE B: It goes away to some extent, but also...some people are poor writers. I am also convinced that some people purposely try to make things sound more complex than they need to be - which *can* be a sign of being a poor writer, but could also just be pretension.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: don't just lazily skim (usually). Often I'll read paragraphs very carefully, even entire pages or book chapters, and I come away understanding basically nothing in regard to the article's major concepts and claims. Does this lack of comprehension and feeling of inadequacy eventually go away, or am I just stupid and in the wrong field?
RESPONSE A: The fundamental problem of theory, of understanding it, of debating its existence, stems from (IMO) a conflict between two basic premises. 1. Theory reflects reality 2. Theory creates reality If 1 is true, then theory exists in a reality independent of its names, and names merely serve as a useful label for categorization. If 2 is true, then theory creates "reality", and you need to know the precise framework which someone posed a theory (alternatively described as "a way of understanding") in order to understand that proposed reality. People who don't like theory, don't like it because they believe it "artificially" creates a reality beyond a fundamental one that exists (these also tend to be conservative positions). Some people who like theory, like what the newly constructed realities can say about alternate ways of thinking about the same thing, and view the labels as shorthand for reflecting frameworks that already exists, i.e. "why reinvent the concept/word 'wheel' when one exists?" IMO, you will need to make peace with your relationship with theory and this epistemological question on your own. But I think this reductive framework is a good way of moving past "big words that may or may not mean anything" into "does this theory represent, or does this theory create? And what do I want to do with this way of thinking, either way?"
RESPONSE B: Yes, it goes away as you become more familiar with the language. One thing I’d really recommend where possible: watch videos or listen to recordings of theorists speaking/ lecturing about what you’re reading. Concepts often seem a lot less opaque when the people who are putting them forth can talk around them a bit and expand in a more casual way than on paper. Intonation and emphasis can make a world of difference! Good luck.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What are your favorite applications and gadgets for notetaking and reading papers? I want to stop relying on paper so much! How do you guys stay organized?
RESPONSE A: This question pop-up every week. 1. For note taking: OneNote or Evernote 2. For organizing pdf and your reading reference: Mendeley or Zotero 3. For making daily plan: Wundelist 4. For making mind maps: ImindMap 10 5. For using pomodoro time management: tomatime 6. For writing: ZenWriter or Focus writer 7. For writing PhD or article the best by far is: Scrivener 8. For saving the eyes from monitor reading: f.lux 9. For pdf and ebooks annotation and reading: FoxitReader and Icecream reader 10. For reading a lot of articles in pdf you need big eink reader: kindle DX or OnyBox 11. For not having social life will using all of this: Tinder and PlanetSide 2
RESPONSE B: I use OneNote on a TabletPC. Actually, I have a Surface Pro 4 now. But I liked my TabletPC better. TabletPC is a spec put out by Microsoft for a laptop or tablet with touch and stylus input, which requires a Wacom stylus sensor. I've had both an Acer and a Fujitsu TabletPC and they worked great. Handwriting worked great. Palm rejection worked great. I took all my class notes in OneNote on those things. You can write, then use your finger to move the page up, then writer some more as intuitively as a dream. The Surface Pro 4 constantly gives me fits.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What are your favorite applications and gadgets for notetaking and reading papers? I want to stop relying on paper so much! How do you guys stay organized?
RESPONSE A: It’s not quite the same but I want to give a shout out to tinyscanner, a phone app that lets you compile phone photos into PDFs so that if you don’t have a regular full scanner for books or physical journals you can take photos of the pages and make it into a pdf yourself. Also fabulous for manuscripts and archival materials if you’re a historian.
RESPONSE B: I use OneNote on a TabletPC. Actually, I have a Surface Pro 4 now. But I liked my TabletPC better. TabletPC is a spec put out by Microsoft for a laptop or tablet with touch and stylus input, which requires a Wacom stylus sensor. I've had both an Acer and a Fujitsu TabletPC and they worked great. Handwriting worked great. Palm rejection worked great. I took all my class notes in OneNote on those things. You can write, then use your finger to move the page up, then writer some more as intuitively as a dream. The Surface Pro 4 constantly gives me fits.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What are your favorite applications and gadgets for notetaking and reading papers? I want to stop relying on paper so much! How do you guys stay organized?
RESPONSE A: I use Mendeley for all my ebooks and articles in PDF, which I use on my computer as well as on my mobile device. I also use a Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 (2012) with the S-Pen to highlight, annotate etc my PDFs.
RESPONSE B: It’s not quite the same but I want to give a shout out to tinyscanner, a phone app that lets you compile phone photos into PDFs so that if you don’t have a regular full scanner for books or physical journals you can take photos of the pages and make it into a pdf yourself. Also fabulous for manuscripts and archival materials if you’re a historian.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is it better to not publish at all than publish in an extremely shitty, low tier no name conference? Basically the title. Does a low tier publication dampen your credibility? Or is something better than nothing?
RESPONSE A: Funnily enough, I had this exact discussion with my advisor yesterday. He recommended not to publish in low-tier journals and conferences if your aim is to one day get an academic position.
RESPONSE B: in predatory journals, it is a negative. low tier, reviewed is fine, especially for an undergrad where it distinguishes them. they must be able to talk about it though! a small first-author that an undergrad is passionate about is much different than a predatory journal where the student doesnt even understand their «research»
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Is it better to not publish at all than publish in an extremely shitty, low tier no name conference? Basically the title. Does a low tier publication dampen your credibility? Or is something better than nothing?
RESPONSE A: in predatory journals, it is a negative. low tier, reviewed is fine, especially for an undergrad where it distinguishes them. they must be able to talk about it though! a small first-author that an undergrad is passionate about is much different than a predatory journal where the student doesnt even understand their «research»
RESPONSE B: It depends. It a low tier journal balanced with more higher tier work? Sometimes you just have a paper that ends up, well, way below expectations. But if you are trying to have quantity and not quality, that’s going to stand out. If you are at a teaching university, it may be “teach well and get some pubs out” because the focus is different than a R1 or R2. Look at your department’s research guidelines for expectations and ranking systems. Assume this is a TT position otherwise, well, your kind of have to gauge what is an appropriate mix Watch out for pay to play journals. If you are an undergrad, fine, fire away. Get some experience.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is it better to not publish at all than publish in an extremely shitty, low tier no name conference? Basically the title. Does a low tier publication dampen your credibility? Or is something better than nothing?
RESPONSE A: The better question is why are you doing work that can only be published in a crap conference/journal? What more would it need for a "good" journal?
RESPONSE B: in predatory journals, it is a negative. low tier, reviewed is fine, especially for an undergrad where it distinguishes them. they must be able to talk about it though! a small first-author that an undergrad is passionate about is much different than a predatory journal where the student doesnt even understand their «research»
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is it better to not publish at all than publish in an extremely shitty, low tier no name conference? Basically the title. Does a low tier publication dampen your credibility? Or is something better than nothing?
RESPONSE A: I think it can help with admissions, to a certain degree. I published my first paper (a very poor quality in an extremely shitty conference) without any guidance from anyone. I think it played a factor in admissions to a master degree program (it wasn't very competitive). I was going from a field of engineering to economics, so the paper really helped showed that I was interested.
RESPONSE B: in predatory journals, it is a negative. low tier, reviewed is fine, especially for an undergrad where it distinguishes them. they must be able to talk about it though! a small first-author that an undergrad is passionate about is much different than a predatory journal where the student doesnt even understand their «research»
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Is it better to not publish at all than publish in an extremely shitty, low tier no name conference? Basically the title. Does a low tier publication dampen your credibility? Or is something better than nothing?
RESPONSE A: There are several kind of low tier journals: Predatory journals, journals IF<1 publishing absolute garbage: I would recommend to stay away, better not publish than do that. Serious low tier journals, like IF2-5, which nobody would find sexy or impactful, but don't mean the work is garbage, are useful. Often one works on the big project targetting a big paper (Nature cell science journals etc), but has to develop little tools on the way or make side discoveries that deserve being reported. This is fine for small papers in small journals. Like, you find a cool little trick, an improved or new synthesis for a simple compound, shed a new light on a known pathway, or make a simple program that will be used as a helper/display/whatever in the main project. You don't want to lose much time on it, but it's nice to report it, it gives you a ref to cite without getting out of your way in the main paper to explain, and people who need the little piece of info will find the paper through google when they need it rather than reading the journal when it comes out, it's fine.
RESPONSE B: The better question is why are you doing work that can only be published in a crap conference/journal? What more would it need for a "good" journal?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How harmful is a mediocre output from PhD to one's career? I'm about to defend my PhD from a top(ish) university in biochemistry and start my postdoc in a top lab in my field. I think I'll be able to accomplish quite a lot there. However, I worry that my publication record from my PhD is somewhat mediocre/average. I have a few first-author and co-author papers in decent/respectable journals, but most of the work isn't terribly impactful. If I want to pursue an academic career (for now), and I'm in a field that generally does long postdocs in the pursuit of faculty positions (life sciences; 5 years is not unusual), does the publication record from the PhD practically matter for anything after: 1. Obtaining a postdoc position, and 2. Obtaining grant(s)/fellowship(s) for said postdoc position? I know it's sort of a moot point anyway, since I can't really change it now, but is it justified to not worry about this at all, if I "made it to the next round" by getting the postdoc position I wanted? Will someone in five years look at my CV and say "hmm... very nice postdoc, but if only you had one more paper from your PhD..."? Edit: Ugh... typo in title... lol
RESPONSE A: Nobody cares how shitty you were in high school if you were good in college. Nobody cares how shitty you were in college if you were good in your PhD. Nobody cares how shitty you were in your PhD if you were good in your postdoc. etc etc. Eventually you'll find that good position.
RESPONSE B: It would be ideal if you published more during graduate school. However, that can't be changed, so it's best to just not worry about it. That said, make an effort to identify any habits that may have lead to the mediocre publication record as a grad student and make sure you change those things during your post-doc. Don't make the same mistakes twice.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How do people in Academia deal with bad coworkers and superiors given the high difficulty of switching jobs? This goes for academics, researchers as well as graduate students and postdocs. Academia is typically highly competitive and difficult to get into as I understand it. It takes years to get into any permanent position let alone tenure track. The careers are also very niche. So someone specializing in say Mughal history probably cannot get into a similar discipline in another university. So chances of finding a replacement job is low. Given such a context, how do you all deal with bad coworkers and superiors or if you unfortunately happen to fall into a toxic environment?
RESPONSE A: It's actually not impossible to move, especially once you're tenured. I'm sure mobility differs by discipline. You deal with it same as you would in any other job. Academia isn't some kind of magical unicorn workplace in that virtually all issues experienced by academics are experienced by everyone else too to a greater or lesser degree. The costs of moving jobs are high for everyone, so lots of people have to somehow deal with bad coworkers and supervisors for extended periods of time.
RESPONSE B: I left a department despite decent long-term prospects due to this (toxic superiors and admin), but it has astonishingly high turnover for academia and so I wasn't the only one. I'm still unsure whether leaving was the right call, or whether I could've navigated the waters more to my advantage. I think about it a lot. I didn't have a problem finding my next job but I did take a slightly lower position of sorts, in that I work in a big group instead of heading my own small group. So to answer your question: alcohol, and then I left.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do people in Academia deal with bad coworkers and superiors given the high difficulty of switching jobs? This goes for academics, researchers as well as graduate students and postdocs. Academia is typically highly competitive and difficult to get into as I understand it. It takes years to get into any permanent position let alone tenure track. The careers are also very niche. So someone specializing in say Mughal history probably cannot get into a similar discipline in another university. So chances of finding a replacement job is low. Given such a context, how do you all deal with bad coworkers and superiors or if you unfortunately happen to fall into a toxic environment?
RESPONSE A: They do it by becoming increasingly petty and toxic to each other until one or other people finally leave. On some occasions, the entire department gets shut down and subsumed (but only because the department was underperforming in enrollment, but the toxicity just made it easier).
RESPONSE B: It's actually not impossible to move, especially once you're tenured. I'm sure mobility differs by discipline. You deal with it same as you would in any other job. Academia isn't some kind of magical unicorn workplace in that virtually all issues experienced by academics are experienced by everyone else too to a greater or lesser degree. The costs of moving jobs are high for everyone, so lots of people have to somehow deal with bad coworkers and supervisors for extended periods of time.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Does being the second author in a Science or Nature or any top-tier journal paper valuable? Can the second author write those papers on their CV? Is it valuable? (I'm a grad student in Physics)
RESPONSE A: Am I the only one who is jealous that OP can get a paper published in Science or Nature without knowing this? (Sorry if I’m making assumptions but this is a major achievement for most scientists).
RESPONSE B: Do bosons have integer spin? You bet.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Does being the second author in a Science or Nature or any top-tier journal paper valuable? Can the second author write those papers on their CV? Is it valuable? (I'm a grad student in Physics)
RESPONSE A: Yes. Being a co-author in a top paper does matter, regardless of the position in the list.
RESPONSE B: Am I the only one who is jealous that OP can get a paper published in Science or Nature without knowing this? (Sorry if I’m making assumptions but this is a major achievement for most scientists).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Does being the second author in a Science or Nature or any top-tier journal paper valuable? Can the second author write those papers on their CV? Is it valuable? (I'm a grad student in Physics)
RESPONSE A: Yes
RESPONSE B: Am I the only one who is jealous that OP can get a paper published in Science or Nature without knowing this? (Sorry if I’m making assumptions but this is a major achievement for most scientists).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Does being the second author in a Science or Nature or any top-tier journal paper valuable? Can the second author write those papers on their CV? Is it valuable? (I'm a grad student in Physics)
RESPONSE A: Am I the only one who is jealous that OP can get a paper published in Science or Nature without knowing this? (Sorry if I’m making assumptions but this is a major achievement for most scientists).
RESPONSE B: A second on a Science checking in here. I’d say it has helped my career.
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.