label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
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: Yes
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Can industry professionals who only have a Master’s become professors? If someone has been working in a field for several years and is essentially an expert in it, could they teach a class or become a professor? Especially for subjects like CS, statistics, finance, business, etc, which are often very industry-oriented (assuming they also hold a master’s)? I’ve seen the title “industry professor” before and my instructor for intro to CS only had a bachelors (she had graduated from my school with honors) and had been in the workforce for a few years. Also, one of my statistics professors only had a masters but was a full on professor and even did research. So I suppose it isn’t unheard of but is it common in such industry-oriented fields?
RESPONSE A: Define “Professor”
RESPONSE B: Yes, but how they're treated is highly dependent on the field in question. For example; what you're thinking of is quite common in engineering disciplines, and is typically referred to as a "Professor of Practice." You get a weird alternative tenure agreement, and you wouldn't really end up doing research, but you do end up teaching more or less full-time, and you still get formally referred to as "professor."
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Can industry professionals who only have a Master’s become professors? If someone has been working in a field for several years and is essentially an expert in it, could they teach a class or become a professor? Especially for subjects like CS, statistics, finance, business, etc, which are often very industry-oriented (assuming they also hold a master’s)? I’ve seen the title “industry professor” before and my instructor for intro to CS only had a bachelors (she had graduated from my school with honors) and had been in the workforce for a few years. Also, one of my statistics professors only had a masters but was a full on professor and even did research. So I suppose it isn’t unheard of but is it common in such industry-oriented fields?
RESPONSE A: Look at community colleges
RESPONSE B: Define “Professor”
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: US vs European systems for research faculty? I am going to eventually be applying to faculty positions. I am a Biochemistry PhD with a Belgian wife that really does not want to live in the US. I really like the life in Europe (from labor rights to tighter gun regulations). However, I am concerned with the quality of research, and the difference in systems. I am mostly interested in faculty positions in countries like Germany, Norway, Sweden, France, Italy and the UK (mostly because there are the institutes/universities that would fit my type of work), but I am willing to expand the options. I just have a few questions. Can a beginning faculty position have his/her own lab? Are funding schemes and amounts very different from the US? Do you feel like higher reputation journals take your research seriously coming from European schools? Do you feel like you have enough freedom over your research project as one might as a US professor? Some of the questions might sound silly, but these are legitimate concerns I have. Thank you!!
RESPONSE A: Shouldn't you already know all of these about your own field? It differs from field to field. Have you asked senior colleagues in your field who are in some of these positions? For instance, in much of computer science, the best international research comes from the USA and Canada. Western European computer science departments seem centered around 1 important person who runs a huge and they produce a lot of stuff but on the whole, most CS departments in Europe are nothing to write home about as compared to an equivalent North American institution. I have anecdotally heard that its very hard to get full time positions in Europe. Indeed, one of my collaborators has bounced around from country to country for the last 10 years and finally found a full time faculty position in Norway after 5 years in Germany, 2 years in France and 2 years in Denmark. Research funding and research culture seems to be quite different as well. There seems to be less pressure in Europe but more beancounting by government bureaucrats.
RESPONSE B: > Do you feel like higher reputation journals take your research seriously coming from European schools? # > Some of the questions might sound silly Yeah, they do...
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: not want to live in the US. I really like the life in Europe (from labor rights to tighter gun regulations). However, I am concerned with the quality of research, and the difference in systems. I am mostly interested in faculty positions in countries like Germany, Norway, Sweden, France, Italy and the UK (mostly because there are the institutes/universities that would fit my type of work), but I am willing to expand the options. I just have a few questions. Can a beginning faculty position have his/her own lab? Are funding schemes and amounts very different from the US? Do you feel like higher reputation journals take your research seriously coming from European schools? Do you feel like you have enough freedom over your research project as one might as a US professor? Some of the questions might sound silly, but these are legitimate concerns I have. Thank you!!
RESPONSE A: So much of these depend on the individual country and sometimes school so you probably should do a bit more searching on your own to determine which particular country or type of school is best for you. If you don't have any connections or knowledge about working in Europe already, it would probably be good to do a postdoc there for a year or two to see how things work and figure out whether or not you want to work there long term.
RESPONSE B: Shouldn't you already know all of these about your own field? It differs from field to field. Have you asked senior colleagues in your field who are in some of these positions? For instance, in much of computer science, the best international research comes from the USA and Canada. Western European computer science departments seem centered around 1 important person who runs a huge and they produce a lot of stuff but on the whole, most CS departments in Europe are nothing to write home about as compared to an equivalent North American institution. I have anecdotally heard that its very hard to get full time positions in Europe. Indeed, one of my collaborators has bounced around from country to country for the last 10 years and finally found a full time faculty position in Norway after 5 years in Germany, 2 years in France and 2 years in Denmark. Research funding and research culture seems to be quite different as well. There seems to be less pressure in Europe but more beancounting by government bureaucrats.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How should one prepare for a PhD defense? What is a good way to prepare for a PhD defense? I have mine in ten days! My plan is to read through my dissertation and publications once more. And also go through some relevant publications of my opponent. But not really read the literature I cite. What else should I read up on? Or how else can I prepare?
RESPONSE A: step back and think about how you would redo your project/dissertation, what were the biggest pitfalls, what would have happened if you changed xx, what you see for yourself in terms of future research questions...also, watch some videos of other people's defenses and also of professionals giving tips (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsE1mi8Lz4o \this was good, i watched all 7 parts to the end\]; [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edQv9OKvfdU)...good luck! ​ PS. videos exist only of other people's defense presentations but not of their actual defense (oral exams)...they are two separate things!
RESPONSE B: Do you do a PowerPoint presentation? I did mine about a million times, timed it and adjusted as necessary, etc. I also made a list of questions I thought would be likely to come up and have answers prepared.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How should one prepare for a PhD defense? What is a good way to prepare for a PhD defense? I have mine in ten days! My plan is to read through my dissertation and publications once more. And also go through some relevant publications of my opponent. But not really read the literature I cite. What else should I read up on? Or how else can I prepare?
RESPONSE A: Take a long walk. Sleep through the night every night until then. Eat something highly nutritious. ​ It's super unlikely that your advisor would have let you go to defense if he/she had any doubts you'd pass. It's a ritual more than an exam.
RESPONSE B: Do you do a PowerPoint presentation? I did mine about a million times, timed it and adjusted as necessary, etc. I also made a list of questions I thought would be likely to come up and have answers prepared.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How should one prepare for a PhD defense? What is a good way to prepare for a PhD defense? I have mine in ten days! My plan is to read through my dissertation and publications once more. And also go through some relevant publications of my opponent. But not really read the literature I cite. What else should I read up on? Or how else can I prepare?
RESPONSE A: Do you do a PowerPoint presentation? I did mine about a million times, timed it and adjusted as necessary, etc. I also made a list of questions I thought would be likely to come up and have answers prepared.
RESPONSE B: Sword training.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: , but I’m wondering if I should! I don’t want to be evil reviewer #2, but I also don’t want to just say “there are grammar issues go find them yourself”. How do you approach this in your own reviewer experience?
RESPONSE A: > I don’t want to be evil reviewer #2, but I also don’t want to just say “there are grammar issues go find them yourself”. How do you approach this in your own reviewer experience? Usually, if there's a handful of simple errors it's fine to point them out as small items at the end of your review. If the paper is riddled with them, I usually recommend revisions and note that the English is not up to the journal standards (and most journals do have these standards, second language or not the English needs to be competent enough to be read by a global readership and the authors' background is not an excuse). It's not about being an asshole (or not), it's about making sure the publication meets quality standards regardless of where it is coming from. If the errors are too numerous, it is not your job as a reviewer to correct them; it is the authors' job to figure out a proofreading solution.
RESPONSE B: Agree on the copy-editing. If there are one or 2 typos, you usually mention and correction. If the writing is a shit -show - either because it is just bad or because it is a second language problem you put in the review that the MS is not suitable for publication as it stands and would either need a copy editor, or whatever to fix it. This should not be a private communication between you and the editor. Publication quality work is publication quality work, including the writing, and you absolutely can say - this is badly written and needs to be fixed without fixing it for them. I am not designing the experiments for them either. If something is just badly designed and controlled, then you can say that. If it is ok but lacking one specific control, you can require that Sometimes the writing is so bad, you can't tell what happened. Ostensibly you shouldn't get such papers, but then you contact the editor usually. Also, your PI should answer such questions.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What recurring academic nightmares do you have? Or am I the only one?
RESPONSE A: I had a recurring academic/covid nightmare. Backstory is that I unexpectedly relocated around the world due to covid, and left all my stuff in my apartment where my postdoc was. So the nightmare was that I somehow found myself at a meeting for postdoc, or in the lab, with a plane to catch back to my home country right after. So I think maybe I'll try to quickly dash to the apartment to pick up a couple of things, and the rest of the nightmare is trains cancelled, taxis getting lost, tickets expiring, being in the wrong terminal. Resulting in me missing the flight home and being stuck away from my family indefinitely.
RESPONSE B: Going back to high school because I didn't finish a year of it (whatever that means).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What recurring academic nightmares do you have? Or am I the only one?
RESPONSE A: I dropped out of uni today. Now I'm eating tacos and drinking beer and gonna have a nice night sleep.
RESPONSE B: Zombies chasing me. While not really academic, it only started happening after i started teaching freshmen. Draw what conclusions you will...
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What recurring academic nightmares do you have? Or am I the only one?
RESPONSE A: Suddenly realizing right before finals that I was enrolled in a course I completely forgot about and finding myself with a whole semester's worth of assignments/learning to make up in a day. I'm sure the fact that I'm a chronic procrastinator in real life has something to do with it.
RESPONSE B: I dropped out of uni today. Now I'm eating tacos and drinking beer and gonna have a nice night sleep.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What recurring academic nightmares do you have? Or am I the only one?
RESPONSE A: Suddenly realizing right before finals that I was enrolled in a course I completely forgot about and finding myself with a whole semester's worth of assignments/learning to make up in a day. I'm sure the fact that I'm a chronic procrastinator in real life has something to do with it.
RESPONSE B: That I uploaded the homework with its solution, instead of the clean version students need to answer. I've woken up several times with anxiety attacks and cold sweats because of that particular nightmare.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What recurring academic nightmares do you have? Or am I the only one?
RESPONSE A: Suddenly realizing right before finals that I was enrolled in a course I completely forgot about and finding myself with a whole semester's worth of assignments/learning to make up in a day. I'm sure the fact that I'm a chronic procrastinator in real life has something to do with it.
RESPONSE B: Missing an important examination because I woke up late on the day
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: and go through the considerable toil of low-paid internships to even get an interview for a position like this. I had absolutely no plans of leaving my PhD but I was uniquely qualified for the job because of the nature of my research, so decided to apply on the off chance. Much to my surprise I was offered the position a few days ago. This is exactly the kind of job I would be applying for after finishing my PhD, alongside academic jobs. I am now facing the difficult decision of whether to leave my PhD and pursue this opportunity. For me, it feels like a choice between security for the next few years that it would have taken to finish my PhD vs. taking something of a gamble on this, as the job is initially only for a year "with a view to extending the position permanently". I also feel bad for my advisors. They have invested so much effort and belief in me during this process, and without them I would not be in the position I'm in. One of them is trying to obtain promotion and having PhD students complete successfully is an integral part of this. I know in the abstract that I don't "owe" anyone anything, but this is making me feel bad. I'm really sorry that I can't think of a direct question to ask you all about making this difficult decision, but I'm wondering if anyone could weigh in with any opinions or reflections this dilemma sparks? I've read many great advice posts over the years on this sub and would really appreciate hearing what people think. A few more pertinent facts: - I have not yet started fieldwork - I am in the EU, funded by a government organisation - I am in a non-STEM field - If I was not doing this dream job, I'd want to be an academic If you require any further information please ask away. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: Can you take the job and finish your PhD later?
RESPONSE B: Wouldn’t you be even more qualified for this type of job if you finish your degree? Perhaps at a higher level and/or salary? Also I’m wondering if your program would allow you to take a leave of absence to try the job for a year, and then decide if you want to stay there.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: 3 hours away from me) and go through the considerable toil of low-paid internships to even get an interview for a position like this. I had absolutely no plans of leaving my PhD but I was uniquely qualified for the job because of the nature of my research, so decided to apply on the off chance. Much to my surprise I was offered the position a few days ago. This is exactly the kind of job I would be applying for after finishing my PhD, alongside academic jobs. I am now facing the difficult decision of whether to leave my PhD and pursue this opportunity. For me, it feels like a choice between security for the next few years that it would have taken to finish my PhD vs. taking something of a gamble on this, as the job is initially only for a year "with a view to extending the position permanently". I also feel bad for my advisors. They have invested so much effort and belief in me during this process, and without them I would not be in the position I'm in. One of them is trying to obtain promotion and having PhD students complete successfully is an integral part of this. I know in the abstract that I don't "owe" anyone anything, but this is making me feel bad. I'm really sorry that I can't think of a direct question to ask you all about making this difficult decision, but I'm wondering if anyone could weigh in with any opinions or reflections this dilemma sparks? I've read many great advice posts over the years on this sub and would really appreciate hearing what people think. A few more pertinent facts: - I have not yet started fieldwork - I am in the EU, funded by a government organisation - I am in a non-STEM field - If I was not doing this dream job, I'd want to be an academic If you require any further information please ask away. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: There are many factors that need to be considered I’m sure others will mention, but I have to personally vouch for feeling places out in person. It might help you decide where you’ll be more happy to visit and get a tour/more info if you haven’t. Good luck!
RESPONSE B: Can you take the job and finish your PhD later?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: would not be in the position I'm in. One of them is trying to obtain promotion and having PhD students complete successfully is an integral part of this. I know in the abstract that I don't "owe" anyone anything, but this is making me feel bad. I'm really sorry that I can't think of a direct question to ask you all about making this difficult decision, but I'm wondering if anyone could weigh in with any opinions or reflections this dilemma sparks? I've read many great advice posts over the years on this sub and would really appreciate hearing what people think. A few more pertinent facts: - I have not yet started fieldwork - I am in the EU, funded by a government organisation - I am in a non-STEM field - If I was not doing this dream job, I'd want to be an academic If you require any further information please ask away. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: You have nothing to feel guilty about with regards to your advisors. As someone who is in that role myself, I would hope that I'd always want for my students what's in their best interests. Even if that means them walking away from their PhDs before completion. If that's what you want, and your advisers are even half-way reasonable folks, they'll be happy for you. Also, and this will likely depend on your university and program, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of returning later for a PhD. At the Berkeley engineering program, many Master's students would clear the doctoral entrance exam, but defer starting their PhDs for several years to try their hand at industry first. They'd have standing agreements with particular professors in the department that if and when they return, they would work with them if they were still around. I know it's not exactly the same as starting and then leaving, but it isn't entirely different either.
RESPONSE B: Wouldn’t you be even more qualified for this type of job if you finish your degree? Perhaps at a higher level and/or salary? Also I’m wondering if your program would allow you to take a leave of absence to try the job for a year, and then decide if you want to stay there.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: process, and without them I would not be in the position I'm in. One of them is trying to obtain promotion and having PhD students complete successfully is an integral part of this. I know in the abstract that I don't "owe" anyone anything, but this is making me feel bad. I'm really sorry that I can't think of a direct question to ask you all about making this difficult decision, but I'm wondering if anyone could weigh in with any opinions or reflections this dilemma sparks? I've read many great advice posts over the years on this sub and would really appreciate hearing what people think. A few more pertinent facts: - I have not yet started fieldwork - I am in the EU, funded by a government organisation - I am in a non-STEM field - If I was not doing this dream job, I'd want to be an academic If you require any further information please ask away. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: You have nothing to feel guilty about with regards to your advisors. As someone who is in that role myself, I would hope that I'd always want for my students what's in their best interests. Even if that means them walking away from their PhDs before completion. If that's what you want, and your advisers are even half-way reasonable folks, they'll be happy for you. Also, and this will likely depend on your university and program, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of returning later for a PhD. At the Berkeley engineering program, many Master's students would clear the doctoral entrance exam, but defer starting their PhDs for several years to try their hand at industry first. They'd have standing agreements with particular professors in the department that if and when they return, they would work with them if they were still around. I know it's not exactly the same as starting and then leaving, but it isn't entirely different either.
RESPONSE B: There are many factors that need to be considered I’m sure others will mention, but I have to personally vouch for feeling places out in person. It might help you decide where you’ll be more happy to visit and get a tour/more info if you haven’t. Good luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: my research, so decided to apply on the off chance. Much to my surprise I was offered the position a few days ago. This is exactly the kind of job I would be applying for after finishing my PhD, alongside academic jobs. I am now facing the difficult decision of whether to leave my PhD and pursue this opportunity. For me, it feels like a choice between security for the next few years that it would have taken to finish my PhD vs. taking something of a gamble on this, as the job is initially only for a year "with a view to extending the position permanently". I also feel bad for my advisors. They have invested so much effort and belief in me during this process, and without them I would not be in the position I'm in. One of them is trying to obtain promotion and having PhD students complete successfully is an integral part of this. I know in the abstract that I don't "owe" anyone anything, but this is making me feel bad. I'm really sorry that I can't think of a direct question to ask you all about making this difficult decision, but I'm wondering if anyone could weigh in with any opinions or reflections this dilemma sparks? I've read many great advice posts over the years on this sub and would really appreciate hearing what people think. A few more pertinent facts: - I have not yet started fieldwork - I am in the EU, funded by a government organisation - I am in a non-STEM field - If I was not doing this dream job, I'd want to be an academic If you require any further information please ask away. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: ~~Someone's been offered a job at Google~~ I left a good job at an amazing company because I realised how much I enjoyed teaching, learning, and interacting with students.
RESPONSE B: As someone who has left academia and am very happy with industry, I will support the "take the job, don't stress about leaving the PhD" people. More than anything... being qualified and getting the job you want is much, much rarer than getting into a PhD program. The post-PhD job market is nothing special, if you got lucky with a job offer now take the job now.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Tomorrow I have a PhD interview and I am sick. Should I reschedule? In about 15 hours I will have my first PhD interview. It will be over Skype, because I am literally working on the other side of the globe and couldn't get any time off. I was already very nervous about it: the connection here is unreliable, I never really interviewed remotely, I am not sure what they are going to ask me about. And now I also managed to get horribly sick. I believed it was just a cold, but today a pretty bad fever joined dizziness, nausea, cough, waterfall nose and headache. I don't know what to do. I really want to go trough with it, but I am struggling to remember half of my presentation. English is not my first language either, and the fact that I feel like if my brain is going to fall out of my hears is not really helping. Should I ask to reschedule? Should I push my luck and hope for some sort of miraculous overnight recovery? In case I go trough with it, should I let them know I am feeling under the weather? How? By mail or during the interview?
RESPONSE A: Let them know. It's very dependent on the professor. Offer to do the interview still but they'll know you're not feeling well. Some might want to just have you power through a few questions and totally understand that you're not at your best. Some might want more from you and agree to reschedule when you're up to snuff. Don't try to hide it.
RESPONSE B: I’d say email them and let them know about the situation. Better not get it shifted because it’s hard to find another time for the entire panel to meet on such short notice. It’ll mostly be them introducing themselves and asking you to come somehow. So don’t worry much :) good luck
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Tomorrow I have a PhD interview and I am sick. Should I reschedule? In about 15 hours I will have my first PhD interview. It will be over Skype, because I am literally working on the other side of the globe and couldn't get any time off. I was already very nervous about it: the connection here is unreliable, I never really interviewed remotely, I am not sure what they are going to ask me about. And now I also managed to get horribly sick. I believed it was just a cold, but today a pretty bad fever joined dizziness, nausea, cough, waterfall nose and headache. I don't know what to do. I really want to go trough with it, but I am struggling to remember half of my presentation. English is not my first language either, and the fact that I feel like if my brain is going to fall out of my hears is not really helping. Should I ask to reschedule? Should I push my luck and hope for some sort of miraculous overnight recovery? In case I go trough with it, should I let them know I am feeling under the weather? How? By mail or during the interview?
RESPONSE A: Let them know. It's very dependent on the professor. Offer to do the interview still but they'll know you're not feeling well. Some might want to just have you power through a few questions and totally understand that you're not at your best. Some might want more from you and agree to reschedule when you're up to snuff. Don't try to hide it.
RESPONSE B: I had to rearrange one earlier this year because I'd lost my voice and the guy was pretty relaxed about it. Any good advisor will understand you can't work when you're seriously ill.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: numerous jobs and other programs. I basically have large standing offers from numerous avenues in and out of science. I don't want to list them here, but I will say that all of them either pay incredibly lucratively or are acceptances at top 5 medical institutions. My question is how do I quit in a way without making too many waves? I consider the bridge with my PI burnt as he is not a reasonable person at all and will take any attempt to leave (especially with a huge grant) as a grave insult. He has also not ever graduated a single PhD student so it will hurt his standing. I do not want him going batshit insane and slandering me with lies so he doesn't look bad losing a student(though actually I am fairly ready for this to happen). I do have backups of all data and email exchanges so I guess I could totally nuke his reputation if I heard he was trying to destroy mine. I am planning on telling him that I am disillusioned with science and was given a high paying offer to work and that it is nothing personal: I just want to work and make money. I am planning on doing this soon and giving only a few days notice because I know he will flipout and kick me out immediately. However, I am also planning on scheduling a preemptive meeting with the head of my department, who is a much more reasonable person, and telling him the truth of why I am leaving (crazy insane PI).
RESPONSE A: If it were me, I'd just be honest. Hand him a resignation stating you're not happy at the organisation and want to be elsewhere. Don't make threats, don't make a drama, just plain and simplle. If he gets his back up over it, then there's ways of escalating. But low key minimum fuss is the way forward.
RESPONSE B: Just want to say, good job on getting out, it sounds like a really bad situation. My advice was going to be to meet with a higher-up in your department ahead of time to let them know your plan and your concerns, but it seems like you've already arranged that. So I guess all I can add is good luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: last year, I had three peer reviewed publications, including one that got a fair amount of press coverage. However, those were the first publications I've had since I was a graduate student. How should I address the gap when applying for academic jobs in the upcoming academic year? I've received conflicting advice from my mentors. One of my letter writers told me that I shouldn't mention it at all, as it will make search committees think that since I stayed at home with my children that it will signal that I am not sufficiently committed to my research. But at the same time, I feel like otherwise search committees will see a single VAP, and only a handful of publications post-PhD without accounting for the fact that I wasn't even employed as an academic for six years. Any suggestions going forward? Would this make sense for my recommendation letter writers to address, or should I cover it in my own cover letter? I am female if that makes any difference here at all.
RESPONSE A: >One of my letter writers told me that I shouldn't mention it at all, as it will make search committees think that since I stayed at home with my children that it will signal that I am not sufficiently committed to my research. If you don't mention it, how are you going to deal with the six-year gap in your CV? I would suggest it's better to give the committee an explanation than have them make up their own stories. Your letter-writer's advice might be sensible if the situation were different (e.g. if you could just write "2012-2017: Big Name University" and not mention that you took 2014 as unpaid leave). But I think any committee that's going to have issues with spending time on kids is going to have issues with an unexplained CV gap, too. I suggest mentioning it your cover letter, but positively, as a statement of a perfectly normal fact. Don't be tempted to make excuses and justifications - you just encourage people to view it negatively.
RESPONSE B: In the UK there's the Daphne Jackson Trust which provides resources & funding to people returning to academic careers after a break for family & similar reasons. Maybe you could find a similar organisation in the US.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: a stay at home parent for 6 years. In the last year, I had three peer reviewed publications, including one that got a fair amount of press coverage. However, those were the first publications I've had since I was a graduate student. How should I address the gap when applying for academic jobs in the upcoming academic year? I've received conflicting advice from my mentors. One of my letter writers told me that I shouldn't mention it at all, as it will make search committees think that since I stayed at home with my children that it will signal that I am not sufficiently committed to my research. But at the same time, I feel like otherwise search committees will see a single VAP, and only a handful of publications post-PhD without accounting for the fact that I wasn't even employed as an academic for six years. Any suggestions going forward? Would this make sense for my recommendation letter writers to address, or should I cover it in my own cover letter? I am female if that makes any difference here at all.
RESPONSE A: Simply say you were taking care of family unable to live independently. This could be a parent for all they know, and I don’t think they can ask.
RESPONSE B: >One of my letter writers told me that I shouldn't mention it at all, as it will make search committees think that since I stayed at home with my children that it will signal that I am not sufficiently committed to my research. If you don't mention it, how are you going to deal with the six-year gap in your CV? I would suggest it's better to give the committee an explanation than have them make up their own stories. Your letter-writer's advice might be sensible if the situation were different (e.g. if you could just write "2012-2017: Big Name University" and not mention that you took 2014 as unpaid leave). But I think any committee that's going to have issues with spending time on kids is going to have issues with an unexplained CV gap, too. I suggest mentioning it your cover letter, but positively, as a statement of a perfectly normal fact. Don't be tempted to make excuses and justifications - you just encourage people to view it negatively.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: fair amount of press coverage. However, those were the first publications I've had since I was a graduate student. How should I address the gap when applying for academic jobs in the upcoming academic year? I've received conflicting advice from my mentors. One of my letter writers told me that I shouldn't mention it at all, as it will make search committees think that since I stayed at home with my children that it will signal that I am not sufficiently committed to my research. But at the same time, I feel like otherwise search committees will see a single VAP, and only a handful of publications post-PhD without accounting for the fact that I wasn't even employed as an academic for six years. Any suggestions going forward? Would this make sense for my recommendation letter writers to address, or should I cover it in my own cover letter? I am female if that makes any difference here at all.
RESPONSE A: >One of my letter writers told me that I shouldn't mention it at all, as it will make search committees think that since I stayed at home with my children that it will signal that I am not sufficiently committed to my research. If you don't mention it, how are you going to deal with the six-year gap in your CV? I would suggest it's better to give the committee an explanation than have them make up their own stories. Your letter-writer's advice might be sensible if the situation were different (e.g. if you could just write "2012-2017: Big Name University" and not mention that you took 2014 as unpaid leave). But I think any committee that's going to have issues with spending time on kids is going to have issues with an unexplained CV gap, too. I suggest mentioning it your cover letter, but positively, as a statement of a perfectly normal fact. Don't be tempted to make excuses and justifications - you just encourage people to view it negatively.
RESPONSE B: In EU there are specific grants for people in exactly your situation, encouraging returning academics. We need people, we want good people, and parental gap is normal and expected. Not sure about the culture in US in that aspect, but I would be just straight forward in my CV and list it as parental leave.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: year after an unexpected vacancy that fit me. Spouse was denied tenure and is done with academia, looking for a job in industry now, flexible on location. I have been decently active with research, particularly with limited resources, and the fact that I was a stay at home parent for 6 years. In the last year, I had three peer reviewed publications, including one that got a fair amount of press coverage. However, those were the first publications I've had since I was a graduate student. How should I address the gap when applying for academic jobs in the upcoming academic year? I've received conflicting advice from my mentors. One of my letter writers told me that I shouldn't mention it at all, as it will make search committees think that since I stayed at home with my children that it will signal that I am not sufficiently committed to my research. But at the same time, I feel like otherwise search committees will see a single VAP, and only a handful of publications post-PhD without accounting for the fact that I wasn't even employed as an academic for six years. Any suggestions going forward? Would this make sense for my recommendation letter writers to address, or should I cover it in my own cover letter? I am female if that makes any difference here at all.
RESPONSE A: In the UK there's the Daphne Jackson Trust which provides resources & funding to people returning to academic careers after a break for family & similar reasons. Maybe you could find a similar organisation in the US.
RESPONSE B: If I was reading your file, I'd want you to be up front about this. Anyplace with a committee who sneered at you staying home with young kids, or billed that as being "insufficiently committed" is not a place you want to be anyway. (If that happened on a committee I was on, I'd shut that crap down fast; I can only hope others feel the same.) It's long past time to stop being ashamed at having a *family.* Don't give in to, or let anyone let you feel like what you have been doing is in any way lesser than being an active academic. We seriously need to put that kind of thinking out of our misery once and for all.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: university just as a VAP filling in for the year after an unexpected vacancy that fit me. Spouse was denied tenure and is done with academia, looking for a job in industry now, flexible on location. I have been decently active with research, particularly with limited resources, and the fact that I was a stay at home parent for 6 years. In the last year, I had three peer reviewed publications, including one that got a fair amount of press coverage. However, those were the first publications I've had since I was a graduate student. How should I address the gap when applying for academic jobs in the upcoming academic year? I've received conflicting advice from my mentors. One of my letter writers told me that I shouldn't mention it at all, as it will make search committees think that since I stayed at home with my children that it will signal that I am not sufficiently committed to my research. But at the same time, I feel like otherwise search committees will see a single VAP, and only a handful of publications post-PhD without accounting for the fact that I wasn't even employed as an academic for six years. Any suggestions going forward? Would this make sense for my recommendation letter writers to address, or should I cover it in my own cover letter? I am female if that makes any difference here at all.
RESPONSE A: Simply say you were taking care of family unable to live independently. This could be a parent for all they know, and I don’t think they can ask.
RESPONSE B: If I was reading your file, I'd want you to be up front about this. Anyplace with a committee who sneered at you staying home with young kids, or billed that as being "insufficiently committed" is not a place you want to be anyway. (If that happened on a committee I was on, I'd shut that crap down fast; I can only hope others feel the same.) It's long past time to stop being ashamed at having a *family.* Don't give in to, or let anyone let you feel like what you have been doing is in any way lesser than being an active academic. We seriously need to put that kind of thinking out of our misery once and for all.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Looking for tips for my first conference presentation. I recently graduated with a masters degree in a health research field and am about to give my first presentation at a conference after the acceptance of my abstract. It is partially based off a chapter of my (qualitative research) thesis. I've been to many conferences, but I'm looking for some tips on how to prepare the best presentation possible. I am also interested in writing an academic paper based on what I plan to present, so any advice on this aspect is also appreciated. Thanks in advance!
RESPONSE A: Rehearse, rehearse, rehearse! The worst presentations are always from people who think, “I know this like the back of my hand” and then proceed to do a crap presentation. If you’re given 10 minutes or 20 minutes, know how much time you have and make sure you don’t go over. Also, keep in mind that most people care more about findings and why your paper matters. Know what technology they have access to and load it early. Don’t be that person that gets called up and spends 5 minutes trying to load a PowerPoint. Show up early and get that sorted. Also, relax. Know that you’re not competing with people. You’re sharing research and making allies for future research projects. That said, look around at posters by doctoral students. Nothing made me more confident in my research abilities than looking at my peers and realizing in every bit as good as they are.
RESPONSE B: Watch videos of research presentations you think are really good. Also, video record yourself doing a practice talk and watch it!!! This is the fastest way to improve
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: ). She said I should by all means go as it will give me insight to current research in my field and allow me the opportunity to network with other scholars. I agree with this insight, however...(a) this is my first conference I'm attending, (b) I'm attending it alone, (c) I know no one from the field, and (d) I have no research to present because while my thesis advisors have heartily recommended my thesis go through publishing based on its content, complexity, and coherence, my thesis was still in progress when the call for submissions for this conference was ending. Do I just go to just go and learn about current research and awkwardly attempt to network with other scholars while I have nothing to present? The other thing I am worried about is since I have graduated and am in this in-between, I don't have the ability to say I represent a particular school, as I am not currently a student. Is this a worthy venture? I already registered for the conference and I'm booking flight and hotel soon...thanks all in advance!
RESPONSE A: Not to put you off, but to echo what others have said - networking is a two-way street, and you might find people are put off by the fact that you have only just completed your undergrad. Frequently people will go into networking - quite selfishly - thinking "what can this person do for me?" You may find people's attitudes towards you alter when they find out you are not yet a researcher with any stake in the field.
RESPONSE B: I say don't go, based on the high cost and the relatively low benefit. Do you want to go to grad school in Canada? If not, networking in Canada is not that useful. No one expects undergrads, or recent grads, to attend conferences, so you won't be hurting your chances of getting into a PhD program if you don't go. A lot of the networking I've done at conferences has been because I've been introduced to people by my advisor - if you don't feel confident doing that yourself (and I don't blame you) then you might as well be home reading journals. And finally, conferences are EXPENSIVE. Save your money!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: will essentially be a career in academia. To that end, I asked one of my previous undergrad thesis advisors if I should attend a conference, one that is a month away and in Canada (I live in the US). She said I should by all means go as it will give me insight to current research in my field and allow me the opportunity to network with other scholars. I agree with this insight, however...(a) this is my first conference I'm attending, (b) I'm attending it alone, (c) I know no one from the field, and (d) I have no research to present because while my thesis advisors have heartily recommended my thesis go through publishing based on its content, complexity, and coherence, my thesis was still in progress when the call for submissions for this conference was ending. Do I just go to just go and learn about current research and awkwardly attempt to network with other scholars while I have nothing to present? The other thing I am worried about is since I have graduated and am in this in-between, I don't have the ability to say I represent a particular school, as I am not currently a student. Is this a worthy venture? I already registered for the conference and I'm booking flight and hotel soon...thanks all in advance!
RESPONSE A: Not to put you off, but to echo what others have said - networking is a two-way street, and you might find people are put off by the fact that you have only just completed your undergrad. Frequently people will go into networking - quite selfishly - thinking "what can this person do for me?" You may find people's attitudes towards you alter when they find out you are not yet a researcher with any stake in the field.
RESPONSE B: it'll be rough to go if you haven't already done a bunch of what will be the required reading. It sounds like it is the same research area as your undergrad thesis though, so perhaps. How big of a conference? what opportunities will you have to talk with people there? Are people from your school going? Are there people you expect to want to talk with based on the content of your thesis? Are you set with your potential advisor, or are you looking for other opportunities?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: sub so I'm not sure if this is the best place to go for my question, but here goes: I just recently graduated from university as an undergraduate and I'm doing a gap year(s) before I apply to a PhD program because I need to know if I'm truly passionate and willing to commit to what will essentially be a career in academia. To that end, I asked one of my previous undergrad thesis advisors if I should attend a conference, one that is a month away and in Canada (I live in the US). She said I should by all means go as it will give me insight to current research in my field and allow me the opportunity to network with other scholars. I agree with this insight, however...(a) this is my first conference I'm attending, (b) I'm attending it alone, (c) I know no one from the field, and (d) I have no research to present because while my thesis advisors have heartily recommended my thesis go through publishing based on its content, complexity, and coherence, my thesis was still in progress when the call for submissions for this conference was ending. Do I just go to just go and learn about current research and awkwardly attempt to network with other scholars while I have nothing to present? The other thing I am worried about is since I have graduated and am in this in-between, I don't have the ability to say I represent a particular school, as I am not currently a student. Is this a worthy venture? I already registered for the conference and I'm booking flight and hotel soon...thanks all in advance!
RESPONSE A: Not to put you off, but to echo what others have said - networking is a two-way street, and you might find people are put off by the fact that you have only just completed your undergrad. Frequently people will go into networking - quite selfishly - thinking "what can this person do for me?" You may find people's attitudes towards you alter when they find out you are not yet a researcher with any stake in the field.
RESPONSE B: Don't go, unless you have God-level charisma, which I'm doubting based on the line "awkwardly attempt to network."
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Do you rebuild all your plots for conference presentations, or just copy the ones you've already got? It seems like what looks good on a projector is very different to what works in a journal article. You don't have time to read complicated axis labels, and I think it's often better to have something simple, colourful, and schematic, rather than comprehensively display everything - they can always read the paper later, and lots of projectors suck, so you want big thick lines and large points. But I imagine most people don't bother to replot their plots just for a conference talk. Do you? Should you?
RESPONSE A: You typically tear existing plots apart; skip most panels, make sure each plot is as large as possible, omit captions (because you are explaining them anyways).
RESPONSE B: I guess I see your point about insufficient time to navigate a complex plot, but that's also something you, as a presenter, can help the audience with. "Here's a plot of X vs Y, here's the trend, and here's why." I have changed it to introduce the data series sequentially, instead of all at once, for instances. Sometimes it can be extremely compelling. And maybe a couple of times to make it visually appealing (more so than usual, I mean), but this would depend on the audience (job interview, yearly review, ...) and would not be my top priority.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Do you rebuild all your plots for conference presentations, or just copy the ones you've already got? It seems like what looks good on a projector is very different to what works in a journal article. You don't have time to read complicated axis labels, and I think it's often better to have something simple, colourful, and schematic, rather than comprehensively display everything - they can always read the paper later, and lots of projectors suck, so you want big thick lines and large points. But I imagine most people don't bother to replot their plots just for a conference talk. Do you? Should you?
RESPONSE A: I always make sure the figures in a presentation are clear. If the one froma paper is not good enough I'll re-plot.
RESPONSE B: I try to make plots as simple to understand as possible, but no simpler. When making them I will build two resolutions, one for print and one for electronic display, and then if I need the plot for a pub or poster, I have sufficient resolution already.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Do you rebuild all your plots for conference presentations, or just copy the ones you've already got? It seems like what looks good on a projector is very different to what works in a journal article. You don't have time to read complicated axis labels, and I think it's often better to have something simple, colourful, and schematic, rather than comprehensively display everything - they can always read the paper later, and lots of projectors suck, so you want big thick lines and large points. But I imagine most people don't bother to replot their plots just for a conference talk. Do you? Should you?
RESPONSE A: I guess I see your point about insufficient time to navigate a complex plot, but that's also something you, as a presenter, can help the audience with. "Here's a plot of X vs Y, here's the trend, and here's why." I have changed it to introduce the data series sequentially, instead of all at once, for instances. Sometimes it can be extremely compelling. And maybe a couple of times to make it visually appealing (more so than usual, I mean), but this would depend on the audience (job interview, yearly review, ...) and would not be my top priority.
RESPONSE B: I try to make plots as simple to understand as possible, but no simpler. When making them I will build two resolutions, one for print and one for electronic display, and then if I need the plot for a pub or poster, I have sufficient resolution already.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Do you rebuild all your plots for conference presentations, or just copy the ones you've already got? It seems like what looks good on a projector is very different to what works in a journal article. You don't have time to read complicated axis labels, and I think it's often better to have something simple, colourful, and schematic, rather than comprehensively display everything - they can always read the paper later, and lots of projectors suck, so you want big thick lines and large points. But I imagine most people don't bother to replot their plots just for a conference talk. Do you? Should you?
RESPONSE A: I guess I see your point about insufficient time to navigate a complex plot, but that's also something you, as a presenter, can help the audience with. "Here's a plot of X vs Y, here's the trend, and here's why." I have changed it to introduce the data series sequentially, instead of all at once, for instances. Sometimes it can be extremely compelling. And maybe a couple of times to make it visually appealing (more so than usual, I mean), but this would depend on the audience (job interview, yearly review, ...) and would not be my top priority.
RESPONSE B: Yes, because it sucks to go to a presentation with bad figures. Small, unreadable labels on an axis always make me wonder if they hid something there (weird scale, unconventional units) to make the data look the way they are presenting it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Thank-you notes after academic job interviews How do you feel about them?
RESPONSE A: Only if you genuinely want to say thank you and/or continue a discussion. If you’re doing it only because you think you’re supposed to and you think it’ll help you get the position (it won’t do anything), then don’t.
RESPONSE B: I doubt it impacts the hiring decision, but I think they are still important. We shouldn't just do things that serve our own interest. Sometimes "it's the kind thing to do" is a good enough reason.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Thank-you notes after academic job interviews How do you feel about them?
RESPONSE A: I think they’re nice. But I doubt they ever have an effect one way or another.
RESPONSE B: I doubt it impacts the hiring decision, but I think they are still important. We shouldn't just do things that serve our own interest. Sometimes "it's the kind thing to do" is a good enough reason.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Thank-you notes after academic job interviews How do you feel about them?
RESPONSE A: Only if you genuinely want to say thank you and/or continue a discussion. If you’re doing it only because you think you’re supposed to and you think it’ll help you get the position (it won’t do anything), then don’t.
RESPONSE B: I’ve personally always enjoyed getting them but they don’t really sway my decision. It is nice, however, if we were discussing a particular topic or paper and the candidate follows up by sending me a relevant paper or other resources. In many ways, that opens the door for a potential collaboration, even though it isn’t realistically changing your odds of getting the job. Don’t force it though. If you feel compelled to follow up, it should feel very organic.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Thank-you notes after academic job interviews How do you feel about them?
RESPONSE A: I’ve personally always enjoyed getting them but they don’t really sway my decision. It is nice, however, if we were discussing a particular topic or paper and the candidate follows up by sending me a relevant paper or other resources. In many ways, that opens the door for a potential collaboration, even though it isn’t realistically changing your odds of getting the job. Don’t force it though. If you feel compelled to follow up, it should feel very organic.
RESPONSE B: I think they’re nice. But I doubt they ever have an effect one way or another.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Thank-you notes after academic job interviews How do you feel about them?
RESPONSE A: I was taught by my mother long ago- ALWAYS send a thank you note. I learned my lesson in this, after sending a thank you note for a position I was up for, I ultimately didn’t get selected. The other candidate fell through, and even though I wasn’t the most qualified, I was told that my graciousness in sending a thoughtful thank you note was the reason I was selected. Ever since that time, I figured my mom was right and I’ve always done it since.
RESPONSE B: I think they’re nice. But I doubt they ever have an effect one way or another.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How to stay motivated with constant rejection? I graduated from my masters over a year ago and since then have been working with my professor on various projects, attending conferences and soon we will publish. It’s been a productive 1-1.5 years and I’ve got a lot of experience and gotten a lot better. We have applied for funding for my PhD three times during this time and have been rejected each time. We have expert collaborators and I think our idea has merit, it’s just so competitive. She just suggested that I can continue my work and do a PhD and she will continue to provide my current salary (€850/month) and we can apply for grants for field work etc. So normally I would be giddy about this idea. However, all the other PhD students get paid three times this much (because they are funded). I said that I could maybe do this for a few years but frankly I have been a poor student for a long time and am in desperate need of a salary. She sort of just told me that’s the way academia is and it’s up to me. I have just lost all motivation at this point. What do I do?
RESPONSE A: How long would it take to finish the degree if you started working now under her proposed arrangement?
RESPONSE B: I think getting rejected from 3 fellowships is not that unusual. Are there any other options you can apply for? If I knew I still have 2-3 chances + reapply for everything again the following year, maybe I would take the 850/month deal and really rethink the way the project is presented. It also depends where you live and how much you can do with that money. Also, do you think this lab/PI is so much better for you than another lab in the same field where you would be funded? Are you willing to move abroad? I know countries where phds are employed and they dont need to apply for their own salary (ie. switzerland)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Has anyone had their PhD thesis defense rejected? Hello reddit, I've been reading up on people's PhD defenses recently and I've been wondering - has anyone actually had their PhD thesis rejected? Is the defense more of a conversation/formality than a "final exam"? Can one redo their defense? Hope this isn't an ignorant question, I am just curious. Seems as if you put forth a genuine and considerable effort you will be able to be able to get by, no problem.
RESPONSE A: As has already been said, a good advisor won't allow you to schedule the defense if he or she doesn't believe you're pretty likely to pass. However, if you've been in the program and you're almost out of time (most programs say if you don't have PhD in hand in X years, you're thrown out) then occasionally you'll be allowed to schedule a defense even if you're going to fail it, because it gives you another month/semester/whatever on the clock for revisions. However, if your work is still crap at the end of that time, few committees will pass it. So yes- it's totally possible to fail, although it's rare because care is taken not to let it get that far if it isn't a solid piece of scholarship done by a solid scholar.
RESPONSE B: So, I'm just an undergrad, but I remember when a friend of mine in the M.D.-Ph.D. program defended recently, he said the committee warns you a few days ahead of time if they think you're unlikely to pass, so that you can cancel it and reschedule once you've worked things out. I think he said it was more like a percent or so of people who actually defended and failed and had to defend again. I'm sure this varies plenty by program, but hopefully a bit of data is useful.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: a PhD program where I expect to be able to save a few hundred $$ per month based on stipend/CoL. I've worked in industry for a little while and have about $15k saved and $20k in student loan debt (haven't paid more off because it's low interest, pandemic freeze, and wondering if my debt will be canceled eventually) and about $2k in a 401k.
RESPONSE A: I waited to get a real job before opening an ira. As a CS PhD student I got about 20k a year as a TA and about 24k a year when on a fellowship. It wasn't buy-a-house money or being well-off money, but it was enough to get by, have a little fun, and put away about $200 a month. My wife and I were pretty disciplined with our money though which helped a lot. You probably already know this since you don't sound like a 22-24 year old, but the biggest tip I'd give is to learn to cook at least 6 nights a week. It takes a good deal of planning and practice but a lot of students eat out almost every night and lunch because they can't be bothered to cook and that will drain your bank account incredibly fast.
RESPONSE B: Although it depends on the institution, life style, location etc., saving a few hundred $$ a month on your stipend might not be realistic. You might be asked to pay a few fees on campus, including health insurance. You probably also won’t get paid over the summer… I had one friend who bought a house to live-in as a PhD student (family money). Another bought a house and started renting out rooms (spouse had money). Rest of us rented, most of us had roommates. More often than not, as a PhD student, you are paid as a “student with stipend” rather than a “junior employee”. Is this fair? No. This is why we end up starting our 403(b)s by our mid-30s and cannot save enough for retirement. Is this a widespread practice? Yes.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: I want to teach at the college level, but not necessarily be a professor. Is this a reasonable goal? Hello! I'm currently a sophomore undergrad studying chemistry at a highly ranked university, and someday I'd like to teach organic chemistry. I've read all about how it's tough to get a job in academia and to become a tenured professor, etc. Is it difficult to get a job where the main focus is teaching and not research? I'd love to be a lecturer and teach each semester, have office hours, plan labs, and just help students as much as possible to try to make organic chemistry fun and exciting. I'm not particularly interested in focusing on research. Is it unreasonable to think that I could get a job similar to this after going to grad school? Should I think about other options? (If so, I'd likely still want to teach but perhaps try to teach high school). Thanks!
RESPONSE A: there are professor jobs at smaller undergrad-focused universities where the position is almost entirely teaching based with only some research. teaching at community/ 2 year schools is also a potential option. at bigger universities there are also non-tenure track positions (i.e., not "professors") such as lecturers and adjuncts. they're unfortunately treated as pretty much as the bottom of the barrel as far as job security, pay, and course options go though.
RESPONSE B: To answer your question directly: No, it's not a reasonable goal. There is so much competition for college level academic posts of every kind that an active research program is pretty much a prerequisite for the shortlist in every job search. If you don't want to do research, go to the private sector or teach high school. You have a lot of time to make up your mind about such decisions anyway, so quit stressing out and enjoy being an undergrad! Happy New Year
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: I want to teach at the college level, but not necessarily be a professor. Is this a reasonable goal? Hello! I'm currently a sophomore undergrad studying chemistry at a highly ranked university, and someday I'd like to teach organic chemistry. I've read all about how it's tough to get a job in academia and to become a tenured professor, etc. Is it difficult to get a job where the main focus is teaching and not research? I'd love to be a lecturer and teach each semester, have office hours, plan labs, and just help students as much as possible to try to make organic chemistry fun and exciting. I'm not particularly interested in focusing on research. Is it unreasonable to think that I could get a job similar to this after going to grad school? Should I think about other options? (If so, I'd likely still want to teach but perhaps try to teach high school). Thanks!
RESPONSE A: I am a tenure-track professor at a small liberal arts college, and I agree with Nanophys that it is a sweet job. However, it's competitive out there, and I'd say that to get a job at a good college (where your workload isn't ridiculous and the resources and students are good), you will probably need to do research PhD and probably also a postdoc.
RESPONSE B: To answer your question directly: No, it's not a reasonable goal. There is so much competition for college level academic posts of every kind that an active research program is pretty much a prerequisite for the shortlist in every job search. If you don't want to do research, go to the private sector or teach high school. You have a lot of time to make up your mind about such decisions anyway, so quit stressing out and enjoy being an undergrad! Happy New Year
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: I want to teach at the college level, but not necessarily be a professor. Is this a reasonable goal? Hello! I'm currently a sophomore undergrad studying chemistry at a highly ranked university, and someday I'd like to teach organic chemistry. I've read all about how it's tough to get a job in academia and to become a tenured professor, etc. Is it difficult to get a job where the main focus is teaching and not research? I'd love to be a lecturer and teach each semester, have office hours, plan labs, and just help students as much as possible to try to make organic chemistry fun and exciting. I'm not particularly interested in focusing on research. Is it unreasonable to think that I could get a job similar to this after going to grad school? Should I think about other options? (If so, I'd likely still want to teach but perhaps try to teach high school). Thanks!
RESPONSE A: There are many "teaching" colleges out there that focus on undergraduate education more than research. You would probably be teaching 4 classes a semester but still requires to put out 1-2 papers a year for research purposes. You will just need to target your job search to universities that have a bigger interest in teaching rather than research. Honestly, I figure it will be rather easy for you to get a teaching-only job, as they are not very desirable to most new PhDs and they tend to pay less than research positions in a high-profile university.
RESPONSE B: To answer your question directly: No, it's not a reasonable goal. There is so much competition for college level academic posts of every kind that an active research program is pretty much a prerequisite for the shortlist in every job search. If you don't want to do research, go to the private sector or teach high school. You have a lot of time to make up your mind about such decisions anyway, so quit stressing out and enjoy being an undergrad! Happy New Year
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: I want to teach at the college level, but not necessarily be a professor. Is this a reasonable goal? Hello! I'm currently a sophomore undergrad studying chemistry at a highly ranked university, and someday I'd like to teach organic chemistry. I've read all about how it's tough to get a job in academia and to become a tenured professor, etc. Is it difficult to get a job where the main focus is teaching and not research? I'd love to be a lecturer and teach each semester, have office hours, plan labs, and just help students as much as possible to try to make organic chemistry fun and exciting. I'm not particularly interested in focusing on research. Is it unreasonable to think that I could get a job similar to this after going to grad school? Should I think about other options? (If so, I'd likely still want to teach but perhaps try to teach high school). Thanks!
RESPONSE A: there are professor jobs at smaller undergrad-focused universities where the position is almost entirely teaching based with only some research. teaching at community/ 2 year schools is also a potential option. at bigger universities there are also non-tenure track positions (i.e., not "professors") such as lecturers and adjuncts. they're unfortunately treated as pretty much as the bottom of the barrel as far as job security, pay, and course options go though.
RESPONSE B: Having adjuncted, I'll give you a slightly different answer: you can teach each semester and have office hours, etc. in chemistry, at most any community college, and other schools, with an MA. You're just highly unlikely to do it with job security, a living wage, or benefits. That said, if you have another, perhaps chemistry-related, career, you can adjunct on the side. Whether that's worth it to you or not, is as they say, an empirical question.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: am confident I could do those in the first year. Would schools/advisors be alright with me spending 4 years on a thesis? Or is this just a pipe dream? Serious thanks to everyone and anyone who can chime in on this.
RESPONSE A: I'm a prof in a math (+ other subjects) department. From my point of view: 1. How: If you have anybody (especially a prof) who would support you, ask for help immediately. This person might even be your former advisor, now that things have cooled off... If not, just start emailing possible advisors. Keep your story short. 2. Feasibility: I don't think that doing this is a pipe dream. You can certainly finish a PhD without showing up on campus very often. Having said that, most people don't have the willpower to do what you're asking about, and potential advisors will be very conscious of this fact. You'll have to convince somebody that you're worth taking a risk on - that your expected output will be high or that the required investment will be low. From my limited experience, the latter is probably an easier sell if it is true. 3. If you were 18 months from graduation, this suggests that you've basically done enough math to get a PhD (at least in the American system). This would cut down on nongraduation risk... Feel free to PM me on this.
RESPONSE B: In terms of logistics, most reputable doctoral programs will have requirements related to the number of credits taken, amount of time spent on a dissertation, and residency. If your plan is to show up as little as possible, any kind of financial aid is also likely out of the question. No assistantships for one-day-a-week people. The only thing you might possibly bring to the table would be money. If you're self-funding, the risk of taking you on just went down by $25k per year. We still wouldn't, because of the way our program is structured, but someone might. We also wouldn't let you accelerate your coursework straight to comps just because you had been enrolled somewhere else. You'd start back at Day 1 with no standing. This may be possible, but on the border of feasibility.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Why do some academics stop doing research once they become tenured Noticed this as a common thing among some professors at my school. Last article each of them published was around 5-8 years ago. Does this occur at your school too?
RESPONSE A: I've never seen this... At least until they get real old. Sure sometimes productivity drops a bit, but I've never seen them just stop. And as I mentioned, sometimes they get super old and no one knows why they haven't retired yet...
RESPONSE B: * Burnout * Service obligations cranked up once job security is assured * More freedom to explore longitudinal or 'controversial' project ideas that might lead to failure/dead-ends, which would have been pre-tenure career suicide
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Why do some academics stop doing research once they become tenured Noticed this as a common thing among some professors at my school. Last article each of them published was around 5-8 years ago. Does this occur at your school too?
RESPONSE A: I do not recognize this too much, in Europe. In France however, I know of few cases for people who have obtained a CNRS position in France. These are research positions without teaching that can be put on hold indefinitely, meaning they can attempt to explore any other job or career they want as long as they want and still have a position when they get bored, fired or whatever. Just a safe bet to explore any interest one may have.
RESPONSE B: * Burnout * Service obligations cranked up once job security is assured * More freedom to explore longitudinal or 'controversial' project ideas that might lead to failure/dead-ends, which would have been pre-tenure career suicide
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Why do some academics stop doing research once they become tenured Noticed this as a common thing among some professors at my school. Last article each of them published was around 5-8 years ago. Does this occur at your school too?
RESPONSE A: I have some colleagues like this, but most of those who publish very little just got tenure when that was the norm at my institution.
RESPONSE B: * Burnout * Service obligations cranked up once job security is assured * More freedom to explore longitudinal or 'controversial' project ideas that might lead to failure/dead-ends, which would have been pre-tenure career suicide
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Why do some academics stop doing research once they become tenured Noticed this as a common thing among some professors at my school. Last article each of them published was around 5-8 years ago. Does this occur at your school too?
RESPONSE A: Do they still teach classes? Do they still show up to the office?
RESPONSE B: * Burnout * Service obligations cranked up once job security is assured * More freedom to explore longitudinal or 'controversial' project ideas that might lead to failure/dead-ends, which would have been pre-tenure career suicide
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why do some academics stop doing research once they become tenured Noticed this as a common thing among some professors at my school. Last article each of them published was around 5-8 years ago. Does this occur at your school too?
RESPONSE A: This is often just a trope that is repeated about professors that get tenured. In my experience, it is much more of a hackneyed stereotype than a matter of truth,
RESPONSE B: I've never seen this... At least until they get real old. Sure sometimes productivity drops a bit, but I've never seen them just stop. And as I mentioned, sometimes they get super old and no one knows why they haven't retired yet...
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How do I know which journals are better regarded in my field? I'm wanting to publish a paper of mine for the first time. However, in looking at the websites I don't know how to distinguish if one is better regarded than another. How do I find this out?
RESPONSE A: For better or worse, impact factor tracks people's opinions pretty well. It's a metric derived from a rolling average of the number of citations received by papers in the journal. For example, if you're in a STEM field of any kind, the top journals are *Science* and *Nature*, which have impact factors of 35-40. Small specialty journals will usually have impact factors of 1-5. Just google "[insert journal name] impact factor" for any given journal.
RESPONSE B: The most foolproof way is to ask people in the field.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do I know which journals are better regarded in my field? I'm wanting to publish a paper of mine for the first time. However, in looking at the websites I don't know how to distinguish if one is better regarded than another. How do I find this out?
RESPONSE A: The most foolproof way is to ask people in the field.
RESPONSE B: Here's my take \- as you have been doing your research, and consulting with your advisor, etc, aren't you being exposed more to particular journals? You can quickly determine which papers are well done and well\-regarded, and highly cited, and those papers are usually in good journals. Your advisor will have a lot of feedback on this as well, and that may be more important than your own opinion, first. And remember that some results merit publication in a "good" journal, while others, more mundane but still useful, may be better suited to a different, less highly cited journal. What level are you in academia? I'm assuming a grad student, but perhaps not?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How do I know which journals are better regarded in my field? I'm wanting to publish a paper of mine for the first time. However, in looking at the websites I don't know how to distinguish if one is better regarded than another. How do I find this out?
RESPONSE A: Where are papers you're citing from coming from? That's a decent barometer as well.
RESPONSE B: Google scholar metrics: https://scholar.google.com/citations?view\_op=top\_venues You can see which has highest h5 mean or median \- a reasonably good estimate of "which journals are better". You can also sort by field and sub\-field. And you can search for a specific publication venue title.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: recently published a A star conf paper with part-time students I work with. And I am hoping to add a few more A level or A minus level conferences (currently in submission or in review). I want to apply to an assistant professor position in US. But I realized that whenever I talk to someone, they skip my PhD, postdoc and always ask me "oh... what have you been doing for the last 3 years?". I explain them the start-ups I did but of course, having no paper comes as a red flag.. I can't say that "well... i had babies at that time and i had to take a leave". Because I think that also comes as a red flag. Also it sounds like I am making excuses for not having papers.. Is there any advice on this? I feel like I should just give up pursuing academic career...
RESPONSE A: I'm a male post-doc in a Finnish university. So, I'm not the best person to answer your question. I think *"well... i had babies at that time and i had to take a leave"* is more than enough to explain the gap in your research history. It is certainly a valid reason to take a long time off. Don't give up, just explain your situation.
RESPONSE B: I would say something along the lines of, "I had to take a bunch of family medical leave. I was able to do a few projects, as you can see, but my time was limited. Fortunately, things are now sorted out and I'm excited to be able to really focus on my career once again." I would not fill in \*any\* details, nor would I apologize in any way. And absolutely DO NOT GIVE UP. You are too good and you have worked to hard for that. You will find the right place, and the right place will want you. Having babies does not disqualify you. My department would take someone like you without hesitation (and I'm a CS professor, btw -- send me a message if you want to talk. I would be happy to help you.). If necessary, consider another postdoc, but that really should not be necessary.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: my academic research is a lot of time and I am trying to catch up research since and recently published a A star conf paper with part-time students I work with. And I am hoping to add a few more A level or A minus level conferences (currently in submission or in review). I want to apply to an assistant professor position in US. But I realized that whenever I talk to someone, they skip my PhD, postdoc and always ask me "oh... what have you been doing for the last 3 years?". I explain them the start-ups I did but of course, having no paper comes as a red flag.. I can't say that "well... i had babies at that time and i had to take a leave". Because I think that also comes as a red flag. Also it sounds like I am making excuses for not having papers.. Is there any advice on this? I feel like I should just give up pursuing academic career...
RESPONSE A: I'm in Canada, and "I took time off to have babies" is an extremely normal thing to hear about why people have gaps. I'm under the impression that it's (unfortunately) a \*bit\* less normalized/accepted in the US, but not so much that it's an academic career death sentence. Don't give up. Apply for stuff. It \*shouldn't\* be an issue, and I'm sure there are tons of schools in the US where it really \*isn't\* an issue.
RESPONSE B: I think one thing you could do is have one of your letter writers include reference to your leave, and what a bad ass it makes you, and how--as the academy is actively working on being more accepting of women and those with non-traditional paths-- that they are confident the committee will not see your leave as a fault against you. In your CV list your pubs first (after your education, obviously) and they sounds awesome and should hopefully hold attention. You should consider adding a "Media recognition" section as well to further demonstrate the relevance of your work. I don't actually think this kind of leave will be a big deal and wish you the best of luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: problems that I had to attend to. Overall, it was a very difficult 3 years for me. I did some projects (sort of start-ups) with the little amount of time I had, and those gained some visible success (so I have'some' stuff I can write on my CV for this period) but I don't have any papers in the last 3 years. A few months ago, I realized that 3-year gap on my academic research is a lot of time and I am trying to catch up research since and recently published a A star conf paper with part-time students I work with. And I am hoping to add a few more A level or A minus level conferences (currently in submission or in review). I want to apply to an assistant professor position in US. But I realized that whenever I talk to someone, they skip my PhD, postdoc and always ask me "oh... what have you been doing for the last 3 years?". I explain them the start-ups I did but of course, having no paper comes as a red flag.. I can't say that "well... i had babies at that time and i had to take a leave". Because I think that also comes as a red flag. Also it sounds like I am making excuses for not having papers.. Is there any advice on this? I feel like I should just give up pursuing academic career...
RESPONSE A: I think one thing you could do is have one of your letter writers include reference to your leave, and what a bad ass it makes you, and how--as the academy is actively working on being more accepting of women and those with non-traditional paths-- that they are confident the committee will not see your leave as a fault against you. In your CV list your pubs first (after your education, obviously) and they sounds awesome and should hopefully hold attention. You should consider adding a "Media recognition" section as well to further demonstrate the relevance of your work. I don't actually think this kind of leave will be a big deal and wish you the best of luck!
RESPONSE B: Do you want to work somewhere that sees "I took family medical leave and still worked on x, y, z" as a red flag?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: , and those gained some visible success (so I have'some' stuff I can write on my CV for this period) but I don't have any papers in the last 3 years. A few months ago, I realized that 3-year gap on my academic research is a lot of time and I am trying to catch up research since and recently published a A star conf paper with part-time students I work with. And I am hoping to add a few more A level or A minus level conferences (currently in submission or in review). I want to apply to an assistant professor position in US. But I realized that whenever I talk to someone, they skip my PhD, postdoc and always ask me "oh... what have you been doing for the last 3 years?". I explain them the start-ups I did but of course, having no paper comes as a red flag.. I can't say that "well... i had babies at that time and i had to take a leave". Because I think that also comes as a red flag. Also it sounds like I am making excuses for not having papers.. Is there any advice on this? I feel like I should just give up pursuing academic career...
RESPONSE A: You may list it in your CV is 'parental leave' or 'caregiving leave' or something along those lines. I see it's becoming more common to have these listed And do not worry about it! It will be understood by faculty committees. Focus on the new lines of research you'd like to pursue. Best of luck :)
RESPONSE B: I think one thing you could do is have one of your letter writers include reference to your leave, and what a bad ass it makes you, and how--as the academy is actively working on being more accepting of women and those with non-traditional paths-- that they are confident the committee will not see your leave as a fault against you. In your CV list your pubs first (after your education, obviously) and they sounds awesome and should hopefully hold attention. You should consider adding a "Media recognition" section as well to further demonstrate the relevance of your work. I don't actually think this kind of leave will be a big deal and wish you the best of luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: few more A level or A minus level conferences (currently in submission or in review). I want to apply to an assistant professor position in US. But I realized that whenever I talk to someone, they skip my PhD, postdoc and always ask me "oh... what have you been doing for the last 3 years?". I explain them the start-ups I did but of course, having no paper comes as a red flag.. I can't say that "well... i had babies at that time and i had to take a leave". Because I think that also comes as a red flag. Also it sounds like I am making excuses for not having papers.. Is there any advice on this? I feel like I should just give up pursuing academic career...
RESPONSE A: I think one thing you could do is have one of your letter writers include reference to your leave, and what a bad ass it makes you, and how--as the academy is actively working on being more accepting of women and those with non-traditional paths-- that they are confident the committee will not see your leave as a fault against you. In your CV list your pubs first (after your education, obviously) and they sounds awesome and should hopefully hold attention. You should consider adding a "Media recognition" section as well to further demonstrate the relevance of your work. I don't actually think this kind of leave will be a big deal and wish you the best of luck!
RESPONSE B: I'm a senior prof at an SLAC with lots of hiring experience. It's not uncommon (especially in recent years) for applicants to directly state in their cover letters something like "After taking five years off raising my family..." to cover for gaps in the CV. I've never seen anyone mention it in a CV itself, but it's happened enough in cover letters (or in zoom/skype interviews) so that nobody bats an eye anymore. That said, my department is fairly young (I'm the senior person) and 100% of us have kids, with the group now ranging from 18 moths to 23 years of age. We are split 50/50 by gender. Both our department and our institution are pretty family friendly, so that approach might not serve as well as a general strategy.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is It Okay to Email Researchers Using Similar Methods to Yours for Advice? I'm in a STEM graduate program and I'm currently using a method my PI is not familiar at all, but he advised to reach out to other professors at my university to ask to set up a short meeting for further advice on using the method and to briefly discuss some of my data, to see if they could provide insight. I did find a few researchers at my university who might be good to contact, though I have never met them (though for one researcher, I did a summer undergraduate project with their colleague). Is this okay for a graduate student to cold email other researchers? Are most open to this?
RESPONSE A: In general I would say yes. There can be nuances, in terms of how proprietary the methods/their applications might be, or if your research areas are so aligned as to make you competitors. But the fact that you're at the same institution makes that less likely a concern.
RESPONSE B: Absolutely 100% okay. Trust your PI.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: If you could do your undergrad over again, where would you go, what would you study, and why? Any advice for someone about the do their undergrad (with the intention of going to grad school) would be much appreciated!
RESPONSE A: Get as much research experience: working, doing experiments, writing stuffs up, etc .... as possible. A paper with your name on it is invaluable for grad school (I have one, but like 3 years after I graduated, LOL) Beyond that, however, do the smallest number of core classes as possible. If you are in STEM, take as many arts and social science electives as you can: political philosophy, military history, art history, etc ... are among the best for me. Arts and Social Sciences taught me how to read and write while Science employed me. However, do pay attention to statistics classes. They are extremely useful. The bad thing about my undergrad science education has been with the lack of focus on writing and reading, which turn out to be the most difficult part of my PhD and professional research life. Luckily the couple of essays per class, two classes per semester or so in arts and social sciences, really forced me to learn to write well. Then when you are asked to frame a research question in terms of wider sociological impact, there is a base to start from.
RESPONSE B: Where I would go and what would I study really don't align. I studied chemistry but really wanted molecular bio/neuro for my ugrad concentration. Unfortunately, those were not offerings in the state school I attended. So, pragmatically- that would be my answer. But now, over a decade removed from ugrad, I wish I had studied agriculture. I just find it so interesting and relevant. I wish I had explored it when I was an undergrad but I was too focused. Maybe I would have picked a different grad school program or career. Where would I go? One of the fun Ivy's
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: If you could do your undergrad over again, where would you go, what would you study, and why? Any advice for someone about the do their undergrad (with the intention of going to grad school) would be much appreciated!
RESPONSE A: I would minor in Spanish.
RESPONSE B: Get as much research experience: working, doing experiments, writing stuffs up, etc .... as possible. A paper with your name on it is invaluable for grad school (I have one, but like 3 years after I graduated, LOL) Beyond that, however, do the smallest number of core classes as possible. If you are in STEM, take as many arts and social science electives as you can: political philosophy, military history, art history, etc ... are among the best for me. Arts and Social Sciences taught me how to read and write while Science employed me. However, do pay attention to statistics classes. They are extremely useful. The bad thing about my undergrad science education has been with the lack of focus on writing and reading, which turn out to be the most difficult part of my PhD and professional research life. Luckily the couple of essays per class, two classes per semester or so in arts and social sciences, really forced me to learn to write well. Then when you are asked to frame a research question in terms of wider sociological impact, there is a base to start from.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: If you could do your undergrad over again, where would you go, what would you study, and why? Any advice for someone about the do their undergrad (with the intention of going to grad school) would be much appreciated!
RESPONSE A: Where I would go and what would I study really don't align. I studied chemistry but really wanted molecular bio/neuro for my ugrad concentration. Unfortunately, those were not offerings in the state school I attended. So, pragmatically- that would be my answer. But now, over a decade removed from ugrad, I wish I had studied agriculture. I just find it so interesting and relevant. I wish I had explored it when I was an undergrad but I was too focused. Maybe I would have picked a different grad school program or career. Where would I go? One of the fun Ivy's
RESPONSE B: I would minor in Spanish.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: If you could do your undergrad over again, where would you go, what would you study, and why? Any advice for someone about the do their undergrad (with the intention of going to grad school) would be much appreciated!
RESPONSE A: I wish I would have done some study abroad sessions! I didn’t even try since I had decided to spend as much time as possible doing research.
RESPONSE B: I would minor in Spanish.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: less ship. I’ve been applying to jobs I’m vaguely qualified for, which are primarily administrative assistant jobs and copy editing (though if no one bites soon I’m going to have to take it back down to customer service jobs again). Reading through these job descriptions and thinking that that’s what I’m going to be doing 40 hours a week for years literally makes me cry at night. I even enrolled in a library science MS program and withdrew at the last minute because I had a big, weeping breakdown at the thought of working that hard in school for something I don’t love and then getting poor pay on the other side of it to boot. I feel stuck. The one thing I’ve always loved and grown up feeling I was meant to do turns out to be something I’m not good out or cut out for in the end. Does it sound like I made the right choice? It doesn’t make sense to try and go back, does it? I know I can’t be a student forever. If anyone has left humanities for industry and ended up happy with the decision, what did you do?
RESPONSE A: You said you considered an MS in library science and dropped out? I am a book worm and literature lover as well. I can also relate to your issues, I am very introverted and have had to tackle that when teaching, I am very shy, but I have somehow made it work, because I ended up teaching and doing research, but I always could see myself as a librarian too. Teaching institutions and specialized libraries need people who are knowledgeable about specific subjects, some librarians do research, not much teaching involved but definitely service-oriented, so you need to talk to people quite a bit. I know it's not working with literature directly, it's also a tough job market, but it's worth thinking about. Here's an interview with a librarian, she talks about how the profession can be very different from what we were used to before regarding librarians. Hope any of this helps and good luck. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/research-librarian/492911/
RESPONSE B: You like poverty you should definitely come back and join the club of the poor but satisfied.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: My little sister needs to interview a Marine Biologist for homework. Would there happen to be anyone out there willing to lend 10-15 minutes?
RESPONSE A: I am a marine biologist and would be happy to chat for a bit.
RESPONSE B: If you send an email to professors at your local university, someone is more than likely to respond. I know I would!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: My little sister needs to interview a Marine Biologist for homework. Would there happen to be anyone out there willing to lend 10-15 minutes?
RESPONSE A: My wife is a marine biologist of sorts (she studies viruses in the ocean). I'll send her a link to this thread
RESPONSE B: I am a marine biologist and would be happy to chat for a bit.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: My little sister needs to interview a Marine Biologist for homework. Would there happen to be anyone out there willing to lend 10-15 minutes?
RESPONSE A: I hope you don't mind but I'm posting this to /r/AskSciencePanel to see if any of the scientists over there can help out.
RESPONSE B: I am a marine biologist and would be happy to chat for a bit.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: . I'm not like that but still interested in cs, do you think it's a good idea if I still try? I'm also a bit insecure about switching to cs since I'm a girl and the subject is still widely male dominated at my uni (50 women and 250 men) and I don't want to fill out the stereotype of women not being able to do math or code. ​ TL;DR: I loved the logic courses I did in philosophy and want to switch to cs but I'm not too tech-savvy or do coding projects for fun - is it a good idea if I still try? At school I was quite good at math and coding.
RESPONSE A: You can study anything without being passionate about it. I'm a woman =) and have a phd in mechanical engineering and im not passionate about it. Work is work and work doesn't suck if you dont hate it or find it boring . Now that doesn't mean work can't be fun and i don't enjoy it , my feelings are its nice. The only time i get excited about it is when something works and it wasn't before because im a Type A person who likes making things work and work well lol Im passionate about music, reading, art, cooking, exercising, walking in woods, traveling, CATS =) I think you should definitely give it a go! college is the time to try things ! yeah it sucks to have the extra pressure of being not the idiot woman especially when you one of the only women in the class. But there are vast amount of resources and networks especially for woman who code. If you are feeling alone and need support please reach out and i will help you find some groups, clubs, societies because as fellow woman in STEM id hate to see someone turn away because of the stigmas there are
RESPONSE B: Go for it. I studied math, philosophy (lots of logic), and computer science together and loved it. Not all CS is coding, nor is the stereotype of CS people entirely accurate. Some of it is theoretical and someone with a strong math and logic background can do very well.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: coding projects for fun - is it a good idea if I still try? At school I was quite good at math and coding.
RESPONSE A: Coding or making websites isn't what CS is about, it's just one of the many applications. You don't necessarily have to be a computer scientist to be a good programmer. Basically it is just the tip of the ice berg. CS on the other hand and AI field specifically is almost compeletely about modeling using math(to that logic is a huge part so you might have an upper hand there). I believe it is male dominated for a reason but don't let that stop you if you feel you really like it because that passion will be your number one force to progress and move forward in the field. In any case look into some of the very basic textbooks like 'automata and languages' or 'data structures and algorithms' or any other thing that you think you might like. It will help a lot to make a decision before commiting to anything.
RESPONSE B: You can study anything without being passionate about it. I'm a woman =) and have a phd in mechanical engineering and im not passionate about it. Work is work and work doesn't suck if you dont hate it or find it boring . Now that doesn't mean work can't be fun and i don't enjoy it , my feelings are its nice. The only time i get excited about it is when something works and it wasn't before because im a Type A person who likes making things work and work well lol Im passionate about music, reading, art, cooking, exercising, walking in woods, traveling, CATS =) I think you should definitely give it a go! college is the time to try things ! yeah it sucks to have the extra pressure of being not the idiot woman especially when you one of the only women in the class. But there are vast amount of resources and networks especially for woman who code. If you are feeling alone and need support please reach out and i will help you find some groups, clubs, societies because as fellow woman in STEM id hate to see someone turn away because of the stigmas there are
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: wasn't too bad at it. Since then I've been thinking about switching to studying computer science. Like I said, I used to quite like programming and in general am interested in the topic as a whole but I am not someone who for example creates websites in their free time or does projects on their own and stuff like that. I feel like a lot of people who study cs are super passionate about it and know so much about computers (which I don't) and spend their free time programming. I'm not like that but still interested in cs, do you think it's a good idea if I still try? I'm also a bit insecure about switching to cs since I'm a girl and the subject is still widely male dominated at my uni (50 women and 250 men) and I don't want to fill out the stereotype of women not being able to do math or code. ​ TL;DR: I loved the logic courses I did in philosophy and want to switch to cs but I'm not too tech-savvy or do coding projects for fun - is it a good idea if I still try? At school I was quite good at math and coding.
RESPONSE A: One thing with coding is that you can teach yourself in your own time. For instance I've used https://www.hackerrank.com/ a lot, it's free and has loads of resources for different languages and interactive puzzles. Why not try learning to code with that, or something similar, for a few hours and see how you get on. It's a small way of tasting what that sort of thing is like without having to make a big decision.
RESPONSE B: Ooh the girls-in-CS thing hits soo hard for me (engineering). You just have to adopt an attitude of “I don’t care what anyone thinks,” trust me the guys don’t actually “know what they’re doing” any more than you do, it’s just that no one is advertising it. Finish the degree and that in itself is success. It’s persistence over innate ability I was attracted to the logic/problem-solving aspect of CS also!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: on their own and stuff like that. I feel like a lot of people who study cs are super passionate about it and know so much about computers (which I don't) and spend their free time programming. I'm not like that but still interested in cs, do you think it's a good idea if I still try? I'm also a bit insecure about switching to cs since I'm a girl and the subject is still widely male dominated at my uni (50 women and 250 men) and I don't want to fill out the stereotype of women not being able to do math or code. ​ TL;DR: I loved the logic courses I did in philosophy and want to switch to cs but I'm not too tech-savvy or do coding projects for fun - is it a good idea if I still try? At school I was quite good at math and coding.
RESPONSE A: You would really enjoy the logic and proof-based areas of computer science. They follow the idea of philosophical logic quite well, we even had a philosophy course at our university that was meant for computer science students all about logic. Most typical Computer Science degrees in universities have many of those courses. They tend to not be very programming-based, you write proofs mainly, and sometimes you may program them. There are some really big areas of research in that stuff too. In the end that work helps design algorithms or build tools that make regular developers’ lives much easier (because better logic = better algorithmic speed). Also I’m a girl in CS doing her PhD now and don’t let the male dominated part keep you away!!! We need more women and it’s really not as bad as it used to be.
RESPONSE B: One thing with coding is that you can teach yourself in your own time. For instance I've used https://www.hackerrank.com/ a lot, it's free and has loads of resources for different languages and interactive puzzles. Why not try learning to code with that, or something similar, for a few hours and see how you get on. It's a small way of tasting what that sort of thing is like without having to make a big decision.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Is there an application that shows papers/work that cite a certain paper (a “citation graph”?)? I am not sure if I am clear but I am looking for an app that ideally shows some kind of graph/database with papers that cite a certain paper, like a “citations graph” kind of thing? Does this exist? Thank you very much in advance!
RESPONSE A: Research rabbit!! I have just started using it (saw it on a helpful apps for grad students Reddit thread) and it's been very helpful showing the networks of citations in papers in a certain topic or field. https://www.researchrabbit.ai/
RESPONSE B: Ive seen one. Cant recall the name (too early for my brain) but ask a librarian. They introduced it to me. Plus if you look up articles on Google Scholar pick an article and scroll down you will see cited by ## and click on it for a listing
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: 10,000 word chapter in 10 days - doable? As per title. PhD introduction for a Confirmation review. I am already familiar with the literature, and have the ideas down pat. I have been unwell and also a tiny bit of procrastinating (I am likely ADHD but still waiting diagnosis), but now it’s getting close to a deadline (13 Nov) and I think if I left a decent time to fine tune and get close academic friends to read it it will be ok (so finish by 3 Nov). What are your strategies for managing long words in short times? Has anyone had any tips for managing tight deadlines like this? (Please no shade - I know I have cooked it, but I am determined to push through and get it done; so productive answers would be great)
RESPONSE A: My tip is to first break up your topic into its subheadings so it feels more like you’re writing individual shorter papers strung together (of course you still have to connect the sections coherently) than one longgg paper. From there, it’s just 1000 words a day minimum. That isn’t so bad as long as you have enough to say, and I think getting the subheadings down from the start helps a lot with that.
RESPONSE B: It's not something I recommend for longterm, but you can write 10,000 words in a day if you need to. I've done it once myself working 14 hours straight. As long as you proof read you should be fine, best of luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: 10,000 word chapter in 10 days - doable? As per title. PhD introduction for a Confirmation review. I am already familiar with the literature, and have the ideas down pat. I have been unwell and also a tiny bit of procrastinating (I am likely ADHD but still waiting diagnosis), but now it’s getting close to a deadline (13 Nov) and I think if I left a decent time to fine tune and get close academic friends to read it it will be ok (so finish by 3 Nov). What are your strategies for managing long words in short times? Has anyone had any tips for managing tight deadlines like this? (Please no shade - I know I have cooked it, but I am determined to push through and get it done; so productive answers would be great)
RESPONSE A: It’s doable - start with a basic outline of section headings and topic subheadings, then just put words on page. Don’t stop to edit, format, or move stuff around, and don’t censor yourself. Give yourself about half the time to just get words on the page. The first draft should look part conversation, part stream of consciousness, part grocery list. Then use the other half of the time to edit and structure and clarify what you’ve got.
RESPONSE B: It's not something I recommend for longterm, but you can write 10,000 words in a day if you need to. I've done it once myself working 14 hours straight. As long as you proof read you should be fine, best of luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: 10,000 word chapter in 10 days - doable? As per title. PhD introduction for a Confirmation review. I am already familiar with the literature, and have the ideas down pat. I have been unwell and also a tiny bit of procrastinating (I am likely ADHD but still waiting diagnosis), but now it’s getting close to a deadline (13 Nov) and I think if I left a decent time to fine tune and get close academic friends to read it it will be ok (so finish by 3 Nov). What are your strategies for managing long words in short times? Has anyone had any tips for managing tight deadlines like this? (Please no shade - I know I have cooked it, but I am determined to push through and get it done; so productive answers would be great)
RESPONSE A: The Thesis Whisperer has some tips on that: How to write 1000 words a day (and not go bat shit crazy) https://thesiswhisperer.com/2011/03/24/how-to-write-1000-words-a-day-and-not-go-bat-shit-crazy/ and How to write 10,000 words a day https://thesiswhisperer.com/2015/01/16/how-to-write-10000-words-a-day/
RESPONSE B: My tip is to first break up your topic into its subheadings so it feels more like you’re writing individual shorter papers strung together (of course you still have to connect the sections coherently) than one longgg paper. From there, it’s just 1000 words a day minimum. That isn’t so bad as long as you have enough to say, and I think getting the subheadings down from the start helps a lot with that.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: already familiar with the literature, and have the ideas down pat. I have been unwell and also a tiny bit of procrastinating (I am likely ADHD but still waiting diagnosis), but now it’s getting close to a deadline (13 Nov) and I think if I left a decent time to fine tune and get close academic friends to read it it will be ok (so finish by 3 Nov). What are your strategies for managing long words in short times? Has anyone had any tips for managing tight deadlines like this? (Please no shade - I know I have cooked it, but I am determined to push through and get it done; so productive answers would be great)
RESPONSE A: Sure, I've done that sort of volume many times over the years. For me personally it's easiest to crank out at that pace if I'm writing something entirely *new*, vs. revising existing text. Much easier for fiction of course (I can do 5-10K draft on a novel over a really good weekend) but certainly possible for academic work as well. You're really only looking at 1K words per day for ten days...that's three pages a day? I have had many undergrads crank that volume out in senior thesis projects as drafts become due. Just set yourself up with a good routine, say write for three hours each morning and revise for three hours each evening. When composing new text shoot for 350 words/hour, about a page. That will put you on track to finish 10K in 10 days. Also be aware of your own most productive hours/frame of mind. For me real volume writing happens between roughly 10pm and 1am, but I have to be alone and ready to work.
RESPONSE B: The Thesis Whisperer has some tips on that: How to write 1000 words a day (and not go bat shit crazy) https://thesiswhisperer.com/2011/03/24/how-to-write-1000-words-a-day-and-not-go-bat-shit-crazy/ and How to write 10,000 words a day https://thesiswhisperer.com/2015/01/16/how-to-write-10000-words-a-day/
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: 10,000 word chapter in 10 days - doable? As per title. PhD introduction for a Confirmation review. I am already familiar with the literature, and have the ideas down pat. I have been unwell and also a tiny bit of procrastinating (I am likely ADHD but still waiting diagnosis), but now it’s getting close to a deadline (13 Nov) and I think if I left a decent time to fine tune and get close academic friends to read it it will be ok (so finish by 3 Nov). What are your strategies for managing long words in short times? Has anyone had any tips for managing tight deadlines like this? (Please no shade - I know I have cooked it, but I am determined to push through and get it done; so productive answers would be great)
RESPONSE A: The Thesis Whisperer has some tips on that: How to write 1000 words a day (and not go bat shit crazy) https://thesiswhisperer.com/2011/03/24/how-to-write-1000-words-a-day-and-not-go-bat-shit-crazy/ and How to write 10,000 words a day https://thesiswhisperer.com/2015/01/16/how-to-write-10000-words-a-day/
RESPONSE B: It’s doable - start with a basic outline of section headings and topic subheadings, then just put words on page. Don’t stop to edit, format, or move stuff around, and don’t censor yourself. Give yourself about half the time to just get words on the page. The first draft should look part conversation, part stream of consciousness, part grocery list. Then use the other half of the time to edit and structure and clarify what you’ve got.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Our program faculty are GONE!! Advice + Tips for an unsure future. I am currently enrolled in a graduate program within the California State University system in the U.S. The program is a two-year program that requires a thesis. However, most people finish in 3 years as the thesis component typically takes some time. Last month, it was announced that 1 of the three faculty members would be leaving the program. Today, it was revealed (by students from that lab) that another faculty member would be leaving the program as well, meaning there will only be one faculty member to oversee approximately 21 students. As much as I want to believe that they will hire someone by the start of the Fall semester, I do not know if it will be possible. With that said, this means that for the foreseeable future, there will only be ONE faculty member to teach all nine graduate courses and conduct research oversight for 21 students (most students will likely be put on hold and therefore delay graduation by yet ANOTHER year or two), and perform whatever additional tasks are needed outside of teaching and advising (i.e., overseeing the program, senate committee work, etc.). For the most part, the students have been kept in the dark about our future, and it is starting to become worrisome. I was hoping to get advice on what steps the rest of the students and I should take to ensure we aren't left on a sinking ship. One of my initial ideas was to get the rest of the students together and submit a petition to the dean that the thesis component is dropped due to the lack of available faculty to provide the necessary support. I'm not sure what else we could do in this situation. Any advice is welcome and appreciated!
RESPONSE A: See if they will try to arrange thesis support from faculty at nearby institutions, or even other CSU (and maybe UC) ones.
RESPONSE B: They can’t drop the thesis; they would run afoul of CSU rules and guidelines. Nothing saying faculty outside the program (or at another CSU) can’t be readers on the thesis. That’s the likeliest option.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Deciding between two faculty job offers: prioritize salary or opportunity for advancement? Hi all, I am deciding between two institutions in two very different locations. One offer is for a research assistant professor position so the salary is quite low. Other than the low pay and non-tenure position, it’s a dream. Great mentorship, tons of data, amazing collaborators, lots of internal funding available, and I’m told, high probability of transitioning to tenure-track within the first two years. The other offer is for a tenure-track assistant professor position with a 6-figure salary (although in a slightly higher cost-of-living area). But I would be so much more solitary...there would be mentorship, but not in my exact discipline. Although I’d have start-up funds, I’d really have to make connections and build collaborations independently whereas with option 1, it would be much more organic. I’m torn and change my mind daily. Does anyone have any words of wisdom?
RESPONSE A: If you are open to negotiating on your own behalf, you should let the non-tenure track institution know you are leaning toward declining in favor of a tenure track offer elsewhere. (Note : I have a strong bias toward the real opportunity for tenure vs some dangled promise that may not materialize).
RESPONSE B: First of all congrats on the offers! I would go for the tenure-track one, since this is super important, as it means potential job security. You can have/ build your network independently of and beyond the place at which you work.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Deciding between two faculty job offers: prioritize salary or opportunity for advancement? Hi all, I am deciding between two institutions in two very different locations. One offer is for a research assistant professor position so the salary is quite low. Other than the low pay and non-tenure position, it’s a dream. Great mentorship, tons of data, amazing collaborators, lots of internal funding available, and I’m told, high probability of transitioning to tenure-track within the first two years. The other offer is for a tenure-track assistant professor position with a 6-figure salary (although in a slightly higher cost-of-living area). But I would be so much more solitary...there would be mentorship, but not in my exact discipline. Although I’d have start-up funds, I’d really have to make connections and build collaborations independently whereas with option 1, it would be much more organic. I’m torn and change my mind daily. Does anyone have any words of wisdom?
RESPONSE A: I honestly can't imagine even entertaining the NTT position. The bit about "high probability of transitioning to tenure track" is worth \*zero\*. You have a TT offer? Congratulations, you won the lottery. Go cash in your ticket.
RESPONSE B: First of all congrats on the offers! I would go for the tenure-track one, since this is super important, as it means potential job security. You can have/ build your network independently of and beyond the place at which you work.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Deciding between two faculty job offers: prioritize salary or opportunity for advancement? Hi all, I am deciding between two institutions in two very different locations. One offer is for a research assistant professor position so the salary is quite low. Other than the low pay and non-tenure position, it’s a dream. Great mentorship, tons of data, amazing collaborators, lots of internal funding available, and I’m told, high probability of transitioning to tenure-track within the first two years. The other offer is for a tenure-track assistant professor position with a 6-figure salary (although in a slightly higher cost-of-living area). But I would be so much more solitary...there would be mentorship, but not in my exact discipline. Although I’d have start-up funds, I’d really have to make connections and build collaborations independently whereas with option 1, it would be much more organic. I’m torn and change my mind daily. Does anyone have any words of wisdom?
RESPONSE A: I honestly can't imagine even entertaining the NTT position. The bit about "high probability of transitioning to tenure track" is worth \*zero\*. You have a TT offer? Congratulations, you won the lottery. Go cash in your ticket.
RESPONSE B: If the TT position is in a location you can envision yourself living in and being relatively happy in, I would absolutely take that position over a non-permanent and low-paying job. You'll still be able to meet people, but it will take more effort on your part to make those connections. But you really can't beat the security of knowing that you have a job and a good paycheck. You can also, as the other commenter noted, let the RAP job know that you have received a TT offer.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Deciding between two faculty job offers: prioritize salary or opportunity for advancement? Hi all, I am deciding between two institutions in two very different locations. One offer is for a research assistant professor position so the salary is quite low. Other than the low pay and non-tenure position, it’s a dream. Great mentorship, tons of data, amazing collaborators, lots of internal funding available, and I’m told, high probability of transitioning to tenure-track within the first two years. The other offer is for a tenure-track assistant professor position with a 6-figure salary (although in a slightly higher cost-of-living area). But I would be so much more solitary...there would be mentorship, but not in my exact discipline. Although I’d have start-up funds, I’d really have to make connections and build collaborations independently whereas with option 1, it would be much more organic. I’m torn and change my mind daily. Does anyone have any words of wisdom?
RESPONSE A: I honestly can't imagine even entertaining the NTT position. The bit about "high probability of transitioning to tenure track" is worth \*zero\*. You have a TT offer? Congratulations, you won the lottery. Go cash in your ticket.
RESPONSE B: Also consider the financial health of the two institutions. Many places are going through financial restructurings and first people to get cut are NTT positions. Take the cash and TT and do your best to make the other stuff a possibility at the TT job. It’s a lot harder to make the money and TT position a possibility at the NTT place.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Deciding between two faculty job offers: prioritize salary or opportunity for advancement? Hi all, I am deciding between two institutions in two very different locations. One offer is for a research assistant professor position so the salary is quite low. Other than the low pay and non-tenure position, it’s a dream. Great mentorship, tons of data, amazing collaborators, lots of internal funding available, and I’m told, high probability of transitioning to tenure-track within the first two years. The other offer is for a tenure-track assistant professor position with a 6-figure salary (although in a slightly higher cost-of-living area). But I would be so much more solitary...there would be mentorship, but not in my exact discipline. Although I’d have start-up funds, I’d really have to make connections and build collaborations independently whereas with option 1, it would be much more organic. I’m torn and change my mind daily. Does anyone have any words of wisdom?
RESPONSE A: I honestly can't imagine even entertaining the NTT position. The bit about "high probability of transitioning to tenure track" is worth \*zero\*. You have a TT offer? Congratulations, you won the lottery. Go cash in your ticket.
RESPONSE B: Take the TT job. If you’re good your tenure will be transferable at some point.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: that these are broadly common situations for nonimmigrant postdocs and their families who are living in expensive cities) Anyway, currently I have been doing my second postdoc at Harvard, and I am pretty willing to stay in academia. But considering the life expenses, ecopolitic issues, gun violence, lack of green card or citizenship and many other things, me and my wife thought that it would be better to go somewhere else to settle down in a safer, cheaper, less stressful and family friendly country. I actually plan no later than the early next year to apply for an assistant prof position in the field of neurobiology outside US. I would like to hear your opinions about where I should consider to go. I am originally from Turkey where no any research fields are well supported todays due to its economic instability. I was looking at Canada, EU countries and Australia/NZ, but I couldn’t find certain details with regards to their research funds, how often positions are available, life expenses and salary rates, how long I need to stay or serve to get permanent residency or even citizenship etc. I would be glad if you can share your experiences. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: First of all, a postdoc at Harvard should get you a job anywhere in the world. Do you think you will get a green card if you apply EB2NIW? Talk to an immigration lawyer. Also, ask your supervisor if they can sponsor an H1B visa for you to stay at Harvard. I know it's hard to ask people about this, but you really should ask! You deserve to be sponsored! Since you are in the US, Canada may be the best option for you. It's very easy to get a citizenship there, compared to the US.
RESPONSE B: The UK is pretty similar to how Germany and France were described previously. It can be very difficult and frustrating trying to get a faculty position and the grant situation is very uncertain at the moment. Have you considered moving to a less prestigious institution in a cheeper city? I live in Glasgow (Scotland) and a post doc salary is more than enough to have quite a nice life. I'll never be rich, but I've got a nice house a few miles from work and can afford to travel home every year.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: things, me and my wife thought that it would be better to go somewhere else to settle down in a safer, cheaper, less stressful and family friendly country. I actually plan no later than the early next year to apply for an assistant prof position in the field of neurobiology outside US. I would like to hear your opinions about where I should consider to go. I am originally from Turkey where no any research fields are well supported todays due to its economic instability. I was looking at Canada, EU countries and Australia/NZ, but I couldn’t find certain details with regards to their research funds, how often positions are available, life expenses and salary rates, how long I need to stay or serve to get permanent residency or even citizenship etc. I would be glad if you can share your experiences. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: Don’t look at Australia. Covid has hit researchers hard and universities are in major cost-cutting mode. And it’s expensive AF to migrate to and being a PR doesn’t guarantee citizenship. Working visa holders were screwed over in covid. They pay taxes but were denied any of the covid support payments when the lost their jobs. When there were complaints the Prime Minster told them to ‘go home’. I can’t find the article but I read something a while ago on how immigration to Australia is dropping and people are going to New Zealand and Canada instead.
RESPONSE B: Harvard doesn't have a campus school that postdocs can use? Not that I've ever looked into it, but I'm quite surprised... Anyway, "EU countries" is not a monolith despite the Bologna system. Every detail of how academia works, what immigrant life is like, what the path to permanent residency is like, what benefits you get, what salary you can expect etc etc etc is going to vary from country to country. I will say generally that, in the EU, the path to citizenship once you are a permanent resident is usually longer and thornier than in the US, but on the other hand it is much easier than in the US to get the permanent residency as long as you migrate legally. So as long as you can live in a way that doesn't violate your residency and don't plan on voting, it may be a better option.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: situaton, and why I am asking this. I have a family of 4, and we are living under quite poor conditions in an old 1 bed 1 bath apartment by paying half of my salary. My daughter goes to 3rd grade, while I can’t afford for a pre-K program for my other kid. Also, my wife is not allowed to work due to her visa type (H4), and she takes care of our little kid. I also pay a lot for medical insurances in montly basis as they are not fully funded (just to note that these are broadly common situations for nonimmigrant postdocs and their families who are living in expensive cities) Anyway, currently I have been doing my second postdoc at Harvard, and I am pretty willing to stay in academia. But considering the life expenses, ecopolitic issues, gun violence, lack of green card or citizenship and many other things, me and my wife thought that it would be better to go somewhere else to settle down in a safer, cheaper, less stressful and family friendly country. I actually plan no later than the early next year to apply for an assistant prof position in the field of neurobiology outside US. I would like to hear your opinions about where I should consider to go. I am originally from Turkey where no any research fields are well supported todays due to its economic instability. I was looking at Canada, EU countries and Australia/NZ, but I couldn’t find certain details with regards to their research funds, how often positions are available, life expenses and salary rates, how long I need to stay or serve to get permanent residency or even citizenship etc. I would be glad if you can share your experiences. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: Don’t look at Australia. Covid has hit researchers hard and universities are in major cost-cutting mode. And it’s expensive AF to migrate to and being a PR doesn’t guarantee citizenship. Working visa holders were screwed over in covid. They pay taxes but were denied any of the covid support payments when the lost their jobs. When there were complaints the Prime Minster told them to ‘go home’. I can’t find the article but I read something a while ago on how immigration to Australia is dropping and people are going to New Zealand and Canada instead.
RESPONSE B: EU blue card
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: where I should consider to go. I am originally from Turkey where no any research fields are well supported todays due to its economic instability. I was looking at Canada, EU countries and Australia/NZ, but I couldn’t find certain details with regards to their research funds, how often positions are available, life expenses and salary rates, how long I need to stay or serve to get permanent residency or even citizenship etc. I would be glad if you can share your experiences. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: Harvard doesn't have a campus school that postdocs can use? Not that I've ever looked into it, but I'm quite surprised... Anyway, "EU countries" is not a monolith despite the Bologna system. Every detail of how academia works, what immigrant life is like, what the path to permanent residency is like, what benefits you get, what salary you can expect etc etc etc is going to vary from country to country. I will say generally that, in the EU, the path to citizenship once you are a permanent resident is usually longer and thornier than in the US, but on the other hand it is much easier than in the US to get the permanent residency as long as you migrate legally. So as long as you can live in a way that doesn't violate your residency and don't plan on voting, it may be a better option.
RESPONSE B: My advice for you is: fight to stay in the US. I did my graduate studies in France, a 1st postdoc in the US, and I’m now in Asia. In my experience, no country will offer you as much recognition and such high salary as the US. European countries might have good social welfare, free healthcare and schools, but very few academic positions, with huge competition, and very little recognition in the end. You will also need to have an existing network in the country, which are hard to build from scratch, especially without knowing the language, the culture and the local system. If you are struggling with your salary to sustain your family, try to move outside of Boston and go towards smaller college towns. Especially in public unis, employees have good benefits and life conditions for them and their families. In my case I was in Michigan and it was very nice, and not crazy expensive. Good luck with everything!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: , my wife is not allowed to work due to her visa type (H4), and she takes care of our little kid. I also pay a lot for medical insurances in montly basis as they are not fully funded (just to note that these are broadly common situations for nonimmigrant postdocs and their families who are living in expensive cities) Anyway, currently I have been doing my second postdoc at Harvard, and I am pretty willing to stay in academia. But considering the life expenses, ecopolitic issues, gun violence, lack of green card or citizenship and many other things, me and my wife thought that it would be better to go somewhere else to settle down in a safer, cheaper, less stressful and family friendly country. I actually plan no later than the early next year to apply for an assistant prof position in the field of neurobiology outside US. I would like to hear your opinions about where I should consider to go. I am originally from Turkey where no any research fields are well supported todays due to its economic instability. I was looking at Canada, EU countries and Australia/NZ, but I couldn’t find certain details with regards to their research funds, how often positions are available, life expenses and salary rates, how long I need to stay or serve to get permanent residency or even citizenship etc. I would be glad if you can share your experiences. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: My advice for you is: fight to stay in the US. I did my graduate studies in France, a 1st postdoc in the US, and I’m now in Asia. In my experience, no country will offer you as much recognition and such high salary as the US. European countries might have good social welfare, free healthcare and schools, but very few academic positions, with huge competition, and very little recognition in the end. You will also need to have an existing network in the country, which are hard to build from scratch, especially without knowing the language, the culture and the local system. If you are struggling with your salary to sustain your family, try to move outside of Boston and go towards smaller college towns. Especially in public unis, employees have good benefits and life conditions for them and their families. In my case I was in Michigan and it was very nice, and not crazy expensive. Good luck with everything!
RESPONSE B: EU blue card
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Professors who take admission interviews, what do you look for in the answer when you ask 'why xyz course in abc University?' I've given a few interviews for (STEM) master's in some Universities and everytime when this question comes up, I get very nervous because,, well I want to do this course in this uni because it's the best for me? But I think that answer is not enough haha. So what all do you look for in questions like that?
RESPONSE A: Simply explain why you think it's the best for you and that ahould be enough. They're looking for why you chose a program. Be honest.
RESPONSE B: > well I want to do this course in this uni because it's the best for me No, it's not enough, because you didn't actually say anything. What, specifically, makes it the best for you? Some particular courses? A certain academic focus of the department? Specific professors? Particular program setup or graduation requirements? Access to internships? Program or thesis duration? Location? Stipend? And then, *why* does that matter to you?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: I should do to 'catch up'? Additionally, what are some habits I should build up, along with things I should look out for once the degree begins? Some specific questions would be, are there any time saving tools/tricks you are or were using during a similar period? Sorry if that is too many questions, I will appreciate any advice given :)
RESPONSE A: It might sound corny, but with a few months to prepare, improving ten-finger writing speed might be something to do. Not because you will have to churn out texts at high speed, but it helps if you don't have a large gap between thought and text. A lot of smart thoughts may get hampered in the process. Congrats!
RESPONSE B: I started my PhD in physics at 20. Tbh in terms of academics the age really didn’t matter, no one cared or even asked as long as you were able to do the work. Same advice for burnout and other pitfalls for PhD’s will apply just the same. I was worried about gap in experience too, with a LOT of people in my cohort with a MSci already or some years of industry experience, etc. Like, a month or two in, I realized it didn’t matter lol. At least in my field, raw knowledge and experience is very quickly shadowed by how fast you can learn new things and synthesize new skills. Which is to say, everyone will be learning so much new shit that experience just by itself is not enough to make a difference. But you’re also living your life for 5+ years during that time. It’s a fairly large social gap between early 20’s and late 20’s, at least here in the US. In some ways I was more comfortable with post college aged friends cause they were more mature and could talk about real shit lol. On the other hand I couldn’t relate to their problems around marriage, children, health, etc… it’s rather isolating to be caught somewhere in the middle. It helped a lot to find some friends completely unrelated to my academic life. I mean, having hobbies and habits outside of academia will help with anyone’s sanity in the long run!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: if there are any preparation I should do to 'catch up'? Additionally, what are some habits I should build up, along with things I should look out for once the degree begins? Some specific questions would be, are there any time saving tools/tricks you are or were using during a similar period? Sorry if that is too many questions, I will appreciate any advice given :)
RESPONSE A: I started my PhD in physics at 20. Tbh in terms of academics the age really didn’t matter, no one cared or even asked as long as you were able to do the work. Same advice for burnout and other pitfalls for PhD’s will apply just the same. I was worried about gap in experience too, with a LOT of people in my cohort with a MSci already or some years of industry experience, etc. Like, a month or two in, I realized it didn’t matter lol. At least in my field, raw knowledge and experience is very quickly shadowed by how fast you can learn new things and synthesize new skills. Which is to say, everyone will be learning so much new shit that experience just by itself is not enough to make a difference. But you’re also living your life for 5+ years during that time. It’s a fairly large social gap between early 20’s and late 20’s, at least here in the US. In some ways I was more comfortable with post college aged friends cause they were more mature and could talk about real shit lol. On the other hand I couldn’t relate to their problems around marriage, children, health, etc… it’s rather isolating to be caught somewhere in the middle. It helped a lot to find some friends completely unrelated to my academic life. I mean, having hobbies and habits outside of academia will help with anyone’s sanity in the long run!
RESPONSE B: Watch some of the YouTube videos from Tara Brabazon. She was the Dean of Graduate studies in Flinders university until recently. Her videos are great preparation for the skills you need for PhD life - building resilience, confidence etc. I find them very helpful (even though I’m a mature student.) Best of luck with your studies.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Advice needed on juggling childcare with study. I'm looking for advice from academics who have kids. I'm currently doing a humanities masters. I'll be writing my dissertation over the summer. The problem is, my kids will be off school then and I don't know how I'm going to manage to research and write. Their grandparents help out a couple days a week, my husband works shifts so is sometimes off during the week so he could take them to the park or wherever. Has anyone been through this and do you have any tips on how to make the most of my time? Thanks! My kids are 6 and 7.
RESPONSE A: Can you afford to hire reliable childcare? A college age person who needs a bit of extra money would be ideal if you can afford it.
RESPONSE B: Differentiate between deep thinking and writing time (kids out of house or you out of house) and low brain time (kids anywhere in shouting distance). If you’re in low brain time do all the prep work like outlining and finding citations and making tables. Deep thinking time is real writing. Be prepared for deep thinking time going in so use your low brain time to get yourself ready with a plan and maybe bullet points. Use this time for writing and writing only. What you want to avoid is a precious two hours with kids gone and you’re spending 30 mins trying to remember what you’re doing or getting distracted with formatting images and tables. For me this meant that if I knew I was getting deep thinking time, then always spending my time the day before to outline and sketch out what I was going to do. Maximize any time you are alone so that means any time with kids even remotely adjacent you’re prepping for that alone time. Last, if you have the means, get a hotel or Airbnb for that last push to finish. Even just one full day can be huge for making one giant thesis into something coherent from start to finish.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What to bring to an academic conference? I’m a PhD student in the humanities getting ready to present at my first in person conference. I’ve attended and presented in virtual conferences before, but I don’t know what to bring to this one when I’m not attending from the comfort of my own home. Do I need business cards? Should I bring snacks/a water bottle?
RESPONSE A: Ph.D. students have business cards? Seriously though, you don't need to bring anything with you. Conferences even provide notepads and pens in case you don't have your own way of taking notes during the sessions. A water bottle is a good idea. Depending on the conference, there may be a drink station setup. Most of all, bring your networking attitude. Have fun, ask questions, exchange Twitter handles, mingle...
RESPONSE B: I have never found myself handing out a lot of business cards at conferences, but I'm also not claiming to be good at networking. Can't hurt to bring them if you have them. Pre-covid there were usually water stations provided by the hotel's conference services, so water bottle is up to personal taste/need. Snacks are the same--I don't often bring them, but I'm not much of a snacker.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What to bring to an academic conference? I’m a PhD student in the humanities getting ready to present at my first in person conference. I’ve attended and presented in virtual conferences before, but I don’t know what to bring to this one when I’m not attending from the comfort of my own home. Do I need business cards? Should I bring snacks/a water bottle?
RESPONSE A: Bring a few business cards if you have them, but you probably won't use them. The conference will have pens and pads of paper, and water and snacks. (I still bring granola bars with me, because that's my default any time I'm traveling, or even just when I'm out all day.) I recommend bringing something like a satchel, or small backpack, or briefcase, to keep things contained. If the conference gives you a back it will probably be something like a reusable shopping bag, which I personally don't like carrying around all day for multiple days. It can also be a good idea to carry your phone, laptop, and/or tablet charger(s) with you, or have one of those portable battery packs for recharging.
RESPONSE B: Many humanities conferences do NOT supply paper and pens to attendees. (My main academic association provides tote bags, and that's it.) But yes, bring snacks and a water bottle, and wear very comfortable shoes.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What to bring to an academic conference? I’m a PhD student in the humanities getting ready to present at my first in person conference. I’ve attended and presented in virtual conferences before, but I don’t know what to bring to this one when I’m not attending from the comfort of my own home. Do I need business cards? Should I bring snacks/a water bottle?
RESPONSE A: Many humanities conferences do NOT supply paper and pens to attendees. (My main academic association provides tote bags, and that's it.) But yes, bring snacks and a water bottle, and wear very comfortable shoes.
RESPONSE B: If there's a book you *really* use a lot, and there's a chance the author might be there, I'd bring it along to see if they might sign it. But I'm weird about this stuff. For the rest just do what everyone else said and don't stress.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What to bring to an academic conference? I’m a PhD student in the humanities getting ready to present at my first in person conference. I’ve attended and presented in virtual conferences before, but I don’t know what to bring to this one when I’m not attending from the comfort of my own home. Do I need business cards? Should I bring snacks/a water bottle?
RESPONSE A: Many humanities conferences do NOT supply paper and pens to attendees. (My main academic association provides tote bags, and that's it.) But yes, bring snacks and a water bottle, and wear very comfortable shoes.
RESPONSE B: I always take my laptop and never use it as much as I should give that I need to carry it around. If I had a tablet I'd take that. I always take a notebook and 2 pens - conferences often have free books & pens but in the arts there isn't that much money for fancy free stuff so it's not guaranteed anymore. Business cards sound a great idea as long as they have your email address on them and a space at the back where you can write what your paper or subject area is so people don't forget. Sneaky tip: if you have no shame, take a small piece of Tupperware in your bag. There is often leftover food, especially if it's a fancy conference that does more than sandwiches and a piece of fruit. The leftover food will be binned.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Addressing Professors By First Name If a professor signs their emails with just their first name when replying to you, is that an invitation to address them by their first name or should you keep calling them Dr. Lastname? Particularly in emails, where you open with “Hi Dr. Lastname,” or “Hi Firstname,”. I’ve done both and thus have probably offended half of my professors...
RESPONSE A: I'm guessing you are from the US, many of the people here are, but this is something that depends very much on country. In Germany I have the feeling that you should use the full name and every single title every time, but depending on how close you are working with them. In Sweden you should never address someone with *any title* and you should go by first name. To me, personally, anything more than a "Hi Firstname," I consider a slight insult.
RESPONSE B: I'm in the US, and I sign my emails with my first name because I want all of my students to call me by my first name. I don't mind the following (no preference): Dear Firstname, Dear Professor Lastname, or Dear Dr. Lastname. I absolutely LOATHE the following, and I will correct you if you do it: Dear Ms. Lastname, Dear Mrs. Lastname. In other words, informality is fine, but please don't give me a demotion. I worked hard for that PhD.
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.