label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
B
|
POST: say that you require a Master's, and some say that some research and a thesis would suffice! I don't really know what to do or what to expect. I truly want to keep moving forward and eventually be able to make a meaningful contribution with my work, but right now I just feel lost. I feel like maybe I'm aiming too high, and that sooner or later I'll crash with reality and all of this will be over. I mean, it almost feels surreal to be here doing this when most of my life I've depended on the goodwill of others to even survive... I know I am just getting started but what I've done so far I've done with a lot of effort and I plan to keep doing that... I'm just not sure if it will be worth it, or if I should rather start following some other path.
RESPONSE A: Are there any graduate programs you’re thinking of in the US that can offer you another semester abroad? A student visa wrapped around a semester, or whatever, abroad sounds much easier than moving straight away.
RESPONSE B: It’s possible, I did that but I became PR before starting. I only need to pay for living cost. Don’t do a PhD if you don’t have scholarship in Australia. I did that and tried to work alongside, it was not fun. Problem with research in Australia is that you can’t get a job easily after PhD for the biology or biomedical field. For fellowships, you will need a lot of papers, for me, I got 19 papers (12 first authors) at the end of my PhD, that include another project which worth another phd after 4.5 years of (full/part time) phd. I did not have any days off during my PhD including public holiday. Then I managed to get a nhmrc early career fellow, but still I need to fight with uni for my salary gap, it was a nightmare. They simply don’t respect you if they need to have fancy new buildings. So think before you make any irrational decisions, your supervisor will always say that you can apply for scholarship after you start, don’t do it, it’s a trap!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: plan to keep doing that... I'm just not sure if it will be worth it, or if I should rather start following some other path.
RESPONSE A: There’s so much going on here and I just want to give you all of the positive energy and luck for the future. You’ve worked so incredibly hard and it’s just super motivating to read. Also, fellow Australian here, hello! I’m sure you’ll get some excellent help here, but I will just say that self funding a PhD? Absolute no-no. Not unless you’re independently wealthy. I would seriously look into applying for an ARC funded PhD or something similar. It’ll put a huge time crunch on your work (all funded projects must be completed within 3.5 years - many institutions are cracking down on the six month extension [that everyone gets] but remember you’d have to fund that final stretch if your scholarship runs out) but the money will save you trying to juggle some impossible work/PhD balance that, personally, I’ve never seen end well.
RESPONSE B: It’s possible, I did that but I became PR before starting. I only need to pay for living cost. Don’t do a PhD if you don’t have scholarship in Australia. I did that and tried to work alongside, it was not fun. Problem with research in Australia is that you can’t get a job easily after PhD for the biology or biomedical field. For fellowships, you will need a lot of papers, for me, I got 19 papers (12 first authors) at the end of my PhD, that include another project which worth another phd after 4.5 years of (full/part time) phd. I did not have any days off during my PhD including public holiday. Then I managed to get a nhmrc early career fellow, but still I need to fight with uni for my salary gap, it was a nightmare. They simply don’t respect you if they need to have fancy new buildings. So think before you make any irrational decisions, your supervisor will always say that you can apply for scholarship after you start, don’t do it, it’s a trap!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: to be here doing this when most of my life I've depended on the goodwill of others to even survive... I know I am just getting started but what I've done so far I've done with a lot of effort and I plan to keep doing that... I'm just not sure if it will be worth it, or if I should rather start following some other path.
RESPONSE A: Are there any graduate programs you’re thinking of in the US that can offer you another semester abroad? A student visa wrapped around a semester, or whatever, abroad sounds much easier than moving straight away.
RESPONSE B: Hey there! I was an international PhD student in Australia and am now a postdoc (biochem) here, working on getting PR through my university. You are likely to be able to apply for PhDs since your degree contained a research component, but you may not be competitive for scholarships without papers. We have a lot of international students in our lab/department on funded programs, but most of them have either MSc. degrees and/or additional experience (working as research assistants, industry experience, papers...). What I can recommend you currently is building a good relationship with your current supervisor and have a talk with them if they would be happy to have you (or recommend you) as a PhD student. You may also check with them if you can do a 6 month (paid, casual) research assistantship on a working holiday visa and get a co-authorship out if it. One thing to consider post-PhD is that universities here are VERY reluctant to sponsor permanent visas for postdocs, and there are new, gigantic loops for the lab heads to jump through (including having to secure 3-year funding for the applicant). Almost everyone from my PhD cohort that tried for PR sponsorships with their labs did not get one, and I was extremely lucky that 1) my supervisors both got grants last year, 2) they like me because my PhD projects went well and were/are getting published and 3) I'm knowledgeable in some techniques the lab currently needs. Unless you major in engineering/medicine or the like (check the 189/190 occupation list), there are currently no other pathways to permanent residency in Australia unless you get a partner visa.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What is your top tip for somebody prepping for grad school who went straight into industry after their undergrad? A buddy of mine and I met in undergrad. We share a lot of passions in common, one of which is education. I went to graduate school before industry, while he is doing the opposite. He asked me for tips to get back into the “school” mindset and general tips for prepping as he begins school in a few months. I offered some advice, although, I think posing this question to r/AskAcademia could be very fruitful! So, I’d love to hear your advice!
RESPONSE A: The people I met who came from industry to a PhD I always admired. They were always trying to set clear goals and deadlines and were always very serious about stipends and getting properly compensated. Like others have said, treat it like a job, place value in time away from the lab (or office). I wish I had, especially at the beginning.
RESPONSE B: Really depends on your specific field. PhD in engineering or comp sci is going to be very different than a PhD in psychology.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What is your top tip for somebody prepping for grad school who went straight into industry after their undergrad? A buddy of mine and I met in undergrad. We share a lot of passions in common, one of which is education. I went to graduate school before industry, while he is doing the opposite. He asked me for tips to get back into the “school” mindset and general tips for prepping as he begins school in a few months. I offered some advice, although, I think posing this question to r/AskAcademia could be very fruitful! So, I’d love to hear your advice!
RESPONSE A: Really depends on your specific field. PhD in engineering or comp sci is going to be very different than a PhD in psychology.
RESPONSE B: Went to grad school after 2 years in industry. Also spent six months after graduation as a research assistant prior to my industry job. My advice to your friend: when I started grad school, I had completely forgotten how to study. I would recommend starting to work on assignments and exam preparation long before your classmates start studying because you're going to have to relearn what techniques work for you. Even if you're working long hours, you may still find grad school tiring. It took me a few weeks to adjust to the new schedule/new sort of tasks even though my days were nominally shorter. In my experience, things move slower in academia than in industry. Paperwork takes longer to be processed, data isn't always given promptly. Always have a back up "to-do" list planned in case you're waiting on other people to action tasks for you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What is your top tip for somebody prepping for grad school who went straight into industry after their undergrad? A buddy of mine and I met in undergrad. We share a lot of passions in common, one of which is education. I went to graduate school before industry, while he is doing the opposite. He asked me for tips to get back into the “school” mindset and general tips for prepping as he begins school in a few months. I offered some advice, although, I think posing this question to r/AskAcademia could be very fruitful! So, I’d love to hear your advice!
RESPONSE A: Really depends on your specific field. PhD in engineering or comp sci is going to be very different than a PhD in psychology.
RESPONSE B: Definitely still get a good therapist.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What is your top tip for somebody prepping for grad school who went straight into industry after their undergrad? A buddy of mine and I met in undergrad. We share a lot of passions in common, one of which is education. I went to graduate school before industry, while he is doing the opposite. He asked me for tips to get back into the “school” mindset and general tips for prepping as he begins school in a few months. I offered some advice, although, I think posing this question to r/AskAcademia could be very fruitful! So, I’d love to hear your advice!
RESPONSE A: Definitely still get a good therapist.
RESPONSE B: Went to grad school after 2 years in industry. Also spent six months after graduation as a research assistant prior to my industry job. My advice to your friend: when I started grad school, I had completely forgotten how to study. I would recommend starting to work on assignments and exam preparation long before your classmates start studying because you're going to have to relearn what techniques work for you. Even if you're working long hours, you may still find grad school tiring. It took me a few weeks to adjust to the new schedule/new sort of tasks even though my days were nominally shorter. In my experience, things move slower in academia than in industry. Paperwork takes longer to be processed, data isn't always given promptly. Always have a back up "to-do" list planned in case you're waiting on other people to action tasks for you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What is your top tip for somebody prepping for grad school who went straight into industry after their undergrad? A buddy of mine and I met in undergrad. We share a lot of passions in common, one of which is education. I went to graduate school before industry, while he is doing the opposite. He asked me for tips to get back into the “school” mindset and general tips for prepping as he begins school in a few months. I offered some advice, although, I think posing this question to r/AskAcademia could be very fruitful! So, I’d love to hear your advice!
RESPONSE A: My advice: Don't think you are better than something because you've learned it before. I took a year off between programs and I came into the program thinking I can just use old notes. Turns out, I've simply forgotten some important information. Allot yourself the time.
RESPONSE B: Definitely still get a good therapist.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How much does your PhD supervisor’s reputation impact how others view you and/or your job prospects? I am a PhD candidate co-supervised by 2 professors (one senior, one very recent assistant prof) who work very closely together and have divisive reputations. I would describe them as “radical.” Some people adore them, while others find their highly non-traditional approaches (e.g. kind of rabble-rousers, intentionally publishing in non-academic journals, pushing the limits of the system) off-putting. Two (!!) committee members actually left the committee due to internal disagreements. It’s been a little difficult logistically for me as a student, but I’ve learned a lot and at this point I’m almost done. I admire and respect what they do, but am more mainstream. As I go on the job market, how much will hiring committees automatically associate me with them? Just curious if I should even bother applying to more conventional departments where their research might be seen as antagonistic. TIA!
RESPONSE A: It's important but not in the way you may think: the professor's reputation as an academic/ supervisor/ collegue in the research center, etc is also important. For example if your professor is a big name BUT everybody knows they have a lot of students and don't really do close follow up with them and use them more as assistant it's not the same as a coming up but with a good name and known to take fewer students BUT actually mentoring them. Another thing is if they are known to "give you" the project/ theoretical framework / metho you can be seen as not an actual autonomous researcher but a good research professional. At the opposite if your professor is known to have high expectations and leaves freedom to their students (meaning you gotta do more work to get to the actual project) you are seen as truly autonomous. Overall it is not not important but it's not everything either
RESPONSE B: I work in a very political field, and ended up doing a postdoc with a rival of a former committee member. They can have disagreements without it necessarily affecting you as an applicant.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do faculty search committees deal with late reference letters? Specifically asking for positions in STEM fields at research-heavy universities. I'm applying for faculty positions right now and as the deadlines stated on various job postings have come and gone, one of my letter writers (my PhD adviser...) is just not submitting any recommendation letters. We are on good terms as far as I am aware, and I expect the reason is just that my former adviser is too busy to put it together. Its frustrating but I imagine the situation is fairly common. How do search committees react to and deal with this kind of thing?
RESPONSE A: Two datapoints: 1) As above, our recent searches didn't ask for letters at all until we had a shortlist. Since we asked for 3 letters, if one person doesn't come through we still get good data from the ones we do get. 2) If other aspects of the application are strong, the department might contact the letter-writer directly to solicit a missing letter. So, it pays to include a "references" section either in your coverletter or your CV, that way they will know who pursue for a letter directly if they need it.
RESPONSE B: I had a verbal offer and the search committee panicked and was like "ack! you're missing a letter!". Another school was pretty pushy about having the letters before the campus visit/after Skype. Others didn't mention it at all. When I was on my PhD institution's committee, they only bugged applications if they were going to get on-campus interviews. I know it's unsatisfying, but it *probably* depends on the school. You should prod your letter writers, since that's their job (I know, it's awful).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How do faculty search committees deal with late reference letters? Specifically asking for positions in STEM fields at research-heavy universities. I'm applying for faculty positions right now and as the deadlines stated on various job postings have come and gone, one of my letter writers (my PhD adviser...) is just not submitting any recommendation letters. We are on good terms as far as I am aware, and I expect the reason is just that my former adviser is too busy to put it together. Its frustrating but I imagine the situation is fairly common. How do search committees react to and deal with this kind of thing?
RESPONSE A: STEM research heavy programs have entirely too many applicants to consider those who don't submit the entire packet on time. I would either push the letter writer to get it done (by giving them earlier deadlines and extra reminders) or find someone else.
RESPONSE B: Two datapoints: 1) As above, our recent searches didn't ask for letters at all until we had a shortlist. Since we asked for 3 letters, if one person doesn't come through we still get good data from the ones we do get. 2) If other aspects of the application are strong, the department might contact the letter-writer directly to solicit a missing letter. So, it pays to include a "references" section either in your coverletter or your CV, that way they will know who pursue for a letter directly if they need it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do faculty search committees deal with late reference letters? Specifically asking for positions in STEM fields at research-heavy universities. I'm applying for faculty positions right now and as the deadlines stated on various job postings have come and gone, one of my letter writers (my PhD adviser...) is just not submitting any recommendation letters. We are on good terms as far as I am aware, and I expect the reason is just that my former adviser is too busy to put it together. Its frustrating but I imagine the situation is fairly common. How do search committees react to and deal with this kind of thing?
RESPONSE A: Depending on the university your application may not make it from HR to the search committee (marked as incomplete).
RESPONSE B: STEM research heavy programs have entirely too many applicants to consider those who don't submit the entire packet on time. I would either push the letter writer to get it done (by giving them earlier deadlines and extra reminders) or find someone else.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do faculty search committees deal with late reference letters? Specifically asking for positions in STEM fields at research-heavy universities. I'm applying for faculty positions right now and as the deadlines stated on various job postings have come and gone, one of my letter writers (my PhD adviser...) is just not submitting any recommendation letters. We are on good terms as far as I am aware, and I expect the reason is just that my former adviser is too busy to put it together. Its frustrating but I imagine the situation is fairly common. How do search committees react to and deal with this kind of thing?
RESPONSE A: In my experience, if you are at or very close to the top of our list based on the materials that we have then we are happy enough to receive letters late. We might even go out and ask your references to submit them if you are someone we are really interested in. If it's already clear from the materials that we have that you aren't going to be at least very close to the top of the list then the letters aren't going to make any difference, whether they arrive or not, and if they do arrive it's very unlikely that they will be read.
RESPONSE B: STEM research heavy programs have entirely too many applicants to consider those who don't submit the entire packet on time. I would either push the letter writer to get it done (by giving them earlier deadlines and extra reminders) or find someone else.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do faculty search committees deal with late reference letters? Specifically asking for positions in STEM fields at research-heavy universities. I'm applying for faculty positions right now and as the deadlines stated on various job postings have come and gone, one of my letter writers (my PhD adviser...) is just not submitting any recommendation letters. We are on good terms as far as I am aware, and I expect the reason is just that my former adviser is too busy to put it together. Its frustrating but I imagine the situation is fairly common. How do search committees react to and deal with this kind of thing?
RESPONSE A: In my experience, if you are at or very close to the top of our list based on the materials that we have then we are happy enough to receive letters late. We might even go out and ask your references to submit them if you are someone we are really interested in. If it's already clear from the materials that we have that you aren't going to be at least very close to the top of the list then the letters aren't going to make any difference, whether they arrive or not, and if they do arrive it's very unlikely that they will be read.
RESPONSE B: A letter which is only a little late is not a big deal and will not be held against the candidate. Everyone understands that letter-writers are busy (some people write tons of letters) and are often late. In most searches I've been on we won't schedule a first meeting to discuss applicants until at least a week or two (often three) after the deadline, in part to let late letters drift in. At that point if there is a candidate who otherwise looks strong and is just missing one letter, we will usually ping the letter writer to ask them to submit their letter. If a candidate is missing multiple letters then that does look bad but if it's just one letter I wouldn't worry about it. A smart hiring committee is not going to throw out an otherwise reasonable application just because of one late letter.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: part of a grant writing class. As the major assignment, we had to write a grant. I chose to apply for a small grant from a foundation that would fund and expand on my dissertation work. I wrote the grant, but my advisor submitted it. We got the $50K grant! We used a little of the money for the project, but I was selected for a postdoc and ended up leaving. Soon after, I found out that he'd spent a lot of the money on other projects. I was upset he didn't at least tell me, but he insisted that since the grant was in his name the money was his to do what he liked with. He assured me there would be enough money to support the project, dissemination of the findings, etc. A few months ago, I was invited to present at a conference and asked him if I could use the funding to present findings from that grant project. He said yes. Now it's time to pay the $500 conference fees, and he tells me there's no more funding left. I was upset and asked to meet via zoom. In the meeting, he kept telling me he didn't understand what I was talking about and that I'm "a grown-up" and can fund my own conferences. I kept pressing him, reminding him of what he said, and he simply hung up on me. I tried to reach out to him via email, and no response. I'm upset and feel like I was swindled. He clearly sees it differently. I wanted to get others' opinions on how normal and justified his behavior is. I don't have a lot of experience with grants. Thank you! TL;DR: Wrote grant based on my dissertation, was awarded funding, but advisor spent all of the money on other projects and now there's not enough left for dissemination.
RESPONSE A: Very common, but then they’d usually just take from another grant to send you to the conference..
RESPONSE B: Your advisor is dumb. $500 for a conference to spread your work helps increase the visibility and impact of your work, leading to more citations. Not sending someone to a conference is like inventing a product but not shelling out the money to advertise.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: spent on other projects I am currently a postdoc and wanted to get others' feedback on a recent experience I had with my graduate school advisor. While in grad school, I was part of a grant writing class. As the major assignment, we had to write a grant. I chose to apply for a small grant from a foundation that would fund and expand on my dissertation work. I wrote the grant, but my advisor submitted it. We got the $50K grant! We used a little of the money for the project, but I was selected for a postdoc and ended up leaving. Soon after, I found out that he'd spent a lot of the money on other projects. I was upset he didn't at least tell me, but he insisted that since the grant was in his name the money was his to do what he liked with. He assured me there would be enough money to support the project, dissemination of the findings, etc. A few months ago, I was invited to present at a conference and asked him if I could use the funding to present findings from that grant project. He said yes. Now it's time to pay the $500 conference fees, and he tells me there's no more funding left. I was upset and asked to meet via zoom. In the meeting, he kept telling me he didn't understand what I was talking about and that I'm "a grown-up" and can fund my own conferences. I kept pressing him, reminding him of what he said, and he simply hung up on me. I tried to reach out to him via email, and no response. I'm upset and feel like I was swindled. He clearly sees it differently. I wanted to get others' opinions on how normal and justified his behavior is. I don't have a lot of experience with grants. Thank you! TL;DR: Wrote grant based on my dissertation, was awarded funding, but advisor spent all of the money on other projects and now there's not enough left for dissemination.
RESPONSE A: Very common, but then they’d usually just take from another grant to send you to the conference..
RESPONSE B: What did the budget of the grant say the funds were supposed to be used for?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: to get others' feedback on a recent experience I had with my graduate school advisor. While in grad school, I was part of a grant writing class. As the major assignment, we had to write a grant. I chose to apply for a small grant from a foundation that would fund and expand on my dissertation work. I wrote the grant, but my advisor submitted it. We got the $50K grant! We used a little of the money for the project, but I was selected for a postdoc and ended up leaving. Soon after, I found out that he'd spent a lot of the money on other projects. I was upset he didn't at least tell me, but he insisted that since the grant was in his name the money was his to do what he liked with. He assured me there would be enough money to support the project, dissemination of the findings, etc. A few months ago, I was invited to present at a conference and asked him if I could use the funding to present findings from that grant project. He said yes. Now it's time to pay the $500 conference fees, and he tells me there's no more funding left. I was upset and asked to meet via zoom. In the meeting, he kept telling me he didn't understand what I was talking about and that I'm "a grown-up" and can fund my own conferences. I kept pressing him, reminding him of what he said, and he simply hung up on me. I tried to reach out to him via email, and no response. I'm upset and feel like I was swindled. He clearly sees it differently. I wanted to get others' opinions on how normal and justified his behavior is. I don't have a lot of experience with grants. Thank you! TL;DR: Wrote grant based on my dissertation, was awarded funding, but advisor spent all of the money on other projects and now there's not enough left for dissemination.
RESPONSE A: Why did you write a grant and not submit it as the PI? It seems like you willingly wrote a grant for your advisor?
RESPONSE B: Very common, but then they’d usually just take from another grant to send you to the conference..
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: grant writing class. As the major assignment, we had to write a grant. I chose to apply for a small grant from a foundation that would fund and expand on my dissertation work. I wrote the grant, but my advisor submitted it. We got the $50K grant! We used a little of the money for the project, but I was selected for a postdoc and ended up leaving. Soon after, I found out that he'd spent a lot of the money on other projects. I was upset he didn't at least tell me, but he insisted that since the grant was in his name the money was his to do what he liked with. He assured me there would be enough money to support the project, dissemination of the findings, etc. A few months ago, I was invited to present at a conference and asked him if I could use the funding to present findings from that grant project. He said yes. Now it's time to pay the $500 conference fees, and he tells me there's no more funding left. I was upset and asked to meet via zoom. In the meeting, he kept telling me he didn't understand what I was talking about and that I'm "a grown-up" and can fund my own conferences. I kept pressing him, reminding him of what he said, and he simply hung up on me. I tried to reach out to him via email, and no response. I'm upset and feel like I was swindled. He clearly sees it differently. I wanted to get others' opinions on how normal and justified his behavior is. I don't have a lot of experience with grants. Thank you! TL;DR: Wrote grant based on my dissertation, was awarded funding, but advisor spent all of the money on other projects and now there's not enough left for dissemination.
RESPONSE A: Very common, but then they’d usually just take from another grant to send you to the conference..
RESPONSE B: I can understand being upset if he said he’d cover conference fees at one point and then said he no longer could, but to me, it has nothing to do with which grant that money was coming from. Did he remember telling you that he could cover it?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: ' feedback on a recent experience I had with my graduate school advisor. While in grad school, I was part of a grant writing class. As the major assignment, we had to write a grant. I chose to apply for a small grant from a foundation that would fund and expand on my dissertation work. I wrote the grant, but my advisor submitted it. We got the $50K grant! We used a little of the money for the project, but I was selected for a postdoc and ended up leaving. Soon after, I found out that he'd spent a lot of the money on other projects. I was upset he didn't at least tell me, but he insisted that since the grant was in his name the money was his to do what he liked with. He assured me there would be enough money to support the project, dissemination of the findings, etc. A few months ago, I was invited to present at a conference and asked him if I could use the funding to present findings from that grant project. He said yes. Now it's time to pay the $500 conference fees, and he tells me there's no more funding left. I was upset and asked to meet via zoom. In the meeting, he kept telling me he didn't understand what I was talking about and that I'm "a grown-up" and can fund my own conferences. I kept pressing him, reminding him of what he said, and he simply hung up on me. I tried to reach out to him via email, and no response. I'm upset and feel like I was swindled. He clearly sees it differently. I wanted to get others' opinions on how normal and justified his behavior is. I don't have a lot of experience with grants. Thank you! TL;DR: Wrote grant based on my dissertation, was awarded funding, but advisor spent all of the money on other projects and now there's not enough left for dissemination.
RESPONSE A: Very common, but then they’d usually just take from another grant to send you to the conference..
RESPONSE B: Most grant money goes toward other projects, and submitted grants tend to be cooked projects almost if not ready for publication. That’s how the train keeps rolling.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Asked to work on supervisor's grant in exchange for thesis feedback I finished my PhD some time ago, but by the end it was a very toxic environment and I am still processing everything that happened. I recently remembered something that happen during writing my thesis which I did not think was unusually at the time, but I am starting to wonder if other people have had a similar experience. Basically several months after I handed over my thesis to my supervisor for feedback she came to me and said she just simply did not have time to read my thesis. At that point she told me the only way she would ever have time to read it was if I took on some of her workload. Specifically she told me that for every hour she spent on my thesis I had to spend an hour working on her grants. I agreed to do it because I was desperate to leave and had not gotten any feedback up to that point. It was not complicated stuff, mostly making or resizing figures and generally fixing the formatting of the grant. It did not bother me at the time, but I mentioned it to someone in my current lab and they were shocked that I had been asked to do that. So now I am curious if this is a common experience. Has anyone else been asked to work on supervisor’s grants or otherwise take on some of their work if they want feedback of their thesis? I will add that I probably did a total of 6-8 hours of this kind of work on her grant, so it was not a huge burden (and that is the total amount of time she spent giving any feedback on my thesis)
RESPONSE A: Horrible and wrong to demand work for feedback. There is much to learn from helping a PI write grants — I learned a ton by writing up parts of the grant and getting feedback on what I needed to have done differently.
RESPONSE B: Grants have money tied to them. Ask to be paid for work spent on the grant. If she won't pay you for that then write the dissertation without her feedback. Many committee members don't bother reading dissertations anyways.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What is the best strategy to recruit PhD students? Hello all! I'm starting as a professor at a US institution this Fall and I'm having a hard time finding PhD students. Especially since many of the students that applied during the last fall with our department have decided to go somewhere else (i.e., we weren't their first option). Any piece of advice from some senior professors on how to efficiently recruit good PhD students? [my field is engineering]
RESPONSE A: As a student actively looking for PhD's in the field of engineering as well.. let us know you exist! I've been going around circles looking for advisor to work with, but I always hit dead ends. I send emails, they either don't reply, or reply saying that their group is too big and don't have enough resources. I have been trying to look for "smaller" labs but answer is mostly the same. And whenever I look on twitter, or LinkedIn.. it's mostly big name labs in big unis.
RESPONSE B: Flip the script and think about it from the student's perspective: why do I want to go work in your lab? What is it that you provide that other departments or institutions cannot? Try to make this pitch as concrete and straightforward as you can. Connections with corporate partners and research groups? e.g. opportunities after you graduate at big tech, specialty materials groups, highly prestigious agencies, etc. Support for research that you wouldn't get at other institutions? Maybe you have more flexible research agendas, lighter teaching/workloads, and more support from faculty. When talking to highly qualified candidates, really drive home why your department can give them things they can't get elsewhere and highlight the value proposition unique to your program. After the recruiting cycle is over, look at all the students who declined your offers. What programs did they choose to go to? What did those programs offer that you don't? Why are people declining your offers?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What is the best strategy to recruit PhD students? Hello all! I'm starting as a professor at a US institution this Fall and I'm having a hard time finding PhD students. Especially since many of the students that applied during the last fall with our department have decided to go somewhere else (i.e., we weren't their first option). Any piece of advice from some senior professors on how to efficiently recruit good PhD students? [my field is engineering]
RESPONSE A: A) offer a good and interesting project with funding B) recruit them for bachelor/master and hope they will stay even for PhD
RESPONSE B: Flip the script and think about it from the student's perspective: why do I want to go work in your lab? What is it that you provide that other departments or institutions cannot? Try to make this pitch as concrete and straightforward as you can. Connections with corporate partners and research groups? e.g. opportunities after you graduate at big tech, specialty materials groups, highly prestigious agencies, etc. Support for research that you wouldn't get at other institutions? Maybe you have more flexible research agendas, lighter teaching/workloads, and more support from faculty. When talking to highly qualified candidates, really drive home why your department can give them things they can't get elsewhere and highlight the value proposition unique to your program. After the recruiting cycle is over, look at all the students who declined your offers. What programs did they choose to go to? What did those programs offer that you don't? Why are people declining your offers?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: first point in that it's a basic lack of respect for peoples' time and energy and entitlement. (I realize I should have nipped these in the bud early, but I have a hard time being stern sometimes, and that's something I need to work on. Happy for any tips you guys have here too.) Does anyone have any ideas on the wording you might use to write out some constructive, polite, and useful criticism on these two points? Thanks!
RESPONSE A: I really dont think the first one belongs on any sort of form in any sort of protracted way. It is sometimes necessary to teach a younger colleague "their place" if it is their first time in the workplace or whatever, but dont put that in writing. For your own sake.
RESPONSE B: There are two issues here. One is interpersonal and behavioral. The other relates to course assignments. The first: behavioral. This is not course related and respectfully, it's not your business to police this, *even if you disagree with what a student does.* You'll only make enemies and possibley get a harassment claim against you for saying something a student perceives as denigrating an aspect of their cultural background. The second is valid. This is why we use rubrics and why we hold students accountable to the items and deadlines on the rubric. If you have written down that a part of the assignment is to submit to the supervisor a draft of the talk for approval before presenting, then bring this to the student's attention and point out the conseuences grade wise of not doing so. If you sort of requested it and nothing is written down, then let her suffer, add to your final evaluative report that you unofficially wanted to see it but the student chose not to share it in advance, and then let the student suffer the consequences of not doing so. Then consider it lesson learned. They are adults, they make decisions related to their education, for good or bad, and a part of learning is learning via consequences of their decisions. Neither in my view is very serious. Wait until you get a large class with diversity and ways of doing of all sorts of forms, many which absolutely contradict your own views and beliefs, then it gets really fun.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why are so many articles behind paywalls and not ad-driven websites or published for free? Some articles I can find the PDF for free from the professor's edu website and others are behind a full paywall, usually $39.99 or the like for a single article without academic subscriptions, but it hit me few are published on websites that use ads for revenue or are published for free online somewhere. My uni doesn't have *all* the subscriptions all the time. Why is the academic article model still pay-per-article? Has any publisher tried moving to a full ad-based revenue model? Are the free PDFs hosted on a personal website (TLD from edu) violating a contract with a publisher?
RESPONSE A: The PDFs aren't really there for you to buy. I mean, they'll take your $40 I guess if you offered it. I can't imagine anyone ever has, but hey, money's money. The $40 for a PDF is just to tell you to fuck off so that you have to go bug your university library for it on the theory that if enough people ask them, they'll subscribe to a bundle of 60 journals for $40,000 a year, 58 of which no one gives a crap about anyway.
RESPONSE B: Have you tried the library? Even if they don’t subscribe, they may be able get it for you through ILL.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why are so many articles behind paywalls and not ad-driven websites or published for free? Some articles I can find the PDF for free from the professor's edu website and others are behind a full paywall, usually $39.99 or the like for a single article without academic subscriptions, but it hit me few are published on websites that use ads for revenue or are published for free online somewhere. My uni doesn't have *all* the subscriptions all the time. Why is the academic article model still pay-per-article? Has any publisher tried moving to a full ad-based revenue model? Are the free PDFs hosted on a personal website (TLD from edu) violating a contract with a publisher?
RESPONSE A: The PDFs aren't really there for you to buy. I mean, they'll take your $40 I guess if you offered it. I can't imagine anyone ever has, but hey, money's money. The $40 for a PDF is just to tell you to fuck off so that you have to go bug your university library for it on the theory that if enough people ask them, they'll subscribe to a bundle of 60 journals for $40,000 a year, 58 of which no one gives a crap about anyway.
RESPONSE B: Because publishers like Elsevier (and others) pushed it in this direction at the early stages of electronic access. It remains that way for the same reason anything remains some way - inertia. The paper journal model was all about very high subscription costs before the electronic access shift, so it isn't as weird as it seems.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why are so many articles behind paywalls and not ad-driven websites or published for free? Some articles I can find the PDF for free from the professor's edu website and others are behind a full paywall, usually $39.99 or the like for a single article without academic subscriptions, but it hit me few are published on websites that use ads for revenue or are published for free online somewhere. My uni doesn't have *all* the subscriptions all the time. Why is the academic article model still pay-per-article? Has any publisher tried moving to a full ad-based revenue model? Are the free PDFs hosted on a personal website (TLD from edu) violating a contract with a publisher?
RESPONSE A: The PDFs aren't really there for you to buy. I mean, they'll take your $40 I guess if you offered it. I can't imagine anyone ever has, but hey, money's money. The $40 for a PDF is just to tell you to fuck off so that you have to go bug your university library for it on the theory that if enough people ask them, they'll subscribe to a bundle of 60 journals for $40,000 a year, 58 of which no one gives a crap about anyway.
RESPONSE B: Because .edu is big .com
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why are so many articles behind paywalls and not ad-driven websites or published for free? Some articles I can find the PDF for free from the professor's edu website and others are behind a full paywall, usually $39.99 or the like for a single article without academic subscriptions, but it hit me few are published on websites that use ads for revenue or are published for free online somewhere. My uni doesn't have *all* the subscriptions all the time. Why is the academic article model still pay-per-article? Has any publisher tried moving to a full ad-based revenue model? Are the free PDFs hosted on a personal website (TLD from edu) violating a contract with a publisher?
RESPONSE A: The PDFs aren't really there for you to buy. I mean, they'll take your $40 I guess if you offered it. I can't imagine anyone ever has, but hey, money's money. The $40 for a PDF is just to tell you to fuck off so that you have to go bug your university library for it on the theory that if enough people ask them, they'll subscribe to a bundle of 60 journals for $40,000 a year, 58 of which no one gives a crap about anyway.
RESPONSE B: I hope you never have paid for an article...
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Why are so many articles behind paywalls and not ad-driven websites or published for free? Some articles I can find the PDF for free from the professor's edu website and others are behind a full paywall, usually $39.99 or the like for a single article without academic subscriptions, but it hit me few are published on websites that use ads for revenue or are published for free online somewhere. My uni doesn't have *all* the subscriptions all the time. Why is the academic article model still pay-per-article? Has any publisher tried moving to a full ad-based revenue model? Are the free PDFs hosted on a personal website (TLD from edu) violating a contract with a publisher?
RESPONSE A: Ad revenue models are inconsistent and don't make enough money. Especially on a thirty year old article about niche interdisciplinary research. A range of 50-1000 views per year isn't an attractive sell to advertisers. :/ I agree with you though! Silly, inaccessible systems. Smh.
RESPONSE B: The PDFs aren't really there for you to buy. I mean, they'll take your $40 I guess if you offered it. I can't imagine anyone ever has, but hey, money's money. The $40 for a PDF is just to tell you to fuck off so that you have to go bug your university library for it on the theory that if enough people ask them, they'll subscribe to a bundle of 60 journals for $40,000 a year, 58 of which no one gives a crap about anyway.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Realistically, how many works do you peer review? I've been seeing some thought pieces on this topic and older pieces saying that a minority of researchers (about 20%) do the majority of the work (about 70% to 95%). I also suspect that the past two years have completely changed how much service work people is doing as well. Since sites like Publons can skew counts by counting *review activities* versus *manuscripts* I'm also curious how many iterations is common as well. So per the title, realistically how many works (i.e., manuscripts, conference papers, books, etc.) do you review? Has it changed in the past couple years, still about the same?
RESPONSE A: I've reviewed about 10-12 unique manuscripts during the past year. I'm more inclined to review an article if 1) it is highly relevant to my research focus, 2) I believe that reviewing it will help my own research (providing feedback for others' research helps me to anticipate the feedback I might receive when I submit articles, and sometimes improve articles before I submit them), and 3) it is under consideration at a journal published by a non-profit organization. (Many of the journals in my discipline are published by a professional organization that, while far from perfect, does important work and advocacy for my discipline; while I do some reviewing for journals published by for-profit publishers, as I do publish in these kinds of journals, too, I am less inclined to give unpaid labor to a corporation making large profits.) The rule of thumb I've heard is to review 3 articles for every article you submit as a corresponding author. Just as you rely on others to review the articles you submit, it's good to do your part to make sure that others who submit articles have folks who can review them.
RESPONSE B: I review about 20 different manuscripts per year and 5-6 grants.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Meeting person whose work I recently peer-reviewed critically Hi All, I recently reviewed a paper for someone I know. It was double blind, though I could tell who it was from the references. I had let the editor know and discussed any conflicts of interest. They decided it would be OK for me to review. I submitted a lengthy multi-page review which was very critical. The intention was to be constructive and I added many suggestions for improvements, and explain the criticisms in some detail. The editor was happy with the review. I'll be at a conference in a few weeks where this person will also be present. I can already foresee the situation that we'll meet at lunch or so, and this person will complain about the lengthy review she had gotten on their newest paper. If this situation arises, would you identify yourself as the reviewer, or just ignore it (and play dumb)? What is your duty as an anonymous reviewer?
RESPONSE A: Be a good listener and don’t disclose that it was you.
RESPONSE B: Relax. The other person is not going to engage you in a conversation about their recent review. In decades of conferences and other events with professional peers, that has never happened to me. If, for some crazy reason, they do drag you into such a conversation, listen quietly and respond as you would to anyone else complaining about something that has nothing to do with you. DO NOT disclose that you were a reviewer. The process is blind for a reason.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Meeting person whose work I recently peer-reviewed critically Hi All, I recently reviewed a paper for someone I know. It was double blind, though I could tell who it was from the references. I had let the editor know and discussed any conflicts of interest. They decided it would be OK for me to review. I submitted a lengthy multi-page review which was very critical. The intention was to be constructive and I added many suggestions for improvements, and explain the criticisms in some detail. The editor was happy with the review. I'll be at a conference in a few weeks where this person will also be present. I can already foresee the situation that we'll meet at lunch or so, and this person will complain about the lengthy review she had gotten on their newest paper. If this situation arises, would you identify yourself as the reviewer, or just ignore it (and play dumb)? What is your duty as an anonymous reviewer?
RESPONSE A: Relax. The other person is not going to engage you in a conversation about their recent review. In decades of conferences and other events with professional peers, that has never happened to me. If, for some crazy reason, they do drag you into such a conversation, listen quietly and respond as you would to anyone else complaining about something that has nothing to do with you. DO NOT disclose that you were a reviewer. The process is blind for a reason.
RESPONSE B: I agree that you should not identify yourself. I would just respond with vague platitudes, like "I'm sure in the end you can find something helpful there" or "I always try to separate the personal feelings of inadequacy with a sense of gratitude that someone gave me such thorough feedback" (depending on how well you know this person and what's appropriate!)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Meeting person whose work I recently peer-reviewed critically Hi All, I recently reviewed a paper for someone I know. It was double blind, though I could tell who it was from the references. I had let the editor know and discussed any conflicts of interest. They decided it would be OK for me to review. I submitted a lengthy multi-page review which was very critical. The intention was to be constructive and I added many suggestions for improvements, and explain the criticisms in some detail. The editor was happy with the review. I'll be at a conference in a few weeks where this person will also be present. I can already foresee the situation that we'll meet at lunch or so, and this person will complain about the lengthy review she had gotten on their newest paper. If this situation arises, would you identify yourself as the reviewer, or just ignore it (and play dumb)? What is your duty as an anonymous reviewer?
RESPONSE A: Definitely don't disclose and just be a good listener, but if you knew it was their paper, be prepared that they may suspect you are the reviewer.
RESPONSE B: I'm currently writing a paper with someone whose paper I rejected outright 2 years ago. I think this person is a great researcher and we also get along quite well on a person level. That said I would reject the same paper today for the same reasons. This is the entire reason for having blind reviewers. I don't have to worry about compromising my objectivity because I'm worried about souring a good relationship. Its up to you whether you tell them or not but I can't see an up side.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How does the scientific community reconcile its central ideas among them rigorous testing, transparency, and peer-review with the longstanding precedent of studies being available only to those with a subscription to the journal in which it was published? This is a question that has rattled around my brain for many years but I'm not sure if my premise is wrong from the start - I know little of the academic process and guidelines surrounding publication aside from what I've learned as a layman brushing up on various journals, subs, citations and rating systems. My main premise is that the whole core philosophy of Science revolves around the idea of peer-review and being able to be refuted by other scientists and even regular folk. So how do they get off with giving exclusivity to certain obscure quarterlies and what-have-you? Or is this untrue - Is there some database of all the world's scientific knowledge? If my assumption of exclusivity and "protection" is correct does it stem from intellectual property and fiscal concerns? Why is there no online database of the things published in Nature et al in their entirety? Does it simply exist outside my knowledge? Because I've seen sites that seem to harbor the basic info such as the abstract but hold off the nitty gritty. That to me defeats the entire purpose. Thanks for any help you guys can offer :)
RESPONSE A: TL;DR for this entire thread: your entire premise of how scientific research is peer reviewed and published is completely wrong. There's nothing to be reconciled.
RESPONSE B: This actually something that has come to the fore in recent years in the UK. Any research funded by tax payer money must be available for free. This is normally done either by up adding to arxiv and/or having a copy available on the author(s)'s website(s).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: A short text for freshman students to read... Any idea for a short, accessible text to read with freshman humanities students on their very first week? I’m just starting out as a lecturer and looking for something that can provoke discussion among students about how university education/learning may differ from their prior education, what are the goals of higher education etc. especially in a liberal art/humanities setting. (They don’t need to answer these questions, I want my students to discuss!) Ideally, I want something that touches on the importance of independent, critical thinking. I first thought of Said’s Representations of the Intellectual but I believe I need something more relatable (and short) for my students... I’ve looked at articles on The New Yorker etc. but haven’t found one that quite fits the bill... any suggestion would be appreciated!
RESPONSE A: I don’t have a specific suggestion, but ideally whatever they read will including helping them recognize that learning the material is *their responsibility.* and privilege. I’ve got way too many classmates who simply don’t understand this. They haven’t made the switch, and no one is forcing them to make the switch, from “I have to be here,” to “I get to be here.” They continue to be spoonfed, and teaching them is like pulling teeth.
RESPONSE B: I use "College Pressures" by Zinsser for a similar assignment in a composition class.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Does anyone know of a software that can read journal articles out loud? I thought I could do this when I am driving in the morning to work. Has anyone tried this on their cell phone?
RESPONSE A: Adobe Acrobat has this function. Idk how good it is, but it exists.
RESPONSE B: You want @Voice Aloud Reader. It's great. I like to put an article on and listen while I'm commuting, or mowing the lawn, etc. It's also very useful for having your own writing read back to you. Edit your draft while walking in the park. You find a lot of errors or leaps in logic that way.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Does anyone know of a software that can read journal articles out loud? I thought I could do this when I am driving in the morning to work. Has anyone tried this on their cell phone?
RESPONSE A: That'll be a bit annoying. "Engaged customers are more likely to be loyal to the brand. Brodie et al. 2011. Hollebeek et al. 2011a. Hollebeek et al. 2011b. There is also evidence of brand trust being an antecedent of loyalty. So and Kim 2017. Dick and Basu 1994". Someone needs to make a text to speech that ignore citations.
RESPONSE B: Scan it with Foxit Phantom Pdf’s amazing engine, then u are good to go with anything u like
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Does anyone know of a software that can read journal articles out loud? I thought I could do this when I am driving in the morning to work. Has anyone tried this on their cell phone?
RESPONSE A: I use Voice Dream on my phone. https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/voice-dream-reader/id496177674?mt=8 Great at they gym and in the car.
RESPONSE B: I'm sorry, this isn't what you asked for, but here's another suggestion for making the most out of your commute... Consider listening to a podcast or a book instead! Something fun and/or interesting, and totally unrelated to your work. I've found that starting my day off thinking about heavy work stuff gets exhausting, whereas listening to something silly or interesting improves my mood and makes me feel more energized to start the day. I don't have any sources to back me up, but I believe giving your brain breaks from your work and thinking about totally different stuff helps to keep you from burnout and stimulates you to think about things from a different perspective. Giving your brain a rest is good for your health and your work--your brain's still working on your research, still processing things, even if you don't know it! So often I hear of my colleagues having major breakthroughs or suddenly solving tough problems while doing a hobby or reading something totally unrelated to their research. And you never know when you might discover something totally relevant and critical to what you're doing.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Does anyone know of a software that can read journal articles out loud? I thought I could do this when I am driving in the morning to work. Has anyone tried this on their cell phone?
RESPONSE A: Scan it with Foxit Phantom Pdf’s amazing engine, then u are good to go with anything u like
RESPONSE B: I'm sorry, this isn't what you asked for, but here's another suggestion for making the most out of your commute... Consider listening to a podcast or a book instead! Something fun and/or interesting, and totally unrelated to your work. I've found that starting my day off thinking about heavy work stuff gets exhausting, whereas listening to something silly or interesting improves my mood and makes me feel more energized to start the day. I don't have any sources to back me up, but I believe giving your brain breaks from your work and thinking about totally different stuff helps to keep you from burnout and stimulates you to think about things from a different perspective. Giving your brain a rest is good for your health and your work--your brain's still working on your research, still processing things, even if you don't know it! So often I hear of my colleagues having major breakthroughs or suddenly solving tough problems while doing a hobby or reading something totally unrelated to their research. And you never know when you might discover something totally relevant and critical to what you're doing.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Does anyone know of a software that can read journal articles out loud? I thought I could do this when I am driving in the morning to work. Has anyone tried this on their cell phone?
RESPONSE A: Dragon TTS
RESPONSE B: I'm sorry, this isn't what you asked for, but here's another suggestion for making the most out of your commute... Consider listening to a podcast or a book instead! Something fun and/or interesting, and totally unrelated to your work. I've found that starting my day off thinking about heavy work stuff gets exhausting, whereas listening to something silly or interesting improves my mood and makes me feel more energized to start the day. I don't have any sources to back me up, but I believe giving your brain breaks from your work and thinking about totally different stuff helps to keep you from burnout and stimulates you to think about things from a different perspective. Giving your brain a rest is good for your health and your work--your brain's still working on your research, still processing things, even if you don't know it! So often I hear of my colleagues having major breakthroughs or suddenly solving tough problems while doing a hobby or reading something totally unrelated to their research. And you never know when you might discover something totally relevant and critical to what you're doing.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How long does it take for you to read and understand a typical paper? I've been reading papers on neuroscience recently and I can (and usually have to) spend up to 3 hours just trying to understand a single 30 page paper. And that's not including data analysis sections, as I don't have the stats background to even have a chance at understanding what's going on in those. In my particular case, I have a decent knowledge of molecular neuroscience (I at least understand all the basics), but it doesn't seem to help me at all in making sense of these papers. How do you digest papers, and what do you do to make your process as efficient as possible? And does it get easier with experience, or not really?
RESPONSE A: It takes me 5 minutes to 80% understand the paper, 15 more minutes to 95% understand the paper, and 30 more minutes to >99% understand the paper. You just have to get good at deciding how much you need to understand a paper and adjust accordingly.
RESPONSE B: I have difficulty focusing on heavy reading and even take a while to read something like a long NYT article. That said, it takes me probably about an hour to read a biology paper. It does get easier over time. Eventually you can learn enough of the background that the intro is a lot of information you are already familiar with, and the discussion is a lot of ideas you could have or did come up with on your own while reading the results. There’s kind of a standard set of questions you get in the habit of asking yourself while reading that help you actually understand the paper. Mostly some version of “what does this figure mean?” and trying to relate it 5o what you already know about the topic.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: hours just trying to understand a single 30 page paper. And that's not including data analysis sections, as I don't have the stats background to even have a chance at understanding what's going on in those. In my particular case, I have a decent knowledge of molecular neuroscience (I at least understand all the basics), but it doesn't seem to help me at all in making sense of these papers. How do you digest papers, and what do you do to make your process as efficient as possible? And does it get easier with experience, or not really?
RESPONSE A: I have difficulty focusing on heavy reading and even take a while to read something like a long NYT article. That said, it takes me probably about an hour to read a biology paper. It does get easier over time. Eventually you can learn enough of the background that the intro is a lot of information you are already familiar with, and the discussion is a lot of ideas you could have or did come up with on your own while reading the results. There’s kind of a standard set of questions you get in the habit of asking yourself while reading that help you actually understand the paper. Mostly some version of “what does this figure mean?” and trying to relate it 5o what you already know about the topic.
RESPONSE B: My experience with neuroscience papers: 5 min to understand the idea, and whether I want to read the paper. 10-15 min to get the gist of it and add it to the library. But I always feel guilty after going that deep. After a 5 minutes skim, I can at least pretend that one day I'll reread the paper in depth, but after 15 min I'm pretty much done, yet of course I only understand the key messages, and maybe one caveat. For a deep read, I need somewhere between an hour and 2 hours, depending on how long the paper is, and how familiar I am with the topic / methods. 3 hours is probably on a higher end, but it can be 3 hours, if the paper is on a topic closely related to mine, from a richer lab, or something like that. I think it gets a bit easier with experience, but at least for me it is still torturous =) Good luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: I'm so nervous about my PhD interview today It's quite formal (I'm giving a presentation and I've been told to wear interview attire), so I'm pretty much bricking it right now. This is my future hanging in the balance. Several people (including a lecturer my girlfriend knows) have said it's mainly a formality. But I can't help but feel that I might screw this up and not get in. Send me words of encouragement and your own stories of PhD interviews.
RESPONSE A: Try some breathing exercises. Get into a rhythm of deep breaths. If someone has made it to the interview stage that means they're qualified (congratulations), and they're trying to get a sense of a few things: Are you a lunatic, asshole, weirdo, or someone they don't want to work around? These happen sometimes be a normal person and that won't be a problem. Are you the same person in person as you are on paper? Some people have perfect grades, then show up and can't even discuss basics of the field. Are you excited to be there? No one wants to work with someone who isn't. Can you talk about your work in a coherent manner that shows that you did it, and that you have the potential to do PhD level work? All of that being said: good luck!
RESPONSE B: This isn't your future hanging in the balance, it's just one interview. If you don't get it this time, there are plenty more to apply for. I hope it goes well, or assuming you've already had it, how did it go?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I'm so nervous about my PhD interview today It's quite formal (I'm giving a presentation and I've been told to wear interview attire), so I'm pretty much bricking it right now. This is my future hanging in the balance. Several people (including a lecturer my girlfriend knows) have said it's mainly a formality. But I can't help but feel that I might screw this up and not get in. Send me words of encouragement and your own stories of PhD interviews.
RESPONSE A: This isn't your future hanging in the balance, it's just one interview. If you don't get it this time, there are plenty more to apply for. I hope it goes well, or assuming you've already had it, how did it go?
RESPONSE B: As someone who’s sat on the admissions board for my PhD program, I can tell you that if you’ve already gotten an interview, they already want you. My own interviews were also uneventful for the most part - one of them I came down with the flu halfway through the interview weekend hardly had a voice to talk to the most important people. It all turned out okay though! Just take a deep breath and know that you’ve got this!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: I accidentally skipped my group presentation. What should I do? Since this whole covid thing happened and because of the lockdowns I slowly developed a weird sleeping habit. I basically sleep in the morning now and wake up at night, probably because of staying indoors for extended periods of time. ​ Anyway, today I had a presentation but it was in the afternoon. I was getting sleepy in the morning because that's when I usually sleep and decided ill take a nap and use my phone alarm to wake me up an hour before the presentation (it's supposed to be an online group presentation). Maybe I'm extremely unlucky idk but the alarm basically didn't go off for some reason (its a really old and shoddy phone but it's never done that before) and I basically missed the presentation. My role in the presentation was actually just the timekeeper for my group. So I'm basically supposed to make sure that my group's presentation doesn't go over 10minutes, so it's not a big role or anything, and I'm pretty sure my group managed fine without me but still I'm worried I lost a lot of marks for it or possibly failed the assignment. I never skipped a class before this whole semester, and I did a lot of other work with my group, So I def did my fair share of work before this presentation, and this isn't the norm for me. I'm not sure what to do now. I'm gonna apologize to my group and probably email my teacher but I feel kind of embarrassed telling them the truth that I was just sleeping in the morning. I'm tempted to say that my computer stopped working and that's why I couldn't present but it feels wrong doing that haha.
RESPONSE A: Nobody will believe your computer stopped working. Tell the truth. And change your sleeping schedule!
RESPONSE B: Contact your instructor. Tell the truth. Expect a zero.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: I accidentally skipped my group presentation. What should I do? Since this whole covid thing happened and because of the lockdowns I slowly developed a weird sleeping habit. I basically sleep in the morning now and wake up at night, probably because of staying indoors for extended periods of time. ​ Anyway, today I had a presentation but it was in the afternoon. I was getting sleepy in the morning because that's when I usually sleep and decided ill take a nap and use my phone alarm to wake me up an hour before the presentation (it's supposed to be an online group presentation). Maybe I'm extremely unlucky idk but the alarm basically didn't go off for some reason (its a really old and shoddy phone but it's never done that before) and I basically missed the presentation. My role in the presentation was actually just the timekeeper for my group. So I'm basically supposed to make sure that my group's presentation doesn't go over 10minutes, so it's not a big role or anything, and I'm pretty sure my group managed fine without me but still I'm worried I lost a lot of marks for it or possibly failed the assignment. I never skipped a class before this whole semester, and I did a lot of other work with my group, So I def did my fair share of work before this presentation, and this isn't the norm for me. I'm not sure what to do now. I'm gonna apologize to my group and probably email my teacher but I feel kind of embarrassed telling them the truth that I was just sleeping in the morning. I'm tempted to say that my computer stopped working and that's why I couldn't present but it feels wrong doing that haha.
RESPONSE A: You changed your schedule to sleep during the time when you have obligations ? And you are now thinking about lying about it rather than address the problem? And you all wonder why we are monsters and require documentation
RESPONSE B: We know when students are lying. Tell the truth. Change your sleeping schedule.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: I accidentally skipped my group presentation. What should I do? Since this whole covid thing happened and because of the lockdowns I slowly developed a weird sleeping habit. I basically sleep in the morning now and wake up at night, probably because of staying indoors for extended periods of time. ​ Anyway, today I had a presentation but it was in the afternoon. I was getting sleepy in the morning because that's when I usually sleep and decided ill take a nap and use my phone alarm to wake me up an hour before the presentation (it's supposed to be an online group presentation). Maybe I'm extremely unlucky idk but the alarm basically didn't go off for some reason (its a really old and shoddy phone but it's never done that before) and I basically missed the presentation. My role in the presentation was actually just the timekeeper for my group. So I'm basically supposed to make sure that my group's presentation doesn't go over 10minutes, so it's not a big role or anything, and I'm pretty sure my group managed fine without me but still I'm worried I lost a lot of marks for it or possibly failed the assignment. I never skipped a class before this whole semester, and I did a lot of other work with my group, So I def did my fair share of work before this presentation, and this isn't the norm for me. I'm not sure what to do now. I'm gonna apologize to my group and probably email my teacher but I feel kind of embarrassed telling them the truth that I was just sleeping in the morning. I'm tempted to say that my computer stopped working and that's why I couldn't present but it feels wrong doing that haha.
RESPONSE A: Don't lie. You don't have to tell them every detail, but I think it's important to take the responsibility. If you don't want to tell them that you slept, say something like you forgot the appointing or you mismanaged your schedule.
RESPONSE B: We know when students are lying. Tell the truth. Change your sleeping schedule.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: up at night, probably because of staying indoors for extended periods of time. ​ Anyway, today I had a presentation but it was in the afternoon. I was getting sleepy in the morning because that's when I usually sleep and decided ill take a nap and use my phone alarm to wake me up an hour before the presentation (it's supposed to be an online group presentation). Maybe I'm extremely unlucky idk but the alarm basically didn't go off for some reason (its a really old and shoddy phone but it's never done that before) and I basically missed the presentation. My role in the presentation was actually just the timekeeper for my group. So I'm basically supposed to make sure that my group's presentation doesn't go over 10minutes, so it's not a big role or anything, and I'm pretty sure my group managed fine without me but still I'm worried I lost a lot of marks for it or possibly failed the assignment. I never skipped a class before this whole semester, and I did a lot of other work with my group, So I def did my fair share of work before this presentation, and this isn't the norm for me. I'm not sure what to do now. I'm gonna apologize to my group and probably email my teacher but I feel kind of embarrassed telling them the truth that I was just sleeping in the morning. I'm tempted to say that my computer stopped working and that's why I couldn't present but it feels wrong doing that haha.
RESPONSE A: It's probably fine, but careful with too much detail. Your story is likely to be true, but all that detail makes me a bit doubtful. "Covid...Sleep Schedule...Unlucky..For some reason my alarm didn't..." Yeah okay. "Sorry I missed the presentation, can I make it up somehow?" is fine.
RESPONSE B: Don't lie. You don't have to tell them every detail, but I think it's important to take the responsibility. If you don't want to tell them that you slept, say something like you forgot the appointing or you mismanaged your schedule.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: IEEE conference doubled fees in 8 years!?!? What can be done about it? As the title says, the conference I most like to attend went from 440 € in 2013, 650 € in 2016 to 830 € in 2022! Like.... wtf??? (all comparing early bird registration for members). How do they justify that? I know that the answer is "ask them" but... The association, such a giant one like IEEE, doesn't really have anyone I can ask to, or a public front or whatever. So... how does one protest? On top of sending like one third of the people you'd generally send. But how do I let someone "high up" that we're fed up? Who decided anyway? I mean... it's a non profit scientific, I expect them not to be price gouging...
RESPONSE A: Conference fees are decided by the general chair and organizing committee, not the IEEE. You should be able to email them or discuss at the conference. Be polite — gen chair is a difficult often thankless volunteer position. Gen chairs also don’t like raising fees — they do it to cover costs. In addition to inflation, there are now higher expectations for AV (video, livestream) that are expensive. Conferences tend to barely break even, even after tens of thousands of dollars in donations from industry. Source: I have served on many OC’s, including a flagship IEEE conference.
RESPONSE B: All membership associations are hemorrhaging members as boomers retire and younger people are less likely to join (for many reasons) so they have to make up their money elsewhere. Send the people you can afford to. Waning attendance is the only thing that will make them change their prices. Also, the 2016 to 2022 chance is barely more than inflation. The big hike happened years ago and I'd guess based on other conferences I'm familiar with that it was from holding their prices artificially low coming out of the recession and then increasing them once the economy was recovered. If this is a conference that moves around each year, the city it's in will also affect the expense of putting it on and therefore the price.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: First time interviewing for lecturer position, what should I ask? It looks like I will have the opportunity to interview for a lecturer position in the technical field at a large state school. I've never worked in a faculty position before and I'd love to know what kind of questions should I ask? What can I expect from the hiring process? I assume it is different for every school, of course, but is there any sage advice you can offer?
RESPONSE A: I would probably want to know: what the course load is, how many students in each class on average, whether you will get TA's for larger classes, how many preps per semester, will there be opportunities to develop new courses, what is the expectation in terms of other activities (committee work? advising? etc.). Edited to add that I think it's also OK to ask questions about the challenges and benefits of working with students at that particular school, and what kind of resources the college has to support students/faculty.
RESPONSE B: Assume this is a phone interview? Questions you'd ask differ between the phone interview (first date) and campus interview (second date). For the first, you want to ask open-ended questions that show you're knowledgable about the position, and know what it entails. Ie, for a lecturer position you wouldn't want to ask a lot of questions about research support, since that's not usually a large part of the position. You also want to avoid asking questions that make the people answering them uncomfortable. Asking about some big new campus initiative that the department happens to hate can be awkward.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: First time interviewing for lecturer position, what should I ask? It looks like I will have the opportunity to interview for a lecturer position in the technical field at a large state school. I've never worked in a faculty position before and I'd love to know what kind of questions should I ask? What can I expect from the hiring process? I assume it is different for every school, of course, but is there any sage advice you can offer?
RESPONSE A: I would probably want to know: what the course load is, how many students in each class on average, whether you will get TA's for larger classes, how many preps per semester, will there be opportunities to develop new courses, what is the expectation in terms of other activities (committee work? advising? etc.). Edited to add that I think it's also OK to ask questions about the challenges and benefits of working with students at that particular school, and what kind of resources the college has to support students/faculty.
RESPONSE B: I'm a grad student, but I've sat on a hiring committee for my department. There were a lot of good candidates, and so much of the conversation to distinguish equally qualified individuals surrounded perceived "fit" to the position. Asking questions to establish what sorts of qualities are valued in the department would be helpful for honing the second interview. While I don't think it makes sense to make it a focus, it might be wise to simply ask what it's like being an academic in the town you're applying to work in. Showing that you're interested in sticking around long term can be helpful.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How to effectively follow the publications in my field? As a graduate student, I'm wondering what is the best way to follow the new publications in my field. There are maybe 10 or so key journal that are likely to publish science relevant to my own research. We don't have the physical subscriptions of most of these journals, so I'll need to do this online. Should I just periodically check the journal webpages, or do most journals or big publishers (like Elsevier) offer some kind of a subscription-based service, such as RSS feeds or even e-mail alerts?
RESPONSE A: If I can reasonably browse through everything the journal puts online in a day I just throw them into an RSS feed.
RESPONSE B: Most journals offer e-mail Table of Contents alerts on their homepages at the publishers' website. You can also set up rss feeds that will alert you to new articles that match any search you set up in many databases. Talk to your local subject librarian for help.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How to effectively follow the publications in my field? As a graduate student, I'm wondering what is the best way to follow the new publications in my field. There are maybe 10 or so key journal that are likely to publish science relevant to my own research. We don't have the physical subscriptions of most of these journals, so I'll need to do this online. Should I just periodically check the journal webpages, or do most journals or big publishers (like Elsevier) offer some kind of a subscription-based service, such as RSS feeds or even e-mail alerts?
RESPONSE A: RSS feeds are probably the best way to follow journals, but you might find that the number of articles can be a bit overwhelming at times. You might also consider setting up key word alerts through one of the journal databases, Web of Science for example. These will notify you either daily or weekly of any papers matching your search terms. RSS programs can also do this for you, but you need to already subscribe to the feed for your search to work. I'd also suggest subscribing to the review journals in your field, and of course Nature and Science.
RESPONSE B: Most journals offer e-mail Table of Contents alerts on their homepages at the publishers' website. You can also set up rss feeds that will alert you to new articles that match any search you set up in many databases. Talk to your local subject librarian for help.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How to effectively follow the publications in my field? As a graduate student, I'm wondering what is the best way to follow the new publications in my field. There are maybe 10 or so key journal that are likely to publish science relevant to my own research. We don't have the physical subscriptions of most of these journals, so I'll need to do this online. Should I just periodically check the journal webpages, or do most journals or big publishers (like Elsevier) offer some kind of a subscription-based service, such as RSS feeds or even e-mail alerts?
RESPONSE A: A couple of options: 1) google scholar can give you articles that might interest you http://googlescholar.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/scholar-updates-making-new-connections.html 2) You can usually ask the journal to give you a table of contents of each issue 3) In pubmed (myNCBI) you can pre-saved searches emailed to you on a regular basis (I typically search for key authors, but you could also use key words). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53592/
RESPONSE B: RSS feeds are probably the best way to follow journals, but you might find that the number of articles can be a bit overwhelming at times. You might also consider setting up key word alerts through one of the journal databases, Web of Science for example. These will notify you either daily or weekly of any papers matching your search terms. RSS programs can also do this for you, but you need to already subscribe to the feed for your search to work. I'd also suggest subscribing to the review journals in your field, and of course Nature and Science.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Does it hurt to have publications outside of your field of study? I am a recent graduate working as a research assistant under two PIs. One (PI A) works in my field of study, the other (PI B) does not. By the end of my tenure here I should have two or more papers out under PI A, but I also may have one or two from under PI B. Does it make a difference if some papers I am published on are not in the field I intend to go to grad school in? Or is it a more papers is better regardless of the field situation?
RESPONSE A: It absolutely does not hurt. Will it help in the short term in applying to grad schools? It probably depends how far apart the fields are. If they're, say, biology and physics, I'd say it's still a net plus to have the extra article. If, on the other hand, they're history and chemistry, then the practical benefits are not so clear. It's not something that'll get you into graduate school, but it might break a tie. In the long term, this is surely a good thing. The more different ways you have of looking at the world, the better off you are in any field of study.
RESPONSE B: if those papers are completely irrelevant to your field, it is likely not to matter. but in any case, I don't see why it would hurt.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Does it hurt to have publications outside of your field of study? I am a recent graduate working as a research assistant under two PIs. One (PI A) works in my field of study, the other (PI B) does not. By the end of my tenure here I should have two or more papers out under PI A, but I also may have one or two from under PI B. Does it make a difference if some papers I am published on are not in the field I intend to go to grad school in? Or is it a more papers is better regardless of the field situation?
RESPONSE A: in rare cases I can see someone at an elite department thinking you aren't serious enough about the field. Other than that, productivity is productivity. So long as you still produce in your main field, there shouldn't be any problems.
RESPONSE B: It absolutely does not hurt. Will it help in the short term in applying to grad schools? It probably depends how far apart the fields are. If they're, say, biology and physics, I'd say it's still a net plus to have the extra article. If, on the other hand, they're history and chemistry, then the practical benefits are not so clear. It's not something that'll get you into graduate school, but it might break a tie. In the long term, this is surely a good thing. The more different ways you have of looking at the world, the better off you are in any field of study.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Does it hurt to have publications outside of your field of study? I am a recent graduate working as a research assistant under two PIs. One (PI A) works in my field of study, the other (PI B) does not. By the end of my tenure here I should have two or more papers out under PI A, but I also may have one or two from under PI B. Does it make a difference if some papers I am published on are not in the field I intend to go to grad school in? Or is it a more papers is better regardless of the field situation?
RESPONSE A: in rare cases I can see someone at an elite department thinking you aren't serious enough about the field. Other than that, productivity is productivity. So long as you still produce in your main field, there shouldn't be any problems.
RESPONSE B: Does not hurt. If anything will help by showing productivity and ability to see a project through to publication.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What are the most common barriers to having a good record of publications? I'm very interested in what might keep academics from doing quality research and having it published. For example, is it more an issue of not being able to intuit where the body of current research in a field might be leading (i.e., generating good ideas)? Or is it difficulty in getting grants or other sources of funding? Or in actually carrying out studies successfully? Or in writing them up at a publication-worthy level? Or something else? I realize stumbling blocks can occur at any of these steps, but I'm curious to hear which ones are regarded as most common.
RESPONSE A: All of the above.
RESPONSE B: IMO, it's mainly funding, staff and time. I think there are issues in the other areas (generating publishable ideas, writing), but those are less common than the others.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What are the most common barriers to having a good record of publications? I'm very interested in what might keep academics from doing quality research and having it published. For example, is it more an issue of not being able to intuit where the body of current research in a field might be leading (i.e., generating good ideas)? Or is it difficulty in getting grants or other sources of funding? Or in actually carrying out studies successfully? Or in writing them up at a publication-worthy level? Or something else? I realize stumbling blocks can occur at any of these steps, but I'm curious to hear which ones are regarded as most common.
RESPONSE A: Sometimes the rich get richer. You get on a good research path, and the publications just start happening because there's a logical flow of what to do next, where to draw the line on a paper and publish, and how to make it appealing and exciting. Sometimes people are just better networkers than you are, and have the political tact to understand the "long game". Playing give-and-take is a tough aspect of science to learn; you have to convince people to do work on your projects for mid-authorship, while you give work to them in exchange for mid-authorship. Sometimes people get ass-lucky, or come in the lab at just the right time, or get a fellowship and have more dedicated time. Other people are better at starting to write papers as soon as they start the labwork. I guess what I'm saying is that there are a lot of ways to be successful in publishing, and you can certainly control some of them.
RESPONSE B: All of the above.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I have a Masters degree in (non-biological) engineering. What steps should I take to eventually get a PhD in biology? Since I graduated college, I’ve sort of realized that I’m much more interested in biology than I am in engineering. I’ve been self-studying a lot recently, but that’s obviously no substitute for a four year degree. I live in the US, so for financial reasons I’d prefer not to have to pay for another four years of school. I really have no idea how to go about convincing somebody that I’m worthy of studying biology without having a biology degree. Is this even possible? Anyone do anything similar?
RESPONSE A: It would all depend on what biology route you want to take (biology is a big subject), depending on the sub-branch of biology (e.g. ecology, biochemistry) and type of biologist (e.g. lab, field, computational) you want to be. The other thing to consider is using your engineering background to help answer biological questions. I've seen great work by engineers to develop tracking systems for insects for example.
RESPONSE B: I think you'll have an easier time getting into an MS than a PhD if your transcript is very light on biology courses, but once you get a thesis-based MS, you'll no longer be at a disadvantage for PhD programs. Contrary to the other poster, I don't see you being able to get hired as a lab tech without a biology degree due to the oversaturation of biology BS holders vying for those jobs. Your exact next steps depend on what exactly you have on your transcript and exactly what area of biology you're interested in. If you have literally nothing relevant beyond bio bio 101, I don't see how you get out of taking some college-level bio courses and labs to at least do the sophomore and upper division courses of the field you're interested in. You're also in a unique enough situation that it may be worth picking a few MS programs in your state and asking to have a conversation with the MS program director to get their guidance on how you become a candidate they could admit into their program.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I have a Masters degree in (non-biological) engineering. What steps should I take to eventually get a PhD in biology? Since I graduated college, I’ve sort of realized that I’m much more interested in biology than I am in engineering. I’ve been self-studying a lot recently, but that’s obviously no substitute for a four year degree. I live in the US, so for financial reasons I’d prefer not to have to pay for another four years of school. I really have no idea how to go about convincing somebody that I’m worthy of studying biology without having a biology degree. Is this even possible? Anyone do anything similar?
RESPONSE A: It would all depend on what biology route you want to take (biology is a big subject), depending on the sub-branch of biology (e.g. ecology, biochemistry) and type of biologist (e.g. lab, field, computational) you want to be. The other thing to consider is using your engineering background to help answer biological questions. I've seen great work by engineers to develop tracking systems for insects for example.
RESPONSE B: Depending on your specific engineering background and specific biology interest you could be try for bioinformatics fields. Understanding command line would put you miles ahead of a typical person with a Biology BS.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: program, I'd be hoping to gain an assistant professor position when I'm 40-42. The supervisor's advice was doing so is usually difficult but still possible at that age because universities prefer to hire people around the age of 30 for such positions. I'm wondering, what have others' experiences been who were about the same age? Is there anything I can do to help position myself as well as possible while I'm in my program, assuming they accept me of course? For reference, I'd be studying at a Canadian university of about 30,000 students in public policy. Happy to hear any thoughts!
RESPONSE A: The job market is a monster to begin with. Being on the market in your forties is less of an issue than the fact that there are so few jobs. Regarding age specifically, my school often hires more mature candidates; they have more teaching and life experience. We just hired someone in their late fifties as an assistant prof.
RESPONSE B: I’m in a similar position to you - I got my first master’s at 26, taught at a community college, and started my PhD at 34. I’m currently finishing it part time while a community college faculty member, I’m 40, and I expect to finish around age 41 or 42, and then I want to move on to a 4-year school (I’m burning out on pure teaching). I’ve had a couple interviews and they went pretty well, but no offers due to being too far from done. The places were quite enthusiastic about my extensive teaching experience though, and I’m guessing you have other benefits from your own experience that you can “sell” them on. I’m also really looking for somewhere I can settle down for the remainder of my career, while if a school hires someone early career they risk losing them to a better offer or wanderlust. When I was applying for community college jobs at age 26, my youth definitely worked against me then. I had hiring committees outright ask me questions like “since you look so young, how do you control a classroom?” Now I think I have a good mix of looking youthful for people who are biased towards youth, but a solid CV and confidence for people who are biased against youth and equate it with a lack of experience or skill.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: I found a textbook that copied directly from another source. What should I do? I was studying coding for qualitative research, and I was referring to a textbook. I also looked for sources online, and I found an online copy of the book "The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers" by Saldaa. I discovered that the textbook I was using copied several paragraphs from Saldaa without citing the reference! The textbook was recently published, around 2016. What should I do? Should I report it to the author?
RESPONSE A: Whoa. That’s dumb of them. Are you sure you found a legit copy of the Saldana book?
RESPONSE B: Report it to the publisher and author of the original book and include the sections in question.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What advise would you give to a young/aspiring academic? If you could give one piece of advice to a young academic, what would it be? Anything from career advice, research resources, things you wish you'd known etc. I'm currently finishing a masters and about to start PhD and I'm very eager to hear what people have to say (I'm studying a humanities subject in the UK, if that makes any difference). Thanks!
RESPONSE A: Avoid becoming co investigator in research projects especially ran by full professors. If you do you will end up doing all the work and they will take the credit. You won’t get promoted unless you are the Principal Investigator.
RESPONSE B: Have a back-up plan. I know when you're starting out that that isn't what you want to hear, but it's better to be prepared for the worst. I've seen so many people who became disillusioned (for a variety of reasons) and then really struggled because they were set on academia. Be wary of writing reviews for journals until you're near the end. It might seem like a good idea to pad the CV and boost your list of pubs, but it can do more harm than good. Edit: not to say to never write reviews, of course, but don't write them for the sake of writing them. Find a work routine that works *for you*. Academia is flexible, which can be brilliant, but it can also be tough to follow the advice to work 9-5 if your department/institution/academic circle regularly schedule events at 8pm. Treat it like a full-time job, absolutely, give yourself breaks, give yourself time off, but make sure the routine works. You'll be less productive if you have to force a routine than if you find a rhythm that suits. If you're going to be looking at manuscripts, figure out where your closest facsimiles are, or where digital copies are. Nothing is worse than trying to book an appointment to view something and having the archive tell you it's under restoration for the next three years.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What advise would you give to a young/aspiring academic? If you could give one piece of advice to a young academic, what would it be? Anything from career advice, research resources, things you wish you'd known etc. I'm currently finishing a masters and about to start PhD and I'm very eager to hear what people have to say (I'm studying a humanities subject in the UK, if that makes any difference). Thanks!
RESPONSE A: Don’t do it
RESPONSE B: Be careful in thinking that the commentary you see on internet message boards/social media is broadly representative.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What advise would you give to a young/aspiring academic? If you could give one piece of advice to a young academic, what would it be? Anything from career advice, research resources, things you wish you'd known etc. I'm currently finishing a masters and about to start PhD and I'm very eager to hear what people have to say (I'm studying a humanities subject in the UK, if that makes any difference). Thanks!
RESPONSE A: Don’t do it
RESPONSE B: Have a really good hard look at your financial future. Make an informed decision about the future. Don't only take academics's options. They are necessarily affected by survivor bias. Some things to consider: * Are you really sure you're mentally ready for doing a PhD? * It will take 3-5 years to finish a PhD during which time you will save effectively nothing. What is the true cost of this time from a salary/life time earning perspecive? Remember how quickly inflation is rising and housing and other costs will be running away from you during this time. * What is realistic chance of getting your dream job in academia (hint, it's probably lower than you think). If you do get your dream job, what is the realistic salary you can earn? How does this compare to where you'd be above if you'd worked for 5 years? How does that affect your long term life goals? * What are your thoughts on family/having children? How will this be affected (hint: keep in mind that academic jobs typically involve you moving to where the work is, and are usually short term contracts). I'm not trying to be negative, just want you to have a very realistic picture of what you're getting yourself into. If you're happy with that picture, then that's a wonderful outcome. Too many people go in blind and come out bitter, resentful and or with deep mental health issues.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What advise would you give to a young/aspiring academic? If you could give one piece of advice to a young academic, what would it be? Anything from career advice, research resources, things you wish you'd known etc. I'm currently finishing a masters and about to start PhD and I'm very eager to hear what people have to say (I'm studying a humanities subject in the UK, if that makes any difference). Thanks!
RESPONSE A: I'm going to simply emphasise something others have said because I think it needs to be emphasised more: cross bridges, develop skills that allow you to talk to multiple communities. If you're studying a humanities subject, pair it with something else to create a niche skillset. I've just been on two projects for example where we would have killed to find a corpus linguist with programming skills and some understanding of modern natural language processing. You'd think such a skillset would be easy to find but it's not, people stay in their little world and specialise more and more until they make themselves useless except for the most niche position possible.
RESPONSE B: Don’t do it
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What advise would you give to a young/aspiring academic? If you could give one piece of advice to a young academic, what would it be? Anything from career advice, research resources, things you wish you'd known etc. I'm currently finishing a masters and about to start PhD and I'm very eager to hear what people have to say (I'm studying a humanities subject in the UK, if that makes any difference). Thanks!
RESPONSE A: Know how to advocate for yourself. You'll be expected to do more work for less, and sometimes you can't do anything about it. But, there are also instances where you need to be clear and firm with your expectations and communicate that with your supervisor/peers/etc. My current supervisor is a Full Professor, and I've definitely noticed how he fills his days with endless meetings, and puts his name on everything, but does little to no actual research himself. I noticed he was prolonging my current project beyond what I was originally told, and I had to finally speak up and tell him how this was affecting my life; my inability to work now, the potential impact on my next program, etc.
RESPONSE B: I'm going to simply emphasise something others have said because I think it needs to be emphasised more: cross bridges, develop skills that allow you to talk to multiple communities. If you're studying a humanities subject, pair it with something else to create a niche skillset. I've just been on two projects for example where we would have killed to find a corpus linguist with programming skills and some understanding of modern natural language processing. You'd think such a skillset would be easy to find but it's not, people stay in their little world and specialise more and more until they make themselves useless except for the most niche position possible.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Do you have an academic blog? If so, how do you use it? Hey everyone, I'm thinking of making myself an academic blog. I'm in psychology (specifically language and cognitive development in early childhood) and I will be applying for PhD programs for 2020 entry. I was just wondering what kind of things you normally post and any advice you might have for someone just starting out. Thanks in advance!
RESPONSE A: I'm part of a group of faculty at my university who self-identify as public intellectuals. We all write for general audiences and are regularly published in newspapers, magazines, and/or appear on broadcast media. Several of us have blogs and are active on Twitter as well. About five years ago we also established a collaborative blog where we rotate writing long-form posts every two weeks, so we produce about 25 posts a year with (currently) six authors. Each of us writes from her/his broad areas of specialization but we comment on current events, politics, culture, etc.-- the purpose being to make our academic training and perspectives accessible to general audiences. It's not been wildly successful but most columns tend to draw a few thousand hits and we have a base of regular readers. Soon after we started invitations for public speaking engagements started coming in to the group (we'd all done them before as well) so we started doing panel presentations where 2-4 of us would speak on a common issue from our perspective, then do a long Q&A with the audience. Those typically draw 100-200 people and we promote the blog there, which brings in new readers as well. Most are done at local churches, senior centers, or for service organizations.
RESPONSE B: Also interested in this
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Do you have an academic blog? If so, how do you use it? Hey everyone, I'm thinking of making myself an academic blog. I'm in psychology (specifically language and cognitive development in early childhood) and I will be applying for PhD programs for 2020 entry. I was just wondering what kind of things you normally post and any advice you might have for someone just starting out. Thanks in advance!
RESPONSE A: A listed of selective bloggers https://xykademiqz.com/blogroll-2/ including itself.
RESPONSE B: I'm part of a group of faculty at my university who self-identify as public intellectuals. We all write for general audiences and are regularly published in newspapers, magazines, and/or appear on broadcast media. Several of us have blogs and are active on Twitter as well. About five years ago we also established a collaborative blog where we rotate writing long-form posts every two weeks, so we produce about 25 posts a year with (currently) six authors. Each of us writes from her/his broad areas of specialization but we comment on current events, politics, culture, etc.-- the purpose being to make our academic training and perspectives accessible to general audiences. It's not been wildly successful but most columns tend to draw a few thousand hits and we have a base of regular readers. Soon after we started invitations for public speaking engagements started coming in to the group (we'd all done them before as well) so we started doing panel presentations where 2-4 of us would speak on a common issue from our perspective, then do a long Q&A with the audience. Those typically draw 100-200 people and we promote the blog there, which brings in new readers as well. Most are done at local churches, senior centers, or for service organizations.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Do you have an academic blog? If so, how do you use it? Hey everyone, I'm thinking of making myself an academic blog. I'm in psychology (specifically language and cognitive development in early childhood) and I will be applying for PhD programs for 2020 entry. I was just wondering what kind of things you normally post and any advice you might have for someone just starting out. Thanks in advance!
RESPONSE A: I have played with the idea and not done it. You can make a blog and post something every few weeks, in which case it's more an exercise for yourself or public diary thing. But if you want to have someone actually read and follow your blog, you'll need to build up a readership and entertain it, network in the blogosphere etc. As much as I'd like to blurt out opinions every now and then, I don't want to put energy into it and have no readers. But I also can't put enough energy into it to have it be a serious endeavor. ​ Not telling you you shouldn't do it (my favorite is https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/, an organic chemist in the medchem industry posting about both academic and industrial topics) but just alerting you that you'd better think about what your goals are, how much time you want to dedicate to it, and how much you expect out of it.
RESPONSE B: A listed of selective bloggers https://xykademiqz.com/blogroll-2/ including itself.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What's with all the male biology professors and their long hair?? It might just be my own experience, but I did notice that most of my biology professors that are men (i.e. neurobiology, embryology, microbiology, etc.) had long hair. And I mean long enough to make a pony tail. My chemistry and physics teachers all had the usual short hair thing going on. So why is this so specific to the biology department? I'm not judging or poking fun, hell every single one of them rocked that lion's mane as far as I'm concerned, but it did raised my curiosity.
RESPONSE A: I’ve noticed the same thing! If anyone knows the answer please let us know
RESPONSE B: weed and rock music duh lol
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is it still worth trying to become a professor? I'm an undergraduate student in the U.S. double majoring in European Languages and History, and I'm on track to graduate in the spring of 2021. For years, my plan has been to work towards an eventual professorship. To that end, I spoke with one of my advisers about the viability of my career goals, and his answer was disheartening to say the least. To him, seeking a professorship is no longer a realistic career option for hardly anyone. He cited decreased funding and enrollment as major factors and sees a downward trend in available jobs. While he recommended law school, archive studies, or library science as possible alternatives, none of them have quite the same appeal to me. I was wondering what the general consensus of academics is on the state of graduate studies and professorships? My plan was to work towards a masters in theology with an eventual PhD in either theology or Church history, but my adviser believes that at this point a masters/PhD is only worth pursuing as a factor of another job (such as a masters in history along with archive sciences) or as a means of self-fulfillment. I think I will likely still pursue at least my masters, but find it hard to plan for if it isn't career-oriented. I know this is a general question, but any thoughts on the practicality of graduate school and the nature of the university job market would be greatly appreciated.
RESPONSE A: Will you be able to get into an Ivy, Oxbridge or equivalent stature program for your doctorate? If so, you will merely have a miserable time trying to find a job, 50/50 you give up before you do. If you will not be able to get into the very highest tier programs for your field, the odds of you ever being employed full time as a professor are worse than winning the lottery.
RESPONSE B: I hate to be the bearer of more bad news, but my understanding is that the alternatives he suggested are all near dead ends as well, and you have to actually pay for those degrees. Do your research.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: European Languages and History, and I'm on track to graduate in the spring of 2021. For years, my plan has been to work towards an eventual professorship. To that end, I spoke with one of my advisers about the viability of my career goals, and his answer was disheartening to say the least. To him, seeking a professorship is no longer a realistic career option for hardly anyone. He cited decreased funding and enrollment as major factors and sees a downward trend in available jobs. While he recommended law school, archive studies, or library science as possible alternatives, none of them have quite the same appeal to me. I was wondering what the general consensus of academics is on the state of graduate studies and professorships? My plan was to work towards a masters in theology with an eventual PhD in either theology or Church history, but my adviser believes that at this point a masters/PhD is only worth pursuing as a factor of another job (such as a masters in history along with archive sciences) or as a means of self-fulfillment. I think I will likely still pursue at least my masters, but find it hard to plan for if it isn't career-oriented. I know this is a general question, but any thoughts on the practicality of graduate school and the nature of the university job market would be greatly appreciated.
RESPONSE A: Will you be able to get into an Ivy, Oxbridge or equivalent stature program for your doctorate? If so, you will merely have a miserable time trying to find a job, 50/50 you give up before you do. If you will not be able to get into the very highest tier programs for your field, the odds of you ever being employed full time as a professor are worse than winning the lottery.
RESPONSE B: Tenure position now are already extremely hard to get, even for STEM disciplines, not including future economic depression after this pandemic. I would really recommend you to look for a job. Depression is not a good time to pursue your dream. Unless, of course, if you are extremely good, strait IVY from undergrad to PhD, big name professors, shining publications, CV loaded with awards.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: religion for HOURS. It's the only subject I really enjoy and rarely get tired of. I also love to teach and discuss this topic with other people. So I'm thinking about majoring in religious studies and working towards becoming a professor. 1. Is the road to becoming a professor worth the time & money if you really love the subject? 2. How difficult is it to find work in this discipline? 3. Is there any benefit to teaching overseas rather than the US?
RESPONSE A: >How difficult is it to find work in this discipline? Not speaking from experience, but my understanding is that this is the sticking point. The number of applicants greatly outstrips job openings. I would expect that many, if not most, professors think it was worth it; however, you should also consider the people who tried and failed. If doing a PhD is only worth it if you become a professor, don't do it. The PhD should be a satisfactory goal in and of itself.
RESPONSE B: Watch out for "survivorship bias." This is where you only look at the experience of the people who "succeeded." Any existing, successful person in any field is going to tell you it was worth it and tell you that the things they did are what lead to their success. More and more research is showing that they are wrong. Thousands of people will have done the exact same thing but failed. So, luck is really the primary factor in success. Yes, even over hard work. That said, you can't make use of any luck if you aren't properly positioned to do so. So, do your PhD. Work hard. Make sure to become as much a part of the learning community as possible. Help anyone who needs it. Don't be afraid to ask for help. Then, after all that, accept that this can not guarantee that you will become a professor. Perhaps you will write a great book instead. Perhaps you will figure out how to reduce the number of people who become radicalized within whatever belief system they hold. Perhaps you will become a well loved minister in a small church, who preaches understanding of all religions. As long as you continue to do good work, wherever you land you will feel you are lucky to be there.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Is the road to becoming a college professor worth it? I'm a college undergrad and I LOVE religious studies. Even on my downtime I do lots of research in the area and I could talk religion for HOURS. It's the only subject I really enjoy and rarely get tired of. I also love to teach and discuss this topic with other people. So I'm thinking about majoring in religious studies and working towards becoming a professor. 1. Is the road to becoming a professor worth the time & money if you really love the subject? 2. How difficult is it to find work in this discipline? 3. Is there any benefit to teaching overseas rather than the US?
RESPONSE A: No. Jobs in the humanities are declining, the number of PhDs in the humanities rising, which results in a large number of qualified, passionate, and competitive applicants for a handful of jobs. Last year I applied for a position only to find out I was one of 1,400 other applicants. While most job postings don't get quite that many- average in my field seems to be about 400 - the numbers are staggering considering there were only about 20 positions advertised in my area last year. Even if you really love the field, to put in the work required for a PhD only to realize that the most you can hope for is to teach at a private high school is slightly soul crushing. Obviously, some people do find jobs in academia, but many don't- and those who do usually have very stressful and demanding loads placed on them until they achieve tenure. I imagine most early career professors, post-docs, and PhD candidates would strongly advise against pursuing a PhD in the humanities right now.
RESPONSE B: I began teaching as an adjunct in a small community. I loved teaching so much I went for my Masters. What shocked me was how much teaching was basically shoved into the background as an afterthought at a larger university. There it's all research, writing & publishing. Professors often turn over teaching duties to TAs so they can focus on research. If you really want to just teach, you need to look into the rare teaching-focused colleges or even community college, or just adjunct with a Masters and get a good day job instead.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is the road to becoming a college professor worth it? I'm a college undergrad and I LOVE religious studies. Even on my downtime I do lots of research in the area and I could talk religion for HOURS. It's the only subject I really enjoy and rarely get tired of. I also love to teach and discuss this topic with other people. So I'm thinking about majoring in religious studies and working towards becoming a professor. 1. Is the road to becoming a professor worth the time & money if you really love the subject? 2. How difficult is it to find work in this discipline? 3. Is there any benefit to teaching overseas rather than the US?
RESPONSE A: Generally speaking, probably not. You could, of course, be an exception, but you will be competing against many equally qualified people for a very small number of tenure-track positions. Google 'humanities PhD jobs' or something along those lines to check out the (many) news pieces on how difficult it is to find employment as a professor in the humanities.
RESPONSE B: No. Jobs in the humanities are declining, the number of PhDs in the humanities rising, which results in a large number of qualified, passionate, and competitive applicants for a handful of jobs. Last year I applied for a position only to find out I was one of 1,400 other applicants. While most job postings don't get quite that many- average in my field seems to be about 400 - the numbers are staggering considering there were only about 20 positions advertised in my area last year. Even if you really love the field, to put in the work required for a PhD only to realize that the most you can hope for is to teach at a private high school is slightly soul crushing. Obviously, some people do find jobs in academia, but many don't- and those who do usually have very stressful and demanding loads placed on them until they achieve tenure. I imagine most early career professors, post-docs, and PhD candidates would strongly advise against pursuing a PhD in the humanities right now.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is the road to becoming a college professor worth it? I'm a college undergrad and I LOVE religious studies. Even on my downtime I do lots of research in the area and I could talk religion for HOURS. It's the only subject I really enjoy and rarely get tired of. I also love to teach and discuss this topic with other people. So I'm thinking about majoring in religious studies and working towards becoming a professor. 1. Is the road to becoming a professor worth the time & money if you really love the subject? 2. How difficult is it to find work in this discipline? 3. Is there any benefit to teaching overseas rather than the US?
RESPONSE A: I began teaching as an adjunct in a small community. I loved teaching so much I went for my Masters. What shocked me was how much teaching was basically shoved into the background as an afterthought at a larger university. There it's all research, writing & publishing. Professors often turn over teaching duties to TAs so they can focus on research. If you really want to just teach, you need to look into the rare teaching-focused colleges or even community college, or just adjunct with a Masters and get a good day job instead.
RESPONSE B: No, I don't think it is worth it at all.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is the road to becoming a college professor worth it? I'm a college undergrad and I LOVE religious studies. Even on my downtime I do lots of research in the area and I could talk religion for HOURS. It's the only subject I really enjoy and rarely get tired of. I also love to teach and discuss this topic with other people. So I'm thinking about majoring in religious studies and working towards becoming a professor. 1. Is the road to becoming a professor worth the time & money if you really love the subject? 2. How difficult is it to find work in this discipline? 3. Is there any benefit to teaching overseas rather than the US?
RESPONSE A: Generally speaking, probably not. You could, of course, be an exception, but you will be competing against many equally qualified people for a very small number of tenure-track positions. Google 'humanities PhD jobs' or something along those lines to check out the (many) news pieces on how difficult it is to find employment as a professor in the humanities.
RESPONSE B: No, I don't think it is worth it at all.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How tough is it to become a professor after completing a PhD? I love academia and am considering starting my PhD next year (in something related to political satire or media), with the medium-term goal of becoming a full-time professor. Not sure how the employment scenario is at that intersection. Is it really hard to get jobs as professors? Any tips would be really appreciated!
RESPONSE A: In addition to what everyone else has already said, be cautious about "I love academia" as a reason. It is highly likely that you have a rather skewed view of what academia is really like. You may well love *your idea of academia*, but that is not necessarily the same thing as loving the reality of academia.
RESPONSE B: What's your long term goal? You say becoming a professor is your medium term goal, but I would say in most cases where it isn't your long term goal you should not go for an academic career. That doesn't mean you shouldn't go for a PhD though, depending on your LT goal.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How tough is it to become a professor after completing a PhD? I love academia and am considering starting my PhD next year (in something related to political satire or media), with the medium-term goal of becoming a full-time professor. Not sure how the employment scenario is at that intersection. Is it really hard to get jobs as professors? Any tips would be really appreciated!
RESPONSE A: In addition to what everyone else has already said, be cautious about "I love academia" as a reason. It is highly likely that you have a rather skewed view of what academia is really like. You may well love *your idea of academia*, but that is not necessarily the same thing as loving the reality of academia.
RESPONSE B: Stupid hard
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How tough is it to become a professor after completing a PhD? I love academia and am considering starting my PhD next year (in something related to political satire or media), with the medium-term goal of becoming a full-time professor. Not sure how the employment scenario is at that intersection. Is it really hard to get jobs as professors? Any tips would be really appreciated!
RESPONSE A: What's your long term goal? You say becoming a professor is your medium term goal, but I would say in most cases where it isn't your long term goal you should not go for an academic career. That doesn't mean you shouldn't go for a PhD though, depending on your LT goal.
RESPONSE B: It’s incredibly difficult and getting worse. We usually get about 200 applications for a tenure-track line. In my corner of the field there are about 450 professors working nationally, which is about the same number of players in the NBA. It’s brutally competitive and depends on a lot of factors beyond your control.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How tough is it to become a professor after completing a PhD? I love academia and am considering starting my PhD next year (in something related to political satire or media), with the medium-term goal of becoming a full-time professor. Not sure how the employment scenario is at that intersection. Is it really hard to get jobs as professors? Any tips would be really appreciated!
RESPONSE A: Stupid hard
RESPONSE B: It’s incredibly difficult and getting worse. We usually get about 200 applications for a tenure-track line. In my corner of the field there are about 450 professors working nationally, which is about the same number of players in the NBA. It’s brutally competitive and depends on a lot of factors beyond your control.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How big of a deal is it to become a full professor with tenure? Also does full professor = tenure?
RESPONSE A: My advisor said it’s comparable to becoming a partner at a law firm
RESPONSE B: Someone answering this for the UK would be nice thank you
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How big of a deal is it to become a full professor with tenure? Also does full professor = tenure?
RESPONSE A: USA Full professor with tenure is technically the highest rank you can achieve as a regular faculty member at most American universities. Some systems create further tiers, though...Full Profesor I, Full Profesor II. Then some people get a named professorship or endowed chair as well. Your status rises even further. Separately, some faculty pursue administration – – typically after getting tenure as an associate professor or waiting until after they become a full professor. At least traditionally most senior administration on the campus come from faculty backgrounds and they are tenured faculty
RESPONSE B: Someone answering this for the UK would be nice thank you
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: full professor = tenure?
RESPONSE A: Full is something quite a bit different from associate professor, though this differs between schools. Most people are granted tenure when moving from assistant to associate, so not much changes on that front when moving to full. I work at a small teaching college, and people usually go up for full once they have completed some excellent projects, be they teaching, research of service. I did work at an R1, and things were more complex there. Generally, once people went up for full they were expected to do more university service, which can pull away from research. Subsequently, a lot of people just didn't go for full. It does provide a raise, but the money isn't worth it to some people.
RESPONSE B: I am at a regional comprehensive university in the US. At my university, research is the main criteria for promotion to full professor, though not near as much as a research university. You at very least need to double your research output from tenure (i.e., promotion to associate professor). You also have to have an academic reputation outside of the university (e.g., serve on national committees, elected to leadership in academic societies, invitations to speak, edit prominent books/journals, research or teaching awards, etc.). In addition you are expected to be excellent in the classroom and have a high level of service. Even though research is emphasized, the other areas can get you as well. A person was denied last year because even though research productivity was very high, the person had a reputation of never serving on committees or doing any other service the department needed. Overall, though, faculty here have a very casual attitude about full professor. There is a great deal of anxiety about earning tenure and promotion to associate professor because if you are denied, you get fired. But since full professor is not do or die, people don't get too worked up (not saying there are not hurt feelings and grievances/appeals filed). But many faculty are okay with not trying to maintain the research output needed for full and instead focus more on teaching or service. And for those that do get full professor, people are congratulatory, but not much else changes except for a modest pay raise and getting inducted into a super secret club.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How does an ordinary person become a scientist? I am an ordinary person, is there any way I can become a scientist?
RESPONSE A: Hey. I'm not sure I understand the question. All the scientists I know are ordinary people who, for various reasons, happened to spend far too much time at University. Often because they were simply too daft to leave (this is me). Are you asking whether someone can become a scientist without all the time consuming qualifications, or are you assuming all scientists are extraordinary people? Can assure you the latter isn't true. They're as mundane as any other group of humans. Except me, obviously. I'm awesome.
RESPONSE B: Yes. Go to graduate school, obtain a PhD, and continue from there.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How does an ordinary person become a scientist? I am an ordinary person, is there any way I can become a scientist?
RESPONSE A: Hey. I'm not sure I understand the question. All the scientists I know are ordinary people who, for various reasons, happened to spend far too much time at University. Often because they were simply too daft to leave (this is me). Are you asking whether someone can become a scientist without all the time consuming qualifications, or are you assuming all scientists are extraordinary people? Can assure you the latter isn't true. They're as mundane as any other group of humans. Except me, obviously. I'm awesome.
RESPONSE B: study?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How does an ordinary person become a scientist? I am an ordinary person, is there any way I can become a scientist?
RESPONSE A: 1) BSc 2) PhD 3) ???? 4) ~~Profit~~ **Science**
RESPONSE B: study?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How does an ordinary person become a scientist? I am an ordinary person, is there any way I can become a scientist?
RESPONSE A: That depends on your current level of experience or qualifications. You'll need to start with science A-levels (or whatever the US equivalent is), that'll get you into a BSc course. With a BSc the typical route is to get a PhD, which can then get you into the Postdoc>PI>Professor academia route, or you can go into industry for the Scientist>Senior Scientist>💰💰 route. However, if you don't want to go down the PhD route, which let's be honest is pretty demanding, not just intellectually but more socially and economically, you can still stay in Science or science-adjacent jobs. There's lab technician/research assistant roles, which involve doing the day-to-day lab work but not necessarily the planning or data analysis aspects of a postdoc etc. I'm sure there are more graduate entry jobs in industry, but I don't have much experience in that area to be able to tell you. You will hit a ceiling without a PhD at some point, but it really depends what you want out of life. If you want to be a high-powered Nobel prize winning scientist then you'll need a PhD, but if you just want a 9-5 that happens to involve some science then a BSc, or maybe a Masters, would be enough. Getting a PhD isn't about having good grades or being an intellectual, it's more about making sacrifices and being dedicated to the work.
RESPONSE B: A quote from Donna Strickland, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2018, in response to the question “what does it take to be a good scientist?” She said, “to want to be a good scientist.”
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How does an ordinary person become a scientist? I am an ordinary person, is there any way I can become a scientist?
RESPONSE A: A quote from Donna Strickland, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2018, in response to the question “what does it take to be a good scientist?” She said, “to want to be a good scientist.”
RESPONSE B: Why is this under social science?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What salary to ask for when applying for a job that will be a step-down on the pay-scale? (Going from faculty to journal editor.) I have been given an opportunity to apply for a position as an editor of a prestigious journal. This will require a temporary (and maybe eventually permanent) leave from my faculty position, but the job seems like an excellent fit and I have long been interested in editorial work of this type as a new career. Right off the bat, though, they want to know my salary demands. Though I am experienced as a scholar, I have no editorial experience so I would have to start at a lower-level job, which is fine with me. I have had a lot of informational interviews about being an editor, and people really go out of their way to inform me that it will mean quite a significant cut in pay. I looked up what the average editor makes at this journal and starting salaries seem to be $65K - $70K, with senior editors making $80K - $90K. As a scholar, I imagine I am more qualified than most candidates they see, and everyone will know I make about $100K annually. I, of course, want to make as much as possible and I don't want to low-ball myself or make it seem like I don't know the potential of what I could make with my background. However, I don't want to make too big of a demand. Any advice?
RESPONSE A: In what form are they asking for this information? Is it a question on an electronic application form or something different?
RESPONSE B: I would never give a desired salary before a potential employer gives out a range. I would simply say that your salary is negotiable. You don't want to risk asking for so much they they reject you or so little that you get locked in before you have a chance to interview and make them like you. Even if the job listing asks for a salary requirement, I wouldn't give it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: The paper involved super careful simulations to try to solve one of the longest running issues of this very specific sub-field. I recommended rejection because I thought that such simulations, while technically incredibly accurate, are not addressing the issue at hand. I've later found out that also the other reviewer agreed. The editor went for a reject with option to resubmit (in a high IF journal that has also the major revision option). Now the paper is back. They've expanded a lot the already long paper. They've tripled the amount of simulations, accounting for yet other factors. But I still think it's irrelevant because the question they're asking does not relate to the issue we're trying to solve, not because there's any issue with the practical implementation. So I'd want to recommend again a rejection... But I feel bad for this large team that did a huge and accurate work. Also, I wouldn't know what to write in the review. It would be like two lines "You did a great job, but it still doesn't address anything of the two pages I wrote last time". It's true... but I feel super bad in saying something this dismissive to someone that worked this much... So... what should I do? Out of curiosity, it's an issue for which 3 years ago we internally also produced lots of data and... decided not to even write anything because we couldn't find a method that would allow any reasonable way to validate results
RESPONSE A: Why would you feel guilty about rejecting a paper that fails to prove what it claims to prove? The amount of work they did to get a wrong result is not your problem, it is the authors’ problem. Imagine a world where we accepted papers (and gave grades) based not on correctness and novelty, but on effort. I trust you see why that cannot work. It simply does not matter how much effort they put into their incorrect solution. You can acknowledge it in your review, but it cannot change the outcome.
RESPONSE B: Does this paper answer the research questions it poses? Can you reproduce these results from description? Judge paper for what it has, not for what you think it should have. If there limitations that authors admitted, it is ok, as far as the merits grant publication.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: addressing the issue at hand. I've later found out that also the other reviewer agreed. The editor went for a reject with option to resubmit (in a high IF journal that has also the major revision option). Now the paper is back. They've expanded a lot the already long paper. They've tripled the amount of simulations, accounting for yet other factors. But I still think it's irrelevant because the question they're asking does not relate to the issue we're trying to solve, not because there's any issue with the practical implementation. So I'd want to recommend again a rejection... But I feel bad for this large team that did a huge and accurate work. Also, I wouldn't know what to write in the review. It would be like two lines "You did a great job, but it still doesn't address anything of the two pages I wrote last time". It's true... but I feel super bad in saying something this dismissive to someone that worked this much... So... what should I do? Out of curiosity, it's an issue for which 3 years ago we internally also produced lots of data and... decided not to even write anything because we couldn't find a method that would allow any reasonable way to validate results
RESPONSE A: Why would you feel guilty about rejecting a paper that fails to prove what it claims to prove? The amount of work they did to get a wrong result is not your problem, it is the authors’ problem. Imagine a world where we accepted papers (and gave grades) based not on correctness and novelty, but on effort. I trust you see why that cannot work. It simply does not matter how much effort they put into their incorrect solution. You can acknowledge it in your review, but it cannot change the outcome.
RESPONSE B: Personally, I think if the model is good and the model is sound, but limited, require a discussion of the limitations . Stuff builds on other stuff, and good stuff is hardly ever totally useless. Like, is there any chance that someone can use this to expand the model to at some point deal with "the" question? But is is hard to make an unequivocal statement because I don't know how useless it is and if this could be misleading
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: also the major revision option). Now the paper is back. They've expanded a lot the already long paper. They've tripled the amount of simulations, accounting for yet other factors. But I still think it's irrelevant because the question they're asking does not relate to the issue we're trying to solve, not because there's any issue with the practical implementation. So I'd want to recommend again a rejection... But I feel bad for this large team that did a huge and accurate work. Also, I wouldn't know what to write in the review. It would be like two lines "You did a great job, but it still doesn't address anything of the two pages I wrote last time". It's true... but I feel super bad in saying something this dismissive to someone that worked this much... So... what should I do? Out of curiosity, it's an issue for which 3 years ago we internally also produced lots of data and... decided not to even write anything because we couldn't find a method that would allow any reasonable way to validate results
RESPONSE A: I don’t know what field this is in, but in my field, we have always been taught that the work and experiment is valuable, even if the results we wanted didn’t come to fruition or even prove the opposite. Main point is the professionalism and quality of work produced. Since this is so niche as you mentioned, it sounds like having this work/data accessible to others who ultimately do more work/research in the field would be extremely helpful, if for no other reason than to know of this experiment that ultimately do not address the large issue plaguing the field. Additionally, maybe others can build on their work and get closer to the solution you knowing the field needs.
RESPONSE B: Why would you feel guilty about rejecting a paper that fails to prove what it claims to prove? The amount of work they did to get a wrong result is not your problem, it is the authors’ problem. Imagine a world where we accepted papers (and gave grades) based not on correctness and novelty, but on effort. I trust you see why that cannot work. It simply does not matter how much effort they put into their incorrect solution. You can acknowledge it in your review, but it cannot change the outcome.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: did a great job, but it still doesn't address anything of the two pages I wrote last time". It's true... but I feel super bad in saying something this dismissive to someone that worked this much... So... what should I do? Out of curiosity, it's an issue for which 3 years ago we internally also produced lots of data and... decided not to even write anything because we couldn't find a method that would allow any reasonable way to validate results
RESPONSE A: Postdoc here. My boss and I recently had a chat about "reviewers fatigue". I haven't heard this term before so here it is: If your paper gets rejected with the option to resubmit, you can add a lot of pages* to that paper and resubmit. This will then go to the same reviewers who will eventually give up and choose accept hence "reviewers fatigue". I think this is what you're going through right now. We came to this subject when I was explaining how a few papers I reviewed and suggested reject got published by the editor. My boss believes that when an editor decides to send the paper for review, that's almost decision made as accept unless a reviewer points out serious flaws about the paper. This is a completely new way to think about the entire publishing process for me. This means that the reviewer's job is to make sure the paper is sound and scientifically accurate rather than deciding to accept or not. Hope this helps as another point of view. *The content in these new pages is often shitty, you'd have accepted it if the added content was good anyway. The idea here is to convince the editor they've added "new" experiments/content and aim for reviewer fatigue.
RESPONSE B: Why would you feel guilty about rejecting a paper that fails to prove what it claims to prove? The amount of work they did to get a wrong result is not your problem, it is the authors’ problem. Imagine a world where we accepted papers (and gave grades) based not on correctness and novelty, but on effort. I trust you see why that cannot work. It simply does not matter how much effort they put into their incorrect solution. You can acknowledge it in your review, but it cannot change the outcome.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Has anyone ever had that "is this really for me" moment, but persevered through? So long story short, I got denied for an opportunity at my university. It was totally an elective thing, but I was really stoked for it. I'm not going to get into the "whoa is me" shit though. Basically I'm looking for some enlightening examples of times anyone has had a moment when you wondered if your educational path was for you, but pushed through and succeeded. Help me remember why I chose this seemingly wretched path.
RESPONSE A: Well, you can't win them all and being turned down for something is a part of life. Now, if you found yourself consistently turned down for everything and unable to get funding or get positive responses to your work, that might be a time to worry. One lost opportunity though? That happens to everyone.
RESPONSE B: Three and a half years into a physics degree, I realized I hated physics. Hate is too strong a word, but I certainly had no passion for it. I took the remaining two classes and got my degree, but I jumped into chemistry grad school right after. One year of grad school was more than enough to know it wasn't a good fit. When your graduate advisor cannot once remember your name, you know it's a bad scene. So I bummed around for a few years, until one day I wandered into a biochemistry lab and asked if they had any work I could do. Long story short, a professor created a job for me, several took turns urging me to apply to graduate school, and I eventually acquiesced and found the field I love. It wasn't immediate and it took three or four diversions before I got on track, but I got on track.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Self-Plagiarism if I am publishing my undergraduate dissertation - quick question I submitted my undergraduate dissertation and now, alongside help from my supervisor, I am condensing the dissertation and trying to get it published in a journal. However I am wondering whether I need to be mindful of self-plagiarism in this situation? I submitted the original dissertation on Turnitin so it is on their database. I am rewriting certain parts of the dissertation and condensing it, but there are chunks that I have not changed at all, is that ok? ​
RESPONSE A: It’s not considered plagiarism. One is an “assignment” and the other is a journal manuscript. Good luck with the submission.
RESPONSE B: You're revising your own work-- everyone does that. My first book was a revision of my Ph.D. dissertation so probably 80% identical to the prior work. The original wasn't "published" per se (though it was bound and on the library shelf) and needn't be cited. The only time you have to cite your own prior work is if it was actually published, say as an article or book chapter.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Self-Plagiarism if I am publishing my undergraduate dissertation - quick question I submitted my undergraduate dissertation and now, alongside help from my supervisor, I am condensing the dissertation and trying to get it published in a journal. However I am wondering whether I need to be mindful of self-plagiarism in this situation? I submitted the original dissertation on Turnitin so it is on their database. I am rewriting certain parts of the dissertation and condensing it, but there are chunks that I have not changed at all, is that ok? ​
RESPONSE A: In every case I’m aware, you hold the copyright to your theses and dissertations, and as such there is no legal or ethical concern regarding plagiarism. Further, the idea of self-plagiarism is absurd. Plagiarism is the stealing or misuse of words by others. There are no ‘others’ in this case.
RESPONSE B: It’s not considered plagiarism. One is an “assignment” and the other is a journal manuscript. Good luck with the submission.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Self-Plagiarism if I am publishing my undergraduate dissertation - quick question I submitted my undergraduate dissertation and now, alongside help from my supervisor, I am condensing the dissertation and trying to get it published in a journal. However I am wondering whether I need to be mindful of self-plagiarism in this situation? I submitted the original dissertation on Turnitin so it is on their database. I am rewriting certain parts of the dissertation and condensing it, but there are chunks that I have not changed at all, is that ok? ​
RESPONSE A: I would not consider this plagiarism. It is common practice in my graduate program to publish chapters of your dissertation as peer reviewed journal articles, or use your previously published journal articles as dissertation chapters. We simply make a foot note on the first page of each chapter in the dissertation, and mention in the cover letter that a “version” of this material was included in a thesis.
RESPONSE B: It’s not considered plagiarism. One is an “assignment” and the other is a journal manuscript. Good luck with the submission.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Etiquette when sending paper to your coauthors Hi everyone, I'm a PhD student working on my second paper (so quite new to this). I have a paper draft ready to send to my coauthors (between 5 and 10). They are all quite high-up, so imagine they'd be quite busy, and it's rather a large paper, so I'm not expecting feedback super fast. At the same time, I do not want some other researcher to scoop me, as it's taken about a year of work. When I sent my first paper out, I waited around 2 months, then was advised by one of them to send out an email saying something like "I'm submitting next month if nobody has any objections". This worked well. I have 2 questions: 1: Would it be good just to do this immediately, i.e: say in the email that this is the draft, and that I'll look to submit 2 months from today? Obviously I'd send a reminder with 2 weeks to go. 2: If the answer to q1 is yes, is 2 months a reasonable timeframe, or should I go with giving more time or less? Obviously want feedback as soon as possible, but do not want to look like an ass.
RESPONSE A: To coworkers, we always send manuscripts with a deadline, usually two weeks. If you give them indefinite time, you they will never react.
RESPONSE B: I always go with the “I submit then and there, if I receive no further notice, I’ll take this as your approval to the manuscript” and 2 months is absolutely ok - in my opinion you can easily cut this down to 4 weeks. But consider another thing: when the manuscript is written, try to avoid multiple feedback loops as this might take ages as everyone still wants to change stuff after the 5th time they read the draft. Give them just one chance, this will speed up the processes, too.
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.