label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
B
|
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: With my kind of work, collaborators even high up, have a rough idea about the direction of the work. We usually discuss parts of data somewhere in the past anyway. We give 2 weeks to 1 month depending on how much has changed since the last spoke. If you want one of them to give some insight on a particular part of the data, email them directly.
RESPONSE B: To coworkers, we always send manuscripts with a deadline, usually two weeks. If you give them indefinite time, you they will never react.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: 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: With my kind of work, collaborators even high up, have a rough idea about the direction of the work. We usually discuss parts of data somewhere in the past anyway. We give 2 weeks to 1 month depending on how much has changed since the last spoke. If you want one of them to give some insight on a particular part of the data, email them directly.
RESPONSE B: I would do it slightly differently. Send it to your 2-3 main co-authors first, ask them to respond one after the other and to reply all with the comments, then respond to the bulk of comments from them first. This has several advantages: Your co-authors won't all have to make the same comments as they'll see the feedback from each other before they read it. The manuscript you send to the other co-authors will be in a more finished form, so they should have less to comment on. You're less likely to get into a back and forth between yourself and co-authors. You can set tighter deadlines (1-2 weeks) for your other co-authors as you can say that it has already been revised. With more than 3 co-authors, it's definitely best to set a deadline after which you just submit for the final round of checks. The reviewers usually have lots of comments to respond to anyway so there'll be another opportunity for comments on more minor phrasing of things.
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: 2 months is too long, people will forget and delay. Give them 2-4 weeks tops
RESPONSE B: With my kind of work, collaborators even high up, have a rough idea about the direction of the work. We usually discuss parts of data somewhere in the past anyway. We give 2 weeks to 1 month depending on how much has changed since the last spoke. If you want one of them to give some insight on a particular part of the data, email them directly.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: At what point in your undergraduate career did you decide to pursue a PhD? When did you know in your undergraduate career did you decide to get a PhD after graduating?
RESPONSE A: About four years after I graduated.
RESPONSE B: Depends what you mean by decided, I've wanted to do a PhD since I learned what one was in 3rd grade, but the actual real decision came while doing my final year dissertation during my bachelors degree, that was when I realized what I actually wanted to do (ie a specific research question, not just 'a PhD')
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: a job as a lecturer. Also, I can see that other academics I work with are focused mainly on applying for grants and trying to publish as much as possible which seems extremely stressful. It looks like the things I enjoy the most (data collection/analysis) are done by research assistants or PhD students. I'm just afraid that I'm going to devote the next six years of my life (PhD + Post doc) in order to MAYBE get a job as a lecturer. I would very much appreciate if you could tell me if I'm being overly pessimistic here, or if my concerns are reasonable. Thank you so much for your attention!
RESPONSE A: Browsing LinkedIn and Indeed, I’ve found a ton of job openings for computational neuroscientists in industry, specifically for BCI research & development. However, I don’t know what the job market is like for cognitive neuroscientists.
RESPONSE B: Also in neuroscience! (Different subfield). I dealt with this exact question recently! I'm actually starting my PhD in the fall. For me, I felt it was important to know what i wanted out of a PhD. I feel like data science jobs were going to be available no matter when I got out of school. I wanted to do a PhD because (1) I want 5 years of getting paid to do science with ownership/independence, (2) I didn't study engineering/cs but i want legitimacy in the things that I've learned, and (3) I wanted to learn certain experimental skills. But those reasons may not resonate with you at all! That's totally fine. But I really suggest figuring out what you're looking for with that degree. I worry that too many brilliant people go get a PhD because "it's the next thing to do" or "my mentor thinks I should" and the process crushes them. Take this all with a grain of salt though. I'm just an optimist who's keeping her options open (who might have made the wrong choice! Who knows!) Feel free to dm me if you want to talk in more detail about my process! I'm happy to share any info i can to help!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Academia - should I stay or should I go? (Research assistant trying to figure out if they should do a PhD) Dear Academics, I'm a research assistant in Cognitive Neuroscience and I'm trying to decide whether I should get a PhD or start a career as a Data Analyst or Data Scientist outside of academia. I'm based in the UK and I've heard numerous scary stories of people with PhDs struggling to find a job as a lecturer. Also, I can see that other academics I work with are focused mainly on applying for grants and trying to publish as much as possible which seems extremely stressful. It looks like the things I enjoy the most (data collection/analysis) are done by research assistants or PhD students. I'm just afraid that I'm going to devote the next six years of my life (PhD + Post doc) in order to MAYBE get a job as a lecturer. I would very much appreciate if you could tell me if I'm being overly pessimistic here, or if my concerns are reasonable. Thank you so much for your attention!
RESPONSE A: Your concerns are legitimate. Many do PhDs and only a fraction get academic positions. My wife had been strung along with temporary sessional positions. I have two kids and I’m going to lobby hard for them to avoid the grad school route if at all possible
RESPONSE B: There's also the option of leaving academia *after* a PhD. There are some positions in the industry that require/appreciate a PhD and the associated skills.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Academia - should I stay or should I go? (Research assistant trying to figure out if they should do a PhD) Dear Academics, I'm a research assistant in Cognitive Neuroscience and I'm trying to decide whether I should get a PhD or start a career as a Data Analyst or Data Scientist outside of academia. I'm based in the UK and I've heard numerous scary stories of people with PhDs struggling to find a job as a lecturer. Also, I can see that other academics I work with are focused mainly on applying for grants and trying to publish as much as possible which seems extremely stressful. It looks like the things I enjoy the most (data collection/analysis) are done by research assistants or PhD students. I'm just afraid that I'm going to devote the next six years of my life (PhD + Post doc) in order to MAYBE get a job as a lecturer. I would very much appreciate if you could tell me if I'm being overly pessimistic here, or if my concerns are reasonable. Thank you so much for your attention!
RESPONSE A: There's also the option of leaving academia *after* a PhD. There are some positions in the industry that require/appreciate a PhD and the associated skills.
RESPONSE B: I was in the exact same position, different field. Research assistant/lab manager for 16 years. I am now 3 weeks away from submitting my dissertation. I have already applied for two jobs with no success but was offered a postdoc doing basically what I did before grad school only with marginally better pay. I would say I don’t regret the experiences of grad school but it confirmed that I love research, not writing grants and sitting at a desk. Depends on what you want out of it, but the freedom of directing your own research is totally worth getting the degree. You have more options for higher pay afterwards.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Academia - should I stay or should I go? (Research assistant trying to figure out if they should do a PhD) Dear Academics, I'm a research assistant in Cognitive Neuroscience and I'm trying to decide whether I should get a PhD or start a career as a Data Analyst or Data Scientist outside of academia. I'm based in the UK and I've heard numerous scary stories of people with PhDs struggling to find a job as a lecturer. Also, I can see that other academics I work with are focused mainly on applying for grants and trying to publish as much as possible which seems extremely stressful. It looks like the things I enjoy the most (data collection/analysis) are done by research assistants or PhD students. I'm just afraid that I'm going to devote the next six years of my life (PhD + Post doc) in order to MAYBE get a job as a lecturer. I would very much appreciate if you could tell me if I'm being overly pessimistic here, or if my concerns are reasonable. Thank you so much for your attention!
RESPONSE A: There's also the option of leaving academia *after* a PhD. There are some positions in the industry that require/appreciate a PhD and the associated skills.
RESPONSE B: Browsing LinkedIn and Indeed, I’ve found a ton of job openings for computational neuroscientists in industry, specifically for BCI research & development. However, I don’t know what the job market is like for cognitive neuroscientists.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Are there any academic fields that don't have enough people trying to teach?
RESPONSE A: ITT: fields in which doing the work earns far more money than teaching others how to do the work
RESPONSE B: Game Design. The problem is, we need people who have years of experience in designing games *and* teaching experience. We *do not* need PhDs in Game Design or Games Studies who have never designed, developed, shipped, and cried over a game.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Are there any academic fields that don't have enough people trying to teach?
RESPONSE A: ITT: fields in which doing the work earns far more money than teaching others how to do the work
RESPONSE B: Accounting is hot. Not the material itself, but the job prospects.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Are there any academic fields that don't have enough people trying to teach?
RESPONSE A: ITT: fields in which doing the work earns far more money than teaching others how to do the work
RESPONSE B: Pharmacy practice, nursing, optometry and some other applied clinical sciences.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Are there any academic fields that don't have enough people trying to teach?
RESPONSE A: Mass Communication/Communication Studies Almost all doctoral grads seeking a university tenure-track position find a job. It may not be at exactly the rank of institution that they most hope for but I don't know of anybody cobbling together a bare-bones existence adjuncting. The reasons are pretty much market driven. Lots of places to teach. Generally increasing enrollment. Booming research and grants. Increasing number of industry jobs -- high-level research positions. But relatively few doctoral programs. I believe we have about one third of the number of doctoral programs of political science, for example. The present is not the future and so this could change but there is no question that we are in a golden age as of this moment.
RESPONSE B: ITT: fields in which doing the work earns far more money than teaching others how to do the work
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Are there any academic fields that don't have enough people trying to teach?
RESPONSE A: There are always non-tenure track positions in teaching basic writing. Not the best job financially speaking, but somebody's got to do it.
RESPONSE B: ITT: fields in which doing the work earns far more money than teaching others how to do the work
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: pursuing a bs in comp sci. I've completed all of my eng/government/core classes, other than math and science, so it's going to take 4 years to climb at 3 classes a semester with a fulltime job. I have to start back at college algebra and do my sciences (as well as my cs classes) at a community college before I can transfer to a university, according to the university's transfer check-list. So far, for 3 classes (college alg, physical geol, cs (python)), I'll walk away with all A's. So I know that I have the drive to do this, and I feel like I can keep this up, but there's an irrational fear that I'll be too old in a field, and that I'll have trouble against peers that I'm 10 years their senior.
RESPONSE A: Best advice I've ever heard: "You're going to be 30 in 4 years anyways. Would you rather be 30 with, or without your college degree?"
RESPONSE B: 1. Sounds like it's working out! Congratulations on the good semester. 2. I love older students in the classroom \-\- the ones I've encountered are focused, professional and aren't there to waste time or money, which is a terrific mindset. They're making a considered investment in education, and that's a powerful force. 3. I was a young \(17\) and crummy undergrad, and I didn't go back to graduate school until my mid\-30s, which I did \(mostly\) for my own interest and \(partly\) in order to be able to adjunct in my professional field. To my surprise, I am now full\-time, tenure\-track faculty \(in my 40s\). So, yeah: Good job, you're definitely not too old to find success \(kind of the opposite\), and also \-\- you might be old for your classroom cohort, but you're still relatively young, and having experience prior to starting coursework is a huge benefit that you can parlay into grad school or job applications.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: I'm pursuing a bs in comp sci. I've completed all of my eng/government/core classes, other than math and science, so it's going to take 4 years to climb at 3 classes a semester with a fulltime job. I have to start back at college algebra and do my sciences (as well as my cs classes) at a community college before I can transfer to a university, according to the university's transfer check-list. So far, for 3 classes (college alg, physical geol, cs (python)), I'll walk away with all A's. So I know that I have the drive to do this, and I feel like I can keep this up, but there's an irrational fear that I'll be too old in a field, and that I'll have trouble against peers that I'm 10 years their senior.
RESPONSE A: While I am not 10 years my peers age, I am ~4 years their age in my Master's program. I took odd years off for fun/sanity and taking a break to figure out what I wanted in my life. When I came back to academia, I (and my mentors) definitely noticed I had a better level of maturity and was given more responsibility than the other students in the same program. While these are small differences between me and the other students the level of conversations, respect, and pursuit of knowledge I receive and give from my academic advisors are a lot higher. All in all, I have found being older and having a better grasp of knowing what I wanted in my life academically and professionally has helped me in my relationships career-wise and allowed for (a few) more connections to jobs afterwards. To finish, I would suggest since you are ~10 years your peers age, get to know your professors and their connections. I assume you are closer to their age anyways and they could provide you with areas or jobs that may even start looking at you during your life at college! Good luck and I hope the best for you!
RESPONSE B: Best advice I've ever heard: "You're going to be 30 in 4 years anyways. Would you rather be 30 with, or without your college degree?"
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: classes) at a community college before I can transfer to a university, according to the university's transfer check-list. So far, for 3 classes (college alg, physical geol, cs (python)), I'll walk away with all A's. So I know that I have the drive to do this, and I feel like I can keep this up, but there's an irrational fear that I'll be too old in a field, and that I'll have trouble against peers that I'm 10 years their senior.
RESPONSE A: Just for some perspective...I was 42 when I graduated with my first degree. I went to Uni right out of high school but dropped out for various reasons, started back at 34 (from the beginning with English Comp 100 and Algebra, and it took me seven years to finish it; 24 years total to finish a BA. I’m now 44 and a PhD student. It’s harder, I think. The challenges to being a mature student are different. But I’d rather be 50 and doing what I love than 50 and not.
RESPONSE B: While I am not 10 years my peers age, I am ~4 years their age in my Master's program. I took odd years off for fun/sanity and taking a break to figure out what I wanted in my life. When I came back to academia, I (and my mentors) definitely noticed I had a better level of maturity and was given more responsibility than the other students in the same program. While these are small differences between me and the other students the level of conversations, respect, and pursuit of knowledge I receive and give from my academic advisors are a lot higher. All in all, I have found being older and having a better grasp of knowing what I wanted in my life academically and professionally has helped me in my relationships career-wise and allowed for (a few) more connections to jobs afterwards. To finish, I would suggest since you are ~10 years your peers age, get to know your professors and their connections. I assume you are closer to their age anyways and they could provide you with areas or jobs that may even start looking at you during your life at college! Good luck and I hope the best for you!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: [x-post from/r/askmen] I was told to post this here: People who got their degrees later on in life, how much success did you find? I'm starting my college career at 26. Almost finished with the first semester with straight A's! But, I'm significantly older than my peers... Has anyone gone back to get their formal education later on in life and found success? I feel like graduating at 30 will be weird. I'm pursuing a bs in comp sci. I've completed all of my eng/government/core classes, other than math and science, so it's going to take 4 years to climb at 3 classes a semester with a fulltime job. I have to start back at college algebra and do my sciences (as well as my cs classes) at a community college before I can transfer to a university, according to the university's transfer check-list. So far, for 3 classes (college alg, physical geol, cs (python)), I'll walk away with all A's. So I know that I have the drive to do this, and I feel like I can keep this up, but there's an irrational fear that I'll be too old in a field, and that I'll have trouble against peers that I'm 10 years their senior.
RESPONSE A: Started college at 31, PhD at 35, TT professor at 42.
RESPONSE B: Life is not a race. You don't get a prize for doing things sooner. Generally speaking mature students do better and get more out of their degrees. You're rocking this, don't worry about it!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: a pretty unique high school-- basically, we graduate with both a high school degree and an associate's for free. I'm currently getting my associates in science, but it's not too late for me to switch to a degree in chemical technology. I would have the degree for free, job offerings are abundant (especially in my area), and I would get to stay in my hometown. BUT, I would be committing my life to a subject I have little interest in. I absolutely adore genetics. Science makes me happier than I can describe. But studies such as these (https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/78tdy3/junior_scientists_need_to_take_a_hard_look_at/?st=J989REF3&sh=e3072138) have me really worried, especially since I have a history of depression. You're the experts: is the pursuit of what makes you happy worth the risk? Have you had a hard time finding a job in academia? Please, any advice would be much appreciated.
RESPONSE A: Being able to support yourself is not too hard, especially if you are well educated. So you might as well pursue what you want, try your best, be proactive. Worst comes to worst you can’t achieve your original goal, but you can still figure out a career option.
RESPONSE B: I would add to the other great comments that it's great that you have a long-term goal, but as your pursue it, you shouldn't do so to the exclusion of other opportunities. Maybe being a research professor is in the cards for you, but maybe you'll end up wanting to teach more and research less, or maybe you'll discover genetic counseling and go that way. In the same vein, maybe you'll end up in genetic engineering, but maybe you'll like other sub-fields better once you experience them. The key for a successful undergraduate experience is to balance having the focus to not waste your 4 years, while also having enough openness that you don't hunker down on 1 path only to discover it's not for you at at the end of your senior year. Good luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How early is too early to speak to a professor about a PhD programme they're offering? This relates to my personal situation: MChem (high 2:1) graduate, one month into a 12-month Data Science MSc (school of maths). I know I want to do a PhD so I check what's available in the fields I'm interested in (particularly cheminformatics, green chem, continuous flow chem). I noticed that a professor in the chem department at my new university is advertising a Phd programme which fits suprisingly well with my experience (continuous flow chemistry and machine learning for optimisation project, I have a year's industry experience working on optimisation of a CF process, some experience using machine learning algorithms in chemistry and my current MSc). Would it be appropriate to ask to speak to the professor about his project and whether my background could be suitable for applying, despite my having another 11 months of an MSc ahead of me?
RESPONSE A: Definitely appropriate. Academia moves slowly, and if you're interested he can reserve you a slot. I took care of finding my PhD advisor about 7 months before completing my PhD, and about 9 months before actually starting it.
RESPONSE B: Kindergarten is too early. After that, it's all fair game (I kid, but only a little). You can approach it as "what could I do in the next 11 months to set me up for success in your program?"
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Professors: How much time do you spend on grant proposals? Starting out as a newly minted TT professor, I am wondering how much time one (should) spend on writing grants. Colleagues recommend sending out one major proposal per month. Currently, this would take me probably at least 30h a week. Is this realistic? How much time do you spend on average? I'm specifically interested in research-intensive (private) R1 schools in the STEM field (US). My teaching load is relatively low (1:1).
RESPONSE A: I wrote a bunch of R01 equivalents in my first few years. None got funded. I did what all my colleagues do: write furiously to deadlines. Throw something in because no shot, no win. Then I stopped. Instead I developed one project a year. Drafted, revised, generated data, got feedback, revised again. My funding rate shot through the roof, I’m well funded, and I have more time to do the research I’m funded to do. My advice to junior faculty is to work similarly. And if you can, get a colleague who is well-funded and/or serves on study section to give you feedback. Grant-writing is hard, and the critiques aren’t always actionable. BUT. People will only give you meaningful feedback if you give them enough lead time, and if you do it far enough in advance of the deadline to incorporate their comments. Nothing sucks more than spending a few hours reading someone’s proposal, identifying things that really need work, and realizing that it’s due next week so they don’t have time to do that. So you tell them “yeah, good job. Good luck” and leave it at that. They have other demands on their time.
RESPONSE B: I did 10 my first year and 12 my second year.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: as a newly minted TT professor, I am wondering how much time one (should) spend on writing grants. Colleagues recommend sending out one major proposal per month. Currently, this would take me probably at least 30h a week. Is this realistic? How much time do you spend on average? I'm specifically interested in research-intensive (private) R1 schools in the STEM field (US). My teaching load is relatively low (1:1).
RESPONSE A: I’d suggest to focus greatest efforts into getting every relevant early-career opportunity submitted first (on their respective schedules, not early, giving time to prove your points or publish relevant demonstrations), and making sure they are all different and likely to lead to sustained funding by those agencies. Beyond that, it depends a bit on your field and expected personal funding rate. And, whether you already have distinct results to justify support - if not, having initial progress will bolster successes, so you may prioritize getting an extra paper or two out otherwise.
RESPONSE B: I wrote a bunch of R01 equivalents in my first few years. None got funded. I did what all my colleagues do: write furiously to deadlines. Throw something in because no shot, no win. Then I stopped. Instead I developed one project a year. Drafted, revised, generated data, got feedback, revised again. My funding rate shot through the roof, I’m well funded, and I have more time to do the research I’m funded to do. My advice to junior faculty is to work similarly. And if you can, get a colleague who is well-funded and/or serves on study section to give you feedback. Grant-writing is hard, and the critiques aren’t always actionable. BUT. People will only give you meaningful feedback if you give them enough lead time, and if you do it far enough in advance of the deadline to incorporate their comments. Nothing sucks more than spending a few hours reading someone’s proposal, identifying things that really need work, and realizing that it’s due next week so they don’t have time to do that. So you tell them “yeah, good job. Good luck” and leave it at that. They have other demands on their time.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How much leeway do professors get in choosing what they write? Are professors allowed to write on and publish whatever topics they choose? I understand this somewhat falls under what tenure is and why it exists, but I'm not really asking about controversial stuff. Let's say I'm a prof in a political science department at X school. Does the department care about the topics I'm writing on? Does anyone else at the school care? If a professor starts shifting from one discipline to another - say pure politics to political economy to largely just economics - what would happen? Does it matter as long as they are publishing? How does this change as a PhD candidate / assistant prof / tenured prof? Thanks!
RESPONSE A: Professional interests change over time. As long as the work is rigorous, and s/he's in good standing with the department (in terms of teaching, service, and advising students) no one cares.
RESPONSE B: As somebody in an field where getting data is time-consuming and expensive, my understanding is that for most people in similar situations it amounts to "you can write whatever the hell you want as long as you can convince somebody to fund it". This is probably very different in the humanities, of course.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Professors, how much do you make a year? Please include your field and where you are on the tenure track.
RESPONSE A: What's not published by the AAUP *or anyone else* is the total compensation cost at each rank for a given school. For example, at mine the AAUP data shows the *average* for the rank, which doesn't really reflect reality on the ground (because a couple of well-paid senior faculty will pull up the average quite a bit) and it totally excludes the cost/value of benefits. We calculate that at an additional 29% of salary internally, which includes health insurance, retirement, FICA, etc., anything that is reported to the IRS or is a mandated tax. There can be quite a variation in total compensation; for example, if I put 2% into my 401K my institution will put in 10%. Not many employers offer a 5-to-1 match like that these days. Point being, it's hard to compare the total compensation packages between schools because few of the private ones published the details on their benefits.
RESPONSE B: Data is available, as others have posted. A few comments: these are 9 month salaries; they don't include other pay that many faculty receive; there may also be a wide range within each category, since we only see the averages. Edit: above for US data only.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What do you do when peer review takes FOREVER? I have a manuscript that has been submitted to an Elsevier journal and has been in review for 6 months. All of my other journal papers have gone through review in less than 2 months, so this sort of time frame is completely new to me. Would it be inappropriate for me to contact the editors and ask for an update and inquire as to why there is such a delay? Also, if you decide to review a paper and you take this long...screw you. I'm of the opinion that nobody should agree to review a paper unless they have the time/ambition to do so.
RESPONSE A: Likely this is an error. No editor would be offended by you asking for a status update. I've let reviews go (by mistake) and editors contact me the next day. I've had reviews take two weeks longer than average and contacted the editor for resolution (which came swiftly). 6 months is egregious so I'd guess it got lost in the shuffle and maybe never even sent out.
RESPONSE B: How often is the journal published?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What do you do when peer review takes FOREVER? I have a manuscript that has been submitted to an Elsevier journal and has been in review for 6 months. All of my other journal papers have gone through review in less than 2 months, so this sort of time frame is completely new to me. Would it be inappropriate for me to contact the editors and ask for an update and inquire as to why there is such a delay? Also, if you decide to review a paper and you take this long...screw you. I'm of the opinion that nobody should agree to review a paper unless they have the time/ambition to do so.
RESPONSE A: It wouldn't be a terrible idea to contact the action editor and ask how long this process usually takes. This lets you nudge them without being confrontational about it.
RESPONSE B: Likely this is an error. No editor would be offended by you asking for a status update. I've let reviews go (by mistake) and editors contact me the next day. I've had reviews take two weeks longer than average and contacted the editor for resolution (which came swiftly). 6 months is egregious so I'd guess it got lost in the shuffle and maybe never even sent out.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What do you do when peer review takes FOREVER? I have a manuscript that has been submitted to an Elsevier journal and has been in review for 6 months. All of my other journal papers have gone through review in less than 2 months, so this sort of time frame is completely new to me. Would it be inappropriate for me to contact the editors and ask for an update and inquire as to why there is such a delay? Also, if you decide to review a paper and you take this long...screw you. I'm of the opinion that nobody should agree to review a paper unless they have the time/ambition to do so.
RESPONSE A: For journals that take more than a quarter to respond, I have a personal rule of emailing once per quarter to follow up. Doesn't hurt to push them once in a while, and once per quarter is not pushy.
RESPONSE B: How often is the journal published?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What do you do when peer review takes FOREVER? I have a manuscript that has been submitted to an Elsevier journal and has been in review for 6 months. All of my other journal papers have gone through review in less than 2 months, so this sort of time frame is completely new to me. Would it be inappropriate for me to contact the editors and ask for an update and inquire as to why there is such a delay? Also, if you decide to review a paper and you take this long...screw you. I'm of the opinion that nobody should agree to review a paper unless they have the time/ambition to do so.
RESPONSE A: For journals that take more than a quarter to respond, I have a personal rule of emailing once per quarter to follow up. Doesn't hurt to push them once in a while, and once per quarter is not pushy.
RESPONSE B: It wouldn't be a terrible idea to contact the action editor and ask how long this process usually takes. This lets you nudge them without being confrontational about it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What do you do when peer review takes FOREVER? I have a manuscript that has been submitted to an Elsevier journal and has been in review for 6 months. All of my other journal papers have gone through review in less than 2 months, so this sort of time frame is completely new to me. Would it be inappropriate for me to contact the editors and ask for an update and inquire as to why there is such a delay? Also, if you decide to review a paper and you take this long...screw you. I'm of the opinion that nobody should agree to review a paper unless they have the time/ambition to do so.
RESPONSE A: It wouldn't be a terrible idea to contact the action editor and ask how long this process usually takes. This lets you nudge them without being confrontational about it.
RESPONSE B: It varies a lot by discipline. In philosophy, after 2 months you can send a note to the editor asking politely 'at what stage in the review process' your manuscript it. In Economics, you can't do that for at least 6 months. Check with your colleagues. People I know *have* received a desk rejection for submitting an inquiry too soon. Granted, that's a dick move on behalf of the editor, but you should be able to avoid that. (And don't ask "why so slow" but rather "where is my paper in the review process".)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I have to read 7 peer-reviewed articles (typically 30-40 pages each), and write an abstract for each one, every week this semester; do you have any practical tips for reading and absorbing that much literature without drowning? This is all on top of a 15 credit course load as well. I’m a slow reader and it takes me a while to really grasp information that I read, but this semester I just can’t afford to take three days to get through one paper. Any advice would be super helpful!
RESPONSE A: --Do one paper a day. Set aside a certain amount of time (e.g., 2 hours) and hold yourself to that time-- even if it means skimming. --Focus on taking away the "big picture" idea of the article along with a few main points from each section, rather than small details. It's okay if you don't understand everything. --Not sure what discipline you're in, but in psych we generally read sections in the following order: Abstract, Discussion (sometimes going to intro if discussion is hard to follow without context), Method, Intro, Results. Often, I don't bother reading the results or the intro if I'm familiar with the topic. --I like to write a few questions/general comments for each paper. This helps me engage with the reading, and also it will help you speak up in class! Good luck :)
RESPONSE B: The way you wrote this, I'm not sure about numbers. I assume this is a paper a day (i.e., 7 papers in a week)? Is this for a course?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How long does it typically take you to review a paper?
RESPONSE A: I've done 6-7 and I'm still in my PhD so i take it quite seriously. I will read the paper and make light notes. Then I'll have a coffee/wait a day and think it over. Then I'll reread more in-depth. Finally I read it through while writing my review. They're always too long and quite detailed. All in all, a little less than a day's work. Seeing other reviewers' effort, even in high impact journals, it often seems I'm more thorough than the average.
RESPONSE B: I wait until my second overdue notice and/or an irritated email from the editor, then finish it in 3-4 hours.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How long does it typically take you to review a paper?
RESPONSE A: Depends on the paper. It it's a really good paper or if it's not very closely related to my field of study, I sometimes don't find a lot to criticize. Then I'll just ask a few questions. If it's very closely related to my research or if I know the methodology really well, I'll usually put it under much closer scrutiny and that usually takes longer. But I always try to give constructive input. That's of course more difficult and time-consuming than just writing "This paper is garbage". But I think it usually pays off as most authors genuinely try to improve their work based on reviewers' suggestions. So how long does it take, depending on the complexity and length of the paper and how invested I am, I'd say anything between 2 and 10 hours.
RESPONSE B: I scan three times. 1) Five minute flick through for fundamental methodological or analytical flaws. If I find any, I stop there, write them up and reject. 2) One hour read for data and outcomes, then a check for novelty or data reproduction. If it's novel, within the remit of the journal and passed step 1, then the authors get whatever comments I think would improve the paper for readers, otherwise, write up. 3) Same as 2, one day later, fresh eyes.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How long does it typically take you to review a paper?
RESPONSE A: I try to spend no more than half a day, usually no more than 2-3 hours. An hour, hour and a half to read and an hour to comment.
RESPONSE B: Depends on the paper. It it's a really good paper or if it's not very closely related to my field of study, I sometimes don't find a lot to criticize. Then I'll just ask a few questions. If it's very closely related to my research or if I know the methodology really well, I'll usually put it under much closer scrutiny and that usually takes longer. But I always try to give constructive input. That's of course more difficult and time-consuming than just writing "This paper is garbage". But I think it usually pays off as most authors genuinely try to improve their work based on reviewers' suggestions. So how long does it take, depending on the complexity and length of the paper and how invested I am, I'd say anything between 2 and 10 hours.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why do some people jump straight into a PhD program without doing an MS first? Looking around at a few CVs, I noticed how common this was. Why is this? I thought the usual case was to get a BS then an MS then a PhD.
RESPONSE A: Since nobody seems to be saying it yet, PhD programs in the US are more likely to be funded, especially in certain fields (like the humanities). Some universities use their masters to pay for their PhD grants. If you know you're going for a PhD and can get into a program from undergrad it's usually a better financial choice than doing a masters first.
RESPONSE B: I chose to do that because I knew I wanted a PhD, and didn't want to waste the time/money of doing a Master's. Also, my PI could afford it so it wasn't an issue.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why do some people jump straight into a PhD program without doing an MS first? Looking around at a few CVs, I noticed how common this was. Why is this? I thought the usual case was to get a BS then an MS then a PhD.
RESPONSE A: It also depends on the tradition in that field of study. For example, it is very uncommon to have MS in Physics.
RESPONSE B: I chose to do that because I knew I wanted a PhD, and didn't want to waste the time/money of doing a Master's. Also, my PI could afford it so it wasn't an issue.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Why do some people jump straight into a PhD program without doing an MS first? Looking around at a few CVs, I noticed how common this was. Why is this? I thought the usual case was to get a BS then an MS then a PhD.
RESPONSE A: I chose to do that because I knew I wanted a PhD, and didn't want to waste the time/money of doing a Master's. Also, my PI could afford it so it wasn't an issue.
RESPONSE B: In the US, an MS in my field is pretty much worthless. The top schools don't even have MS programs you can apply to. Starting a PhD program when you have an MS only means you get out of maybe 1 or 2 classes.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why do some people jump straight into a PhD program without doing an MS first? Looking around at a few CVs, I noticed how common this was. Why is this? I thought the usual case was to get a BS then an MS then a PhD.
RESPONSE A: In the US, an MS in my field is pretty much worthless. The top schools don't even have MS programs you can apply to. Starting a PhD program when you have an MS only means you get out of maybe 1 or 2 classes.
RESPONSE B: The institution I went to didn't offer a Master's program on its own for some reason. You couldn't apply to just the MA program, it was either combined with the BA or the PhD. I ended up switching to just an MA near the end of the 2 years in but it wasn't an option at first and I was afraid for a while that I wouldn't be able to do that because they didn't give it as an option for regular applicants.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How do you organize and archive notes for future use? When I make notes for theory heavy courses like math or stats, I often include personal intuitions, insights, and "a-ha!" moments that make the concepts stick. I was thinking that it would be cool if I could come back to these notes years later if I ever need to brush up on the subject again, so I could use my own words to get up to speed quickly. Do you guys have any systems for organizing and archiving notes for future use?
RESPONSE A: I've been scanning some of my old handwritten notes with Adobe scan and saving as PDF in organized folders. It can even make some of your handwriting searchable. Good to clear up physical clutter. Making latex notes is also useful
RESPONSE B: This is a great book that really changed the way I think on my note taking processes. I feel like note taking is a core professional skill that we should be better at than general public. https://www.amazon.com/How-Take-Smart-Notes-Nonfiction-ebook/dp/B06WVYW33Y Here's a interview- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXnR7qX3BDc
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do you organize and archive notes for future use? When I make notes for theory heavy courses like math or stats, I often include personal intuitions, insights, and "a-ha!" moments that make the concepts stick. I was thinking that it would be cool if I could come back to these notes years later if I ever need to brush up on the subject again, so I could use my own words to get up to speed quickly. Do you guys have any systems for organizing and archiving notes for future use?
RESPONSE A: This is a great book that really changed the way I think on my note taking processes. I feel like note taking is a core professional skill that we should be better at than general public. https://www.amazon.com/How-Take-Smart-Notes-Nonfiction-ebook/dp/B06WVYW33Y Here's a interview- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXnR7qX3BDc
RESPONSE B: I used to use OneNote, but I switched to Evernote. And try to keep useful tags
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do you organize and archive notes for future use? When I make notes for theory heavy courses like math or stats, I often include personal intuitions, insights, and "a-ha!" moments that make the concepts stick. I was thinking that it would be cool if I could come back to these notes years later if I ever need to brush up on the subject again, so I could use my own words to get up to speed quickly. Do you guys have any systems for organizing and archiving notes for future use?
RESPONSE A: Digital all the way. Being able to search is everything.
RESPONSE B: I used to use OneNote, but I switched to Evernote. And try to keep useful tags
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do you organize and archive notes for future use? When I make notes for theory heavy courses like math or stats, I often include personal intuitions, insights, and "a-ha!" moments that make the concepts stick. I was thinking that it would be cool if I could come back to these notes years later if I ever need to brush up on the subject again, so I could use my own words to get up to speed quickly. Do you guys have any systems for organizing and archiving notes for future use?
RESPONSE A: I've been scanning some of my old handwritten notes with Adobe scan and saving as PDF in organized folders. It can even make some of your handwriting searchable. Good to clear up physical clutter. Making latex notes is also useful
RESPONSE B: I used to use OneNote, but I switched to Evernote. And try to keep useful tags
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do you organize your academic and personal lives? Working on research projects, classes, personal projects, and miscellaneous things there's a lot of things to do and keep track of. I use Google to keep track of upcoming events and block off time for activities but keeping track of projects, and stages of research activities can be difficult in a calendar. How do you keep track of your research activities and stay organized?
RESPONSE A: Poorly.
RESPONSE B: What about bullet journalling? I use Google calendar, Evernote (but making switch to onenote) and a small b6 bullet journal for planning and to do tracking!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do you organize your academic and personal lives? Working on research projects, classes, personal projects, and miscellaneous things there's a lot of things to do and keep track of. I use Google to keep track of upcoming events and block off time for activities but keeping track of projects, and stages of research activities can be difficult in a calendar. How do you keep track of your research activities and stay organized?
RESPONSE A: I have a google calendar with all major deadlines for the next 2 years in it. The calendar is basically always open and gets checked a few times per day. My calendar also has all meetings, courses, and other short term stuff on it. During particularly busy times I spend maybe 20 minutes at the end of the day setting up my schedule for the next few days. When it gets this bad I block out set hours for the super critical things and then put other not so critical things as daily events. At the end of each week I figure out some reasonable goals for the next week. Occasionally I'll also set up goals/milestones for the next month or semester depending on what major deadlines are coming up. This is especially important during the run up to paper season. My way doesn't work for everyone, I would recommend experimenting with different methods to find out what works best for you.
RESPONSE B: What about bullet journalling? I use Google calendar, Evernote (but making switch to onenote) and a small b6 bullet journal for planning and to do tracking!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How do you organize your academic and personal lives? Working on research projects, classes, personal projects, and miscellaneous things there's a lot of things to do and keep track of. I use Google to keep track of upcoming events and block off time for activities but keeping track of projects, and stages of research activities can be difficult in a calendar. How do you keep track of your research activities and stay organized?
RESPONSE A: Trello
RESPONSE B: I have a google calendar with all major deadlines for the next 2 years in it. The calendar is basically always open and gets checked a few times per day. My calendar also has all meetings, courses, and other short term stuff on it. During particularly busy times I spend maybe 20 minutes at the end of the day setting up my schedule for the next few days. When it gets this bad I block out set hours for the super critical things and then put other not so critical things as daily events. At the end of each week I figure out some reasonable goals for the next week. Occasionally I'll also set up goals/milestones for the next month or semester depending on what major deadlines are coming up. This is especially important during the run up to paper season. My way doesn't work for everyone, I would recommend experimenting with different methods to find out what works best for you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How do you organize your academic and personal lives? Working on research projects, classes, personal projects, and miscellaneous things there's a lot of things to do and keep track of. I use Google to keep track of upcoming events and block off time for activities but keeping track of projects, and stages of research activities can be difficult in a calendar. How do you keep track of your research activities and stay organized?
RESPONSE A: What about bullet journalling? I use Google calendar, Evernote (but making switch to onenote) and a small b6 bullet journal for planning and to do tracking!
RESPONSE B: Barely. Several whiteboard in my office, a shared calendar, to-do lists written on scraps of paper and piles of things to read, grade, and edit stacked everywhere. But hey, a pile for everything and everything in its pile.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do you organize your academic and personal lives? Working on research projects, classes, personal projects, and miscellaneous things there's a lot of things to do and keep track of. I use Google to keep track of upcoming events and block off time for activities but keeping track of projects, and stages of research activities can be difficult in a calendar. How do you keep track of your research activities and stay organized?
RESPONSE A: Barely. Several whiteboard in my office, a shared calendar, to-do lists written on scraps of paper and piles of things to read, grade, and edit stacked everywhere. But hey, a pile for everything and everything in its pile.
RESPONSE B: Trello
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: some differences between a PhD from Harvard and a PhD from a local state school (speaking on very general terms obviously, individual PhDs may vary) In what ways are they the same and in what ways are they different? Would it be plausible to say that receiving a PhD from Harvard is more "difficult" than a PhD from a local state school?
RESPONSE A: A few points to add to what others have said 1. What you want from a PhD program is different from what you want from an undergraduate education. Most people are familiar with the top schools for undergrad, which are generally chosen for their overall performance across all disciplines. But "good" schools (i.e. name recognized universities, Ivy Leagues, etc) are not always the best when it comes to particular disciplines, the quality of the faculty there, and the quality of the graduate education. E.g. in my field, very few of the "best" schools are Ivy Leagues, and many of the best are state schools. So for a particular discipline, getting a PhD from Yale can be less impressive than getting one from Ohio State... meaning OSU has better, more renowned faculty, a stronger record of sending their alumni to top jobs, etc. Basically, some schools "specialize" in a given discipline. 2. Some PhD programs are very different in terms of their structure and pedagogy. I know of two schools that are both top-three in their discipline for graduate education / faculty. One has a PhD program that is highly, highly structured, with lots of detailed expectations for its students in order to complete the degree. The other PhD program is very loosely structured, with only a few required classes, and students are otherwise allowed to build the curriculum that lets them learn the things they want to know. So - highly structured vs. loosely structured. Highly independent students might find the first too rigid (e.g. spend time learning things they already know), whereas students with less internal direction might flounder at the second school (nobody telling you what to do and when, so you wander aimlessly and drop out after 3 years).
RESPONSE B: I’m not sure about in the US, but in the U.K. I’ve found no difference besides prestige in different Universities.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: between a PhD from Harvard and a PhD from a local state school (speaking on very general terms obviously, individual PhDs may vary) In what ways are they the same and in what ways are they different? Would it be plausible to say that receiving a PhD from Harvard is more "difficult" than a PhD from a local state school?
RESPONSE A: I’d say go to an R1 institute somewhere you’d want to live. Certain PhD programs aren’t inherently more difficult than others.
RESPONSE B: A few points to add to what others have said 1. What you want from a PhD program is different from what you want from an undergraduate education. Most people are familiar with the top schools for undergrad, which are generally chosen for their overall performance across all disciplines. But "good" schools (i.e. name recognized universities, Ivy Leagues, etc) are not always the best when it comes to particular disciplines, the quality of the faculty there, and the quality of the graduate education. E.g. in my field, very few of the "best" schools are Ivy Leagues, and many of the best are state schools. So for a particular discipline, getting a PhD from Yale can be less impressive than getting one from Ohio State... meaning OSU has better, more renowned faculty, a stronger record of sending their alumni to top jobs, etc. Basically, some schools "specialize" in a given discipline. 2. Some PhD programs are very different in terms of their structure and pedagogy. I know of two schools that are both top-three in their discipline for graduate education / faculty. One has a PhD program that is highly, highly structured, with lots of detailed expectations for its students in order to complete the degree. The other PhD program is very loosely structured, with only a few required classes, and students are otherwise allowed to build the curriculum that lets them learn the things they want to know. So - highly structured vs. loosely structured. Highly independent students might find the first too rigid (e.g. spend time learning things they already know), whereas students with less internal direction might flounder at the second school (nobody telling you what to do and when, so you wander aimlessly and drop out after 3 years).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What are some ways to gain closure for my PhD? I defended my PhD in March 2020, when everything was shutting down. There were no congratulatory dinners, no parties. My university had a prerecorded "graduation" ceremony in May where graduates names were listed on a screen. My university normally also has a celebration breakfast for the PhDs, and a separate hooding ceremony. All of which to say is that I feel like I don't have any closure. Sure, logically I know I finished it, and now I have a job because of it, but somehow it doesn't feel real. So I ask you, reddit, what were some ways, particularly personal ceremonies or something like that, in which you managed to gain closure for your achievement? I would like to do something for myself where it feels like I can absorb how important it was in my life, even if I can't have outside validation or other people participating.
RESPONSE A: I found that writing thank you cards for people that got me through grad school -- not just my committee members but also the administrative staff in the department who made university bureaucracy less annoying to deal with -- gave me the space & opportunity I needed to reflect on my time as a PhD student.
RESPONSE B: When I was in grad school, my PI always brought a bottle of champagne and glasses in a case. When the person finished successfully, out it came for everybody. Later the PI, successful new PhD and others from the lab would go to a local pub and continue the celebration. Invite some friends to a local pub (if one is safely open!) and celebrate. If nothing's open, can you celebrate with friends (safely, again!) at home. Heck, you could advertise at your new place for others who are in the same boat and all of you can congratulate each other along with some of your new friends from your new place.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What are some ways to gain closure for my PhD? I defended my PhD in March 2020, when everything was shutting down. There were no congratulatory dinners, no parties. My university had a prerecorded "graduation" ceremony in May where graduates names were listed on a screen. My university normally also has a celebration breakfast for the PhDs, and a separate hooding ceremony. All of which to say is that I feel like I don't have any closure. Sure, logically I know I finished it, and now I have a job because of it, but somehow it doesn't feel real. So I ask you, reddit, what were some ways, particularly personal ceremonies or something like that, in which you managed to gain closure for your achievement? I would like to do something for myself where it feels like I can absorb how important it was in my life, even if I can't have outside validation or other people participating.
RESPONSE A: When I was in grad school, my PI always brought a bottle of champagne and glasses in a case. When the person finished successfully, out it came for everybody. Later the PI, successful new PhD and others from the lab would go to a local pub and continue the celebration. Invite some friends to a local pub (if one is safely open!) and celebrate. If nothing's open, can you celebrate with friends (safely, again!) at home. Heck, you could advertise at your new place for others who are in the same boat and all of you can congratulate each other along with some of your new friends from your new place.
RESPONSE B: I don't think "closure" is really a thing, and I don't think finishing feels like that big of a deal even with all the usual rituals. You did it, it's over, you move on. It's like anything else.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What are some ways to gain closure for my PhD? I defended my PhD in March 2020, when everything was shutting down. There were no congratulatory dinners, no parties. My university had a prerecorded "graduation" ceremony in May where graduates names were listed on a screen. My university normally also has a celebration breakfast for the PhDs, and a separate hooding ceremony. All of which to say is that I feel like I don't have any closure. Sure, logically I know I finished it, and now I have a job because of it, but somehow it doesn't feel real. So I ask you, reddit, what were some ways, particularly personal ceremonies or something like that, in which you managed to gain closure for your achievement? I would like to do something for myself where it feels like I can absorb how important it was in my life, even if I can't have outside validation or other people participating.
RESPONSE A: Buy yourself a tweed jacket with leather elbow patches
RESPONSE B: I get you. After 8+ years I finished my PhD but Covid said no graduation. Started a postdoc but haven’t been anywhere near the institution yet - it’s odd. It feels like something I would otherwise celebrate as I’ve worked so hard to get here. As others have said, all we can do is reflect on the achievement and help, motivate and stand in solidarity with others who are following on behind, and I’m hoping at some point I will get to wear that daft frock and silly hat and celebrate properly.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What are some ways to gain closure for my PhD? I defended my PhD in March 2020, when everything was shutting down. There were no congratulatory dinners, no parties. My university had a prerecorded "graduation" ceremony in May where graduates names were listed on a screen. My university normally also has a celebration breakfast for the PhDs, and a separate hooding ceremony. All of which to say is that I feel like I don't have any closure. Sure, logically I know I finished it, and now I have a job because of it, but somehow it doesn't feel real. So I ask you, reddit, what were some ways, particularly personal ceremonies or something like that, in which you managed to gain closure for your achievement? I would like to do something for myself where it feels like I can absorb how important it was in my life, even if I can't have outside validation or other people participating.
RESPONSE A: Buy yourself a tweed jacket with leather elbow patches
RESPONSE B: I got a tattoo (the image is not about my phd, but in honor of the fact that I'd done it). I think of it as an external mark reminding me I carry the knowledge with me.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What are some ways to gain closure for my PhD? I defended my PhD in March 2020, when everything was shutting down. There were no congratulatory dinners, no parties. My university had a prerecorded "graduation" ceremony in May where graduates names were listed on a screen. My university normally also has a celebration breakfast for the PhDs, and a separate hooding ceremony. All of which to say is that I feel like I don't have any closure. Sure, logically I know I finished it, and now I have a job because of it, but somehow it doesn't feel real. So I ask you, reddit, what were some ways, particularly personal ceremonies or something like that, in which you managed to gain closure for your achievement? I would like to do something for myself where it feels like I can absorb how important it was in my life, even if I can't have outside validation or other people participating.
RESPONSE A: I defended Mar 2020 as well ☹️. The thing that made the biggest difference for me was celebrating with my family after it was covid safe to do so (several months later). We had a really nice dinner and then I made them take pictures with me in my gown. Its what we would’ve done last spring, and I now have the “graduation” picture hanging prominently in my office. I didn’t get all the dept stuff, but it’s been enough for me.
RESPONSE B: Buy yourself a tweed jacket with leather elbow patches
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: can just simply e.g. declare a COI all the time) or it would be petty? PS: I would rather review for more parochial periodicals at this point where I am at least in game (and whose requests I have usually declined).
RESPONSE A: Firs thing I would say is that you need to separate you from your work. They are inviting you to review because you are competent, and skilled, and have clearly reviewed well for them in the past. They are desk rejecting *your work* because it doesn't fit something about what they are looking for. Secondly, I'm not saying this is the way you're seeing it, but the logical end point of your "should I keep reviewing if they keep rejecting my own papers" is the implication that if you review for a journal enough you can get stuff published in it regardless of other factors. That is clearly not a situation any of us want to find as a reality. So that particular argument for not reviewing is - in my opinion - moot. Thirdly, while the editorial decisions appear to be pretty generic, the answer here is usually simply one of "meh". Q1 journals are generally looking for something pretty whizzbang new, or something with a really great dataset that contributes a great deal to the field. It might just be that either your work is seen as a little incremental or - much more likely - the way you are writing your papers simply isn't highlighting the novelty in an effective way. I was given some excellent feedback by my supervisor when my first paper got rejected: If an editor or a reviewer has misunderstood something, getting pissed off at them doesn't achieve anything. Ask yourself what about your writing or figures or data didn't convince them, or led them to the wrong interpretation. I'd be interested to know why you're declining reviews in "parochial" journals? It feels a little bit like you're seeing this as transactional.
RESPONSE B: `Apparently I am good enough to review,` So you are available to review.....lol. Unfortunately reviewer quality isnt important for a lot (if not all) journals. Its availability.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Do you keep reviewing for journals where you get repeatedly desk rejected? Hi everyone! I would like to poll the general opinion on the following issue: There are some higher IF journals out there where the editors regularly ask me to review manuscripts, but when I for a change now and then submit one of our papers it gets desk(!) rejected with some vague, generic response. Apparently I am good enough to review, but not good enough to even bother other reviewers with our papers which appears to be bit of a conundrum. Would in your opinion a similar situation justify declining all further review requests from these journals (after all the real intentions don't have to be disclosed, I can just simply e.g. declare a COI all the time) or it would be petty? PS: I would rather review for more parochial periodicals at this point where I am at least in game (and whose requests I have usually declined).
RESPONSE A: Nope. A long time ago someone told me that they stopped reviewing for a journal the moment they did not even get it sent out for review and that is what I do now. If I can review 4 papers for you and you don't deem my work even worthy enough of being considered for your journal it isn't going to work out.
RESPONSE B: `Apparently I am good enough to review,` So you are available to review.....lol. Unfortunately reviewer quality isnt important for a lot (if not all) journals. Its availability.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Do you keep reviewing for journals where you get repeatedly desk rejected? Hi everyone! I would like to poll the general opinion on the following issue: There are some higher IF journals out there where the editors regularly ask me to review manuscripts, but when I for a change now and then submit one of our papers it gets desk(!) rejected with some vague, generic response. Apparently I am good enough to review, but not good enough to even bother other reviewers with our papers which appears to be bit of a conundrum. Would in your opinion a similar situation justify declining all further review requests from these journals (after all the real intentions don't have to be disclosed, I can just simply e.g. declare a COI all the time) or it would be petty? PS: I would rather review for more parochial periodicals at this point where I am at least in game (and whose requests I have usually declined).
RESPONSE A: Nope. A long time ago someone told me that they stopped reviewing for a journal the moment they did not even get it sent out for review and that is what I do now. If I can review 4 papers for you and you don't deem my work even worthy enough of being considered for your journal it isn't going to work out.
RESPONSE B: If you're constantly getting desk rejected, that's the problem to address. This could be a consequence of one of two main things: you are not doing a good job of assessing fit and audience interest of your own work, or you are doing a poor job of communicating that fit/interest to the editor. If you think the fit is appropriate, then ask a colleague or faculty mentor for feedback on your cover letters, abstracts, and main text of your papers. You may be burying impact or styling your papers in such a way that it is hard to assess broader relevance within your field. Give special attention to how you're drafting your cover letters; that's your chance to tell the editor your big findings and why it is a good fit for their journal...then they can read the manuscript with that in mind. I've found that cover letters can literally be the difference between acceptance and desk rejection at many Q1 journals.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Resources for teaching a high school student how to use Python? Hello! I am a PhD student that is hosting a high school student for a year-long research experience. Since we are currently working remotely, I would like for my student to develop some basic python skills to prepare for a fall project related to machine learning. Does anyone recommend any online resources that would be engaging / academically age appropriate for a high school student? Most of the resources I have found are pretty dry, and I want her to have a good experience. She does have some introductory experience using Matlab.
RESPONSE A: I used “Automate the Boring Stuff with Python.” It’s superb—I can’t recommend it enough. It teaches you the basics of Python then has you put that knowledge to use doing various procedural tasks, such as writing data to Excel spreadsheets or scraping the web. It’s free online under the Creative Commons license and he also has a video course on Udemy (based on the 1st edition but still more than adequate). I had a blast completing it and it allowed me to actually search for more advanced topics on YouTube, having gained the necessary background knowledge.
RESPONSE B: I think that Harvard's CS50 free program on EdX had a version specifically tailored for high schoolers! The whole course would be probably be way, way more than you need, but in the regular EdX, there's definitely some material specific to Python. The instructor David Malan always make it a lot of fun, and there's great support communities on Fb, discord, etc. EdX might have other Python-based free classes, too?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is it unethical and/or frowned upon to present the same content at multiple conferences? I've heard some people say that it is great to disseminate as much as possible, but others say that it is bad form to present the same content at multiple conferences. Thoughts?
RESPONSE A: Depends on the conference and field. How much overlap is there in participants? In general theme of the conference? Is it really the exact same thing or is there one new experiment?
RESPONSE B: It's a tricky one to judge. I've repeated plenty of papers before, but only when I was confident of addressing a different audience. I'd also frame the content of the paper slightly differently each time in order to fit with the conference theme. If the conference has multiple parallel strands, then you can repeat papers in the knowledge that people who have already seen it can attend another session instead. You don't want to repeat stuff too much though - give it a few airings (including at least one major conference), tweak it after each performance to improve it or just freshen things up, and then find a other home for it (article, chapter, blog, YouTube, etc) in order to squeeze out the full value of your research.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Is it unethical and/or frowned upon to present the same content at multiple conferences? I've heard some people say that it is great to disseminate as much as possible, but others say that it is bad form to present the same content at multiple conferences. Thoughts?
RESPONSE A: Yes, but it might be field dependent. Some conferences I have submitted to specifically say that the research can't have been presented elsewhere (some have exceptions for small conferences, or international).
RESPONSE B: What field?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: After your paper has been provisionally accepted, is it normal for the editor to suggest adding references from the journal you're submitting to? Is this frowned upon by the scientific community? Presumably to improve the journal's Impact Factor, right?
RESPONSE A: The citation indices are starting to ban journals that do this: http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/06/record-number-of-journals-banned-for-boosting-impact-factor-with-self-citations.html. What this means for you is that if you are in a journal that becomes banned, your work becomes (a bit) harder to find during the ban. And also you are associated with a dodgy journal.
RESPONSE B: Super sketchy. This is happening to you right now?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: After your paper has been provisionally accepted, is it normal for the editor to suggest adding references from the journal you're submitting to? Is this frowned upon by the scientific community? Presumably to improve the journal's Impact Factor, right?
RESPONSE A: The citation indices are starting to ban journals that do this: http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/06/record-number-of-journals-banned-for-boosting-impact-factor-with-self-citations.html. What this means for you is that if you are in a journal that becomes banned, your work becomes (a bit) harder to find during the ban. And also you are associated with a dodgy journal.
RESPONSE B: Yeah, pretty shonky behaviour, but not that uncommon from certain journals.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Would it seem greedy or frowned upon if after one Ph.D you do another Ph.D? Let's say you have a Ph.D in Physics but you also find Computer Science interesting and you like the life of being Ph.D student. Assuming you manage to get the first Ph.D under 30, would it be 'bad' for you to try to do a Ph.D in another area and likely in another country?
RESPONSE A: Seems like a bad idea in the long term. If the two fields are related it's redundant, if not you won't be helping yourself, and either way you won't have the productivity you'd have finishing the first and getting on with it.
RESPONSE B: Aside from what others have said, it is very amusing that you would wonder if others would find this "greedy." Nobody really thinks that extra PhDs are a resource that is being hoarded. People are more likely to think you are _crazy_ or _foolish_. Not many people are going to _envy_ you doing two PhDs in a row — they are likely to see that as some form of career failure, e.g., "wow, here's a person who got a PhD but chose their field of study so poorly that they had to go back and get another."
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Would it seem greedy or frowned upon if after one Ph.D you do another Ph.D? Let's say you have a Ph.D in Physics but you also find Computer Science interesting and you like the life of being Ph.D student. Assuming you manage to get the first Ph.D under 30, would it be 'bad' for you to try to do a Ph.D in another area and likely in another country?
RESPONSE A: Why would you want to do this?
RESPONSE B: Seems like a bad idea in the long term. If the two fields are related it's redundant, if not you won't be helping yourself, and either way you won't have the productivity you'd have finishing the first and getting on with it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: university in my country (DK). For most of my studies, I have worked as a research assistant for a professor in Economics at a different university. The field I am interested in and have worked in is very niche (cultural economics) and certainly not a part of mainstream economics. However, there is a (small) active international research environment, and the field has its own journal, etc. I have been given the opportunity to pursue a PhD at my professor's department and have handed in my project proposal to the PhD school. Despite being genuinely interested in the subject, I am starting to doubt my decision. Here is why: - The department is not the economics department but interdisciplinary, with a majority within humanities. Hence, I fear I will not be considered a "true" economist despite using the same methodologies. And I am afraid that I will end up isolated because none of my colleagues/peers remotely works within the same as I intend to. I have discussed these matters with my professor to no avail. - I fear that pursuing a PhD field in a very niche field outside the mainstream causes more harm than good in terms of future job opportunities. - Publishing in high-quality economic journals is also notoriously tricky within this field. I hope you may have some advice to put me at ease. All the best
RESPONSE A: If you don't pursue it, are you going to regret it for the rest of your life?
RESPONSE B: Pretty sure there will always be huge overlappings between social sciences and humanities. Take 'economic history', 'history of economic theory' or qualitative economic research f.e. There won't be much difference between a monograph on the 2008 financial crash written by a economic historian and a monograph on the same topic written by an economist. The theoretical underpinnings may slightly differ, but overall, both monographs have to be fact-based, have to analyse their source material thoroughly and have to lead to knew scientific insights on the topic. The so-called Humanities are (wrongfully) regarded as unprofitable by the business sector. That's why economists want to distance themselves. But that's imho just business community 'propaganda'...
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Conflicted between pursuing a PhD or not Hi, I have an MSc in Economics from the best university in my country (DK). For most of my studies, I have worked as a research assistant for a professor in Economics at a different university. The field I am interested in and have worked in is very niche (cultural economics) and certainly not a part of mainstream economics. However, there is a (small) active international research environment, and the field has its own journal, etc. I have been given the opportunity to pursue a PhD at my professor's department and have handed in my project proposal to the PhD school. Despite being genuinely interested in the subject, I am starting to doubt my decision. Here is why: - The department is not the economics department but interdisciplinary, with a majority within humanities. Hence, I fear I will not be considered a "true" economist despite using the same methodologies. And I am afraid that I will end up isolated because none of my colleagues/peers remotely works within the same as I intend to. I have discussed these matters with my professor to no avail. - I fear that pursuing a PhD field in a very niche field outside the mainstream causes more harm than good in terms of future job opportunities. - Publishing in high-quality economic journals is also notoriously tricky within this field. I hope you may have some advice to put me at ease. All the best
RESPONSE A: If you don't pursue it, are you going to regret it for the rest of your life?
RESPONSE B: There are advantages to interdisciplinarity. You get a much broader perspective on a topic and will likely learn new perspectives, theories etc. This can ultimately make you more flexible, more rounded and more employable. The research world is (slowly) moving towards interdisciplinary working, although some more quickly than others.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Conflicted between pursuing a PhD or not Hi, I have an MSc in Economics from the best university in my country (DK). For most of my studies, I have worked as a research assistant for a professor in Economics at a different university. The field I am interested in and have worked in is very niche (cultural economics) and certainly not a part of mainstream economics. However, there is a (small) active international research environment, and the field has its own journal, etc. I have been given the opportunity to pursue a PhD at my professor's department and have handed in my project proposal to the PhD school. Despite being genuinely interested in the subject, I am starting to doubt my decision. Here is why: - The department is not the economics department but interdisciplinary, with a majority within humanities. Hence, I fear I will not be considered a "true" economist despite using the same methodologies. And I am afraid that I will end up isolated because none of my colleagues/peers remotely works within the same as I intend to. I have discussed these matters with my professor to no avail. - I fear that pursuing a PhD field in a very niche field outside the mainstream causes more harm than good in terms of future job opportunities. - Publishing in high-quality economic journals is also notoriously tricky within this field. I hope you may have some advice to put me at ease. All the best
RESPONSE A: There are advantages to interdisciplinarity. You get a much broader perspective on a topic and will likely learn new perspectives, theories etc. This can ultimately make you more flexible, more rounded and more employable. The research world is (slowly) moving towards interdisciplinary working, although some more quickly than others.
RESPONSE B: Apply to a department that is clearly economics. You don’t want ambiguity in your background when you are looking for a job.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: makes, and feel like I would be closing the door or many software development jobs due to being "over educated" and due to age discrimination (I have read it is particularly bad in tech). On the other hand, I do enjoy computational biology and I think the research topics I would be working on would be fascinating. All of my friends who are in/have be in grad school tell me that due to my personality and interests I would love grad school and would really excel. I worry that it would be unethical to drop out of the program before I even began. For one because the professors I have been in contact with have more or less invested in me already, and I am taking up a spot that someone else could have had in my place. I guess my question is: what advice would you give someone in my position?
RESPONSE A: Write out a list of the pros and cons of each of your options (which you have pretty much done already). Identify what your long term goals are (do you want to stay in software development or do you want to pursue passion projects in computational biology?) Is grad school a necessity for you to reach those goals? How important are job security and salary to you? These are questions that *you* need to answer.
RESPONSE B: Getting a job as software developer is easy. No matter what happens, if you enter the PhD program and then leave early or graduate but decide to leave academia, you can easily find work. Usually you will see a pay bump between BS and a grad degree. There's just less of an increase in salary from MS to PhD. There are two questions to ask yourself: * Am I more excited/interested/passionate about computational biology research than available software development positions? * If yes, is my relative happiness with being a computational biology researcher worth more than the opportunity cost of making less money? That said, there are scenarios where you as a researcher could make more than as a developer; unlikely as they may be. =) It is also true that you could revert to software development at any point in your life. Also, don't worry so much about your age. The experience you have makes up for it. Practical skills, especially software development, will give you an advantage over many other "traditional" students.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: pretty piece of paper). I'm also jealous because some of my friends picked a trade (massage... lift building... agricultural science), studied for a year, and now they have a job and a nice paycheck. I'm getting anxious for it to be my turn. I think I made a mistake falling in love with chemistry.
RESPONSE A: I can't give you practical advice, but I can say this: I'm almost 30, and I haven't had the chance to even start undergraduate education at a college yet due to a string of family/housing issues over the past 10 years. My interest and what I've spent most of what time I have on professional/educational stuff in my free time is Mesoamerican archeology and history, something assuredly far more niche and with less prospects for an academic or private/commercial careers, and I also have no real safety net financially and have no clue what i'm going to do or if pursuing it is worth it. My point being this: Regardless of what descision you come to for what you want to do, you are *always* going to be behind or seem late compared to somebody else, and compared to yet another person you will seem years and years ahead. It's really, really easy to wallow in despair of what chances you've missed out on or what could have been, but ultimately it's not productive to deciding what you should be actually doing. (Also I'm not trying to be high and mighty about this, I'm guilty as hell for thinking it's too late and being upset about that instead of focusing on what my next steps should be)
RESPONSE B: In hind sight I do see how many of my friends who started real jobs right out of school have a bit of a head start on me, now that my PhD is over and I have a job. Its a little depressing but I also know that the PhD will open doors to jobs that a normal degree could not do. So although the CURRENT landscape is tilted toward the others, the FUTURE possibility is in many ways greater with a PhD compared to friends who did a B.S. and went to work.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: want to go outside and enjoy my life! I'm still studying part time, and will be for another 3.5 years!! I started at UNSW part time and did really very well there, but they went to trimesters, so I picked up at left to Sydney University. Then COVID hit. I've met close to none of my professors and my third year plummeted. Also, UNSW requires one major to graduate, while USYD requires two, and it's taken me some time to find something else I love (apparently, it's Spanish... hola!). By the end of my degree (with honors) it will have taken me ELEVEN YEARS to get a BSc Adv. Science with a double major. I'm broke, and will be for the foreseeable future, and even then to get anywhere significant with chemistry requires a PhD. I'm afraid that I've wasted my life studying, and just desperately want to can the degree altogether for a full-time job in the industry (if anyone will hire me, I have ALL the chem qualifications but my second major is holding me back from that pretty piece of paper). I'm also jealous because some of my friends picked a trade (massage... lift building... agricultural science), studied for a year, and now they have a job and a nice paycheck. I'm getting anxious for it to be my turn. I think I made a mistake falling in love with chemistry.
RESPONSE A: Wait. BSc in 11 years? That deserves an explanation! How is that even possible? I've heard of doing Everything to PhD in 7 years but that?!
RESPONSE B: In hind sight I do see how many of my friends who started real jobs right out of school have a bit of a head start on me, now that my PhD is over and I have a job. Its a little depressing but I also know that the PhD will open doors to jobs that a normal degree could not do. So although the CURRENT landscape is tilted toward the others, the FUTURE possibility is in many ways greater with a PhD compared to friends who did a B.S. and went to work.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Professors of Reddit: What is the best way for a student to get to know you? I just started working on my second bachelor's degree this semester and will likely finish it at the end of spring semester 2019. This only gives me four semesters to build a rapport with my teachers. It's difficult because I am also commuting an hour and some of my classes are online. Because of the way one of my parents treated me as a child I get kind of weird around people who I perceive to be in authority over me, so that doesn't help. Not to mention that I am an introvert and it takes awhile for me to get to know people and for them to get to know me. What can I do to build relationships with my professors for the sake of recommendations for graduate school and for the possible advice and guidance that they could give? I would love to get some research experience, too.
RESPONSE A: I may be biased, as I've only ever had small classes, but honestly? Do good work. Go to office hours too, but it's your work they're going to be basing the brunt of their letters on.
RESPONSE B: >What can I do to build relationships with my professors for the sake of recommendations for graduate school and for the possible advice and guidance that they could give? I would love to get some research experience, too. Take classes with them. Be engaged in the classroom. Do your homework / reading. Sit near the front of the class. Talk. Ask intelligent questions. Reply to questions the professor throws to the class. Go to office hours *if* you have more intelligent questions to ask. The students I have noticed are the ones who do the above. They're the ones I remember. And they're the ones who, when I have outside research and need someone to assist me with it, are going to get first dibs.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: and will likely finish it at the end of spring semester 2019. This only gives me four semesters to build a rapport with my teachers. It's difficult because I am also commuting an hour and some of my classes are online. Because of the way one of my parents treated me as a child I get kind of weird around people who I perceive to be in authority over me, so that doesn't help. Not to mention that I am an introvert and it takes awhile for me to get to know people and for them to get to know me. What can I do to build relationships with my professors for the sake of recommendations for graduate school and for the possible advice and guidance that they could give? I would love to get some research experience, too.
RESPONSE A: I may be biased, as I've only ever had small classes, but honestly? Do good work. Go to office hours too, but it's your work they're going to be basing the brunt of their letters on.
RESPONSE B: In a few comments you voice some difficulties with the advice about visiting office hours. This is OK. Often, a number of very small interactions can be more meaningful than a few long ones. I've had students who have never come to office hours but almost always say a word or two to me before or after class that I end up getting to know much better than the students who use my office hours. And, as other posters have said, *during* class is really the prime time to start building relationships. A professors primary modality for building relationships is in class - it's most of what we do, after all. Further, office hours can be more difficult to navigate since it is both easy to feel like you are over-staying your welcome and also easy to actually over-stay your welcome. In this way, being an introvert is not a bad thing. Most (all?) professors are basically nerds (the ones who say otherwise are in denial), and many of them are either introverts themselves or quite used to working with introverts. So, four semesters is lots of time. Spend a term being an excellent student in all your classes and try to find a professor you can take a second (and then maybe a third) class with.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: finish it at the end of spring semester 2019. This only gives me four semesters to build a rapport with my teachers. It's difficult because I am also commuting an hour and some of my classes are online. Because of the way one of my parents treated me as a child I get kind of weird around people who I perceive to be in authority over me, so that doesn't help. Not to mention that I am an introvert and it takes awhile for me to get to know people and for them to get to know me. What can I do to build relationships with my professors for the sake of recommendations for graduate school and for the possible advice and guidance that they could give? I would love to get some research experience, too.
RESPONSE A: Your first step is to look up their CVs. This is going to show you their experiences and research interests. It will help you know what work is being done and what coincides with your interests. Educate yourself on their focus and read their papers.
RESPONSE B: In a few comments you voice some difficulties with the advice about visiting office hours. This is OK. Often, a number of very small interactions can be more meaningful than a few long ones. I've had students who have never come to office hours but almost always say a word or two to me before or after class that I end up getting to know much better than the students who use my office hours. And, as other posters have said, *during* class is really the prime time to start building relationships. A professors primary modality for building relationships is in class - it's most of what we do, after all. Further, office hours can be more difficult to navigate since it is both easy to feel like you are over-staying your welcome and also easy to actually over-stay your welcome. In this way, being an introvert is not a bad thing. Most (all?) professors are basically nerds (the ones who say otherwise are in denial), and many of them are either introverts themselves or quite used to working with introverts. So, four semesters is lots of time. Spend a term being an excellent student in all your classes and try to find a professor you can take a second (and then maybe a third) class with.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Professors of Reddit: What is the best way for a student to get to know you? I just started working on my second bachelor's degree this semester and will likely finish it at the end of spring semester 2019. This only gives me four semesters to build a rapport with my teachers. It's difficult because I am also commuting an hour and some of my classes are online. Because of the way one of my parents treated me as a child I get kind of weird around people who I perceive to be in authority over me, so that doesn't help. Not to mention that I am an introvert and it takes awhile for me to get to know people and for them to get to know me. What can I do to build relationships with my professors for the sake of recommendations for graduate school and for the possible advice and guidance that they could give? I would love to get some research experience, too.
RESPONSE A: What general field? Office hours are always a great idea as others have said. Ask their advice about a future in the field in addition to normal class-related questions. There are often clubs and other organizations professors are involved in as well that can be helpful both in building a rapport with professors and learning more about the field. I volunteered as an unpaid research assistant with one of my favorite professors - but that isn’t a possibility in a lot of fields. Talk to your professors - don’t feel like you’re trying to trick them in to taking an interest in you. Take an interest in the field, and the rest will happen organically.
RESPONSE B: Your first step is to look up their CVs. This is going to show you their experiences and research interests. It will help you know what work is being done and what coincides with your interests. Educate yourself on their focus and read their papers.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Professors of Reddit: What is the best way for a student to get to know you? I just started working on my second bachelor's degree this semester and will likely finish it at the end of spring semester 2019. This only gives me four semesters to build a rapport with my teachers. It's difficult because I am also commuting an hour and some of my classes are online. Because of the way one of my parents treated me as a child I get kind of weird around people who I perceive to be in authority over me, so that doesn't help. Not to mention that I am an introvert and it takes awhile for me to get to know people and for them to get to know me. What can I do to build relationships with my professors for the sake of recommendations for graduate school and for the possible advice and guidance that they could give? I would love to get some research experience, too.
RESPONSE A: In addition to all the great ideas here you can email with ideas about research interests and whether there are any openings with them (if a STEM field, even washing dishes or pressing Go on a model run for minimum wage is a fine start). The students who do research for me are much easier to write a letter for than others (though of course that’s not the only way to get a good letter).
RESPONSE B: What general field? Office hours are always a great idea as others have said. Ask their advice about a future in the field in addition to normal class-related questions. There are often clubs and other organizations professors are involved in as well that can be helpful both in building a rapport with professors and learning more about the field. I volunteered as an unpaid research assistant with one of my favorite professors - but that isn’t a possibility in a lot of fields. Talk to your professors - don’t feel like you’re trying to trick them in to taking an interest in you. Take an interest in the field, and the rest will happen organically.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Has anyone gotten Course Hero to identify a student who posted test questions? I found out one of my students asked a question during our chemistry exam in Course hero. I suspect who the student is, but I want to obtain proof from course hero about the identity of the student. My school is in the United States. Has anyone else been through something similar?
RESPONSE A: Hey, thankfully I can't relate to situation, but according to the course hero page they discourage cheating. Basically, yeah kids will definitely cheat on this site but we're covered since we discourage it. I think that if you email them with the post/username of who posted it they may be respond and give you some info. But this is the internet no saying if the kid used private email that can't be connected back or something else to protect his identity. If you have a suspicion about who did it there's obviously a reason. If you don't obtain any identifying info, have a talk with this kid about coming across the question. Be blatant without threatening to do anything you can't follow through on. Good luck with your student
RESPONSE B: My University deals with this at times. It really depends. My school cracks down on these situation so hard to the point where they litigate on the grounds of copy right infringement and are able to get identities of posters that way (I think). But if you're a TA bring it to your instructor of record or course coordinator but if you're faculty talk to the department head and see if you should forward this to the dean of students or who ever deals with academic dishonesty.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: answer I used the median answer of the sample (e.g. I was missing an answer and the median on a 0-10 scale was 7 so I filled in the answer as 7 and noted it in the paper). * It looks like I tried to fit my data to fit my hypothesis rather than walk away with inconclusive evidence. I'm not entirely positive I wrote the hypothesis before collecting data. * The entire model was built on 100% of the data collected. In short, I couldn't and didn't replicate or test the model against a portion of the sample since it was all used in building it in the first place. Nothing was split into sets. *** Assuming my understanding of p-hacking is correct and my initial undergrad work was full of it, **why didn't my professor bring this to my attention?** I didn't even know p-hacking was a thing until the end of graduate school and even then it was something I found online rather than in my statistics class. I feel like an idiot and am now wondering if X years from now I'll look back on what I did today and think, "How could I have missed that."
RESPONSE A: Tbh, depending on what specific statistics you're doing, your p-hacking isn't THAT bad. All of these are things I've been taught to do under certain conditions (like in exploratory data that you then later investigate more robustly with independent samples, or when agnostically trying to improve data quality before looking at any test result). If I were grading this as an undergrad project, I'd probably make notes about what is concerning and maybe take off a couple points, but undergrad projects are more about "can you even get through data analysis by yourself" rather than producing something robust, polished, and publication-worthy.
RESPONSE B: Unrelated to your question, but I once turned in a paper for an Urban Planning class with an inconclusive thesis. Basically, none of the local counties would let me use their books to calculate certain expenditures I was trying to research, so I made it clear in my paper. Got my only C in college and dragged my GPA .02 below Magna Cum Laude. :/
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: as 7 and noted it in the paper). * It looks like I tried to fit my data to fit my hypothesis rather than walk away with inconclusive evidence. I'm not entirely positive I wrote the hypothesis before collecting data. * The entire model was built on 100% of the data collected. In short, I couldn't and didn't replicate or test the model against a portion of the sample since it was all used in building it in the first place. Nothing was split into sets. *** Assuming my understanding of p-hacking is correct and my initial undergrad work was full of it, **why didn't my professor bring this to my attention?** I didn't even know p-hacking was a thing until the end of graduate school and even then it was something I found online rather than in my statistics class. I feel like an idiot and am now wondering if X years from now I'll look back on what I did today and think, "How could I have missed that."
RESPONSE A: >why didn't my professor bring this to my attention? Because in the grand scheme, it didn't matter. You completed a research project. The point was to learn the process. It wasn't to make the best, most methodologically sound research ever. So you manipulated your p-values and sample. So what? It's not published research, nor is it part of a grant or pilot study. Ultimately, it was an undergrad paper. The point was to gain some experience writing a paper and doing a research project with data. You did that. My bet is that's what your prof was grading on. If it had been an honors or master's thesis, and your results actually mattered, I'm sure he / she would have been harder on your work.
RESPONSE B: Unrelated to your question, but I once turned in a paper for an Urban Planning class with an inconclusive thesis. Basically, none of the local counties would let me use their books to calculate certain expenditures I was trying to research, so I made it clear in my paper. Got my only C in college and dragged my GPA .02 below Magna Cum Laude. :/
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: * Many covariates were measured but I only reported on those with p 0.10 and p 0.05. * Some covariates were dropped completely because I wanted a better adjusted R2 for the model. I recall being told, "You'll never get the adjusted R2 above 0.80 because this is social science data" or something to that degree. * All participants were still included and when I had null answers in order to include the participant's answer I used the median answer of the sample (e.g. I was missing an answer and the median on a 0-10 scale was 7 so I filled in the answer as 7 and noted it in the paper). * It looks like I tried to fit my data to fit my hypothesis rather than walk away with inconclusive evidence. I'm not entirely positive I wrote the hypothesis before collecting data. * The entire model was built on 100% of the data collected. In short, I couldn't and didn't replicate or test the model against a portion of the sample since it was all used in building it in the first place. Nothing was split into sets. *** Assuming my understanding of p-hacking is correct and my initial undergrad work was full of it, **why didn't my professor bring this to my attention?** I didn't even know p-hacking was a thing until the end of graduate school and even then it was something I found online rather than in my statistics class. I feel like an idiot and am now wondering if X years from now I'll look back on what I did today and think, "How could I have missed that."
RESPONSE A: As a general rule... Any time you look back at your work that is older than a couple of years, you will notice mistakes. Think of it as the natural progression of your skill.
RESPONSE B: Unrelated to your question, but I once turned in a paper for an Urban Planning class with an inconclusive thesis. Basically, none of the local counties would let me use their books to calculate certain expenditures I was trying to research, so I made it clear in my paper. Got my only C in college and dragged my GPA .02 below Magna Cum Laude. :/
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How bad does leaving a PhD program looks in your resume? How bad it is to drops a PhD program, and how does it compare with getting a masters?
RESPONSE A: The biggest issue I see is depending on the terms you leave on you may not be able to get a letter of reference from your boss.
RESPONSE B: It really depends on reasons for leaving. "I discovered that this was not how I want to spend my life" is a pretty solid reason that several people I know gave when they realized.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How bad does leaving a PhD program looks in your resume? How bad it is to drops a PhD program, and how does it compare with getting a masters?
RESPONSE A: > how does it compare with getting a masters? Do you mean how does not receiving a PhD compare to receiving a master's? That's sort of an comparison. My guess is that most people would consider an earned master's more favorably than a failed/incomplete PhD (unless it's ABD, maybe).
RESPONSE B: Some programs will give you a Master's degree if you drop out after finishing your advancement/qualifying exams from the PhD program. All of my friends that dropped out of the PhD program had no problem finding jobs afterwards.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How bad does leaving a PhD program looks in your resume? How bad it is to drops a PhD program, and how does it compare with getting a masters?
RESPONSE A: The biggest issue I see is depending on the terms you leave on you may not be able to get a letter of reference from your boss.
RESPONSE B: Some programs will give you a Master's degree if you drop out after finishing your advancement/qualifying exams from the PhD program. All of my friends that dropped out of the PhD program had no problem finding jobs afterwards.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How bad does leaving a PhD program looks in your resume? How bad it is to drops a PhD program, and how does it compare with getting a masters?
RESPONSE A: In the eyes of an _industry_ employer, it may look like the fact that you were able to get in the program, which makes you smart at the end of the day! A complete Master's is better though I think. Because complete.
RESPONSE B: > how does it compare with getting a masters? Do you mean how does not receiving a PhD compare to receiving a master's? That's sort of an comparison. My guess is that most people would consider an earned master's more favorably than a failed/incomplete PhD (unless it's ABD, maybe).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How bad does leaving a PhD program looks in your resume? How bad it is to drops a PhD program, and how does it compare with getting a masters?
RESPONSE A: In the eyes of an _industry_ employer, it may look like the fact that you were able to get in the program, which makes you smart at the end of the day! A complete Master's is better though I think. Because complete.
RESPONSE B: The biggest issue I see is depending on the terms you leave on you may not be able to get a letter of reference from your boss.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Undergrad asked to have lunch with some candidates for a non-tenure track position. How should I prepare? Hi all, I’m an undergrad (chemistry) who’s been asked by my department along with a couple other students to have lunch with a few candidates for a non-tenure track position. We’ll be meeting with them one candidate at a time spread out over the next couple weeks, and attending sample lectures of theirs at some time to be determined later. How can I prepare for these lunches to be as helpful to the department and the candidates as possible? We’ve been sent the candidates’ CVs which I’ve been going over. Should I take some time to read a publication or two? Do you know what else might be expected on our part for these meetings? What sorts of questions should I ask besides the obvious about their work? Thanks in advance for any insight you might have.
RESPONSE A: Your main role in these meetings is as a representative of the undergraduate population. Most of the interaction that undergrads have with their professors is through course-based teaching, so ask them about their teaching experiences, teaching philosophy and how they feel they'd fit into your department as a teacher. Ask them about their supervisory experience and whether they're interested in taking on undergrads for research positions. And ask them about their research, but evaluate the answers from the lens of the undergrad population -- their communication skills are a reflection of their teaching ability.
RESPONSE B: It can't hurt to read their pubs. Your department has asked you to be involved because they want your input on the candidates from a student perspective. Ask questions that are interesting to YOU. Make a lost of the ideal professor. From there you can generate questions and topics of discussion. Do you let students get involved in your research? How did you get interested in University X?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is it typical to accept an undergrad who worked your lab as a Ph.D. student? I’m an undergrad in a research group I really enjoy. I love the faculty and our culture is great. I love the research. The faculty seem to like me and feel confident in my ability level. I feel like I’ve hit the jackpot. I want to stay here for my Ph.D. I’m in physics, if that’s helpful information. Would it be uncomfortable for me to ask my PI or the other faculty I work with if they would like to keep me on as a grad student? I’ll be applying to Ph.D. programs this fall and just really want to stay in this group.
RESPONSE A: I'm doing my master's in physics, in the same boat as you - love the work, the people and the culture of our group, wouldn't want to be anywhere else. spoke to my PI some time ago, told him I'd love to stay and he seems to be on board - so worth asking at least, methinks. Good luck, hope it works out well for you!
RESPONSE B: Doooo it! Having a good advisor mentor-relationship is one of the most important things about grad school. Also my advisor has shared with us that when he has a particularly good undergrad he would happy to have them stay.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Defending my dissertation tomorrow! It's been a long and stressful 6 years and I am almost done. I'm a bit scared out of my wits, but my committee seems to be confident I will do well. I've received very little feedback on the dissertation itself, good or bad, but I am hoping no news is good news. Just gotta keep telling myself that they wouldn't let me defend if I wasn't ready. I will tell everyone how it went tomorrow!!
RESPONSE A: They wouldn't let you defend if you weren't ready. I hope you don't read this until you're done because you're getting rest and chocolate, right? But best of luck, not that you need it - you're the subject matter expert in that room :)
RESPONSE B: Don't worry about it. They've already decided, mate. I kept getting told that and didn't listen on ounce. I wish I had. Enjoy the shit out of tomorrow, man. It's a *good day*.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Defending my dissertation tomorrow! It's been a long and stressful 6 years and I am almost done. I'm a bit scared out of my wits, but my committee seems to be confident I will do well. I've received very little feedback on the dissertation itself, good or bad, but I am hoping no news is good news. Just gotta keep telling myself that they wouldn't let me defend if I wasn't ready. I will tell everyone how it went tomorrow!!
RESPONSE A: Good luck! You will be great!
RESPONSE B: Don't worry about it. They've already decided, mate. I kept getting told that and didn't listen on ounce. I wish I had. Enjoy the shit out of tomorrow, man. It's a *good day*.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Defending my dissertation tomorrow! It's been a long and stressful 6 years and I am almost done. I'm a bit scared out of my wits, but my committee seems to be confident I will do well. I've received very little feedback on the dissertation itself, good or bad, but I am hoping no news is good news. Just gotta keep telling myself that they wouldn't let me defend if I wasn't ready. I will tell everyone how it went tomorrow!!
RESPONSE A: Don't worry about it. They've already decided, mate. I kept getting told that and didn't listen on ounce. I wish I had. Enjoy the shit out of tomorrow, man. It's a *good day*.
RESPONSE B: Good luck, have a beer when it's all done!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Defending my dissertation tomorrow! It's been a long and stressful 6 years and I am almost done. I'm a bit scared out of my wits, but my committee seems to be confident I will do well. I've received very little feedback on the dissertation itself, good or bad, but I am hoping no news is good news. Just gotta keep telling myself that they wouldn't let me defend if I wasn't ready. I will tell everyone how it went tomorrow!!
RESPONSE A: Don't worry about it. They've already decided, mate. I kept getting told that and didn't listen on ounce. I wish I had. Enjoy the shit out of tomorrow, man. It's a *good day*.
RESPONSE B: Good luck! ☺
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Defending my dissertation tomorrow! It's been a long and stressful 6 years and I am almost done. I'm a bit scared out of my wits, but my committee seems to be confident I will do well. I've received very little feedback on the dissertation itself, good or bad, but I am hoping no news is good news. Just gotta keep telling myself that they wouldn't let me defend if I wasn't ready. I will tell everyone how it went tomorrow!!
RESPONSE A: They wouldn't let you defend if you weren't ready. I hope you don't read this until you're done because you're getting rest and chocolate, right? But best of luck, not that you need it - you're the subject matter expert in that room :)
RESPONSE B: Good luck, have a beer when it's all done!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What do professors think about spamming Professor Watchlist? Professor Watchlist is a site that purports to name and shame professors that discriminate against conservative students and advance a "Leftist" agenda. Users can submit professors' names to the site and provide a source showing that the professor committed said discriminatory behavior. There has been talk on social media about submitting conservative, or apolitical professors to the site, usually in irony or jest. For example, one could submit a professor who has never gone on record about anything political, and claim he's committed "anti-American" activities like showing 9Gag posts in class that were copied from reddit. Another example would be to submit a professor who has gone on record being personally against gay rights. The point, I think, is to delegitimize the site and also create massive workloads and associated costs for the site's staff. Do you think this is irresponsible? Or is this just a principled tactic to stop people who are trying to stifle free speech?
RESPONSE A: I think it's a crap site and we should just let it die an uneventful death. The site is aimed at people screaming 'discrimination!' and 'socialism!' and whatever you do, you won't be able to convince them that this entire thing is retarded. Best not to waste any effort or involve people who are not involved already.
RESPONSE B: I think you've just Streisand Effected that website.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: When is it okay to include humour in emails to professors? Specifically asking in a North American context. By humour, I don't necessarily mean actual jokes, but more like small, non-serious elements: making a reference to course material or a small quip about the weather, or something like that. I'm from a country where it is considered standard and often even the polite norm to include a bit of humour in an email, as anything else will be seen as impersonal. I've been struggling to figure out the social norms at my North American university, however. My professors will often make joking remarks in classes or office hours, but it seems like email culture is very professional. What are your takes? It is it acceptable when you have a good relationship with the professor, or does it entirely vary from person to person? Should you always just go with a professional, straight email?
RESPONSE A: In my experience, 90% of students who try to include a little quip end up saying something cringey if not outright racist or sexist, so I would avoid it.
RESPONSE B: 100% depends on your relationship.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: the position would involve a whole lot of admin work (like a lot ). I was wondering about people's experiences as research assistants before pursuing their PhD. How well did being an RA prepare you for a doctoral position, if at all? How does it read on an academic CV? I also got an offer to lecture full time in a masters program around African Studies and Global health, which I have not yet declined. To be able to fully make an informed decision, I just wanted to hear some experiences from others :) Thanks a lot!
RESPONSE A: "Research assistant" is not some kind of standardised position - it can be almost anything: a glorified admin, a random group minion, a lab technician, a programmer or data analyst, a PhD student's stipend, or even a junior postdoc. You're asking very sensible questions, but no one here can give a reliably meaningful answer without an actual job description. As for your CV, again, it doesn't mean anything on its own. What matters is whether the specific skills, experience, and professional network that you gain there will make you a stronger candidate for whatever you're applying for. You'll need to consider what your weaknesses are as a PhD applicant and evaluate whether this particular job will help boost your credentials in those areas.
RESPONSE B: My field (economics) is not remotely similar, so take this with a grain of salt... Are you accepted into a PhD program already? If not, I would jump at this chance regardless of whether you'll be a coauthor on research. In economics at least doing a high-profile RA position is super helpful for doing a PhD at a top program. If you're already accepted, the benefit is a lower but I'd still do it. You're going to learn a lot from this person just from talking. This will read as much more impressive on your CV than the lecturer position you're also offered, even if admin work is not that exciting. Last question: is there any way to discretely ask around to see if this professor is a decent human being? If they're a jerk this opportunity sounds much less appealing.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Assistant position? Hi everyone, I recently left a job where I was a junior lecturer. I'm 25 (f) and not in my doctoral program yet, but despite this I got a lot of 'wiggle room' in my role as a junior lecturer- I got to design and teach my own undergraduate course in my discipline and was able to teach first-year master students as well (again in my area of interest which is African gender studies). I recently got offered a research assistant position to someone who is an extremely high profile academic in my field of study. I am very excited but also a little hesitant because the position would involve a whole lot of admin work (like a lot ). I was wondering about people's experiences as research assistants before pursuing their PhD. How well did being an RA prepare you for a doctoral position, if at all? How does it read on an academic CV? I also got an offer to lecture full time in a masters program around African Studies and Global health, which I have not yet declined. To be able to fully make an informed decision, I just wanted to hear some experiences from others :) Thanks a lot!
RESPONSE A: "Research assistant" is not some kind of standardised position - it can be almost anything: a glorified admin, a random group minion, a lab technician, a programmer or data analyst, a PhD student's stipend, or even a junior postdoc. You're asking very sensible questions, but no one here can give a reliably meaningful answer without an actual job description. As for your CV, again, it doesn't mean anything on its own. What matters is whether the specific skills, experience, and professional network that you gain there will make you a stronger candidate for whatever you're applying for. You'll need to consider what your weaknesses are as a PhD applicant and evaluate whether this particular job will help boost your credentials in those areas.
RESPONSE B: Not always but RA-ships are often more or less identical to what a PhD student does, but lower stakes, (often) low pay, typically less independence. It's probably the best possible preparation for a doctoral position.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Are there benefits to accepting a Research Assistant position? Hi everyone, I recently left a job where I was a junior lecturer. I'm 25 (f) and not in my doctoral program yet, but despite this I got a lot of 'wiggle room' in my role as a junior lecturer- I got to design and teach my own undergraduate course in my discipline and was able to teach first-year master students as well (again in my area of interest which is African gender studies). I recently got offered a research assistant position to someone who is an extremely high profile academic in my field of study. I am very excited but also a little hesitant because the position would involve a whole lot of admin work (like a lot ). I was wondering about people's experiences as research assistants before pursuing their PhD. How well did being an RA prepare you for a doctoral position, if at all? How does it read on an academic CV? I also got an offer to lecture full time in a masters program around African Studies and Global health, which I have not yet declined. To be able to fully make an informed decision, I just wanted to hear some experiences from others :) Thanks a lot!
RESPONSE A: "Research assistant" is not some kind of standardised position - it can be almost anything: a glorified admin, a random group minion, a lab technician, a programmer or data analyst, a PhD student's stipend, or even a junior postdoc. You're asking very sensible questions, but no one here can give a reliably meaningful answer without an actual job description. As for your CV, again, it doesn't mean anything on its own. What matters is whether the specific skills, experience, and professional network that you gain there will make you a stronger candidate for whatever you're applying for. You'll need to consider what your weaknesses are as a PhD applicant and evaluate whether this particular job will help boost your credentials in those areas.
RESPONSE B: Well RA is usually nice to get experience in research so it gives you actual experience and looks good on resume if you are looking for phd.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: and was able to teach first-year master students as well (again in my area of interest which is African gender studies). I recently got offered a research assistant position to someone who is an extremely high profile academic in my field of study. I am very excited but also a little hesitant because the position would involve a whole lot of admin work (like a lot ). I was wondering about people's experiences as research assistants before pursuing their PhD. How well did being an RA prepare you for a doctoral position, if at all? How does it read on an academic CV? I also got an offer to lecture full time in a masters program around African Studies and Global health, which I have not yet declined. To be able to fully make an informed decision, I just wanted to hear some experiences from others :) Thanks a lot!
RESPONSE A: I was an RA before I started my PhD, and an RA many times while in my PhD, and it was a super good experience. I learned a lot about how real professors do research, I got paid, and I got to show the professors that I could do it myself. The latter pays off in spades when you later need letters of recommendation (which you will, for fellowships, for jobs, etc.) — it's a chance to show a professor what you are capable of, above and beyond what they'll see in a class. It also teaches you a lot about how universities work (and don't), and also teaches you a lot about how to manage researchers working for you in the future (and how not to). Not saying that every RA position is equal, but it's definitely useful if you are planning to go onto a career in academia. I know in my case my performance as an RA was way more impactful on my advisors' understanding of me than my performance in classes was. Everybody can be sort of OK in classes in grad school, but I was able to gain a reputation as an excellent and dedicated researcher, and that made a huge difference.
RESPONSE B: Well RA is usually nice to get experience in research so it gives you actual experience and looks good on resume if you are looking for phd.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: hesitant because the position would involve a whole lot of admin work (like a lot ). I was wondering about people's experiences as research assistants before pursuing their PhD. How well did being an RA prepare you for a doctoral position, if at all? How does it read on an academic CV? I also got an offer to lecture full time in a masters program around African Studies and Global health, which I have not yet declined. To be able to fully make an informed decision, I just wanted to hear some experiences from others :) Thanks a lot!
RESPONSE A: If you are in the humanities or social sciences, you need to look three steps ahead. How likely is it that this will lead to a good PhD program? And how likely is that PhD degree to lead you to a better job than lecturer? According to this subreddit and other sources, I suspect you will end up as a lecturer or adjunct so … I would not do this… unless I was independently wealthy.
RESPONSE B: I was an RA before I started my PhD, and an RA many times while in my PhD, and it was a super good experience. I learned a lot about how real professors do research, I got paid, and I got to show the professors that I could do it myself. The latter pays off in spades when you later need letters of recommendation (which you will, for fellowships, for jobs, etc.) — it's a chance to show a professor what you are capable of, above and beyond what they'll see in a class. It also teaches you a lot about how universities work (and don't), and also teaches you a lot about how to manage researchers working for you in the future (and how not to). Not saying that every RA position is equal, but it's definitely useful if you are planning to go onto a career in academia. I know in my case my performance as an RA was way more impactful on my advisors' understanding of me than my performance in classes was. Everybody can be sort of OK in classes in grad school, but I was able to gain a reputation as an excellent and dedicated researcher, and that made a huge difference.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Reviewing a "meh" paper for a super low impact journal For the first time I've been directly contacted to review a paper! Yey! I'm important! I've dug out what journal is it and it turns out it's a real one, with more than a decade of history, an impact factor and a real publisher (i.e.: not one of the spammy fake ones). However, turns out the impact factor is 0.4 (in my field 2.0 is average). That's why I've never heard of this journal before. The paper itself is extremely boring and repeats some instrument characterization (not even experiments) that have already been published 5 years ago by many groups. So... What should I write in my review? I mean... there's nothing seriously wrong with that paper. But I'd suggest outright rejection in another journal. On the other side, I don't want to be "that" reviewer that always kills it for the poor undergrad from a thirld world university. How do you change your strictness criteria according to the journal, if you do?
RESPONSE A: I don't think you should be taking the impact factor into consideration when reviewing. Your responsibility is to the field, not the journal. Your research standards likewise come from your discipline, not journal. Write a constructive, timely review with the author in mind. Develop a reputation for being a good citizen.
RESPONSE B: I change strictness in impact, but not strictness in quality. In other words, there needs to be a place to publish those not-interesting-but-need-to-be-cited papers, otherwise we're falling into the "it's all got to be novel/life changing" trap that governs the big name journals. Quality still has to be there, of course, but if instrumental characterization is something that needs to be done, and in your mind needs to be referenced by future groups, then by all means it should be published somewhere.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Reviewing a "meh" paper for a super low impact journal For the first time I've been directly contacted to review a paper! Yey! I'm important! I've dug out what journal is it and it turns out it's a real one, with more than a decade of history, an impact factor and a real publisher (i.e.: not one of the spammy fake ones). However, turns out the impact factor is 0.4 (in my field 2.0 is average). That's why I've never heard of this journal before. The paper itself is extremely boring and repeats some instrument characterization (not even experiments) that have already been published 5 years ago by many groups. So... What should I write in my review? I mean... there's nothing seriously wrong with that paper. But I'd suggest outright rejection in another journal. On the other side, I don't want to be "that" reviewer that always kills it for the poor undergrad from a thirld world university. How do you change your strictness criteria according to the journal, if you do?
RESPONSE A: I don't think you should be taking the impact factor into consideration when reviewing. Your responsibility is to the field, not the journal. Your research standards likewise come from your discipline, not journal. Write a constructive, timely review with the author in mind. Develop a reputation for being a good citizen.
RESPONSE B: Your job is not to ensure that only the very best, most innovative, work gets published. Your job is to make sure that the work passes very basic thresholds of "yes this is scientific, yes this is readable, and yes I have reason to believe the work was all done as reported and the results are as reported." If there's nothing seriously wrong with the paper, then what you do is tell the editor that the work is done correctly but that it's not very novel. If you can think of people who might find a use for this paper anyways, then state that. Let the editor decide the level of novelty they want. The authors did a bunch of work. That work is useless unless published. That should always be in the back of your mind when reviewing any paper.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: " paper for a super low impact journal For the first time I've been directly contacted to review a paper! Yey! I'm important! I've dug out what journal is it and it turns out it's a real one, with more than a decade of history, an impact factor and a real publisher (i.e.: not one of the spammy fake ones). However, turns out the impact factor is 0.4 (in my field 2.0 is average). That's why I've never heard of this journal before. The paper itself is extremely boring and repeats some instrument characterization (not even experiments) that have already been published 5 years ago by many groups. So... What should I write in my review? I mean... there's nothing seriously wrong with that paper. But I'd suggest outright rejection in another journal. On the other side, I don't want to be "that" reviewer that always kills it for the poor undergrad from a thirld world university. How do you change your strictness criteria according to the journal, if you do?
RESPONSE A: I tend to just stick to what the journal's instructions were. Sometimes you get stuff like 'We insist on only the highest impact, world-changing research. Is this in the top 1%?' and then it's IF=2 or something. But hey, they asked you the question, so it's only fair to give an answer to that.
RESPONSE B: Your job is not to ensure that only the very best, most innovative, work gets published. Your job is to make sure that the work passes very basic thresholds of "yes this is scientific, yes this is readable, and yes I have reason to believe the work was all done as reported and the results are as reported." If there's nothing seriously wrong with the paper, then what you do is tell the editor that the work is done correctly but that it's not very novel. If you can think of people who might find a use for this paper anyways, then state that. Let the editor decide the level of novelty they want. The authors did a bunch of work. That work is useless unless published. That should always be in the back of your mind when reviewing any paper.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Reviewing a "meh" paper for a super low impact journal For the first time I've been directly contacted to review a paper! Yey! I'm important! I've dug out what journal is it and it turns out it's a real one, with more than a decade of history, an impact factor and a real publisher (i.e.: not one of the spammy fake ones). However, turns out the impact factor is 0.4 (in my field 2.0 is average). That's why I've never heard of this journal before. The paper itself is extremely boring and repeats some instrument characterization (not even experiments) that have already been published 5 years ago by many groups. So... What should I write in my review? I mean... there's nothing seriously wrong with that paper. But I'd suggest outright rejection in another journal. On the other side, I don't want to be "that" reviewer that always kills it for the poor undergrad from a thirld world university. How do you change your strictness criteria according to the journal, if you do?
RESPONSE A: Your job is not to ensure that only the very best, most innovative, work gets published. Your job is to make sure that the work passes very basic thresholds of "yes this is scientific, yes this is readable, and yes I have reason to believe the work was all done as reported and the results are as reported." If there's nothing seriously wrong with the paper, then what you do is tell the editor that the work is done correctly but that it's not very novel. If you can think of people who might find a use for this paper anyways, then state that. Let the editor decide the level of novelty they want. The authors did a bunch of work. That work is useless unless published. That should always be in the back of your mind when reviewing any paper.
RESPONSE B: >How do you change your strictness criteria according to the journal, if you do? I don't.
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.