label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
A
|
POST: I was expelled from a religious private university for drinking and having sex, I'm now completing my degree at a state school, how will my expulsion impact me when applying to Grad School? BYU is the private university in question. I want to apply to data science/analytics grad programs. I have a 326 (cumulative) on the GRE, and a 3.5 GPA double majoring in Statistics and Economics. Certain applications require me to disclose my academic standing with my former universities. I would love insight into what selection committees are thinking when looking at my applications and such. I'm thinking of applying to in-state programs in Utah, who are more familiar with the ludicrous staunchness of BYU, but maybe I should set my sights higher. Thanks in advance.
RESPONSE A: We are reviewing grad applications right now, and if you had a sentence in your statement to the effect of "I was expelled from BYU due to consuming alcohol and engaging in sexual relations, and this is how I adjusted to ensure my future careers stayed on track" (with no apologies for the drinking or sex) we wouldn't think twice if you were strong otherwise. Maybe include an insightful reflection on whether BYU was the best choice for you, or some sort of integration with your larger narrative or intellectual development? Everyone knows what BYU is.
RESPONSE B: I just came to say I'm sorry about that, I go to UVU so I'm all to familiar with the honor code unfortunately. They hog up all the cheap provo housing, I would rather pay more for orem than live by the honor code.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I was expelled from a religious private university for drinking and having sex, I'm now completing my degree at a state school, how will my expulsion impact me when applying to Grad School? BYU is the private university in question. I want to apply to data science/analytics grad programs. I have a 326 (cumulative) on the GRE, and a 3.5 GPA double majoring in Statistics and Economics. Certain applications require me to disclose my academic standing with my former universities. I would love insight into what selection committees are thinking when looking at my applications and such. I'm thinking of applying to in-state programs in Utah, who are more familiar with the ludicrous staunchness of BYU, but maybe I should set my sights higher. Thanks in advance.
RESPONSE A: We are reviewing grad applications right now, and if you had a sentence in your statement to the effect of "I was expelled from BYU due to consuming alcohol and engaging in sexual relations, and this is how I adjusted to ensure my future careers stayed on track" (with no apologies for the drinking or sex) we wouldn't think twice if you were strong otherwise. Maybe include an insightful reflection on whether BYU was the best choice for you, or some sort of integration with your larger narrative or intellectual development? Everyone knows what BYU is.
RESPONSE B: IF, as you say, you were expelled for purely religiously motivated reasons, I don't think you should have any issues. Most scientists I know are varying degrees of secular, ranging from the agnostic to atheists. I think they'll be quite understanding of your predicament.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: . Still, I place myself in his shoes and imagine reading something I find deeply troubling and morally outrageous. And I feel pretty good that he felt he could say something to me about it. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this.
RESPONSE A: Maybe if they read the text, they might have a better understanding of their own beliefs. Learning, especially in a higher education institution, usually involves analysis of both sides of an issue. To me, that's the whole point of academic pursuit. Not exposing oneself to all aspects of a belief is offensive to me.
RESPONSE B: I routinely deal with students with these kinds of objections. Here are some suggestions culled from my experience and from my interactions with my writing program administrator. 1) Was this text listed as required reading on the syllabus? It's incumbent on the student to determine whether they are able to complete the requirements of the course when they are assigned the syllabus. Remaining in the course constitutes an acceptance of the syllabus as contract. 2) Fairness- It is incumbent on you as the instructor to maintain absolute standards of fairness in terms of course design and administration. Allowing exceptions based on discomfort would simply not be fair to other students in the course. 3) You said the book isn't expressly anti-Christian. I would certainly reference this in communication with the student. 4) If this is a writing course, your student will also likely have opportunities in discussion and writing to critique the text. Selection of a given text in the humanities never means that text is "right". We deal directly with those subjectivities, and it's through that struggle that students learn. 5) The curriculum you're working with has likely been designed and vetted by several other professionals and an outside accreditation group. It's not as if assigning these kinds of texts is considered professionally abnormal. This is kind of a "rules of the game" justification. Also: Conduct this communication in writing via official email as often as possible and keep records. If this student decides to launch some kind of campaign against you for doing your job then you will be prepared. Ultimately, any of these can work as a kind of justification. The key is to be understanding, yet firm. Use it as a teachable moment.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: , I place myself in his shoes and imagine reading something I find deeply troubling and morally outrageous. And I feel pretty good that he felt he could say something to me about it. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this.
RESPONSE A: I routinely deal with students with these kinds of objections. Here are some suggestions culled from my experience and from my interactions with my writing program administrator. 1) Was this text listed as required reading on the syllabus? It's incumbent on the student to determine whether they are able to complete the requirements of the course when they are assigned the syllabus. Remaining in the course constitutes an acceptance of the syllabus as contract. 2) Fairness- It is incumbent on you as the instructor to maintain absolute standards of fairness in terms of course design and administration. Allowing exceptions based on discomfort would simply not be fair to other students in the course. 3) You said the book isn't expressly anti-Christian. I would certainly reference this in communication with the student. 4) If this is a writing course, your student will also likely have opportunities in discussion and writing to critique the text. Selection of a given text in the humanities never means that text is "right". We deal directly with those subjectivities, and it's through that struggle that students learn. 5) The curriculum you're working with has likely been designed and vetted by several other professionals and an outside accreditation group. It's not as if assigning these kinds of texts is considered professionally abnormal. This is kind of a "rules of the game" justification. Also: Conduct this communication in writing via official email as often as possible and keep records. If this student decides to launch some kind of campaign against you for doing your job then you will be prepared. Ultimately, any of these can work as a kind of justification. The key is to be understanding, yet firm. Use it as a teachable moment.
RESPONSE B: Seems pretty clear that this is not how college should work. Imagine a Libertarian telling an Econ professor that he felt uncomfortable with the idea that increased government spending lead to economic growth. Unless you teach at a religious university, I would say it is high time to challenge your beliefs, or take advantage of drop/add.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What is the benefit of PowerPoint presentations? In the first and second semester 90 percent of the courses are held with PP presentations. But I think it sucks. I just cant listen to these presentations it's boring and the professors just doesn't interact with the students. It also rushes the course because they dont need to write something on the table. Now my question is there is probably a educational benefit of PP but I dont see it. But there needs to be because almost everyone does it. Thanks for you replies.
RESPONSE A: My main reason to use them is that it becomes an anchor point in the course. Each semester, I check it to remind myself how the lecture was run last time and tweak it. It can be done well or poorly, but so can non-ppt lectures. Using a blackboard effectively in a large auditorium is a skill that is equally difficult to get right.
RESPONSE B: If you don’t have slides, students complain. I think it depends on how the ppt slides are used. Mine are mostly maps and images, I don’t have many text heavy slides. Ideally, ppt provides something visual for people to connect with what you are saying and gives the speaker some notes and structure to guide lecture. Unfortunately a lot of academics are terrible at public speaking and never learned to teach so are probably not using their slides in the best way from a pedagogical standpoint .
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What is the benefit of PowerPoint presentations? In the first and second semester 90 percent of the courses are held with PP presentations. But I think it sucks. I just cant listen to these presentations it's boring and the professors just doesn't interact with the students. It also rushes the course because they dont need to write something on the table. Now my question is there is probably a educational benefit of PP but I dont see it. But there needs to be because almost everyone does it. Thanks for you replies.
RESPONSE A: If you don’t have slides, students complain. I think it depends on how the ppt slides are used. Mine are mostly maps and images, I don’t have many text heavy slides. Ideally, ppt provides something visual for people to connect with what you are saying and gives the speaker some notes and structure to guide lecture. Unfortunately a lot of academics are terrible at public speaking and never learned to teach so are probably not using their slides in the best way from a pedagogical standpoint .
RESPONSE B: I think it comes down to a lack of pedagogical training for most professors. The best professor I had used PowerPoint extremely effectively and rarely, if ever, wrote anything on the board himself (in a graduate level heat transfer course). If I had to write things on the board myself, class would be a jumbled mess and not cover nearly the entirety of the material. PP is a tool as others have said, and the time savings you get from not having to write on a board should not just be filled with additional content (necessarily). You can use the time and additional visual tools to guide an deeper explanation with examples or delving into fundamental meaning of equations, etc
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What is the benefit of PowerPoint presentations? In the first and second semester 90 percent of the courses are held with PP presentations. But I think it sucks. I just cant listen to these presentations it's boring and the professors just doesn't interact with the students. It also rushes the course because they dont need to write something on the table. Now my question is there is probably a educational benefit of PP but I dont see it. But there needs to be because almost everyone does it. Thanks for you replies.
RESPONSE A: I think it depends on how it is used. It could be a good way to organise thoughts succinctly and logically. It is difficult to summarise entire concepts in a short period of time, so PP could help with that. It could also be sent ahead of time to students who may need extra time to go through the material and pinpoint areas where their understanding is unclear.
RESPONSE B: If you don’t have slides, students complain. I think it depends on how the ppt slides are used. Mine are mostly maps and images, I don’t have many text heavy slides. Ideally, ppt provides something visual for people to connect with what you are saying and gives the speaker some notes and structure to guide lecture. Unfortunately a lot of academics are terrible at public speaking and never learned to teach so are probably not using their slides in the best way from a pedagogical standpoint .
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What is the benefit of PowerPoint presentations? In the first and second semester 90 percent of the courses are held with PP presentations. But I think it sucks. I just cant listen to these presentations it's boring and the professors just doesn't interact with the students. It also rushes the course because they dont need to write something on the table. Now my question is there is probably a educational benefit of PP but I dont see it. But there needs to be because almost everyone does it. Thanks for you replies.
RESPONSE A: I studied physics and fortunately, the vast majority of my courses were still the professor writing with chalk on a blackboard. Powerpoint is the worst for anything containing complex mathematical formulas, they go by so fast that you have no chance of comprehending what they say. Writing them on a blackboard slows down the professor and copying from the blackboard gives the student some time to think about the content. I had one professor who did his slides well, he did them very minimalistic and gave the students enough time per slide. (His slides were white on black background, and he printed paper copies for all the students, wasting an absolutely colossal amount of toner, but that is a different story).
RESPONSE B: If you don’t have slides, students complain. I think it depends on how the ppt slides are used. Mine are mostly maps and images, I don’t have many text heavy slides. Ideally, ppt provides something visual for people to connect with what you are saying and gives the speaker some notes and structure to guide lecture. Unfortunately a lot of academics are terrible at public speaking and never learned to teach so are probably not using their slides in the best way from a pedagogical standpoint .
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What is the benefit of PowerPoint presentations? In the first and second semester 90 percent of the courses are held with PP presentations. But I think it sucks. I just cant listen to these presentations it's boring and the professors just doesn't interact with the students. It also rushes the course because they dont need to write something on the table. Now my question is there is probably a educational benefit of PP but I dont see it. But there needs to be because almost everyone does it. Thanks for you replies.
RESPONSE A: If you don’t have slides, students complain. I think it depends on how the ppt slides are used. Mine are mostly maps and images, I don’t have many text heavy slides. Ideally, ppt provides something visual for people to connect with what you are saying and gives the speaker some notes and structure to guide lecture. Unfortunately a lot of academics are terrible at public speaking and never learned to teach so are probably not using their slides in the best way from a pedagogical standpoint .
RESPONSE B: It can be excellent learning if it utilizes the Multimedia Learning Design Principles, and have students interact :)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Fun time! What's the most obscure article in the most obscure field you can come up with? Rules: 1. The least technical, the better. 2. English would be better.
RESPONSE A: Here's one on homosexual and necrophiliac duck rape: http://www.hetnatuurhistorisch.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/documents-nmr/Persberichten/Persberichten/persberichten_2013/DSA8_243-248.pdf
RESPONSE B: The doctoral thesis with the title "Penis Injuries from Masturbation with Vacuum Cleaners" (orig. German) It also has its own German Wiki page (Google transl version)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Fun time! What's the most obscure article in the most obscure field you can come up with? Rules: 1. The least technical, the better. 2. English would be better.
RESPONSE A: **"What, if anything, is a rabbit?"** It's an evolutionary biology article examining whether the different species that people call "rabbits" are really that closely related to each other, as compared to other species.
RESPONSE B: This one struck me as oddly specific when I was looking up papers for my lit review: "The Influence of Knit Structure on the Armscye Line of Fully-Fashioned Sweater Front Panels" http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.16/7124
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Any of you did PhD while having a baby at the same time? I heard that it’s rare where women in STEM would have a baby while doing PhD.
RESPONSE A: Yep. AMA.
RESPONSE B: I did! I had my son in my 4th year. I collected my last field season of data collection during my 2nd and 3rd trimester and presented at a conference at just about 9 months preggo. Phd babies do seem rare for women (I only know 2 people myself), but in hindsight I thought the timing was great for me. I actually became much more efficient with my time (since it was so limited) and was able to make a lot of progress when I eventually got back to the grind (I took 4 months leave). I did add another year to my PhD (finished at the end of year 5) but I was fortunate to get a writing fellowship to cover my funding. I did end up dropping a nonessential side project because a) I couldn’t do the lab work when I was pregnant and b) I couldn’t commit to lots of travel/lab work once the baby was here. That was a bummer because It was going to be prelim data for a postdoc proposal and I ended up doing something else instead. Still on the back burner.... Two main things made a phd baby easier for me. 1) both advisors were super supportive and flexible, and 2) my partner was doing a postdoc so our joint income wasn’t terrible. We didn’t have any family to help out so we needed the extra income to afford daycare, which is crazy expensive. I’m now in a postdoc with a two year old and so so glad we brought this little person in our lives when we did. :) I imagine having a baby as a transitory postdoc or a new PI brings its own set of challenges as well...it sounds cliche but there is really never a perfect time. Happy to answer any questions or tell you more if interested.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Any of you did PhD while having a baby at the same time? I heard that it’s rare where women in STEM would have a baby while doing PhD.
RESPONSE A: Man, I don't think I can even have a dog right now, so massive respect to anyone who pulls off having a baby during a PhD!
RESPONSE B: I did! I had my son in my 4th year. I collected my last field season of data collection during my 2nd and 3rd trimester and presented at a conference at just about 9 months preggo. Phd babies do seem rare for women (I only know 2 people myself), but in hindsight I thought the timing was great for me. I actually became much more efficient with my time (since it was so limited) and was able to make a lot of progress when I eventually got back to the grind (I took 4 months leave). I did add another year to my PhD (finished at the end of year 5) but I was fortunate to get a writing fellowship to cover my funding. I did end up dropping a nonessential side project because a) I couldn’t do the lab work when I was pregnant and b) I couldn’t commit to lots of travel/lab work once the baby was here. That was a bummer because It was going to be prelim data for a postdoc proposal and I ended up doing something else instead. Still on the back burner.... Two main things made a phd baby easier for me. 1) both advisors were super supportive and flexible, and 2) my partner was doing a postdoc so our joint income wasn’t terrible. We didn’t have any family to help out so we needed the extra income to afford daycare, which is crazy expensive. I’m now in a postdoc with a two year old and so so glad we brought this little person in our lives when we did. :) I imagine having a baby as a transitory postdoc or a new PI brings its own set of challenges as well...it sounds cliche but there is really never a perfect time. Happy to answer any questions or tell you more if interested.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: you did PhD while having a baby at the same time? I heard that it’s rare where women in STEM would have a baby while doing PhD.
RESPONSE A: I had 2 during my PhD. One in the middle and one just after I submitted my thesis. My only issues were that we really struggled financially for a while, and some of my supervisors sort of checked out once they knew I was pregnant.
RESPONSE B: I did! I had my son in my 4th year. I collected my last field season of data collection during my 2nd and 3rd trimester and presented at a conference at just about 9 months preggo. Phd babies do seem rare for women (I only know 2 people myself), but in hindsight I thought the timing was great for me. I actually became much more efficient with my time (since it was so limited) and was able to make a lot of progress when I eventually got back to the grind (I took 4 months leave). I did add another year to my PhD (finished at the end of year 5) but I was fortunate to get a writing fellowship to cover my funding. I did end up dropping a nonessential side project because a) I couldn’t do the lab work when I was pregnant and b) I couldn’t commit to lots of travel/lab work once the baby was here. That was a bummer because It was going to be prelim data for a postdoc proposal and I ended up doing something else instead. Still on the back burner.... Two main things made a phd baby easier for me. 1) both advisors were super supportive and flexible, and 2) my partner was doing a postdoc so our joint income wasn’t terrible. We didn’t have any family to help out so we needed the extra income to afford daycare, which is crazy expensive. I’m now in a postdoc with a two year old and so so glad we brought this little person in our lives when we did. :) I imagine having a baby as a transitory postdoc or a new PI brings its own set of challenges as well...it sounds cliche but there is really never a perfect time. Happy to answer any questions or tell you more if interested.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: a baby at the same time? I heard that it’s rare where women in STEM would have a baby while doing PhD.
RESPONSE A: Yes, I'm currently pregnant with number two in an MD/PhD program. Finished my Master's and currently picking my committee for my dissertation. Professor is totally fine with it.... Not so much the finishing from a distance part though. :-/
RESPONSE B: I did! I had my son in my 4th year. I collected my last field season of data collection during my 2nd and 3rd trimester and presented at a conference at just about 9 months preggo. Phd babies do seem rare for women (I only know 2 people myself), but in hindsight I thought the timing was great for me. I actually became much more efficient with my time (since it was so limited) and was able to make a lot of progress when I eventually got back to the grind (I took 4 months leave). I did add another year to my PhD (finished at the end of year 5) but I was fortunate to get a writing fellowship to cover my funding. I did end up dropping a nonessential side project because a) I couldn’t do the lab work when I was pregnant and b) I couldn’t commit to lots of travel/lab work once the baby was here. That was a bummer because It was going to be prelim data for a postdoc proposal and I ended up doing something else instead. Still on the back burner.... Two main things made a phd baby easier for me. 1) both advisors were super supportive and flexible, and 2) my partner was doing a postdoc so our joint income wasn’t terrible. We didn’t have any family to help out so we needed the extra income to afford daycare, which is crazy expensive. I’m now in a postdoc with a two year old and so so glad we brought this little person in our lives when we did. :) I imagine having a baby as a transitory postdoc or a new PI brings its own set of challenges as well...it sounds cliche but there is really never a perfect time. Happy to answer any questions or tell you more if interested.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Performing research at a teaching college with few resources in my field. Any ideas on how to accomplish this? I just finished my first year teaching at a small four-year college (1800 students) and got a great performance review. Yay! However, my department head let me know that one of the requirements of the promotion process (since I'll be up for promotion in two years) is to perform research, and I feel like an idiot admitting this, but I haven't got the foggiest idea how to go about it at my school. My bachelor's degree is in microbiology and my master's degree is in tropical medicine, and my school only has a small teaching lab set up for microbiology classes and nowhere where I could perform scientific research, or mentor students doing so. I could perform research on teaching methods, I suppose, but I have no background in that and don't even know where to begin. Gather data on one instructional method versus another? Compare one class's performance to another? (I teach the same class online and in-person, and I guess I could compare the outcomes of the two and get student feedback, but I don't know if that's enough information to go on.) Any ideas, folks?
RESPONSE A: You could probably start by reading pedagogy lit and see if you have any methods that are particularly effective, research the method in the lit, and see if you can write a publishable paper about it. I imagine that would count?
RESPONSE B: That's a tough one. Would the department chair give you some more guidance or suggestions? What kind of work are other faculty members doing? Can you collaborate with one of them to get you started off? It seems odd to require research from a teaching faculty member without a lab or a terminal research degree.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Performing research at a teaching college with few resources in my field. Any ideas on how to accomplish this? I just finished my first year teaching at a small four-year college (1800 students) and got a great performance review. Yay! However, my department head let me know that one of the requirements of the promotion process (since I'll be up for promotion in two years) is to perform research, and I feel like an idiot admitting this, but I haven't got the foggiest idea how to go about it at my school. My bachelor's degree is in microbiology and my master's degree is in tropical medicine, and my school only has a small teaching lab set up for microbiology classes and nowhere where I could perform scientific research, or mentor students doing so. I could perform research on teaching methods, I suppose, but I have no background in that and don't even know where to begin. Gather data on one instructional method versus another? Compare one class's performance to another? (I teach the same class online and in-person, and I guess I could compare the outcomes of the two and get student feedback, but I don't know if that's enough information to go on.) Any ideas, folks?
RESPONSE A: Can you set up a collaboration with a (research-focused) neighbouring university? Working and publishing is easier with people close by, and it could lead (in the future) to co-writing a grant proposal, which could lead to additional income. I am only a postdoc, but if there is one thing I have learned is that department heads tend to love grants.
RESPONSE B: Time to dig into SoTL literature!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Performing research at a teaching college with few resources in my field. Any ideas on how to accomplish this? I just finished my first year teaching at a small four-year college (1800 students) and got a great performance review. Yay! However, my department head let me know that one of the requirements of the promotion process (since I'll be up for promotion in two years) is to perform research, and I feel like an idiot admitting this, but I haven't got the foggiest idea how to go about it at my school. My bachelor's degree is in microbiology and my master's degree is in tropical medicine, and my school only has a small teaching lab set up for microbiology classes and nowhere where I could perform scientific research, or mentor students doing so. I could perform research on teaching methods, I suppose, but I have no background in that and don't even know where to begin. Gather data on one instructional method versus another? Compare one class's performance to another? (I teach the same class online and in-person, and I guess I could compare the outcomes of the two and get student feedback, but I don't know if that's enough information to go on.) Any ideas, folks?
RESPONSE A: If you check the journal article then you will have some ideas! Don’t freak out it’s just a different method/approach than the regular research method that we STEM student are used to !
RESPONSE B: Can you set up a collaboration with a (research-focused) neighbouring university? Working and publishing is easier with people close by, and it could lead (in the future) to co-writing a grant proposal, which could lead to additional income. I am only a postdoc, but if there is one thing I have learned is that department heads tend to love grants.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: scientific research, or mentor students doing so. I could perform research on teaching methods, I suppose, but I have no background in that and don't even know where to begin. Gather data on one instructional method versus another? Compare one class's performance to another? (I teach the same class online and in-person, and I guess I could compare the outcomes of the two and get student feedback, but I don't know if that's enough information to go on.) Any ideas, folks?
RESPONSE A: Can you set up a collaboration with a (research-focused) neighbouring university? Working and publishing is easier with people close by, and it could lead (in the future) to co-writing a grant proposal, which could lead to additional income. I am only a postdoc, but if there is one thing I have learned is that department heads tend to love grants.
RESPONSE B: Infect the students, study the epidemiology? No, don't do that. They'll infect themselves soon enough. But for real, this is a tough situation. Your chair really needs to help you out more. I'd email asking for advice, maybe mention that if original research is a big part of your review that additional start-up funds would be useful. Get this in writing. Ask about internal grants, etc. Is your campus part of a bigger organization that you could contact? Can you collaborate with friends from grad school who have labs now? My school is even smaller than yours and I know that several of our faculty work with nearby colleges, and I think at least one rents lab space during the summer. These might take a while to set up, so here are a few "quicker" ideas you could enact this coming year. Maybe work on public/student perception of science? Pedagogical research into active learning? Don't just compare sections, but maybe you could compare lab vs. no lab, active learning vs. video lectures, etc. There have to be options in public health that are less resource-intensive. I found a few public health journals that seem to publish on things like vaccine hesitancy, clinical engagement, alcohol use trends, and so forth. Those types of topics might be fruitful.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Performing research at a teaching college with few resources in my field. Any ideas on how to accomplish this? I just finished my first year teaching at a small four-year college (1800 students) and got a great performance review. Yay! However, my department head let me know that one of the requirements of the promotion process (since I'll be up for promotion in two years) is to perform research, and I feel like an idiot admitting this, but I haven't got the foggiest idea how to go about it at my school. My bachelor's degree is in microbiology and my master's degree is in tropical medicine, and my school only has a small teaching lab set up for microbiology classes and nowhere where I could perform scientific research, or mentor students doing so. I could perform research on teaching methods, I suppose, but I have no background in that and don't even know where to begin. Gather data on one instructional method versus another? Compare one class's performance to another? (I teach the same class online and in-person, and I guess I could compare the outcomes of the two and get student feedback, but I don't know if that's enough information to go on.) Any ideas, folks?
RESPONSE A: Time to dig into SoTL literature!
RESPONSE B: Since your resources for empirical research appear to be very limited, you might ask you chair whether review articles or theoretical articles would count.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: When in the interview process is it appropriate to ask about salary? I’ve been interviewing for a full time teaching position in the Humanities at a public 4 year regional school (US). The job advertisement didn’t list a salary range and during my first interview they never mentioned it. I’ve been asked to come to campus for an interview after the initial phone screen. Before I make the drive there (about 3 hours, which they said they will pay for) I want to make sure I’m not wasting my time or theirs if the salary isn’t what I want. When is it appropriate to ask those questions? Or IS it appropriate?
RESPONSE A: I Want know as well.
RESPONSE B: Since it’s a public school, with some googling you should be able to find salary data for people currently in similar positions, if not a specific salary scale in the faculty documentation. Otherwise, it generally hasn’t come up until negotiations following an offer; if it does, it’s usually from the dean/provost/upper admin, not the direct dept or search chair.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Humanities at a public 4 year regional school (US). The job advertisement didn’t list a salary range and during my first interview they never mentioned it. I’ve been asked to come to campus for an interview after the initial phone screen. Before I make the drive there (about 3 hours, which they said they will pay for) I want to make sure I’m not wasting my time or theirs if the salary isn’t what I want. When is it appropriate to ask those questions? Or IS it appropriate?
RESPONSE A: I’ve always been advised that you do NOT ask about salary first. As a person who also hires for my own department, I’m not able to answer the question if a candidate asks and it would be something I’d have to note in the HR files if someone did ask. Once, i was sitting in a deans office being offered my dream job on a great campus with the most incredible colleagues who’d hosted me for a very enjoyable visit, and when I heard the opening salary, it was like my whole world shattered around us. It was HALF my existing salary. There was no way I could accept it even though everything else seemed perfect. It was totally gutting for everyone involved. It’s been years, and I can still see in my memory my face falling as he said the salary and then his face falling when he realized my disappointment, then our cooperative desperation as we scrambled to find any possible way to make the situation work. We failed; It was awful. Look at public records and Glass Door and the Chronicle figures and union docs if you can find them. Despite my experience, I still think you can’t really ask about salary before it is offered—the risk of offending your potential future employer is too high.
RESPONSE B: Unless they ask you directly, you should wait until a formal offer is made. Don't put the cart before the horse. Sometimes both party's time ends up being wasted, but it's a lot easier to negotiate once they've decided they want you. Depending on the state, you may be able to look up the salaries of public employees. This might give you a feel for what people are being paid.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: When in the interview process is it appropriate to ask about salary? I’ve been interviewing for a full time teaching position in the Humanities at a public 4 year regional school (US). The job advertisement didn’t list a salary range and during my first interview they never mentioned it. I’ve been asked to come to campus for an interview after the initial phone screen. Before I make the drive there (about 3 hours, which they said they will pay for) I want to make sure I’m not wasting my time or theirs if the salary isn’t what I want. When is it appropriate to ask those questions? Or IS it appropriate?
RESPONSE A: I’ve always been advised that you do NOT ask about salary first. As a person who also hires for my own department, I’m not able to answer the question if a candidate asks and it would be something I’d have to note in the HR files if someone did ask. Once, i was sitting in a deans office being offered my dream job on a great campus with the most incredible colleagues who’d hosted me for a very enjoyable visit, and when I heard the opening salary, it was like my whole world shattered around us. It was HALF my existing salary. There was no way I could accept it even though everything else seemed perfect. It was totally gutting for everyone involved. It’s been years, and I can still see in my memory my face falling as he said the salary and then his face falling when he realized my disappointment, then our cooperative desperation as we scrambled to find any possible way to make the situation work. We failed; It was awful. Look at public records and Glass Door and the Chronicle figures and union docs if you can find them. Despite my experience, I still think you can’t really ask about salary before it is offered—the risk of offending your potential future employer is too high.
RESPONSE B: I Want know as well.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: . Before I make the drive there (about 3 hours, which they said they will pay for) I want to make sure I’m not wasting my time or theirs if the salary isn’t what I want. When is it appropriate to ask those questions? Or IS it appropriate?
RESPONSE A: I’ve always been advised that you do NOT ask about salary first. As a person who also hires for my own department, I’m not able to answer the question if a candidate asks and it would be something I’d have to note in the HR files if someone did ask. Once, i was sitting in a deans office being offered my dream job on a great campus with the most incredible colleagues who’d hosted me for a very enjoyable visit, and when I heard the opening salary, it was like my whole world shattered around us. It was HALF my existing salary. There was no way I could accept it even though everything else seemed perfect. It was totally gutting for everyone involved. It’s been years, and I can still see in my memory my face falling as he said the salary and then his face falling when he realized my disappointment, then our cooperative desperation as we scrambled to find any possible way to make the situation work. We failed; It was awful. Look at public records and Glass Door and the Chronicle figures and union docs if you can find them. Despite my experience, I still think you can’t really ask about salary before it is offered—the risk of offending your potential future employer is too high.
RESPONSE B: That's a tough one. When I was looking for an academic job I interviewed at 5 places. Only one offered info on what salary might look like but didn't give an actual number. If it's a state institution, you might be able to look up pretty much anyone's salary online. I have done that for every institution that I went to and looked in the department to calculate a salary mean. I was always offered a bit above the mean. Not the answer you were probably looking for, but might help you get an idea of what they might offer. Also if you are applying to a private Inspiron the numbers may not be available.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: When in the interview process is it appropriate to ask about salary? I’ve been interviewing for a full time teaching position in the Humanities at a public 4 year regional school (US). The job advertisement didn’t list a salary range and during my first interview they never mentioned it. I’ve been asked to come to campus for an interview after the initial phone screen. Before I make the drive there (about 3 hours, which they said they will pay for) I want to make sure I’m not wasting my time or theirs if the salary isn’t what I want. When is it appropriate to ask those questions? Or IS it appropriate?
RESPONSE A: Usually I would say not until you get an offer, but in this case you want to know if it’s worth the long drive.... Before you ask them though, you should check to see if their salaries are public information. For a lot of public schools, they are by state law. You can just look to see what assistant professors in the department are making.
RESPONSE B: I Want know as well.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: are to be followed in the academic community, as there is everywhere else. I'm currently working on a project with a researcher and we developped our own code to do some analysis. The code is based in part on the math described in an article that we use as reference. The problem is, our code don't work very well. We can't find the problem and we've been working on it for a while now. I was reading back the article and the authors mentioned that the code can be provided to reasonable requests. I thought about emailing them asking for the code, since it would help us a lot to see how they managed to obtain their results. I feel that asking them for the code might be interpreted as "unreasonable" and I don't want to make such a request if so. That made me think of the reasonable reasons to ask for such code, and I'm wondering what they are, other than the peer review process. If it is reasonable, how should I approach it? Thank you!
RESPONSE A: Oh, absolutely reasonable to email and request the code. *Most* researchers (at least those with whom I’ve interacted) don’t like to reinvent the wheel and are happy to help one another out with stuff like this. It also helps them get visibility, because you’ll want to make sure you acknowledge them for their code. I suggest emailing the corresponding author something short and sweet (e.g. “I’m a graduate student at X University working on Y”), mentioning that you read their article, and make the request. Keep it simple and offer to answer any questions they have about how the code will be used, but don’t overload the request with details. If you don’t hear back in about a week, it’s reasonable to follow up once. That’s always worked for me! Good luck!
RESPONSE B: If it's published then the code SHOULD have been made available, if not then it is completely reasonable to ask for the code and kind of sketchy if they don't provide it assuming the email didn't get buried. If it's not published yet then it's up to the researcher if they feel comfortable sharing the code but couldn't hurt to ask.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: When is it reasonable to ask a researcher for their code? Hi! It's my first year in grad school and I'm well aware that there are unwritten rules and norms that are to be followed in the academic community, as there is everywhere else. I'm currently working on a project with a researcher and we developped our own code to do some analysis. The code is based in part on the math described in an article that we use as reference. The problem is, our code don't work very well. We can't find the problem and we've been working on it for a while now. I was reading back the article and the authors mentioned that the code can be provided to reasonable requests. I thought about emailing them asking for the code, since it would help us a lot to see how they managed to obtain their results. I feel that asking them for the code might be interpreted as "unreasonable" and I don't want to make such a request if so. That made me think of the reasonable reasons to ask for such code, and I'm wondering what they are, other than the peer review process. If it is reasonable, how should I approach it? Thank you!
RESPONSE A: Code should always be made available and increasingly journals are mandating it (although enforcement is patchy). Send a polite email. Only the most insanely unreasonably person can take offence at a reasonable request in response to their own offer, and even if they do take offence the worst is probably an obnoxious email in your inbox.
RESPONSE B: Just explain the errors/challenges you have of using the published article as reference and request it. Most researchers just want to know you've tried before sharing their work.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How did you deal with your relationship during your PhD? ( with your SO) What were your concerns and how did you deal with them? Also, I am thinking about starting dating and getting married during my PhD. Is it possible? Any challenges that I should remind myself of? Any advice to offer? (I am a female PhD student by the way. )
RESPONSE A: If you're starting to date someone in grad school, they should understand that in some ways the PhD will be like a third wheel in your relationship. Ideally it is as others here have said, that it is a job and you should have normal time off. In some cases that is not always possible. For my PhD for example, I had timepoints for mice or cells at night, on weekends, etc. My relationship was long distance at the time but there were weekends where we had to cancel our plans because of lab. Plan well, communicate, definitely try to make time for your SO, and find someone who can understand that you will sometimes have other obligations with your time that people with "normal" jobs won't.
RESPONSE B: My husband and I got married while we were both in grad school! It’s totally possible - you just have to set your priorities and stick to them. I treated my PhD like a job and worked 8-10 hour days and tried to keep my weekends as free as possible so we could spend time together. Still finished in 4 years. Obviously there will be times you have to compromise but overall, it worked well for us and now we’re on the other side of grad school and still going strong!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How did you deal with your relationship during your PhD? ( with your SO) What were your concerns and how did you deal with them? Also, I am thinking about starting dating and getting married during my PhD. Is it possible? Any challenges that I should remind myself of? Any advice to offer? (I am a female PhD student by the way. )
RESPONSE A: My husband and I got married while we were both in grad school! It’s totally possible - you just have to set your priorities and stick to them. I treated my PhD like a job and worked 8-10 hour days and tried to keep my weekends as free as possible so we could spend time together. Still finished in 4 years. Obviously there will be times you have to compromise but overall, it worked well for us and now we’re on the other side of grad school and still going strong!
RESPONSE B: I met my partner about a year before beginning the PhD. She moved cross country with me, and has been an absolute blessing in my life the entire time. Our relationship definitely took a hit though. I'm just always busy, always reading, always writing, always grading. I also inherited 10+ good friends in my PhD cohort, while it took my partner a lot longer to find friends and adapt to the social aspects of moving to a new place. It's getting much better, this summer especially.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How did you deal with your relationship during your PhD? ( with your SO) What were your concerns and how did you deal with them? Also, I am thinking about starting dating and getting married during my PhD. Is it possible? Any challenges that I should remind myself of? Any advice to offer? (I am a female PhD student by the way. )
RESPONSE A: Disclaimer: n = 1 The underlying factor for why things did/didn't work in relationships during my PhD had to do with the equivalence of passion in the other person's life for SOMETHING. If the other person is super passionate about something (job, hobby, etc), then they will understand where you're coming from when things come up. That being said, you have to also be okay being with someone who might have things come up. To be clear, for me, relationships with people who were not passionate about something did not work out for me. Places to try and meet people.. get a hobby!! Grad school is so tough, having a hobby is good for the mental health.. and if you are smart about the hobby you pick, it can open you up to a whole community of people!
RESPONSE B: Most of my close circle of friends (all PhD, all women) started their relationship during their PhD, though most got married right after or a couple of years after graduation. This is in the UK though so nearly everyone submits their theses by 4 years (some in 3). I was already in a relationship about a year before I started, but long distance, and my then boyfriend moved to the same town as me during my PhD. Since graduating I have moved countries twice for postdocs and he always came with me. We are also married. We initially met online!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How did you deal with your relationship during your PhD? ( with your SO) What were your concerns and how did you deal with them? Also, I am thinking about starting dating and getting married during my PhD. Is it possible? Any challenges that I should remind myself of? Any advice to offer? (I am a female PhD student by the way. )
RESPONSE A: Disclaimer: n = 1 The underlying factor for why things did/didn't work in relationships during my PhD had to do with the equivalence of passion in the other person's life for SOMETHING. If the other person is super passionate about something (job, hobby, etc), then they will understand where you're coming from when things come up. That being said, you have to also be okay being with someone who might have things come up. To be clear, for me, relationships with people who were not passionate about something did not work out for me. Places to try and meet people.. get a hobby!! Grad school is so tough, having a hobby is good for the mental health.. and if you are smart about the hobby you pick, it can open you up to a whole community of people!
RESPONSE B: I didn't have any concerns. Our relationship has always been strong and equitable. We believe in excellent communication. My academic training and career did not change any of this. My advice is to have high standards in your romantic relationships. Unfortunately, I know too many people with shitty partners because they are too afraid to be alone.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How did you deal with your relationship during your PhD? ( with your SO) What were your concerns and how did you deal with them? Also, I am thinking about starting dating and getting married during my PhD. Is it possible? Any challenges that I should remind myself of? Any advice to offer? (I am a female PhD student by the way. )
RESPONSE A: Disclaimer: n = 1 The underlying factor for why things did/didn't work in relationships during my PhD had to do with the equivalence of passion in the other person's life for SOMETHING. If the other person is super passionate about something (job, hobby, etc), then they will understand where you're coming from when things come up. That being said, you have to also be okay being with someone who might have things come up. To be clear, for me, relationships with people who were not passionate about something did not work out for me. Places to try and meet people.. get a hobby!! Grad school is so tough, having a hobby is good for the mental health.. and if you are smart about the hobby you pick, it can open you up to a whole community of people!
RESPONSE B: My husband and I got married while we were both in grad school! It’s totally possible - you just have to set your priorities and stick to them. I treated my PhD like a job and worked 8-10 hour days and tried to keep my weekends as free as possible so we could spend time together. Still finished in 4 years. Obviously there will be times you have to compromise but overall, it worked well for us and now we’re on the other side of grad school and still going strong!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How important is where you received your PhD from to how others in Academia view you? I'm guessing this will differ a great deal among people and schools but it's a question that has been sticking in my head for a while now. Are expensive private grad schools worth it or can you do just as well with a PhD from a school no one has ever heard of if you publish impressive research? Have you seen any discrimination based on where someone went to school? I'm not a member of Academia so forgive me if this common knowledge or a silly question.
RESPONSE A: In the long run, an excellent publication record trumps the name on your degree. A few *Science* or *Nature* publications and no one will give a shit. That said, establishing that publication record can be substantially more difficult if you are coming from a poorly regarded program and/or a poorly regarded lab. Both the program and the lab/mentor matter in the equation. The program and lab are instrumental in establishing the collaborations, funding, and culture that give rise to the excellent publication record. So technically, the program doesn't matter **if** you have an excellent publication record. However, the program/lab can be critical to establishing that publication record.
RESPONSE B: I don't think it matters too much, I've certainly experienced the 'they got a PhD at x, so they must be good' factor, where x=Oxford, Cambridge, CalTech, whatever. However, I don't believe I've ever seen the opposite happen. My PhD was from a place that would be considered very poor (at least at the undergraduate level) and no-one has ever heard of my supervisor but I've not done too badly and I don't feel I've ever been singled out as a result. Just to ramble a bit more, yeah, there might be a slight boost to your reputation from doing it at a good school but I think there aren't really many negatives to going to a poorer (/less reknowned) school.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: if this common knowledge or a silly question.
RESPONSE A: I don't know if I should really be answering this since I definitely do not have a PhD yet, but according to my advisors it matters a great deal where you get your various degrees from. I am just now starting my Masters and I was told by a very well known scholar (who happened to be one of my references) that where I eventually want to work should factor very highly in my decision making process when applying for PhD study. That is part of the reason I have decided to do my masters overseas, to get an idea of where I eventually want to end up and what schools to prioritize for my PhD applications. I also know that where you did your undergrad can factor in your admission to post-graduate programs. I happened to be waiting for a professor outside of his office while he was meeting with a number of other profs in the department. They were going through applications for Masters programs, and I heard them dismiss certain candidates based on the schools they were coming out of. I think you have to have done something pretty exceptional to be considered if you come out of certain schools. Of course, there is also the fact that I was attending one of the top (if not the top) school in the country, so they tend to be a bit elitist (with reason, I believe - but that's another argument). This particular candidate was from a school which is generally considered to be a joke among the population. In fact, I have never heard a prof mention it without also mentioning the popular derogatory rhyme that goes with it (If you can walk, you can go to ___). Anyway, I would be happy to hear the opinion of real academics on the matter! This is just what I have been told. I also don't know if this is more true in certain departments, etc.
RESPONSE B: It matters. However, the reputation of the school as a whole matters much less than the reputation of the individual department. Schools you may think of as extremely prestigious (say, an Ivy, UChicago, or CalTech) may or may not have strong credentials in your particular subdiscipline. The reputation of your advisor is closely related to this and is also extremely important.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How important is where you received your PhD from to how others in Academia view you? I'm guessing this will differ a great deal among people and schools but it's a question that has been sticking in my head for a while now. Are expensive private grad schools worth it or can you do just as well with a PhD from a school no one has ever heard of if you publish impressive research? Have you seen any discrimination based on where someone went to school? I'm not a member of Academia so forgive me if this common knowledge or a silly question.
RESPONSE A: I don't think it matters too much, I've certainly experienced the 'they got a PhD at x, so they must be good' factor, where x=Oxford, Cambridge, CalTech, whatever. However, I don't believe I've ever seen the opposite happen. My PhD was from a place that would be considered very poor (at least at the undergraduate level) and no-one has ever heard of my supervisor but I've not done too badly and I don't feel I've ever been singled out as a result. Just to ramble a bit more, yeah, there might be a slight boost to your reputation from doing it at a good school but I think there aren't really many negatives to going to a poorer (/less reknowned) school.
RESPONSE B: It matters. However, the reputation of the school as a whole matters much less than the reputation of the individual department. Schools you may think of as extremely prestigious (say, an Ivy, UChicago, or CalTech) may or may not have strong credentials in your particular subdiscipline. The reputation of your advisor is closely related to this and is also extremely important.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: if they need any postdoc? (Sorry for my bad English first) Hi all, I'm a psychology ABD in a US program, seeking for post doc positions, also in US. I have only been applying for the job postings publicly listed in those well known websites (e.g., Academic Jobs Online), but the results haven't been much fruitful. So I started looking for some additional strategies and my colleagues advised me that I might have to contact the professors myself because not all good positions are advertised (which led me to ask the first question below). So before proceeding to that, I just had a couple quick questions: (1) For those positions that are not actively advertised, how do they seek for the applicants? Are they advertised through exclusive routes, such as membership based communities or professor networks? (2) Is there any chance I come through as rude if I email professors I've never been in contact with and ask if they're looking for post docs? If so, what would be the best way to avoid it? Thanks in advance!
RESPONSE A: 1) They are normally still publicly advertised as per HR rules, but if there's a short deadline you might miss the posting. Sometimes there are mailing lists. Have you tried the institution's website? Sometimes PIs post positions on their social media or group website. 2) Not rude at all if you compose your email in a way that's respectful with real interest in their work and thoughts about how you might contribute/benefit from working with them, and your CV in a tidy and succinct manner.
RESPONSE B: I got my postdoc position by looking at labs that were doing research I was interested in and cold emailing the PI for any open positions (in addition to other avenues). So no, emailing a professor you have never met/talked to is not weird. I usually include a brief description (1 paragraph) of who you are, your research interest, why you are interested in working with them, and when you will be available to start. Include your CV as well. This gives them an idea of who you are and your fit with their research. A good amount of postdoc openings are advertised through Twitter, so follow some folks in your research community on it. Good luck.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: websites (e.g., Academic Jobs Online), but the results haven't been much fruitful. So I started looking for some additional strategies and my colleagues advised me that I might have to contact the professors myself because not all good positions are advertised (which led me to ask the first question below). So before proceeding to that, I just had a couple quick questions: (1) For those positions that are not actively advertised, how do they seek for the applicants? Are they advertised through exclusive routes, such as membership based communities or professor networks? (2) Is there any chance I come through as rude if I email professors I've never been in contact with and ask if they're looking for post docs? If so, what would be the best way to avoid it? Thanks in advance!
RESPONSE A: Relating to (1), I know it's common in my building (~8 PIs running labs) that they have funding that they can use to take on *someone*, but most don't actually have a project in mind for a post-doc to assist with. Thus, from what I've seen, if someone approached them with "I'm interested in this, and that overlaps with your lab in this way. Would you be interested in having a post-doc and we can work together?" they'd probably be thrilled, but they aren't so eager to recruit for their own projects that they are putting out actual ads. From what I understand, the rigamarole of all the admin steps to get an ad listed is pretty significant and annoying vs. if they have a post-doc in mind that they just need to tell someone to add into the system and on-board.
RESPONSE B: 1) They are normally still publicly advertised as per HR rules, but if there's a short deadline you might miss the posting. Sometimes there are mailing lists. Have you tried the institution's website? Sometimes PIs post positions on their social media or group website. 2) Not rude at all if you compose your email in a way that's respectful with real interest in their work and thoughts about how you might contribute/benefit from working with them, and your CV in a tidy and succinct manner.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: ? Thanks in advance!
RESPONSE A: Relating to (1), I know it's common in my building (~8 PIs running labs) that they have funding that they can use to take on *someone*, but most don't actually have a project in mind for a post-doc to assist with. Thus, from what I've seen, if someone approached them with "I'm interested in this, and that overlaps with your lab in this way. Would you be interested in having a post-doc and we can work together?" they'd probably be thrilled, but they aren't so eager to recruit for their own projects that they are putting out actual ads. From what I understand, the rigamarole of all the admin steps to get an ad listed is pretty significant and annoying vs. if they have a post-doc in mind that they just need to tell someone to add into the system and on-board.
RESPONSE B: I'm in your shoes, so I'm no authority on the matter. But: (1) Yeah, those are options. Some clinical programs also have revenue to hire a temporary postdoc or research scientist. Some colleges or departments within a university can maybe front money. My friend recently got a funded postdoc because the postdoc supervisor asked the college dean for funding. This might be less feasible in psych fields that aren't hooked into medical center funding and revenue. (2) It's difficult to totally control how another person will perceive you. Keep the initial contact very short and direct. Just be prepared to pitch a potential postdoc project in a slightly longer e-mail or a Zoom call. When I send the first cold e-mail about postdocs, I just introduce myself, type a few sentences about myself and my interest in their work, and attach a biosketch or CV. Most have responded to me. You can also ask professors with whom you have a relationship about their friends and colleagues. They likely know people who have postdoc money in your field. Ask professors whom you know if it's OK to cc: them on cold e-mails. Doing this can increase the likelihood that your e-mail will be read.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Impacts on faculty hiring? Has anyone received guidance from their administration on how the faculty hiring process will be impacted by COVID-19? Particularly on campus interviews? I have a couple of visits scheduled over the next few weeks and I'm very concerned that they will be postponed for the foreseeable future.
RESPONSE A: We had 1 candidate from out of country and a couple from in country, scheduled for an in-person seminar/teaching demo. Our Dean slapped them all off the schedule... likely no hiring till next year.
RESPONSE B: My school is hiring 'very-specific-field' and had people scheduled to fly out. One of them was from Spain and cancelled two weeks ago saying "I have young children, I don't want to get stranded in America if they close the borders in Europe" An older professor in my department was like "Guess we are not hiring that guy" and unilaterally decided to fly out his old postdoc who is definitely not in 'very-specific-field' and somehow thinks he is suddenly in the running to get this job? He does not have the power to hire his buddy but I worry it will hurt the spanish guys chances of getting hired even though with yesterdays news he made a very good decision.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: I will be graduating from my master program in a few months. Would it still be acceptable to publish despite the lack of institutional affiliation? I've been publishing with my prof (well, only 2 articles unfortunately, and 1 is still under review) while I'm doing my master. However I'm at the end of my study and will be graduating soon. I've been using "Master student of anthropology of X university" as my academic title. If I have graduated from my master, that means I can no longer use that title right? Would it still be acceptable to publish without institutional affiliation? I've read around this sub. Some people said an unknown with no institutional affiliation is considered less than a grad student. I have plenty of materials I want to work on but I am unable to take PhD or apply for a teaching position yet. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: Why are you using that 'title'? It's jut /u/SeveralDumbQuestions AskAcademia University No one needs to know your title. It's both bad for reviewing (it should be double blind) but also just who the fuck cares? Research is judged on the research, not on the title. Anyway, typically it is: /u/SeveralDumbQuestions UniversityThisWorkWasDoneAt-IfIDontHaveANewPlace Otherwise, Independent Scholar is fine if it's new work, and again, fuck anyone who says it's "less". Is it harder to do good work independent? Yes. Does that mean it's less? No.
RESPONSE B: If you are planning to publish the results you obtained during your work at the institution, you use that affiliation, especially if it will be still in association with your professor. ​ We had PhD students and PosDocs move to industry or teaching, and papers come out sometimes years after they finished their work with us. They still get the affiliation. People who moved to another academic position get a note with \*current address: XYZ University, but the published work is still with the old affiliation, as that's where the research was done.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: have been lost. Of course this guy deserves a huge chunk of the credit for the paper, but to me that would mean second author. Our PI says the other grad student should be first author, but his only reasoning is that he is further along in his PhD and doesn't have publications so he really needs it, while I have time to publish more. We have also considered dual contributing first authors but the other grad student isn't crazy about this, and either way he still wants his name to come before mine. Maybe I am making this a bigger deal than it needs to be, but I know publications are the currency and academia. I worry that this will be my future if I go into computational sciences and I worry my own work at the computer will not be recognized unless I also do the bench work. Any advice on how to try to negotiate with my PI and this other graduate student would be appreciated!
RESPONSE A: Can you elaborate on how the dataset was acquired and what its original purpose was?
RESPONSE B: >he literally contributed nothing to any other part of the paper \(he didn't even read it!\) > >he is further along in his PhD and doesn't have publications so he really needs it I'm putting together why this other student is floundering. From your account, you have a reasonable claim on first authorship. But, in my opinion, as a junior student it's more important to work smoothly with your advisor and hope that what goes around comes around \(both reward for you, and comeuppance for the doofus PhD student\). What should have happened is that you would have hammered out authorship before you wrote the paper \-\- i.e., either \(a\) you write the paper and become first author, or \(b\) he takes your analysis to write the paper and becomes first author. For option \(b\), he should get a reasonable time frame, e.g., 3 months, before the opportunity drops to you. Keep in mind that the other student didn't just collect the data, he also \(presumably\) designed the methods and conceptualized the study. Those aren't small things.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: . Maybe I am making this a bigger deal than it needs to be, but I know publications are the currency and academia. I worry that this will be my future if I go into computational sciences and I worry my own work at the computer will not be recognized unless I also do the bench work. Any advice on how to try to negotiate with my PI and this other graduate student would be appreciated!
RESPONSE A: >he literally contributed nothing to any other part of the paper \(he didn't even read it!\) > >he is further along in his PhD and doesn't have publications so he really needs it I'm putting together why this other student is floundering. From your account, you have a reasonable claim on first authorship. But, in my opinion, as a junior student it's more important to work smoothly with your advisor and hope that what goes around comes around \(both reward for you, and comeuppance for the doofus PhD student\). What should have happened is that you would have hammered out authorship before you wrote the paper \-\- i.e., either \(a\) you write the paper and become first author, or \(b\) he takes your analysis to write the paper and becomes first author. For option \(b\), he should get a reasonable time frame, e.g., 3 months, before the opportunity drops to you. Keep in mind that the other student didn't just collect the data, he also \(presumably\) designed the methods and conceptualized the study. Those aren't small things.
RESPONSE B: If there was no such thing as egos, politics, etc... in academia, then the right thing is for you to have first author, other student to have second author, and PI have last author (don't know if there are other people requiring minimal authorship here). However, in this case, it's probably just best to get joint first authorship, or other authorship if that's not available. If you're this good at using data that was once thought to be useless, you'll eventually prove to your PI that you should be getting all first authorships.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: paper (he didn't even read it!). I should add that this student freely gave me his data and told me I could do whatever I wanted with it, so it's not like I took it without his permission. I know that had I not gone through and done the analysis (which this other grad student doesn't even know how to do), there would be no paper and this data would have been lost. Of course this guy deserves a huge chunk of the credit for the paper, but to me that would mean second author. Our PI says the other grad student should be first author, but his only reasoning is that he is further along in his PhD and doesn't have publications so he really needs it, while I have time to publish more. We have also considered dual contributing first authors but the other grad student isn't crazy about this, and either way he still wants his name to come before mine. Maybe I am making this a bigger deal than it needs to be, but I know publications are the currency and academia. I worry that this will be my future if I go into computational sciences and I worry my own work at the computer will not be recognized unless I also do the bench work. Any advice on how to try to negotiate with my PI and this other graduate student would be appreciated!
RESPONSE A: If there was no such thing as egos, politics, etc... in academia, then the right thing is for you to have first author, other student to have second author, and PI have last author (don't know if there are other people requiring minimal authorship here). However, in this case, it's probably just best to get joint first authorship, or other authorship if that's not available. If you're this good at using data that was once thought to be useless, you'll eventually prove to your PI that you should be getting all first authorships.
RESPONSE B: Without the data, there would be no paper, period. Analyzing the data is certainly enough to share first author spot, but I don't think you can make the case that you've done substantially more at this point than the student who designed the experiment, ran the experiment, and collected all the data, and presumably will help edit and prepare the manuscript.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: from a phd and many of my professors were just lecturers he was more than happy to write me a letter while I was in school so I know he thinks highly of me so is it just because he doesn't like the idea of a phd that he's turning me down? Should I drop it and mass email old lecturers and hope one bites or should I talk more with him about it?
RESPONSE A: I don't think that's a no. I think it's a yes, but the professor is suggesting that you think about the collection of three (or whatever number) letter writers you need. If this prof knows you the best and agreed to write a letter, then that's a yes. Now focus on getting other letters from people who are more topically germane. Analogy: Student applying to grad school in chemistry. Is it a problem to have a letter from a physicist or biologist? Not at all. But you probably only want one such letter, and the others should be from chemists.
RESPONSE B: I can think of a few possibilities. You might be projecting your worries onto a very normal email. Did you give them enough info in your email? Perhaps a draft of a SOP? Maybe they don't remember you that well or are mixing you up with someone else? Can you try to get an in person meeting? Have you talked to any phds about your goals with the program? I'm in a science PhD program and I frequently talk to naive people (ugrad or post bac science students) about doctoral programs. I am often a little horrified by how little they know about what a program is actually like or find it won't actually help them achieve the career goal they tell me. I don't know you so please don't take offense, but just something to think about. I imagine business fields might have similar issues with education of ugrads about what grad school is like. It's possible they Prof is thinking about this and wants to hear more of your rational before writing a letter. Particularly if your last contact was them writing a letter for law school.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Who did you dedicate your PhD to?
RESPONSE A: My very narcissistic prof wrote in her acknowledgments on her thesis, “there is only ever one name on a thesis- my name” I can’t believe they let that slide! Ps she’s an awful prof.
RESPONSE B: My two dogs
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Who did you dedicate your PhD to?
RESPONSE A: I fight for me!
RESPONSE B: My very narcissistic prof wrote in her acknowledgments on her thesis, “there is only ever one name on a thesis- my name” I can’t believe they let that slide! Ps she’s an awful prof.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Who did you dedicate your PhD to?
RESPONSE A: I fight for me!
RESPONSE B: My old best friend who died while I was writing it
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Who did you dedicate your PhD to?
RESPONSE A: I fight for me!
RESPONSE B: My husband 💓
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Who did you dedicate your PhD to?
RESPONSE A: I fight for me!
RESPONSE B: To the participants in my study.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Transitioning from academe to industry: how do you convince recruiters that you actually have experience? Example, position asks for people who have experience with physics simulation software. I have tons of experience with those things, but in a research/academic setting. But apparently, "I'm supposed to be looking for entry-level positions because I've never had formal employment before." Is this just a matter of self-marketing? Am I missing something? ---- ps: In this country, referrals and recruitment agencies are the only way to get human eyeballs on your CV.
RESPONSE A: Oh! I just did this transition! I’m in the US so our experiences might be different, but I basically highlighted anything I had done that seemed applicable to a business setting (or the industry you want to go into). For instance, I did a research assistantship in the business school, which is outside of my actual area of study, so even though I didn’t publish anything from that research position (it was a grant for a company so we weren’t allowed to publish) and even though it didn’t make it into my dissertation, I just stated on my CV/Resume how I helped the company who gave us the grant. Seemed to work, I got a solid job.
RESPONSE B: You need to focus on your "soft skills" as well as break down what you are able to do from your research. You will be applying to Senior roles you're written grants, done scheduling, budgeting, status updates, program management. Maybe things like "algorithm design, experimental setups for XX"
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Transitioning to industry after PhD I've got 2 years left in my PhD. I don't have a passion for academia, but I'm not 100% sure what I want to do after. I know people in my field go into data science, government, UX, consulting, etc. but how do you narrow it down? I feel like there's a skill set unique to each of those career paths that takes time to develop, so ideally I'd like to start preparing for it now. For those of you in an industry job or are considering one - how do you make these decisions? What did your timeline look like, and what did you have to do to land your job?
RESPONSE A: I am a senior scientist in R&D in big pharma. I did an industry postdoc after my PhD for 2.5 years (also in R&D). If you want to be in R&D, I would apply to scientist, senior scientist, and industry postdoc positions. It is similar to academia in the sense that you are figuring out how something works, how to fix it, and if this thing actually fixes it. Things move a lot faster (more money, more resources) and there is a lower threshold for determining whether or not to drop a project. I would probably start applying 6 months out from when you plan to leave your PhD lab but get serious about applying 3 months out. Tailor your resumes to each job posting and include a cover letter even if it's optional. What skills you need depends on the nature of what you are doing. I know a lot of people that see PhD and just assume that that person can learn whatever is necessary (within reason). ​ I work less hours in industry than in my PhD.
RESPONSE B: Networking is going to help you a lot here, both in terms of narrowing down the field you want to pursue and in making the personal connection that are going to make it happen.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: year left in my PhD. I love it, and I've always seen myself getting into academia and committed to research. However in the last few months, I've found myself drawn to an MD, largely due to feeling that the more I get into my area of research, the more I feel the issue would be better addressed/helped from a medical rather than research field. Has anyone here done this? What are your thoughts? If it helps, my PhD is fully funded with a living stipend meaning I haven't had to pay for it, so I wouldn't be starting the MD in a huge amount of debt (just undergraduate fees).
RESPONSE A: Have you considered industry? You could save aggressively in case you decide on med school later, but see if the field you’re researching can be approached from an industrial standpoint. (Depending on what it is, of course.)
RESPONSE B: MD-PhD here (PhD during MD). I don't really agree with the other comments shitting on being a med student and medical school. I am in the US and had a deeply meaningful experience in medical school (though I did bust my ass off). I find working with patients to be purpose-giving and rewarding in a deeper way than research, though research is very rewarding in its own ways. You memorize a lot, but that's all the background knowledge you need to be a physician, and you become a better scientist with such a broad knowledge base. All that said, here are my thoughts: >I've found myself drawn to an MD, largely due to feeling that the more I get into my area of research, the more I feel the issue would be better addressed/helped from a medical rather than research field. This is why I think you should \*not\* go into medicine. It's not worth getting an MD if your purpose for it is to get better at research. It is if your purpose for it is to do patient care. You have to decide if you see yourself caring for patients or in research, or in both. You can learn most things that medical school teaches at your own pace without the 300K debt you'd get into (if you're in the US).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: MD after PhD - thoughts? I have a year left in my PhD. I love it, and I've always seen myself getting into academia and committed to research. However in the last few months, I've found myself drawn to an MD, largely due to feeling that the more I get into my area of research, the more I feel the issue would be better addressed/helped from a medical rather than research field. Has anyone here done this? What are your thoughts? If it helps, my PhD is fully funded with a living stipend meaning I haven't had to pay for it, so I wouldn't be starting the MD in a huge amount of debt (just undergraduate fees).
RESPONSE A: Or do you mean MD for the glory and status? Because doing that to yourself for the sake of ‘learning and knowledge’ is stupid. Sorry to be harsh but this question comes up so much. If you want to learn about medicine, do a research collab or go into clinical research, or industry as a post-doc. Or read some stuff, if it’s knowledge you so crave instead of another few letters to your name. Because otherwise, you’re all set with a PhD in terms of career pathway and MD is just so excessive on top. It’s also important to note that most of the research skills (lab) that you’ve learnt during PhD will not be utilised well, and if you end up in research as an MD they might very well be redundant by then. What a waste. Also head over to r/residency for some insight into the lifestyle, especially if you’re from USA. Again sorry. But like, fuck.
RESPONSE B: I know someone who did it and she seems happy about it, but she pretty much completely shifted into clinical work. If you’re motivated by research then it seems that the collaborative model is better (I.e., team up with a pure MD)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: MD after PhD - thoughts? I have a year left in my PhD. I love it, and I've always seen myself getting into academia and committed to research. However in the last few months, I've found myself drawn to an MD, largely due to feeling that the more I get into my area of research, the more I feel the issue would be better addressed/helped from a medical rather than research field. Has anyone here done this? What are your thoughts? If it helps, my PhD is fully funded with a living stipend meaning I haven't had to pay for it, so I wouldn't be starting the MD in a huge amount of debt (just undergraduate fees).
RESPONSE A: What field is your current PhD in? I think it's generally possible to do very medically-relevant research without having an MD, though there are some exceptions I know of. Unless you're really committed to working in one of those super specific areas that require an MD, or you're specifically interested in practicing medicine for a substantial part of your future career, I think the MD is very likely not worth the effort.
RESPONSE B: I know someone who did it and she seems happy about it, but she pretty much completely shifted into clinical work. If you’re motivated by research then it seems that the collaborative model is better (I.e., team up with a pure MD)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: MD after PhD - thoughts? I have a year left in my PhD. I love it, and I've always seen myself getting into academia and committed to research. However in the last few months, I've found myself drawn to an MD, largely due to feeling that the more I get into my area of research, the more I feel the issue would be better addressed/helped from a medical rather than research field. Has anyone here done this? What are your thoughts? If it helps, my PhD is fully funded with a living stipend meaning I haven't had to pay for it, so I wouldn't be starting the MD in a huge amount of debt (just undergraduate fees).
RESPONSE A: I know someone who did it and she seems happy about it, but she pretty much completely shifted into clinical work. If you’re motivated by research then it seems that the collaborative model is better (I.e., team up with a pure MD)
RESPONSE B: Have you considered industry? You could save aggressively in case you decide on med school later, but see if the field you’re researching can be approached from an industrial standpoint. (Depending on what it is, of course.)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Can a PhD be a summary of established scholarships? As in, can someone study what *others* have said on a topic, and gather that information into one place for their thesis?
RESPONSE A: I think that’s always a component of a topic, but you typically have to ask your own questions to come up with your own conclusions about a topic. That doesn’t mean previous research can’t be used or compiled as part of that process though. I would consider what it is you are wanting to do and why. Perhaps you will find a research question in thinking about that. Edit: that’s just in my experience though. It may depend on the field, but I am in the humanities.
RESPONSE B: That would be a literature review, which is typically part of a PhD thesis but in order to get a PhD you have to do your own original research.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Can a PhD be a summary of established scholarships? As in, can someone study what *others* have said on a topic, and gather that information into one place for their thesis?
RESPONSE A: I think that’s always a component of a topic, but you typically have to ask your own questions to come up with your own conclusions about a topic. That doesn’t mean previous research can’t be used or compiled as part of that process though. I would consider what it is you are wanting to do and why. Perhaps you will find a research question in thinking about that. Edit: that’s just in my experience though. It may depend on the field, but I am in the humanities.
RESPONSE B: No. A PhD is a novel contribution to the field. Part of that is reviewing the current state of the field but you need to add your own "bit" to it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Can a PhD be a summary of established scholarships? As in, can someone study what *others* have said on a topic, and gather that information into one place for their thesis?
RESPONSE A: If that were allowed, a lot more people would have doctorates.
RESPONSE B: I think that’s always a component of a topic, but you typically have to ask your own questions to come up with your own conclusions about a topic. That doesn’t mean previous research can’t be used or compiled as part of that process though. I would consider what it is you are wanting to do and why. Perhaps you will find a research question in thinking about that. Edit: that’s just in my experience though. It may depend on the field, but I am in the humanities.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Can a PhD be a summary of established scholarships? As in, can someone study what *others* have said on a topic, and gather that information into one place for their thesis?
RESPONSE A: As others have said, what you posted wouldn't be considered sufficient scholarship for a PhD. Something along these lines that you could do is if you gathered information, like you suggest, then interpret it in a novel way. I knew a woman who did her PhD on feminist reinterpretations of Icelandic sagas.
RESPONSE B: If that were allowed, a lot more people would have doctorates.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Can a PhD be a summary of established scholarships? As in, can someone study what *others* have said on a topic, and gather that information into one place for their thesis?
RESPONSE A: If that were allowed, a lot more people would have doctorates.
RESPONSE B: No
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: etiquette of emailing precarious staff over summer? Hi everyone, I just finished my bachelors and received all my final grades. For some of my classes, I got feedback along with my grades for my final essays (English major). For one class, though, I didn't receive any notes alongside the grade, which was an A. I was pretty proud of this essay, and since I'm starting grad school in September, I'd like to know what exactly I did correctly, or if there was any room for improvement in the future. The problem is that the professor who graded this paper has informed the class before that she's precariously employed by our university, and taught this class as maternity cover. So, I don't know how okay it would be for me to email her now that the semester's over and she might not be getting paid for that work. (This is all taking place in Ireland) She was a really nice and understanding professor, I really just don't want to bother her if it's unfair to do so. Would it be okay to shoot her an email?
RESPONSE A: I'd take the approach that it doesn't hurt to ask, especially if this is a paper you might consider revising for publication. The professor is under no obligation to respond to you, of course, which does up the burden on you to be polite and to understand if you don't get any response.
RESPONSE B: My guess is that she probably didn’t read very closely/grade intensively so I’m not sure how useful her feedback will be. You might get more out of re-reading your essay with a critical eye (pretend to be your professor!) than asking for feedback that likely doesn’t exist or will be general (“it was great!”). From my experience, you don’t get as much feedback in grad school as you do as an undergrad so this is a good introduction to getting comfortable with that, especially since you scored highly.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: supervisor in my master’s and I naively ended up having to do everything myself with no guidance, so I didn’t really publish anything from my dissertation back then (also in retrospect my views on certain things have change drastically from when I wrote my dissertation). That experience from my master's has been a large influence on how I’ve decided to be more responsible about how my PhD turns out. So while my PhD supervisor has been really supportive so far, I’m unable to fully trust (?) another person to have my best interests at heart and wait for them to guide me (I'm also still recovering from a very toxic workplace where people who were very encouraging at first turned extremely nasty later). I’m also the first in my family to get a PhD and since everything is still online this year, I don’t really know who to ask about the process of putting together a research that can be published and it makes me very anxious every time I think about it. Do I have to sign up or be invited to a workshop to present my preliminary research? Do I directly contact the journals? Do I find someone who’s interested in the same things and we co-author? I already have a research proposal for my doctorate research but I don't really know where to go from there. Sorry in advance if these questions are incredibly naive.
RESPONSE A: Following for the same reason. You’re not alone in this feeling!
RESPONSE B: I totally get why you're reluctant to trust your supervisor or other faculty in your department. But.... that's how it's done. They're experts in your niche sub field and know the norms better than we do. They'll know when research is ready to submit to a conference or journal, what the expectations are for a grad student, what journals make sense for your work, what journals you do have to contact beforehand vs those you don't, etc. It's really rare in a lot fields for a student to publish on their own, so just sending your stuff to journals is risky. It also often is expensive to publish and you want your advisor covering that off grants. The #1 rule in academia is "it depends" and you need to lean on experts who know what it sends on.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: So while my PhD supervisor has been really supportive so far, I’m unable to fully trust (?) another person to have my best interests at heart and wait for them to guide me (I'm also still recovering from a very toxic workplace where people who were very encouraging at first turned extremely nasty later). I’m also the first in my family to get a PhD and since everything is still online this year, I don’t really know who to ask about the process of putting together a research that can be published and it makes me very anxious every time I think about it. Do I have to sign up or be invited to a workshop to present my preliminary research? Do I directly contact the journals? Do I find someone who’s interested in the same things and we co-author? I already have a research proposal for my doctorate research but I don't really know where to go from there. Sorry in advance if these questions are incredibly naive.
RESPONSE A: Following for the same reason. You’re not alone in this feeling!
RESPONSE B: I'm going to talk about STEM because it's what I know. Except in very particular cases where there's an open conflict with your PI, you don't publish alone. You absolutely need your advisor's support. They will tell you when you have enough results to publish, how to write your paper and where to send it. It's very exceptional that a first year PhD student would be able to have a paper accepted without help from their advisor/PI. You're going to need to trust them. It's very important. And they're right that generally people start publishing in their second or third year, not before. Besides I must say they're a thing that bothers me a little when you say they might not "have your best interests at heart". That's not really how it works. You publish research when it's ready, not because you want a paper. Your advisor is going to have their name on the paper so it's on their best interest to publish too. Last thing, don't push too hard too quickly for the paper thing. Trust your advisor. People who push for their every result to be published against the advice of the rest of the team are not very well liked.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Do you keep a separate research journal? Or do you keep all of your thoughts, regardless of topic, together in one personal journal? By research journal, I mean a journal or notebook where you write down potential research ideas, questions, hypotheses, theories, etc., not necessarily your formal experiment planning or results, or your draft for a grant application. I’m fairly new to research and brand new to keeping a personal journal, and I’m conflicted about whether or not I should put my research ideas down in it - so that everything is nicely in one place - or if I should keep them separately, even if they’re only abstract ramblings. A little A5 notebook seems too small to keep some preliminary research ideas, you know? I don’t want to end up filling ten pages on one half-baked tangent. The more I think about it the more reasonable it seems to keep them separate, but I’m not sure I want to drag around an extra A4 notebook everywhere either. There’s also something to be said for keeping all of your thoughts in one place. (Tagged STEM, because it’s the most relevant to me, but happy to hear from to other disciplines as well.)
RESPONSE A: I have a document where I list every possible journal article idea and every possible book idea. I often revisit when starting a new article or project to see if anything grabs me or has become more relevant.
RESPONSE B: Yes I have my laboratory notebook where I write all my data, methodology, and sometimes thoughts or opinions on papers. My person is a small Notebook that I dubbed the "achievement book", I write down the date and every task that I did on said that, this way I a) don't feel useless and b) keep track on what I did and when. I also write, sometimes, meeting observations and stuff to do next
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: computational biology masters correct, I could probably a job with a masters alone. * I have an opportunity for a job if I leave. * I have a close friend from my chemical engineering undergraduate doing well at a wastewater systems engineering startup and has guaranteed me a job if I should want it. * I somewhat regret leaving engineering, and could see myself working there. My apologies for all the text. It’s hard to think clearly about these things through all the sunk cost in the form of time, and you can’t exactly discuss these things openly with lab members without word spreading. Any advice or insight would be greatly appreciated!
RESPONSE A: One thing I'd be cautious from reading your post about is that almost everyone has a dip in enthusiasm in the PhD, phrased in various (the Valley of Shit is a common version). There is something to be said for (demonstrating) persistence and finishing the experience, and you're not in a traumatic situation you need to escape from. Not that it can't be a good choice to stop, but the more that choice is driven by a current relatively vague feeling, the more I'd wonder whether there might be something beyond that would be worth exploring. I'd also quibble about "depth" versus "breadth" - this may be field-specific but there's definitely a risk of superficiality in my field if someone hasn't dug down on something - the depth also gives you a kind of generalizable insight you don't get without that focus. Once you've been down there, when you know what real, deep knowledge looks like, even if you subsequently branch out you'll bring that awareness/levelness/benchmark with you. But absolutely nothing wrong with quitting either, and definitely not with refusing to do the post-doc minioning. Especially not if there are positive reasons to pick the alternative, which you seem to have.
RESPONSE B: I was worried about breath when I started but my first three years I took a few courses in different areas that my PI was happy to have me take. Probably too late for you personally but for others that’s a good idea if you are worried about that.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: academia (or any research) after graduation. * I really don’t like most aspects of the academic environment (isolation in research, people who pride themselves on overworking, etc). * I would never take a postdoc position, and would be strictly looking in industry for a job. Even in industry I would be weary of any research positions. * Jobs are mainly in academia, and there are easier paths to any industry job I would be interested in. * I’m pretty close with my family (in the upper midwest) and want to be geographically close to them (an hour or two drive at most) but PhD level jobs in computational biology are few and far between (mainly on the coasts), and would almost certainly need to move for that. * The main field I could get into without moving across the country in industry would be data science, which is fairly obtainable without a PhD. If I market a computational biology masters correct, I could probably a job with a masters alone. * I have an opportunity for a job if I leave. * I have a close friend from my chemical engineering undergraduate doing well at a wastewater systems engineering startup and has guaranteed me a job if I should want it. * I somewhat regret leaving engineering, and could see myself working there. My apologies for all the text. It’s hard to think clearly about these things through all the sunk cost in the form of time, and you can’t exactly discuss these things openly with lab members without word spreading. Any advice or insight would be greatly appreciated!
RESPONSE A: No one calls you "Dr" even if you graduated and do postdoc. The shining reputation of "Dr" for anyone who invested their 5 long years in discovering some magical anti-virus vaccine and held in high regard was long gone. The question is if you have a job lining up after leaving with Masters, it's good. If not, it'd be a waste of time, jumping around programs.
RESPONSE B: I was worried about breath when I started but my first three years I took a few courses in different areas that my PI was happy to have me take. Probably too late for you personally but for others that’s a good idea if you are worried about that.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: , I don’t have a practical use for one. * I don’t plan on continuing academia (or any research) after graduation. * I really don’t like most aspects of the academic environment (isolation in research, people who pride themselves on overworking, etc). * I would never take a postdoc position, and would be strictly looking in industry for a job. Even in industry I would be weary of any research positions. * Jobs are mainly in academia, and there are easier paths to any industry job I would be interested in. * I’m pretty close with my family (in the upper midwest) and want to be geographically close to them (an hour or two drive at most) but PhD level jobs in computational biology are few and far between (mainly on the coasts), and would almost certainly need to move for that. * The main field I could get into without moving across the country in industry would be data science, which is fairly obtainable without a PhD. If I market a computational biology masters correct, I could probably a job with a masters alone. * I have an opportunity for a job if I leave. * I have a close friend from my chemical engineering undergraduate doing well at a wastewater systems engineering startup and has guaranteed me a job if I should want it. * I somewhat regret leaving engineering, and could see myself working there. My apologies for all the text. It’s hard to think clearly about these things through all the sunk cost in the form of time, and you can’t exactly discuss these things openly with lab members without word spreading. Any advice or insight would be greatly appreciated!
RESPONSE A: I was worried about breath when I started but my first three years I took a few courses in different areas that my PI was happy to have me take. Probably too late for you personally but for others that’s a good idea if you are worried about that.
RESPONSE B: Do you have actual experience in a non-research job? If so, and you know what you're getting yourself into, then great, leave. But make sure you have that non-research work experience first, so you don't fall victim to the "grass is always greener on the other side"!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is there a strategic way to pick your research agenda/interests as a professor? PhD students and professors how did you pick your research agenda? Was it just based on pure interests or is it more typical to determine your research agenda based on feasibility of getting hired by institutions, getting grants, publishing, etc? Thank you in advance :)
RESPONSE A: Historian here: I picked my dissertation topic based on three things 1) availability of source material, 2) location of said source material, and 3) potential for publication as a book. After that I picked my topics still based on location of materials (because if I had to travel for archival work I wanted to be someplace cheap/nice) and potential for publication. After I got tenure I shifted more toward things I thought could keep me engaged for multiple years, generate publications, and in some cases involve undergraduates in the summers. Once I was promoted to full professor all bets were off. Now I just work on whatever interests me, don't even worry about publication (I do more public talks or write for popular media, reaching far larger audiences). I also have two novels-in-progress that eat up a fair bit of my time...they have historical elements so I've found ways to leverage institutional travel funding/grants to get to work on them under the guise of doing "serious" research. Maybe I'll publish something academic from that some day, maybe not.
RESPONSE B: There's no "one" way for sure. But my advice (interdisciplinary/international relations) would be to focus on topics that have some overlap with the issues society cares a lot about, because that will increase the amount of academic and non academic funding opportunities, events, networking opportunities and non academic jobs in case it doesn't work out. For example, my friend who works on role theory and the EU does amazing work, but societal interest is lower, which limits his opportunities. My number one advice would be to pick a topic that will get really big in a few years so you're strategically placed but that's pretty hard to pull off!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Is there a strategic way to pick your research agenda/interests as a professor? PhD students and professors how did you pick your research agenda? Was it just based on pure interests or is it more typical to determine your research agenda based on feasibility of getting hired by institutions, getting grants, publishing, etc? Thank you in advance :)
RESPONSE A: There's no "one" way for sure. But my advice (interdisciplinary/international relations) would be to focus on topics that have some overlap with the issues society cares a lot about, because that will increase the amount of academic and non academic funding opportunities, events, networking opportunities and non academic jobs in case it doesn't work out. For example, my friend who works on role theory and the EU does amazing work, but societal interest is lower, which limits his opportunities. My number one advice would be to pick a topic that will get really big in a few years so you're strategically placed but that's pretty hard to pull off!
RESPONSE B: I applied for an advertised position
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Calling Yourself a “Historian” I have a quick question. If I have a bachelor’s degree in history and working towards a master’s degree in the same field, would it be appropriate to call myself a historian? I have not published any journal articles or books as of right now; however, I’m thinking about turning my twenty page undergraduate thesis into either a pamphlet for self-publishing or an article in a scholarly journal. Any and all answers are greatly appreciated. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: Depends on the context. If someone asks what your academic field is, obviously you say historian. If someone asks what you *do*, I don't think it is really accurate to say "historian" until you are a professional (i.e. finished with PhD and have an academic post). Until then I'd say the most honest answer to that question is I'm a grad/PhD student in history. But ultimately this is a question of social relations so you do whatever you want, nobody is gonna come round and ask to see your Historian card.
RESPONSE B: A historian to me is someone who does it as a profession. My elderly mother, who did a bachelor's degree in biology some forty+ years ago, justifies her Covid anti-vaccination stance by claiming she is a biologist. For the same reason, you might get some eye rolling to claim the "historian" title.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Calling Yourself a “Historian” I have a quick question. If I have a bachelor’s degree in history and working towards a master’s degree in the same field, would it be appropriate to call myself a historian? I have not published any journal articles or books as of right now; however, I’m thinking about turning my twenty page undergraduate thesis into either a pamphlet for self-publishing or an article in a scholarly journal. Any and all answers are greatly appreciated. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: Everybody will start calling you a barber from the moment you start working in a barbershop and doing whatever other barbers do.
RESPONSE B: I always would have used the job title ‘historian’ only to describe professionals when I lived in my home country (Ireland), but since moving to the UK, I’ve noticed that even undergrad students are often referred to via their degree subject — e.g. ‘historians’ are those studying history, ‘chemists’ are chemistry students, ‘linguists’ are language undergrads, ‘medievalists’ specialise in medieval studies — I’ve even heard ‘Italianist’ and ‘Russianist’ used to describe people studying those specific languages. (I also wondered for the longest time what the equivalent would be for someone in French. Turns out it’s ‘francisant’, apparently!) As far as I can tell, though, these usages seem quite specific to a UK university context. So if you are speaking to someone outside of academia, or if you’re based in another country, it might be better to say something like ‘I’m training to be a historian’/‘I’m a historian-in-training’!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Calling Yourself a “Historian” I have a quick question. If I have a bachelor’s degree in history and working towards a master’s degree in the same field, would it be appropriate to call myself a historian? I have not published any journal articles or books as of right now; however, I’m thinking about turning my twenty page undergraduate thesis into either a pamphlet for self-publishing or an article in a scholarly journal. Any and all answers are greatly appreciated. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: Let people roll their eyes, Historian.
RESPONSE B: You are currently a trainee/student. If you have a job that produces historical information, then you are a historian. It does not have to be in academia and you don't even need a graduate degree. But calling yourself a historian implies it is your profession. I would not classify most, say high school history teachers or guides at a museum, a historian. While their jobs are deep in the field of history, most are not producing new historical information (of course their are exceptions; plus my knowledge of museums may be off, but I think of the people that show you around and answer questions as being different from the archivists and curators who may be classified as historians depending on their job). On the other hand, there are plenty of amateur historians. Many towns have small local museums or archives or someone that has written books on local history. These people produce historical information, but they may not paid to do it. I would use the term amateur historian since it is not their profession, though I think if you had and official position, even if it is as a volunteer, or had published (not self-published) a book/articles, that would qualify as being a professional and the term amateur could be dropped. All of that being said, historian is not a "protected" term. Anyone can call themselves that. You just may want to think about the level of eye-rolling if you call yourself that among professional historians.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Professors of Reddit, do you enjoy teaching/working with undergraduates? or is it the part of your job you dislike?
RESPONSE A: Absolutely! Baby freshmen are my favorite. I just had several new sections of them today and they were all scared about college and of me. It is so fun to watch them slowly blossom into people with opinions and ideas and realize that they can challenge the ideas and opinions of others (and me).
RESPONSE B: It's the part of the job I love most. It's why I got a job at a smaller liberal arts university. I want to focus on teaching. The best part is when you find that topic that sparks their interest and they really engage.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Professors of Reddit, do you enjoy teaching/working with undergraduates? or is it the part of your job you dislike?
RESPONSE A: I'm an adjunct professor, but I recall something my creative writing thesis advisor (a prof) said about undergrads vs grad students. He felt that grad students, on the whole, wrote turgid, boring stories. Getting accepted into a big - shot MFA program had turned them into stunted pretenders-- they were so concerned about what they should write, about publishing, about impressing profs and dick - waving among their cohort that their fiction had lost 95% of its original verve (ironically, the reason they'd been accepted into the program into the first place.) His undergrads, on the other hand, he adored. Young, uninhibited, and weird. Completely honest with each other and about their craft. He was able to have way more fun with them and vastly preferred teaching them.
RESPONSE B: Absolutely! Baby freshmen are my favorite. I just had several new sections of them today and they were all scared about college and of me. It is so fun to watch them slowly blossom into people with opinions and ideas and realize that they can challenge the ideas and opinions of others (and me).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Professors of Reddit, do you enjoy teaching/working with undergraduates? or is it the part of your job you dislike?
RESPONSE A: Absolutely! Baby freshmen are my favorite. I just had several new sections of them today and they were all scared about college and of me. It is so fun to watch them slowly blossom into people with opinions and ideas and realize that they can challenge the ideas and opinions of others (and me).
RESPONSE B: Yes, totally.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Professors of Reddit, do you enjoy teaching/working with undergraduates? or is it the part of your job you dislike?
RESPONSE A: Not really. If I could just do research, I would prefer that. However, it's important for me to do a good job, so I put in a lot of effort into my classes.
RESPONSE B: I'm an adjunct professor, but I recall something my creative writing thesis advisor (a prof) said about undergrads vs grad students. He felt that grad students, on the whole, wrote turgid, boring stories. Getting accepted into a big - shot MFA program had turned them into stunted pretenders-- they were so concerned about what they should write, about publishing, about impressing profs and dick - waving among their cohort that their fiction had lost 95% of its original verve (ironically, the reason they'd been accepted into the program into the first place.) His undergrads, on the other hand, he adored. Young, uninhibited, and weird. Completely honest with each other and about their craft. He was able to have way more fun with them and vastly preferred teaching them.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Professors of Reddit, do you enjoy teaching/working with undergraduates? or is it the part of your job you dislike?
RESPONSE A: Not really. If I could just do research, I would prefer that. However, it's important for me to do a good job, so I put in a lot of effort into my classes.
RESPONSE B: Yes, totally.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: or a building of classrooms, what would you be sure to include? Type of chairs and tables? Which boards? Technology?
RESPONSE A: As someone who teaches mostly writing courses, I'd probably go with something like what some of my colleagues have tested as being particularly useful.
RESPONSE B: Projector screen that does not cover the whiteboard when they are down. In almost every classroom on my campus, you can have either a projector screen or whiteboard, but you can't do both. That being said, there are a couple of classrooms where they made the entire front wall a whiteboard so you can project onto the wall and then write over the projection. The most requested feature in classrooms from my faculty are movable tables. For me, working power outlets in tables are more important since I walk around during class and the aisleways are getting dangerous with all of the cords. At another school in their teaching labs, they had document cameras built in the ceiling looking down at their demonstration table. They way they could project their demos, plus use it as a regular document cam as well. Being on a larger surface was also nice because they could easily have the textbook open to show parts and easily side it out of the way to show other things. At another school in their lab building, they had a glass wall in their lab that looked into a research lab so the students could watch experiments that they could not do themselves (it was animal behavior experiments). I got to assist in designing a couple of classrooms at another school. In one, for a computer lab classroom, we designed it with an inner circle of tables and an outer circle along the walls. The outer circle had the computer work stations and students were given chairs on wheels. When it was lecture/discussion time, students faced in and when it was time to work on their computers, they rolled around to their workstation. In another classroom we designed, one of the main classes that would be taught in it was a very active hands on class with group projects going on for the entire semester. The professor would pull one group of students at a time aside to work with them, so we built a small conference room (4-5 people) to the side so he could work with them without disturbing the other groups (quite was important for the projects).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Professors - if you were designing a classroom or a building of classrooms, what would you be sure to include? Type of chairs and tables? Which boards? Technology?
RESPONSE A: As someone who teaches mostly writing courses, I'd probably go with something like what some of my colleagues have tested as being particularly useful.
RESPONSE B: I'll tell you what I WOULDN'T do that was recently done on my campus. Install the only white board in the room BEHIND the projector screen. As someone who teaches math I cannot tell you how frustrating it is when I want to have something up on the screen while simultaneously doing work on the board. Also, take a poll to see if people will actually use/have a need for smart boards. I honestly don't see the appeal but I'm sure they're not cheap. It's also useful if tables and chairs roll so you can change the classroom set up if need be. I work at a school with small classes...so it's nice to set up a large rectangle when I want to have a discussion instead of having everyone face the front.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Professors - if you were designing a classroom or a building of classrooms, what would you be sure to include? Type of chairs and tables? Which boards? Technology?
RESPONSE A: I'll tell you what I WOULDN'T do that was recently done on my campus. Install the only white board in the room BEHIND the projector screen. As someone who teaches math I cannot tell you how frustrating it is when I want to have something up on the screen while simultaneously doing work on the board. Also, take a poll to see if people will actually use/have a need for smart boards. I honestly don't see the appeal but I'm sure they're not cheap. It's also useful if tables and chairs roll so you can change the classroom set up if need be. I work at a school with small classes...so it's nice to set up a large rectangle when I want to have a discussion instead of having everyone face the front.
RESPONSE B: Depends what it's for. Assuming standard lectuing, a sliding blackboard, and a single projection screen (I thoroughly detest paired screens). Personally I prefer tiered seating with fixed writing surface in front and power sockets. For a geology lab then a few long rows of wide benching with mains supplies. Microscope, map and sample cabinets arrayed along the back and sides. Same blackboard and projector requirements as the lecture room. There's really no need to overcomplicate it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Professors - if you were designing a classroom or a building of classrooms, what would you be sure to include? Type of chairs and tables? Which boards? Technology?
RESPONSE A: Depends what it's for. Assuming standard lectuing, a sliding blackboard, and a single projection screen (I thoroughly detest paired screens). Personally I prefer tiered seating with fixed writing surface in front and power sockets. For a geology lab then a few long rows of wide benching with mains supplies. Microscope, map and sample cabinets arrayed along the back and sides. Same blackboard and projector requirements as the lecture room. There's really no need to overcomplicate it.
RESPONSE B: Do *away* with the stupid tiny cutting boards attached to chairs. Replace with movable 2-person desks on wheels, and wheeled chairs. This makes it possible to reconfigure the room to one's needs in a matter of minutes. Remove blackboards. I know some people like chalk, but it is messy and dusty and makes people allergic. Run whiteboards along the entire perimeter of the room where there is wall space. Some of the boards may be useless in a regular configuration, but will become excellent tools for students during classroom activities other than lectures. Fresh supply of markers of 6-7 different colors. Two projectors. One projecting onto the screen that is nowhere near the whiteboards. One projecting directly onto the whiteboard in a way that the entire images fits within the whiteboard. The latter gives me opportunity to annotate displayed images/code/etc as I speak, but is only useful every once in a while. The former - because what I project on screen still requires support in the form of writing on the board. Wi-fi and wired access that does not wobble.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What is academia like in Germany? I have been reading a lot of posts about how bad the academia is in many countries like Publish or Perish or pressure to constantly publish in big journals but then i read some good things about academia in Germany and that is chilled than academia in most countries so i wanted to know is this really the case and how is it different than academia in countries like USA or UK like is Publish or Perish a thing in Germany also. I am interested in Math, Physics and computer science so it will be nice if you can tell some specific things about academia in those fields.
RESPONSE A: To quote a guy I know (physics) that used to work in German academia but then switched to go into industry:" its a shark tank". Also he literally got paid twice in the industry, and this guy was a genius who published more than anybody around him
RESPONSE B: Publish or Perish is definitely a thing in Germany, especially at the bigger research institutes. At Helmholtz Institutes in particular, the policy is called "leistungs-orientierte Mittelvergabe" - performance oriented funding. This means that's there's one big pot of money for the whole institute, and funds are distributed based on number of publications in prior years. More publications = more money. Lots of groups at these big institutes also get external funding, but the majority of funding for most of the groups comes from these "competition-based" mechanisms.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What is academia like in Germany? I have been reading a lot of posts about how bad the academia is in many countries like Publish or Perish or pressure to constantly publish in big journals but then i read some good things about academia in Germany and that is chilled than academia in most countries so i wanted to know is this really the case and how is it different than academia in countries like USA or UK like is Publish or Perish a thing in Germany also. I am interested in Math, Physics and computer science so it will be nice if you can tell some specific things about academia in those fields.
RESPONSE A: Publish or Perish is definitely a thing in Germany, especially at the bigger research institutes. At Helmholtz Institutes in particular, the policy is called "leistungs-orientierte Mittelvergabe" - performance oriented funding. This means that's there's one big pot of money for the whole institute, and funds are distributed based on number of publications in prior years. More publications = more money. Lots of groups at these big institutes also get external funding, but the majority of funding for most of the groups comes from these "competition-based" mechanisms.
RESPONSE B: One small potential benefit for an outsider is if you aren’t limited by place in the country you would have more options - many people in Germany (I know this is broad strokes thinking, but I found it similar in other European countries too) do want to live in or close to their home, thus limiting their own options in academic jobs. The flip side of this is that there is often an inside, local candidate.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What is your experience, if any, with maintaining a work/life balance in academia or industry? This has always bothered me about academia. Some professors will tell me that if you aren't willing to work night and day, then this isn't for you. Others will say it is what you make of it. I'm going back and forth over whether or not to put all my efforts seeking a tenure-track position or an industry position (my track record lends well to both). I hope that you will share your experience so that I, and other folks, can learn more.
RESPONSE A: I feel like academia is like being in school on top of having a job. You have to teach, you have to do campus and professional service, and you had to do your homework (produce scholarship). There's a lot of time off, but there's ALWAYS a millions things I should be doing. Being an assistant professor, trying to earn tenure you say YES to a lot. But I had to start saying no. It's a great job for me as a mom, I have flexibility for when I need to be home, but there's always my research to do. On the other hand, my husband is in corporate and he can hardly miss a day at work but when he's home, he's not working. Work is at work. For example, I worked 10 hours yesterday on Sunday - just to catch up. But oops I'm redditing now.
RESPONSE B: Not so great balance, but than I have a career... Don't regret it. But I would say that you don't have to work 24/7...
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: n't for you. Others will say it is what you make of it. I'm going back and forth over whether or not to put all my efforts seeking a tenure-track position or an industry position (my track record lends well to both). I hope that you will share your experience so that I, and other folks, can learn more.
RESPONSE A: I think it's really going to depend on your field. I recently joined academia after decades in the games industry. Honesty, I love it. I really enjoy teaching and the flexibility of being able to pursue my own projects. And, while I'm certainly working hard (creating new courses from scratch is always fun, to say nothing of trying to push my projects forward), again if I'm honest I'm *much* better off and have a *much* better work-life balance than when I was in industry. Even when I work late nights, it's almost always on something I find stimulating -- and almost never for something along the lines of a detailed presentation that my job is riding on but which some exec may blow off at the last minute before the meeting time and then blame me when the product doesn't hit its revenue targets. That's the kind of thing that grinds away your soul, day after day. Now if your industry is strictly 9-to-5, has great vacation and benefits, your job there would be multi-year stable (i.e., you're not going to be looking over your shoulder every day an expect to have to change jobs every 6-24 months), AND it's something you'd find fulfilling, then it may be a better option -- it will almost certainly pay better! But my impression is that industries and jobs like that are vanishingly rare these days. My experience has been that it's possible to find jobs that pay well, but where the work and politics are grinding, OR the work itself is suffocating, and/or the whole thing could vanish at any moment. But maybe that's just the industries I've been in. YMMV and all that.
RESPONSE B: Not so great balance, but than I have a career... Don't regret it. But I would say that you don't have to work 24/7...
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: advisor is moving to a lower rank university. Any advice? I am a first year PhD student in Computer Science, at an university (U1) with a pretty highly ranked program. Recently, my advisor decided to move to a lower ranked university (U2) in a different city for family reasons. My work has been going well and he offered me a choice in case I would want to move with him to U2. I am having trouble deciding whether I should move with him or stay at my current university and find another advisor. Finding another advisor would mean getting started from scratch in the narrow subdomain of work over again. Pros if I move: * I get to work with my current professor. He is relatively well known in academia and has advised multiple PhD students before me and all of them are at good places. * He said that he would have funding for me at U2, so I wouldn't have to TA and just work on research. * The city of U2 is much better and it has multiple universities, so might be a good way to build collaborations. Cons if I move: * I get my degree from a much lower ranked university. I have heard mixed opinions from people about whether the university name in your degree matters or not. I would assume for someone who is not exactly familiar with my research for them the university name would be a big factor. * The quality of my peer group and other faculty in the department would have a significant drop. * The bare minimal social life that I had built in the last few months would go down the drain and I would have to get settled in a new city. Any insight or advice?
RESPONSE A: Your first two cons are not necessarily true... And frankly they are very elitist. You may find that the quality of peers is in no way worse than in u1. So not sneer on 'worse' universities - the pi matters more. And lose the attitude if you decide to move with him. You won't find a warm, welcoming environment with it. As for the last con: you can build up a new social circle. It should not be a determining factor in your career. Edit: good job on the downvotes.
RESPONSE B: advisor rank > uni rank
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: My advisor is moving to a lower rank university. Any advice? I am a first year PhD student in Computer Science, at an university (U1) with a pretty highly ranked program. Recently, my advisor decided to move to a lower ranked university (U2) in a different city for family reasons. My work has been going well and he offered me a choice in case I would want to move with him to U2. I am having trouble deciding whether I should move with him or stay at my current university and find another advisor. Finding another advisor would mean getting started from scratch in the narrow subdomain of work over again. Pros if I move: * I get to work with my current professor. He is relatively well known in academia and has advised multiple PhD students before me and all of them are at good places. * He said that he would have funding for me at U2, so I wouldn't have to TA and just work on research. * The city of U2 is much better and it has multiple universities, so might be a good way to build collaborations. Cons if I move: * I get my degree from a much lower ranked university. I have heard mixed opinions from people about whether the university name in your degree matters or not. I would assume for someone who is not exactly familiar with my research for them the university name would be a big factor. * The quality of my peer group and other faculty in the department would have a significant drop. * The bare minimal social life that I had built in the last few months would go down the drain and I would have to get settled in a new city. Any insight or advice?
RESPONSE A: advisor rank > uni rank
RESPONSE B: The quality of the work and who you know or worked with in some ways matter just as much as where you got your degree. It also depends on whether you want more experience TA-ing on your CV because if you are hoping to get a job teaching after graduation then having extra years of experience teaching is definitely beneficial.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: My advisor is moving to a lower rank university. Any advice? I am a first year PhD student in Computer Science, at an university (U1) with a pretty highly ranked program. Recently, my advisor decided to move to a lower ranked university (U2) in a different city for family reasons. My work has been going well and he offered me a choice in case I would want to move with him to U2. I am having trouble deciding whether I should move with him or stay at my current university and find another advisor. Finding another advisor would mean getting started from scratch in the narrow subdomain of work over again. Pros if I move: * I get to work with my current professor. He is relatively well known in academia and has advised multiple PhD students before me and all of them are at good places. * He said that he would have funding for me at U2, so I wouldn't have to TA and just work on research. * The city of U2 is much better and it has multiple universities, so might be a good way to build collaborations. Cons if I move: * I get my degree from a much lower ranked university. I have heard mixed opinions from people about whether the university name in your degree matters or not. I would assume for someone who is not exactly familiar with my research for them the university name would be a big factor. * The quality of my peer group and other faculty in the department would have a significant drop. * The bare minimal social life that I had built in the last few months would go down the drain and I would have to get settled in a new city. Any insight or advice?
RESPONSE A: What are your goals post-graduation? Teaching, research faculty, industry?
RESPONSE B: advisor rank > uni rank
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: My advisor is moving to a lower rank university. Any advice? I am a first year PhD student in Computer Science, at an university (U1) with a pretty highly ranked program. Recently, my advisor decided to move to a lower ranked university (U2) in a different city for family reasons. My work has been going well and he offered me a choice in case I would want to move with him to U2. I am having trouble deciding whether I should move with him or stay at my current university and find another advisor. Finding another advisor would mean getting started from scratch in the narrow subdomain of work over again. Pros if I move: * I get to work with my current professor. He is relatively well known in academia and has advised multiple PhD students before me and all of them are at good places. * He said that he would have funding for me at U2, so I wouldn't have to TA and just work on research. * The city of U2 is much better and it has multiple universities, so might be a good way to build collaborations. Cons if I move: * I get my degree from a much lower ranked university. I have heard mixed opinions from people about whether the university name in your degree matters or not. I would assume for someone who is not exactly familiar with my research for them the university name would be a big factor. * The quality of my peer group and other faculty in the department would have a significant drop. * The bare minimal social life that I had built in the last few months would go down the drain and I would have to get settled in a new city. Any insight or advice?
RESPONSE A: advisor rank > uni rank
RESPONSE B: What matters most is the quality of the work you do. How is this best accomplished, by staying or leaving?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: first year PhD student in Computer Science, at an university (U1) with a pretty highly ranked program. Recently, my advisor decided to move to a lower ranked university (U2) in a different city for family reasons. My work has been going well and he offered me a choice in case I would want to move with him to U2. I am having trouble deciding whether I should move with him or stay at my current university and find another advisor. Finding another advisor would mean getting started from scratch in the narrow subdomain of work over again. Pros if I move: * I get to work with my current professor. He is relatively well known in academia and has advised multiple PhD students before me and all of them are at good places. * He said that he would have funding for me at U2, so I wouldn't have to TA and just work on research. * The city of U2 is much better and it has multiple universities, so might be a good way to build collaborations. Cons if I move: * I get my degree from a much lower ranked university. I have heard mixed opinions from people about whether the university name in your degree matters or not. I would assume for someone who is not exactly familiar with my research for them the university name would be a big factor. * The quality of my peer group and other faculty in the department would have a significant drop. * The bare minimal social life that I had built in the last few months would go down the drain and I would have to get settled in a new city. Any insight or advice?
RESPONSE A: What matters most is the quality of the work you do. How is this best accomplished, by staying or leaving?
RESPONSE B: Your first two cons are not necessarily true... And frankly they are very elitist. You may find that the quality of peers is in no way worse than in u1. So not sneer on 'worse' universities - the pi matters more. And lose the attitude if you decide to move with him. You won't find a warm, welcoming environment with it. As for the last con: you can build up a new social circle. It should not be a determining factor in your career. Edit: good job on the downvotes.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: a good idea in ways that I don't think make sense, but I also want to get a PhD to make good on all the time I have put into this, and it's tearing me apart. I am seeing a therapist/taking medication now, but it's only helping a tiny amount. I just really don't know what to do.
RESPONSE A: Sounds like all you need is a sanity check: (1) what do other people on your committee think of the more crankish stuff; (2) what do other grad students think; (3) have you presented this in conferences or published any of it? Let these sources of feedback guide you some.
RESPONSE B: You need to figure this out, but we can't do it for you. If you think you can write a reasonably clear and concise email, you can ask your advisor to what extent the proposal is speculative, and for the names of any people he knows who might have thought about it. If not, make a meeting with someone who is roughly in the area and give a short explanation as to why you're worried. In both cases, I'd try to (honestly) present yourself as worried, rather than feeling a need to push a particular claim - nobody likes feeling defensive. As others have said, the situation you're describing is a bit ambiguous. In particular: (1) Grant proposals often contain a bit of advertising nonsense. This is annoying and obviously not good, but you shouldn't take grandiose claims there at face value. (2) It is very common for experts to have a weak grasp (or memory) of important basic facts, and to make basic mistakes every once in a while. I don't want to get into the weeds in this comment, so I'll just say that your understanding of a topic changes over time & you eventually realize which details you can let slide. (3) Sometimes people get defensive. Not nice, but there you go. All of this is frustrating, and (except for the last) a bit hard to judge for inexperienced people. That's OK - they are all common worries, and you should be able to find a sympathetic ear even if your advisor is not sympathetic.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: other hand, I can totally say the opposite as well, where I can say almost for a fact that he has to be brilliant in some categories, even if not when it comes to basic skills/critical thinking in others. This just makes things more confusing, since I pretty regularly hear things I know are 100% wrong or nonsensical in categories that are more well understood. I really don't know what to do. Just trying to talk to people (including my advisor) over their egos is super intellectually exhausting to begin with, and now there is an added layer of me feeling potentially coached to pretend that what I'm working on makes more sense than it actually does or becoming delusional or a crank myself, which I really don't want. It's wreaking havoc on my mental health and sort of feeding itself as a problem on my psyche, and making it harder and harder to make progress. I don't want to get up in front of people and try to argue it's a good idea in ways that I don't think make sense, but I also want to get a PhD to make good on all the time I have put into this, and it's tearing me apart. I am seeing a therapist/taking medication now, but it's only helping a tiny amount. I just really don't know what to do.
RESPONSE A: Sounds like all you need is a sanity check: (1) what do other people on your committee think of the more crankish stuff; (2) what do other grad students think; (3) have you presented this in conferences or published any of it? Let these sources of feedback guide you some.
RESPONSE B: Im not on your level, but can you ask him for whitepaper sources on his input since you cant find any? Or even omit his angles on what you submit for review and then see if he brings it up, then say something like that was a compelling insight however research has not caught up to your ideas. Maybe that will make him drop that angle when he sees there isnt any citeable material. I mean, you are the one who has to defend it. Im suggesting you flatter him and blow sunshine up his ass and do what you want anyway.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: know are 100% wrong or nonsensical in categories that are more well understood. I really don't know what to do. Just trying to talk to people (including my advisor) over their egos is super intellectually exhausting to begin with, and now there is an added layer of me feeling potentially coached to pretend that what I'm working on makes more sense than it actually does or becoming delusional or a crank myself, which I really don't want. It's wreaking havoc on my mental health and sort of feeding itself as a problem on my psyche, and making it harder and harder to make progress. I don't want to get up in front of people and try to argue it's a good idea in ways that I don't think make sense, but I also want to get a PhD to make good on all the time I have put into this, and it's tearing me apart. I am seeing a therapist/taking medication now, but it's only helping a tiny amount. I just really don't know what to do.
RESPONSE A: Not sure if it relates to your situation but my supervisors also sounded very cryptic and random when i first met them. I remember in my first year my supervisor suggested something that sounded very general and it did not make much sense when I read my notes later. Another time I got an email with just one sentence, an article title, from decades ago. It all made sense in my 3rd year after I read so much about the topic and wrote many different versions, before i realized my supervisors random comment and that article was the best direction for me.
RESPONSE B: Im not on your level, but can you ask him for whitepaper sources on his input since you cant find any? Or even omit his angles on what you submit for review and then see if he brings it up, then say something like that was a compelling insight however research has not caught up to your ideas. Maybe that will make him drop that angle when he sees there isnt any citeable material. I mean, you are the one who has to defend it. Im suggesting you flatter him and blow sunshine up his ass and do what you want anyway.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: helping a tiny amount. I just really don't know what to do.
RESPONSE A: You need to figure this out, but we can't do it for you. If you think you can write a reasonably clear and concise email, you can ask your advisor to what extent the proposal is speculative, and for the names of any people he knows who might have thought about it. If not, make a meeting with someone who is roughly in the area and give a short explanation as to why you're worried. In both cases, I'd try to (honestly) present yourself as worried, rather than feeling a need to push a particular claim - nobody likes feeling defensive. As others have said, the situation you're describing is a bit ambiguous. In particular: (1) Grant proposals often contain a bit of advertising nonsense. This is annoying and obviously not good, but you shouldn't take grandiose claims there at face value. (2) It is very common for experts to have a weak grasp (or memory) of important basic facts, and to make basic mistakes every once in a while. I don't want to get into the weeds in this comment, so I'll just say that your understanding of a topic changes over time & you eventually realize which details you can let slide. (3) Sometimes people get defensive. Not nice, but there you go. All of this is frustrating, and (except for the last) a bit hard to judge for inexperienced people. That's OK - they are all common worries, and you should be able to find a sympathetic ear even if your advisor is not sympathetic.
RESPONSE B: Im not on your level, but can you ask him for whitepaper sources on his input since you cant find any? Or even omit his angles on what you submit for review and then see if he brings it up, then say something like that was a compelling insight however research has not caught up to your ideas. Maybe that will make him drop that angle when he sees there isnt any citeable material. I mean, you are the one who has to defend it. Im suggesting you flatter him and blow sunshine up his ass and do what you want anyway.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do grad students find funding in the humanities? I knew basically where to look for undergraduate essay contests and the like, but now that I'm finishing my MA and going into a PhD, I'm a bit confused as to how so many of my colleagues (in a philosophy program) seem to have specific grants/scholarships from organizations interested in their particular research. I've spent an hour on Google and my department's website, and I haven't found anything like what they described. Things like one colleague specifically getting funding from a bioethics interest group because she does such good work in that field, and another who shifted his focus to studying social dynamics because the pay was so good. If you have/had external funding in a humanities grad program, how did you find those opportunities? (I know I could just ask these colleagues, but talking about money is always awkward so I'd rather bother the internet.)
RESPONSE A: Most good philosophy PhD programs provide funding for about 5 years out of the BA (typically 2-3 years fellowship and 2-3 years TA). This should include a complete tuition waiver and a reasonable stipend. Coming from an MA, the math would be a bit different, but you shouldn't have to scrounge for cash getting a philosophy PhD. To be honest, unless you're independently wealthy, I would not consider a program that doesn't offer this. The job market is far too uncertain.
RESPONSE B: You can ask a humanities librarian to help you research funding opportunities!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How do grad students find funding in the humanities? I knew basically where to look for undergraduate essay contests and the like, but now that I'm finishing my MA and going into a PhD, I'm a bit confused as to how so many of my colleagues (in a philosophy program) seem to have specific grants/scholarships from organizations interested in their particular research. I've spent an hour on Google and my department's website, and I haven't found anything like what they described. Things like one colleague specifically getting funding from a bioethics interest group because she does such good work in that field, and another who shifted his focus to studying social dynamics because the pay was so good. If you have/had external funding in a humanities grad program, how did you find those opportunities? (I know I could just ask these colleagues, but talking about money is always awkward so I'd rather bother the internet.)
RESPONSE A: I would say shoot an email to your university graduate student union, and your university most definitely has a page dedicated to internal and external funding opportunities. Though it might seem weird, students and professors, especially your supervisor, can help tremendously. There's nothing weird about wanting to get funding - everybody does it!
RESPONSE B: Most good philosophy PhD programs provide funding for about 5 years out of the BA (typically 2-3 years fellowship and 2-3 years TA). This should include a complete tuition waiver and a reasonable stipend. Coming from an MA, the math would be a bit different, but you shouldn't have to scrounge for cash getting a philosophy PhD. To be honest, unless you're independently wealthy, I would not consider a program that doesn't offer this. The job market is far too uncertain.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How do you ask students to address you? How do they in fact address you? Do you feel that is correlated with your demographics? Someone else posted a version of this over at the professors subreddit and in spite of vigorous response it was for whatever reason it was shut down. ​ My background: older WM, school returnee grad student, instructor of record for a 100+ student class at an R1. I introduced myself on the first day as "Hi, I'm (first name, last name). You can call me (nickname) or (Mr. lastname) if you insist. Just don't call me (Dr. lastname) because that's not true." ​ How I'm actually addressed, ranked in decreasing frequency: 1. Mr. lastname 2. Dr. lastname 3. No address used 4. Full first name 5. Nickname ​ I do find a pretty strong association between use of "Dr." and students who are trying to feed me a BS excuse or plead for extra credit.
RESPONSE A: Indian here. We call a lot of our professors and teachers "sir" and "ma'am" It's fairly culturally specific so it weirds out faculty who are more international and used to something less formal.
RESPONSE B: Ideally they would refer to me as "your majesty", but as a TA not sure how well that one would fly.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do you ask students to address you? How do they in fact address you? Do you feel that is correlated with your demographics? Someone else posted a version of this over at the professors subreddit and in spite of vigorous response it was for whatever reason it was shut down. ​ My background: older WM, school returnee grad student, instructor of record for a 100+ student class at an R1. I introduced myself on the first day as "Hi, I'm (first name, last name). You can call me (nickname) or (Mr. lastname) if you insist. Just don't call me (Dr. lastname) because that's not true." ​ How I'm actually addressed, ranked in decreasing frequency: 1. Mr. lastname 2. Dr. lastname 3. No address used 4. Full first name 5. Nickname ​ I do find a pretty strong association between use of "Dr." and students who are trying to feed me a BS excuse or plead for extra credit.
RESPONSE A: I am 40F, White, TT prof at regional PUI in Psychology, and have a PhD. I tell my students they call me whatever they want: prof. Last name, Prof. First name, just first name, Dr. Mizzy. At the end of the day, most call me Prof. first name (my last name is kind of unusual), or just "miss". I know a lot of people take offense to the latter, but I don't mind it.
RESPONSE B: I request that my students refer to me as something other than "hey you." I live in a part of the country where it isn't uncommon for young people to refer to teachers as Mr./Ms./Mrs. [First name], so I get Mr. / Dr. / Professor [First name] or [First initial]. My first and last name start with the same letter, so they don't even need to choose.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How do you respond to low quality PhD proposals? For reference, I’m based in the UK social sciences, where acceptance to a doctoral programme usually rests on informal pre-contact with a potential supervisor about research proposals before application. I get pretty constant contact from potential PhD researchers with a first draft of proposals for reveiw (at least one a week) and I can accept only around 2 a year. I really struggle with knowing how to politely decline proposals that are within my area of expertise, but simply not of high enough quality to accept. They might be uncritical, lacking engagement with the field, or not innovative in identifying a research gap. How do others respond to this? What’s a *kind*, but constructive way to say you’re not interested?
RESPONSE A: I'd point to areas of improvement (that's what you do as a reviewer too right?). Mentioning some of the good points and bad points can help give the applicants message?
RESPONSE B: My first PhD proposal (UK social sciences) was bad. Part of the problem was that I simply had no idea of what a PhD proposal should include. Once I got initial (scathing) feedback from one programme I worked hard the following months to improve the proposal, submitted it to a different potential supervisor, and was successful in getting funding. I'm now a lecturer, so I have managed to redeem myself, but I just needed that initial feedback that told me (rather harshly, but accurately) why my proposal was uncompetitive. Now I am not saying you should work closely with all 50 potential candidates who contact you. But are there any particular helpful resources that you could point people towards? Online advice or sample (successful) proposals in your area for example? Then you can say: 1. Sorry, you're unlikely to be successful in our programme; but 2. If you want to try some other universities / potential supervisors, then here are some resources to help you further strengthen your proposal.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do you respond to low quality PhD proposals? For reference, I’m based in the UK social sciences, where acceptance to a doctoral programme usually rests on informal pre-contact with a potential supervisor about research proposals before application. I get pretty constant contact from potential PhD researchers with a first draft of proposals for reveiw (at least one a week) and I can accept only around 2 a year. I really struggle with knowing how to politely decline proposals that are within my area of expertise, but simply not of high enough quality to accept. They might be uncritical, lacking engagement with the field, or not innovative in identifying a research gap. How do others respond to this? What’s a *kind*, but constructive way to say you’re not interested?
RESPONSE A: My first PhD proposal (UK social sciences) was bad. Part of the problem was that I simply had no idea of what a PhD proposal should include. Once I got initial (scathing) feedback from one programme I worked hard the following months to improve the proposal, submitted it to a different potential supervisor, and was successful in getting funding. I'm now a lecturer, so I have managed to redeem myself, but I just needed that initial feedback that told me (rather harshly, but accurately) why my proposal was uncompetitive. Now I am not saying you should work closely with all 50 potential candidates who contact you. But are there any particular helpful resources that you could point people towards? Online advice or sample (successful) proposals in your area for example? Then you can say: 1. Sorry, you're unlikely to be successful in our programme; but 2. If you want to try some other universities / potential supervisors, then here are some resources to help you further strengthen your proposal.
RESPONSE B: Being friendly and unwarrantedly complimentary isn’t as helpful as pointing to specific things they can improve. If they can’t handle genuine critique of their work they aren’t cut out for academia, anyway. You don’t always get handed a compliment sandwich.
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.