label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
A
|
POST: bit of delay in response from those I asked (maybe because it was at the tail end of winter break?) but ultimately, they all agreed with one asking I send them a reminder a few days before the deadline. Since then, I have only received 1 and the application is due in 2 days. I sent the two individuals I haven’t received the letter from a gentle reminder / thank you to see what’s going on, and literally, no response from either. I have good relationships with these individuals and they’ve always expressed to me that they would be happy to write me letters of recommendation for jobs, grad school, whatever. I’m feeling kinda hurt to be honest, I’ve worked (and am currently working for) for these people who both applauded me for being a good employee. What do I do? It’s definitely too short of notice to find 2 replacements. It’s also making me really worried about getting my letters of rec for grad school applications later this year, which, again, they all know I’ll be requesting them in the fall.
RESPONSE A: I remember being an undergrad stressing about my professors not submitting their letters until the last minute. I also know that, as a professor now, I tend to triage things and don't work on letters until a day or two before they are due. I know I'm not the only one in that boat. So far, you're doing everything right. If you'd like, send a final email the day the letters are due early in the afternoon with a final reminder that the letter is due that day. I know on my end that I would understand a student feeling that sense of urgency under the circumstances. Whereas programs may be unwilling to consider your application if you submit materials late, they are generally more understanding of professors submitting letters of recommendation late. After all, you can't control when a letter writer submits their letter of rec. I both empathize with the stress you feel, and want to assure you that things are likely to be fine.
RESPONSE B: They are not ghosting you it sounds they are litteraly busy and overwhelmed by tons of similar requests. Patience ! People receiving the letters know and will wait for a bit
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: preferably when they’re still undergraduates. >“A lot of the time, there is not a lot of thought about it,” Dr. Lund said. “People say, ‘I love science; I am great at it. I will get a Ph.D.’”
RESPONSE A: > Even someone as brilliant as Emmanuelle Charpentier, who in 2015 became head of the Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology after a momentous discovery in gene editing, spent the previous 25 years moving through nine institutions in five countries. Ah, but to get a top-tier position, you not only need to be brilliant - your experiments also need to work, and sooner rather than later (when you get scooped/your funding runs out). In biomed, where experiments are as hit-and-miss as all experiments but are also particularly costly/timeconsuming to set up (especially if there are animals involved), this is a real obstacle. Besides the brilliant Emmanuelle Charpentier, does anybody remember the scores of biomedical scientists who were just as brilliant but threw in the towel because they weren't quite as lucky? > having spent their youth in temporary low-paying positions getting highly specialized training they do not need. The temporary low-paying positions are a problem, but I'm not sure about the close of that sentence. No, non-PI jobs do not use typically all of a PhD's highly specialized training, but in biomed there nevertheless exist many non-PI positions for which a PhD is necessary. As this article points out elsewhere, your life wasn't worthless if you don't get your own lab. > they’re trained to be academics and are often led to believe that anything else is an admission of failure. imo this one of the main issues, especially in a field with a fairly robust non-academic job market like biomed. This article focuses on positions that allow people to have their own lab, but in biomed there is a wealth of industry opportunities, and even academic opportunities, that require the PhD and provide an upper middle class quality of life.
RESPONSE B: What about the ever-increasing number of PhD graduates? I think that significantly contributes to the problem. Any thoughts?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: , “are very much a form of cheap labor.” But young scientists vie for the positions. >“People are desperate to work, desperate to get academic jobs,” said Dr. McDowell, who had two postdoctoral positions before accepting his current job. >At the same time, the number of tenure-track academic jobs is shrinking. Some places, like M.I.T., have resisted the trend; it has had a steady number of tenured faculty — 1,000 — for at least 30 years. But with more people vying for those jobs when they open up and faculty members retiring later and later, competition is fierce. >But some colleges — like the Boston University School of Medicine and Morehouse School of Medicine — do not even offer tenure-track positions. >For those thinking of science as a career, said P. Kay Lund, director of the division of biomedical research workers at the National Institutes of Health, perhaps the best thing would be for a mentor to sit down with them and have a heart-to-heart talk, preferably when they’re still undergraduates. >“A lot of the time, there is not a lot of thought about it,” Dr. Lund said. “People say, ‘I love science; I am great at it. I will get a Ph.D.’”
RESPONSE A: This was the case long before the market shift that happened with the 2008 recession. If this is news to anyone in academia now, it is because they failed utterly to research the career option.
RESPONSE B: I always find these articles highly one-sided. There are plenty of options for PhDs besides tenure-track faculty member. In fact, PhDs continue to earn among the highest salaries while experiencing among the lowest unemployment rates: https://smartasset.com/retirement/the-average-salary-by-education-level (Only people with a professional degree are slightly ahead, but the difference is tiny.) Also, as a computational biologist, I can report that nearly all of my graduate students **do not** want to go down the tenure-track career path. They're all happy to go to industry and have starting salaries that exceed what we pay most tenured professors.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: succeed.’” >Postdocs, he added, “are very much a form of cheap labor.” But young scientists vie for the positions. >“People are desperate to work, desperate to get academic jobs,” said Dr. McDowell, who had two postdoctoral positions before accepting his current job. >At the same time, the number of tenure-track academic jobs is shrinking. Some places, like M.I.T., have resisted the trend; it has had a steady number of tenured faculty — 1,000 — for at least 30 years. But with more people vying for those jobs when they open up and faculty members retiring later and later, competition is fierce. >But some colleges — like the Boston University School of Medicine and Morehouse School of Medicine — do not even offer tenure-track positions. >For those thinking of science as a career, said P. Kay Lund, director of the division of biomedical research workers at the National Institutes of Health, perhaps the best thing would be for a mentor to sit down with them and have a heart-to-heart talk, preferably when they’re still undergraduates. >“A lot of the time, there is not a lot of thought about it,” Dr. Lund said. “People say, ‘I love science; I am great at it. I will get a Ph.D.’”
RESPONSE A: What about the ever-increasing number of PhD graduates? I think that significantly contributes to the problem. Any thoughts?
RESPONSE B: I always find these articles highly one-sided. There are plenty of options for PhDs besides tenure-track faculty member. In fact, PhDs continue to earn among the highest salaries while experiencing among the lowest unemployment rates: https://smartasset.com/retirement/the-average-salary-by-education-level (Only people with a professional degree are slightly ahead, but the difference is tiny.) Also, as a computational biologist, I can report that nearly all of my graduate students **do not** want to go down the tenure-track career path. They're all happy to go to industry and have starting salaries that exceed what we pay most tenured professors.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Secondary sources of income while pursuing a PhD Owing to the effects of the pandemic, I had to delay my plans to go for a PhD by a couple of years. One of my biggest concerns now, is what this would mean for me financially, as I may end up entering my 30s with very little savings. I was therefore wondering what secondary sources of income are popular while pursuing a PhD (other than the stipend, summer internships, TAships/tutoring). Also, - How necessary are extra part-time jobs or external contract jobs? Is it really feasible to add these into an already hectic schedule of lab work? - Should I be considering avenues such as small investments/stocks? - Is there anything you wish you had done in terms of financial planning before you started your PhD?
RESPONSE A: This is a contentious concept. On one hand, if you’re considering outside Employment during a PhD, it suggests to me you aren’t really familiar with the magnitude of the commitment that a PhD is. I can’t imagine how I would work another job while teaching/ consulting/ taking courses/ publishing. You won’t publish as much if you work another job, and thus, your future career options will be weaker. On the other hand this all assumes you’re planning an academic career. If you want to go industry, well, you can slack off on publishing quite a bit, assuming your advisor will allow it. I’m around that age group you mentioned, in my second year as a post doc. Finances are improving. I would focus on your studies, not money.
RESPONSE B: Keep in mind that the contract that you sign to accept a fellowship or assistantship to fund your doctoral study may actually prohibit you from taking outside employment during the academic year. Some universities/departments enforce this strictly. Others do not. Know what you are facing before you make your choices. My fellowship prohibited employment during the academic year, but I worked during the summers, as did my colleagues. We worked in temporary office jobs (mostly medical and legal), did data entry, bartended, coached a summer sport, adjuncted, tutored, and taught standardized test prep classes.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Secondary sources of income while pursuing a PhD Owing to the effects of the pandemic, I had to delay my plans to go for a PhD by a couple of years. One of my biggest concerns now, is what this would mean for me financially, as I may end up entering my 30s with very little savings. I was therefore wondering what secondary sources of income are popular while pursuing a PhD (other than the stipend, summer internships, TAships/tutoring). Also, - How necessary are extra part-time jobs or external contract jobs? Is it really feasible to add these into an already hectic schedule of lab work? - Should I be considering avenues such as small investments/stocks? - Is there anything you wish you had done in terms of financial planning before you started your PhD?
RESPONSE A: I work at my university, and while it turned out to be much more of a part time job (loosing a year sounds realistic), I desperately need the break from my PhD work now and then and the job helped to keep me sane. Not sure if that applies for you, but there might be other benefits, as well, and if you work in the field you plan to go to afterwards the experience you gain might lessen the feeling that doing your PhD means taking a hard break.
RESPONSE B: Keep in mind that the contract that you sign to accept a fellowship or assistantship to fund your doctoral study may actually prohibit you from taking outside employment during the academic year. Some universities/departments enforce this strictly. Others do not. Know what you are facing before you make your choices. My fellowship prohibited employment during the academic year, but I worked during the summers, as did my colleagues. We worked in temporary office jobs (mostly medical and legal), did data entry, bartended, coached a summer sport, adjuncted, tutored, and taught standardized test prep classes.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: really feasible to add these into an already hectic schedule of lab work? - Should I be considering avenues such as small investments/stocks? - Is there anything you wish you had done in terms of financial planning before you started your PhD?
RESPONSE A: Keep in mind that the contract that you sign to accept a fellowship or assistantship to fund your doctoral study may actually prohibit you from taking outside employment during the academic year. Some universities/departments enforce this strictly. Others do not. Know what you are facing before you make your choices. My fellowship prohibited employment during the academic year, but I worked during the summers, as did my colleagues. We worked in temporary office jobs (mostly medical and legal), did data entry, bartended, coached a summer sport, adjuncted, tutored, and taught standardized test prep classes.
RESPONSE B: > stipend, summer internships, TAships/tutoring I've heard of people taking paid internships during their PhD but I've never actually seen one in real life. I wouldn't assume that these pay any more than your PhD stipend. > How necessary are extra part-time jobs or external contract jobs? That depends entirely on where you study, how much you get paid, and how you live. I saved up a decent amount of money during my PhD because I did it in a place that paid a good salary. If this is important to you, and fair enough if it is, then that's one of the factors you should prioritize when deciding which position to take. > Is it really feasible to add these into an already hectic schedule of lab work? I wouldn't assume so. I guess I could have done a few hours in the weekend during my PhD, but it would have made me less productive during the week. This would mean doing extra (possibly unpaid) time after the expected degree duration to compensate, and would make me less competitive in the job market afterwards unless it was a highly specialised and valuable part-time job. If you are going to take a part-time job, I'd suggest focusing on one that you really enjoy and which lets you decompress rather than opting for a higher-paid but mentally-stressful one.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: couple of years. One of my biggest concerns now, is what this would mean for me financially, as I may end up entering my 30s with very little savings. I was therefore wondering what secondary sources of income are popular while pursuing a PhD (other than the stipend, summer internships, TAships/tutoring). Also, - How necessary are extra part-time jobs or external contract jobs? Is it really feasible to add these into an already hectic schedule of lab work? - Should I be considering avenues such as small investments/stocks? - Is there anything you wish you had done in terms of financial planning before you started your PhD?
RESPONSE A: I did my PhD in one of the most expensive places in the US, and my rent was about 70% of my stipend after taxes, but I wanted to live alone. I ended up taking on an extra TA position one semester, have tutored on the side, driven for Uber, and have taken on a few other research positions too in some semesters. My advice is if you take on extra research positions (apart from your main gig with your advisor, who I assume pays you), make sure that you will get publications from those positions. Edit: I kind do wish I had been more frugal and lived with other people, but I feel like living alone is worth it. People who live with others don't have to get side jobs or anything.
RESPONSE B: This is a contentious concept. On one hand, if you’re considering outside Employment during a PhD, it suggests to me you aren’t really familiar with the magnitude of the commitment that a PhD is. I can’t imagine how I would work another job while teaching/ consulting/ taking courses/ publishing. You won’t publish as much if you work another job, and thus, your future career options will be weaker. On the other hand this all assumes you’re planning an academic career. If you want to go industry, well, you can slack off on publishing quite a bit, assuming your advisor will allow it. I’m around that age group you mentioned, in my second year as a post doc. Finances are improving. I would focus on your studies, not money.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Secondary sources of income while pursuing a PhD Owing to the effects of the pandemic, I had to delay my plans to go for a PhD by a couple of years. One of my biggest concerns now, is what this would mean for me financially, as I may end up entering my 30s with very little savings. I was therefore wondering what secondary sources of income are popular while pursuing a PhD (other than the stipend, summer internships, TAships/tutoring). Also, - How necessary are extra part-time jobs or external contract jobs? Is it really feasible to add these into an already hectic schedule of lab work? - Should I be considering avenues such as small investments/stocks? - Is there anything you wish you had done in terms of financial planning before you started your PhD?
RESPONSE A: I did my PhD in one of the most expensive places in the US, and my rent was about 70% of my stipend after taxes, but I wanted to live alone. I ended up taking on an extra TA position one semester, have tutored on the side, driven for Uber, and have taken on a few other research positions too in some semesters. My advice is if you take on extra research positions (apart from your main gig with your advisor, who I assume pays you), make sure that you will get publications from those positions. Edit: I kind do wish I had been more frugal and lived with other people, but I feel like living alone is worth it. People who live with others don't have to get side jobs or anything.
RESPONSE B: I work at my university, and while it turned out to be much more of a part time job (loosing a year sounds realistic), I desperately need the break from my PhD work now and then and the job helped to keep me sane. Not sure if that applies for you, but there might be other benefits, as well, and if you work in the field you plan to go to afterwards the experience you gain might lessen the feeling that doing your PhD means taking a hard break.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Any tips on how to maximize time at a conference? I’m going solo to a conference and I was wondering if you wonderful people had any tips on how to maximize value. A lot of people come in groups and it feels weird to break into those circles during networking / free time.
RESPONSE A: You could try making some connections during poster sessions. Interactions seem much more natural because you could just come across as a curious scientists and you wanted someone else's take on the poster's content. Enagage with the poster presenter then maybe someone else might chime in. Then that could form the basis of a good round of discussion. Or, you could chime in too when someone else is engaging the poster presenter :)
RESPONSE B: It might feel weird, but I've had a lot of success at lunch/dinner just walking up to groups of people and saying "Hi, can I awkwardly insert myself into your lunch/dinner group?" I do look for groups that look at bit unsure, they're the most likely to be assembling. But people get the context, and thus mostly sympathise.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: of my unhealthy relationship with alcohol. I did manage to stumble through with a GPA around 2.4, though I had to retake some classes. All of the instructors I was closer to knew something had changed, but in the end I'm pretty sure they figured I'd stopped taking things seriously. Several of the ones I was more friendly with seemed distant after that. At the time I really didn't know what to do, since I couldn't seem to stop myself. I have now been sober for a while, and feel 1000% better. I had written off grad school, partly because I felt I had enough debt already, but mainly because I knew no one would take me with that sort of transcript. Also, the last couple years of my undergrad were a horrific experience, ableit self inflicted, but it has sort of given me a hit to my confidence. I sort of wonder if I am really capable of doing better than that. Long story short, my degree is of much more use as a graduate degree than undergrad, so I have again been toying with the idea of applying. I am sure the question about what happened will come up at some point, and it terrifies me. This is something I am quite ashamed of, and I put a lot of effort into hiding the true cause of my problem when I was dealing with it. Perhaps graduate programs aren't as strict as I have been lead to believe. Do I even have a shot with a GPA that low? Sorry for the ramble, I have never really told anyone how poorly I did, much less why. I guess there is a bit of a confession in this post.
RESPONSE A: Can you afford to take grad school classes one at a time as a nondegree student? (After you take maybe 2 classes, start applying for program admission)
RESPONSE B: Every program I have heard of has a minimum GPA requirement that's higher than a 2.4, so I highly suggest talking to potential advisors after you have done really well on the GRE to prove that you've improved as a student. You might also want to look into seeing if you can repeat some of your courses to improve your undergraduate GPA in some sort of extension program.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How to respond to reviewers asking for their papers to be cited? Recently, I have received a major revision on one of my papers in a STEM field. One reviewer has written in their review that the paper can be publishable with a major revision. Out of only 3 comments, one comment was related to recommendation for citation of 4 papers which are absolutely unrelated to the conducted study. Upon checking the corresponding authors for these papers, they were all same person. Although this was a single blind review, which means I had no knowledge on who the reviewers were, this "recommendation" leads me to think that either the reviewer is the corresponding author for those papers, or a close acquaintance. I thought this was not a moral thing to ask, especially in this fashion. So I asked my advisor for what to do about it. He said that this is definitely not nice, but maybe we should cite one that is most related to our manuscript. I replied that I would be against it, but I would still give it a thought. I want to hear what other academicians think about these requests, and maybe you could share similar experiences you had, if any. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: Not STEM but I am an AE. My suggestion is to contact the editor or AE with your issue that the recommended papers seem to implicate who the reviewer is and that they are not relevant to the paper you wrote. Reviewers have been blackballed for less. Its unlikely the reviewer will be told about this but the editor may ignore their review and not send future reviews to them. However, before doing this be sure that your absolutely sure of the irrelevance of the suggested papers because this screams political bun fight that you might not want to start in our small and insular academic communities.
RESPONSE B: More common than you think (stem here), but that does not make it any better. How about you contact the editor about that and explain the situation? In the end it is them who decide.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How to respond to reviewers asking for their papers to be cited? Recently, I have received a major revision on one of my papers in a STEM field. One reviewer has written in their review that the paper can be publishable with a major revision. Out of only 3 comments, one comment was related to recommendation for citation of 4 papers which are absolutely unrelated to the conducted study. Upon checking the corresponding authors for these papers, they were all same person. Although this was a single blind review, which means I had no knowledge on who the reviewers were, this "recommendation" leads me to think that either the reviewer is the corresponding author for those papers, or a close acquaintance. I thought this was not a moral thing to ask, especially in this fashion. So I asked my advisor for what to do about it. He said that this is definitely not nice, but maybe we should cite one that is most related to our manuscript. I replied that I would be against it, but I would still give it a thought. I want to hear what other academicians think about these requests, and maybe you could share similar experiences you had, if any. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: If they are absolutely unrelated you should be able to convince the handling editor of that. However, if your advisor recommends citing one then I'd think hard about whether you can make some kind of link to help satisfy the reviewer, get the publication and move on.
RESPONSE B: Not STEM but I am an AE. My suggestion is to contact the editor or AE with your issue that the recommended papers seem to implicate who the reviewer is and that they are not relevant to the paper you wrote. Reviewers have been blackballed for less. Its unlikely the reviewer will be told about this but the editor may ignore their review and not send future reviews to them. However, before doing this be sure that your absolutely sure of the irrelevance of the suggested papers because this screams political bun fight that you might not want to start in our small and insular academic communities.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How to respond to reviewers asking for their papers to be cited? Recently, I have received a major revision on one of my papers in a STEM field. One reviewer has written in their review that the paper can be publishable with a major revision. Out of only 3 comments, one comment was related to recommendation for citation of 4 papers which are absolutely unrelated to the conducted study. Upon checking the corresponding authors for these papers, they were all same person. Although this was a single blind review, which means I had no knowledge on who the reviewers were, this "recommendation" leads me to think that either the reviewer is the corresponding author for those papers, or a close acquaintance. I thought this was not a moral thing to ask, especially in this fashion. So I asked my advisor for what to do about it. He said that this is definitely not nice, but maybe we should cite one that is most related to our manuscript. I replied that I would be against it, but I would still give it a thought. I want to hear what other academicians think about these requests, and maybe you could share similar experiences you had, if any. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: I’m also in STEM and I’ve not had a similar experience, but that sounds highly unethical to me regardless of research area. However, I’ve recently switched fields so I’m sure someone with more experience will give you some meaningful insight.
RESPONSE B: Not STEM but I am an AE. My suggestion is to contact the editor or AE with your issue that the recommended papers seem to implicate who the reviewer is and that they are not relevant to the paper you wrote. Reviewers have been blackballed for less. Its unlikely the reviewer will be told about this but the editor may ignore their review and not send future reviews to them. However, before doing this be sure that your absolutely sure of the irrelevance of the suggested papers because this screams political bun fight that you might not want to start in our small and insular academic communities.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How to respond to reviewers asking for their papers to be cited? Recently, I have received a major revision on one of my papers in a STEM field. One reviewer has written in their review that the paper can be publishable with a major revision. Out of only 3 comments, one comment was related to recommendation for citation of 4 papers which are absolutely unrelated to the conducted study. Upon checking the corresponding authors for these papers, they were all same person. Although this was a single blind review, which means I had no knowledge on who the reviewers were, this "recommendation" leads me to think that either the reviewer is the corresponding author for those papers, or a close acquaintance. I thought this was not a moral thing to ask, especially in this fashion. So I asked my advisor for what to do about it. He said that this is definitely not nice, but maybe we should cite one that is most related to our manuscript. I replied that I would be against it, but I would still give it a thought. I want to hear what other academicians think about these requests, and maybe you could share similar experiences you had, if any. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: Micro/immuno bench top science. Stuff like this IRKS the shit out of me. I had a reviewer prolong the review process on my paper with asanine comments, and then in the final round of reviews, they asked us to cite a JUST published paper (days before) on a very similar topic by a competing lab. After some behind the scenes gossip, turns out the post-doc in the competing lab was our reviewer and he was an author on the paper. I'm not sure if I have bad luck or what, but my PhD has been fraught with personally experiencing how unethical academia is.
RESPONSE B: If they are absolutely unrelated you should be able to convince the handling editor of that. However, if your advisor recommends citing one then I'd think hard about whether you can make some kind of link to help satisfy the reviewer, get the publication and move on.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How to respond to reviewers asking for their papers to be cited? Recently, I have received a major revision on one of my papers in a STEM field. One reviewer has written in their review that the paper can be publishable with a major revision. Out of only 3 comments, one comment was related to recommendation for citation of 4 papers which are absolutely unrelated to the conducted study. Upon checking the corresponding authors for these papers, they were all same person. Although this was a single blind review, which means I had no knowledge on who the reviewers were, this "recommendation" leads me to think that either the reviewer is the corresponding author for those papers, or a close acquaintance. I thought this was not a moral thing to ask, especially in this fashion. So I asked my advisor for what to do about it. He said that this is definitely not nice, but maybe we should cite one that is most related to our manuscript. I replied that I would be against it, but I would still give it a thought. I want to hear what other academicians think about these requests, and maybe you could share similar experiences you had, if any. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: I’m also in STEM and I’ve not had a similar experience, but that sounds highly unethical to me regardless of research area. However, I’ve recently switched fields so I’m sure someone with more experience will give you some meaningful insight.
RESPONSE B: Micro/immuno bench top science. Stuff like this IRKS the shit out of me. I had a reviewer prolong the review process on my paper with asanine comments, and then in the final round of reviews, they asked us to cite a JUST published paper (days before) on a very similar topic by a competing lab. After some behind the scenes gossip, turns out the post-doc in the competing lab was our reviewer and he was an author on the paper. I'm not sure if I have bad luck or what, but my PhD has been fraught with personally experiencing how unethical academia is.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Reviewer asked to add 5 references, where 4 of them are from the same research group... I submitted a paper to a journal 3 months ago, and they requested some revisions yesterday. There was just one reviewer, and one of the suggestions was to add 5 references, which 4 of them were from the same research group... one doesn’t need to work for FBI to see what’s going on here. Someone is trying to promote his research. By the way, these references are from journals with a very low impact factor (about 5x lower than the one I’m submitting to). How to handle this?
RESPONSE A: Just do it, if they're relevant to your manuscript
RESPONSE B: It's a bit unseemly, but first ask yourself: are these references pertinent to your article? Do they contain work that should have been referenced if you had been aware of them at the time? Do they legitimately benefit the reader? If the answers tend towards yes, just include them. If they're at least somewhat relevant, the path of least resistance will be to include them. If they're completely irrelevant, I'd decline and explain as such in my response to the editor. Keep in mind that the editor has more information than you do. Either they don't see it as a problem, you're wrong about what's going on, or they haven't looked at the response at all. EDIT: Also, don't get caught up in impact factor games. Sometimes good work goes in low-impact journals for good reasons.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Reviewer asked to add 5 references, where 4 of them are from the same research group... I submitted a paper to a journal 3 months ago, and they requested some revisions yesterday. There was just one reviewer, and one of the suggestions was to add 5 references, which 4 of them were from the same research group... one doesn’t need to work for FBI to see what’s going on here. Someone is trying to promote his research. By the way, these references are from journals with a very low impact factor (about 5x lower than the one I’m submitting to). How to handle this?
RESPONSE A: You want it published or not?
RESPONSE B: BTW I have done this because that group really had the best, if not the most fancy, data that was on point and it wasnt my group. If the papers are crap that is a different thing.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Reviewer asked to add 5 references, where 4 of them are from the same research group... I submitted a paper to a journal 3 months ago, and they requested some revisions yesterday. There was just one reviewer, and one of the suggestions was to add 5 references, which 4 of them were from the same research group... one doesn’t need to work for FBI to see what’s going on here. Someone is trying to promote his research. By the way, these references are from journals with a very low impact factor (about 5x lower than the one I’m submitting to). How to handle this?
RESPONSE A: The impact factor part is super shitty of you OP. Who cares about that in your references.
RESPONSE B: You want it published or not?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Tips on becoming a better communicator in academia? I've recently started seeking out PhD positions for next year and I've been having a lot of Zoom meetings with potential supervisors. For some reason, I've been really struck by how well they all communicate and how much better I could be at this. My employment history has largely been in more working-class jobs so the interpersonal communication style is very different! Does anyone have some tips or can recommend any books about how to become a better communicator in the academic world?
RESPONSE A: Watch as many lectures and interviews on YouTube with well known academics and learn to pick up some of the things they do.
RESPONSE B: I loved the book "Don't be such a scientist" by Randy Olson. Though the author's observations in academia are the opposite of yours (i.e. science communication could be a lot better), he emphasises the importance of storytelling and how you can do it better. If I understand correctly, you are looking for tips for improving interpersonal communication rather than science communication, but maybe you'd find this interesting anyway.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Tips on becoming a better communicator in academia? I've recently started seeking out PhD positions for next year and I've been having a lot of Zoom meetings with potential supervisors. For some reason, I've been really struck by how well they all communicate and how much better I could be at this. My employment history has largely been in more working-class jobs so the interpersonal communication style is very different! Does anyone have some tips or can recommend any books about how to become a better communicator in the academic world?
RESPONSE A: Watch as many lectures and interviews on YouTube with well known academics and learn to pick up some of the things they do.
RESPONSE B: Not really a tip but I would remind you that the people you are meeting with do a lot more communicating than you do, therefore they are better at it, or at least come across as being more comfortable with it. By the very nature of their job, you might have been one meeting of their day out of five meetings. So just by having to communicate over and over, our interpersonal skills develop.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Tips on becoming a better communicator in academia? I've recently started seeking out PhD positions for next year and I've been having a lot of Zoom meetings with potential supervisors. For some reason, I've been really struck by how well they all communicate and how much better I could be at this. My employment history has largely been in more working-class jobs so the interpersonal communication style is very different! Does anyone have some tips or can recommend any books about how to become a better communicator in the academic world?
RESPONSE A: Not really a tip but I would remind you that the people you are meeting with do a lot more communicating than you do, therefore they are better at it, or at least come across as being more comfortable with it. By the very nature of their job, you might have been one meeting of their day out of five meetings. So just by having to communicate over and over, our interpersonal skills develop.
RESPONSE B: If you can find someone to practise with, that might help! You could aim to read a few papers on the subject your applying for, then tell someone about what you've learned. I've found that talking to people who know nothing about my masters (by research) has made me better communicator, finding the best way to articulate the research I've done :)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: clear, my partner and I are a very strong team, and I’m confident that we can make things work either way. But, I feel like I’m being asked to choose between my professional development as an aspiring academic and personal stability. What do you all think about my options? Any insight would be greatly appreciated!
RESPONSE A: I was a resident assistant in graduate student housing for a year during grad school. Did serving as an RA cut into the time I had to work on research? Yes, no doubt it did. But no moreso than serving as a T.A., which while more professionally relevant, also can take a lot of time. Being in an expensive housing market, the free rent was a big deal for me. I also knew ahead of time that I was planning to take one more year for my program than I had full funding for, so having a year with no rent made a big difference in being able to save up for that year. I don't know what your setup will be, but for me, some of my work was related to programming, navigating resident concerns, and meetings, but a significant chunk was also being on-call: i.e., being at home at nights and on the weekends to respond to emergencies that might arise. I could work (or do whatever else I would have already been doing) and address concerns as they arose. So a big part of my job was just to be around, and that part didn't cut into my professional development. My advice to you: unless your PI wants to pay your rent himself, take the offer. Grad students work a large number of hours and, if they're lucky, make just enough money to get by. Do what you need to do to secure a good financial future for you and your fiancée. (For what it's worth, I'm gainfully employed in a tenure-track position, and so are many of the grad student RAs I worked with. We've done just fine professionally.)
RESPONSE B: Don't make the decision based on your short-term needs. A PhD is a long term investment. You will go into a job market where all other candidates didn't have a second job.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: including utilities and access to free laundry, and free parking) for both myself and my partner, and a non-trivial amount of extra income. My PI, while very understanding, strongly encouraged me to decline the offer, as he believes that the time-cost of this job might hinder my career development in science. Based on my previous work experience in res life/student affairs, I think I can handle the workload if I stay organized. But, I recognize that I don’t know what I don’t know! I see his point - and honestly, I think he’s probably right. However, the free housing for my partner and I comes at a critical time for us. We intend to get married in a year and the chance to save money on housing-related expenses would eliminate some significant stress. Note: this is the only firm offer of housing we’ve been able to secure thus far - we move to the area in August. To be clear, my partner and I are a very strong team, and I’m confident that we can make things work either way. But, I feel like I’m being asked to choose between my professional development as an aspiring academic and personal stability. What do you all think about my options? Any insight would be greatly appreciated!
RESPONSE A: I'm a PhD student in the humanities. I got offered a great part time gig as a consultant and similar to you, my advisor told me it would be a bad idea. Fast forward a year later, I work full time in the summer and part time during the year and have maintained a very good GPA as well as a publication pipeline. I worked several jobs as an undergrad and a masters student to ensure I didn't have loans. That work ethic carried through and I bought a house using the extra income this last year as a down payment. Most of life's problems are money-based. Do what you know you can handle. I knew I could handle this and life is much better now, albeit with less sleep.
RESPONSE B: Don't make the decision based on your short-term needs. A PhD is a long term investment. You will go into a job market where all other candidates didn't have a second job.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Relations between academics and universities Hi all, My last 24h project was a google scholar crawler searching for connections (paper co-authors) between academics and their connection with universities (i just look at the mail domain), I wrote a crawler and i write all results to a graph database (neo4j). I use the data in order to find connection between the university in which i did an internship (and i hope soon i'll be research engineer there) and the university in which i would start a PhD. Do you think that a web service like connectedpapers.com but with connection between academics and universities is something interesting? Otherwise this project will die alone on my hard disk
RESPONSE A: Yup, interesting, definitely share.
RESPONSE B: In my opinion, everyone who is interested in academia/research and has even the slightest interest in data science would like to see this type of evaluation. Please inform us with a new post when the website is online!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What is Not Academic Freedom? One project I have is outcomes assessment for our department's basic course. Going through the other courses, I realized that most courses outside of the basic course have outcomes that are impossible to assess (e.g. "Overcome gendered stereotypes") and/or are totally unrelated to the course description. I pointed this fact out to our lead faculty member, and she said that putting outcomes in a course would limit academic freedom. I'm pretty sure that's not what the phrase means, but it got a lot of nods in the room. I understood academic freedom, mostly, to be about the idea that research and scholarship should (in most circumstances) be allowed to exist without censure from the institution. Am I missing another essential part of academic freedom, is my colleague off-base, or are we both wrong in our own way?
RESPONSE A: Academic freedom supports the concept that people who are highly trained in a discipline have a good idea of how to convey information in their discipline (whether teaching or researching), and should be allowed to stick to that idea unless things seem weird. It doesn't allow them to ignore the topic or learning objectives for a course - which are often defined by departmental committee or even by an outside source (for service courses). It sounds like your colleague is either generalizing on a grand scale (to the point where someone should contradict the claim) or overstepping the bounds of academic freedom entirely.
RESPONSE B: I think your colleague probably means, "you are telling me what I have to put on my syllabus, and that limits my freedom." I'm not saying that sentiment is right/wrong, but it is one that I hear.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What is Not Academic Freedom? One project I have is outcomes assessment for our department's basic course. Going through the other courses, I realized that most courses outside of the basic course have outcomes that are impossible to assess (e.g. "Overcome gendered stereotypes") and/or are totally unrelated to the course description. I pointed this fact out to our lead faculty member, and she said that putting outcomes in a course would limit academic freedom. I'm pretty sure that's not what the phrase means, but it got a lot of nods in the room. I understood academic freedom, mostly, to be about the idea that research and scholarship should (in most circumstances) be allowed to exist without censure from the institution. Am I missing another essential part of academic freedom, is my colleague off-base, or are we both wrong in our own way?
RESPONSE A: Yeah, your colleague is kind of stupid (edit: or at least misguided when it comes to course assessment). Outcomes are there, as /u/Glaselar notes, to help measure what the hell's actually going on in the classroom. They help answer questions like the following: 1. What do you want your students to have learned when the semester's come to an end? 2. Why have you developed these major assignments (that is, what are you trying to do in any of them)? 3. How are you setting up daily activities to build toward particular goals? 4. What do you want the students to understand, from day one, to be important principles undergirding the class?
RESPONSE B: I think your colleague probably means, "you are telling me what I have to put on my syllabus, and that limits my freedom." I'm not saying that sentiment is right/wrong, but it is one that I hear.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: nods in the room. I understood academic freedom, mostly, to be about the idea that research and scholarship should (in most circumstances) be allowed to exist without censure from the institution. Am I missing another essential part of academic freedom, is my colleague off-base, or are we both wrong in our own way?
RESPONSE A: A lot of faculty fail to understand what "academic freedom" actually means and how we (in the US) came to institutionalize it. Far too many of my colleagues seem to interpret it as "I can do whatever I want in class and nobody can tell me otherwise." Others conflate it with tenure "As long as I don't sexually assault anyone nobody can fire me for anything." As a department chair I often have to explain this to other faculty. Academic freedom means nobody is going to fire you for pursuing scholarship or teaching that is unpopular for political reasons, but it still must be justified intellectually and within the context of your departmental or institutional curriculum. If I'm hired to teach Shakespeare and instead develop a class about the feeding habits of deer, that's not protected by academic freedom at all; however, if my Shakespeare class empasizes gender roles and class-- and some rich right-winger on the board of trustees objects --academic freedom should protect me. OP is correct. As a department chair I have a *reponsibility* to enforce departmental and course-specific learning goals. My colleagues have a responsibility to deliver courses that meet those goals. While it's fine for them to create additional goals-- including some that may not be assessible --they certainly are not "free" to disregard goals that our department or institution have linked to their courses.
RESPONSE B: How is "overcome gender stereotypes" *an objective of a university course*? I mean, we've been trying to do that over several centuries already, so if somebody figured out a method for achieving this in a semester, that's worth a publication in a journal at least . OP, I gotta ask, are you paraphrasing the syllabus and what your colleague says to you in a way that makes this situation look ridiculous? Because this shit is ridonkulous.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: without censure from the institution. Am I missing another essential part of academic freedom, is my colleague off-base, or are we both wrong in our own way?
RESPONSE A: Yeah, your colleague is kind of stupid (edit: or at least misguided when it comes to course assessment). Outcomes are there, as /u/Glaselar notes, to help measure what the hell's actually going on in the classroom. They help answer questions like the following: 1. What do you want your students to have learned when the semester's come to an end? 2. Why have you developed these major assignments (that is, what are you trying to do in any of them)? 3. How are you setting up daily activities to build toward particular goals? 4. What do you want the students to understand, from day one, to be important principles undergirding the class?
RESPONSE B: A lot of faculty fail to understand what "academic freedom" actually means and how we (in the US) came to institutionalize it. Far too many of my colleagues seem to interpret it as "I can do whatever I want in class and nobody can tell me otherwise." Others conflate it with tenure "As long as I don't sexually assault anyone nobody can fire me for anything." As a department chair I often have to explain this to other faculty. Academic freedom means nobody is going to fire you for pursuing scholarship or teaching that is unpopular for political reasons, but it still must be justified intellectually and within the context of your departmental or institutional curriculum. If I'm hired to teach Shakespeare and instead develop a class about the feeding habits of deer, that's not protected by academic freedom at all; however, if my Shakespeare class empasizes gender roles and class-- and some rich right-winger on the board of trustees objects --academic freedom should protect me. OP is correct. As a department chair I have a *reponsibility* to enforce departmental and course-specific learning goals. My colleagues have a responsibility to deliver courses that meet those goals. While it's fine for them to create additional goals-- including some that may not be assessible --they certainly are not "free" to disregard goals that our department or institution have linked to their courses.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What is Not Academic Freedom? One project I have is outcomes assessment for our department's basic course. Going through the other courses, I realized that most courses outside of the basic course have outcomes that are impossible to assess (e.g. "Overcome gendered stereotypes") and/or are totally unrelated to the course description. I pointed this fact out to our lead faculty member, and she said that putting outcomes in a course would limit academic freedom. I'm pretty sure that's not what the phrase means, but it got a lot of nods in the room. I understood academic freedom, mostly, to be about the idea that research and scholarship should (in most circumstances) be allowed to exist without censure from the institution. Am I missing another essential part of academic freedom, is my colleague off-base, or are we both wrong in our own way?
RESPONSE A: Yeah, your colleague is kind of stupid (edit: or at least misguided when it comes to course assessment). Outcomes are there, as /u/Glaselar notes, to help measure what the hell's actually going on in the classroom. They help answer questions like the following: 1. What do you want your students to have learned when the semester's come to an end? 2. Why have you developed these major assignments (that is, what are you trying to do in any of them)? 3. How are you setting up daily activities to build toward particular goals? 4. What do you want the students to understand, from day one, to be important principles undergirding the class?
RESPONSE B: Academic freedom supports the concept that people who are highly trained in a discipline have a good idea of how to convey information in their discipline (whether teaching or researching), and should be allowed to stick to that idea unless things seem weird. It doesn't allow them to ignore the topic or learning objectives for a course - which are often defined by departmental committee or even by an outside source (for service courses). It sounds like your colleague is either generalizing on a grand scale (to the point where someone should contradict the claim) or overstepping the bounds of academic freedom entirely.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Is submitting a paper that is completely your own to two different classes really plagiarism? While I don't plan on doing this seeing as it is relatively easy to edit and rework a paper on a subject to be usable in another class, but hypothetically what is the reasoning for this? How can one plagiarize oneself?
RESPONSE A: It's not plagiarism. It is however, generally considered to be academic dishonesty. The work you do for a given course should be produced only for that course. Using previously produced work or work produced for another course is almost always a violation of the student code of conduct. You might be able to get permission from both--yes, BOTH--professors ahead of time, but it's unlikely. I would recommend against trying something like this. It's not just a matter of getting caught, either. Writing a paper is a learning experience. Your cheating yourself out of an educational opportunity.
RESPONSE B: Consider this: I write and publish a book, then re-word it and try to pass it off as a 2nd book. Who would be fooled? Or writing a scientific journal article, publishing in one journal, then trying to re-word it and submit to a second journal. What journal would accept this?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Where should I [grad student] host my website? I am a grad student at a school that doesn't have very much institutional support for their grad programs. I haven't looked super hard into it as I am currently home over break, but getting your student page as part of the school domain is either a huge pain in the ass to the point that that's why no one does it, or impossible. I am planning to apply for a professional workshop and travel grant that, in lieu of asking for a CV or even cover letter, asks for a link to your "personal website". As stated above, it would be difficult for me to get something with my school, so I'm wondering what's the next option? It's pretty short notice until the application deadline and I don't want to spend the money to buy my own domain, so I'm wondering which free hosting site would look the least unprofessional, e.g. tumblr, GeoCities (does that even exist and why does my autocorrect capitalize it), wikia, wordpress...
RESPONSE A: You might want to check out Lifehacker's list of 5 best personal landing pages. Alternately, GitHub Pages is a decent place for hosting your stuff without necessarily purchasing a domain and hosting.
RESPONSE B: This may be similar but ust to check, can you get a page through a department domain? I have one through my department, which has its own network stuff independent from the university. Geocities definitely doesn't exist anymore. The most professional thing, I'd say, would be to get something where you could build your own site (so say wordpress) but make sure to then buy a better domain name to attach to it, even if it's from a different group.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Where should I [grad student] host my website? I am a grad student at a school that doesn't have very much institutional support for their grad programs. I haven't looked super hard into it as I am currently home over break, but getting your student page as part of the school domain is either a huge pain in the ass to the point that that's why no one does it, or impossible. I am planning to apply for a professional workshop and travel grant that, in lieu of asking for a CV or even cover letter, asks for a link to your "personal website". As stated above, it would be difficult for me to get something with my school, so I'm wondering what's the next option? It's pretty short notice until the application deadline and I don't want to spend the money to buy my own domain, so I'm wondering which free hosting site would look the least unprofessional, e.g. tumblr, GeoCities (does that even exist and why does my autocorrect capitalize it), wikia, wordpress...
RESPONSE A: This may be similar but ust to check, can you get a page through a department domain? I have one through my department, which has its own network stuff independent from the university. Geocities definitely doesn't exist anymore. The most professional thing, I'd say, would be to get something where you could build your own site (so say wordpress) but make sure to then buy a better domain name to attach to it, even if it's from a different group.
RESPONSE B: I use a blogspot and it seems to be enough. The goal of the website is more design oriented than prestige. It should look professional, be easy to read, and have no obnoxious ads or strange address. The long term goal is to control your online presence and make it easy for people to find you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Scientists switching fields in their postdoc (e.g. Neuroscience to Machine Learning) -- what was your experience like? What should I know in advance?
RESPONSE A: Am also interested in this question but I’m curious to know if you are looking to stay in academia for ML? How quantitative was your PhD? I know comp neuro PhDs that were doing hardcore theory of learning in networks while I know others that could barely program and never understood beyond linear algebra.
RESPONSE B: Still doing my PhD, but I’ve talked to my supervisor about this. From her PhD to postdoc She switched between two similar sub-topics in our field (I’m sure they’d sound like the same thing to anyone else). She said she’d thought it was a good idea, so she could get a broader research base, but that actually now people (in our field) were just confused about what she did >< Guess this depends massively on the field though, and how esoteric people’s research careers tend to be I think the bottom line is to have some kind of narrative thread/link/progression between all your research? But tbh when I go for postdocs, I am a beggar and will not be choosy
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I found this type of interview questions for TT positions are so hard to answer. Do any of you have been asked this type of questions, and how did you answer them? Thank you so much!
RESPONSE A: It's much easier to answer this question if you work to include these practices in your teaching. If you don't, it's worth thinking about how you would consider doing so moving forward. My own answer isn't even strictly pedagogical, or is rather surface. My field is not accessible enough to people who are non-white or non-wealthy. It severely limits conversations about how we approach working with students. I include frequent references in my courses to graduate and professional schools as well as some job preparation assignments in order to show my less-prepared students that these are possibilities. I try and establish relationships with students in my class and then mentor them as much as I can. On a more immediate note, I do not conduct traditional discussions in my course because a small number of voices can work to exclude everyone else. I use small-group techniques and require/enforce equal participation. This might just sound like best practices, but it's something I actually do, and I think an honest answer is going to resonate with a committee. I'm often interested in hearing realistic answers from candidates that reflect some practices they can sustainably do in their courses. In a recent interview, one candidate discussed their desire to create a really big campus internship program- not a good idea for a TT junior faculty member.
RESPONSE B: One thing I found that helped me with this was writing out a diversity statement. Some jobs had required it, but then after writing it, I found I was more prepared to give a good response in an interview. The response about knowing the specific pedagogies is great. At first when looking for information on how to actually teach diverse students well I found a lot of "just say you treat them with respect" which confused me because that is just basic human decency. Adding specific examples and being familiar with these pedagogies will show you have thought more carefully about this. Make sure you can actually talk about this and give examples of how you are/will implement the practices for the interview, though. ​ ​
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is it possible to get US grant funding to write a literature review or to produce original analysis of existing data? So my question here is if grants are only awarded for experiments or studies aimed at data collection or if they cover other kinds of research as well?
RESPONSE A: In epidemiology, one can definitely get grants for analysis of existing data.
RESPONSE B: The NIH has several funding opportunities that explicitly state they would be a good mechanism for analyzing existing datasets.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Is it possible to get US grant funding to write a literature review or to produce original analysis of existing data? So my question here is if grants are only awarded for experiments or studies aimed at data collection or if they cover other kinds of research as well?
RESPONSE A: Even NSF has funds for "synthesis" projects, which are lit reviews on steroids. But run of the mill lit reviews would not be funded. It has to be bringing something new together. If you're in any social science field, meta analyses are good if you really like doing lit reviews.
RESPONSE B: In epidemiology, one can definitely get grants for analysis of existing data.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: ", and he replied tersely "Ok. I am willing." I thanked him and asked if I could drop by during his office hours to discuss it, and he never replied. I know that this should be an obvious signal to ask somebody else, but I have no other options. Firstly, I'm not an extroverted person and didn't get to know any of my professors as an undergrad, and I graduated 2 years ago with a liberal arts degree. I am now trying to switch fields and apply to Computer Science M.S. programs. I took 5 math/CS courses this year, but one of them was an online class and the other was a summer course taught by a grad student, so the 3 remaining professors are the ones I asked. I admittedly have some social anxiety, and while I was taking this professor's course I was nervous when talking to him because I wanted to make a good impression, which ironically made me come off as socially awkward. I got the distinct impression that he didn't like me, and that impression was confirmed by our exchange yesterday. How much would a tepid or generic letter hurt my chances? And is it at all possible that a professor would agree to write a letter for a student they don't like, and then recommend *against* them whether explicitly or implicitly?
RESPONSE A: He's probably swamped with work, but he said yes, so give the poor guy something to work with. Send him a short, focused email explaining who you are, what you've done, and what you hope to do. Remind him of any projects of papers that you wrote in his class. If there's something you want him to mention, just tell him. Writing letters of Rec is hard enough when you know the person, and a miserable chore if you only sort of know them. Even if he's not warm and fuzzy, I'm sure he still wants his students to succeed, and would prefer to write you a useful letter than a generic one.
RESPONSE B: That would be a pretty dickish thing to do. I just refuse to write letters for students like you since there's not much I can say.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: in my class, which they can see on your transcript". I said "I know I didn't make a strong impression and that it would be difficult for you to speak about me in detail, but I believe that a letter from you would still enhance my application and I would welcome a recommendation from you if you were willing to write it", and he replied tersely "Ok. I am willing." I thanked him and asked if I could drop by during his office hours to discuss it, and he never replied. I know that this should be an obvious signal to ask somebody else, but I have no other options. Firstly, I'm not an extroverted person and didn't get to know any of my professors as an undergrad, and I graduated 2 years ago with a liberal arts degree. I am now trying to switch fields and apply to Computer Science M.S. programs. I took 5 math/CS courses this year, but one of them was an online class and the other was a summer course taught by a grad student, so the 3 remaining professors are the ones I asked. I admittedly have some social anxiety, and while I was taking this professor's course I was nervous when talking to him because I wanted to make a good impression, which ironically made me come off as socially awkward. I got the distinct impression that he didn't like me, and that impression was confirmed by our exchange yesterday. How much would a tepid or generic letter hurt my chances? And is it at all possible that a professor would agree to write a letter for a student they don't like, and then recommend *against* them whether explicitly or implicitly?
RESPONSE A: The professor agreed to write a useless recommendation letter for you, after warning you that the only recommendation letter he could write for you would be useless. He doesn't know you well enough to either like you or dislike you. > I admittedly have some social anxiety Speaking from personal experience: Get some professional help. Your social anxiety is only going to continue getting in your way.
RESPONSE B: That would be a pretty dickish thing to do. I just refuse to write letters for students like you since there's not much I can say.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: 't strong or long enough. But I'm not sure what else to add, I feel like I've written everything that needed to be written and I don't want to go into 'too much unfunded praise' territory. Could I get some advice?
RESPONSE A: An LOR is not the time to undersell. The LOR are often important - shortlisted candidates for competive things are all good candidates on paper. Don’t speak about obviously things that are already clear front the transcript, like your grade in the class. Are you having a hard time writing a strong letter because you don’t have enough actual things to write about? Because if no other professors would write you a letter that is not an implausible thing. For a good non-generic letter, I can’t praise any soft skills or work ethic or communication without some kind of example or concrete reason to say you did this. Like if you did the work for the class, that is the min you have to do, - I cant write a work ethic praise because you didn’t screw up. BUT, I could say, despite working full time, OP still managed to never screw up, then I can praise your work ethic. Buzzword letters with no substantiation and obviously no way to have witness this (like if you were in my 500 person lecture class for one semester nobody is going to think I have any way of praising your soft skills). Genetic stuff with no substantiation also rarely helps that much. They are trying to figure out why to give the scholarship to you , as opposed to anyone else that also has great grades, doesn’t kick puppies and doesn’t skive off class. They want a reason to believe you will be a success at the mission the scholarship is there to promote.
RESPONSE B: I heard a professor describe it well once: 1. How do you interact with your mentors/supervisors who direct you, and in your role in their group? 2. How do you interact with your equals/colleagues? Do you get along well with others on your team? 3. How do you interact with those in the community, in need, etc.? How do you give back? The rest is just providing examples supporting these interactions.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Has anyone left for a job with less prestige/pay but also less stress? I'm currently on a tenure track in Extension. I've been very frustrated because I have a lot of administrative/programming duties and little time for research or publishing. Also, our leadership is kind of a mess and we rely heavily on extramural funding. I submitted my CV to a community college faculty position. The pros: less stress, in a beautiful location, I would be in charge of a whole department, basically, and I have missed teaching a lot since taking my current position. The cons: about 10% less take home pay, less prestige, no tenure, no research. Am I crazy for considering this? Has anyone here done something similar?
RESPONSE A: As someone who spent 8 years as a community college administrator prior to becoming a university professor, I can say that you are not crazy. There is a good reason that there is very little turn over among community college faculty. And there is good reason that those are considered highly desirable, and highly competitive, positions. That said, it is important to realize that there are constraints on all faculty positions. Though, a skillful chair can make an immense difference in either environment... Life is short. If you are not happy in your current position, exploring options seems prudent... Best of luck!
RESPONSE B: Yes and no, and by that I mean that it depends on your priorities. Personally, I would force myself to take the stress for the money and prestige. For you it may be the opposite or simply you’ve been under a lot of stress and cant take it anymore. Again, priorities... i’d recommend that you discuss this with your partner or family to see whether this change will affect the current lifestyle. Beat of luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: e guest.
RESPONSE A: Feel free to contact them, but don't harass them. If you don't get a reply, don't be surprised. Faculty members are busy with a number of things, and an email from someone whose name they don't recognize *and* from a non-university email may receive no attention and be quickly buried. Some professors love to discuss their work with members of the public, others couldn't care less and will ignore you.
RESPONSE B: Contacting faculty is fine. The emails are public and you *may* have valid reasons for initiating contact. But, summarizing what others have said, please be aware: 1. The "I have self-taught myself your field, and now I have a wonderful theory" emails will be ignored. 99 times out of 100 the wonderful theories are crap, and an individual professor usually loath spending hours of time trying to catch the 100th case. 2. The "can you please teach me in an hour what it takes you to teach your students over the course of four years" email will also be ignored. You can ask legit questions in your emails (see below), but if the answer goes beyond a single topic, and especially if the answer requires knowing material of an advanced course or two ("dear professor, I know nothing about quantum mechanics, but I know it's cool and I would like to use it for my business project"), the email will go into the same pile as the "i have a theory" email. 3. Emails that relate directly to one's university/education will most likely be answered. Prospective applicants email me all the time. If they have actual answerable questions (rather than "here is my resume, can I please be your Ph.D. student?"), I answer them. 4. Emails that relate directly to one's work will most likely be answered. If someone emails me with an actual reasonable question about one of my papers, I will engage in conversation, without doing much of a background check on the person asking the question. 5. Emails that ask for an actual consultation in a professional setting will get answered. Some people will refuse outright, some people will be interested and want more information, some people will be excited. Ditto, walk-in appointments.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Do professors like if students ask about their research? I really want to ask a professor of mine about what he does (X-ray crystallography and crystal engineering) but he is kind of terse and very busy and I don’t want to waste his time asking dumb questions I could google. Is it annoying when students ask this kind of thing? I’d come by to his office hours. I’m going to put this in the office hours post too, apologies if this doesn’t really warrant its own post!
RESPONSE A: From my experience, yes they do!
RESPONSE B: Another thing if he seems really unapproachable - if you're really interested in their research, you could ask if you can have a chat with his students/postdocs. In many cases, these are the people that actually do the work. =)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Anybody here have bad experiences with Academia.edu or Researchgate? I am a science journalism grad student at Boston University. Recently at a small conference of BU professors and researchers the conversation shifted from presenting a professional persona on Twitter to negotiating sites like Academia.edu and Researchgate. The general consensus of the speakers was that these sites are predatory, spamming scholars and requiring payment to access basic features. I was wondering if anybody on here has had similar experiences and if so how wide-spread this experience is with academics. Note: I am looking for interview subjects. While I'm happy to talk in this thread I'd be much happier to arrange a time for an interview by phone. Thanks
RESPONSE A: Researchgate is fine. I maintain an RG profile with a few papers, as well as a Google Scholar profile. The benefit of RG is I can find out some basic stats on how many people are reading my papers and from which fields and institutions. The base functionality is fine for most things. Academia.edu is a different kettle of fish. I signed up when the service was free, but they've now stuck 90% or more of the functionality into subscriber-only. So you get a lot of spam advertising features that are not accessible to you. Academia.edu is definitely shit in a can.
RESPONSE B: This talk is way overblown. The sites that you mention do not *require* payment. They are simply tools that researchers can use. The benefit depends on how you use it. Yes, there are paid options, but no, you don't get "forced" into using them. There are definite benefits to them as well, such as free SEO and a free repository for scholars. I'm rather sick of hearing this same, tired argument. Could the platforms improve? Yes, definitely. Are they "coercive and oppressive!" Absolutely not.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: , spamming scholars and requiring payment to access basic features. I was wondering if anybody on here has had similar experiences and if so how wide-spread this experience is with academics. Note: I am looking for interview subjects. While I'm happy to talk in this thread I'd be much happier to arrange a time for an interview by phone. Thanks
RESPONSE A: I've found that apparently, the two sites vary a lot in popularity based on field and geographic region (folks in the EU seem to like Researchgate more, for example). Until recently, I liked / used Academia more often. Researchgate just annoys me in its interface (reminds me of LinkedIn). Lately, though, it seems like Academia is trying really hard to push pay subscriptions. I *did* like its feature where I could see where folks were coming from when they read a paper or looked at my profile. But I'm less and less inclined to go there, because they're locking down more and more features. As long as I can still access some of my colleagues' papers, I'll use it. But I'm not going to pay for their "features" that I didn't want and don't care about. But most people seem to be bitching about scammy emails. Ignore / block them. Use the free features if you want. Don't use the site(s) if you don't want to. No one is making you use them. And no one is making you pay for them. With modern email filters, you can automatically delete any emails from them. I don't really see the problem.
RESPONSE B: This talk is way overblown. The sites that you mention do not *require* payment. They are simply tools that researchers can use. The benefit depends on how you use it. Yes, there are paid options, but no, you don't get "forced" into using them. There are definite benefits to them as well, such as free SEO and a free repository for scholars. I'm rather sick of hearing this same, tired argument. Could the platforms improve? Yes, definitely. Are they "coercive and oppressive!" Absolutely not.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: ? I am a science journalism grad student at Boston University. Recently at a small conference of BU professors and researchers the conversation shifted from presenting a professional persona on Twitter to negotiating sites like Academia.edu and Researchgate. The general consensus of the speakers was that these sites are predatory, spamming scholars and requiring payment to access basic features. I was wondering if anybody on here has had similar experiences and if so how wide-spread this experience is with academics. Note: I am looking for interview subjects. While I'm happy to talk in this thread I'd be much happier to arrange a time for an interview by phone. Thanks
RESPONSE A: I've found that apparently, the two sites vary a lot in popularity based on field and geographic region (folks in the EU seem to like Researchgate more, for example). Until recently, I liked / used Academia more often. Researchgate just annoys me in its interface (reminds me of LinkedIn). Lately, though, it seems like Academia is trying really hard to push pay subscriptions. I *did* like its feature where I could see where folks were coming from when they read a paper or looked at my profile. But I'm less and less inclined to go there, because they're locking down more and more features. As long as I can still access some of my colleagues' papers, I'll use it. But I'm not going to pay for their "features" that I didn't want and don't care about. But most people seem to be bitching about scammy emails. Ignore / block them. Use the free features if you want. Don't use the site(s) if you don't want to. No one is making you use them. And no one is making you pay for them. With modern email filters, you can automatically delete any emails from them. I don't really see the problem.
RESPONSE B: No issues with ResearchGate. I do make sure to check what the embargo status is of papers before I upload them. You don't need to pay RG anything, and you don't need to upload anything, either.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Anybody here have bad experiences with Academia.edu or Researchgate? I am a science journalism grad student at Boston University. Recently at a small conference of BU professors and researchers the conversation shifted from presenting a professional persona on Twitter to negotiating sites like Academia.edu and Researchgate. The general consensus of the speakers was that these sites are predatory, spamming scholars and requiring payment to access basic features. I was wondering if anybody on here has had similar experiences and if so how wide-spread this experience is with academics. Note: I am looking for interview subjects. While I'm happy to talk in this thread I'd be much happier to arrange a time for an interview by phone. Thanks
RESPONSE A: I like research gate a lot! It enables me to feature some research that otherwise wouldn't get much notice ( book chapters and such). The site does send a lot of notifications, but they go in my social folder anyway. Academia.edu is a more predatory site.
RESPONSE B: Researchgate says my name is invalid: it has an apostrophe (Irish). I emailed them and they said they had no immediate plans to fix this (though credit to them for replying). This was several months ago, so maybe they've fixed it since. As far as problems in science go this is very low key, but makes me reluctant to bother dealing with them in the future.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Anybody here have bad experiences with Academia.edu or Researchgate? I am a science journalism grad student at Boston University. Recently at a small conference of BU professors and researchers the conversation shifted from presenting a professional persona on Twitter to negotiating sites like Academia.edu and Researchgate. The general consensus of the speakers was that these sites are predatory, spamming scholars and requiring payment to access basic features. I was wondering if anybody on here has had similar experiences and if so how wide-spread this experience is with academics. Note: I am looking for interview subjects. While I'm happy to talk in this thread I'd be much happier to arrange a time for an interview by phone. Thanks
RESPONSE A: I created a free profile on each and entered just my basic info, then I proceeded to pretty much ignore them. I don’t mind them (so long as the don’t spread inaccurate information about me or my authorship), but I haven’t seen the value proposition either... I’m not at a big research university, though, so I’d be curious if faculty at R1’s do see significant value in it... (Also, the only reason I created profiles was to enter accurate info before someone entered inaccurate info on my behalf. They do seem to create proto-profiles for people without accounts and populate them with whatever they can figure out from what others enter... I haven’t ever heard of this being an issue. I just didn’t want to be the first to find out first hand.)
RESPONSE B: Researchgate says my name is invalid: it has an apostrophe (Irish). I emailed them and they said they had no immediate plans to fix this (though credit to them for replying). This was several months ago, so maybe they've fixed it since. As far as problems in science go this is very low key, but makes me reluctant to bother dealing with them in the future.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: that person be? Hi all. I know a lot of undergrads come to this subreddit because they might be considering going to grad school and want to gain a better understanding of academia. Most of the time, actually, in every instance I‘ve seen, these redditers are met with “the job market is terrible, do *anything* else, etc.” overall, not a lot of encouragement *for* academia. Which is fine because it is a difficult profession and people should really want to do it and know what to expect before they decide to pursue a Ph.D. However, you are all academics, so what made you different? Why did you decide to go into academia? Have you ever encouraged someone to pursue your same path? If so, what made that person different from most of the people this subreddit dissuades?
RESPONSE A: I wouldn't push anyone to go to graduate school, that's up to them, but I usually do tell them the following * Funding is drying up, people are spending more time as post-docs, a single TT position can receive upwards of 1000 applications, etc. * Academia is a lot like Hollywood, in it attracts a lot of wide eyed young people that have an "idea" of what it is like. But they don't know what it's really like. People have an idea of what research is like, but you don't know until you experience it. And like Hollywood, academia takes in a lot of people, chews them up, spits them out and they leave broken. Ask some lawyers, pharmacists, physicians, surgeons about their thoughts on their field and if they wished they did something different. A large percentage of them give the following statement > I'm glad I did it, but if I'd known then what I know now....
RESPONSE B: Psych here. Only if the student has demonstrated being top 1% (approximately, you catch my drift) in terms of GRE, research productivity (ie publication, not just being an RA or doing posters), conscientiousness, etc., and if the direction has non-academic fallback options (eg clinical).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: For those of you in grad school in the SF bay area, how do you survive with the cost of living being so high?!
RESPONSE A: I’m considering studying at Stanford which has a $43k stipend. Would you all consider this to be enough money to live on in the SF area?
RESPONSE B: Personal opinion: If you have to take out loans or dip into savings to work at a university, they're not paying you a reasonable wage and there are plenty of other schools or institutes that are much better options. Good science (or other field) isn't exclusively confined to high cost of living cities. Continuing to choose to go to those cities and work for an effectively unlivable wage just continues to send the message that it's okay not to pay a living wage for grad school or postdoc pay. Plus, it makes grad school more of an elite and exclusive group limited to individuals who already have personal wealth.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: For those of you in grad school in the SF bay area, how do you survive with the cost of living being so high?!
RESPONSE A: Personal opinion: If you have to take out loans or dip into savings to work at a university, they're not paying you a reasonable wage and there are plenty of other schools or institutes that are much better options. Good science (or other field) isn't exclusively confined to high cost of living cities. Continuing to choose to go to those cities and work for an effectively unlivable wage just continues to send the message that it's okay not to pay a living wage for grad school or postdoc pay. Plus, it makes grad school more of an elite and exclusive group limited to individuals who already have personal wealth.
RESPONSE B: I had a nicely paid postdoc there, and it still took me years to pay down the debt I accrued.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: For those of you in grad school in the SF bay area, how do you survive with the cost of living being so high?!
RESPONSE A: Personal opinion: If you have to take out loans or dip into savings to work at a university, they're not paying you a reasonable wage and there are plenty of other schools or institutes that are much better options. Good science (or other field) isn't exclusively confined to high cost of living cities. Continuing to choose to go to those cities and work for an effectively unlivable wage just continues to send the message that it's okay not to pay a living wage for grad school or postdoc pay. Plus, it makes grad school more of an elite and exclusive group limited to individuals who already have personal wealth.
RESPONSE B: Not SF, but NYC so somewhat similar... I worked a bit before starting grad school, but I'm eating through my savings quickly. My PhD stipend is about equal to my rent, so I'm relying on savings + parental generosity a lot for food + train money...
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: For those of you in grad school in the SF bay area, how do you survive with the cost of living being so high?!
RESPONSE A: Live on campus if that's an option. Rely on public transit. Make a budget and stick to it. Be very careful about how you spend and what you buy. The issue I had wasn't that I wasn't able to live—it was a constant frustration that I could have been living so much better somewhere else. I felt like I was working too hard and living too simply to be scraping as much as I was.
RESPONSE B: Personal opinion: If you have to take out loans or dip into savings to work at a university, they're not paying you a reasonable wage and there are plenty of other schools or institutes that are much better options. Good science (or other field) isn't exclusively confined to high cost of living cities. Continuing to choose to go to those cities and work for an effectively unlivable wage just continues to send the message that it's okay not to pay a living wage for grad school or postdoc pay. Plus, it makes grad school more of an elite and exclusive group limited to individuals who already have personal wealth.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: For those of you in grad school in the SF bay area, how do you survive with the cost of living being so high?!
RESPONSE A: Same question but for DC....
RESPONSE B: Personal opinion: If you have to take out loans or dip into savings to work at a university, they're not paying you a reasonable wage and there are plenty of other schools or institutes that are much better options. Good science (or other field) isn't exclusively confined to high cost of living cities. Continuing to choose to go to those cities and work for an effectively unlivable wage just continues to send the message that it's okay not to pay a living wage for grad school or postdoc pay. Plus, it makes grad school more of an elite and exclusive group limited to individuals who already have personal wealth.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Published in a conference but no conference proceedings. How does someone verify records? I published in a conference but the conference does not have any proceedings. How do I prove that the paper was accepted? Has anyone gone through something like this? Do you even bother putting that paper on a resume?
RESPONSE A: What does it mean to publish something in a conference if there are no proceedings? Do you mean that you gave a talk at a conference?
RESPONSE B: Yes, put it on your CV. Most people take your word on conference talks because it is low stakes. It rarely makes or breaks a CV to have one more or less conference presentations. If you did need verification (for example, maybe for your tenure committee or merit review) then providing a page from the program/website that lists your talk or an email from the conference accepting your talk would be sufficient. We have to provide something like that when we apply for travel money at my university to show you are really going to give a presentation (back when we could travel at least).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Published in a conference but no conference proceedings. How does someone verify records? I published in a conference but the conference does not have any proceedings. How do I prove that the paper was accepted? Has anyone gone through something like this? Do you even bother putting that paper on a resume?
RESPONSE A: What does it mean to publish something in a conference if there are no proceedings? Do you mean that you gave a talk at a conference?
RESPONSE B: It’s not really published, it’s just accepted.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Only doing uni work between 9am and 6pm weekdays - is this achievable? (grad student) My biggest goal for this term is managing my work-life balance better. Last term I barely did any work the first month of my course which meant the last 3 weeks of term was spent doing university work all day everyday including weekends to catch-up and get the grades I want (I am aiming for a distinction). At undergraduate a few students talked about how they would work between 9 and 6pm every weekday and spend evenings and weekends relaxing and doing anything but university work. I never did that at undergraduate as I did not have to put that much effort in aside during most of the year aside from the 4-6 week long summer exam season where I worked all day everyday to get a first. ​ I am wondering if working like this is a good idea for master's level? I think I would feel more motivated to work during the day if I knew it then meant I could stop everything at 6pm and relax as well as have two full days off every week. I have been feeling a little jealous of friends who work full time on how at 5-6pm they go home and that's it, work is finished whereas at university the work follows you home. ​ I would love any insight into this including whether I am interpreting the academic expectations of master's level correctly or whether I am underestimating them? ​ I should also add that reading this post through I come across as an apathetic, lazy student but I am anything but that. I love my course and I loved my undergrad course I just worked smartly and knew how to make the hours count.
RESPONSE A: Yeah it can be done (depending on circumstances probably). Give it a try and see how it works for you.
RESPONSE B: Depends on the semester, your field, if you're doing research as well and if you have other activities like TAing. I've been able to achieve this with some of my semesters but have found myself working every day of the week for heavier semesters.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: ? (grad student) My biggest goal for this term is managing my work-life balance better. Last term I barely did any work the first month of my course which meant the last 3 weeks of term was spent doing university work all day everyday including weekends to catch-up and get the grades I want (I am aiming for a distinction). At undergraduate a few students talked about how they would work between 9 and 6pm every weekday and spend evenings and weekends relaxing and doing anything but university work. I never did that at undergraduate as I did not have to put that much effort in aside during most of the year aside from the 4-6 week long summer exam season where I worked all day everyday to get a first. ​ I am wondering if working like this is a good idea for master's level? I think I would feel more motivated to work during the day if I knew it then meant I could stop everything at 6pm and relax as well as have two full days off every week. I have been feeling a little jealous of friends who work full time on how at 5-6pm they go home and that's it, work is finished whereas at university the work follows you home. ​ I would love any insight into this including whether I am interpreting the academic expectations of master's level correctly or whether I am underestimating them? ​ I should also add that reading this post through I come across as an apathetic, lazy student but I am anything but that. I love my course and I loved my undergrad course I just worked smartly and knew how to make the hours count.
RESPONSE A: Yeah it can be done (depending on circumstances probably). Give it a try and see how it works for you.
RESPONSE B: It really depends on your field. If it's a science field, you may be subject to the whims of your experiments. I think 9-6, or the equivalent number of hours, is achievable if you use those hours wisely. I know a lot of grad students who are at their lab 12-14 hours every day but they spend 4 or 5 hours goofing off. (of course, some are acutally really slaving away for 60-70 hour weeks, too)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: how they would work between 9 and 6pm every weekday and spend evenings and weekends relaxing and doing anything but university work. I never did that at undergraduate as I did not have to put that much effort in aside during most of the year aside from the 4-6 week long summer exam season where I worked all day everyday to get a first. ​ I am wondering if working like this is a good idea for master's level? I think I would feel more motivated to work during the day if I knew it then meant I could stop everything at 6pm and relax as well as have two full days off every week. I have been feeling a little jealous of friends who work full time on how at 5-6pm they go home and that's it, work is finished whereas at university the work follows you home. ​ I would love any insight into this including whether I am interpreting the academic expectations of master's level correctly or whether I am underestimating them? ​ I should also add that reading this post through I come across as an apathetic, lazy student but I am anything but that. I love my course and I loved my undergrad course I just worked smartly and knew how to make the hours count.
RESPONSE A: It really depends on your field. If it's a science field, you may be subject to the whims of your experiments. I think 9-6, or the equivalent number of hours, is achievable if you use those hours wisely. I know a lot of grad students who are at their lab 12-14 hours every day but they spend 4 or 5 hours goofing off. (of course, some are acutally really slaving away for 60-70 hour weeks, too)
RESPONSE B: Absolutely! (or maybe depends on your situation). Longer hours do not equate to more productivity. Productivity studies found that people tend to work the same amount of actual hours, regardless of the number of hours they spend in the office. By limiting your hours, you can boost the productivity of your office hours. There may be times when your are rushing for a deadline or need to get some extra work done, but by limiting these and keeping a healthy balance you actually improve your output.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: my work-life balance better. Last term I barely did any work the first month of my course which meant the last 3 weeks of term was spent doing university work all day everyday including weekends to catch-up and get the grades I want (I am aiming for a distinction). At undergraduate a few students talked about how they would work between 9 and 6pm every weekday and spend evenings and weekends relaxing and doing anything but university work. I never did that at undergraduate as I did not have to put that much effort in aside during most of the year aside from the 4-6 week long summer exam season where I worked all day everyday to get a first. ​ I am wondering if working like this is a good idea for master's level? I think I would feel more motivated to work during the day if I knew it then meant I could stop everything at 6pm and relax as well as have two full days off every week. I have been feeling a little jealous of friends who work full time on how at 5-6pm they go home and that's it, work is finished whereas at university the work follows you home. ​ I would love any insight into this including whether I am interpreting the academic expectations of master's level correctly or whether I am underestimating them? ​ I should also add that reading this post through I come across as an apathetic, lazy student but I am anything but that. I love my course and I loved my undergrad course I just worked smartly and knew how to make the hours count.
RESPONSE A: It really depends on your field. If it's a science field, you may be subject to the whims of your experiments. I think 9-6, or the equivalent number of hours, is achievable if you use those hours wisely. I know a lot of grad students who are at their lab 12-14 hours every day but they spend 4 or 5 hours goofing off. (of course, some are acutally really slaving away for 60-70 hour weeks, too)
RESPONSE B: This is what I'm aiming for this semester. I want my evenings to be my own! I'm making my work time my work time and that's it!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: biggest goal for this term is managing my work-life balance better. Last term I barely did any work the first month of my course which meant the last 3 weeks of term was spent doing university work all day everyday including weekends to catch-up and get the grades I want (I am aiming for a distinction). At undergraduate a few students talked about how they would work between 9 and 6pm every weekday and spend evenings and weekends relaxing and doing anything but university work. I never did that at undergraduate as I did not have to put that much effort in aside during most of the year aside from the 4-6 week long summer exam season where I worked all day everyday to get a first. ​ I am wondering if working like this is a good idea for master's level? I think I would feel more motivated to work during the day if I knew it then meant I could stop everything at 6pm and relax as well as have two full days off every week. I have been feeling a little jealous of friends who work full time on how at 5-6pm they go home and that's it, work is finished whereas at university the work follows you home. ​ I would love any insight into this including whether I am interpreting the academic expectations of master's level correctly or whether I am underestimating them? ​ I should also add that reading this post through I come across as an apathetic, lazy student but I am anything but that. I love my course and I loved my undergrad course I just worked smartly and knew how to make the hours count.
RESPONSE A: Yeah it can be done (depending on circumstances probably). Give it a try and see how it works for you.
RESPONSE B: This is what I do. I wouldn’t say I’m in a super intense situation, I am pursuing a MS in Biology with a TA. I still find that I have a lot going on, but I fit it into more of an 8-5 schedule, including classes. This semester I teach a late lab once a week and I have some research assistant duties that will stretch my schedule out further, but I find that keeping a consistent schedule like what you are talking about helps me be more productive and mentally healthy.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: ; PS. Also if you have suggestions of interesting jobs for theoretical physicists please do mention them. (AI & data science are OK but would love to do something where I could do some research). ​
RESPONSE A: I was very near where you are now. If you want academic position, key thing is to give up "places you want to live". Did you apply for academic positions? There is the Ronin Institute though I'm not sure how active or useful it is.
RESPONSE B: I'd say it's impossible, but it's also not that tragic. And I speak from some experience, as I've been moving back and forth between academia and "normal jobs". I'd say your best bet is to reassemble the puzzle. Project to a different base; find a different set of elements that gives you the same sum. Say, you 1. love physics, 2. solving puzzles, and 3. you need money. Right now your job combines 1 and 2, but you seem to have long-term issue with 3. How's about you find a job that covers 2 and 3, and entertain 1 in some other way? Say, find some really fancy data science or AI job where you'd have to do research, real research, hard research. And volunteer at school to teach some kids physics. Or have a blog about physics. Or write a popular book about physics. Just find some way to do it. I don't think it is possible, or at least easy, to do real research while earning money on the side. I mean, for that to be true, your job has to be well-paying, intense (definitely not a usual 9-5, as you'll need more time than that), and mentally dull (because you want your mind to be free to think about physics). Jobs like that exist, but they are unusual. One could also do 13+2 (using my formula above): say, teach physics at school, and do research on the side. But judging from the fact that you never even mentioned teaching, it's not an option. So I'd go for a real fancy practical-research-oriented non-physics job, and kept in touch with physics one way or another.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: us and for the society), the more I am depressed. It's quite a shock. I have never felt so lonely in my life, it's something extremely personal and hard to talk about with non-academics like my partner or family and this makes the situation even more difficult. I even feel weird writing about it here, but I guess I need to hear your opinions. Anyway, sorry for this rant. The question I wanted to ask is: suppose I get a normal (yet interesting, I hope!) job and do the usual 9-5. What forbids me from doing physics as a 'hobby' afterwards? say 1 or 2 hours? it's not like postdoc rhythms, but since it's purely for fun who cares? 1 or 2 papers per year should be doable for sure. I imagine I can easily get an affiliation as a visitor of some institution for the articles. However, I have never seen this discussed, people who leave academia are considered dead (at least in physics). I have never heard of anyone working from outside academia. What do you think? ​ PS. Also if you have suggestions of interesting jobs for theoretical physicists please do mention them. (AI & data science are OK but would love to do something where I could do some research). ​
RESPONSE A: I was very near where you are now. If you want academic position, key thing is to give up "places you want to live". Did you apply for academic positions? There is the Ronin Institute though I'm not sure how active or useful it is.
RESPONSE B: I currently work 9-5 in a government office, not doing research (but reading plenty of it), and can definitely understand some of your fears. I'll say this: While I can't speak to to the opportunities available to physicists, there are definitely careers out there where you can remain as a member of the larger physics 'community' without being an active researcher. My colleagues and I still attend scientific conferences, many of us get asked to review papers (especially on niche topics), and I have multiple coworkers who teach an evening class at local colleges simply for love of the subject.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: on my own terms and get a job/life I like than to postpone it a few more years and have no choice and dignity left. Yet the more I think that I will never be a professor, that I will no longer introduce myself as a physicist (i.e., identify myself as such - sadly what we do is usually what we are, for us and for the society), the more I am depressed. It's quite a shock. I have never felt so lonely in my life, it's something extremely personal and hard to talk about with non-academics like my partner or family and this makes the situation even more difficult. I even feel weird writing about it here, but I guess I need to hear your opinions. Anyway, sorry for this rant. The question I wanted to ask is: suppose I get a normal (yet interesting, I hope!) job and do the usual 9-5. What forbids me from doing physics as a 'hobby' afterwards? say 1 or 2 hours? it's not like postdoc rhythms, but since it's purely for fun who cares? 1 or 2 papers per year should be doable for sure. I imagine I can easily get an affiliation as a visitor of some institution for the articles. However, I have never seen this discussed, people who leave academia are considered dead (at least in physics). I have never heard of anyone working from outside academia. What do you think? ​ PS. Also if you have suggestions of interesting jobs for theoretical physicists please do mention them. (AI & data science are OK but would love to do something where I could do some research). ​
RESPONSE A: I just finished my PhD in biochemistry, and I am not sure I want to stay in academia. I think that I sort of understand what you feel. I hope you feel better. I send you a hug.
RESPONSE B: I was very near where you are now. If you want academic position, key thing is to give up "places you want to live". Did you apply for academic positions? There is the Ronin Institute though I'm not sure how active or useful it is.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Institutional affiliation for a paper of a student no longer based in an academic institution I've co-authored a paper with a student that based on her work from her dissertation (which I supervised). She will be first author. When submitting the paper, I can't decide what to do about her institutional affiliation, as she is currently not with any academic institution. Should she put her affiliation as being the school and university in which she was a student (and where the bulk of the work was done), or should she identify herself as an independent researcher? What would you do? I doubt this is field-specific, but if it is relevant, the field is social science / public health. Thanks.
RESPONSE A: First, you may ask this other author. If they are working, they may want to have the affiliation where they are at (even if is not a university). If they are not working, use the university where the work was done. This should not be up to you but the other author.
RESPONSE B: Social science (not public health) prof here. In my field, the norm seems to be that you update the author's affiliation to whatever it currently is at the time of publication. I've seen this done with high schools, corporations, or even "Independent Researcher" or "Independent Scholar." (At one point, it seemed possible that one of my coauthors would have begun working as an analyst for IKEA by the time our manuscript was accepted for publication. I was rooting for it to happen, so that if anyone asked us how we divided up the work on the paper, I could say that I did pretty much everything but he made the tables.)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Institutional affiliation for a paper of a student no longer based in an academic institution I've co-authored a paper with a student that based on her work from her dissertation (which I supervised). She will be first author. When submitting the paper, I can't decide what to do about her institutional affiliation, as she is currently not with any academic institution. Should she put her affiliation as being the school and university in which she was a student (and where the bulk of the work was done), or should she identify herself as an independent researcher? What would you do? I doubt this is field-specific, but if it is relevant, the field is social science / public health. Thanks.
RESPONSE A: Whatever helps **her** career the most.
RESPONSE B: I had the same issue as your student and I put the institution I did most of the work at as my affiliation.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Institutional affiliation for a paper of a student no longer based in an academic institution I've co-authored a paper with a student that based on her work from her dissertation (which I supervised). She will be first author. When submitting the paper, I can't decide what to do about her institutional affiliation, as she is currently not with any academic institution. Should she put her affiliation as being the school and university in which she was a student (and where the bulk of the work was done), or should she identify herself as an independent researcher? What would you do? I doubt this is field-specific, but if it is relevant, the field is social science / public health. Thanks.
RESPONSE A: Whatever helps **her** career the most.
RESPONSE B: What I've done in the past is list the affiliation where the work was done, and then where appropriate, a footnote or acknowledgement to note the current affiliation.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Institutional affiliation for a paper of a student no longer based in an academic institution I've co-authored a paper with a student that based on her work from her dissertation (which I supervised). She will be first author. When submitting the paper, I can't decide what to do about her institutional affiliation, as she is currently not with any academic institution. Should she put her affiliation as being the school and university in which she was a student (and where the bulk of the work was done), or should she identify herself as an independent researcher? What would you do? I doubt this is field-specific, but if it is relevant, the field is social science / public health. Thanks.
RESPONSE A: I had the same issue as your student and I put the institution I did most of the work at as my affiliation.
RESPONSE B: Journals will often offer there opinion in instructions to authors... From Nature: https://www.nature.com/nature-research/editorial-policies/authorship “The primary affiliation for each author should be the institution where the majority of their work was done. If an author has subsequently moved, the current address may also be stated.”
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Institutional affiliation for a paper of a student no longer based in an academic institution I've co-authored a paper with a student that based on her work from her dissertation (which I supervised). She will be first author. When submitting the paper, I can't decide what to do about her institutional affiliation, as she is currently not with any academic institution. Should she put her affiliation as being the school and university in which she was a student (and where the bulk of the work was done), or should she identify herself as an independent researcher? What would you do? I doubt this is field-specific, but if it is relevant, the field is social science / public health. Thanks.
RESPONSE A: Journals will often offer there opinion in instructions to authors... From Nature: https://www.nature.com/nature-research/editorial-policies/authorship “The primary affiliation for each author should be the institution where the majority of their work was done. If an author has subsequently moved, the current address may also be stated.”
RESPONSE B: What I've done in the past is list the affiliation where the work was done, and then where appropriate, a footnote or acknowledgement to note the current affiliation.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How do you have a stable relationship as a young researcher? I would like to hear some of your stories, because currently that's one aspect of academia that I wonder about. Specially with the many postdocs you need to do until you can settle down, it seems to be quite difficult to have a stable relationship. For instance, do people succeed in moving to the same uni? Or maybe they are happy to live relatively close to each other for a while?
RESPONSE A: The couple might have to make it work long distance for a while. Hopefully the non-academic is in a position where they are flexible geographically otherwise I'm not sure how it would work since people often have to move for their first tenure-track position. My partner and I worked apart for a little while since I was teaching at a uni in a smaller town and he got a government job in a larger city. Then I very luckily got in at the larger city college. So, sometimes people get lucky. Also, there are certain positions that are very flexible and can be performed anywhere. Like someone who has an online business or nurses. I know a couple who the man is military and the woman is a nurse. They move all the time for his work but she can always find jobs because she's a nurse.
RESPONSE B: With someone who’s self-sufficient and very patient and understanding
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: PhD? I think this would be useful to any person currently thinking of pursuing a PhD program. Thank you for your help!
RESPONSE A: I am in a program that has quite a few students studying that topic and most they either go into NGOs or government. One friend is in film and she wants to write a non-academic/coffee table book after the PhD. I do know of some architecture/construction firms popping up in the area that focus on sustainable design, but not sure if they would be willing to pay a higher salary for an employee without direct architecture experience
RESPONSE B: You absolutely don't need a PhD to do the kinds of jobs you are thinking of, assuming you want to do something in climate change/urban development. However, lots of orgs like NGOs, funders, foundations, government, intergovernmental orgs, and specialist research institutes (in roles like public engagement or policy) are very used to PhDs and while they would almost never make it a requirement they do like them for certain roles or at the very least don't see you as over qualified and will view your PhD as work experience (handy for negotiating salary and going for jobs one up from graduate scheme/entry level). In addition, in roles where you will be working with experts a PhD can help smooth the path - it helps that you understand academic culture, that you're able to assess evidence, reassures the experts you're working with that what they say won't get lost in translation and so on. For companies outside tech and pharma a PhD can be more of an issue - people aren't familiar with them, they think you're over qualified, they're often mystified as to why you're applying for the job, they think you're going to leave etc. So if you want to work outside the field of your PhD, and by outside I mean completely unrelated, not something like Sci Comm or scientific editor, a PhD can be an issue. I won't say what job I do, but suffice to say I have counterparts in across the public, charitable and academic sector and probably 2/3rds of us have PhDs. It definitely hasn't been a hindrance.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Average length of PhDs in Humanities subjects in the USA? Hi Everyone, I am contemplating the prospect of studying a PhD in the USA in something related to Political Science. I have researched this question I am asking myself, and from what I have found it easily takes 8-10 years on average for students to complete their PhDs in humanities subjects in USA Universities. I am not American so don't know that much about them and would like to confirm here. Is this true? If not what tends to be the average length of PhDs related to humanities there, realistically speaking? Thank You
RESPONSE A: I'd guess that for most people time-to-degree is not a matter of talent or drive or course load, but rather a function of departmental/lab funding and disciplinary job market. I'm in a discipline with a great job market. The overwhelming majority of my students finish their PhD in 3-4 years. I have colleagues in fields with terrible job markets, but we still only offer 5 years of assistantship funding, so 5-6 years is a typical max time-to-degree for their students.
RESPONSE B: In the US, we would classify Political Science as a social science fyi...
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How old were you starting your PhD?
RESPONSE A: 44
RESPONSE B: 24
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How old were you starting your PhD?
RESPONSE A: 21.
RESPONSE B: 44
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How old were you starting your PhD?
RESPONSE A: 44
RESPONSE B: 30
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How old were you starting your PhD?
RESPONSE A: 47
RESPONSE B: 24
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How old were you starting your PhD?
RESPONSE A: 47
RESPONSE B: 29
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: People that ask "And what are the real-life applications of what you do" at presentations (and post - presentation blues). So, it seems that there is one of these a-holes at each presentation, smugly implying that your work is completely useless. What is it with people that ask questions at presentations just for the sake of belittling the presenters work? Sorry if I'm ranting, but just got out of a really awkward presentation that I did, of course the public wasn't particularly interested nor exactly in my field of studies. No questions except the aforementioned. Also, is it normal to feel like a complete sack of shit after presenting? I'm torn between narcissistic rage and major impostor syndrome.
RESPONSE A: If you can't give any reasons for why your research is important then why are you doing it? Seems to me like you should be able to answer that question at least to some degree.
RESPONSE B: Every time this happens, it triggers a memory of a lil bitch colleague I had at a job who one time was watching a presentation with me, and when it finished, he was like, "so what are the practical applications of this? because estimating y is completely irrelevant to Problem Z since it can only be solved by estimating x, which by the way is what I'm doing in my project..." sorry, just wanted to share
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: People that ask "And what are the real-life applications of what you do" at presentations (and post - presentation blues). So, it seems that there is one of these a-holes at each presentation, smugly implying that your work is completely useless. What is it with people that ask questions at presentations just for the sake of belittling the presenters work? Sorry if I'm ranting, but just got out of a really awkward presentation that I did, of course the public wasn't particularly interested nor exactly in my field of studies. No questions except the aforementioned. Also, is it normal to feel like a complete sack of shit after presenting? I'm torn between narcissistic rage and major impostor syndrome.
RESPONSE A: If you can't give any reasons for why your research is important then why are you doing it? Seems to me like you should be able to answer that question at least to some degree.
RESPONSE B: I have to side with the smug asshole. While I wouldn't put someone on the spot in a public presentation like that person did, if you can't justify why your work should be done, you may wish to reconsider that line of work.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: People that ask "And what are the real-life applications of what you do" at presentations (and post - presentation blues). So, it seems that there is one of these a-holes at each presentation, smugly implying that your work is completely useless. What is it with people that ask questions at presentations just for the sake of belittling the presenters work? Sorry if I'm ranting, but just got out of a really awkward presentation that I did, of course the public wasn't particularly interested nor exactly in my field of studies. No questions except the aforementioned. Also, is it normal to feel like a complete sack of shit after presenting? I'm torn between narcissistic rage and major impostor syndrome.
RESPONSE A: It is normal to feel that way if you know you didn't prepare well enough. As far as the practical applications go, it is a sucky thing for people to ask in most situations, but everything has practical real life applications. So you should work on an answer to it, even if it is just laying the foundation for the foundation for the foundation of something that has real world applications. And then you can emphasize how understanding the basic knowledge of something is important as a resource for applied work.
RESPONSE B: If you can't give any reasons for why your research is important then why are you doing it? Seems to me like you should be able to answer that question at least to some degree.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: each presentation, smugly implying that your work is completely useless. What is it with people that ask questions at presentations just for the sake of belittling the presenters work? Sorry if I'm ranting, but just got out of a really awkward presentation that I did, of course the public wasn't particularly interested nor exactly in my field of studies. No questions except the aforementioned. Also, is it normal to feel like a complete sack of shit after presenting? I'm torn between narcissistic rage and major impostor syndrome.
RESPONSE A: The answers to these questions probably differ from field-to-field, but I think lots of folks are reasonably skeptical that every piece of research needs to be "applied." Research should be worth doing, but what counts as important and what counts as "applied" are often very different. A lot of basic science research is "applicable" in some very distant, conditional sense - if such and such hypothesis is born out then we might find a promising way to answer some set of questions in such and such related field which might go on to blah blah blah blah. Research needs to be important and justifiable, but the demands of "application" are often not easily grounded *unless* the opportunity cost of that research is very high. (When people question the application of a multi-billion dollar super-collider they're asking an obviously good question.) So, my intuition is to deflect this worry about predictable "application," especially if application is reductive or instrumental. Still, we ought to be able to explain why we are studying [x] instead of infinitely many other projects beyond mere personal taste or interest.
RESPONSE B: Every time this happens, it triggers a memory of a lil bitch colleague I had at a job who one time was watching a presentation with me, and when it finished, he was like, "so what are the practical applications of this? because estimating y is completely irrelevant to Problem Z since it can only be solved by estimating x, which by the way is what I'm doing in my project..." sorry, just wanted to share
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: People that ask "And what are the real-life applications of what you do" at presentations (and post - presentation blues). So, it seems that there is one of these a-holes at each presentation, smugly implying that your work is completely useless. What is it with people that ask questions at presentations just for the sake of belittling the presenters work? Sorry if I'm ranting, but just got out of a really awkward presentation that I did, of course the public wasn't particularly interested nor exactly in my field of studies. No questions except the aforementioned. Also, is it normal to feel like a complete sack of shit after presenting? I'm torn between narcissistic rage and major impostor syndrome.
RESPONSE A: I have to side with the smug asshole. While I wouldn't put someone on the spot in a public presentation like that person did, if you can't justify why your work should be done, you may wish to reconsider that line of work.
RESPONSE B: "Why is this important / why do we care?" is an essential aspect of any presentation. Even if your work is 100% basic science and not applied at all, you should be able to explain these things. How does this work change the way we think about science? How will this advance our understanding? What gap in knowledge does this work seek to address?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Diversity Statements for Faculty Position Apps I am currently applying for faculty positions and several places have requested a "diversity statement." * What information should I include? * My area of research is developmental psych and I have done some work with low-income parents and immigrant communities. Should I talk about that? * Do they want me to talk about what I am bringing in terms of personal diversity? I am a first generation college/doctoral student, but other than that I am at a loss. * In terms of classroom practices (this is a teaching position) what does a search committee want to know about fostering diversity etc.? Any suggestions would be much appreciated!
RESPONSE A: This is something of a dummy test - write something plausible. Don't write something that's pure BS and don't use it as a place to signal your ties to white ethnonationalist groups. If your research or teaching are relevant, mention them. If your background is relevant, mention it.
RESPONSE B: I talked about different kinds of diversity. Not only racial and ethnic, but supporting first generation and non traditional students (thru university financial and academic/tutoring support programs) as well as supporting students with intellectual and physical disabilities by using online and open access technologies. I agree with one of the comments above that they mostly want to see you jump through the hoop with this, and as long as you don't come off as unable to discuss the topic you should be alright. Good luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Diversity Statements for Faculty Position Apps I am currently applying for faculty positions and several places have requested a "diversity statement." * What information should I include? * My area of research is developmental psych and I have done some work with low-income parents and immigrant communities. Should I talk about that? * Do they want me to talk about what I am bringing in terms of personal diversity? I am a first generation college/doctoral student, but other than that I am at a loss. * In terms of classroom practices (this is a teaching position) what does a search committee want to know about fostering diversity etc.? Any suggestions would be much appreciated!
RESPONSE A: I talked about different kinds of diversity. Not only racial and ethnic, but supporting first generation and non traditional students (thru university financial and academic/tutoring support programs) as well as supporting students with intellectual and physical disabilities by using online and open access technologies. I agree with one of the comments above that they mostly want to see you jump through the hoop with this, and as long as you don't come off as unable to discuss the topic you should be alright. Good luck!
RESPONSE B: I state how I define diversity and how it manifests throughout my research, teaching (what does diversity and equity mean for teaching, for the texts, for engagement with the variety of learning styles), and service.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Diversity Statements for Faculty Position Apps I am currently applying for faculty positions and several places have requested a "diversity statement." * What information should I include? * My area of research is developmental psych and I have done some work with low-income parents and immigrant communities. Should I talk about that? * Do they want me to talk about what I am bringing in terms of personal diversity? I am a first generation college/doctoral student, but other than that I am at a loss. * In terms of classroom practices (this is a teaching position) what does a search committee want to know about fostering diversity etc.? Any suggestions would be much appreciated!
RESPONSE A: I state how I define diversity and how it manifests throughout my research, teaching (what does diversity and equity mean for teaching, for the texts, for engagement with the variety of learning styles), and service.
RESPONSE B: This is something of a dummy test - write something plausible. Don't write something that's pure BS and don't use it as a place to signal your ties to white ethnonationalist groups. If your research or teaching are relevant, mention them. If your background is relevant, mention it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Diversity Statements for Faculty Position Apps I am currently applying for faculty positions and several places have requested a "diversity statement." * What information should I include? * My area of research is developmental psych and I have done some work with low-income parents and immigrant communities. Should I talk about that? * Do they want me to talk about what I am bringing in terms of personal diversity? I am a first generation college/doctoral student, but other than that I am at a loss. * In terms of classroom practices (this is a teaching position) what does a search committee want to know about fostering diversity etc.? Any suggestions would be much appreciated!
RESPONSE A: We require those and take them seriously. The things you list- how your research might relate to underrepresented communities (broadly construed), being first generation and how that might help you mentor other first generation students, things you have done or will do to make teaching and mentoring inclusive, are all appropriate.
RESPONSE B: I state how I define diversity and how it manifests throughout my research, teaching (what does diversity and equity mean for teaching, for the texts, for engagement with the variety of learning styles), and service.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What software or application is best for keeping literature and jounral articles organized? I'm am starting grad school this fall and I'm hoping to keep track of papers and articles that I read on my computer and am searching for a software that might have some useful features. Do you guys have any recommendations for this? Preferably it would have a feature that I could insert a citation easily into a document or presentation without having to write it out every time.
RESPONSE A: Between here and r/GradSchool I feel like this question is asked dozens of times a month. Mods, can we get a sticky or something?
RESPONSE B: Your desired set of features will depend a lot on what you're using to write. Personally, I recommend writing using LaTeX, and using any reference manager which plays nice with BibTeX (ie, most of them). I'm currently using JabRef, but used Mendeley for a while.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What software or application is best for keeping literature and jounral articles organized? I'm am starting grad school this fall and I'm hoping to keep track of papers and articles that I read on my computer and am searching for a software that might have some useful features. Do you guys have any recommendations for this? Preferably it would have a feature that I could insert a citation easily into a document or presentation without having to write it out every time.
RESPONSE A: I started with Mendeley, which was quite unstable and I remember that I had to rebuild whole library once because it somehow messed it up. Then I switched to Zotero, which is getting better and better, but I recently switched to Papers 3. I like a lot of features they offer (unlike Zotero), some thing are not ideal (I still don't understand why it handles pdf files in their weird library rather than normal folders), but it has citation tool allowing me to do all referencing inside iA Writer, so I don't have to open Word anymore.
RESPONSE B: Between here and r/GradSchool I feel like this question is asked dozens of times a month. Mods, can we get a sticky or something?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: I need to follow many different projects. Any tips to stay organized? For reasons, I'm finding myself having to do a large bunch of different, non-overlapping things in the next few months. I have to 1. Correct and resubmit a big paper on topic A 2. Prepare a hour long speech for a seminar, on unrelated topic B 3. Help out people that use a certain lab equipment (super easy but time consuming and distracting as they'll call me out of the blue whenever they have issues) 4. Run some analysis on unrelated topic C for a different group 5. Supervise a student on unrelated topic D 6. work on my own project (topic E, unrelated to the previous ones) 7. Being distracted by the usual academic stuff of research (seminars, meetings, safety courses, other meetings, preparing documents) 8. one day a week training on topic F. ​ It's less bad than it seems... But it's really a lot. Also, I'm someone that just can't concentrate to begin with, so keeping swithcing topics tanks my productivity even more. So... Any tips? Do you like follow a schedule on when you're going to work on something and stick to it? Ask people not to call you until a specific time of the day? Smart drugs?
RESPONSE A: An excel spreadsheet sheet might do you wonders with due dates and progress.
RESPONSE B: Try something like Asana? It's pretty neat (and free) and you can use it in a lot of use-cases. I even use it to keep my personal to-dos in check (like grocery lists)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: I need to follow many different projects. Any tips to stay organized? For reasons, I'm finding myself having to do a large bunch of different, non-overlapping things in the next few months. I have to 1. Correct and resubmit a big paper on topic A 2. Prepare a hour long speech for a seminar, on unrelated topic B 3. Help out people that use a certain lab equipment (super easy but time consuming and distracting as they'll call me out of the blue whenever they have issues) 4. Run some analysis on unrelated topic C for a different group 5. Supervise a student on unrelated topic D 6. work on my own project (topic E, unrelated to the previous ones) 7. Being distracted by the usual academic stuff of research (seminars, meetings, safety courses, other meetings, preparing documents) 8. one day a week training on topic F. ​ It's less bad than it seems... But it's really a lot. Also, I'm someone that just can't concentrate to begin with, so keeping swithcing topics tanks my productivity even more. So... Any tips? Do you like follow a schedule on when you're going to work on something and stick to it? Ask people not to call you until a specific time of the day? Smart drugs?
RESPONSE A: An excel spreadsheet sheet might do you wonders with due dates and progress.
RESPONSE B: Check out David Allen's getting things done method it saved my life. Its great to helping you function on a high level.and be stress free and thus capable of functioning even better. While premis is built upon having a organized system to capture things and organize them externally so your head never has to carry anything and you know where any I do, dates, action plans, etc.. things to do can be found. Breaking bug things I to the smallest steps, etc.. I really really recommend it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I need to follow many different projects. Any tips to stay organized? For reasons, I'm finding myself having to do a large bunch of different, non-overlapping things in the next few months. I have to 1. Correct and resubmit a big paper on topic A 2. Prepare a hour long speech for a seminar, on unrelated topic B 3. Help out people that use a certain lab equipment (super easy but time consuming and distracting as they'll call me out of the blue whenever they have issues) 4. Run some analysis on unrelated topic C for a different group 5. Supervise a student on unrelated topic D 6. work on my own project (topic E, unrelated to the previous ones) 7. Being distracted by the usual academic stuff of research (seminars, meetings, safety courses, other meetings, preparing documents) 8. one day a week training on topic F. ​ It's less bad than it seems... But it's really a lot. Also, I'm someone that just can't concentrate to begin with, so keeping swithcing topics tanks my productivity even more. So... Any tips? Do you like follow a schedule on when you're going to work on something and stick to it? Ask people not to call you until a specific time of the day? Smart drugs?
RESPONSE A: Planner apps! Asana, Microsoft Planner, To-do-ist are just a few to start. look up a few and take your pick. I've also used a few if you want more detailed recommendations.
RESPONSE B: An excel spreadsheet sheet might do you wonders with due dates and progress.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How does ancient aliens keep getting reputable people to come on its show? Ancient Aliens has their regular lunatics that come on, like Giorgio Tsoukalos and Erich van Daneken, but you often also come across professors from prestigious places like Stanford, Cardiff, or even MIT who provide interviews for the show. They never say anything that supports the strong version of the claim being made by the show; for example, while Tsoukalos and Daneken are talking about how aliens are bombing humans with viruses, Sara Seager (a professor of planetary sciences at MIT) will talk about the potential for bacterial life on other planets. How does this happen? How do credible, well-respected people end up on a show that is so unscientific and intellectually bankrupt?
RESPONSE A: a l i e n s
RESPONSE B: I don't know how ancient aliens works but when I was in school I had a professor talk about getting invited to be filmed for an interview for a documentary. They didn't say the title but just said they wanted to interview someone about a specific subject. They might not even know they're on Ancient Aliens just that someone wanted an interview about bacterial life on other planets.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How have you stayed motivated during COVID? The title speaks for itself really. I'm a PhD student in the UK and our offices and labs closed before a nationwide lockdown was even imposed. Since then, I've found it hard to stay motivated whilst working from home and my progress is beginning to suffer. It's likely my offices wont open until January 2021, assuming no further lockdown is imposed due to a second wave. Consequently, what do you do to stay motivated and on task while home-working?
RESPONSE A: I am starting a PhD in a few weeks in Canada. Our campus is totally closed until December, so classes, meetings, etc. are all online. And in my research job with the Federal Government, we've been working from home since the start of March and are very restricted in work tools available. March and April were almost a total throw away. I keep telling myself this situation is developing my perseverance and adaptability, which are important skills for academics. And my abilities at innovation as I come up with novel solutions to keep the Statistics course for which I am a TA in September running. That's what I say when I'm feeling optimistic...When I'm not, I just say everything sucks, where's my beer. My mental health has definitely taken a hit, but it's getting better. Hopefully one day I will look back at this and say, damn, I really did that!
RESPONSE B: I have no answers for you, but thanks for posting this question, it makes me feel less alone
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How have you stayed motivated during COVID? The title speaks for itself really. I'm a PhD student in the UK and our offices and labs closed before a nationwide lockdown was even imposed. Since then, I've found it hard to stay motivated whilst working from home and my progress is beginning to suffer. It's likely my offices wont open until January 2021, assuming no further lockdown is imposed due to a second wave. Consequently, what do you do to stay motivated and on task while home-working?
RESPONSE A: I have no answers for you, but thanks for posting this question, it makes me feel less alone
RESPONSE B: I've been super motivated when not reading the news that only gets me more and more cranky. But on my own work, a powerhouse, saying fluckydoodle all to the world and it's hysteria about every little thing and just going forward with my own research and creation. I moved a makeshift office to the brightest room in the house. I work in the back yard with headphones and music. As for going back, that's the big ugh. Between our senior administrations weekly freakouts and just plain wacko new implementations (their latest: boring students with required two weeks of how to do academic work online group meetings that will burn them out before day one), to senior academics making decisions that violate the collective agreement, I'm already at my limit with their nonsense. We're 100% online, labs and all -- since April when they decided. Motivated to get my all online content up? No, not at all. Now we have a new set of government KPI's to follow. Yeah, should be a blast. I'm expecting lots of depression, mental health issues, etc from students, meaning the normally high numbers will increase exponentially.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How to stop assigning worth to yourself on the basis of your performance? Hi all, I am a first year PhD student in a program that is the top... well, it's the number one in my field. For the first time in my life, I am not the best academically among my peers, and in one class I am one of the worst and am even scared of failing it. (We have required classes, so this class is not in the specific area I want to go into.) I have always identified myself as an academic first and foremost, but now I just feel stupid all the time. I know I am "at the bottom of the top" but I don't know how to redefine myself in this way. I feel like I have less worth or something because I am not performing at the top. Advice??
RESPONSE A: You are so much more than just a grade or a GPA. When I lost my 4.0 I was devastated, I felt like I had lost part of who I was. I didn't recover until I came to accept that I am so much more- a daughter, a significant other, a friend, a puzzle solver, etc. Look to other areas of your life to remember how valuable and loved you are, and don't be afraid to ask your friends and loved ones what it is they see in you that makes you so special.
RESPONSE B: You have impostor syndrome. Every grad student gets it. And I mean EVERY grad student gets it, no exception. Even the other kids in the class who you think are so much smarter are feeling the EXACT same thing. The reason for this is that you know a few areas better than other people in the class, they know other areas far better than you. When you speak about the areas you know well, it doesn't seem impressive to you, because you already know this stuff. But trust me, everyone else is freaking out about how you can go on about M-manifolds or Spinozian perspectives on 15th century tapestries.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How does the Political Science, Public Policy or Anthropology PhD job market compare with the job market for Sociology PhDs? I've heard repeatedly about how terrible the job market is for Sociology PhDs. I'm not sure why I hear the most about that one - maybe there are more Sociology PhDs than the other fields? But I'd be curious to hear about how the experiences of people with PhDs in these other fields compare. Is it comparable, better, or worse? (In terms of number of applicants/opening, chances of landing a TT position if you go to a top school. etc.)
RESPONSE A: It's miserable across the board. Some might be slightly less miserable (say, Soc with a CJ leaning), but it's still miserable. If you aren't in a top program in your field, and you aren't kicking ass at it, god help you.
RESPONSE B: I’d say the distinction is more about skill set. Quants (soc or poli sci) have a huge advantage. Also depends on whether you’re talking academic positions or job market generally.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How does the Political Science, Public Policy or Anthropology PhD job market compare with the job market for Sociology PhDs? I've heard repeatedly about how terrible the job market is for Sociology PhDs. I'm not sure why I hear the most about that one - maybe there are more Sociology PhDs than the other fields? But I'd be curious to hear about how the experiences of people with PhDs in these other fields compare. Is it comparable, better, or worse? (In terms of number of applicants/opening, chances of landing a TT position if you go to a top school. etc.)
RESPONSE A: Another area all of these could place in is Public Health. Im a quant that tends to work on the more behavioral and social science sides of public health, and I’ve had colleagues with all these degrees.
RESPONSE B: It's miserable across the board. Some might be slightly less miserable (say, Soc with a CJ leaning), but it's still miserable. If you aren't in a top program in your field, and you aren't kicking ass at it, god help you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: hear the most about that one - maybe there are more Sociology PhDs than the other fields? But I'd be curious to hear about how the experiences of people with PhDs in these other fields compare. Is it comparable, better, or worse? (In terms of number of applicants/opening, chances of landing a TT position if you go to a top school. etc.)
RESPONSE A: The job market is abysmal no matter the field, honestly. Anthropology in particular is in crisis in academia because it’s often location-focused, and the main association (AAA) has had a few sessions, blog posts, etc. for a few years now questioning the ethics of accepting new PhD cohorts in anthropology when the job prospects in academia are so poor: https://culanth.org/fieldsights/academic-precarity-in-american-anthropology In general, only 7% of job postings are for tenure track assistant professors across all disciplines (including STEM), and nearly 40% of all PhD graduates report no employment when they do the NSF survey. This article from 2016 highlights the issues and the disparities, and the economic downtown and massive budget cuts due to COVID-19 are only going to make it worse: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/04/bad-job-market-phds/479205/ I was lucky to get a tenure track position. Over 200 people applied for my job. I’d heard a position at Dartmouth in digital humanities received over 400 applications. So, it’s a problem across all disciplines, not just the ones you named. Basically, if you want to pursue a PhD, figure out ways you’d be able to translate those skills to industry, but realize that job prospects in industry are also limited. If you really want to see depressing data; look at the results of the Survey of Earned Doctorates in years past. The academic job market is precarious regardless of field.
RESPONSE B: Another area all of these could place in is Public Health. Im a quant that tends to work on the more behavioral and social science sides of public health, and I’ve had colleagues with all these degrees.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Is the job market really that bad? I was talking to a post-doc today (in STEM) and he said there can be over 300 applicants for a single tenure track position. Is this true? I know it's not anything like admissions but isn't that a less than 1% acceptance rate? Apart from high impact publications, what can you do to improve your chances if this is the case?
RESPONSE A: Yes. At our t15 Engineering uni, we got several hundred applicants almost all from Ivies, MIT, Berkeley, Chicago, Caltech, Stanford. During our last interview cycle, we flew in four. None got the job. It’s really tough right now. What you can do? You need to network. You need to know people. Hope your advisor knows people. Most of the people with fresh-Ph.D.s who are getting tenure track jobs these days are there because their advisor knew someone. Like any other career, you must have connections.
RESPONSE B: Depends on the field really. I’m am currently in a small town with a relatively large university that has trouble filling certain spots
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is the job market really that bad? I was talking to a post-doc today (in STEM) and he said there can be over 300 applicants for a single tenure track position. Is this true? I know it's not anything like admissions but isn't that a less than 1% acceptance rate? Apart from high impact publications, what can you do to improve your chances if this is the case?
RESPONSE A: Depends on the field really. I’m am currently in a small town with a relatively large university that has trouble filling certain spots
RESPONSE B: My friend got hired for a very competitive professorship in STEM. Her resume was fantastic- she had several publications, ranging from good journals to the best in the field. But beyond that, she’s just really fucking smart. She’s the best student my age I’d seen, ever, and better than many students and post docs several years her senior. She knew the subject matter like the back of her hand and could easily engage with extremely experienced professors at the top of her field, at least on broad fundamentals and subjects she had worked on. Her defense was less ‘defending’ and more a discussion among equals. That’s what it takes to get into the top programs. I know that’s not exactly what you asked, but everyone else gave you the answers for programs as a whole. I wanted to provide context of who is getting the top jobs. The people that fall even a little short of this are the competition for the next 5-10% and so on. The people applying are extremely good and the fields are very competitive. For reference, this is chemistry, as I imagine it varies a bit based on fields.
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.