label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
A
|
POST: Have you seen academia improve? We all know academia’s failings. It’s toxic, everyone’s mental health is awful, what even is work-life balance? Overwork is expected and burnout is inevitable. There’s a conversation happening and I know that there are people working to improve things. I think the pandemic has also laid bare some issues and possibly spurred some changes for the long run. And I want things to get better. We all deserve better. So, I’m thinking of joining a DEI committee at my institution. BUT I’m cynical about actually making a change. I feel like there’s so much bureaucracy and so many institutional problems that all of the things that we could get done, won’t. So here’s my question: has any of it worked? All the DEI committees, papers published about mental health in academia, grad student unions etc. Has the academic environment improved? Are we seeing a change? If so, what has worked? If not– what needs to be done so that change can happen?
RESPONSE A: I’m sure I’ll get downvoted for this, but it always surprises me when people say these things. Part of the reason I chose academia was *for* the work-life balance. Sure, if you’re at an Ivy League university, trying to make full there, you’re going to be putting in a lot of work. But for most of us, it seems like the demand are significantly lower than in the non-academic world.
RESPONSE B: What's DEI?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Have you seen academia improve? We all know academia’s failings. It’s toxic, everyone’s mental health is awful, what even is work-life balance? Overwork is expected and burnout is inevitable. There’s a conversation happening and I know that there are people working to improve things. I think the pandemic has also laid bare some issues and possibly spurred some changes for the long run. And I want things to get better. We all deserve better. So, I’m thinking of joining a DEI committee at my institution. BUT I’m cynical about actually making a change. I feel like there’s so much bureaucracy and so many institutional problems that all of the things that we could get done, won’t. So here’s my question: has any of it worked? All the DEI committees, papers published about mental health in academia, grad student unions etc. Has the academic environment improved? Are we seeing a change? If so, what has worked? If not– what needs to be done so that change can happen?
RESPONSE A: Can’t speak for anyone else. I haven’t been in academia all that long. About a decade. But I will say that for me the only really tangible difference I have seen is when we’d get a new dean. On dean 4 now and each one makes a huge difference in the environment. So for me that’s the only thing I’ve noticed that really makes a big change. Not to say that others don’t just it might be happening in the background and I can’t tell.
RESPONSE B: No, the fixed-term contracts used for postdocs are still as exploitative as ever.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Handling conflicts of interest on search committees? This isn't an actual situation (yet), but a hypothetical I've been thinking about. We've recently had a member of our musicology faculty announce their retirement and it's likely that a search for their replacement will be conducted next academic year. I have a sibling who is finishing their Ph.D in the same field and would almost certainly apply for our position. It got me thinking: were I to be appointed to the search committee for the new position, and I knew that my sibling was applying for the job, would it be a big enough conflict of interest for me to have to do something, whether it's just informing the director or recusing myself from their application/interview (or the committee itself)? If you've conducted/chaired a search, has anything like this happened, and what was your department's response -- or yours?
RESPONSE A: \> It got me thinking: were I to be appointed to the search committee for the new position, and I knew that my sibling was applying for the job, would it be a big enough conflict of interest for me to have to do something Absolutely! Our school doesn't specifically ask about this, but it would clearly not be appropriate to keep this information to yourself. As we tell the students who ask questions, ask the person in charge if you're unsure.
RESPONSE B: You would be wise to declare if that person were to apply and you'd probably be wise to remove yourself from the committee, or HR after seeing the conflict would remove you. It would be perceptually horrible for you to be on that committee in any way.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: , but my entire 15+ years career is in the area of my current research). Things picked up and I decided to apply for a PhD program and I have no idea what it's like to be an older student in the USA. I'd love to hear accounts from other people like me, from the US preferentially but anywhere is fine, if you feel like sharing. Cheers!
RESPONSE A: I went to grad school when I was 35 after working full time for 9 years. I gotta say my professional work experience and age has really helped me mentally and organizationally navigate the difficulties suffered by many grad students. No one really will ever give you any crap about your age, unless you choose to make your age a key facet of your differentiation as a means of keeping yourself separate. Whereas if you treat everyone like a peer, they'll treat you like a peer as well.
RESPONSE B: I am early 40s, F, in a PhD program in Canada. For me personally the interactions with other students are mostly awkward because I can't relate to them at all. The undergrads are in their early or mid 20s and when I look at them I think back to when I was that age and feel nostalgic which highlights the age difference. Luckily there is one person over 30, and she's ok. Like scientfichuman I just keep to myself and try to avoid talking or interacting with anyone. That's fine for me because i'm quite introverted anyway, plus i do have a couple of very interesting friends my age outside of school. As a 40-something I'm just not really interested in hanging out with 20-somethings. I guess it does get pretty damn lonely at times, but whatever, the coursework year is almost over and then I will be in the books and away from it all most of the time. On the positive side, at my age I feel hella fortunate for having the chance to be in school. The young people are so damn smart, and I learn so much from my classmates and profs. I do feel truly privileged to be in the position where I can be in school at my age. GOOD LUCK to you! It will be fine. Just try to find some friends more around your age to counter the loneliness.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Positive experiences with PhD/Academia? Hi! I'm a grad student, planning on doing a PhD. Whenever I tallk to my friends who do/have done PhDs they often tell me the experience made them miserable. Most of them abandoned the project of an academic career afterwards. Likewise, my Facebook feed is saturated with with those "Shit Academics Say" types of pages, rife with self-deprecating humor and grim jokes about depression and burn-outs. I guess my question is: Is it really all there is? I think I need to hear more positive experiences as well so that I can have a more balanced view of what academia entails, especially during the precarious PhD years.
RESPONSE A: I’ve never been happier because I’m living my dream and being challenged everyday! There are always going to be people who either are miserable or love it in any field :) It might seem like there are a lot of people complaining, but that’s because there’s a bit of a bias — where people who aren’t happy will likely complain, whereas there isn’t particular reason to vocalize whether you’re satisfied/content.
RESPONSE B: Those Facebook sites -- and this subreddit, to some degree -- are similar to Yelp. People who have a great time are FAR less likely to comment on it than whiners with an axe to grind.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Positive experiences with PhD/Academia? Hi! I'm a grad student, planning on doing a PhD. Whenever I tallk to my friends who do/have done PhDs they often tell me the experience made them miserable. Most of them abandoned the project of an academic career afterwards. Likewise, my Facebook feed is saturated with with those "Shit Academics Say" types of pages, rife with self-deprecating humor and grim jokes about depression and burn-outs. I guess my question is: Is it really all there is? I think I need to hear more positive experiences as well so that I can have a more balanced view of what academia entails, especially during the precarious PhD years.
RESPONSE A: Those Facebook sites -- and this subreddit, to some degree -- are similar to Yelp. People who have a great time are FAR less likely to comment on it than whiners with an axe to grind.
RESPONSE B: I met one of my very best friends in the programs. Neither of us probably would have made it without the other. And I agree, the freedom of the job is incredible.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Is it ill-advised to cite a few sources in my PhD personal statement? A crux of the work I want to do while pursuing my PhD is intergenerational mobility and poverty in the U.S. I'd like to be able to write about the urgency of these problems using a few stats/statements found from other sources. I don't want to say "the U.S. has the third highest income gap in the world" and have statement readers wonder whether this is just speculation or fact. So, is it weird to have footnotes or something in my statement?
RESPONSE A: Consider incorporating the sources into the narrative ("According to xxx, in 2013 the U.S. had the third highest income gap", I read xxx or took xxx class and was surprised by xxx and the urgency of xxx, etc)
RESPONSE B: I did and got into lots of great programs. My statement was focused on my research interests and I found it hard to detail my interests without citing some of the major papers in my field that I wanted to build on.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Shortage of PhDs applying for STEM postdocs? I am currently a senior PhD student in STEM, specifically biochem/molecular bio. Recently both my PI and I have been to conferences where it seemed everyone was advertising postdoc positions in their labs. My PI also said that in talking to other PIs it seems like there are fewer PhDs applying for postdocs. Is this true? If yes, is it a side effect of the pandemic manifesting now? Or is my generation just much more discouraged by academia and more prone to pursue another career path?
RESPONSE A: The post doc machine is really not for most people. It just took us this long to realize it.
RESPONSE B: yes, i think less of my classmates feel an academia job is not attainable (too crowded) and, besides biotech allowing PhD to job hiring, the industry, finance, and tech sectors hire STEM PhDs and give excellent career growth. Except for preparation for a career in academia, not sure a postdoc helps: on the hook to publish time-consuming journal papers, demanding hours for little pay, may not place in TT-job/postdoc may drag on past 2 years.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Shortage of PhDs applying for STEM postdocs? I am currently a senior PhD student in STEM, specifically biochem/molecular bio. Recently both my PI and I have been to conferences where it seemed everyone was advertising postdoc positions in their labs. My PI also said that in talking to other PIs it seems like there are fewer PhDs applying for postdocs. Is this true? If yes, is it a side effect of the pandemic manifesting now? Or is my generation just much more discouraged by academia and more prone to pursue another career path?
RESPONSE A: I wonder if any international travel/visa restriction is still in effect? I know a lot of labs rely on international postdocs, and traveling internationally for work is just appealing to many people anymore because of the difficulty with all the restrictions.
RESPONSE B: The post doc machine is really not for most people. It just took us this long to realize it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Shortage of PhDs applying for STEM postdocs? I am currently a senior PhD student in STEM, specifically biochem/molecular bio. Recently both my PI and I have been to conferences where it seemed everyone was advertising postdoc positions in their labs. My PI also said that in talking to other PIs it seems like there are fewer PhDs applying for postdocs. Is this true? If yes, is it a side effect of the pandemic manifesting now? Or is my generation just much more discouraged by academia and more prone to pursue another career path?
RESPONSE A: From my PhD cohort (biomedical sciences, class of 2010, in a big biotech hub), very few stayed in academia after graduation. Many went into biotech, consulting, etc. And this trend has been continuing for the subsequent years as well.
RESPONSE B: The post doc machine is really not for most people. It just took us this long to realize it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Shortage of PhDs applying for STEM postdocs? I am currently a senior PhD student in STEM, specifically biochem/molecular bio. Recently both my PI and I have been to conferences where it seemed everyone was advertising postdoc positions in their labs. My PI also said that in talking to other PIs it seems like there are fewer PhDs applying for postdocs. Is this true? If yes, is it a side effect of the pandemic manifesting now? Or is my generation just much more discouraged by academia and more prone to pursue another career path?
RESPONSE A: I’m not sure people want to potentially put their life on hold after what’s happened during these last two years. A postdoc is temporary. It’s hard to develop roots or buy a house (unlikely now that housing prices are up) in your new city if you and others know you will likely have to move in a few years. For many who find it hard to connect with people or date, starting over multiple times is painful. Personally speaking, I hadn’t hugged anyone at one point for two years.
RESPONSE B: I got my PhD 20 years ago, and have seen constant ads for post docs at every conference. So this doesn't seem new to me. I also got offers to come be a post doc from everywhere I applied.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Shortage of PhDs applying for STEM postdocs? I am currently a senior PhD student in STEM, specifically biochem/molecular bio. Recently both my PI and I have been to conferences where it seemed everyone was advertising postdoc positions in their labs. My PI also said that in talking to other PIs it seems like there are fewer PhDs applying for postdocs. Is this true? If yes, is it a side effect of the pandemic manifesting now? Or is my generation just much more discouraged by academia and more prone to pursue another career path?
RESPONSE A: I got my PhD 20 years ago, and have seen constant ads for post docs at every conference. So this doesn't seem new to me. I also got offers to come be a post doc from everywhere I applied.
RESPONSE B: I've been in academia long enough (15y) so I can say that i never seen it as eroded as it is right now. Lack of support, not clear career path, fewer and fewer permanent positions, the universites are in the hippe of looking for the flashy PI rather than good science, and let's not talk about funding. In short too many red tapes, and a very toxic environment makes difficult for people to stay in academia. PhD are leaving to industry, where the life/work balance is better, the career path is clearer and the pay is better. Sadly is not big brainer. Hell, myself as a permanent PI I'm looking for industry.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is it a good idea to go into psychedelic research? I am a senior psychology student. I love research so my long term goal is to earn my PhD. My favorite areas of psychology are cognition and psychopharmacology and I have been reading a lot about the budding field of psychedelic research. It’s a topic I find very interesting and I would love to pursue it but I’m unsure if it’s a good idea. My biggest questions are. 1) Are there enough research opportunities out there for this kind of research or are the regulations very limiting? 2) Does this seem like a promising area of research to go into or do you think it’s a fad? 3) will profesor take me seriously if I consult them about this? (I’ve been avoiding going to advisors etc, because I feel like it’s too tabu of a topic)
RESPONSE A: Contact researchers whose papers you have read. Ask them questions like this, as well as questions about the field!
RESPONSE B: https://maps.org Start there. Note that there are thousands of people who are 'interested' in this, and lots of flakes who aren't cut out for serious, rigorous, underfunded, stigmatized research. But it is possible.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Is academia the right choice for me if I don't like writing? Hi all, As a PhD student, I just realized how much of the academic job is writing. I didnt know about the huge role of writing before applying because as an undergrad you do mostly the cool stuff and very little of the writing. As an undergrad and early grad, you do the fun part: thinking about experiments, conducting them, analyzing data, reading, learning. But now after a few years, most of the work is writing papers and I dread it. I love investigating, I hate writing it down or communicating about it. Plus, it seems the higher up in your career, the more writing you do (e.g. papers, grants) and the less you participate in the fun stuff (e.g. analyzing data). Now I am unsure whether I should pursue the academic career and what I should do after I finish my PhD
RESPONSE A: To quote How To Write A Lot: no one likes writing. Everyone likes having written.
RESPONSE B: No
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is academia the right choice for me if I don't like writing? Hi all, As a PhD student, I just realized how much of the academic job is writing. I didnt know about the huge role of writing before applying because as an undergrad you do mostly the cool stuff and very little of the writing. As an undergrad and early grad, you do the fun part: thinking about experiments, conducting them, analyzing data, reading, learning. But now after a few years, most of the work is writing papers and I dread it. I love investigating, I hate writing it down or communicating about it. Plus, it seems the higher up in your career, the more writing you do (e.g. papers, grants) and the less you participate in the fun stuff (e.g. analyzing data). Now I am unsure whether I should pursue the academic career and what I should do after I finish my PhD
RESPONSE A: No
RESPONSE B: If you don’t communicate your science, you are engaged in a hobby.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How ruthless do you have to be to succeed in academia? Especially in top schools? I hope this was the correct place to post the question. The question is more towards top schools such as Ivy League/Oxbridge. How much work do you actually need to do to succeed in academia? There are people who live and breathe their subjects and are only doing that from the moment they wake up to the moment they go to sleep - is it actually that way if you want to be the best?
RESPONSE A: I would say the “ruthless” aspect of academia stems from the cutthroat nature that is encountered from time to time. Professors who tend to be more ruthless and less friendly tend to be more administrative focused than research focused IMHO.
RESPONSE B: I'm at Berkeley, which is a top school for what I do and I would definitely say I do NOT live and breathe my work by any stretch of the word. I don't feel like I need to be ruthless. I love my cohort and we all help one another out with things as often as possible, and also spend plenty of time doing things other than work.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How ruthless do you have to be to succeed in academia? Especially in top schools? I hope this was the correct place to post the question. The question is more towards top schools such as Ivy League/Oxbridge. How much work do you actually need to do to succeed in academia? There are people who live and breathe their subjects and are only doing that from the moment they wake up to the moment they go to sleep - is it actually that way if you want to be the best?
RESPONSE A: Single-minded focus of the kind you describe -- "living and breathing a subject" -- can be useful for succeeding in graduate school and early on as a postdoc or assistant professor. But in my experience, a wider administrative and interpersonal suite of skills is required to thrive at later career stages. Developing these skills early on is one way to both get ahead and to prepare for a well-rounded and healthy career once you're in a permanent post.
RESPONSE B: I'm at Berkeley, which is a top school for what I do and I would definitely say I do NOT live and breathe my work by any stretch of the word. I don't feel like I need to be ruthless. I love my cohort and we all help one another out with things as often as possible, and also spend plenty of time doing things other than work.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How ruthless do you have to be to succeed in academia? Especially in top schools? I hope this was the correct place to post the question. The question is more towards top schools such as Ivy League/Oxbridge. How much work do you actually need to do to succeed in academia? There are people who live and breathe their subjects and are only doing that from the moment they wake up to the moment they go to sleep - is it actually that way if you want to be the best?
RESPONSE A: I’d say things are moderately ruthless. I’ve been to two Ivies in biophysics and chemistry, and experienced both sides; people being supportive of others in their own groups and collaborative with other groups, and also scooping and competition with groups at other institutions, some arguing between assistant professors about corresponding authorship or order of authorship on papers. From what I see, the people who eat, sleep, and live their work burn out pretty quick. Work life balance is encouraged, but working less than 10 hrs a day/at least 6 days a week, is almost seen as slacking off. If you find a good advisor, focus and work hard, you’ll be just fine.
RESPONSE B: I'm at Berkeley, which is a top school for what I do and I would definitely say I do NOT live and breathe my work by any stretch of the word. I don't feel like I need to be ruthless. I love my cohort and we all help one another out with things as often as possible, and also spend plenty of time doing things other than work.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How ruthless do you have to be to succeed in academia? Especially in top schools? I hope this was the correct place to post the question. The question is more towards top schools such as Ivy League/Oxbridge. How much work do you actually need to do to succeed in academia? There are people who live and breathe their subjects and are only doing that from the moment they wake up to the moment they go to sleep - is it actually that way if you want to be the best?
RESPONSE A: I'm at Berkeley, which is a top school for what I do and I would definitely say I do NOT live and breathe my work by any stretch of the word. I don't feel like I need to be ruthless. I love my cohort and we all help one another out with things as often as possible, and also spend plenty of time doing things other than work.
RESPONSE B: As others have said, it's not so much ruthless as it is passionate. The ones who really are ruthless earn reputations and people don't like working with them.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How ruthless do you have to be to succeed in academia? Especially in top schools? I hope this was the correct place to post the question. The question is more towards top schools such as Ivy League/Oxbridge. How much work do you actually need to do to succeed in academia? There are people who live and breathe their subjects and are only doing that from the moment they wake up to the moment they go to sleep - is it actually that way if you want to be the best?
RESPONSE A: I would say the “ruthless” aspect of academia stems from the cutthroat nature that is encountered from time to time. Professors who tend to be more ruthless and less friendly tend to be more administrative focused than research focused IMHO.
RESPONSE B: I went to Oxford, Stanford and Princeton in the humanities. Ruthlessness won’t get you anywhere. Luck, networking, obsessiveness, willingness to indulge pathological cultures of work might help. But in truth nothing helps, since on a case by case basis each decision looks arbitrary. Also, mad props to the administrative class for making academics talk and fret about ruthlessness to oneanother! Actual lol. Finally, academia as you phrase it doesn’t exist “in top schools”. The question is put in such a way that I wonder whether you’ve thought very much about your motivations for doing the work and what, precisely, you imagine will happen when you arrive at - let alone succeed at!- a Top School ™
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: the offer was binding. I have now applied for the job formally as they told me to. Recently I enquired about the status and according to them the evaluation of applications will be concluded next week and I was also told that I am in a very good position. I know now that I should avoid this kind of practice, but I am in it already, and what I fear finally comes. Does 'a very good position' mean that there is a possibility that I will not get the job? What should I do if it turns out that I do not get the job in the end? Can I even start applying for other jobs now or should I wait till next week? The problem is that my current contract ends this month and I have to leave the country next month. I have a family to feed and to provide a home for.
RESPONSE A: > ...as I understood that my acceptance of the offer was binding. It sounds like you thought (your acceptance of) the offer was binding, but the university did not. If they thought it was binding, they would have been willing to back that up with a formal written offer, leading to a signed and approved contract. The lesson to take away is that, until you have that formal written offer, you are _not_ bound to anything. I can't tell you whether applying for other jobs is a _smart_ thing to do in your situation, but without a formal offer, you're not committed to work at the university in question, so you _could_ do it.
RESPONSE B: Well, sorry to tell you this, but you are kind of screwed. I have had to decline a verbal offer that was about 15% higher than my next best offer because the university that extended the verbal offer told me that there is no way they were going to put a written contract in my hands by their deadline for me. (in hindsight, I wound up in a much better place, but this is beyond the point). The university seemed to be making the offer in good faith, but did not have their act together, and all legal and common sense advice I was getting was to not stop my other job search activities. The rule has always been, "get in in writing", otherwise all sorts of things may happen.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How far does being sociable/authentic/“normal” go in academia as far as being respected, getting quality positions, and being successful?
RESPONSE A: Having a good personality alone won't get you an interview, but it may get your CV taken out of the stack and looked at by the hiring committee. Having a good personality alone won't get you a callback after your screening interview, but it may help a lot. Having a good personality MAY be the deciding factor on whether you get an offer after your callback and how you're ranked compared to the other finalists, assuming you didn't blow your job talk, get drunk during dinner, or something else like that. I've never seen someone get a position based on their good personality alone, but I have seen many cases of people not getting a position because of negative personality issues (they had a difficult time talking to female faculty members, they didn't make eye contact with anyone, they seemed bored, they were arrogant, etc.). More commonly, being well-liked by people on the faculty means that people get more highly ranked as finalists and thus more likely to get an offer. People on faculties are often colleagues for decades, so everyone worries about hiring someone that's going to wind up being awful to work with.
RESPONSE B: It goes a long way in any field. However, you can be a complete asshole with a few good publications and get a job over the nicest person on the planet. That’s just how academia works - when you get down to it ... only pubs matter. Edit: I guess I need to clarify that this is for research institutions... I don’t have any experience with community colleges and teaching schools.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How far does being sociable/authentic/“normal” go in academia as far as being respected, getting quality positions, and being successful?
RESPONSE A: It goes a long way in any field. However, you can be a complete asshole with a few good publications and get a job over the nicest person on the planet. That’s just how academia works - when you get down to it ... only pubs matter. Edit: I guess I need to clarify that this is for research institutions... I don’t have any experience with community colleges and teaching schools.
RESPONSE B: It makes a huge difference once you land the on-campus interview, because faculty are going to "vote" for those whom they like. Of course, you still have to maintain their respect by giving a good job talk and otherwise showing that you're competent.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How do I access the reading lists of a university in order to get the equivalent of an undergraduate education? Having lived most of my youth in a poor country during economically difficult times means that the idea of attending university wouldn't have made sense to me in my 20s. (It would be like deciding one day to sell your home to build a gigantic statue of Obama.) Now that I am older and financially stable, I would like to make some time for study. It is in some ways a check off the old bucket list. I know of the existence of open courses, and I have listened to them for two years now when I commute to work. The problem I have is that the courses are often just introductory lectures, covering topics on a very superficial level, I want some more meat. Is there a way I can access the reading lists of this or that university in order to have the equivalent of an undergraduate education?
RESPONSE A: If there is a particular course or professor you're interested in, look up their course website and find the syllabus. Unless they're huge courses with standardized material (chemistry, math, for example), I feel like course book selection is generally at the professor's discretion.
RESPONSE B: Unfortunately, reading, on its own, will not provide the equivalent of an education. You want to complement reading with exploration/investigation/interrogation of the ideas presented therein. Gaining facility with critical inquiry is equally as important, as is improved communication with one's colleagues etc.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why isn't dissertation (PhD) considered peer-reviewed? You have a committee that reviews your work. It feels like dissertation is the only work that is peer-reviewed for an extended amount of time.
RESPONSE A: Of my five committee members, I think only one actually read my thesis. That one was not my PI. (I’m science, so they were kept abreast of all my work, they just didn’t read it.)
RESPONSE B: It is considered peer reviewed but it is not considered of the same quality/rigour as a peer reviewed journal article. There are other sources like reports or certain book chapters that go through “peer review” (I’m working on some now) but these are not double blind. Journals are not perfect but there are rigorous processes at play that aren’t in dissertations or other peer review processes
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why isn't dissertation (PhD) considered peer-reviewed? You have a committee that reviews your work. It feels like dissertation is the only work that is peer-reviewed for an extended amount of time.
RESPONSE A: Of my five committee members, I think only one actually read my thesis. That one was not my PI. (I’m science, so they were kept abreast of all my work, they just didn’t read it.)
RESPONSE B: I see a dis less as publishable thing and more that the candidate did all we agreed on at the proposal. Eg. The student did the study as proposed but nothing too interesting came from it. In the case where the results are awesome, then it could be publishable but I’d be my CV pickier for a journal.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Why isn't dissertation (PhD) considered peer-reviewed? You have a committee that reviews your work. It feels like dissertation is the only work that is peer-reviewed for an extended amount of time.
RESPONSE A: They are peer reviewed, but are only one step above the gray literature. The reason being that the review process itself is not considered impartial. In many places you or your advisor can choose your committee members, your advisor is a part of the committee, and the process is not blinded at all. Finally, the members may have a vested interest in seeing you publish.
RESPONSE B: I see a dis less as publishable thing and more that the candidate did all we agreed on at the proposal. Eg. The student did the study as proposed but nothing too interesting came from it. In the case where the results are awesome, then it could be publishable but I’d be my CV pickier for a journal.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What did you wish you knew/did before or at the start of your dissertation? I'm near the end of my second year of university and already writing up my proposal for my BSc dissertation. Mine will be a dissertation (desk study) and not a project as it's not possible for me to do field/lab work. What tips have you got or what things did you wish you knew at this kind of stage or what things do you wish you starting doing from this point? Also, I have to hand in a 2000 word critical literature review in by November which will be the first chapter of my dissertation. So I'll be writing that over the summer. I've already got a project notebook and will organise it with everything so far as well as complete my proposal which goes towards the marks for the unit. I'm guessing that keeping organised is a major thing... Thanks :)
RESPONSE A: Using citation software is a great help, wish I new this earlier!
RESPONSE B: Learn how to use LaTeX. Nothing makes things easier. For a friendly face try out LyX, which has good integration for BibTeX (bibliography management). Also if you need to make cartoons/diagrams check out inkscape.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Can I publish a paper without paying any money? Hi, I am a Phd student in computer science and Mathematics department. I was wondering if there is any referenced journals to publish my work without paying money for it as I am short on finance and there is no support from the University Thank you for your help
RESPONSE A: You're going need to check to the submission information for each journal yourself. I'm in a different field, but in my experience it usually only costs money to publish in open access journals. My university also has funds available to support open access publishing.
RESPONSE B: If you are paying to publish in comp sci or mathematics, you're doing it wrong. Talk to your supervisor to ask which journals would be most appropriate for your work.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Can I publish a paper without paying any money? Hi, I am a Phd student in computer science and Mathematics department. I was wondering if there is any referenced journals to publish my work without paying money for it as I am short on finance and there is no support from the University Thank you for your help
RESPONSE A: Where do you go to university? What journals are you looking at? I work in your field and I promise you’re wrong about fees. You should not be publishing in journals that charge you to publish. They are almost exclusively predatory or journals of low repute. Some journals charge excess page fees, but that’s usually only if you’re paper is longer than their desired length. You should also look at conferences, which in our field are peer-reviewed and as important (if not more!) than journals. Conferences charge attendance fees, but that’s very different than a publishing fee. If you can’t get the attendance fee covered by your university, you can apply for scholarships and similar to cover the costs. Try looking at: - International Journal of Data Science and Analytics - International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics - International Conference on Data Science and Information Technology - ACS/IEEE International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications Those are ones that immediately come to mind that are data science specific. However you should also look at publishing in conferences and journals about artificial intelligence, databases, and other fields related to your work. If you do data science work based in another field like political science, logistics, urban planning, etc. you should publish work in journals and conferences in those fields as well.
RESPONSE B: Many journals will allow hardship waivers for their publication fees. Everything is negotiable.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Can I publish a paper without paying any money? Hi, I am a Phd student in computer science and Mathematics department. I was wondering if there is any referenced journals to publish my work without paying money for it as I am short on finance and there is no support from the University Thank you for your help
RESPONSE A: Many journals will allow hardship waivers for their publication fees. Everything is negotiable.
RESPONSE B: I'm in math/CS, been publishing for 20 years, and I've never run across a reputable journal in my field that charges a fee. Just look for a decent journal that fits your work. If it charges a fee (which is unlikely), then look at another. Also, I'm wondering why you're not asking your advisor this question.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Should we include a cancelled fellowship/program in our CVs and resumes? Hi all. As expected, COVID-19 has taken a huge toll on my professional plans for the latter part of the year. I was granted a research assignment at the University of Auckland in New Zealand but it was abruptly cancelled due to strict flight restrictions. My SO, who was also awarded a position at a sociology lab, had her offer rescinded as the lab will be closed for a remainder of the year. We both worked very hard to get these positions. Would it be wrong to still include these in our CVs? I'm curious to see what other academics are doing under these confusing circumstances.
RESPONSE A: Did you visit the campus at any point and give a talk or anything? I had to decline a position in a good institution overseas just before COVID due to a very sick family member and whilst I haven't put in my CV that I was offered the position I listed my talk at the campus as one of my oral presentations. That way if I am asked about it at interview I can explain my circumstances.
RESPONSE B: While not a fellowship, I had two conference presentations cancelled due to COVID 19. I have an asterisk and explanation at the end of my CV/ resume that just says "accepted but not presented due to COVID 19." No harm in including it, as long as you qualify it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Essential bookgas for academia (job hunt, grant writing, publishing, etc)? What books do folks here recommend regarding the institutional aspects of academia (as opposed to the more discipline specific ones)? I'm particularly looking for good resources on academic job searches/career advice, grant writing, thesis writing, and manuscript writing. Thanks.
RESPONSE A: "Professors as Writers" - my favorite book. It helped me a ton and I've loaned it to other friends that were struggling. "Grant Application Writers Handbook" - I believe this is the book my boss is having us work from now as we collaborate, but I've been working from photocopies so I'm only 85% certain it's the book. It's really really useful so far!
RESPONSE B: For advice on finding an academic position read The Professor Is In: The Essential Guide To Turning Your Ph.D. Into a Job. Also check out the authors blog.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Critiquing something in the paper when accepting the submission for publication One of the papers that I'm reviewing is overall a good paper (no problems with intro-literature-methods-results sections). However, the overall results are similar to what other studies have found and the implications of the study are very briefly mentioned. I am not certain if this is something that I should mention in the review given that I'm recommending "weak accept". Like the results have limited originality and this isn't something that can be changed. So I'm wondering if I should mention this in the review.
RESPONSE A: I have received a rejection from an editor who cited a reviewer's views saying that although my scientific methods etc were fine, they felt the results and conclusions presented were similar to literature and they didn't feel that my paper added something new to the state-of-the-art. So I suppose it makes sense to point that out if this is how you feel. Depending on the journal this can be from very significant to non-important.
RESPONSE B: Having additional papers/literature show that something done previously does, in fact, work isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Knowing an experiment is reproducible and the results are consistent is just as valuable as “new”/“state-of-the-art” experiments!!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Do professors generally have flexibility in setting class schedules? I'm a graduate student, and I've noticed there are two tenured professors in our department who are married. They've managed to arrange their schedules so that, on any given day of the week, one of them can work from home and deal with the children and household duties while the other is teaching and holding office hours (i.e. academic work that you can't do from home). I believe one comes in Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and the other comes in Tuesdays and Thursdays. This seems like a great arrangement, but I wonder: Does this happen often? For all I know, this could have been pure coincidence, or their situation could have been taken into consideration. Do professors generally have this kind of flexibility when setting class schedules? Or do administrators tell you when you will have class?
RESPONSE A: There are some professors in my department that have this sort of flexibility, but they also have been there a long time so more seniority. There is some flexibility but we also have to consider offering courses on various days and times to accommodate student schedules. So it’s possible, but not necessarily always feasible for the department.
RESPONSE B: Not a prof but in my department the administrators pre-schedule the undergrad course blocks based on demand and classroom availability, and then send each professor the entire selection of courses they are eligible to teach. The professor then gets to submit an order of preference of the blocks and then the courses are assigned somehow based on your seniority and the order of preference. Basically in my dept if you want to teach a course at a certain time that no one more senior than you also wants to teach, then it is guaranteed to be yours. Otherwise the algorithm is within a black box from what they’ve told me.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Do professors generally have flexibility in setting class schedules? I'm a graduate student, and I've noticed there are two tenured professors in our department who are married. They've managed to arrange their schedules so that, on any given day of the week, one of them can work from home and deal with the children and household duties while the other is teaching and holding office hours (i.e. academic work that you can't do from home). I believe one comes in Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and the other comes in Tuesdays and Thursdays. This seems like a great arrangement, but I wonder: Does this happen often? For all I know, this could have been pure coincidence, or their situation could have been taken into consideration. Do professors generally have this kind of flexibility when setting class schedules? Or do administrators tell you when you will have class?
RESPONSE A: There are some professors in my department that have this sort of flexibility, but they also have been there a long time so more seniority. There is some flexibility but we also have to consider offering courses on various days and times to accommodate student schedules. So it’s possible, but not necessarily always feasible for the department.
RESPONSE B: There aren't universal systems for this sort of thing. There are over-riding logistical concerns (facilities, for instance), systems of seniority, interactions with other faculty preferences, etc. Obviously not everyone can get what they want. In the case you describe, two people are working together which probably makes things a bit easier than one person making a special request on their own.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: the years. Every journal paper or proposal I've submitted always returns with at least one, sometimes two reviewers jam-packing their review comments with grandiose adjectives to describe how'shocked', 'appalled', 'offended', or whatever else at how 'incredibly poor' my paper / proposal / general research is. I seem to receive personalized attacks in the review comments of every paper and proposal I've submitted, directed at my credibility with short 'I'm-so-clever' phrases about my incompetence as a researcher and my previous work, and there are too many examples to list. Fortunately, I've survived by the grace of editors and program managers who choose to ignore these people and accept the paper or fund the proposal anyway, usually because of strong positive reviews from other reviewers, but of course this doesn't happen all the time. I do not know of anyone explicitly who considers me a bad researcher, but that doesn't mean they aren't out there. Sure, I'm not in the 'in-crowd' of researchers in my field, but as far as I know I don't have any hostility towards them or them towards me that I can see. When I present at conferences, no one has tried to heckle me during the Q&A or during other meetings. It's just frustrating. I feel like somehow I've dug a hole regarding my reputation somewhere and it's perpetually hindering my research efforts since reputation is capital in academia, as bullshit as that is. A small part of me entertains the possibility that it might be discrimination (during a faculty interview once, one of the interviewing faculty commented that they were surprised at the strength of my record for someone who "came from a race without a history of academic achievement"), but with regards to papers/proposals specifically I don't any evidence to prove that possibility. Do any of you feel similarly?
RESPONSE A: OP is Rupert Sheldrake, right?
RESPONSE B: That "came from a race..." comment is way out of line. I would have made a note of that to the department chair.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: am worried that I have over the years. Every journal paper or proposal I've submitted always returns with at least one, sometimes two reviewers jam-packing their review comments with grandiose adjectives to describe how'shocked', 'appalled', 'offended', or whatever else at how 'incredibly poor' my paper / proposal / general research is. I seem to receive personalized attacks in the review comments of every paper and proposal I've submitted, directed at my credibility with short 'I'm-so-clever' phrases about my incompetence as a researcher and my previous work, and there are too many examples to list. Fortunately, I've survived by the grace of editors and program managers who choose to ignore these people and accept the paper or fund the proposal anyway, usually because of strong positive reviews from other reviewers, but of course this doesn't happen all the time. I do not know of anyone explicitly who considers me a bad researcher, but that doesn't mean they aren't out there. Sure, I'm not in the 'in-crowd' of researchers in my field, but as far as I know I don't have any hostility towards them or them towards me that I can see. When I present at conferences, no one has tried to heckle me during the Q&A or during other meetings. It's just frustrating. I feel like somehow I've dug a hole regarding my reputation somewhere and it's perpetually hindering my research efforts since reputation is capital in academia, as bullshit as that is. A small part of me entertains the possibility that it might be discrimination (during a faculty interview once, one of the interviewing faculty commented that they were surprised at the strength of my record for someone who "came from a race without a history of academic achievement"), but with regards to papers/proposals specifically I don't any evidence to prove that possibility. Do any of you feel similarly?
RESPONSE A: That "came from a race..." comment is way out of line. I would have made a note of that to the department chair.
RESPONSE B: Aren’t the reviews blind
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: to the best of my knowledge). * So how applicable are PhD's in the *day to day activities* in the corporate/career context? * And how much will a PhD value to an employer? For the sake of discussion, since the topic is too general, you might want to talk about your field or take a Business or Economics Doctorate for an example.
RESPONSE A: For humanities and social sciences, neither industry nor academia seem to appreciate the extent to which a PhD can prepare somebody for non-academic work. The mastery of a subject on this scale reflects one's ability to do truly great work in many different avenues. There are parts of academic work that translate well to other jobs, like one's ability to present to a crowd and command a classroom. Certain disciplines are collaborative, which has its applications to corporate work. The typical literature PhD will find that their content training will yield few directly applicable jobs. The publishing industry might appreciate a few insights, though some would probably debate me on that. Of course, humanities degrees like this contribute to one's understanding of self and world in such a way that it yields some rewards that are unquantifiable. The AHA has been promoting the so-called Malleable PhD, pushing history aspiring academics to recognize their usefulness outside of academia. One example given was how much the political world appreciates a history PhD, as they are so rare and suggest a person's ability to understand context in a way most people cannot. Politics is so filled with facts and examples and counterexamples that a person with the kind of mind to be discerning of those things is immensely useful and they are getting great jobs. One thing being discussed throughout the humanities is whether the dissertation as we know it is a worthy project, particularly in cases when the student does not wish to be an academic.
RESPONSE B: Assuming you get a job even remotely related to the field your PHD was in it sure should be applicable and useful to your day to day work. It probably won't be like "Oh I saw this in a textbook" type of applicable, but the skills and methods you learned in the PHD should be applicable. Even knowing how to organize data properly for writing a thesis is very useful.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: high paying position for my area. At the end of 2020, I left my employer and while I took on an IT consulting gig, I decided it was time to try doctoral school again as it was a passion and still is. I received one acceptance with no funding and a letter saying that I would have gotten in if the pandemic hadn't caused the university to lower the number of new candidates. For the acceptance without funding to St. Louis University, I deferred my enrollment and continued with my IT career. In that time frame, I bought new things and took on new debt since I thought it was over. Now.... SLU has funding for me to start my program. At 37... I feel like it is now or never. How do I justify taking a MASSIVE pay cut and ask my wife to become the sole breadwinner while I pursue something I think is my dream? Is it worth it? Am I giving up too much? How do I juggle being a Dad while going to school.. doing an assistantship.. still teaching online courses.. and maybe even do a little consulting to make ends meeting? I still have student loan debt from my first round of college. I keep telling myself that with all of my IT experience, I could easily find another good paying job in the field if it doesn't work out, but the unknown is scary. I'm not even sure what I am asking this community, but I wanted to put it out in the ether that is Reddit... Thanks for reading.
RESPONSE A: I think as long as you have IT to fall back on, and are doing the PhD to do the PhD and not under the false hope that you will get a job with it after, then it should be fine if it's fine with your spouse and family.
RESPONSE B: Don't do it. You can still go to academic conferences, you can still read journal articles, there are loads and loads of amazing lectures online. Heck, start a podcast or a YouTube channel about the area of history you are interested in. Your work life balance, sanity, ability to be a good parent/partner, and financial situation are going to be so much better if you let IT pay the bills and keep history as one of your passions.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: at a nearby community college and have been doing that nearly every semester since 2010. IT has been good to me and I have a high paying position for my area. At the end of 2020, I left my employer and while I took on an IT consulting gig, I decided it was time to try doctoral school again as it was a passion and still is. I received one acceptance with no funding and a letter saying that I would have gotten in if the pandemic hadn't caused the university to lower the number of new candidates. For the acceptance without funding to St. Louis University, I deferred my enrollment and continued with my IT career. In that time frame, I bought new things and took on new debt since I thought it was over. Now.... SLU has funding for me to start my program. At 37... I feel like it is now or never. How do I justify taking a MASSIVE pay cut and ask my wife to become the sole breadwinner while I pursue something I think is my dream? Is it worth it? Am I giving up too much? How do I juggle being a Dad while going to school.. doing an assistantship.. still teaching online courses.. and maybe even do a little consulting to make ends meeting? I still have student loan debt from my first round of college. I keep telling myself that with all of my IT experience, I could easily find another good paying job in the field if it doesn't work out, but the unknown is scary. I'm not even sure what I am asking this community, but I wanted to put it out in the ether that is Reddit... Thanks for reading.
RESPONSE A: Consider also that you can just drop out if you realize it’s not for you. Resist the sunk cost fallacy.
RESPONSE B: Don't do it. You can still go to academic conferences, you can still read journal articles, there are loads and loads of amazing lectures online. Heck, start a podcast or a YouTube channel about the area of history you are interested in. Your work life balance, sanity, ability to be a good parent/partner, and financial situation are going to be so much better if you let IT pay the bills and keep history as one of your passions.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: lower the number of new candidates. For the acceptance without funding to St. Louis University, I deferred my enrollment and continued with my IT career. In that time frame, I bought new things and took on new debt since I thought it was over. Now.... SLU has funding for me to start my program. At 37... I feel like it is now or never. How do I justify taking a MASSIVE pay cut and ask my wife to become the sole breadwinner while I pursue something I think is my dream? Is it worth it? Am I giving up too much? How do I juggle being a Dad while going to school.. doing an assistantship.. still teaching online courses.. and maybe even do a little consulting to make ends meeting? I still have student loan debt from my first round of college. I keep telling myself that with all of my IT experience, I could easily find another good paying job in the field if it doesn't work out, but the unknown is scary. I'm not even sure what I am asking this community, but I wanted to put it out in the ether that is Reddit... Thanks for reading.
RESPONSE A: The only thing making me say you shouldn’t do this is that you would have to “ask your wife to become the sole breadwinner.” Is she comfortable with being that? Does she currently or can she make enough to sustain the family? Do you have family help for the kid(s)? A PhD is a full time job (usually more), and if you try to keep side hustle, you will not be a functioning person or have any pieces of yourself left to give to family. From your post, it seems like this has been a dream since college, and the 2008 bubble probably killed that. However, life is never exactly what you dream it to be, and it’s natural for priorities change. It’s true that at 37 it’s definitely now or never — but is it so bad if it’s never? If the thought of you doing this adds tension to the family instead of alleviates it, don’t do it.
RESPONSE B: Consider also that you can just drop out if you realize it’s not for you. Resist the sunk cost fallacy.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: mindset of "I am the expert on my research" when I am outranked by everybody else in the room I'm presenting to? Is there some trick that I should know? 6) How many of the events at the conference should I be expected to attend? How much break time should I take to myself throughout each day? Any other stuff I should know going in? I know this is long, I really appreciate the time if you have advice.
RESPONSE A: You don’t need to wear makeup if you don’t want to! Just be you, dress business-formal. Lots of women wear blazers with a dress/skirt or pants. Nobody knows your research better than you do. That is the best advice I can give for confidence. As you move through research, you’ll realize this! Even if someone is familiar w your field, you are going to have something that is just different. Whether that’s a method, outcome, or general perspective. You did the work, you know your stuff. Nerves are normal. I always have them beforehand, even still, then once I’m talking about my topic I’m totally at ease and confident. If it helps, don’t look directly at people - look past them. Or, find people in the crowd who are nodding in agreement. The way I see it, nerves mean I’m still interested in presenting myself and my work in the best way possible. A lot of my personal strategy for dealing with anxiety is accepting how I feel that very moment and trying put a positive light on it in order to work with the emotions rather than against. For me, the nerves now are more along the lines of excitement. Conferences and lectures haven’t become routine or mundane for me. Instead, I’m still very excited to share my research and learn from others. Maybe the day I stop feeling nervous is the day I stop 🤷🏼♀️
RESPONSE B: I'll just say this: most of the conference presentations I've seen by top scholars in my field generally suck. Conferencing ability does not equal intelligence. If it's one of your firsts, then just observe and try and be comfortable. The conference police will not come and issue you a citation for doing stuff wrong.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I actually want to do. When I look at the day to day lives of top professors in my field, I realise this is not a life I want. I don't want to teach, manage, or do any paperwork whatsoever. I just want to work on my research. It seems crazy to follow a career path (a very demanding and competitive one at that) where the end goal is a life I don't actually want. I still want to do my research though, and all I need to do so is money. So I have been thinking more and more seriously about quitting academia and looking for part time work that pays well enough for me to spend half my time focused solely on the research I love. I have good relationships with people in my field and I doubt doing so would harm any of my collaborations. Is this a crazy idea? Has anyone else followed this path? I would love to hear about your experiences if so.
RESPONSE A: If you treat the non-research part of your current position as this hypothetical 'part time work' - do you think it currently takes up a greater percentage of your day-to-day than an entirely separate, independent job at some company would? A part-time job also often comes with lots of additional overhead: scheduling, training, performance reviews, travelling, queries on work-phone, mental distraction by doing work totally unrelated to your research, and so on. For example on that last point, the admin of writing grant applications can certainly be beneficial time spent viewing and planning your research at a higher level. Maybe you will find you've even less time to allocate to research?
RESPONSE B: There's a reason people don't do this. It's that it doesn't actually work. To live a good life you still need to make money somehow. Any job that earns you sufficient money to live comfortably will drain you far too much to allow you to still not only keep up with research but also stay in contact with other researchers and come up with and publish new findings. All of this is stuff you get paid for and is part of your job as an academic. The fact is you won't do these things if you are working enough to make a living in a completely unrelated job. You may think you will but you won't.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: progression within academia will only lead me deeper into this administrative swamp and further from the research I actually want to do. When I look at the day to day lives of top professors in my field, I realise this is not a life I want. I don't want to teach, manage, or do any paperwork whatsoever. I just want to work on my research. It seems crazy to follow a career path (a very demanding and competitive one at that) where the end goal is a life I don't actually want. I still want to do my research though, and all I need to do so is money. So I have been thinking more and more seriously about quitting academia and looking for part time work that pays well enough for me to spend half my time focused solely on the research I love. I have good relationships with people in my field and I doubt doing so would harm any of my collaborations. Is this a crazy idea? Has anyone else followed this path? I would love to hear about your experiences if so.
RESPONSE A: > And all I need to do so is money. Yeah, that’s the problem: basically whatever you do to earn money enough to survive will take over whatever time you imagine you’ll have for research. While I think someone like Julian Barbour (sp?) has managed what you’re talking about, the academy provides a lot of the resources etc. you’ll need to do the work you seem to want to do. Getting a whole other desk job or something will absorb all that time without providing any of the resources you’ll need. Just things to consider— best of luck!
RESPONSE B: If you treat the non-research part of your current position as this hypothetical 'part time work' - do you think it currently takes up a greater percentage of your day-to-day than an entirely separate, independent job at some company would? A part-time job also often comes with lots of additional overhead: scheduling, training, performance reviews, travelling, queries on work-phone, mental distraction by doing work totally unrelated to your research, and so on. For example on that last point, the admin of writing grant applications can certainly be beneficial time spent viewing and planning your research at a higher level. Maybe you will find you've even less time to allocate to research?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: at the day to day lives of top professors in my field, I realise this is not a life I want. I don't want to teach, manage, or do any paperwork whatsoever. I just want to work on my research. It seems crazy to follow a career path (a very demanding and competitive one at that) where the end goal is a life I don't actually want. I still want to do my research though, and all I need to do so is money. So I have been thinking more and more seriously about quitting academia and looking for part time work that pays well enough for me to spend half my time focused solely on the research I love. I have good relationships with people in my field and I doubt doing so would harm any of my collaborations. Is this a crazy idea? Has anyone else followed this path? I would love to hear about your experiences if so.
RESPONSE A: If you treat the non-research part of your current position as this hypothetical 'part time work' - do you think it currently takes up a greater percentage of your day-to-day than an entirely separate, independent job at some company would? A part-time job also often comes with lots of additional overhead: scheduling, training, performance reviews, travelling, queries on work-phone, mental distraction by doing work totally unrelated to your research, and so on. For example on that last point, the admin of writing grant applications can certainly be beneficial time spent viewing and planning your research at a higher level. Maybe you will find you've even less time to allocate to research?
RESPONSE B: Well, it depends on track (in UK at least). You have R, T and R+T. I'm R+T. The T is much better for reliable income, because to the university, the folk who keep the students happy (each of whom is worth thousands) are quite handy thanks. The problem with R is that you need to be an *absolute dynamo*. I completely agree with you, and there are days I get quite annoyed that it seems all the university wants to do is keep me from doing the thing I was good enough at to get a job here in the first place for, but...fuck it. It's a nice job. It could be worse.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: progression within academia will only lead me deeper into this administrative swamp and further from the research I actually want to do. When I look at the day to day lives of top professors in my field, I realise this is not a life I want. I don't want to teach, manage, or do any paperwork whatsoever. I just want to work on my research. It seems crazy to follow a career path (a very demanding and competitive one at that) where the end goal is a life I don't actually want. I still want to do my research though, and all I need to do so is money. So I have been thinking more and more seriously about quitting academia and looking for part time work that pays well enough for me to spend half my time focused solely on the research I love. I have good relationships with people in my field and I doubt doing so would harm any of my collaborations. Is this a crazy idea? Has anyone else followed this path? I would love to hear about your experiences if so.
RESPONSE A: Is it possible? Yes. But that doesn't mean it's easy. There's a Dutch microbiologist, Rosanne Hertzberger, who finances her research through public speaking, writing columns ,etc. A lot of public outreach, really. I believe she has a hospitality agreement with a university for lab access etc. She built her public profile before leaving paid service in academia, however. She hasn't spent a lot of time in academia (PhD in 2014 I think), but didn't quite have to start at 0 upon leaving it.
RESPONSE B: If you treat the non-research part of your current position as this hypothetical 'part time work' - do you think it currently takes up a greater percentage of your day-to-day than an entirely separate, independent job at some company would? A part-time job also often comes with lots of additional overhead: scheduling, training, performance reviews, travelling, queries on work-phone, mental distraction by doing work totally unrelated to your research, and so on. For example on that last point, the admin of writing grant applications can certainly be beneficial time spent viewing and planning your research at a higher level. Maybe you will find you've even less time to allocate to research?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: physics requiring no significant resources other than time and mental effort. Teaching, grant applications, performance reviews, meetings and other requirements are a constant drain on my time and energy. Looking ahead, it seems that career progression within academia will only lead me deeper into this administrative swamp and further from the research I actually want to do. When I look at the day to day lives of top professors in my field, I realise this is not a life I want. I don't want to teach, manage, or do any paperwork whatsoever. I just want to work on my research. It seems crazy to follow a career path (a very demanding and competitive one at that) where the end goal is a life I don't actually want. I still want to do my research though, and all I need to do so is money. So I have been thinking more and more seriously about quitting academia and looking for part time work that pays well enough for me to spend half my time focused solely on the research I love. I have good relationships with people in my field and I doubt doing so would harm any of my collaborations. Is this a crazy idea? Has anyone else followed this path? I would love to hear about your experiences if so.
RESPONSE A: If you treat the non-research part of your current position as this hypothetical 'part time work' - do you think it currently takes up a greater percentage of your day-to-day than an entirely separate, independent job at some company would? A part-time job also often comes with lots of additional overhead: scheduling, training, performance reviews, travelling, queries on work-phone, mental distraction by doing work totally unrelated to your research, and so on. For example on that last point, the admin of writing grant applications can certainly be beneficial time spent viewing and planning your research at a higher level. Maybe you will find you've even less time to allocate to research?
RESPONSE B: If you don’t enjoy teaching you shouldn’t be in academia. However there are plenty of other govt or private research institutions (or research faculty positions at a university) that will let you do mostly research and not make you teach. Paperwork is everywere. You are not going to avoid that elsewhere, especially at a job where you may not have as much admin support.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do you deal with academic/University bureaucracy? Today I got into a shouting match. Under the guise of "fixing our heating and cooling," a few months ago my university's facilities maintenance people messed up the system in our entire building, so that my lab had a torrent coming out of the vents at all time, making it so that students had to work in an unmanageable 50 degrees. After repeated attempts to file complaints and service requests through proper channels over the course of a few weeks, I finally took some cardboard and covered up the vents. Now that my researchers actually had a place to work, we started getting things done. But today some maintenance people came in, threatened to take down the vent covers themselves, and claiming they had never received any notice that the room was problematic. A shouting match ensued, which I understand is dangerous precedent for a tenure-track. How do you deal with deliberately obtuse university bureaucracies (or bureaucracy-minded employees) that get in the way of actual productivity? I tried the "be nice to everyone" route with this, don't get me wrong.
RESPONSE A: I don't think shouting with a university HVAC tech is going to do much. Speak to your department chair, the facilities person who is likely responsible for your building, your department or college safety officer, someone within university facilities, etc. Realize that your **support** people work in the same bureaucracy that you do. They have a chain of command, just like the rest of us. And just like everywhere else, things get missed.
RESPONSE B: I don't think sluggish bureaucracy is unique to academia. I've had air-balance problems in my building as well, but I'd imagine smothering the vents is a hazard, which is why you were told you can't do that.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How do you deal with academic/University bureaucracy? Today I got into a shouting match. Under the guise of "fixing our heating and cooling," a few months ago my university's facilities maintenance people messed up the system in our entire building, so that my lab had a torrent coming out of the vents at all time, making it so that students had to work in an unmanageable 50 degrees. After repeated attempts to file complaints and service requests through proper channels over the course of a few weeks, I finally took some cardboard and covered up the vents. Now that my researchers actually had a place to work, we started getting things done. But today some maintenance people came in, threatened to take down the vent covers themselves, and claiming they had never received any notice that the room was problematic. A shouting match ensued, which I understand is dangerous precedent for a tenure-track. How do you deal with deliberately obtuse university bureaucracies (or bureaucracy-minded employees) that get in the way of actual productivity? I tried the "be nice to everyone" route with this, don't get me wrong.
RESPONSE A: Go above their heads usually. That and drink too much at night.
RESPONSE B: I don't think shouting with a university HVAC tech is going to do much. Speak to your department chair, the facilities person who is likely responsible for your building, your department or college safety officer, someone within university facilities, etc. Realize that your **support** people work in the same bureaucracy that you do. They have a chain of command, just like the rest of us. And just like everywhere else, things get missed.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do you deal with academic/University bureaucracy? Today I got into a shouting match. Under the guise of "fixing our heating and cooling," a few months ago my university's facilities maintenance people messed up the system in our entire building, so that my lab had a torrent coming out of the vents at all time, making it so that students had to work in an unmanageable 50 degrees. After repeated attempts to file complaints and service requests through proper channels over the course of a few weeks, I finally took some cardboard and covered up the vents. Now that my researchers actually had a place to work, we started getting things done. But today some maintenance people came in, threatened to take down the vent covers themselves, and claiming they had never received any notice that the room was problematic. A shouting match ensued, which I understand is dangerous precedent for a tenure-track. How do you deal with deliberately obtuse university bureaucracies (or bureaucracy-minded employees) that get in the way of actual productivity? I tried the "be nice to everyone" route with this, don't get me wrong.
RESPONSE A: I don't think shouting with a university HVAC tech is going to do much. Speak to your department chair, the facilities person who is likely responsible for your building, your department or college safety officer, someone within university facilities, etc. Realize that your **support** people work in the same bureaucracy that you do. They have a chain of command, just like the rest of us. And just like everywhere else, things get missed.
RESPONSE B: poorly. I have very low tolerance for idiocy. My usual approach to getting what I need from various levels of bureaucracy is the make them feel helpful, so I go with "I could really use your help..." opening salvo. They like it. But it only works if they are not openly hostile to you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: understand is dangerous precedent for a tenure-track. How do you deal with deliberately obtuse university bureaucracies (or bureaucracy-minded employees) that get in the way of actual productivity? I tried the "be nice to everyone" route with this, don't get me wrong.
RESPONSE A: I don't think sluggish bureaucracy is unique to academia. I've had air-balance problems in my building as well, but I'd imagine smothering the vents is a hazard, which is why you were told you can't do that.
RESPONSE B: Start with checking your arrogance at the door and stop thinking in terms of "deliberately obtuse". That is rarely actually going to be the case, and taking that attitude sets the stage for hostility. There is no realized value from that for anyone. You don't like bureaucracies. Well, no one does. Including the guy you yelled at. He's probably as frustrated as you that something got f'd up by someone else and now he's out in the field getting left holding the bag and getting yelled at when all he really wants is to do a good job, get paid for and generally be appreciated for doing a good job. There were process and communication breakdowns. It happens, *especially* at universities where really smart people without a bit of sense tend to collect. Get very very used to this if you want to be a permanent academic. Ask the facilities guy standing in front of you what you need to know to help for the next time. Be friendly and warm. Build a relationship. Look towards the next time you have an issue where you might want or need some quick off-the-books help from that guy. Find out if there is someone in your building (possibly not in your department) who is responsible for handling facility or maintenance issues for the building as a whole. Learn from that person. In general, I'd advise you to learn to develop relationships and use favors and good-naturedness as currency. In many cases, befriending non-academics will result you being able to get things accomplished when your peers cannot.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: a place to work, we started getting things done. But today some maintenance people came in, threatened to take down the vent covers themselves, and claiming they had never received any notice that the room was problematic. A shouting match ensued, which I understand is dangerous precedent for a tenure-track. How do you deal with deliberately obtuse university bureaucracies (or bureaucracy-minded employees) that get in the way of actual productivity? I tried the "be nice to everyone" route with this, don't get me wrong.
RESPONSE A: Start with checking your arrogance at the door and stop thinking in terms of "deliberately obtuse". That is rarely actually going to be the case, and taking that attitude sets the stage for hostility. There is no realized value from that for anyone. You don't like bureaucracies. Well, no one does. Including the guy you yelled at. He's probably as frustrated as you that something got f'd up by someone else and now he's out in the field getting left holding the bag and getting yelled at when all he really wants is to do a good job, get paid for and generally be appreciated for doing a good job. There were process and communication breakdowns. It happens, *especially* at universities where really smart people without a bit of sense tend to collect. Get very very used to this if you want to be a permanent academic. Ask the facilities guy standing in front of you what you need to know to help for the next time. Be friendly and warm. Build a relationship. Look towards the next time you have an issue where you might want or need some quick off-the-books help from that guy. Find out if there is someone in your building (possibly not in your department) who is responsible for handling facility or maintenance issues for the building as a whole. Learn from that person. In general, I'd advise you to learn to develop relationships and use favors and good-naturedness as currency. In many cases, befriending non-academics will result you being able to get things accomplished when your peers cannot.
RESPONSE B: Go above their heads usually. That and drink too much at night.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: not capable of writing anything? What have been your experiences from your first paper/chapter/thesis drafts?
RESPONSE A: The learning curve for writing is pretty steep, imo. Academic writing has a pretty specific style, and individual fields also have their own nuances. Even better, some professors have pretty rigid expectations, some of which you might not have known ahead of time. I don't think there's a "normal" with respect to draft comments, but I've certainly known professors who are notoriously harsh. I've personally had papers come back with lots of red marks and re-writing, which is at times upsetting but at least then you know the target. Unfortunately, some of the remarks you've written seem vague and unhelpful. Emotional reactions are not typically as useful as directions! Your best bet is to read papers from this professor to get a sense of what s/he prefers in terms of style. I'm sure you're read plenty for content, but re-reading with an eye on how information is worded, ordered, and so on might help. If it becomes a habitual problem, you might request that comments address what is desired, not simply pointing out an area that is disliked. Good luck. No one likes this part of the process!
RESPONSE B: Probably a little from column A and a little from column B. I've been a postdoc for three years and I am confident that when I get my latest draft back from my PI it will look very similar to yours, because that's how my PI rolls. Equally, my writing is almost unrecognisable from when I started my PhD, so I'm sure you have a lot of learn as well. The endless criticism, whether from PIs or reviewers - and believe me reviewers can be astonishingly harsh even on papers that are ultimately accepted - is one of the most awful parts of academia. It's never made me stop feeling like shit when I get that initial hit. The trick is to take a deep breath and then read it bit by bit and rather than being defensive, which is an easy reaction to criticism, try and be objective and take on board and learn from the comments.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: a book chapter that we're supposed to write about my master's research. He returned comments on almost the entire 20-page document. They were pretty hard, to be honest, and made me feel like absolute shit head in term of writing. The document was ridden with comments such as: "INCOHERENT STYLE", "WHAT IS THIS???", "Poor reflection" etc. This is my first foray into academic writing. I was wondering, is this normal to have so many comments or am I seriously not capable of writing anything? What have been your experiences from your first paper/chapter/thesis drafts?
RESPONSE A: The learning curve for writing is pretty steep, imo. Academic writing has a pretty specific style, and individual fields also have their own nuances. Even better, some professors have pretty rigid expectations, some of which you might not have known ahead of time. I don't think there's a "normal" with respect to draft comments, but I've certainly known professors who are notoriously harsh. I've personally had papers come back with lots of red marks and re-writing, which is at times upsetting but at least then you know the target. Unfortunately, some of the remarks you've written seem vague and unhelpful. Emotional reactions are not typically as useful as directions! Your best bet is to read papers from this professor to get a sense of what s/he prefers in terms of style. I'm sure you're read plenty for content, but re-reading with an eye on how information is worded, ordered, and so on might help. If it becomes a habitual problem, you might request that comments address what is desired, not simply pointing out an area that is disliked. Good luck. No one likes this part of the process!
RESPONSE B: It takes a while to pick up new writing styles and even if you are "bad" at academic writing, you have a few years to get better, and now you know it's an area you should seriously focus on. See if your school has a writing center. Next time you draft something, it might be worth it to work with them for a couple days before submitting it to your PI.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is this normal or am I just incapable writing? I submitted my first draft to my professor of a book chapter that we're supposed to write about my master's research. He returned comments on almost the entire 20-page document. They were pretty hard, to be honest, and made me feel like absolute shit head in term of writing. The document was ridden with comments such as: "INCOHERENT STYLE", "WHAT IS THIS???", "Poor reflection" etc. This is my first foray into academic writing. I was wondering, is this normal to have so many comments or am I seriously not capable of writing anything? What have been your experiences from your first paper/chapter/thesis drafts?
RESPONSE A: Don't worry its normal. Your professor is trying to help (even though it might not seem like it). Trust me, you should be more concerned if you didn't get any constructive feedback. Most academic articles and chapters need a few drafts before they are OK. Your professor knows that as soon as the chapter is published it will be seen globally so its important to make it as good as possible. Stay positive and keep going. At wsediting.com we correct scientific academic manuscripts all the time. Even high level academics/researchers etc need help and support and guidance with writing articles.
RESPONSE B: First: if he isn't explaining what you're doing wrong, that's bad commenting. It's important to let you know where you're messing up. HOWEVER: a lot of comments also means he cares. In my experience professors who don't give a shit barely read your work. Take that as a silver lining. Second: I'm getting a doctorate in History. My advisor absolutely loves my work, but it still comes back covered in comments pointing out where I can improve. Some are pretty harsh! Now those are actually usable comments because humanities people have experience teaching writing. But the issue isn't the level of comments themselves. You will be getting lots of comments even when this is old hat to you. Does your university have a writing center? They usually work with grad students too and can be really helpful.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: of writing. The document was ridden with comments such as: "INCOHERENT STYLE", "WHAT IS THIS???", "Poor reflection" etc. This is my first foray into academic writing. I was wondering, is this normal to have so many comments or am I seriously not capable of writing anything? What have been your experiences from your first paper/chapter/thesis drafts?
RESPONSE A: Probably a little from column A and a little from column B. I've been a postdoc for three years and I am confident that when I get my latest draft back from my PI it will look very similar to yours, because that's how my PI rolls. Equally, my writing is almost unrecognisable from when I started my PhD, so I'm sure you have a lot of learn as well. The endless criticism, whether from PIs or reviewers - and believe me reviewers can be astonishingly harsh even on papers that are ultimately accepted - is one of the most awful parts of academia. It's never made me stop feeling like shit when I get that initial hit. The trick is to take a deep breath and then read it bit by bit and rather than being defensive, which is an easy reaction to criticism, try and be objective and take on board and learn from the comments.
RESPONSE B: First: if he isn't explaining what you're doing wrong, that's bad commenting. It's important to let you know where you're messing up. HOWEVER: a lot of comments also means he cares. In my experience professors who don't give a shit barely read your work. Take that as a silver lining. Second: I'm getting a doctorate in History. My advisor absolutely loves my work, but it still comes back covered in comments pointing out where I can improve. Some are pretty harsh! Now those are actually usable comments because humanities people have experience teaching writing. But the issue isn't the level of comments themselves. You will be getting lots of comments even when this is old hat to you. Does your university have a writing center? They usually work with grad students too and can be really helpful.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: or am I just incapable writing? I submitted my first draft to my professor of a book chapter that we're supposed to write about my master's research. He returned comments on almost the entire 20-page document. They were pretty hard, to be honest, and made me feel like absolute shit head in term of writing. The document was ridden with comments such as: "INCOHERENT STYLE", "WHAT IS THIS???", "Poor reflection" etc. This is my first foray into academic writing. I was wondering, is this normal to have so many comments or am I seriously not capable of writing anything? What have been your experiences from your first paper/chapter/thesis drafts?
RESPONSE A: I remember writing a grant proposal for fieldwork in the first year of my PhD. Me and my supervisor edited it together (he thought ti would be a good exercise. No content was changed, but the entire text was red from the 'track changes' after working on it for two hours! It's pretty normal and a others said: the learning curve is steep. (PS: there are some great books out on academic writing. This is one of my favorites: https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Science-Papers-Proposals-Funded/dp/0199760241)
RESPONSE B: First: if he isn't explaining what you're doing wrong, that's bad commenting. It's important to let you know where you're messing up. HOWEVER: a lot of comments also means he cares. In my experience professors who don't give a shit barely read your work. Take that as a silver lining. Second: I'm getting a doctorate in History. My advisor absolutely loves my work, but it still comes back covered in comments pointing out where I can improve. Some are pretty harsh! Now those are actually usable comments because humanities people have experience teaching writing. But the issue isn't the level of comments themselves. You will be getting lots of comments even when this is old hat to you. Does your university have a writing center? They usually work with grad students too and can be really helpful.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What does the thesis committee talk about when they ask the audience to leave the room? In my department it is customary during the defense exam that the committee excuse the audience (these days by means of breakout rooms) at the start (before presentation ends) and end (after presentation is done) of the defense exam. They talk for about 5 min each time. I am defending my PhD soon and this issue is playing with my mind a bit more than it should. I wonder if anyone could let me know what is being discussed at these two points of time. Thanks in advance.
RESPONSE A: Hopefully someone will answer soon from the other side of the desk, but I can just tell you what my advisor told me before my defense. He told me that at the end, when they're voting, often someone will start a side conversation about something totally tangential. He said that he would try and curtail that if he could, but if he couldn't, I shouldn't worry that the vote is contentious or that they're arguing about whether to pass me or not. It actually turned out that the meeting at the beginning was really long (or felt really long, it was actually about 7 minutes, I think... long enough for me to worry my advisor didn't know how to call me out of my breakout room), and the vote at the end was very short. I passed.
RESPONSE B: Most times we'll discuss your work, your qualifications, quick discussion of any unfinished business. But think of it like a wedding: "if anyone has a reason to stop this, speak now or forever keep your mouth shut." They want you to pass at that point. Most times they just talk about what you'll be doing next and what lunch is gonna look like.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: If you could make all undergrads study one topic or theory in your field, what would it be?
RESPONSE A: Higher education finance. While I know college is expensive, there's a whole lot that goes into why you pay what you do, not the least of which is the value your state does (or doesn't) place on an educated populace.
RESPONSE B: A bigger emphasis on ethics, I think this is extremely relevant to consider in almost all other fields, especially in relation to law, CS, politics, economy, just to name a few, whereas Ethics now remains mostly confined to the Humanities. Or existential philosophy, which I think is especially important for well-being and, moreso, taking responsibility for your choices and actions. Very useful in life in general, I think the many would benefit from including this in their curriculum.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: If you could make all undergrads study one topic or theory in your field, what would it be?
RESPONSE A: Symbolic logic
RESPONSE B: For engineers: public speaking
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: 's all extremely naive, but that's how I feel right now at the very least. The problem is fairly obvious: the grim career prospects. Say, this post (and many more about the very same thing, i.e. the horrible academic job market for humanities) makes me feel terribly uneasy about my future. On one hand, I feel I'm the kind of person who's ready to make serious sacrifices for the sake of absolute geographic mobility and better job prospects. On the other hand, I'm afraid it'll still be not good enough. I won't be good enough. I haven't even started college yet, but I can't help but feel extremely anxious about whether I'm heading in the right direction at all. I looked up a lot of programs' placement rates, and it seems like some Religious Studies ones that fit me are doing about fine-ish, but it doesn't help. So, in the end, **I have two questions, and this is also a TL;DR version of the post:** 1. If anyone working in Religious Studies/similar fields is reading this, how horrible the job market actually is? Not sure researching stuff online gave me any accurate idea. I'm set on doing this no matter what, but finding out how bad I'm going to suffer would be nice. As far as I know, specialization is a huge deal when it comes looking for jobs, and Islamic scholars have it a bit better, but I have zero idea about where my field of interest would put me. 2. What exactly can I do in the next 4 years (I'll be majoring in either NELC or Sociology) as an undergrad in love with their field to have a better shot at getting into good PhD programs? Any input would be appreciated, though, as I'm really overwhelmed right now. Thanks a lot.
RESPONSE A: PM me. There is a lot to respond to here!
RESPONSE B: I love the earnestness of your interest! It's wonderful! The only advice I'd give is don't pigeonhole yourself too early! When I was your age, I wanted to get my PhD in English and study British colonial literature. Now I'm a chemistry professor.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: makes me feel terribly uneasy about my future. On one hand, I feel I'm the kind of person who's ready to make serious sacrifices for the sake of absolute geographic mobility and better job prospects. On the other hand, I'm afraid it'll still be not good enough. I won't be good enough. I haven't even started college yet, but I can't help but feel extremely anxious about whether I'm heading in the right direction at all. I looked up a lot of programs' placement rates, and it seems like some Religious Studies ones that fit me are doing about fine-ish, but it doesn't help. So, in the end, **I have two questions, and this is also a TL;DR version of the post:** 1. If anyone working in Religious Studies/similar fields is reading this, how horrible the job market actually is? Not sure researching stuff online gave me any accurate idea. I'm set on doing this no matter what, but finding out how bad I'm going to suffer would be nice. As far as I know, specialization is a huge deal when it comes looking for jobs, and Islamic scholars have it a bit better, but I have zero idea about where my field of interest would put me. 2. What exactly can I do in the next 4 years (I'll be majoring in either NELC or Sociology) as an undergrad in love with their field to have a better shot at getting into good PhD programs? Any input would be appreciated, though, as I'm really overwhelmed right now. Thanks a lot.
RESPONSE A: The utility of giving you advice for a career that you will only be able to seriously consider 4-5 years from now is limited. It's great that you're asking these questions, because it gives you stuff to google and an idea of what classes to take in your freshman year, but tha'ts all that will be useful for you for now. Take classes that interest you, do well in them, and don't get too married to the idea of being a professor of XYZ, or a professor at all. Come back in 2 years if you still like the stuff.
RESPONSE B: PM me. There is a lot to respond to here!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: [SERIOUS] Is it possible to achieve a Masters in Biomedical Engineering with a Bachelors in Neuroscience? I'm a senior with a Neuroscience major and am looking into a career in Neural engineering. As i'm aware, theres a-lot that can be done in this field (prosthetics, artificial organs, etc.) and I'm really interested these topics and what's been done in recent developments of it. That being said, I've been looking into it and it seems a Biomedical Engineering masters would be an amazing lead way into the field. However, I was wondering if i can get into a respective university for a BMEN masters degree with a Neuroscience bachelors?
RESPONSE A: You probably don’t have enough math.
RESPONSE B: If you happen to be a neuro major who did a lot of computational work/math, maybe. Though also worth mentioning that plenty of neuroscientists are working on prosthetics, brain implants, etc without an engineering degree though.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: [SERIOUS] Is it possible to achieve a Masters in Biomedical Engineering with a Bachelors in Neuroscience? I'm a senior with a Neuroscience major and am looking into a career in Neural engineering. As i'm aware, theres a-lot that can be done in this field (prosthetics, artificial organs, etc.) and I'm really interested these topics and what's been done in recent developments of it. That being said, I've been looking into it and it seems a Biomedical Engineering masters would be an amazing lead way into the field. However, I was wondering if i can get into a respective university for a BMEN masters degree with a Neuroscience bachelors?
RESPONSE A: You probably don’t have enough math.
RESPONSE B: I have a BS in Biology and MS in Cell and Molecular Biology but I was accepted to BioE, ChemE and NanoE PhD programs without the educational background. I think it is all about how you frame your skills and your experience. In my experience a lot of Neuroscience folks can put forth some sort of engineering-like experience like patch clamp assays, python programming, etc. DM me if you'd like any application advice
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How important is it to dress formally for an interview? I have an interview coming up in a day or two, for a clinical researcher/PhD position. The interview is surprisingly in person instead of on Zoom. And I'm wondering how important it is that I dress formally? It's not anything like an interview weekend or a campus visit, but more strictly like coming and sit down and we'll have a chat type of arrangement. Every sane person has told me I should wear a nice dress or at least a nice blouse, but I kind of don't feel comfortable in those clothes (I would look like a kid in adult's clothes). The weather will be relatively warm so I can't go with my usual shirt+pullover plan either. Suggestions? Any advice/comments welcome!
RESPONSE A: Treat this as a job interview and select an outfit for that purpose. Just because you feel that you might "look like a kid in adult's clothes" doesn't mean that's the way you will be perceived. Furthermore, you don't want them potentially to remember you as the only person who was interviewed and didn't dress appropriately.
RESPONSE B: Dress for the job you want, not the one you have... it’s much better to over dress than under...
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How important is it to dress formally for an interview? I have an interview coming up in a day or two, for a clinical researcher/PhD position. The interview is surprisingly in person instead of on Zoom. And I'm wondering how important it is that I dress formally? It's not anything like an interview weekend or a campus visit, but more strictly like coming and sit down and we'll have a chat type of arrangement. Every sane person has told me I should wear a nice dress or at least a nice blouse, but I kind of don't feel comfortable in those clothes (I would look like a kid in adult's clothes). The weather will be relatively warm so I can't go with my usual shirt+pullover plan either. Suggestions? Any advice/comments welcome!
RESPONSE A: I also don’t feel comfortable wearing dresses in professional settings. I actually dress very masculine when I need to dress-up. I usually like to find a button down with nice slacks and sometimes I’ll wear small heels. I also enjoy wearing polos tucked in to nice slacks with a more feminine shoe if I’m going for a business casual look. In the winter I always wear a nice sweater with black jeans and a cute boot. So I basically have really nice pants that I pair up with heels or booties and just wear very casual but presentable tops.
RESPONSE B: You certainly don't have to wear a dress, but you need to look professional. No jeans, no tshirts, no sweats, etc. Especially if this is a clinical role, you very well may have to dress professionally on a daily basis. Grad students on the bench, where whatever. Grad students interacting with clinical populations, you better dress the role.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How important is it to dress formally for an interview? I have an interview coming up in a day or two, for a clinical researcher/PhD position. The interview is surprisingly in person instead of on Zoom. And I'm wondering how important it is that I dress formally? It's not anything like an interview weekend or a campus visit, but more strictly like coming and sit down and we'll have a chat type of arrangement. Every sane person has told me I should wear a nice dress or at least a nice blouse, but I kind of don't feel comfortable in those clothes (I would look like a kid in adult's clothes). The weather will be relatively warm so I can't go with my usual shirt+pullover plan either. Suggestions? Any advice/comments welcome!
RESPONSE A: Wear a pantsuit. Everyone does it for professional interviews and you’re no different or better than the rest.
RESPONSE B: You certainly don't have to wear a dress, but you need to look professional. No jeans, no tshirts, no sweats, etc. Especially if this is a clinical role, you very well may have to dress professionally on a daily basis. Grad students on the bench, where whatever. Grad students interacting with clinical populations, you better dress the role.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: interview coming up in a day or two, for a clinical researcher/PhD position. The interview is surprisingly in person instead of on Zoom. And I'm wondering how important it is that I dress formally? It's not anything like an interview weekend or a campus visit, but more strictly like coming and sit down and we'll have a chat type of arrangement. Every sane person has told me I should wear a nice dress or at least a nice blouse, but I kind of don't feel comfortable in those clothes (I would look like a kid in adult's clothes). The weather will be relatively warm so I can't go with my usual shirt+pullover plan either. Suggestions? Any advice/comments welcome!
RESPONSE A: You certainly don't have to wear a dress, but you need to look professional. No jeans, no tshirts, no sweats, etc. Especially if this is a clinical role, you very well may have to dress professionally on a daily basis. Grad students on the bench, where whatever. Grad students interacting with clinical populations, you better dress the role.
RESPONSE B: It's true that you may be expected to dress up, but also aim to be comfortable. As a grad student I often go to campus in a hoody and jeans but when I'm giving a lecture I will wear a collar and some slacks, and definitely tuck in the shirt. If it's warm the day of you're interview there's nothing wrong with wearing something comfortable, especially if you'll be meeting for a good length of time. But make sure you're wearing clean clothes, avoid anything like a band shirt with tons of details. Just wear a plain shirt and clean pants (avoid jeans) if that's what makes you feel like you can be your best self. I have a friend that I lent a bunch of dress clothes to try on for his interview (masters social work) and he told me he decided to just wear the best condition clothing of his own because he didn't feel like he would be confident and comfortable in something he would never wear on his own choice. Good luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: it is that I dress formally? It's not anything like an interview weekend or a campus visit, but more strictly like coming and sit down and we'll have a chat type of arrangement. Every sane person has told me I should wear a nice dress or at least a nice blouse, but I kind of don't feel comfortable in those clothes (I would look like a kid in adult's clothes). The weather will be relatively warm so I can't go with my usual shirt+pullover plan either. Suggestions? Any advice/comments welcome!
RESPONSE A: You certainly don't have to wear a dress, but you need to look professional. No jeans, no tshirts, no sweats, etc. Especially if this is a clinical role, you very well may have to dress professionally on a daily basis. Grad students on the bench, where whatever. Grad students interacting with clinical populations, you better dress the role.
RESPONSE B: I think it's totally possible to dress how you like, as long as you realise you're making a clear statement, and as long as you've got the bargaining power to back up the statement you're making. If I'm interviewing in my discipline, and someone comes in informally dressed, right away they've got my attention, and to be honest, I'm curious as to whether they are much smarter and more competent than everyone else, because that's kind of what they're signalling. They're also conveying that they're not just going to blindly follow convention, which is great for me, because I like to work with people who try for big things. But they're also signaling that they may not be easy to manage, and may be a bit of a prima donna. I'm okay with that, as long as they've got the skills to back it up. But it might not be appropriate for all roles, sometimes you just want a worker bee who gets the job done. Also, if it's just an issue of you not wanting to dress in traditionally feminine ways, you could definitely dress up in a more neutral way, if you wanted to. A smart blazer would make a difference.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: International Phd student in US Hi, As a fully funded (US university funding) PhD student, will I have to show the US embassy (visa process) that I have sufficient « personal funds » to cover my costs or will the full funding from the university be considered adequate funding?
RESPONSE A: My wife was an international student. Her offer from the University was sufficient. But I do know that depending on the country, your major will also affect visa rules. So keep that in mind. She is a social science major.
RESPONSE B: The I-20 issued by the university will state the estimated average cost of attendance, as well as how you will fund your attendance, which may include funding from the university, as well as personal funds.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Keeping track of people you met at conferences How do you keep track of all the people you meet at conferences and similar events? My current approach is a note on my phone where I enter > Name:... > Affiliation:... > Event:... > e-Mail adress:... Maybe I should add a picture to help my brain remember. What is your approach?
RESPONSE A: How do you keep track of anyone you meet whom you want to potentially contact again? Do that.
RESPONSE B: I make a point to follow up with every person via email. That way, our email addresses are stored in our email history and the context is also stored (in the email itself). Sometimes it’s follow-up that we planned to have when we talked at the conference. Other times it’s just “Dr. [X]. We met at [conference Y] Thanks again for explaining your work on [Z]. Fascinating stuff! I look forward to the published paper.”
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Keeping track of people you met at conferences How do you keep track of all the people you meet at conferences and similar events? My current approach is a note on my phone where I enter > Name:... > Affiliation:... > Event:... > e-Mail adress:... Maybe I should add a picture to help my brain remember. What is your approach?
RESPONSE A: I make a point to follow up with every person via email. That way, our email addresses are stored in our email history and the context is also stored (in the email itself). Sometimes it’s follow-up that we planned to have when we talked at the conference. Other times it’s just “Dr. [X]. We met at [conference Y] Thanks again for explaining your work on [Z]. Fascinating stuff! I look forward to the published paper.”
RESPONSE B: I do the same thing. I use Google Contacts because it makes it easier to move my contacts to a new phone. Also, I can work on it on my computer and it will immediately load to my phone. You can almost always find a photo on their LinkedIn account. Also, add a small note about any specific conversation you guys had during the conference. For example if they told you they're working on a certain project, or they know someone you know. Next time you see them you can bring that up and it will help breaking the ice. Finally, if you're on LinkedIn, find the and send them a connection request and mention something like "It was very nice meeting you at the..." in your connection note. Staying connected on LinkedIn will help you get updates from them, know them better, know if they're going to a certain conference in future, etc.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: n’t been able to look at text messages or emails for a month and now I am scared to reach out to my professors again. I don’t even know how to begin. I’m always a bit chaotic (adhd, they also know this) but I feel I’m in too deep with avoidance and I know it is so disrespectful its eating me. I developed anxiety around turning in my work, it’s done, I literally cannot bring myself to press send. I was present in class all semester minus when I had covid, and have a good relationships with people, but I’ve never felt so stuck it’s so dumb. Any thoughts on how I can respectfully approach reaching back out to my professors? Thank you so much.
RESPONSE A: I had similar issues with avoidance and inability to reply to emails due to stress during my PhD. I don't know what kind of relationship you have with your supervisor, but I found it very helpful to just be open about what the issues were, because I was finding that a big part of why I couldn't write emails was the shame over "not having a real reason" to not write, even though that was not the case. I also had to send some emails where I just apologised for not having been in touch, but there's no need to share with every single person why you're having a hard time answering. Sometimes it's ok to just take accountability and move on.
RESPONSE B: AskAcademia, it sounds like we experienced very similar events around the same times. I am also a PhD student and adjunct faculty for a few colleges. I reached out to my professors/research advisors who were empathetic and understanding and extended grace as I crawled through similar life appending events. They reminded me about extending grace to others especially as COVID-19 affected us and institutions. I shared general details with my professors, some asked for a little more details; so.i did share. Start the conversation, let them know about your anxiety around disclosing all of this. They will understand, empathize and will probably support you more than you expect. Ask for an incomplete if you need it. Stand by your word. Best wishes
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: , during which she admitted she'd always had feelings for me too and we wound up sleeping with each other that very night and started calling each other "Boyfriend and girlfriend" after that. This was great because i really liked her and we was super cute and sweet and we were having sex nearly every day. that was until she started getting extremely possessive of me. One of the first warning signs might have been that she told me she didn't really feel comfortable with me hanging out with any of my female friends when she wasn't around, and even when she was around, she would always act very cold towards them. whenever i received a message on my phone, she'd immediately ask who it was and it got to the point where i even disabled the vibrate setting which worked great until one day she picked up my phone only to see a message from my sister which prompted her to start an argument with me about what i was hiding by disabling the vibrate. the last straw was when she called me whilst crying when i was out of town visiting family because she was 'lonely' and was worried i would cheat on her with one of my old high school classmates. I had never even mentioned any high school classmates at this point. When i got back home, I went to her house and broke up with her right there at which point she started sobbing uncontrollably and I had to comfort her for about 4 hours and I dreaded going into lab the next day. Surprisingly, she showed up, although she looked disheveled and and wore her earphones all day and never made eye contact or spoke a word to me. Like I mentioned earlier, it's just us two in my PI's research group so the awkwardness is unbearable right now. It won't be until january until we get two postdocs in the lab, so that will at least alleviate some of the awkwardness, but until that point i'm gonna be constantly uncomfortable. Any advice on how to deal with this?
RESPONSE A: Mate...
RESPONSE B: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/228/324/4a4.gif
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: and sweet and we were having sex nearly every day. that was until she started getting extremely possessive of me. One of the first warning signs might have been that she told me she didn't really feel comfortable with me hanging out with any of my female friends when she wasn't around, and even when she was around, she would always act very cold towards them. whenever i received a message on my phone, she'd immediately ask who it was and it got to the point where i even disabled the vibrate setting which worked great until one day she picked up my phone only to see a message from my sister which prompted her to start an argument with me about what i was hiding by disabling the vibrate. the last straw was when she called me whilst crying when i was out of town visiting family because she was 'lonely' and was worried i would cheat on her with one of my old high school classmates. I had never even mentioned any high school classmates at this point. When i got back home, I went to her house and broke up with her right there at which point she started sobbing uncontrollably and I had to comfort her for about 4 hours and I dreaded going into lab the next day. Surprisingly, she showed up, although she looked disheveled and and wore her earphones all day and never made eye contact or spoke a word to me. Like I mentioned earlier, it's just us two in my PI's research group so the awkwardness is unbearable right now. It won't be until january until we get two postdocs in the lab, so that will at least alleviate some of the awkwardness, but until that point i'm gonna be constantly uncomfortable. Any advice on how to deal with this?
RESPONSE A: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/228/324/4a4.gif
RESPONSE B: I read this and immediately thought, "your poor PI." Please at least make a decision where you don't compromise their work over silly drama. Leave, stay and act maturely, whatever. But this is essentially a job, so treat it like one.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: when she wasn't around, and even when she was around, she would always act very cold towards them. whenever i received a message on my phone, she'd immediately ask who it was and it got to the point where i even disabled the vibrate setting which worked great until one day she picked up my phone only to see a message from my sister which prompted her to start an argument with me about what i was hiding by disabling the vibrate. the last straw was when she called me whilst crying when i was out of town visiting family because she was 'lonely' and was worried i would cheat on her with one of my old high school classmates. I had never even mentioned any high school classmates at this point. When i got back home, I went to her house and broke up with her right there at which point she started sobbing uncontrollably and I had to comfort her for about 4 hours and I dreaded going into lab the next day. Surprisingly, she showed up, although she looked disheveled and and wore her earphones all day and never made eye contact or spoke a word to me. Like I mentioned earlier, it's just us two in my PI's research group so the awkwardness is unbearable right now. It won't be until january until we get two postdocs in the lab, so that will at least alleviate some of the awkwardness, but until that point i'm gonna be constantly uncomfortable. Any advice on how to deal with this?
RESPONSE A: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/228/324/4a4.gif
RESPONSE B: It seems like she found a way to deal with it - by ignoring you and doing her work. It seems like you are the one who is feeling awkward. Find a way to deal with it. Try to limit any conversation that you need to have to work. Also, are you 16 ? It is really enough for people here if you had written that you folks were together briefly and broke up. This is not a relationship advice message board. We really dint need to know how many times you slept with her.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: friends when she wasn't around, and even when she was around, she would always act very cold towards them. whenever i received a message on my phone, she'd immediately ask who it was and it got to the point where i even disabled the vibrate setting which worked great until one day she picked up my phone only to see a message from my sister which prompted her to start an argument with me about what i was hiding by disabling the vibrate. the last straw was when she called me whilst crying when i was out of town visiting family because she was 'lonely' and was worried i would cheat on her with one of my old high school classmates. I had never even mentioned any high school classmates at this point. When i got back home, I went to her house and broke up with her right there at which point she started sobbing uncontrollably and I had to comfort her for about 4 hours and I dreaded going into lab the next day. Surprisingly, she showed up, although she looked disheveled and and wore her earphones all day and never made eye contact or spoke a word to me. Like I mentioned earlier, it's just us two in my PI's research group so the awkwardness is unbearable right now. It won't be until january until we get two postdocs in the lab, so that will at least alleviate some of the awkwardness, but until that point i'm gonna be constantly uncomfortable. Any advice on how to deal with this?
RESPONSE A: There is a simple solution to all this: you should not have asked her out. That's why people usually don't do it.
RESPONSE B: It seems like she found a way to deal with it - by ignoring you and doing her work. It seems like you are the one who is feeling awkward. Find a way to deal with it. Try to limit any conversation that you need to have to work. Also, are you 16 ? It is really enough for people here if you had written that you folks were together briefly and broke up. This is not a relationship advice message board. We really dint need to know how many times you slept with her.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: postdoc or industry after PhD? Hello guys, I am about to finish my PhD in Computer Science where I work with machine learning algorithms applied to medical images from a small university in France. I am trying to figure out what to do after getting my PhD. I have a job offer in a rather big company (in France) and also a postdoc offer from an Ivy League university in the US. My preference is industry but I was wondering if this postdoc could improve my chances of getting a better industry job afterwards (just because of the name of the university)? or if on the contrary it could actually hurt my chances of getting into industry? Thanks for any thought that you can share!
RESPONSE A: You have an industry offer but you want to use the postdoc to get into industry. If you want a different industry job, apply for it. It will also be easier to get a better industry job once you have actual industry work experience, so I vote for industry in all scenarios (where you don't want academia/to be a professor).
RESPONSE B: From my job search experience there have been very few industry positions that I've seen that have listed postdoc experience as a desired qualification (like one or two out of hundreds I've looked at). With cs and machine learning expertise, you could find a data science job pretty much anywhere.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Here's a stupid question: what if we got rid of department chairs? Please don't downvote this into oblivion, but I wanted to share this thought experiment with you all: what if we got rid of department chairs? In my field, no one wants to be chair because it takes time away from research. Further, some departments or universities have by-laws that you need to be a full professor to be chair, making it extremely difficult to fill the position. Meanwhile, every department has business people and staff that can probably handle the administrative duties of chair better than a Ph.D. and for cheaper. For the chair duties that you truly need academic expertise in, you can create an academic advisor position that (in terms of service) is akin to sitting on a committee. What does everyone think?
RESPONSE A: The last thing we need is less faculty representation re: governance when it comes to upper administration.
RESPONSE B: I do not agree, the department needs a liaison to the administration that can connect to the faculty and what better a person than someone that understands all of the issues with being a researcher/lecturer than one of their own. They will make decisions with their colleagues in mind.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Here's a stupid question: what if we got rid of department chairs? Please don't downvote this into oblivion, but I wanted to share this thought experiment with you all: what if we got rid of department chairs? In my field, no one wants to be chair because it takes time away from research. Further, some departments or universities have by-laws that you need to be a full professor to be chair, making it extremely difficult to fill the position. Meanwhile, every department has business people and staff that can probably handle the administrative duties of chair better than a Ph.D. and for cheaper. For the chair duties that you truly need academic expertise in, you can create an academic advisor position that (in terms of service) is akin to sitting on a committee. What does everyone think?
RESPONSE A: The point of the chair is that it is someone with the senior academic experience who can represent that to the rest of the faculty/university. While an administrator can do the paperwork aspect, they do not have the experience to do the representational aspect to the degree that an academic can.
RESPONSE B: The last thing we need is less faculty representation re: governance when it comes to upper administration.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Here's a stupid question: what if we got rid of department chairs? Please don't downvote this into oblivion, but I wanted to share this thought experiment with you all: what if we got rid of department chairs? In my field, no one wants to be chair because it takes time away from research. Further, some departments or universities have by-laws that you need to be a full professor to be chair, making it extremely difficult to fill the position. Meanwhile, every department has business people and staff that can probably handle the administrative duties of chair better than a Ph.D. and for cheaper. For the chair duties that you truly need academic expertise in, you can create an academic advisor position that (in terms of service) is akin to sitting on a committee. What does everyone think?
RESPONSE A: I do not agree, the department needs a liaison to the administration that can connect to the faculty and what better a person than someone that understands all of the issues with being a researcher/lecturer than one of their own. They will make decisions with their colleagues in mind.
RESPONSE B: I collaborate with an agency that has moved away from having PhDs in administrative control and moving those duties over to people with MBAs. It's been a disaster, and I'm glad I can watch the place burn to the ground safely from my position in a different organization where the administration is run by scientists, who understand what science is and how it works.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Here's a stupid question: what if we got rid of department chairs? Please don't downvote this into oblivion, but I wanted to share this thought experiment with you all: what if we got rid of department chairs? In my field, no one wants to be chair because it takes time away from research. Further, some departments or universities have by-laws that you need to be a full professor to be chair, making it extremely difficult to fill the position. Meanwhile, every department has business people and staff that can probably handle the administrative duties of chair better than a Ph.D. and for cheaper. For the chair duties that you truly need academic expertise in, you can create an academic advisor position that (in terms of service) is akin to sitting on a committee. What does everyone think?
RESPONSE A: I collaborate with an agency that has moved away from having PhDs in administrative control and moving those duties over to people with MBAs. It's been a disaster, and I'm glad I can watch the place burn to the ground safely from my position in a different organization where the administration is run by scientists, who understand what science is and how it works.
RESPONSE B: The point of the chair is that it is someone with the senior academic experience who can represent that to the rest of the faculty/university. While an administrator can do the paperwork aspect, they do not have the experience to do the representational aspect to the degree that an academic can.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Here's a stupid question: what if we got rid of department chairs? Please don't downvote this into oblivion, but I wanted to share this thought experiment with you all: what if we got rid of department chairs? In my field, no one wants to be chair because it takes time away from research. Further, some departments or universities have by-laws that you need to be a full professor to be chair, making it extremely difficult to fill the position. Meanwhile, every department has business people and staff that can probably handle the administrative duties of chair better than a Ph.D. and for cheaper. For the chair duties that you truly need academic expertise in, you can create an academic advisor position that (in terms of service) is akin to sitting on a committee. What does everyone think?
RESPONSE A: I collaborate with an agency that has moved away from having PhDs in administrative control and moving those duties over to people with MBAs. It's been a disaster, and I'm glad I can watch the place burn to the ground safely from my position in a different organization where the administration is run by scientists, who understand what science is and how it works.
RESPONSE B: Tragedy of the commons. Who is actually going to do those tasks? Its like saying that cleaning toilets is a crappy job, so lets do away with janitors and hope that everyone just chips in.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: PhD in UK Etiquette: How to contact a potential advisor? So I have just received my MA result for my degree in English Studies and have been thinking about applying to PhD programs in the UK for a while now. If accepted into a program/funding, I would like to enter in Fall 2019. I'm an American now based in Germany (undergrad USA, and MA from German uni), and I am now looking to a few schools in the UK and beginning to think about contacting potential advisors. I have a few picked out who have interests which overlap with mine, but I am a bit conflicted about how to make contact. Postgrads in the UK: What is the proper etiquette here? Should I only reach out to professors when my research proposal is finished? Or is it OK if I email first to see if they have an interest in working with me? I'd like to know if my research direction stands a chance of receiving funding, as well. What should I send along with my first general inquiry? A CV? Transcripts? Any advice is appreciated.
RESPONSE A: Off-topic, but I read this as "PhD in (UK Etiquette)" and was initially very surprised that UK Etiquette was a field you could get a PhD in.
RESPONSE B: Hi. As people below say, drop a brief line. But think of this also as their interview with you - if they don't answer in a reasonable amount of time, do you really want to spend three years of your life waiting for them to reply? In terms of funding, you are likely to have to go to research-intensive Universities who have their own schemes - I'm afraid US students are outside of a lot of our funding schemes which are designed with UK or possibly EU students mostly in mind. However, there are Departmental bursaries - but you'll need to seek them out on University websites first. Good luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: PhD in UK Etiquette: How to contact a potential advisor? So I have just received my MA result for my degree in English Studies and have been thinking about applying to PhD programs in the UK for a while now. If accepted into a program/funding, I would like to enter in Fall 2019. I'm an American now based in Germany (undergrad USA, and MA from German uni), and I am now looking to a few schools in the UK and beginning to think about contacting potential advisors. I have a few picked out who have interests which overlap with mine, but I am a bit conflicted about how to make contact. Postgrads in the UK: What is the proper etiquette here? Should I only reach out to professors when my research proposal is finished? Or is it OK if I email first to see if they have an interest in working with me? I'd like to know if my research direction stands a chance of receiving funding, as well. What should I send along with my first general inquiry? A CV? Transcripts? Any advice is appreciated.
RESPONSE A: Off-topic, but I read this as "PhD in (UK Etiquette)" and was initially very surprised that UK Etiquette was a field you could get a PhD in.
RESPONSE B: I was looking into a potential supervisor and realised he has co-authored several papers with a prof I am well acquainted with. Met him, he introduced me over email and I am meeting him for coffee next week. The others I have contacted, have been short and brief emails just like /u/dl064 suggests.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Is this really how search committees work? I'm the staff member on a Dean search committee and I have encountered two really weird things which seem very problematic to me. Note we are **not** using a firm and HR left it up to us to go through the resumes ourselves and we will do the background checks and references later. 1) we are not allowed to look up anything online whatsoever about the candidates. I found a very problematic issue which was published in newspapers and would be very concerning for our campus but was told to disregard it entirely. 2) an internal candidate lied about something on their resume and I know for a fact it is a lie but was told I cannot say that because it's insider knowledge and we can't consider that.
RESPONSE A: When people do this what they are ATTEMPTING to do is sift through the candidates based on overall qualifications and fit. Then when you have a shortlist, you start looking more closely at the candidate to start eliminating them at that stage; because the subsequent stage might be more about culutral fit for the institution or the role. Sometimes people forget about the second part. Or sometimes people think HR scans for these things. In terms of the falsehood on the resume, if it is something big such as "this person didn't graduate from this institution" or "this person never worked at this place" thast is easy enough to verify and should come out during the verification process. Usually that happens on the final candidate. If it is hearsay, like "He was a first author on that paper but I know that he actually did the work of a third author because my best friends sister worked with his grad student" then it's just too hard to prove.
RESPONSE B: Yes, it's really how it works and it's appalling. Something similar happened during our last faculty search. Inside information about a majority-favored candidate was shared with the entire faculty by someone not on the search committee. The sharer of that information got reamed "because there are rules against it." Fortunately the candidate in question wasn't selected in the end.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Fellow young/early-career researchers: How can conferences be made more accessible for you? I am currently in a discussion & brainstorming with a colleague on how to better engage and accommodate young/early-career researchers (particularly grad students) at scientific conferences and I would love to hear your ideas and experiences from your fields. Finances are obviously (almost) always an issue and one that we won't solve over night. I am curious about other obstacles beyond money, about possible solutions you have encountered before or thought somebody should try, posivite and negative initiatives you've seen at conferences, etc. How could conferences be made more accessible for you and more valuable to you, apart from giving you the opportunity present some of your work?
RESPONSE A: I think making networking more pain-free. It is why I go to conferences, but I hardly ever get a chance because forcing inorganic conversation is not a strong suit of mine. For me, an "outing" has really helped with this, say one or some of the conference nights or mornings - it gives an opportunity to interact with others in the field and break the ice - running, hiking, a board games night, going to a bar. Anything fun enough to draw a crowd of strangers but mundane enough so that people will still converse during.
RESPONSE B: I think the biggest problem/missed benefit is the ability to find and build symposiums. That’s where collaborations start, and if you don’t have the resources (ie a well connected advisor) you struggle to find those people who do similar work (sure, you know who they are, but the barriers to approach are high).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Fellow young/early-career researchers: How can conferences be made more accessible for you? I am currently in a discussion & brainstorming with a colleague on how to better engage and accommodate young/early-career researchers (particularly grad students) at scientific conferences and I would love to hear your ideas and experiences from your fields. Finances are obviously (almost) always an issue and one that we won't solve over night. I am curious about other obstacles beyond money, about possible solutions you have encountered before or thought somebody should try, posivite and negative initiatives you've seen at conferences, etc. How could conferences be made more accessible for you and more valuable to you, apart from giving you the opportunity present some of your work?
RESPONSE A: I would welcome both a specific session for young researchers (like, maybe do an evening event at a bar where the first drink is free if you're under 30 and wear your conference nametag), and some better of way of networking. There are always "networking drinks" or something but it seems like most attendees use these to catch up with old friends rather than forge new connections. Hard to break into that sort of structure if you're new. I'll be attending a conference the next few days so I'll keep an eye out and maybe post an edit/followup.
RESPONSE B: Money. If you fund grad students and adjuncts they will come to your conferences. That's #1 with a bullet. Apart from that, helping people to have "people" at conferences is always something I try and encourage when I'm organizing things. It can be intimidating to show up to a conference and everyone knows everyone except the new kid.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Fellow young/early-career researchers: How can conferences be made more accessible for you? I am currently in a discussion & brainstorming with a colleague on how to better engage and accommodate young/early-career researchers (particularly grad students) at scientific conferences and I would love to hear your ideas and experiences from your fields. Finances are obviously (almost) always an issue and one that we won't solve over night. I am curious about other obstacles beyond money, about possible solutions you have encountered before or thought somebody should try, posivite and negative initiatives you've seen at conferences, etc. How could conferences be made more accessible for you and more valuable to you, apart from giving you the opportunity present some of your work?
RESPONSE A: Money. If you fund grad students and adjuncts they will come to your conferences. That's #1 with a bullet. Apart from that, helping people to have "people" at conferences is always something I try and encourage when I'm organizing things. It can be intimidating to show up to a conference and everyone knows everyone except the new kid.
RESPONSE B: More resources for MSc students or industry minded students would be good to see. Most of the conferences I attend are geared towards sharing research between colleagues or getting into a PhD program - and that is great. However, there is an information vacuum when it comes to being a successful MSc student and/or making grad research applicable to industry jobs for those interested in going a non-academic route.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Fellow young/early-career researchers: How can conferences be made more accessible for you? I am currently in a discussion & brainstorming with a colleague on how to better engage and accommodate young/early-career researchers (particularly grad students) at scientific conferences and I would love to hear your ideas and experiences from your fields. Finances are obviously (almost) always an issue and one that we won't solve over night. I am curious about other obstacles beyond money, about possible solutions you have encountered before or thought somebody should try, posivite and negative initiatives you've seen at conferences, etc. How could conferences be made more accessible for you and more valuable to you, apart from giving you the opportunity present some of your work?
RESPONSE A: I would welcome both a specific session for young researchers (like, maybe do an evening event at a bar where the first drink is free if you're under 30 and wear your conference nametag), and some better of way of networking. There are always "networking drinks" or something but it seems like most attendees use these to catch up with old friends rather than forge new connections. Hard to break into that sort of structure if you're new. I'll be attending a conference the next few days so I'll keep an eye out and maybe post an edit/followup.
RESPONSE B: Is the cost of registration for students less than the cost of registration for full faculty members? Are there venues for students to connect with other students for room-sharing? Are there travel awards offered? Do you offer free lunches/dinners at the venue where students can interact with professionals in their field?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Fellow young/early-career researchers: How can conferences be made more accessible for you? I am currently in a discussion & brainstorming with a colleague on how to better engage and accommodate young/early-career researchers (particularly grad students) at scientific conferences and I would love to hear your ideas and experiences from your fields. Finances are obviously (almost) always an issue and one that we won't solve over night. I am curious about other obstacles beyond money, about possible solutions you have encountered before or thought somebody should try, posivite and negative initiatives you've seen at conferences, etc. How could conferences be made more accessible for you and more valuable to you, apart from giving you the opportunity present some of your work?
RESPONSE A: More resources for MSc students or industry minded students would be good to see. Most of the conferences I attend are geared towards sharing research between colleagues or getting into a PhD program - and that is great. However, there is an information vacuum when it comes to being a successful MSc student and/or making grad research applicable to industry jobs for those interested in going a non-academic route.
RESPONSE B: Is the cost of registration for students less than the cost of registration for full faculty members? Are there venues for students to connect with other students for room-sharing? Are there travel awards offered? Do you offer free lunches/dinners at the venue where students can interact with professionals in their field?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Do you trust Wikipedia? I'm a student & sometimes I don't like to read all the books and articles about different conflicts and histories, so I just search them on Wikipedia and have a basic understanding of them. Is Wikipedia the right source of information?
RESPONSE A: Most professors will not be happy if you reference Wikipedia. It can be a great source of info, but I suggest looking at the references and checking out the primary sources to ensure you understand a concept fully.
RESPONSE B: Yes. Wikipedia has been shown to be amazingly accurate, and has links to primary sources at the end if you want to dig deeper.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Do you trust Wikipedia? I'm a student & sometimes I don't like to read all the books and articles about different conflicts and histories, so I just search them on Wikipedia and have a basic understanding of them. Is Wikipedia the right source of information?
RESPONSE A: Yes. Wikipedia has been shown to be amazingly accurate, and has links to primary sources at the end if you want to dig deeper.
RESPONSE B: I don't let my students use Wikipedia as a source, but I do tell them it can be a decent primer for an unfamiliar subject, and that the real gold in a Wikipedia article is to be found in the notes/references and external links at the end of the article.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Do you trust Wikipedia? I'm a student & sometimes I don't like to read all the books and articles about different conflicts and histories, so I just search them on Wikipedia and have a basic understanding of them. Is Wikipedia the right source of information?
RESPONSE A: As much as I trust reddit.
RESPONSE B: I don't let my students use Wikipedia as a source, but I do tell them it can be a decent primer for an unfamiliar subject, and that the real gold in a Wikipedia article is to be found in the notes/references and external links at the end of the article.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Do you trust Wikipedia? I'm a student & sometimes I don't like to read all the books and articles about different conflicts and histories, so I just search them on Wikipedia and have a basic understanding of them. Is Wikipedia the right source of information?
RESPONSE A: Yes. Wikipedia has been shown to be amazingly accurate, and has links to primary sources at the end if you want to dig deeper.
RESPONSE B: Wikipedia is about as accurate as any encyclopedia. (Which means basically good, but with a bunch of incorrect details.) It is a good place to start your research, but not a good place to end it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Do you trust Wikipedia? I'm a student & sometimes I don't like to read all the books and articles about different conflicts and histories, so I just search them on Wikipedia and have a basic understanding of them. Is Wikipedia the right source of information?
RESPONSE A: As much as I trust reddit.
RESPONSE B: Wikipedia is about as accurate as any encyclopedia. (Which means basically good, but with a bunch of incorrect details.) It is a good place to start your research, but not a good place to end it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How does NPG justify charging $5200 for Nature Communications and $1495 for Scientific Reports? This kind of irks me. Scientific Reports has an APC of $1495 while Nature Communications charges a jaw-dropping $5200. How do they justify the price difference for almost exactly the same overhead on their end?
RESPONSE A: Related question from a young researcher: What are respectable alternatives? I always liked the idea behind PLoS, but one of my former mentors told his classmates he was aiming to publish in it and they basically laughed at him.
RESPONSE B: *Scientific Reports* is meant to be a mega-journal like *PLOS ONE*, and hence only reviews for correctness, not importance. So they probably have a higher acceptance rate. But *Nature Communications* is more selective, so every published article has to pay for editors who read, process, and reject several others. Your APC pays for work done on many other articles that ended up unpublished. The more selective the journal, the more money they have to make from each published article to support rejecting the rest. This is the same reason why *PLOS ONE* is cheaper than their more selective journals, like *PLOS Biology* or *PLOS Medicine*. (Sure, peer reviewers are unpaid, but Nature uses paid editors for their journals, and they still have to find reviewers, evaluate referee reports, and so on)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Does anyone have an easy method of converting physical books into PDFs that can be highlighted with PDF apps easily? Or - a website that (I assume illegally) offers PDFs of books? Usually, I type up any segment I want to do out of a book and it takes what feels like days. I’m hoping there’s an easier way that someone knows about?
RESPONSE A: Disability or accessibility services on most campuses have the specific hardware and software to do this quickly and efficiently. On mine they will often cut the binding off a book and feed it through a sheet-feed scanner, quickly converting it to PDF, then they rebind the book. Anyone can access the equipment on our campus for legitimate purposes, but even if you can't I'd imagine you can find out what they use for hardware/software as guidance.
RESPONSE B: It’s worth checking out your library—the library on my campus has scanners and they’re smart enough to make PDFs that I can highlight in. One potential option!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: have never come across terms like microlocal analysis, distribution theory, wave front sets etc. It looks like it is very mathematical in the pure mathematical sense. What would be the best strategy to tackle topics that looks so overwhelming? So that I do not waste too much time reading on things that is not necessary. Because if I start reading on those, the literature is almost endless. What are some of the best practices an experienced researcher develops so that he extracts as much relevant information as possible?
RESPONSE A: Take what you can from your reading, but don’t stress over not knowing everything. I’m halfway through 2nd year of my PhD (medical imaging too). My background is actually psychology, but I am now working on things in signal processing, electromagnetism, machine learning. As you can imagine that was a big leap, and I started out like you - stressing over every detail I didn’t understand. It’s not necessary, and everyone I’ve spoken to -including full professors- very rarely understand every detail in a paper. When you get a real feel for your project (which may take a year or so) it will become apparent which methods (mathematical or otherwise) that you need to have an intricate knowledge of. Until then, don’t be afraid to treat things as a ‘black box’ tool - as long as you get a feel for the bigger picture, and how your project fits in. Everything else will come in time :)
RESPONSE B: Congratulations on starting your Ph.D. program soon! My advice is that, if you are slated to start next month, take this time to relax. The Ph.D. is a marathon, not a sprint, and you'll want to go into it well rested. If you're moving, preparing for your move and adjusting to your new location (to the extent possible in this time of social distancing) are good uses of your time, too. Trust that if you were admitted to a Ph.D. program, you are qualified to be there. You will have opportunities to learn the ins and outs of the material once you start. Right now, allow yourself the time to relax so that you can go into the program ready for the journey ahead.
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.