label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
B
|
POST: What are some good social media sites or accounts for academia? (e.g., the Robert Scoble or TechCrunch of academia) When I was in industry, I stayed informed by following tech blogs and Twitter accounts. Now that I switched over to academia, I feel unaware of what's going on in the larger world of academia outside my field because I'm not sure where to get academic news. (Is "academic news" even a thing?) Even within my field, I tried searching for Twitter and G+ accounts and got nothing. Are there sites out there that could be considered the HN or TechCrunch of academia, or is there some guy that's the Scoble of academia? I know of academia.edu and recently signed up there but that seems to be specific to sharing and discussing research papers, which is cool and will be useful when I start publishing, though not really what I'm looking for now.
RESPONSE A: Moshe Vardi is an indefagitable poster of generalized academia news on his G+ feed: https://plus.google.com/104488217075635760621/posts For your specific subfield, however, you'll probably need to ask your colleages about it.
RESPONSE B: For the UK, the Times Higher Education is a good source.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What are some good social media sites or accounts for academia? (e.g., the Robert Scoble or TechCrunch of academia) When I was in industry, I stayed informed by following tech blogs and Twitter accounts. Now that I switched over to academia, I feel unaware of what's going on in the larger world of academia outside my field because I'm not sure where to get academic news. (Is "academic news" even a thing?) Even within my field, I tried searching for Twitter and G+ accounts and got nothing. Are there sites out there that could be considered the HN or TechCrunch of academia, or is there some guy that's the Scoble of academia? I know of academia.edu and recently signed up there but that seems to be specific to sharing and discussing research papers, which is cool and will be useful when I start publishing, though not really what I'm looking for now.
RESPONSE A: For the UK, the Times Higher Education is a good source.
RESPONSE B: A friend and I have set up Scholariki which is a wiki for research students. We are currently looking for people to become mods if its of any interest?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What are some good social media sites or accounts for academia? (e.g., the Robert Scoble or TechCrunch of academia) When I was in industry, I stayed informed by following tech blogs and Twitter accounts. Now that I switched over to academia, I feel unaware of what's going on in the larger world of academia outside my field because I'm not sure where to get academic news. (Is "academic news" even a thing?) Even within my field, I tried searching for Twitter and G+ accounts and got nothing. Are there sites out there that could be considered the HN or TechCrunch of academia, or is there some guy that's the Scoble of academia? I know of academia.edu and recently signed up there but that seems to be specific to sharing and discussing research papers, which is cool and will be useful when I start publishing, though not really what I'm looking for now.
RESPONSE A: research gate - also focused on papers, and definitely focused on the sciences as far as I can tell... Mendeley has a little social side sometimes... I would try browsing the website for your field's society (like if you're into microbiology, try the American Society for Microbiology. If you're an electrical engineer, look to IEEE), and follow them on twitter, fb or G+.
RESPONSE B: For the UK, the Times Higher Education is a good source.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I have a bachelor’s in music education but I’m interested in clinical psychology. Will PhD programs even take me seriously? My undergrad did involve some psychology classes, and I have taught in public schools for three years, but I will obviously be behind someone with a BS in psych. I have a respectable GRE score and research topics that interest me. I’m curious as to whether or not the effort and expense of applying for graduate psych programs would be worth my time. I don’t know much about the culture of such things. Thanks in advance!
RESPONSE A: You won’t get into a PhD clinical program. They have higher rejection rates than Med school due to demand. You’ll need two years of lab manager work or a Masters in SW or Psych. Research experience is tantamount.
RESPONSE B: It’s possible to do a PhD in a different discipline than your undergrad, but very likely the admissions committees will look to see if you’ve taken more than just the basic coursework (Some upper level classes and a research methods/stats class seem to be standard fare.) I may be incorrect on this, but it is possible you would need more courses. Given your background, the area you are lacking the most is in previous research experience. People who are applying for PhD programs generally have several years of experience working in labs. If you are serious about pursuing this avenue, then you should try to find opportunities to volunteer in labs that seem interesting to you. Without research experiences and faculty who are willing to write you strong letters of recommendation for you to pursue research in that capacity, GRE scores and grades mean very little. If you have more questions, feel free to DM me. I made a similar switch in careers myself, so perhaps I may have some insight about how to best navigate that transition.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I have a bachelor’s in music education but I’m interested in clinical psychology. Will PhD programs even take me seriously? My undergrad did involve some psychology classes, and I have taught in public schools for three years, but I will obviously be behind someone with a BS in psych. I have a respectable GRE score and research topics that interest me. I’m curious as to whether or not the effort and expense of applying for graduate psych programs would be worth my time. I don’t know much about the culture of such things. Thanks in advance!
RESPONSE A: You won’t get into a PhD clinical program. They have higher rejection rates than Med school due to demand. You’ll need two years of lab manager work or a Masters in SW or Psych. Research experience is tantamount.
RESPONSE B: Grad departments will list their application requirements, so start by looking those up online. Most will want a BS in the same subject so you may be at a disadvantage in those, but a few might list specific prerequisite courses as substitute. It would be best to contact those latter departments directly to be sure that you would qualify if you take all the prerequisites.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: years, but I will obviously be behind someone with a BS in psych. I have a respectable GRE score and research topics that interest me. I’m curious as to whether or not the effort and expense of applying for graduate psych programs would be worth my time. I don’t know much about the culture of such things. Thanks in advance!
RESPONSE A: I did a PhD in Psychology at a R1 and am now a TT-track professor in Psychology at a more teaching-oriented school. Good Clinical Psychology PhD programs are the hardest to get into, typically with admissions rates of 1-5%. Other Psych PhD programs are slightly easier to get into. You might be looking at rates of 2-10% instead depending on the program. My advice: -Volunteer in labs for research experience. It is NOT possible to get into a legitimate Psych PhD program without prior research experience. Most look to see that you have done SEVERAL years (typically at least 2-3) of research and your own independent project (e.g., honors thesis). We highly value students who understand methods in psychology and have good writing and statistical skills. -Do another BA or apply to a Master's program in Psych to get the independent research experience. I don't see faculty offering this opportunity to someone who is not enrolled at a university as it takes up a lot of their time to supervise independent projects. -For a Clinical Psych program, you also need to work or volunteer in a Clinical setting (e.g., Veteran's hospital, therapeutic setting) for several years to be competitive -Appropriate classwork is necessary but not sufficient -Good grades and GRE scores are necessary but not sufficient -I do not know anyone who would accept a student based on a good personal statement or a good story, even at the Master's level
RESPONSE B: Grad departments will list their application requirements, so start by looking those up online. Most will want a BS in the same subject so you may be at a disadvantage in those, but a few might list specific prerequisite courses as substitute. It would be best to contact those latter departments directly to be sure that you would qualify if you take all the prerequisites.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I have a bachelor’s in music education but I’m interested in clinical psychology. Will PhD programs even take me seriously? My undergrad did involve some psychology classes, and I have taught in public schools for three years, but I will obviously be behind someone with a BS in psych. I have a respectable GRE score and research topics that interest me. I’m curious as to whether or not the effort and expense of applying for graduate psych programs would be worth my time. I don’t know much about the culture of such things. Thanks in advance!
RESPONSE A: Clinical Psych is one of THE hardest PhD programs to get into. An unwritten rule is you need two papers before you apply If you're serious about this, I suggest you look in lab manager positions (which are basically post-bacs)
RESPONSE B: I can’t speak directly to clinical psychology PhD programs but I have a BA in psychology and am currently working on my PhD in cell and molecular biology. I had sort of a winding path to get where I am but I took about 18 months of post bacc classes before starting the program that consisted almost entirely of upper division biology classes. I am also doing my PhD at the school I did the post bacc classes in and got to know the faculty and was even able to do some research in a lab before my application. I know for a fact having a good relationship with some of the committee members really helped my cases (my PI at the time told me directly, haha). So, I think it’s doable but you have to be able to show that you are serious and have the background knowledge necessary for the program. Best of luck! Hope it all works out for you!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: am conflicted as to how I should use my name. Suppose, for example, my name is John Walker Livingstone Brady, then it breaks down as follows: **First:** John **Last:** Walker Livingstone Brady If I use my full last name, my papers would be cited as [Walker Livingstone Brady, 2013]. Pretty cumbersome I think. I have thought about using only the last of the last names (Brady), but that would seem incomplete, not to mention incorrect since my last name is the collection of all those names. My question is: Is it acceptable to use the first letters of the first two last names followed by the last last name? Like this: **First:** John **Last:** W.L. Brady This is definitely easier on the eyes and less of a mouthful, tell me what you think I should do... Also, would it be WL Brady or W L Brady or W.L. Brady or W. L. Brady
RESPONSE A: A problem you may run into is with electronic literature databases. Using a non-conventional way of expressing your name is likely to confuse some of these systems, which may lead to inconsistencies in citations. Most humans don't take much stock in someone's name in a database or in a paper, it's merely an identifier. If they want to google information about you or know more about you on a personal level, first and last name are generally enough, especially if they can find a link to your CV or faculty/student webpage online. It may be difficult to find a balance between cumbersome/correct vs. manageable/uniform, but these are some things to consider.
RESPONSE B: I can only speak from experience of reading many books by academics but the example of John WL Brady would be best. There are authors like the labor history John C. Brown who use similar tactics. If (and it is a big if) I continue and eventually become a prof and publish academically I play on using a similar tactic to C.S. Lewis or J.P. Morgan as my first and middle names are a handful...however my last name is also a hard one to pronounce.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: , then it breaks down as follows: **First:** John **Last:** Walker Livingstone Brady If I use my full last name, my papers would be cited as [Walker Livingstone Brady, 2013]. Pretty cumbersome I think. I have thought about using only the last of the last names (Brady), but that would seem incomplete, not to mention incorrect since my last name is the collection of all those names. My question is: Is it acceptable to use the first letters of the first two last names followed by the last last name? Like this: **First:** John **Last:** W.L. Brady This is definitely easier on the eyes and less of a mouthful, tell me what you think I should do... Also, would it be WL Brady or W L Brady or W.L. Brady or W. L. Brady
RESPONSE A: Could you hyphenate your last names? Walker-Livingstone-Brady? If you do anything but have your entire name written out people are going to assume you have two middle names. Think about it like this...if you are a corresponding author and people want to contact you, unless you use your "full" last name you will be called Dr. Brady or Mr. Brady. It would drive me nuts. Don't think that your name has to be spot-on to your given name. It's essentially a pseudonym. It's just that a vast majority of people go by their given name. For example, my advisor's legal name (obviously changed) is Jane Sally Doe Johnson, is called Jane Johnson by non-academics, and publishes under the name J. Sally Doe!
RESPONSE B: I can only speak from experience of reading many books by academics but the example of John WL Brady would be best. There are authors like the labor history John C. Brown who use similar tactics. If (and it is a big if) I continue and eventually become a prof and publish academically I play on using a similar tactic to C.S. Lewis or J.P. Morgan as my first and middle names are a handful...however my last name is also a hard one to pronounce.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: last name, my papers would be cited as [Walker Livingstone Brady, 2013]. Pretty cumbersome I think. I have thought about using only the last of the last names (Brady), but that would seem incomplete, not to mention incorrect since my last name is the collection of all those names. My question is: Is it acceptable to use the first letters of the first two last names followed by the last last name? Like this: **First:** John **Last:** W.L. Brady This is definitely easier on the eyes and less of a mouthful, tell me what you think I should do... Also, would it be WL Brady or W L Brady or W.L. Brady or W. L. Brady
RESPONSE A: Generally, it doesn't matter, but you should try to pick something as distinct as possible and stick with it. What's more important, is that, where possible you should use just the standard ASCII letters in your name, and avoid non-standard accent marks as well. A lot of automatic paper parsers that extract citations and author lists from papers are broken by exotic characters, and if this happens it will throw off your citation metrics. I know this is really shit, for people from about 80% of the world, but you have to make a decision between people easily finding your papers, and using your real name.
RESPONSE B: Could you hyphenate your last names? Walker-Livingstone-Brady? If you do anything but have your entire name written out people are going to assume you have two middle names. Think about it like this...if you are a corresponding author and people want to contact you, unless you use your "full" last name you will be called Dr. Brady or Mr. Brady. It would drive me nuts. Don't think that your name has to be spot-on to your given name. It's essentially a pseudonym. It's just that a vast majority of people go by their given name. For example, my advisor's legal name (obviously changed) is Jane Sally Doe Johnson, is called Jane Johnson by non-academics, and publishes under the name J. Sally Doe!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Need advice on how to better attract community colleges for a faculty position. I have applied to over 10 community colleges and had only a single interview, which didn't turn out into an offer. I have researched the schools, tailored my cv and cover letter to fit with what they were looking for, and in fact, I only applied to schools that I felt was a good match (i.e. job description fitting with my skills and experience). I also have a Ph.D. and many years of teaching under my belt. I even have a good amount of research experience (at least for community college standards). What more can I do to look attractive for the selection committee? I really want to work at a CC. TIA.
RESPONSE A: If you said anything like "at least for community college standards," or any attitude came off like that at any point, you wouldn't have gotten the job. CCs can afford to be picky and select against people for whom this is "plan B." Have you worked at a CC? Are you familiar with the environment? CCs will often favor people who have adjuncted in a CC system at least a little. Do you have real-world experience? Depending on your field, some CCs hold out for people who have both teaching and nonacademic experience.
RESPONSE B: It really depends on your subject area. I know of some areas that can't find faculty and have had positions open for months without qualified applicants and other positions that get dozens.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Need advice on how to better attract community colleges for a faculty position. I have applied to over 10 community colleges and had only a single interview, which didn't turn out into an offer. I have researched the schools, tailored my cv and cover letter to fit with what they were looking for, and in fact, I only applied to schools that I felt was a good match (i.e. job description fitting with my skills and experience). I also have a Ph.D. and many years of teaching under my belt. I even have a good amount of research experience (at least for community college standards). What more can I do to look attractive for the selection committee? I really want to work at a CC. TIA.
RESPONSE A: Are you looking for a permanent position or for a part time one? My knowledge of CCs (largely based on the ones in the area) is that they are somewhat unwilling to hire full-time faculty, and prefer part-timers. Entire programs may be run by one-two instructors. What is your field? I suspect that in some fields (e.g., CS, Engineering) due to high demand for courses, part-time employment is easy to come by. But I am not sure it is the case in other disciplines.
RESPONSE B: If you said anything like "at least for community college standards," or any attitude came off like that at any point, you wouldn't have gotten the job. CCs can afford to be picky and select against people for whom this is "plan B." Have you worked at a CC? Are you familiar with the environment? CCs will often favor people who have adjuncted in a CC system at least a little. Do you have real-world experience? Depending on your field, some CCs hold out for people who have both teaching and nonacademic experience.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: EndNote or Mendeley integration for LaTeX with LyX? Hello, /r/AskAcademia! I am a newcomer to using LaTeX with LyX and I have my entire reference library in both EndNote and Mendeley. I've gotten a solid grasp of writing, but I am at a complete loss with references. I understand that there is the functionality for both EndNote and Mendeley integration -- what is best? What do you use, and why? Thank you!
RESPONSE A: Export the references from Mendeley or EndNote into a BibTeX *.bib file and use it in LyX or plain LaTeX. BibTeX is *the* way to do references in LaTeX.
RESPONSE B: Try /r/latex as well
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How many hours per week do you actually spend working towards completing your PhD? I'm debating pursuing a PhD and have heard a lot of differing opinions about the actual workload of the degree. I'm assuming that it depends on the discipline. Mine would be in computer science engineering or a related field. I'm currently not extremely interested in continuing into academia, as I think I would rather pursue industry after completing the degree. Does this impact the amount of work/effort that people put into their degrees?
RESPONSE A: I spent like 60 hrs a week in the lab during my first 4 years. Last month or two were 15 hrs a day on my dissertation.
RESPONSE B: Here to normalise the idea of treating a PhD as a normal 37hr a week job. It is perfectly feasible to do so and you should have the self discipline to not let it consume your life.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How many hours per week do you actually spend working towards completing your PhD? I'm debating pursuing a PhD and have heard a lot of differing opinions about the actual workload of the degree. I'm assuming that it depends on the discipline. Mine would be in computer science engineering or a related field. I'm currently not extremely interested in continuing into academia, as I think I would rather pursue industry after completing the degree. Does this impact the amount of work/effort that people put into their degrees?
RESPONSE A: Here to normalise the idea of treating a PhD as a normal 37hr a week job. It is perfectly feasible to do so and you should have the self discipline to not let it consume your life.
RESPONSE B: A PhD is really a zero sum game you pass or fail so don't go into it think to put less effort into it then head into industry. Realistically for the 3-4 years of your PhD there is a huge time commitment. Unless ypur passionate about what ypur doing and are willing to commit most of the hours of the day to it you may want to rethink
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How many hours per week do you actually spend working towards completing your PhD? I'm debating pursuing a PhD and have heard a lot of differing opinions about the actual workload of the degree. I'm assuming that it depends on the discipline. Mine would be in computer science engineering or a related field. I'm currently not extremely interested in continuing into academia, as I think I would rather pursue industry after completing the degree. Does this impact the amount of work/effort that people put into their degrees?
RESPONSE A: I did a chemistry PhD in 4.5 years. I worked 40 hours a week for normal weeks. There were crunch times where I would work extremely long hours, but this was not the norm. Your workload will depend a lot on your project and advisor. I know people who worked less than I did, but I also know people who would regularly get cussed out for “only” working 70-80 hours a week. Doing a PhD without extreme hours is possible. Choose your project and advisor carefully.
RESPONSE B: A PhD is really a zero sum game you pass or fail so don't go into it think to put less effort into it then head into industry. Realistically for the 3-4 years of your PhD there is a huge time commitment. Unless ypur passionate about what ypur doing and are willing to commit most of the hours of the day to it you may want to rethink
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: rather pursue industry after completing the degree. Does this impact the amount of work/effort that people put into their degrees?
RESPONSE A: A lot of students spend more time freaking out about not working than they do actually working (myself included, at times). The culture of being a grad student is not great and it’s hard to turn the feeling of needing-to-be-working off because generally you are evaluated more so on the work you produce vs the time you put in. So, it’s hard to enjoy a weekday night when you could be accomplishing a smidge more here or there on your various projects. But it’s a trap.
RESPONSE B: I'm not in coursework atm (dissertating ftw) and I spend about 10-15 hours a week on my dissertation & 10ish hours a week on admin/seminars/meetings. I then spend as much time as I please working on my side projects (academic projects), grant writing, reading other work in the field or what have you. I usually spend more than 40 hours in total since I have a very flexible program and do projects on things I just really like that aren't my dissertation. Could def keep it at 40 if I was so inclined, absent the occasional 'we need to turn this R&R around TONIGHT' or 'SHIT I forgot that progress report was due to the funder' or 'grades are due tomorrow - we ride!' Ultimately, you just need to do what works best for you and what makes you happy since everyone's process is slightly different. If working 45 hours is your jam - then rock on. If you hard stop at 38 - rock on. If you're having an amazing time writing code this weekend and you hit 55 - rock on. Find a PI or advisor that has similar values and expectations to you and a program with the type of career outcomes you're looking for. Grad students like to worry about what other grad students are doing. Some people will say you work too much, some people will say you work too little. Better bet is to know your own process, know your goals, and do what's best for you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How many hours did you work as a student? I'm starting my second year at university to do Medical Sciences. I'm a little anxious now, as everything from this moment adds up to the final grade. Up to now I've never really used a schedule, but now I think that should change. Specifically how many hours a day/week did you work for in your years at university/college? I know how I work best so thats not the problem, I just want to try and figure out what a good amount of working hours would be. Kind regards!
RESPONSE A: I was an academic advisor for two years. I got this question a lot. The rule of thumb I usually gave students was that for every hour you spend in class, you should plan on spending 2-3 hours out of class preparing. But the problem with that is that some classes take more or less effort than that. You might only need 40 minutes to prepare for one class, and 4 or 5 hours for another. I started to shy away from that "rule" in favor of the following: "Work as much as you need to in order to finish your assignments / prepare for your next class." The bottom line is that you should be treating school as your primary job, because it is. How you perform in this job will directly determine whether or not you get "promoted" to the job you really want after you graduate. So, if you're spending 35-40 hours a week for classes, that's about what you should be doing. Any less than that may be all right, and everyone needs a social life, but the fact is that you will never have more unscheduled time in your day-to-day life than you do right now. You can have an active social life and still put in plenty of time on your classes.
RESPONSE B: I tried to always keep all of my work -- classes & research -- to between 35-45 hr/week. My third year I took on a little too much and it was more like 50 for a couple of months, but I think averaging 40 is a good aim. You want to treat it like a full time job!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Specifically how many hours a day/week did you work for in your years at university/college? I know how I work best so thats not the problem, I just want to try and figure out what a good amount of working hours would be. Kind regards!
RESPONSE A: I was an academic advisor for two years. I got this question a lot. The rule of thumb I usually gave students was that for every hour you spend in class, you should plan on spending 2-3 hours out of class preparing. But the problem with that is that some classes take more or less effort than that. You might only need 40 minutes to prepare for one class, and 4 or 5 hours for another. I started to shy away from that "rule" in favor of the following: "Work as much as you need to in order to finish your assignments / prepare for your next class." The bottom line is that you should be treating school as your primary job, because it is. How you perform in this job will directly determine whether or not you get "promoted" to the job you really want after you graduate. So, if you're spending 35-40 hours a week for classes, that's about what you should be doing. Any less than that may be all right, and everyone needs a social life, but the fact is that you will never have more unscheduled time in your day-to-day life than you do right now. You can have an active social life and still put in plenty of time on your classes.
RESPONSE B: I never counted hours, but made sure that I can attain the target number of credits, which was officially then 160 hours per month per every month studied. How to structure this was highly variable. I did 11-12 hour sessions some days. Also, I often went to study in the computer class at about 20 (8 pm) and left maybe 23-04 depending on what was up. But, some weeks went by by just attending mandatory classes or meetings, which are maybe ~20 hours at max. Schedules are a tool, not something to follow as if you had to. Class is just a way to learn things to pass exams, they're not "work". Being present or attempt doesn't entitle you to credits. Look at what you get done and achieve only.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Tenure track hiring in Canada -as insular as they say? A friend recently told me not to bother applying to TT jobs in Canada because of their strong preference for hiring Canadians for those jobs. Can anyone speak to this?
RESPONSE A: I know of an American who was accepted a tenure-track position at a university in Vancouver. This was his first full-time teaching position after receiving a PhD. Don't have much else to share as he was a distant acquaintance, but it does happen.
RESPONSE B: Almost all jobs in Canada legally require the employer to show that they can't find a domestic hire before they can hire abroad.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Tenure track hiring in Canada -as insular as they say? A friend recently told me not to bother applying to TT jobs in Canada because of their strong preference for hiring Canadians for those jobs. Can anyone speak to this?
RESPONSE A: Canadian prof here. This is wrong, at least at research-intensive universities. As rirl and Solivaga say, we have essentially the same weak nationality requirements that exist in USA: we hire a Canadian over an equally-qualified non-Canadian, just as American universities hire Americans over equally-qualified non-Americans. At research-oriented universities, it is generally trivial to argue that your favored candidate is more qualified than the others. Things may be different at, e.g., Quest or Francis X.
RESPONSE B: I did my Ph.D. in Canada, and our department was maybe half Canadians (more heavily so among the older faculty), but it was certainly not Canadians only.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Tenure track hiring in Canada -as insular as they say? A friend recently told me not to bother applying to TT jobs in Canada because of their strong preference for hiring Canadians for those jobs. Can anyone speak to this?
RESPONSE A: I did my Ph.D. in Canada, and our department was maybe half Canadians (more heavily so among the older faculty), but it was certainly not Canadians only.
RESPONSE B: It's always worth applying! My undergraduate department (humanities) had only 1 or 2 Canadian professors out of 14 or so; a recent TT search had job talks from three non-Canadian candidates (and I know of several Canadians who applied). So while Canadians have an advantage, it's not a given that a Canadian will get the job in any given situation.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Cold emailing for a potential postdoc Hello all! My supervisor and internal reviewer agree that I should be at submission stage for my PhD by the end of the year (woo!). Of course, this now means I am in new territory and have no idea what I am doing. I have quite a few people I wish to work with for a postdoc and will be pursuing funding via fellowships. How would I go about cold emailing PIs to gauge their interest? I have been networking a bit the past year and a few are coauthors/collaborators so they at least know who I am and what I do. I do not want to be informal but I also do not want to waste anyone's time. Basically, does any one have any thoughts on how to structure a "statement of interest"-like email out of the blue for PIs I am familiar with? I'm in STEM, not afraid to move, and am generally flexible with my research topic for what it matter. COVID has made things weird but any advice is welcome. Thanks in advance!
RESPONSE A: In addition to what other people have said, I have gotten the advice from faculty to include a paper of yours (in addition to your CV), highlighting the work that you did on that paper and how it gives you skills for the lab you're applying to.
RESPONSE B: Cold emailing works, but you might not get replies from everyone. You may ask your advisor to also send emails on your behalf a couple days after you send yours. I got a 100% response rate for the faculty my advisor emailed and about a 50% response rate from faculty I did not request my advisor to email. Also, make sure you read their recent papers and give specific examples of what you like about their research near the beginning of the email, and elaborate more on the cover letter. Show them that you have done your research and are not just sending cookie cutter emails to a ton of faculty. I sent out a package with cover letter, CV, research summary (about a paragraph per project including some unpublished work), and copies of first author publications. Best of luck! I went through the search in the spring and it is a rough time out there!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: In the current employment market with such a glut of applicants, how is a failed search even possible? With literally hundreds of applicants for each job posting, how does it actually happen that the search committee is unable to find someone? In my frustration I'm thinking it's ineptitude...but I've never been on a search committee, and so I'm looking for a more empathetic explanation.
RESPONSE A: If all of their top applicants accept other jobs, they might not have money/time to continue the search and bring more candidates for on-campus interviews.
RESPONSE B: Source- having been on search committees. In rough descending order of likelihood. 1. Some job ads are written to fail, as an above poster notes. 1b. Some deans mandate certain cross specialisms for a line- Japanese cinema AND digital Hegel studies, etc. We have all seen those ads. 2. Some are written for a specific person to make a pre arranged hire plausible and legal. That person's personal circumstances change and they don't take it. 3. Many departments are so toxic that all hires are power struggles, and so no result is the safest outcome for all participants 4. Some fields are so dysfunctional that methodological differences make the above dynamic play out in miniature 5. Sometimes Deans decline to follow through on the promise of a line for one reason or another, sometimes their choice and sometimes not 6. Often a combination of these things happens- people go out in their 4th year to get leverage for tenure or spousal hire and tell their colleagues that situation [2] is in effect, while in fact they are playing their own departments because administration is so dysfunctional that only the plausible threat of leaving will secure what faculty see as acceptably humane treatment Other complicating factors- institutional insecurity ("but would they come?" syndrome), internal hire problems, other more specific structural rather than personal power struggles, institutional oversecurity (one dept said they would quote let the field mature unquote and so a search failed), and a general tendency among baby boomers to stare at their navels and believe in unicorns
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: In the current employment market with such a glut of applicants, how is a failed search even possible? With literally hundreds of applicants for each job posting, how does it actually happen that the search committee is unable to find someone? In my frustration I'm thinking it's ineptitude...but I've never been on a search committee, and so I'm looking for a more empathetic explanation.
RESPONSE A: If all of their top applicants accept other jobs, they might not have money/time to continue the search and bring more candidates for on-campus interviews.
RESPONSE B: Sometimes applicants are only using your search as leverage to get a raise at their current institution they have no intention of leaving. Not that I'm bitter we wasted thousands of dollars flying and housing them or anything, and I'm sure the people we then couldn't afford to interview were fine with it. (jk yes I am bitter)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: In the current employment market with such a glut of applicants, how is a failed search even possible? With literally hundreds of applicants for each job posting, how does it actually happen that the search committee is unable to find someone? In my frustration I'm thinking it's ineptitude...but I've never been on a search committee, and so I'm looking for a more empathetic explanation.
RESPONSE A: >how does it actually happen that the search committee is unable to find someone? They can disagree so much and so stridently on the best candidate that upper administration literally takes it out of their hands and cancels the search. I have seen this happen.
RESPONSE B: Some schools are delusional One position I was offered wanted 20 journal papers + $4 million in funding in five years Their entire dept had a yearly production of $1million and 10 journal papers (20 faculty) Those tenure requirements would have made me the damn dept
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: In the current employment market with such a glut of applicants, how is a failed search even possible? With literally hundreds of applicants for each job posting, how does it actually happen that the search committee is unable to find someone? In my frustration I'm thinking it's ineptitude...but I've never been on a search committee, and so I'm looking for a more empathetic explanation.
RESPONSE A: Some schools are delusional One position I was offered wanted 20 journal papers + $4 million in funding in five years Their entire dept had a yearly production of $1million and 10 journal papers (20 faculty) Those tenure requirements would have made me the damn dept
RESPONSE B: If all of their top applicants accept other jobs, they might not have money/time to continue the search and bring more candidates for on-campus interviews.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: In the current employment market with such a glut of applicants, how is a failed search even possible? With literally hundreds of applicants for each job posting, how does it actually happen that the search committee is unable to find someone? In my frustration I'm thinking it's ineptitude...but I've never been on a search committee, and so I'm looking for a more empathetic explanation.
RESPONSE A: I'm on a committee right now and 37 apps got through HR. This feels like a tiny pool considering the magnitude of the position. Feels like it was under advertised. Can't complain about it though because I never checked that the listings were placed as we had asked.
RESPONSE B: Some schools are delusional One position I was offered wanted 20 journal papers + $4 million in funding in five years Their entire dept had a yearly production of $1million and 10 journal papers (20 faculty) Those tenure requirements would have made me the damn dept
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: ISO Article Critiquing American Math Education, Comparing it to Teaching Music Purely Through Writing Sheet-music About ten years ago, somewhere online I stumbled across a great article written by a mathematician or maybe a math teacher fiercely criticizing the state of primary- and secondary-school math education in the U.S. As part of the critique, he says that the way we currently teach math would be akin to training children rigorously from Kindergarten on how to properly write sheet music, and then, if they excel at this course of study well into college, they are finally allowed to begin playing a musical instrument. I've searched for it off and on in recent years and haven't been able to find it; I would really like to. Does anyone have any ideas where I might find this article? If you have also read it and can remember anything else about it, that could help my search, too. The document I read was a PDF, maybe about 10 - 20 pages long, and I don't recall what publication the article came from. I don't even know if it was a scholarly or mainstream publication. It's also possible it was an unpublished article, although that doesn't feel right to me.
RESPONSE A: I hope you find this! It sounds incredibly interesting.
RESPONSE B: I think you are thinking of a Mathematicians Lament by Paul Lockhart. He wrote a longer form version called Measurement which is great as well.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: ISO Article Critiquing American Math Education, Comparing it to Teaching Music Purely Through Writing Sheet-music About ten years ago, somewhere online I stumbled across a great article written by a mathematician or maybe a math teacher fiercely criticizing the state of primary- and secondary-school math education in the U.S. As part of the critique, he says that the way we currently teach math would be akin to training children rigorously from Kindergarten on how to properly write sheet music, and then, if they excel at this course of study well into college, they are finally allowed to begin playing a musical instrument. I've searched for it off and on in recent years and haven't been able to find it; I would really like to. Does anyone have any ideas where I might find this article? If you have also read it and can remember anything else about it, that could help my search, too. The document I read was a PDF, maybe about 10 - 20 pages long, and I don't recall what publication the article came from. I don't even know if it was a scholarly or mainstream publication. It's also possible it was an unpublished article, although that doesn't feel right to me.
RESPONSE A: I hope you find this! It sounds incredibly interesting.
RESPONSE B: Well, jokes on all of us, because they suck at teaching music too. Most music "lessons" are about sheet music reading. I think I realised why I never really got into math, and went into biology instead: I couldn't get a "feel" for maths and mathematic studies while I can do so for biology and biological experiments.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Referencing help with google scholar After doing research for a long time, I think I need a research manager, reference manager, whatever you call it. I can't figure out which one. My method of doing research is strictly google scholar and word. I use word's built in reference tool and copy paste authors etc in the tool and it makes a whole list in word and cites in text, at the end, I can just put the whole list in the end with few clicks. Its time consuming or rather stupid but it works like a charm. I am hesitant using a software. Any recommendations?
RESPONSE A: There is some free referencing tools available, here is a paper about one for databases https://doi.org/10.3390/atoms8020016
RESPONSE B: Just a note to say be very careful with Google scholar. They index quite a few predatory journals. One of my students sent me a draft paper, and unbeknownst to me they had also used google scholar as their basic search engine. Took me a fair while to weed out the predatory crap.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What are some great academic productivity apps and computer programs for master students?
RESPONSE A: The sub r/gradschool might be more useful for this. I like the reference management app Mendeley. You can build a bibliography of resources (articles, books, websites, more), organize with folders and tags, save links to the articles on websites, save downloaded PDFs of the articles, annotate the PDFs with highlights and notes, and export selected articles (etc.) in the citation style you prefer (default choices include APA, MLA, Chicago, and bibtex, and you can build your styles or modify existing ones). You can also share articles or folders with collaborators who also use it, it syncs across multiple devices (I synch across a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone) and a browser version, and they can send you emails with related articles to ones you’ve saved for you to check out.
RESPONSE B: I use Zotero for references, Word and excel for notes, citations, Google keep for "omg some great idea popped into my mind", Google Task for deadlines and set push notis on my phone, Trello can be used for more tasks and project management of tasks with numerous subtasks, the pomodoro tracker Android app - Focus To-Do for tracking my pomodoros (25 min of focused work followed by 5 min of rest then start over), but the app FLIP is also great for monitoring and logging how much you work each day and you can set goals.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What are some great academic productivity apps and computer programs for master students?
RESPONSE A: The sub r/gradschool might be more useful for this. I like the reference management app Mendeley. You can build a bibliography of resources (articles, books, websites, more), organize with folders and tags, save links to the articles on websites, save downloaded PDFs of the articles, annotate the PDFs with highlights and notes, and export selected articles (etc.) in the citation style you prefer (default choices include APA, MLA, Chicago, and bibtex, and you can build your styles or modify existing ones). You can also share articles or folders with collaborators who also use it, it syncs across multiple devices (I synch across a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone) and a browser version, and they can send you emails with related articles to ones you’ve saved for you to check out.
RESPONSE B: Might not be what you are looking for, as it isn't strictly academic, but I use Forest for my phone and Freedom for my computer as app blockers when I need to spend a few non-distracted hours reading or writing. I find it has helped my productivity.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Yesterday, a friend of mine who is a college instructor used an app provided by the university to take attendance that used facial recognition technology. Creepy?
RESPONSE A: I would say it's probably inefficient but not creepy - the traditional method involves facial recognition, but in this case it's just done via computer rather than via your tutor's eyes & brain.
RESPONSE B: As a former University professor, I still find it baffling that some schools require you to take attendance. I gave exactly zero fucks who did and did not come to my classes.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How do most researchers into psychadellics feel about recreational use, in general and among their colleagues? I am in the process of leaving my carreer in a very drug-friendly sector of the tech industry to get a research masters, which I may end up doing in a lab that researches psychadellics and hallucinations. I happen to enjoy occasionally partking in psychadellics, partially for recreation and partially for their theraputic benefits. Is this information I should hide from my future colleagues? Could it hurt my reputation as a researcher?
RESPONSE A: I can see a lot of negatives to sharing this with colleagues e.g. legality, research bias, judgement, and not a lot of positives. The exception to this being if you become friends with peers and are discussing things you have done casually. I wouldn't advise telling people this is the reason you are in the field for example. For what it's worth, I know very few scientists in my department that do drugs and even less that would openly admit to it to anyone in the department that wasnt a PhD student that is their close friend
RESPONSE B: I’m a researcher in psychedelics. I think it’s best to not disclose personal use to colleagues because it may seem like a moral conflict of interest. It’s also illegal to use such substances where I’m from so disclosing that you do them to the wrong people could cause some major issues. I know at least at my undergraduate university people were very shocked at my interest in the drugs do the stigma associated with use. Once I got into my phd program it was more welcoming and of interest. Another thing is that I’ve found most people who research pharmacology of drugs have an interest in the drugs they research for a reason. A lot of people who end up investigating psychs have used them in the past but that’s not something that’s regularly disclosed or talked about.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How do most researchers into psychadellics feel about recreational use, in general and among their colleagues? I am in the process of leaving my carreer in a very drug-friendly sector of the tech industry to get a research masters, which I may end up doing in a lab that researches psychadellics and hallucinations. I happen to enjoy occasionally partking in psychadellics, partially for recreation and partially for their theraputic benefits. Is this information I should hide from my future colleagues? Could it hurt my reputation as a researcher?
RESPONSE A: I only know one, but she does use and is pretty open about it... at least, she's open about having used in the past.
RESPONSE B: I’m a researcher in psychedelics. I think it’s best to not disclose personal use to colleagues because it may seem like a moral conflict of interest. It’s also illegal to use such substances where I’m from so disclosing that you do them to the wrong people could cause some major issues. I know at least at my undergraduate university people were very shocked at my interest in the drugs do the stigma associated with use. Once I got into my phd program it was more welcoming and of interest. Another thing is that I’ve found most people who research pharmacology of drugs have an interest in the drugs they research for a reason. A lot of people who end up investigating psychs have used them in the past but that’s not something that’s regularly disclosed or talked about.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How do most researchers into psychadellics feel about recreational use, in general and among their colleagues? I am in the process of leaving my carreer in a very drug-friendly sector of the tech industry to get a research masters, which I may end up doing in a lab that researches psychadellics and hallucinations. I happen to enjoy occasionally partking in psychadellics, partially for recreation and partially for their theraputic benefits. Is this information I should hide from my future colleagues? Could it hurt my reputation as a researcher?
RESPONSE A: I can see a lot of negatives to sharing this with colleagues e.g. legality, research bias, judgement, and not a lot of positives. The exception to this being if you become friends with peers and are discussing things you have done casually. I wouldn't advise telling people this is the reason you are in the field for example. For what it's worth, I know very few scientists in my department that do drugs and even less that would openly admit to it to anyone in the department that wasnt a PhD student that is their close friend
RESPONSE B: Hide it. Every research university must comply with the Drug-Free Workplace Act because they are reliant on federal grants. It's nonsense, but you better really trust anyone you disclose that information to: it can cost you your position. MS students are at the bottom of the totem pole already. Be advised that some medical schools also drug test everybody, even trainees, even if you are not patient-facing--so be careful. I'm not in the psych field (did work in an addiction lab for 2 years as an undergrad) but even cannabis is kept on the DL among close friends at conferences, etc. Let your future colleagues open up before you do. I wouldn't broadcast it even if I were tenured faculty. Note that I am on your side.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do most researchers into psychadellics feel about recreational use, in general and among their colleagues? I am in the process of leaving my carreer in a very drug-friendly sector of the tech industry to get a research masters, which I may end up doing in a lab that researches psychadellics and hallucinations. I happen to enjoy occasionally partking in psychadellics, partially for recreation and partially for their theraputic benefits. Is this information I should hide from my future colleagues? Could it hurt my reputation as a researcher?
RESPONSE A: Hide it. Every research university must comply with the Drug-Free Workplace Act because they are reliant on federal grants. It's nonsense, but you better really trust anyone you disclose that information to: it can cost you your position. MS students are at the bottom of the totem pole already. Be advised that some medical schools also drug test everybody, even trainees, even if you are not patient-facing--so be careful. I'm not in the psych field (did work in an addiction lab for 2 years as an undergrad) but even cannabis is kept on the DL among close friends at conferences, etc. Let your future colleagues open up before you do. I wouldn't broadcast it even if I were tenured faculty. Note that I am on your side.
RESPONSE B: I only know one, but she does use and is pretty open about it... at least, she's open about having used in the past.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What things can I do now to make it easier to get into academia later? I'm a rising sophomore and I'm currently in a research lab doing...well...research. I hope to transfer soon but that's beside the point. What things could/should I be doing now to get into a great masters program?
RESPONSE A: Shift from casual to serious, get excellent grades, develop relationships with people who can write you strong references letters. Be an outstanding research assistant. Ace the GRE.
RESPONSE B: I have some advice a little different from what you are asking, but imo makes things easier if you do as an undergrad. For me, academia seemed daunting because I couldn't decide on the 'thing' I wanted to do. I ended up working on several projects as an undergrad, in fields that include robotics, astronomy, and medical optics. Once I did medical optics, I *knew* exactly where my passion was. Knowing that passion before starting grad school allowed me to enter a lab that aligned well with my goals, and map out a dissertation in my first year. So, my advice is to do a lot of different stuff. You can't really know if you like something until you start doing it. I see a lot of grad students entering their 2nd and 3rd year who have given up on finding a project they like, and are just hoping to find *something* that will let them finish grad school. Not fun. edit - and more practically, your letter of interest will be a lot stronger if you already have in mind what you want to do
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What things can I do now to make it easier to get into academia later? I'm a rising sophomore and I'm currently in a research lab doing...well...research. I hope to transfer soon but that's beside the point. What things could/should I be doing now to get into a great masters program?
RESPONSE A: One thing you can do that's kind of underappreciated in many fields: work on "soft skills", especially interacting with people. The ability to build a network of professional contacts plays a huge role in finding success in academia. When you go to conferences and workshops, or even when you start at a new institution, you'll want to be out working "the floor", talking to people about their research (and other stuff), asking questions at talks and poster presentations, attending or organizing group lunches, and so on. This is how you get your name and face recognized in the community, and you're going to need that recognition to build a career as a researcher. Granted, none of this is a substitute for actually being good at research, but everyone always tells you to be good at research. Not many people, in my experience, will tell you to be good at getting along with other researchers. The same skills are useful for making friends outside of work, too. It's a win-win.
RESPONSE B: Shift from casual to serious, get excellent grades, develop relationships with people who can write you strong references letters. Be an outstanding research assistant. Ace the GRE.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What is the best way to keep track of quotes and sources topically? As I am getting ready to start my dissertation, I am reading a lot and I do not want to lose track of important information and sources. How do you suggest keeping track?
RESPONSE A: I just typed everything that I read, or thought was interesting, in a Word doc. I was very careful to include page numbers, direct quotes, etc. For journal articles, I usually just put them in an excel sheet.
RESPONSE B: While I used Zotero to save me. I also had a document that paralleled my dissertation, it was my messy “shadow dissertation” where I used all of the same headings but it literally was nothing but quotes and notes in the order I at first thought I would use them and later the order I did use them.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What is the best way to keep track of quotes and sources topically? As I am getting ready to start my dissertation, I am reading a lot and I do not want to lose track of important information and sources. How do you suggest keeping track?
RESPONSE A: While I used Zotero to save me. I also had a document that paralleled my dissertation, it was my messy “shadow dissertation” where I used all of the same headings but it literally was nothing but quotes and notes in the order I at first thought I would use them and later the order I did use them.
RESPONSE B: I would index by multiple themes. Meaning, one entry or quote might be referenced under multiple headings. Try scrivener for the dissertation.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What is the best way to keep track of quotes and sources topically? As I am getting ready to start my dissertation, I am reading a lot and I do not want to lose track of important information and sources. How do you suggest keeping track?
RESPONSE A: I would index by multiple themes. Meaning, one entry or quote might be referenced under multiple headings. Try scrivener for the dissertation.
RESPONSE B: I just typed everything that I read, or thought was interesting, in a Word doc. I was very careful to include page numbers, direct quotes, etc. For journal articles, I usually just put them in an excel sheet.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What is the best way to keep track of quotes and sources topically? As I am getting ready to start my dissertation, I am reading a lot and I do not want to lose track of important information and sources. How do you suggest keeping track?
RESPONSE A: I use mendeley as my reference manager, and have found that it’s sufficient for my needs. It has a MS word plugin and is pretty straightforward to use.
RESPONSE B: I would suggest you create an outline in word and insert quotes and sources where they fit, then you are writing directly into what will become the real thesis document. You can have sections that are "extra words on topic X" or transfer one topic area into a document called "extra sentences on X" if you need to. I think other methods often create just an extra layer of steps to get through. I always suggest to cite-as-you-go in Zotero or Endnote but don't use those programs' notes section, preferring to put the notes into the text directly.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What is the best way to keep track of quotes and sources topically? As I am getting ready to start my dissertation, I am reading a lot and I do not want to lose track of important information and sources. How do you suggest keeping track?
RESPONSE A: I would suggest you create an outline in word and insert quotes and sources where they fit, then you are writing directly into what will become the real thesis document. You can have sections that are "extra words on topic X" or transfer one topic area into a document called "extra sentences on X" if you need to. I think other methods often create just an extra layer of steps to get through. I always suggest to cite-as-you-go in Zotero or Endnote but don't use those programs' notes section, preferring to put the notes into the text directly.
RESPONSE B: If you're a Mac user then get Scrivener (the academic use one is quite cheap and it's a one-off payment that's well worth the money - around £35 I think), and I've found Bookends by Sonny Software to be good too - it's very similar to Zotero. I also use Evernote for notes, thoughts, saving entire webpages, and even for keeping my handwritten notes - Evernote has a scan function that you use with your phone camera. Both Evernote and Bookends integrate with Scrivener. Scrivener alone is even useful for keeping track of information and sources as it has an index card system (that looks like index cards), and you can add entire articles as PDFs, webpages, and so on. If you then use its split-screen feature you can have an article in one screen and your note taking in the other. Scrivener also has over 1,000,000 YouTube video tutorials, and the community is very supportive so any problems you run into are usually easily and quickly solved :)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Who makes good use of their office chair's spin function and what do you use it for? I find mine almost totally useless.
RESPONSE A: Just wanted to say that this thread is wonderful
RESPONSE B: Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Professors how was your first lecture you ever gave? How was your first lecture? How nervous were you? And how long did it take for you to get over your nervousness and gain confidence?
RESPONSE A: My masters advisor phoned me and said "Heya champ, you're gonna do fine, I've emailed you the lecture and you know this stuff." And I said "whaaaaat?" and then he hung up and I checked my email. This was all landlines back then, and I was lucky that I was drinking at home on my couch (as grad students do) instead of out at the bar. Woke up early the next day, printed off the notes, did some reading, and gave a great lecture. Faked the confidence. And that was my introduction to instruction.
RESPONSE B: I was very sober and serious. It did not take long before I realized even as a graduate student I was so far ahead of my students I didn’t need to demonstrate my expertise. Once I lost that misconception my personality really shone through. I’m very outgoing and personable. It doesn’t suit me to be too serious and try to intimidate.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Professors how was your first lecture you ever gave? How was your first lecture? How nervous were you? And how long did it take for you to get over your nervousness and gain confidence?
RESPONSE A: I was so anxious about speaking in public as a kid I refused to talk in class, it was part of every grade I ever got. Then I got to grad school and had to TA, and the more I did it the less scary it was. Now I actually LIKE teaching and my biggest class (about 200) isn’t scary at all. Just practice practice practice - the more you do it the easier it gets.
RESPONSE B: My masters advisor phoned me and said "Heya champ, you're gonna do fine, I've emailed you the lecture and you know this stuff." And I said "whaaaaat?" and then he hung up and I checked my email. This was all landlines back then, and I was lucky that I was drinking at home on my couch (as grad students do) instead of out at the bar. Woke up early the next day, printed off the notes, did some reading, and gave a great lecture. Faked the confidence. And that was my introduction to instruction.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Professors how was your first lecture you ever gave? How was your first lecture? How nervous were you? And how long did it take for you to get over your nervousness and gain confidence?
RESPONSE A: First lecture I ever gave was the first day of work, they changed all my courses, and gave me 3 classes and 3 labs to teach the first semester (engineering courses). I was unfamiliar and unprepared. There was a moment where I stopped for about 30 seconds, dead silent, and pondered if I should just excuse myself and walk out and never come back.
RESPONSE B: My first lecture went very well (although pitched slightly wrong, trying to do too much in one go). But that's because I had several years experience teaching GCSE and A Level (high school). My first classroom teaching experience was horrible. I was a sweaty mess. My material was planned to the second, so as soon as anything went wrong the timings were out. I didn't know how to deal with students who were struggling, or who weren't listening. And then, with practice, came competence. And practice is really all it comes down to. Experience one situation, learn from it, and apply what you've learnt to new situations.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: ? How nervous were you? And how long did it take for you to get over your nervousness and gain confidence?
RESPONSE A: I gave my first lecture last year -- an introductory class for first years (essentially revision of stuff they should-know-from-school-but-have-forgotten-over-summer). I was super prepared, could do all the maths in my head no problem, and I actually didn't find standing up and talking to 250 students that intimidating. What I failed to account for, in my all-singing-all-dancing "active learning" environment, was what to say if I asked the class a question and someone gave the wrong answer. Not just a wrong answer, but a *wildly* wrong answer. Lo and behold, exactly what happened twenty minutes in. A nice young man, on his third day at university in front of his entire peer group for the next three years of his life, stuck his hand up and said (essentially) 2 = 1. I realised in real time I couldn't just say "no. wrong." and move on in case I absolutely crushed the boys self confidence. So instead I told a straight lie and stumbled over something along the lines of "oh, yeah, I think I got that the first time I looked at it but you se..." In retrospect that was probably about as well handled as I could've wished it to be. But I felt like utter crap. I gave the same lecture/class again yesterday. This time I posed the question as multiple choice, with five plausible (so not silly-wrong) possibilities.
RESPONSE B: My first lecture went very well (although pitched slightly wrong, trying to do too much in one go). But that's because I had several years experience teaching GCSE and A Level (high school). My first classroom teaching experience was horrible. I was a sweaty mess. My material was planned to the second, so as soon as anything went wrong the timings were out. I didn't know how to deal with students who were struggling, or who weren't listening. And then, with practice, came competence. And practice is really all it comes down to. Experience one situation, learn from it, and apply what you've learnt to new situations.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Professors how was your first lecture you ever gave? How was your first lecture? How nervous were you? And how long did it take for you to get over your nervousness and gain confidence?
RESPONSE A: I tried to overdeliver due to my own nervousness. Also brought numerous printouts of annotated slides which I never used. Funny thing is, 30 seconds in nervousness flies away and you find your rhythm. Prior to my first lecture, while queuing up for to print acetates (showing my age), a senior colleague told me "*if you have spent 5 minutes preparing for a lesson, you are already 100% more prepared than any of the students in the class*"
RESPONSE B: My first lecture went very well (although pitched slightly wrong, trying to do too much in one go). But that's because I had several years experience teaching GCSE and A Level (high school). My first classroom teaching experience was horrible. I was a sweaty mess. My material was planned to the second, so as soon as anything went wrong the timings were out. I didn't know how to deal with students who were struggling, or who weren't listening. And then, with practice, came competence. And practice is really all it comes down to. Experience one situation, learn from it, and apply what you've learnt to new situations.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: no class assigned, worried Hi all, I have been trying to reach my dept head for a while. I learned today that he was down with covid the past few weeks. I do feel bad for him. I'm trying to reach out to him with no luck. I'm just joining my department and starting as an assistant professor this semester. I have no idea about what I will teach this semester. My biggest worry is they might assign me something that I'm not qualified for. Classes are starting on August 24. I sent him (my dept head) a text and email today...stil waiting... Any thoughts on what I should/could do? I'm a tenure track assistant professor at an r1 institution in CS. Thanks
RESPONSE A: Isn't the 1st semester usually given teaching off to set up your research lab?
RESPONSE B: Wow, I’m really sorry—this sounds stressful. I agree to contact others in the department. Also, check their registration or course scheduling system to see what corses are and aren’t assigned to others already. Do you have Blackboard/Canvas access? Perhaps your courses are already posted
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: no class assigned, worried Hi all, I have been trying to reach my dept head for a while. I learned today that he was down with covid the past few weeks. I do feel bad for him. I'm trying to reach out to him with no luck. I'm just joining my department and starting as an assistant professor this semester. I have no idea about what I will teach this semester. My biggest worry is they might assign me something that I'm not qualified for. Classes are starting on August 24. I sent him (my dept head) a text and email today...stil waiting... Any thoughts on what I should/could do? I'm a tenure track assistant professor at an r1 institution in CS. Thanks
RESPONSE A: Wow, I’m really sorry—this sounds stressful. I agree to contact others in the department. Also, check their registration or course scheduling system to see what corses are and aren’t assigned to others already. Do you have Blackboard/Canvas access? Perhaps your courses are already posted
RESPONSE B: This really isn't acceptable. It can take weeks to put together a good syllabus, not to mention multiple syllabi. Are you in town yet? If so, I'd go up to the department. How about other profs you met on your campus visit, who were part of your interview? Someone should respond to you. Worst case, look up the course offerings in your department. If there are any listed as "staff" that is likely you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Advice on finding a postdoc. I am coming towards the end of my PhD in biochemistry (From a NZ university) and I am starting the dreaded job search. I was wondering how people found their postdocs (my advisor hasn't been able to give me much help). There doesn't appear to be many positions advertised in my area of interest, so am I better off directly contacting labs? My preference would be Europe (I hold an EU passport) but I am also considering the US and Australia. I can't bring any funding with me, so would I be expected to apply for fellowships? Any advice wold be appreciated, thanks.
RESPONSE A: Is there a journal or magazine put out by one of the major academic societies in your field? A lot of labs will advertise post-doc positions this way.
RESPONSE B: It may vary by field, but I would guess a majority of postdocs are not advertised and are filled by word-of-mouth. In the absence of a well-connected advisor, one way to proceed might be to identify professors or labs whose research areas interest you and simply send them an email introducing yourself (attach a CV) and asking about any possible upcoming openings. Even if they have nothing in their own labs, they may be able to direct you to a colleague with similar interests. >would I be expected to apply for fellowships? I know of at least one case where the PI offered a position if the applicant was willing to help write the funding grant... and the grant got funded. I don't think this happens very often though, since grants can take a long time to come through. That being said, if you *do* manage to snag a fellowship, you'll have a much easier time finding a position, since professors generally don't turn down free (for them) labor.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Advice on finding a postdoc. I am coming towards the end of my PhD in biochemistry (From a NZ university) and I am starting the dreaded job search. I was wondering how people found their postdocs (my advisor hasn't been able to give me much help). There doesn't appear to be many positions advertised in my area of interest, so am I better off directly contacting labs? My preference would be Europe (I hold an EU passport) but I am also considering the US and Australia. I can't bring any funding with me, so would I be expected to apply for fellowships? Any advice wold be appreciated, thanks.
RESPONSE A: Is there a journal or magazine put out by one of the major academic societies in your field? A lot of labs will advertise post-doc positions this way.
RESPONSE B: In the US, very few good postdocs get advertised. You just need to ask around.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Advice on finding a postdoc. I am coming towards the end of my PhD in biochemistry (From a NZ university) and I am starting the dreaded job search. I was wondering how people found their postdocs (my advisor hasn't been able to give me much help). There doesn't appear to be many positions advertised in my area of interest, so am I better off directly contacting labs? My preference would be Europe (I hold an EU passport) but I am also considering the US and Australia. I can't bring any funding with me, so would I be expected to apply for fellowships? Any advice wold be appreciated, thanks.
RESPONSE A: Will you be attending any conferences before you finished? If so, look through the program and see if there are any speakers from either a lab you're interested in working in, a subfield you're interested in, or, preferably, both. Then try finding them or emailing them after their talk to chat about their work and ask about possible postdoc opportunities. I'm not sure about your field in particular, but this tactic works best at a large conference where grad students & postdocs are giving talks in addition to professors.
RESPONSE B: Is there a journal or magazine put out by one of the major academic societies in your field? A lot of labs will advertise post-doc positions this way.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Advice on finding a postdoc. I am coming towards the end of my PhD in biochemistry (From a NZ university) and I am starting the dreaded job search. I was wondering how people found their postdocs (my advisor hasn't been able to give me much help). There doesn't appear to be many positions advertised in my area of interest, so am I better off directly contacting labs? My preference would be Europe (I hold an EU passport) but I am also considering the US and Australia. I can't bring any funding with me, so would I be expected to apply for fellowships? Any advice wold be appreciated, thanks.
RESPONSE A: Is there a journal or magazine put out by one of the major academic societies in your field? A lot of labs will advertise post-doc positions this way.
RESPONSE B: if you're interested in the UK, jobs.ac.uk would be a place to start. They advertise positions that already have funding as do Nature jobs and Science jobs. All will have listings for a variety positions.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Advice on finding a postdoc. I am coming towards the end of my PhD in biochemistry (From a NZ university) and I am starting the dreaded job search. I was wondering how people found their postdocs (my advisor hasn't been able to give me much help). There doesn't appear to be many positions advertised in my area of interest, so am I better off directly contacting labs? My preference would be Europe (I hold an EU passport) but I am also considering the US and Australia. I can't bring any funding with me, so would I be expected to apply for fellowships? Any advice wold be appreciated, thanks.
RESPONSE A: Not sure how it works in NZ, but do you have a committee? I found my post doc through one of my committee members. Talk to the professors you know at your university about who they know, and any ideas of where you could look and who you should talk to.
RESPONSE B: Is there a journal or magazine put out by one of the major academic societies in your field? A lot of labs will advertise post-doc positions this way.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Does the following constitute cheating? I’m in a math heavy doctoral program at a tier 1 university in USA. Most of the students use old completed exams from seniors to study for tests and also to solve homework. The problem is that many midterms and finals are exactly the same as the old exams. I have abstained from this because to me it seems like cheating. The students that use the exams often get perfect marks. They say they do not study until the night exams. I’ve stayed away because this has never been an issue in my previous schools. The professors do hand back midterm exams (not the finals). My question is this, am I handicapping myself unnecessarily by staying away from this? And is this cheating?
RESPONSE A: Depends on the dept. Where I am, it would be considered cheating and is grounds for charges of academic dishonesty/misconduct. Our exams and handbooks have written statements on the dissemination of past, present, and future examination materials though. We just had a bad case of it this year that just went through conduct. I would see if you can find any policies (university-wide or program specific) on it.
RESPONSE B: Man we have the last five years’ exams available to us including solutions and we are encouraged to go through it as practice. The professors write new exams each year as they should!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Does the following constitute cheating? I’m in a math heavy doctoral program at a tier 1 university in USA. Most of the students use old completed exams from seniors to study for tests and also to solve homework. The problem is that many midterms and finals are exactly the same as the old exams. I have abstained from this because to me it seems like cheating. The students that use the exams often get perfect marks. They say they do not study until the night exams. I’ve stayed away because this has never been an issue in my previous schools. The professors do hand back midterm exams (not the finals). My question is this, am I handicapping myself unnecessarily by staying away from this? And is this cheating?
RESPONSE A: Even though they hand back, the professors might not know/expect that the exams are being shared. I would expect that of the undergrads (i don't hand back exams for my undergrads, and I still try do google searches every semester to see what has been leaked), but I wouldn't expect it from doctoral students.
RESPONSE B: Man we have the last five years’ exams available to us including solutions and we are encouraged to go through it as practice. The professors write new exams each year as they should!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Do you consider this plagiarism? I found other instances of clear plagiarism in this text and I am trying to determine if this is also plagiarism. https://imgur.com/a/DswUXk0
RESPONSE A: I'd let it slide. There's only so many ways to describe that
RESPONSE B: There’s nothing “borderline” here - one is copied from the other with minor rephrasings. If no references are given (and it seems they aren’t), any college course would call that plagiarism.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Do you consider this plagiarism? I found other instances of clear plagiarism in this text and I am trying to determine if this is also plagiarism. https://imgur.com/a/DswUXk0
RESPONSE A: Personally, in cases like this where it's a real borderline case, I'd round down to not saying anything. Especially with technical writing -- sometimes something was described perfectly the first time. As an aside, I'm of the position that whole methods sections ought to be copyable without plagiarism accusations, especially if you were the original author, but this might be because I was a CS major and believe in re-use in a way that others don't. edit: I also went to an undergrad school with a HARD honor system, so I tend maybe to give people the benefit of the doubt when they were actually trying to game the system. edit2: ok, if this was a postdoc, there's no excuse.
RESPONSE B: There’s nothing “borderline” here - one is copied from the other with minor rephrasings. If no references are given (and it seems they aren’t), any college course would call that plagiarism.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Do you consider this plagiarism? I found other instances of clear plagiarism in this text and I am trying to determine if this is also plagiarism. https://imgur.com/a/DswUXk0
RESPONSE A: I'd let it slide. There's only so many ways to describe that
RESPONSE B: At best, it's someone who doesn't know how to paraphrase well. They didn't even bother to use synonyms, much less reword things in a significantly different way. I'd look at it in the context of the other instances of plagiarism to get the whole picture. Is this earlier in the text? Maybe at that point they were still "trying", i.e. making a bare minimum effort to put things in their own words, and then later their standards slipped. Maybe they really need some help understanding how to quote, paraphrase, and rephrase things and what the differences are. Or maybe they knew what they were doing was wrong but decided to try to get away with it anyway. Whatever makes the most sense from the rest that you know about this student and their quality of work, judge according to that.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Do you consider this plagiarism? I found other instances of clear plagiarism in this text and I am trying to determine if this is also plagiarism. https://imgur.com/a/DswUXk0
RESPONSE A: Personally, in cases like this where it's a real borderline case, I'd round down to not saying anything. Especially with technical writing -- sometimes something was described perfectly the first time. As an aside, I'm of the position that whole methods sections ought to be copyable without plagiarism accusations, especially if you were the original author, but this might be because I was a CS major and believe in re-use in a way that others don't. edit: I also went to an undergrad school with a HARD honor system, so I tend maybe to give people the benefit of the doubt when they were actually trying to game the system. edit2: ok, if this was a postdoc, there's no excuse.
RESPONSE B: At best, it's someone who doesn't know how to paraphrase well. They didn't even bother to use synonyms, much less reword things in a significantly different way. I'd look at it in the context of the other instances of plagiarism to get the whole picture. Is this earlier in the text? Maybe at that point they were still "trying", i.e. making a bare minimum effort to put things in their own words, and then later their standards slipped. Maybe they really need some help understanding how to quote, paraphrase, and rephrase things and what the differences are. Or maybe they knew what they were doing was wrong but decided to try to get away with it anyway. Whatever makes the most sense from the rest that you know about this student and their quality of work, judge according to that.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Do you consider this plagiarism? I found other instances of clear plagiarism in this text and I am trying to determine if this is also plagiarism. https://imgur.com/a/DswUXk0
RESPONSE A: I'd let it slide. There's only so many ways to describe that
RESPONSE B: Information that is paraphrased from another source must be cited. This constitutes plagiarism if there is no citation. Just listing the source in the bibliography is not sufficient in most citation styles (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.). It must be cited in-text as well. The only time this would not apply is if this is considered general knowledge in the field. For example, I don't need to cite a source if I tell you Paris is the capital of France. Or in my own discipline, I don't have to cite a source when explaining a common concept. Plagiarism isn't just about cut and paste, direct quotes, or slightly altered quotes. It's about giving credit for ideas, data, discovery, and information as well. Many students do not know this. In these cases, I often give them 1 chance to fix it, but only 1. Also, international students can have a rough time because plagiarism is cultural and sometimes what their home country teaches them to do is actually plagiarism by American/Western standards. Turnitin.com has some white papers with lots of examples and classifications of plagiarism. Fyi Source: taught info literacy to freshman for four years
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How to get "invited talks" as a postdoc? I am a postdoc in biomedical sciences and I am in the final stage of training. In preparation for the job application and to get my name and my research more exposed I have been going to conferences and giving short talks. However, I see in the tenure-track job applicants typically list many invited talks in their CVs. It seems to me that these invited talks increase one's exposure to more experts of the field, and it also looks great on the CV. How should a postdoc get more invited talks, such as departmental seminars or alike? Would you email the departments/professors in different schools and "self-invite" yourself, or ask about the possibility of giving a talk? Many thanks!
RESPONSE A: Honestly, you're not going to get that many. I have no doubt a lot of people call contributed talks on their CVs as invited talks. That being said, if you happen to be visiting somewhere, ask someone you know if you can give a seminar. If you know someone organising a conference, have a chat. I wouldn't solicit to places you don't have very good contacts.
RESPONSE B: 1) Have friends at other institutions. 2) Do interesting research. 3) Get a campus invite for a job interview. (semi-joking on this one) All in all, invited talks don't really do a lot for your CV or career potential. They reflect your larger involvement in the field, though, since invitations usually mean other folks acknowledge your expertise and research as something interesting to present to a larger audience.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: do a PhD at the same university would be a huge benefit as it would enable me to live at home. Also, more importantly, there are two lecturers whose work aligns well with my research interests and I was lucky enough to do my undergrad dissertation with one of those lecturers and we are going to attempt to publish it. There is another local university but their department and research just doesn't resonate with me. ​ I was just posting to see what academic's opinion of this is? I haven't spoken to anyone at my university yet about this. For reference my field is biomedicine. ​ Thank you.
RESPONSE A: Please don't do this. I did my undergrad and my first Masters at the same university, and I didn't even know until I started my second Masters at a different institution how different institutional culture can be. It's just a radically different learning experience, and I think changing institutions is a valuable way to learn to work with very different thinking styles. You will also meet many more people who can be collaborators or references. It will make you more appealing on the job market, IMO.
RESPONSE B: It's not ideal, but it's not always a death sentence. Personally, I would always caution people against it. If you never branch out, you never expand your network. This will make it harder to get a job, start collaborations, etc (i.e., who you know is more important than what you know). You will also limit your exposure to different types of thinking, because you will have largely the same professors every step of the way. In the long run, this probably limits your skill base and creativity. Plus, many academics are a bit skeptical of people who worked with the same people over and over (i.e., do you *really* know what you're doing as an independent researcher, or are you just tagging along on Dr. Smith's ideas/grants/coattails). Also, PhD programs are funded - not luxuriously, but financial concerns shouldn't *really* be a problem unless you're trying to support a family on the stipend. Location for financial reasons should be manageable.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: is lifestyle in academia (science) really that bad? How many hours a week on average does a faculty member in STEM put in? Comments like this worry me https://twitter.com/iamassprof/status/699335699401719809, https://twitter.com/iamassprof/status/698595909425307648, but what's the reality?
RESPONSE A: If you're worried because of the posts you read on reddit, which I was at first, its important to remember that people are more likely to write about bad times. We all go on the internet to moan but how many of us would come on reddit and say they had a good week?
RESPONSE B: I've seen some profs get in at 10 and leave at 5. Other profs emailing their students at 430am about work and being in till 6 at night. There's a fair spread I think. I'm fairly certain profs work from home but I can't verify. Though it was weird as hell watching a tenured prof get in at 10am and leave before I did that day. Then again a lot of the tenured profs got into science before things got ugly so I wouldn't be surprised if they're coasting now.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: is lifestyle in academia (science) really that bad? How many hours a week on average does a faculty member in STEM put in? Comments like this worry me https://twitter.com/iamassprof/status/699335699401719809, https://twitter.com/iamassprof/status/698595909425307648, but what's the reality?
RESPONSE A: I've seen some profs get in at 10 and leave at 5. Other profs emailing their students at 430am about work and being in till 6 at night. There's a fair spread I think. I'm fairly certain profs work from home but I can't verify. Though it was weird as hell watching a tenured prof get in at 10am and leave before I did that day. Then again a lot of the tenured profs got into science before things got ugly so I wouldn't be surprised if they're coasting now.
RESPONSE B: 1st year at teaching university here. Sometimes I have time to poop. I usually wear the same outfit all week so I only have to do laundry once a month (change underwear and t shirts though). 2nd year I will have all my class material so I plan on showing up for like 5 hours a week and getting blow and hookers with all my free time. (Thats the plan at least) *Note: The hookers will have to be cheap though because the pay isnt super great, and Im not sacrificing the quality of my cocaine. I mean, with good enough blow, Im not sure I will be able to differentiate a $20 from a $200 whore. But I digress. What are we talking about? Shit, I need to get back to work.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: a little help. I'm trying for rather high-level jobs (TT at R1 or R2 schools). I get interviews and campus visits, so I'm doing something right. BUT I don't get job offers, so I'm doing something wrong. I have absolutely no idea what that thing is. I did ask a friend who was on one job committee what I could do better, and she had some minor tips but nothing I'd see as a red flag. Her main answer was "I'm not really sure." So what do you think? What are some things I should be mindful of? What are things you've seen people do that disqualified them (or made them a less desirable candidate)? What things did you see people do that endeared them to the committee? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
RESPONSE A: The evaluation of a campus visit is based on (1) job talk, (2) ability to engage other faculty in discussions about your work and theirs, and (3) endurance. You should reflect mostly on how well your job talk went, how you responded to questions, and if you showed the ability to engage colleagues in intellectual discussion. It's also a group dynamic that can be hard to figure. You get a campus visit because at least some members of the committee ranked you as a top candidate. During the campus visit, it's useful to try and identify these allies and help them convince the others who have other favorites. The others want to find a reason to vote against you.
RESPONSE B: Another thing to consider, which I've seen multiple people screw up on in academic job searches, is that your interview begins the moment your plane lands in the city and doesn't end until you get back on board. Yes, the secretary doesn't get to decide if you get the job, but they certainly have influence on if you don't get it. People tend to let their guard down after the interview is over, for example when they give you a campus tour. Or in line at the off-campus Starbucks in the morning before the interview... Especially in smaller towns where everyone seems to know everyone else. Some interviewees have totally blown it outside of the interview. Remember to always be professional and courteous to everyone you meet throughout the entire visit.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: thing is. I did ask a friend who was on one job committee what I could do better, and she had some minor tips but nothing I'd see as a red flag. Her main answer was "I'm not really sure." So what do you think? What are some things I should be mindful of? What are things you've seen people do that disqualified them (or made them a less desirable candidate)? What things did you see people do that endeared them to the committee? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
RESPONSE A: I just talked with a colleague about one of our doc students who was interviewing at this colleague's institution. The response I got about why they didn't offer him the position was, "It wasn't anything particular - his job talk was fine, and he was pleasant enough. He just didn't seem very excited about being there." I don't know how you come across in person, but on the balance between professionalism and enthusiasm, I'd lean more towards enthusiasm during a campus visit. If you're excited to be there, let people know and let it show. If this is somewhere you'd love to end up, say so. Some people play it very close to the vest because they're afraid that if they say that they're interested, that it will cost them come time for salary negotiations. Sometimes you don't get the chance to negotiate if the committee thinks you're too distant and disinterested in the position.
RESPONSE B: Another thing to consider, which I've seen multiple people screw up on in academic job searches, is that your interview begins the moment your plane lands in the city and doesn't end until you get back on board. Yes, the secretary doesn't get to decide if you get the job, but they certainly have influence on if you don't get it. People tend to let their guard down after the interview is over, for example when they give you a campus tour. Or in line at the off-campus Starbucks in the morning before the interview... Especially in smaller towns where everyone seems to know everyone else. Some interviewees have totally blown it outside of the interview. Remember to always be professional and courteous to everyone you meet throughout the entire visit.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: ask a friend who was on one job committee what I could do better, and she had some minor tips but nothing I'd see as a red flag. Her main answer was "I'm not really sure." So what do you think? What are some things I should be mindful of? What are things you've seen people do that disqualified them (or made them a less desirable candidate)? What things did you see people do that endeared them to the committee? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
RESPONSE A: Another thing to consider, which I've seen multiple people screw up on in academic job searches, is that your interview begins the moment your plane lands in the city and doesn't end until you get back on board. Yes, the secretary doesn't get to decide if you get the job, but they certainly have influence on if you don't get it. People tend to let their guard down after the interview is over, for example when they give you a campus tour. Or in line at the off-campus Starbucks in the morning before the interview... Especially in smaller towns where everyone seems to know everyone else. Some interviewees have totally blown it outside of the interview. Remember to always be professional and courteous to everyone you meet throughout the entire visit.
RESPONSE B: I've been in that boat, and it sucks. I've also completed a search recently in my new department, and there might not be an answer to that question. The search I was just a part of concluded and there really wasn't any difference between the top two candidates...like any. Both had amazing research agendas, experience (equal publications). Both were nice, easy going people (no fit problems). The only issue was that we had to offer the position to one person...It was a vote, and considering all of what I've just written, there really wasn't a wrong answer. Both of them performed perfectly, but we only had one slot. I hate the system of multi-candidate finalist visits because it's terrible for the candidates who do everything they are supposed to do. If you are getting answers like that from committee members, then you should probably keep trying. You may be doing nothing wrong, and it's almost impossible to really know.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: doing something wrong. I have absolutely no idea what that thing is. I did ask a friend who was on one job committee what I could do better, and she had some minor tips but nothing I'd see as a red flag. Her main answer was "I'm not really sure." So what do you think? What are some things I should be mindful of? What are things you've seen people do that disqualified them (or made them a less desirable candidate)? What things did you see people do that endeared them to the committee? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
RESPONSE A: Keep in mind that part of this is a numbers game. If the average opening that you're applying for results in 10 qualified candidates being asked to a campus visit (a number I totally made up), your expected rate of return is 1 offer per 10 visits. Do you feel like you are significantly below the expected value for campus visits? Just a general tip from participating in a lot of interviews for graduate students and private-sector jobs, if you're asked a question where they obviously are looking for a Yes and your answer is "Yes, but" or "Yes, if," force yourself to start and finish a complete sentence around the "Yes" part of your answer and focus on why your answer is Yes. Pause for a second. Then judge whether you really need to make a new sentence for those caveats or if they go without saying or make you sound wishy washy or negative.
RESPONSE B: Another thing to consider, which I've seen multiple people screw up on in academic job searches, is that your interview begins the moment your plane lands in the city and doesn't end until you get back on board. Yes, the secretary doesn't get to decide if you get the job, but they certainly have influence on if you don't get it. People tend to let their guard down after the interview is over, for example when they give you a campus tour. Or in line at the off-campus Starbucks in the morning before the interview... Especially in smaller towns where everyone seems to know everyone else. Some interviewees have totally blown it outside of the interview. Remember to always be professional and courteous to everyone you meet throughout the entire visit.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: post on of my conference papers on my academia.edu page, and I'm wondering how likely it is that someone on the admissions committee of a school I've applied to would see it if I posted it. I don't know whether it would be to my advantage or disadvantage if someone saw it, since I write extensively in this paper about the work of two of the professors who I would like to have as my adviser if I got into one of their universities. I assume it depends on whether they think of my representation and engagement with their work. But how likely is it that they would even see it?
RESPONSE A: So far, I've only googled prospective grad students where there was some indication in their application package that corollary material might be found online. So, for example, one older applicant has already had a successful career as an author, and another applicant mentioned his art blog.
RESPONSE B: I do. I have only done this in the past to get a clearer picture of something in the package where I feel I need a bit more information. Usually I want to see how much the student really contributed to the work on their CV and I can deduce a lot from going to their lab web page and looking at their profiles there as well as those of their advisers and co-authors. He/she may have a published paper on his/her CV for their application but if, comparing the topic and style to that of the mentor or postdocs in the lab, it doesn't really look like their own work, it changes my opinion. That said, I really only do this in cases that are either borderline or seem like they might be too good to be true. I actually try to stay away from it because I don't like seeing the student's personal pages (Facebook, etc.) because it is difficult for me to correct for the cultural differences due to the generational divide. I am concerned that seeing their status updates that, to me at 40, seem like whiney narcissistic overshares will unduly affect my opinion of them as researchers. I am sure if I saw my colleagues going home and whining to their partners I would find it equally off-putting, so I just want to be fair.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Has anyone changed STEM fields from Masters to PhD? I am graduating soon with MPhil in Biomedical Science, but I want to change fields to Public Health/Science Communication. I'm also considering Bioinformatics or Computer Science. In my heart I want to work in Public Health by getting another Masters (MPH), but people have advised me to get a PhD in Bioinformatics/CS instead for better career prospects. Problem is, I have little to no experience in any of these fields. I'm casually learning Java in my free time and I've done a little Bioinformatics for my Masters. So if I decide to do a PhD in CS/Bioinformatics, how should I prepare? Also do you have advice for switching fields for PhD?
RESPONSE A: Public health is filled with people who started in other fields, so that's not an issue at all. I'm assuming you have the math background to handle biostatistics, etc. The MPH is the big degree, it's what many employers look for. As is always the case, a PhD is about research - if you want to do more research vs application, or get deep into methods, then a PhD is the way to go.
RESPONSE B: I went from Computer Engineering to Mechanical Engineering. Painful but doable.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Need to improve my technical writing. The amount of edits I get from my advisor are enough to send me into a tailspin. Does anyone have recommendations on books/websites etc with additional information on how to improve my technical writing skills?
RESPONSE A: This link is targeted towards finance/econ writing but still has plenty of good information: http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~mdo738/teaching/cochrane.pdf
RESPONSE B: I would recommend something like Alred et al., _Handbook of Technical Writing_ (the 10th ed should be pretty cheap on Amazon). I would not recommend Strunk and White.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Need to improve my technical writing. The amount of edits I get from my advisor are enough to send me into a tailspin. Does anyone have recommendations on books/websites etc with additional information on how to improve my technical writing skills?
RESPONSE A: This link is targeted towards finance/econ writing but still has plenty of good information: http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~mdo738/teaching/cochrane.pdf
RESPONSE B: Personally I quite like "Writing with Style" by John Trimble; it attempts to identify and encourage the thought processes that successful writers follow when writing, and has a lot on how to edit your own work.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Why is the ratio of foreign faculty members lower in Europe compared to US? When I look at the faculty member lists in European universities, I see that almost all the professors are from the same country (German professors in Germany, French professors in France etc.) whereas US universities have lots of professors from other countries. As far as I know, immigration in US is higher compared to Europe, however I wonder whether this is the only reason underlying the difference in the ratio of foreign faculty members. Can there be a bias in European university departments towards candidates of the same nationality during faculty recruitment process?
RESPONSE A: Define a low/high ratio? My data is just as anecdotal as yours, but I've had a majority of foreign instructors throughout my education at the Swedish university where I'm a student. I've only met tens of people out of the thousands employed, though, and it's entirely possible that my field of study carries a bias.
RESPONSE B: Because I can come over to the US and teach in English, but you cant come over here and teach in Dutch.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Why is the ratio of foreign faculty members lower in Europe compared to US? When I look at the faculty member lists in European universities, I see that almost all the professors are from the same country (German professors in Germany, French professors in France etc.) whereas US universities have lots of professors from other countries. As far as I know, immigration in US is higher compared to Europe, however I wonder whether this is the only reason underlying the difference in the ratio of foreign faculty members. Can there be a bias in European university departments towards candidates of the same nationality during faculty recruitment process?
RESPONSE A: Define a low/high ratio? My data is just as anecdotal as yours, but I've had a majority of foreign instructors throughout my education at the Swedish university where I'm a student. I've only met tens of people out of the thousands employed, though, and it's entirely possible that my field of study carries a bias.
RESPONSE B: As far as Germany is concerned, professors must be "habilitated" in order to teach. This is a process akin to preparing and defending a second PhD, and is a peculiarity of the German system. It's no surprise then that, as no other system in the world requires this significant bureaucratic hurdle to progress in your career, that only Germans would submit to it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Writing your own letter of rec (for someone else to sign) I understand this is a pretty standard practice and don't really have a problem with it. But I am wondering about the perspective of people who are reviewing those letters of rec and evaluating applicants for whatever reason (admission to programs, funding opportunities, awards) -- does it bother you to know that a great deal of the letters were written by the applicant? It seems to me that the goal of a LOR is to get a second person's perspective, and when the applicant writes his/her own letter, you really just get that same person's perspective written with more adjectives on a different letterhead. My experience has been that people I write letters for change a maximum of one sentence, sign their names, and submit. Thoughts? Should this practice be discouraged? Or is it harmless?
RESPONSE A: This is only "standard practice" among lazy faculty and at certain institutions. At my school it would result in a talk with the dean if a faculty member were known to do this-- it's unethical and an abrogation of professional responsibility. As a department chair I'd be appalled to find a junior faculty member doing this and it would most certainly impact their chances at tenure. It's also been discussed to death in this sub before.
RESPONSE B: I suppose if the recommender signs off, it's endorsing that letter. But far better (ethically) is to have the student provide a list of their main skills and accomplishments and write a letter yourself.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Writing your own letter of rec (for someone else to sign) I understand this is a pretty standard practice and don't really have a problem with it. But I am wondering about the perspective of people who are reviewing those letters of rec and evaluating applicants for whatever reason (admission to programs, funding opportunities, awards) -- does it bother you to know that a great deal of the letters were written by the applicant? It seems to me that the goal of a LOR is to get a second person's perspective, and when the applicant writes his/her own letter, you really just get that same person's perspective written with more adjectives on a different letterhead. My experience has been that people I write letters for change a maximum of one sentence, sign their names, and submit. Thoughts? Should this practice be discouraged? Or is it harmless?
RESPONSE A: This is only "standard practice" among lazy faculty and at certain institutions. At my school it would result in a talk with the dean if a faculty member were known to do this-- it's unethical and an abrogation of professional responsibility. As a department chair I'd be appalled to find a junior faculty member doing this and it would most certainly impact their chances at tenure. It's also been discussed to death in this sub before.
RESPONSE B: I only realized this was a common practice after I got into grad school. I was lucky enough to have pretty solid relationships with more profs than I needed. The most I got was one who asked me, "What do you want me to put in it?" But I didn't really have an answer, so I don't know what he wrote. Had another let me read it before he submitted it out of kindness, but I didn't ask him to change anything. I would feel a bit strange writing my own LOR i think.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Writing your own letter of rec (for someone else to sign) I understand this is a pretty standard practice and don't really have a problem with it. But I am wondering about the perspective of people who are reviewing those letters of rec and evaluating applicants for whatever reason (admission to programs, funding opportunities, awards) -- does it bother you to know that a great deal of the letters were written by the applicant? It seems to me that the goal of a LOR is to get a second person's perspective, and when the applicant writes his/her own letter, you really just get that same person's perspective written with more adjectives on a different letterhead. My experience has been that people I write letters for change a maximum of one sentence, sign their names, and submit. Thoughts? Should this practice be discouraged? Or is it harmless?
RESPONSE A: Interesting...in my experience (in Education), this is not the standard practice when applying for graduate school admission, or graduating and searching for jobs. (I attended and got a job at R1s.) It is unnerving to think that other applicants might have had a hand in writing their letters....I would love to be able to highlight stuff that I just can't get in to the 2 page cover letter.
RESPONSE B: This is only "standard practice" among lazy faculty and at certain institutions. At my school it would result in a talk with the dean if a faculty member were known to do this-- it's unethical and an abrogation of professional responsibility. As a department chair I'd be appalled to find a junior faculty member doing this and it would most certainly impact their chances at tenure. It's also been discussed to death in this sub before.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Writing your own letter of rec (for someone else to sign) I understand this is a pretty standard practice and don't really have a problem with it. But I am wondering about the perspective of people who are reviewing those letters of rec and evaluating applicants for whatever reason (admission to programs, funding opportunities, awards) -- does it bother you to know that a great deal of the letters were written by the applicant? It seems to me that the goal of a LOR is to get a second person's perspective, and when the applicant writes his/her own letter, you really just get that same person's perspective written with more adjectives on a different letterhead. My experience has been that people I write letters for change a maximum of one sentence, sign their names, and submit. Thoughts? Should this practice be discouraged? Or is it harmless?
RESPONSE A: >the goal of a LOR is to get a second person's perspective I think the main goal is more pragmatic: Reduce the number of applications. Someone who cannot even be bothered with finding someone else to sign his letter is not worth considering. It also reduces the amount of last-minute or just-in-case applications and makes sure (more or less) that only people apply who genuinely want to be in that program/position. So for this main purpose the content is secondary and it is okay that the applicant writes it himself.
RESPONSE B: I suppose if the recommender signs off, it's endorsing that letter. But far better (ethically) is to have the student provide a list of their main skills and accomplishments and write a letter yourself.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: a 164V 154Q on the GRE, plus he knew my economic situation and that I had a chance of getting a stipended position if I did a Ph.D instead. It wasn't an offer or anything, nor would I pursue that route, as his classes were outside of my primary interest and I have no desire to return to my undergrad alma mater, but it got me thinking. I did my undergraduate degree in counseling and human services with a concentration in social policy, and I want to pursue health psychology, specifically the psychology of the American work culture and its effects on physical and mental health. I've found a few programs that are a good fit for me, but how do I know if I'm actually smart enough or talented enough or even passionate enough to pursue a Ph.D? I'm not dead set on going into academia, as what I really want to do is research and I don't care who's signing the check, whether its a university or a hospital or the US government, so the scary stats about tenure-track jobs don't bother me too much.How on earth do I decide what to do?
RESPONSE A: Honestly, I feel like the most successful PhD students are those that first pursued a masters and figured out that's what they wanted to do. The American 5 year PhD track program is messed up.
RESPONSE B: Me in undergrad: "I'm not going to go to grad school." Me in grad school: "I'll do an MS, but not a PhD." Me as a PhD student: "I'll do the PhD, but I'm not interested in doing full-time research." Guess what I'm doing for a living? How do you know what you should do? I have lived by a 'learn by doing' system, and recognizing that every five years or so it turned out that what I said I wanted to do, I wanted to do the exact opposite fives years later. I think people who know what they want to do early on and end up still wanting exactly the same thing 5-10 years later are few and far between. You have to feel it out as you go, because this is all new.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: the research work in the class and I had a solid overall GPA, excellent major GPA, and got a 164V 154Q on the GRE, plus he knew my economic situation and that I had a chance of getting a stipended position if I did a Ph.D instead. It wasn't an offer or anything, nor would I pursue that route, as his classes were outside of my primary interest and I have no desire to return to my undergrad alma mater, but it got me thinking. I did my undergraduate degree in counseling and human services with a concentration in social policy, and I want to pursue health psychology, specifically the psychology of the American work culture and its effects on physical and mental health. I've found a few programs that are a good fit for me, but how do I know if I'm actually smart enough or talented enough or even passionate enough to pursue a Ph.D? I'm not dead set on going into academia, as what I really want to do is research and I don't care who's signing the check, whether its a university or a hospital or the US government, so the scary stats about tenure-track jobs don't bother me too much.How on earth do I decide what to do?
RESPONSE A: Doing a PhD is not about being smart or talented. It's about putting one foot in front of the other until you're done. It's about following a process within a system. Sure, everyone wants to change the world with their research, but barely anyone does. It's about contributing to human knowledge one speck at a time. http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/ Here's how you know if you're smart or talented enough to do a PhD: You get into a PhD program and are able to complete it. However, NOT getting in DOESN'T mean you're NOT smart or talented enough.
RESPONSE B: Honestly, I feel like the most successful PhD students are those that first pursued a masters and figured out that's what they wanted to do. The American 5 year PhD track program is messed up.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: the class and I had a solid overall GPA, excellent major GPA, and got a 164V 154Q on the GRE, plus he knew my economic situation and that I had a chance of getting a stipended position if I did a Ph.D instead. It wasn't an offer or anything, nor would I pursue that route, as his classes were outside of my primary interest and I have no desire to return to my undergrad alma mater, but it got me thinking. I did my undergraduate degree in counseling and human services with a concentration in social policy, and I want to pursue health psychology, specifically the psychology of the American work culture and its effects on physical and mental health. I've found a few programs that are a good fit for me, but how do I know if I'm actually smart enough or talented enough or even passionate enough to pursue a Ph.D? I'm not dead set on going into academia, as what I really want to do is research and I don't care who's signing the check, whether its a university or a hospital or the US government, so the scary stats about tenure-track jobs don't bother me too much.How on earth do I decide what to do?
RESPONSE A: Doing a PhD is not about being smart or talented. It's about putting one foot in front of the other until you're done. It's about following a process within a system. Sure, everyone wants to change the world with their research, but barely anyone does. It's about contributing to human knowledge one speck at a time. http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/ Here's how you know if you're smart or talented enough to do a PhD: You get into a PhD program and are able to complete it. However, NOT getting in DOESN'T mean you're NOT smart or talented enough.
RESPONSE B: For your research question, you can also consider organizational behavior (as opposed to the more clinical psychology version) in a business school. Business schools tend to have a lot of money and can have more students with better stipends.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: , I find it difficult to recall or discuss research/theories with people unless I’ve prepared for a class discussion. 4 - I’m worried about not being able to keep up with whatever field I go in to. What advice could you offer for this sort of thing? Are these regular feelings? Or would I be better going in a different direction?
RESPONSE A: Some are pretty regular feelings. While not every academic is a perfect picture of reading deep thoughts all hours of the day and night, I will say that most researchers and successful PhD students I've come across do enjoy reading about their field in their spare time. That may not always take the form of scientific articles and monographs - I, for one, always hated the jargon of scientific journal articles, but I still always enjoyed reading about new science in my field and would often pair reading new articles with reading discoveries that were written up in different venues. If you find yourself unmotivated because you are generally disinterested in reading the 'scholarly conversation' in your field, well, then, maybe that's a yellow flag for you. Having flexible, constantly roaming work hours is kind of part and parcel of doctoral programs and academia. I know some people who were disciplined enough to keep their work to regular 9-6 hours (including myself, towards the very end of my PhD program, and I was far happier for it) but they are definitely in the minority. That doesn't mean that you aren't cut out for a PhD - I got one, and fled to industry - but it does mean that you might be less happy when doing one unless you can find a good way to structure your days. \#3 is a muscle you build over time. I didn't feel confident in recalling random studies/people until after my oral exams (which exist in part to build that muscle). Before then, I could remember concepts and findings and theories, but not people and papers. \#4 is super common, and everyone feels that way. I agree with the advice to try other stuff out before going for a PhD.
RESPONSE B: I can’t help because I feel the same way (with a good amount of your points) with wondering if a PHD is correct for me too
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How to publish a paper as an independent researcher After completing my master degree from a university, I have joined a startup. While doing a job I was also working on a paper with my colleague (currently Ph.D. in another university). Now our work has finished and we intend to publish it, but I don’t know what affiliation should I mention. * Cannot use company name because it was not part of the company work * Cannot use the university name, as I am already passed out What should mention in affiliation, Can I mention my old university name.
RESPONSE A: Is the paper based on research you did at the university, before you started at the company? If so, you can just list the university. In similar circumstances, I have also seen people list both, with a footnote to explain the move. Or just list the company -- even though you did the work on your own time, you are affiliated with the company (and every company I have been at would welcome the publicity). Or list neither and just put your personal address. There isn't really a wrong answer here. Nobody really cares, as long as you don't outright lie.
RESPONSE B: I've seen people use their personal mailing address for their affiliation. I've also seen few different people put their affiliation as the company they founded, but that's not applicable to your case.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: PI’s behavior is causing lab to fall apart. What to do? I started working with a faculty member new to my institution a few months back. This PI was very hands on and involved, which was what I needed at the time. The postdocs complained that the PI tends to micromanage and doesn’t thoroughly think through experiments & just wants results. I didn’t really notice these problems (and others) until recently. Now I’ve come around and see the unreasonable expectations with no considerations for our work-life balance. The postdocs confided that they’ve been looking for other jobs. There will probably be an empty lab next year. I don’t think the PI is necessarily a bad person, but definitely is a difficult person to work with. Is it worth it to directly bring up that their behavior is bringing the lab down?
RESPONSE A: if he is bad.. get out... Now, what is this life balance thing ? I would like to have some of that. How do you do it ?
RESPONSE B: Absolutely not! The power asymmetry in academia is very large. It could go down very badly for you. Someone in my department gave their PI honest feedback about how their behavior is negatively affecting the rest of the lab - they got kicked out of the lab and had to leave the uni because no one else was willing to take the student and offend the PI.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: PI’s behavior is causing lab to fall apart. What to do? I started working with a faculty member new to my institution a few months back. This PI was very hands on and involved, which was what I needed at the time. The postdocs complained that the PI tends to micromanage and doesn’t thoroughly think through experiments & just wants results. I didn’t really notice these problems (and others) until recently. Now I’ve come around and see the unreasonable expectations with no considerations for our work-life balance. The postdocs confided that they’ve been looking for other jobs. There will probably be an empty lab next year. I don’t think the PI is necessarily a bad person, but definitely is a difficult person to work with. Is it worth it to directly bring up that their behavior is bringing the lab down?
RESPONSE A: Omg did you read my mind? My lab is going through something eerily similar, except my PI isn't involved at all. We were going to mutiny next week, but not I don't think that's a good idea.
RESPONSE B: Please leave. You are aware that in academia, there’s no such thing as “union” to speak up for your rights. Yes maybe there’s some sort of University or institute level of committee but when shit hits the fan, YOU will bear the brunt of it. You say he jus wants results, and micromanages. Dude that sounds really insufferable. If the post docs leave, you are gonna be alone. Who’s gonna help u and guide u around? Do u wanna work solely with the PI who sounds like he’s gonna hound you in wee hours for data???? He sounds really no chill. Can you imagine the stress you will have when you realised the hypothesis didn’t work? Please leave too. Really.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: PI’s behavior is causing lab to fall apart. What to do? I started working with a faculty member new to my institution a few months back. This PI was very hands on and involved, which was what I needed at the time. The postdocs complained that the PI tends to micromanage and doesn’t thoroughly think through experiments & just wants results. I didn’t really notice these problems (and others) until recently. Now I’ve come around and see the unreasonable expectations with no considerations for our work-life balance. The postdocs confided that they’ve been looking for other jobs. There will probably be an empty lab next year. I don’t think the PI is necessarily a bad person, but definitely is a difficult person to work with. Is it worth it to directly bring up that their behavior is bringing the lab down?
RESPONSE A: Omg did you read my mind? My lab is going through something eerily similar, except my PI isn't involved at all. We were going to mutiny next week, but not I don't think that's a good idea.
RESPONSE B: Maybe talk to your program director/advisor, explain the problem and try to switch PIs?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What happens to a lab and its students when the PI dies unexpectedly? I've always been curious. For example, when Tony Pawson (a superstar in cell signalling research) died in '13, he left behind an enormous lab. It made me wonder what becomes of the students and post-docs who are left with unfinished projects after the fact. Could a senior post doc in the lab ever carry the torch for instance?
RESPONSE A: I think they force their advisees to be buried alive with them in their tomb. Along will all their publishable results.
RESPONSE B: From the one case I know students who were far enough along were "adopted" by other advisors and continued their projects. Some former grad students now graduated and at other institutions also took a mentorship role for those students to help them follow through on their work.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How to negotiate a post-doc salary? A professor contacted me and offered me a post-doc position. The pay is somewhat low compared to my expectation. How do I negotiate? I am a student nearly finished with my Ph.D.
RESPONSE A: I'm not saying you can't try to negotiate, but many times salaries are set by a grant budget that was determined long before your arrival, so what you see is what you get.
RESPONSE B: What is your expectation based on?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How to negotiate a post-doc salary? A professor contacted me and offered me a post-doc position. The pay is somewhat low compared to my expectation. How do I negotiate? I am a student nearly finished with my Ph.D.
RESPONSE A: I'm not saying you can't try to negotiate, but many times salaries are set by a grant budget that was determined long before your arrival, so what you see is what you get.
RESPONSE B: Are you comparing cost of living changes?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How to deal with people who don't believe in "peer review" I have an associate who, whenever presented with a paper that has been peer-reviewed, says he doesn't believe it because "it's just a bunch of people who have all been trained to think in the same way saying they agree." What is the proper response to this mindset?
RESPONSE A: Is this associate of yours an academic? If so, given that most/all publishes papers in many academic fields are peer reviewed, does this person not believe/trust any published paper? I don't see how you can exist in academia if you don't believe a single peer-reviewed published paper. What does this person believe then? Do they only read papers that haven't been peer-reviewed? What system do they suggest for vetting works for publication?
RESPONSE B: Analysis the data presented for yourself. They are not totally wrong. The system has many flaws. Very dogmatic views are hard to shift. The other issue favours and editorial pressure. Disciplines are often very tight knit and know each other so for example I know of a situation where a paper has been let through as the editor knew this guy was reviewing his grant in the near future. This is not uncommon but as I am sure you understand doesn't warrant out right rejection of the literature.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: broadly agree, but disagree on some specifics? How about the pursuit of truth v. affirmation your work serves DEI, when sometimes it obviously doesn’t? Any examples of experience, good or bad, would be interesting?
RESPONSE A: They’re a good way of identifying people who know the buzzwords and are up to date on current issues, and who care about the minutiae rather than, say, their job. They also enable you to get rid of people whose hearts are in the right place but would rather achieve than either wallow in misery (if minorities) or self-flagellate (if not.) If your goal is an insular ivory tower, DEI statements are essential.
RESPONSE B: Social science here. Are you asking from an applicant or a hiring committee perspective? As an applicant I usually find them a bit awkward. I’m a person of color and would spend a fair amount of time trying to tailor it to my perceptions of the HC. I’ve not applied to places before bc I realized in the tailoring, I had to stray too far from some core values so I’d probably be unhappy. Also frankly I feel like most departments should be sending me their DEI statements instead. It can also feel pretty redundant when they also ask for a research and teaching statement. On the HC, I have found them actually pretty useful. If nothing else, it does help establish a baseline bc I’ve read some wild DEI statements and it provides some interesting insights into how one tries to apply their beliefs. I’m in an applied field so that matters here. That being said I’m a big proponent of more human application processes so if you’re only going to read the CV and cover on a first round, just ask for that. Don’t ask for a cover, research statement, teaching statement, DEI, four letters of ref and two writing samples when your just dumping 95% of the apps based on a CV skim. I know many places they’re required by the university but if you have the choice, if you don’t plan to read the DEI statement, don’t just ask for it to try to signal that you care about these things.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: actually restricting advancement opportunities for those who broadly agree, but disagree on some specifics? How about the pursuit of truth v. affirmation your work serves DEI, when sometimes it obviously doesn’t? Any examples of experience, good or bad, would be interesting?
RESPONSE A: I think such a statement is helpful for an applicant, and some academic employers may require it (I believe the Univ. of California system does). In hiring committees, some people may care and others not. Those who don't care won't read the statement. But some people who care about DEI statements may be on the hiring committee or further up the hierarchy such as department chairs or deans. It is difficult to write such a statement if you don't care about DEI at all (in which case you may not want to include such a statement if it is optional). Otherwise, it is good to be specific about any activities you have done that have contributed to DEI, or that at least show an intention to do so. If there is not enough to say, you could also talk about things you would like to do in the future (for example, if hired) in terms of outreach, diversity etc. Here it is also good to see if the place you are applying has any activities in terms of improving DEI. You could mention that you would be interested in being involved in those activities (although it would be best if you actually mean it).
RESPONSE B: My personal strategy when it comes to express my position on diversity, conflict resolution, etc. is to switch to a narrative form, instead of prescriptive. So if in an interview they ask me “how would you increase diversity of your team?” my answer is going to be “one thing that I tried and worked well was….”. The reason is that you can’t be wrong. You are literally telling a story where you were present and they weren’t, so there is little to disagree about. Instead, if you say “I think one should do this or that” then you open up a discussion where you need to be super careful about not clashing with other people’s opinion. Moreover, telling a success story shows that you have facts that talk for you, even if they are just a tiny thing. Words are cheap.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Diversity Statements? What are faculty search committees looking for in diversity statements? Some suggestions would be helpful.
RESPONSE A: I googled this and got some good recommendations last year when I had to write them. Sorry I can't be more specific, but google and you will find! Edit: One of the links I used
RESPONSE B: The Berkeley link looks good. To add on, provide specific examples. Tell specific ways how you helped bridge achievement gaps. Tell specific ways you aid underserved students. Give specific strategies you use and say how they are effective.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: emia and the US. And now I need to find a full time job as a new semester is already starting. For those curious, my PhD is in Philosophy.
RESPONSE A: I don't have any words of wisdom, I just want to say that I'm sorry that you're in this situation. While I understand that the current situation is really difficult for universities, replacing the instructor or cancelling the course without a good reason (such as not enough enrolled students) after you have signed a contract for the courses is wrong. You put in substantial labor to preparing courses with the reasonable understanding that you would be compensated by virtue of teaching the courses. It's wrong to assign your courses to someone else, and wrong that less than one week before the semester begins, you must still wait and see which of the four courses you prepared you will still get to teach. Of course, you know this already. But I am outraged for you. On a practical level, I would reach out to the instructor who is deciding which courses to teach and politely ask that he make a decision as soon as possible so that you can focus your energy on preparing the remaining class. And since there are so many places going remote, you might see if there are openings for a course or two that is in a location you normally could not teach in (though this is so late in the game and the market so bleak that that may be difficult). Beyond that, I think your university has sent you a clear message that when push comes to shove, this is how they treat their people. Looking to the future, I would be looking for more stable options at a place that treats their people with some modicum of respect and decency.
RESPONSE B: Maybe shoot him an email, or meet him (meeting is probably better, though depends on Covid restrictions in your region). And try to hash this out outside of administrators. Explain your situation, how much you some courses, what you've already done, and generally which one you want. They might not be a dick, and may show human levels of compassion and/or understanding. But I do get the feeling you need to force the human aspect of it. Am I naive? I feel like that would work on my university
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: The Life of an Adjunct What to do next, as an Adjunct? I was informed yesterday, with 6 days until the beginning of instruction, that 3 of the 4 courses I was supposed to teach were either cancelled or moved to a more senior teacher (because his class was cancelled). Further, I am informed that gets to choose which of my classes he is taking, so I won't even know which one to get ready for until he makes his decision. This complete disregard for class preparation, and interactions already had with the students, seems to be part of the downfall of Academia and the US. And now I need to find a full time job as a new semester is already starting. For those curious, my PhD is in Philosophy.
RESPONSE A: Atrocious.
RESPONSE B: Maybe shoot him an email, or meet him (meeting is probably better, though depends on Covid restrictions in your region). And try to hash this out outside of administrators. Explain your situation, how much you some courses, what you've already done, and generally which one you want. They might not be a dick, and may show human levels of compassion and/or understanding. But I do get the feeling you need to force the human aspect of it. Am I naive? I feel like that would work on my university
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.