label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
A
|
POST: does it take to walk away? Why do so many people stick with this kind of lifestyle for years and years, chasing tenure in a system that is clearly broken, that relies more heavily on adjuncts? What would it take for someone to apply the skills they learned in their education as researchers, teachers, etc. to something else that could actually pay a livable salary? In some way, being enslaved to this system is ultimately what keeps it running, no? In some way, I feel like it's easy to draw a parallel between this kind of system and being in an abusive relationship. To clarify, I'm ABD, and I'm very aware of the situation that I'm going into with the job search, thanks to these kinds of stories (the faculty in my institution certainly haven't been honest about it, and I've watched many of my peers fail at the job search). It's helped me to reconsider my options and not focus on chasing tenure, so I'm very grateful for these articles. Sorry for the rant, thank you for listening. Any insight into what keeps someone in this situation would be enlightening.
RESPONSE A: How can you not see how this happens, it is the sunk cost fallacy in its finest, people want a good job they have aspired to and could easily do but so it is always round the corner. As a person with a Masters the exact same thing has happened to me, I have been looking for a Research Assistant/Research Technician Position for the last year, had a few interviews only not to get any of the jobs, now I don't even get interviews, for jobs that I quite literally did my Masters Project on. Each day the person become less and less skilled and more and more qualified candidates show up, if someone had been kind enough to mention that there are actually no jobs for all these people doing PhDs and higher degrees, that would have been nice so all these people stop wasting their money and time on them.
RESPONSE B: I think it's the simultaneous wish to actually succeed professionally in something that you've most likely dedicated your life to for 10+ years, along with the realization that there just aren't a lot of opportunities for people with humanities PhDs.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: also deserve to be paid a livable wage." What does it take to walk away? Why do so many people stick with this kind of lifestyle for years and years, chasing tenure in a system that is clearly broken, that relies more heavily on adjuncts? What would it take for someone to apply the skills they learned in their education as researchers, teachers, etc. to something else that could actually pay a livable salary? In some way, being enslaved to this system is ultimately what keeps it running, no? In some way, I feel like it's easy to draw a parallel between this kind of system and being in an abusive relationship. To clarify, I'm ABD, and I'm very aware of the situation that I'm going into with the job search, thanks to these kinds of stories (the faculty in my institution certainly haven't been honest about it, and I've watched many of my peers fail at the job search). It's helped me to reconsider my options and not focus on chasing tenure, so I'm very grateful for these articles. Sorry for the rant, thank you for listening. Any insight into what keeps someone in this situation would be enlightening.
RESPONSE A: I think it's the simultaneous wish to actually succeed professionally in something that you've most likely dedicated your life to for 10+ years, along with the realization that there just aren't a lot of opportunities for people with humanities PhDs.
RESPONSE B: So you complete your PhD. You're wanting to get a TT type position. You get offered an adjunct position you take it. All that while you are convinved you are improving your CV and improving your chances of a successful TT application. That contract ends, you can't find a TT post, but another adjunct comes up. You take it, because you're nearly there now, and one more won't hurt. That one ends, and at this point you've invested so much time and effort it seems that the TT position must be so close. Another adjunct year. That one comes to a clsoe. at this point you can't imagine cutting your losses - you've invested too much blood sweat and tears to quit now...
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: , and I've watched many of my peers fail at the job search). It's helped me to reconsider my options and not focus on chasing tenure, so I'm very grateful for these articles. Sorry for the rant, thank you for listening. Any insight into what keeps someone in this situation would be enlightening.
RESPONSE A: I think it's the simultaneous wish to actually succeed professionally in something that you've most likely dedicated your life to for 10+ years, along with the realization that there just aren't a lot of opportunities for people with humanities PhDs.
RESPONSE B: One of five things: * hope * ignorance * inability to imagine alternatives * spousal employment * financial independence I've been watching people go through this for 25+ years now. Many of them hope that either they will be converted to TT or that their extensive adjunct experience will somehow give them an advantage in the job market (tip: after two years max it starts to hurt you). Some people clearly just don't understand the realities of the market and stick with constant adjuncting on the assumption it will magically get them a TT position. Others simply cannot imagine doing anything else; they either don't *want* to do other work, or don't think there's anything else they *can* do. Too bad, as I know lots of people who gave up on academe and ended up in very fulfilling careers. A fair number of long term adjuncts work at the same institutions, or in the same metro, as their academic spouses. They keep it up because they cannot relocate and don't want to live a commuter marriage. But they'd likely all be better off financially pursuing another career. A select few (I know several) adjunct because they enjoy it and don't really need a full time or permanent position. Some have spouses with high incomes, others have inheritances, etc. In reality though, it is relatively rare for someone who has been a full time adjunct for more than 1-2 years to ever land a TT position. People who find themselves in that position, for whatever reason, would be well advised to explore other career options or at the very least relocate themselves to another part of the country where there is more demand (wherever that may be).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: ? Hello Everyone, It is that time of year where the job applications are coming in, and all who are on the market (myself included) are attempting to prepare ourselves for interviews. I interviewed for a visiting position right out of my Ph.D. and failed it miserably because I was not prepared for "curveball" questions (or at least they were curveballs to me). I did much better with my two post-docs interviews, but they were much more straightforward. Fast-forward a couple of years, and now with a post-doc in hand, I am interviewing for faculty positions in physics/STEM. To help those of us who are on the market now prepare for our faculty interviews, what was the most difficult interview question you were asked? How did you answer it? Do you think it was what they were looking for? I'll go first: I was asked one for a Visiting Assistant Professor position that asked me how much notice I would need to be dropped into teaching a course. I said if it was an introductory level or a class for non-majors, 2-weeks. Upper-level classes, I would want some time to review that content since I don't teach it regularly. Evidently, that was not the "correct" answer. I have no idea what they were looking for here. Also - best of luck to all on the market (at any level) this year!
RESPONSE A: What didn't you like about (x postdoctoral program I was in). Then I had to think of something moderately negative to say. Then she started pushing me on it in a way where I had to strongly defend a position that I wasn't strongly attached to, and I started to get flustered.
RESPONSE B: First ever on-campus faculty interview, about 30 minutes after I flew in: "We invited you because the previous chair insisted, but there's no way that the department will hire somebody in your area this year. So, what do you feel like doing while you're here?" (To answer the obvious question, I don't think he was messing around with this - the other 4 people interviewed all did very similar research to each other, in an area that was quite far from mine).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What was the most difficult interview question you were asked for a faculty position? Hello Everyone, It is that time of year where the job applications are coming in, and all who are on the market (myself included) are attempting to prepare ourselves for interviews. I interviewed for a visiting position right out of my Ph.D. and failed it miserably because I was not prepared for "curveball" questions (or at least they were curveballs to me). I did much better with my two post-docs interviews, but they were much more straightforward. Fast-forward a couple of years, and now with a post-doc in hand, I am interviewing for faculty positions in physics/STEM. To help those of us who are on the market now prepare for our faculty interviews, what was the most difficult interview question you were asked? How did you answer it? Do you think it was what they were looking for? I'll go first: I was asked one for a Visiting Assistant Professor position that asked me how much notice I would need to be dropped into teaching a course. I said if it was an introductory level or a class for non-majors, 2-weeks. Upper-level classes, I would want some time to review that content since I don't teach it regularly. Evidently, that was not the "correct" answer. I have no idea what they were looking for here. Also - best of luck to all on the market (at any level) this year!
RESPONSE A: What didn't you like about (x postdoctoral program I was in). Then I had to think of something moderately negative to say. Then she started pushing me on it in a way where I had to strongly defend a position that I wasn't strongly attached to, and I started to get flustered.
RESPONSE B: > We really like you, are you going to take our insulting low startup package as well as our pants-on-head stupid requirements for tenure? No, I don't think I will
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: ) are attempting to prepare ourselves for interviews. I interviewed for a visiting position right out of my Ph.D. and failed it miserably because I was not prepared for "curveball" questions (or at least they were curveballs to me). I did much better with my two post-docs interviews, but they were much more straightforward. Fast-forward a couple of years, and now with a post-doc in hand, I am interviewing for faculty positions in physics/STEM. To help those of us who are on the market now prepare for our faculty interviews, what was the most difficult interview question you were asked? How did you answer it? Do you think it was what they were looking for? I'll go first: I was asked one for a Visiting Assistant Professor position that asked me how much notice I would need to be dropped into teaching a course. I said if it was an introductory level or a class for non-majors, 2-weeks. Upper-level classes, I would want some time to review that content since I don't teach it regularly. Evidently, that was not the "correct" answer. I have no idea what they were looking for here. Also - best of luck to all on the market (at any level) this year!
RESPONSE A: What didn't you like about (x postdoctoral program I was in). Then I had to think of something moderately negative to say. Then she started pushing me on it in a way where I had to strongly defend a position that I wasn't strongly attached to, and I started to get flustered.
RESPONSE B: "Across your entire career, what is the achievement you feel most proud of." I think it was meant as a soft-ball opener, but quite obviously strongly selects for either people with interview training/experience who have prepared a suitably calibrated achievement that they can sound sincere about, or people with remarkable scientific achievements that they are very proud of (which can be addressed later, when talking about scientific interests and research programs). I was caught on my back foot and answered with the truth (has the advantage of being able to sound sincere and serious about), only to realize half-way though that it made me looks less of an accomplished professional.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What was the most difficult interview question you were asked for a faculty position? Hello Everyone, It is that time of year where the job applications are coming in, and all who are on the market (myself included) are attempting to prepare ourselves for interviews. I interviewed for a visiting position right out of my Ph.D. and failed it miserably because I was not prepared for "curveball" questions (or at least they were curveballs to me). I did much better with my two post-docs interviews, but they were much more straightforward. Fast-forward a couple of years, and now with a post-doc in hand, I am interviewing for faculty positions in physics/STEM. To help those of us who are on the market now prepare for our faculty interviews, what was the most difficult interview question you were asked? How did you answer it? Do you think it was what they were looking for? I'll go first: I was asked one for a Visiting Assistant Professor position that asked me how much notice I would need to be dropped into teaching a course. I said if it was an introductory level or a class for non-majors, 2-weeks. Upper-level classes, I would want some time to review that content since I don't teach it regularly. Evidently, that was not the "correct" answer. I have no idea what they were looking for here. Also - best of luck to all on the market (at any level) this year!
RESPONSE A: “If we give you this position, what will you win the Nobel Prize for?”
RESPONSE B: What didn't you like about (x postdoctoral program I was in). Then I had to think of something moderately negative to say. Then she started pushing me on it in a way where I had to strongly defend a position that I wasn't strongly attached to, and I started to get flustered.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: curveballs to me). I did much better with my two post-docs interviews, but they were much more straightforward. Fast-forward a couple of years, and now with a post-doc in hand, I am interviewing for faculty positions in physics/STEM. To help those of us who are on the market now prepare for our faculty interviews, what was the most difficult interview question you were asked? How did you answer it? Do you think it was what they were looking for? I'll go first: I was asked one for a Visiting Assistant Professor position that asked me how much notice I would need to be dropped into teaching a course. I said if it was an introductory level or a class for non-majors, 2-weeks. Upper-level classes, I would want some time to review that content since I don't teach it regularly. Evidently, that was not the "correct" answer. I have no idea what they were looking for here. Also - best of luck to all on the market (at any level) this year!
RESPONSE A: What didn't you like about (x postdoctoral program I was in). Then I had to think of something moderately negative to say. Then she started pushing me on it in a way where I had to strongly defend a position that I wasn't strongly attached to, and I started to get flustered.
RESPONSE B: Once when I was on a hiring committee, we asked the question "In teaching \[broad introductory course\] there's usually not enough time to cover all the possible topics and chapters. If you were to skip a couple chapters from the textbook, which would you choose and why?" Based on responses from our interviewees, this was a very difficult question! Half of them could not come up with an answer at all. But really it wasn't difficult question, it was a poor question. Looking back, the only thing the question did was distinguish who had and hadn't taught the class before (people who had taught it were able to answer the question). That wasn't useful because we already *knew* everyone's teaching experience from their vita. We also should have framed it only in terms of topics rather than textbook chapters.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: y. I really want to into Astronomy or related fields. You see, the problem is that I have learning disability (though the last time I was diagnosed when was I was in grade 3, although that probably doesn't matter). It not that I'm entirely bad at math, it just I take more time to understand it. For example, I am excellent at History and Social Studies. Know I what to know is, should I attempt this field or not. Just needs some advice and opinions. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: Shot in the dark, but I imagine you might have a better time with Math when the Math is explained conceptually first, with examples given as analogies to the math? I think you wlll just have to find a way that you best get Math, and combine that alongside trying to learn it the painful way that you aren't naturally good at. Eventually you should come to understand Math in a way that is unique to you. Source: Have ADHD (and as a result have learned many things non-traditionally) and am also a math tutor. PM me with specifically how you find math difficult and I would be happy to try and help you figure out ways to help, and to help evaluate whether pursuing physics despite your initial disadvantage is a good idea. Best of luck :)
RESPONSE B: Speaking as a professor, I say go for it...but with your eyes open and be realistic. My advice: 1. This is your issue. This is not the responsibility of your professor, dorm mates, friends, or classmates. You have to own it and be responsible for taking any steps you need. 2. Immediately take advantage of your university's infrastructure to support students with learning disabilities. Follow all the procedures and make sure you notify professors according to those procedures. 3. Get tutoring and extra help where you can. Some schools have blanket tutoring centers, others have tutors in the departments. Do it. 4. Be realistic. If you struggle and pull bad grades, you won't have a rewarding, if any, career in planetary science, astronomy, or anything related. Get an advisor in your field and evaluate your position every year. Astronomy is one of the sciences you CAN do as a hobby while having a career somewhere else. Edit: formatting
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Being excluded/included from authorship Hi, I was watching one online conference yesterday, and my supervisor made a presentation about the research I was working on. I was not invited in the presentation, nor any other verbal mention of me was present. No one said a word about this presentation... More interesting there were used photos I made during the research (without any credit), and even photo of me working on it! Another interesting thing was that one colleague called me, that the very same supervisor added her as an coauthor to another presentation, without her knowledge. She found out when she watched the conference... Is this normal? If it is not, what should I do?
RESPONSE A: It sounds like my perception may be skewed, but to be completely honest, I thought this was quite normal for a talk/presentation given by a PI? It would have been nice for your supervisor to add you in the acknowledgements, and they really should have done so if you were the person leading that research, so it may be something you would want to discuss with them. As for your colleague, from my experience it is fairly normal to be added to a presentation as someone who has worked on the project without getting approval from that person. I don't think of talks as a formal "author list" and more of just an acknowledgment of people who have contributed in some way to the work. I would genuinely love to be corrected if I am off base. My work and figures are used all of the time in talks but credit is mostly given to the person leading the project even if I have done all of the analysis.
RESPONSE B: Most of the conferences I went to, every PI would say things like "this person in my lab did this thing I'm presenting", "this person did that", etc. My PI never did. From my perspective, it is not normal but it does happen. You can talk to your PI about it if you want. I did not think it was worth it in my case (other issues at play). I tried to focus on finishing up and leaving.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Being excluded/included from authorship Hi, I was watching one online conference yesterday, and my supervisor made a presentation about the research I was working on. I was not invited in the presentation, nor any other verbal mention of me was present. No one said a word about this presentation... More interesting there were used photos I made during the research (without any credit), and even photo of me working on it! Another interesting thing was that one colleague called me, that the very same supervisor added her as an coauthor to another presentation, without her knowledge. She found out when she watched the conference... Is this normal? If it is not, what should I do?
RESPONSE A: Most of the conferences I went to, every PI would say things like "this person in my lab did this thing I'm presenting", "this person did that", etc. My PI never did. From my perspective, it is not normal but it does happen. You can talk to your PI about it if you want. I did not think it was worth it in my case (other issues at play). I tried to focus on finishing up and leaving.
RESPONSE B: Was it a presentation of a publication, or just a talk? If it was just a talk, it was unethical but probably not actionable. If it was a publication, then it may be plagiarism. It's best to just talk with your supervisor about it, but if you cannot for some reason, then if you are in the US, you can report it to your campus Research Integrity Office (RIO) and ask them to investigate.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Being excluded/included from authorship Hi, I was watching one online conference yesterday, and my supervisor made a presentation about the research I was working on. I was not invited in the presentation, nor any other verbal mention of me was present. No one said a word about this presentation... More interesting there were used photos I made during the research (without any credit), and even photo of me working on it! Another interesting thing was that one colleague called me, that the very same supervisor added her as an coauthor to another presentation, without her knowledge. She found out when she watched the conference... Is this normal? If it is not, what should I do?
RESPONSE A: It is not okay for your supervisor to present a project you have contributed to without your knowledge and without crediting you for your work! It sounds like this is a pattern for her, too. It's unclear to me what your position is here—grad student?—or what role the supervisor occupies, so I am not quite sure who you should talk to in your institution about it. But you are right to think this isn't cool!
RESPONSE B: Most of the conferences I went to, every PI would say things like "this person in my lab did this thing I'm presenting", "this person did that", etc. My PI never did. From my perspective, it is not normal but it does happen. You can talk to your PI about it if you want. I did not think it was worth it in my case (other issues at play). I tried to focus on finishing up and leaving.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Being excluded/included from authorship Hi, I was watching one online conference yesterday, and my supervisor made a presentation about the research I was working on. I was not invited in the presentation, nor any other verbal mention of me was present. No one said a word about this presentation... More interesting there were used photos I made during the research (without any credit), and even photo of me working on it! Another interesting thing was that one colleague called me, that the very same supervisor added her as an coauthor to another presentation, without her knowledge. She found out when she watched the conference... Is this normal? If it is not, what should I do?
RESPONSE A: Most of the conferences I went to, every PI would say things like "this person in my lab did this thing I'm presenting", "this person did that", etc. My PI never did. From my perspective, it is not normal but it does happen. You can talk to your PI about it if you want. I did not think it was worth it in my case (other issues at play). I tried to focus on finishing up and leaving.
RESPONSE B: This shouldn’t be normal but unfortunately this is. Academic integrity is rare nowadays.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Being excluded/included from authorship Hi, I was watching one online conference yesterday, and my supervisor made a presentation about the research I was working on. I was not invited in the presentation, nor any other verbal mention of me was present. No one said a word about this presentation... More interesting there were used photos I made during the research (without any credit), and even photo of me working on it! Another interesting thing was that one colleague called me, that the very same supervisor added her as an coauthor to another presentation, without her knowledge. She found out when she watched the conference... Is this normal? If it is not, what should I do?
RESPONSE A: It sounds like my perception may be skewed, but to be completely honest, I thought this was quite normal for a talk/presentation given by a PI? It would have been nice for your supervisor to add you in the acknowledgements, and they really should have done so if you were the person leading that research, so it may be something you would want to discuss with them. As for your colleague, from my experience it is fairly normal to be added to a presentation as someone who has worked on the project without getting approval from that person. I don't think of talks as a formal "author list" and more of just an acknowledgment of people who have contributed in some way to the work. I would genuinely love to be corrected if I am off base. My work and figures are used all of the time in talks but credit is mostly given to the person leading the project even if I have done all of the analysis.
RESPONSE B: This shouldn’t be normal but unfortunately this is. Academic integrity is rare nowadays.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Do you keep a record of papers you have read? Hi, I am post-grad student in the humanities and a problem I have lately is trying to track down papers I had read years ago. I am wondering if any of you keep a record of papers you have read (with notes etc) and how you manage this - is there any good software? In the past I have just kept hard copies (or pdf files in folders) which periodically get lost/deleted/thrown out. But as I am once again struggling to track something down that I know I have read but can't remember when or who it was by, I feel that I should start being more systematic in my research and keep records for future use. But I am not sure how to best organize this so wondering how others do it.
RESPONSE A: Endnote! Or Mendeley they are both great reference managers.
RESPONSE B: Zotero. Open Source FTW.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Do you keep a record of papers you have read? Hi, I am post-grad student in the humanities and a problem I have lately is trying to track down papers I had read years ago. I am wondering if any of you keep a record of papers you have read (with notes etc) and how you manage this - is there any good software? In the past I have just kept hard copies (or pdf files in folders) which periodically get lost/deleted/thrown out. But as I am once again struggling to track something down that I know I have read but can't remember when or who it was by, I feel that I should start being more systematic in my research and keep records for future use. But I am not sure how to best organize this so wondering how others do it.
RESPONSE A: My research advisor is trying to get me in the habit of keeping on central document for each project that has a list of each paper I read and a short summary of each. Because most papers in my field are online or in PDF, I can include links to the papers in this document too to make them easier to find. So far its helped a lot in keeping things organized and helping me remember what I've read.
RESPONSE B: Zotero + Papership for IPad
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Do you keep a record of papers you have read? Hi, I am post-grad student in the humanities and a problem I have lately is trying to track down papers I had read years ago. I am wondering if any of you keep a record of papers you have read (with notes etc) and how you manage this - is there any good software? In the past I have just kept hard copies (or pdf files in folders) which periodically get lost/deleted/thrown out. But as I am once again struggling to track something down that I know I have read but can't remember when or who it was by, I feel that I should start being more systematic in my research and keep records for future use. But I am not sure how to best organize this so wondering how others do it.
RESPONSE A: My research advisor is trying to get me in the habit of keeping on central document for each project that has a list of each paper I read and a short summary of each. Because most papers in my field are online or in PDF, I can include links to the papers in this document too to make them easier to find. So far its helped a lot in keeping things organized and helping me remember what I've read.
RESPONSE B: one note helps me with organizing EVERYTHING. I'm very dependent on it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is it really so easy to get dismissed from a PhD program? I’ve been accepted into a doctoral program starting in the fall. I’m excited and terrified (mostly excited though, really). One thing that’s scaring me is that after reading through the student handbook it seems like they drop the possibility of dismissal a lot. Having a bad semester or having an advisor be “dissatisfied with the student’s progress” are both potential causes for dismissal. Am I missing something? Otherwise that seems like a very tenuous position. I would think after a while the school would have put enough time and money into a student that dismissal wouldn’t be as looming a threat.
RESPONSE A: Yes, those are both pretty common positions. That doesn’t necessarily make it “easy” to get dismissed- as you mention, they’ve put money into you. Basically, they have to think you’re not worth putting more money into to dismiss you. If you have a bad semester, you might be able to appeal and go on probation. But it would have to be a pretty bad semester to even get to that place, and you would likely see it coming and withdraw/deal with it before it got to the point of dismissal.
RESPONSE B: All that stuff needs to be in the handbook because it would be a nightmare to drop a problem student without it. It needs to be something of a looming threat - if you totally check out or turn out to be a raving loon they ought to be able to boot you without an act of congress. So: just don't check out completely or be a total nutter.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is it really so easy to get dismissed from a PhD program? I’ve been accepted into a doctoral program starting in the fall. I’m excited and terrified (mostly excited though, really). One thing that’s scaring me is that after reading through the student handbook it seems like they drop the possibility of dismissal a lot. Having a bad semester or having an advisor be “dissatisfied with the student’s progress” are both potential causes for dismissal. Am I missing something? Otherwise that seems like a very tenuous position. I would think after a while the school would have put enough time and money into a student that dismissal wouldn’t be as looming a threat.
RESPONSE A: I've never heard of anybody being dismissed from a PhD program unless they blatantly deserved it. I would not worry too much about it, work hard, keep a good relationship with your supervisor, and all will be well.
RESPONSE B: The people I've seen get dismissed were almost all people who turned into complete flakes. There were a couple of other examples for things like sexual harassment where you'd expect them to get dismissed whatever the handbook said. Most people who were legitimately working hard and just not quite up to a PhD got offered a transfer to a master's program.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: person. At first, I thought it was only limited to presenting in public but as my professors started encouraging me to publish some of my papers, I realized that I am very, very scared of publishing under my own name as well. Leaving a record or trace of myself that anyone could follow makes me very anxious, and I have spent many sleepless nights over this. Networking is a whole other set of worries. Sorry if this seems silly, but this is the only place I could think of asking what career I could possibly make as a very shy person, preferably working in the background with few, if any, mentions of my name. Thanks in advance.
RESPONSE A: I think you have to accept that you need to figure out a way to live comfortably. This may mean that academia, where your job will be contingent on the work that you do under your own name, may not be right for you. Alternatively, you could begin to take steps to work through what is keeping you from feeling comfortable presenting your work publicly or publishing. I don't want to presume to tell you how to live your life or pursue your goals, but it seems the issue here would apply to careers beyond academia.
RESPONSE B: >At first, I thought it was only limited to presenting in public The first few times, it's pretty terrifying. But you need to get over that if you want a career in academia. Public presentation of research, public lectures, teaching... these are part of being an academic researcher. >I realized that I am very, very scared of publishing under my own name as well. Leaving a record or trace of myself that anyone could follow makes me very anxious, and I have spent many sleepless nights over this. This is paranoia. This is not normal, and it's not "shyness." If you want to be a productive researcher, part of doing that is publishing. Period. If you don't publish / present your research, then there's no point in doing it. Dissemination of information is what research is. If you want to do something in research that rarely if ever gets mentioning, don't bother with any further degrees. It's pointless. Work as a lab tech where you might receive an acknowledgement but little else.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: trace of myself that anyone could follow makes me very anxious, and I have spent many sleepless nights over this. Networking is a whole other set of worries. Sorry if this seems silly, but this is the only place I could think of asking what career I could possibly make as a very shy person, preferably working in the background with few, if any, mentions of my name. Thanks in advance.
RESPONSE A: >At first, I thought it was only limited to presenting in public The first few times, it's pretty terrifying. But you need to get over that if you want a career in academia. Public presentation of research, public lectures, teaching... these are part of being an academic researcher. >I realized that I am very, very scared of publishing under my own name as well. Leaving a record or trace of myself that anyone could follow makes me very anxious, and I have spent many sleepless nights over this. This is paranoia. This is not normal, and it's not "shyness." If you want to be a productive researcher, part of doing that is publishing. Period. If you don't publish / present your research, then there's no point in doing it. Dissemination of information is what research is. If you want to do something in research that rarely if ever gets mentioning, don't bother with any further degrees. It's pointless. Work as a lab tech where you might receive an acknowledgement but little else.
RESPONSE B: > Leaving a record or trace of myself that anyone could follow makes me very anxious, and I have spent many sleepless nights over this. I would ask why this is. Are you afraid that people will know your name and associate it with potentially poor work, giving you a bad reputation? If so, that's understandable and not uncommon. On the other hand, if for example you are afraid that someone will somehow use your name on a publication to hunt you down...that's not normal shyness, and you may need to seek professional help as this may be a phobia or something else requiring treatment. Of course, these are not the only possibilities, my point is that without knowing *why* you feel this way it is difficult to give more concrete advice.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: undergrad, USA) I recently was awarded an REU in a STEM field that I technically have not taken any classes in (although I have read a lot about it, since that will be my major soon). I have very rudimentary knowledge of a programming language (I'm talking "I haven't finished the Code Academy course yet" rudimentary) that I will be expected to help build programs from raw data. I have a huge passion for the field and I will be taking classes once I transfer from junior college. I have lots of work experience in a similar-ish field (that doesn't contribute anything to my understanding of the field, but does speak to my work ethic and persistence, according to the PI). I am 60 days from the beginning of the internship and I've started "[field] boot camp", checking out several books from the library, doubling down on programming practice, and attempting to finish strong in my current classes while also working 40 hours a week at my job. But I'm honestly scared sh*tless that I'll mess everything up and I'll be blacklisted from the field. My PI is a Big Deal, and she is friends with the head of [field] department at the school I'm applying for transfer. I applied for a bunch of internships mostly for the experience and I didn't think I would actually get a spot in one. I'm so anxious that I'm taking a spot away from someone with research experience who actually knows what they're doing. Any advice for someone that is genuinely unprepared and underqualified for such a huge opportunity? This isn't imposter syndrome, I promise.
RESPONSE A: REU students are expected to come in fairly clueless. You'll be fine.
RESPONSE B: No offense, but you're wildly overestimating how much it matters to this prof and their group whether you successfully finish your project. There's no way this prof is so naive as to give an important or critical piece of work to an undergraduate intern. You're free labour. They're probably just hoping you'll make a reasonable attempt at the project so that they have enough information to decide whether to actually put any serious resources into getting it done.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I'll be blacklisted from the field. My PI is a Big Deal, and she is friends with the head of [field] department at the school I'm applying for transfer. I applied for a bunch of internships mostly for the experience and I didn't think I would actually get a spot in one. I'm so anxious that I'm taking a spot away from someone with research experience who actually knows what they're doing. Any advice for someone that is genuinely unprepared and underqualified for such a huge opportunity? This isn't imposter syndrome, I promise.
RESPONSE A: REU students are expected to come in fairly clueless. You'll be fine.
RESPONSE B: > This isn't imposter syndrome, I promise. Yeah, I'm not buying it. Unless you lied profusely on your application to the REU, they wouldn't have accepted you if you were truly unqualified. Remember, they're making an investment into you (of both money, and more significantly time) and they're not going to waste their time on someone they think isn't worth it. Nobody expects an undergrad going into a research program to be an expert in the field. If you were, you wouldn't be an undergrad. So, some advice: First, don't pretend to know more than you think you do. Second, there is a fine balance between working independently and knowing how to ask for help. In the course of research, you'll be asked to do many things you don't quite know how to do. A well-chosen research problem for an undergrad is something thats right on the edge of your ability. You wont be able to do it trivially, but with some work and grinding you'll be able to get it. A great phrase to build into your vocabulary is some variation of "I'm not 100% sure how to do, but I think I can figure it out", or "I'll have to think about it but it seems doable", or "I've never done X before, but I can try." That way you're accurately representing your ability, demonstrating your willingness to work independently but also leaving the door open to ask questions when confused.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: recently was awarded an REU in a STEM field that I technically have not taken any classes in (although I have read a lot about it, since that will be my major soon). I have very rudimentary knowledge of a programming language (I'm talking "I haven't finished the Code Academy course yet" rudimentary) that I will be expected to help build programs from raw data. I have a huge passion for the field and I will be taking classes once I transfer from junior college. I have lots of work experience in a similar-ish field (that doesn't contribute anything to my understanding of the field, but does speak to my work ethic and persistence, according to the PI). I am 60 days from the beginning of the internship and I've started "[field] boot camp", checking out several books from the library, doubling down on programming practice, and attempting to finish strong in my current classes while also working 40 hours a week at my job. But I'm honestly scared sh*tless that I'll mess everything up and I'll be blacklisted from the field. My PI is a Big Deal, and she is friends with the head of [field] department at the school I'm applying for transfer. I applied for a bunch of internships mostly for the experience and I didn't think I would actually get a spot in one. I'm so anxious that I'm taking a spot away from someone with research experience who actually knows what they're doing. Any advice for someone that is genuinely unprepared and underqualified for such a huge opportunity? This isn't imposter syndrome, I promise.
RESPONSE A: REU students are expected to come in fairly clueless. You'll be fine.
RESPONSE B: You're on the right track with your prep and I think you'll be fine! They knew your background when they selected you and this is meant to be a training program, not a job where everyone comes in 100% qualified to work from day 1. If it makes you feel any better, I did my undergrad thesis based on analysis that I coded from scratch in SAS and I didn't start learning SAS until August of my senior year (but had very supportive graduate students in my research group).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Citing evidence that I found in a review article - should I cite the review as well? I'm confused if it's bad form to not include a review article as a citation when referencing studies identified by the review article. On one hand, the review article is less relevant to the reader - who only needs to see that I support my argument with direct evidence. On the other hand, I wouldn't have found this evidence without the review article. What's the etiquette here?
RESPONSE A: I would not assume that the author(s) of a review paper are accurately representing all of the studies they cite. It is always wise to read the source that is referenced, and cite that original paper, not the review.
RESPONSE B: IMHO: Saying anything like: "/u/MrLegilimens, 2020; as in /u/PretySmitty, 2018" says : "If my citation is wrong, blame the review, not me." Own your citations. If you feel that the review is relevant to the point, it deserves to be cited. If you don't, then don't. If you cite something, it should mean "I've read this enough to be confident enough in claiming it supports my argument".
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Citing evidence that I found in a review article - should I cite the review as well? I'm confused if it's bad form to not include a review article as a citation when referencing studies identified by the review article. On one hand, the review article is less relevant to the reader - who only needs to see that I support my argument with direct evidence. On the other hand, I wouldn't have found this evidence without the review article. What's the etiquette here?
RESPONSE A: I've had this problem before, it depends on the situation. If there are a collection of studies identified in the review article that support your argument, then imho it's sufficient to cite it as "Blah et al. (2020), and references therein." If it is one work in particular that provides the evidence, it's not necessarily poor etiquette to not cite the review article, but if that makes you uncomfortable then you can slot in a line somewhere saying, e.g. "For a review see \*Blah et al. (2020)"
RESPONSE B: Cite the primary literature. I only cite reviews when I'm talking about some generally established idea or body of work that has numerous primary sources to support it and it's not practical to cite 100 papers.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Citing evidence that I found in a review article - should I cite the review as well? I'm confused if it's bad form to not include a review article as a citation when referencing studies identified by the review article. On one hand, the review article is less relevant to the reader - who only needs to see that I support my argument with direct evidence. On the other hand, I wouldn't have found this evidence without the review article. What's the etiquette here?
RESPONSE A: Cite the primary literature. I only cite reviews when I'm talking about some generally established idea or body of work that has numerous primary sources to support it and it's not practical to cite 100 papers.
RESPONSE B: cite the thing you're actually citing in the footnotes/endnotes/in text citation, but then put the review article in the bibliography
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Citing evidence that I found in a review article - should I cite the review as well? I'm confused if it's bad form to not include a review article as a citation when referencing studies identified by the review article. On one hand, the review article is less relevant to the reader - who only needs to see that I support my argument with direct evidence. On the other hand, I wouldn't have found this evidence without the review article. What's the etiquette here?
RESPONSE A: I'd personally only cite a review article in a general overview/an introduction, when it's something like "bla bla has found wide applications in (unrelated field)[cite review], (unrelated field)[another review], etc."
RESPONSE B: I've had this problem before, it depends on the situation. If there are a collection of studies identified in the review article that support your argument, then imho it's sufficient to cite it as "Blah et al. (2020), and references therein." If it is one work in particular that provides the evidence, it's not necessarily poor etiquette to not cite the review article, but if that makes you uncomfortable then you can slot in a line somewhere saying, e.g. "For a review see \*Blah et al. (2020)"
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Citing evidence that I found in a review article - should I cite the review as well? I'm confused if it's bad form to not include a review article as a citation when referencing studies identified by the review article. On one hand, the review article is less relevant to the reader - who only needs to see that I support my argument with direct evidence. On the other hand, I wouldn't have found this evidence without the review article. What's the etiquette here?
RESPONSE A: I've had this problem before, it depends on the situation. If there are a collection of studies identified in the review article that support your argument, then imho it's sufficient to cite it as "Blah et al. (2020), and references therein." If it is one work in particular that provides the evidence, it's not necessarily poor etiquette to not cite the review article, but if that makes you uncomfortable then you can slot in a line somewhere saying, e.g. "For a review see \*Blah et al. (2020)"
RESPONSE B: cite the thing you're actually citing in the footnotes/endnotes/in text citation, but then put the review article in the bibliography
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: References for a good (free, please) program to draw diagrams Hey colleagues, I was wondering if anyone had a suggestion for a program to draw diagrams? I'm near the end of my dissertation drafting phase for a full monograph and need to draw a few diagrams for the discussion. I was looking for suggestions for online program or tool. I haven't really needed them for the articles I've written so far. I used Google Drawing but wasn't particularly happy with the results. Any suggestions?
RESPONSE A: I am not sure what kind of diagrams you have in mind, so to keep it generic: * Dia * Inkscape * LibreOffice Draw
RESPONSE B: I generally use draw.io, which works both online or as a standalone application on your computer.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: References for a good (free, please) program to draw diagrams Hey colleagues, I was wondering if anyone had a suggestion for a program to draw diagrams? I'm near the end of my dissertation drafting phase for a full monograph and need to draw a few diagrams for the discussion. I was looking for suggestions for online program or tool. I haven't really needed them for the articles I've written so far. I used Google Drawing but wasn't particularly happy with the results. Any suggestions?
RESPONSE A: I’ve actually used PowerPoint to make diagrams for publication.
RESPONSE B: I use mostly draw.io for flowcharts and such (think Visio but simpler and free), Ipe for line art and other simple diagrams (simpler than Inkscape, but a bit of a learning curve)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: References for a good (free, please) program to draw diagrams Hey colleagues, I was wondering if anyone had a suggestion for a program to draw diagrams? I'm near the end of my dissertation drafting phase for a full monograph and need to draw a few diagrams for the discussion. I was looking for suggestions for online program or tool. I haven't really needed them for the articles I've written so far. I used Google Drawing but wasn't particularly happy with the results. Any suggestions?
RESPONSE A: I love BioRender. They give you 5 free figures before you have to pay. It's SO easy, literally drag & drop but super customizable.
RESPONSE B: I’ve actually used PowerPoint to make diagrams for publication.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: References for a good (free, please) program to draw diagrams Hey colleagues, I was wondering if anyone had a suggestion for a program to draw diagrams? I'm near the end of my dissertation drafting phase for a full monograph and need to draw a few diagrams for the discussion. I was looking for suggestions for online program or tool. I haven't really needed them for the articles I've written so far. I used Google Drawing but wasn't particularly happy with the results. Any suggestions?
RESPONSE A: I’ve actually used PowerPoint to make diagrams for publication.
RESPONSE B: What discipline? I'm in mathematics and use Inkscape and GeoGebra.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: References for a good (free, please) program to draw diagrams Hey colleagues, I was wondering if anyone had a suggestion for a program to draw diagrams? I'm near the end of my dissertation drafting phase for a full monograph and need to draw a few diagrams for the discussion. I was looking for suggestions for online program or tool. I haven't really needed them for the articles I've written so far. I used Google Drawing but wasn't particularly happy with the results. Any suggestions?
RESPONSE A: What discipline? I'm in mathematics and use Inkscape and GeoGebra.
RESPONSE B: I use mostly draw.io for flowcharts and such (think Visio but simpler and free), Ipe for line art and other simple diagrams (simpler than Inkscape, but a bit of a learning curve)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Is education from a lower-ranked university really worthless? Some people told me it's pointless to study at schools like University of South Wales that's ranked #1000 in the world. How much truth is there in that?
RESPONSE A: Well I have 2 ways of looking at it. When I left a low teir university, me and a Cambridge grad applied for the same job. They got it. I got an unpaid internship doing the same role. Within 6 months she had been fired and I had been promoted above her previous position. So in that case, the fact it was a "low tier" degree was probably what counted against me. BUT, when I left that job I went back to uni, and was able to get into a higher tier university for my Masters. And now I'm at a top university for my PhD. I most certainly would not have got where I am today with no degree.
RESPONSE B: This really depends on your goals and your major. If you just want to get an undergraduate degree to get a job , it doesn’t matter where you go. You can go to Harvard and study history and the changes of you getting a job are still close to zero. Think about the major you want to pursue. Will it prepare you for a job? Where would you work when finished? Will the degree help you achieve your goal? If your goal is to go onto graduate school, you need to do research. A school that has a good program in your major will help you learn research skills for graduate work. What is your intended major?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: course work, qualifying exams, and current research will be unaffected if I decide to transfer or remain where I am, although if I stayed I would not have the ability to meet face to face. U2 is a much larger university (both the university and department are at least twice as large) with better facilities. Has anyone been in a similar situation? What should I consider professionally, personally, and academically before making the decision to transfer to another university midway through my Ph.D.? Thanks!
RESPONSE A: My advisor had just moved from another institution when i joined the group. Depending on your field i would say if you move with your advisor you will probably be expected to help move and setup everything once you get there. This will take time out of your studies. If you have a significant other then of course any decision you make will affect them. Long distance advising could be ok especially with modern technology. Think about how you like to interact with your advisor do you prefer more hands off independent work or do you need more input? If you need more input then i would lean towards moving. Plenty of people have moved with an adviser and stayed when their advisor moved. It really depends on what you need as a student.
RESPONSE B: My advisor just recently moved. I stayed (since I'm nearly finished) and the rest of his PhD students moved with him. They did so for a couple reasons: * the new institution is more well-known and has a better reputation * staying here would also cost them time, since they'd have to refocus their projects onto something they could do here without him * the new lab and workspace are fantastic, and they get to help set that up * they're all international students, so they weren't moving away from family or from somewhere they had a ton of roots * moving to a new and very cool place * new department is larger and more international (more contacts for the future) The cons: * it causes delays (new lab setup time) * the new uni requires different things than the old one, and this adds some work * requires new visas / work permits / moving house etc (possibly less relevant for you) * new place is more expensive * possible language issues, although this is probably neutral on balance
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Publishing master thesis. Red flags? Hello everyone, I have a question regarding publications during Masters. I am working under a larger EU project, side by side to a PhD candidate that is also coordinating the project. He has been my unofficial supervisor and is helping me out a lot. In my university, it is not common to aim for publication in your masters and apparently, most students are not so interested in it either. This week my unofficial supervisor mentioned that my work is relevant for his PhD and asked me if I would be interested in publishing it together, 50-50 + main supervisor, etc. I am a bit insecure regarding my data, I don’t have a lot of experience with the methodology I am using and I am afraid to jump on this and fail miserably. On the other hand, I am very excited and would love the opportunity! He is however treading very carefully, asking me a hundred times if that is something I would be interested in, telling me to take some time to think about it, etc. So, I am wondering, are there any red flags I should be in the lookout for?
RESPONSE A: One thing that comes to mind: He might be hesitant and having you take your time because this could be a fairly large undertaking for you. Going from a half-way done project to final version is actually an uphill battle. You may have to work on revisions once you have left your MA, or spend more time on this project than you ever wanted to. Make sure that is something you are ok with.
RESPONSE B: Why wouldn’t you want to try to publish the hard work of your masters? In my field in North America everyone I know who has done a masters and moved on to a PhD or a job in the field eventually published at least one paper from that work. I’m doing a PhD now and finally (several years after finishing) published both chapters of my MS thesis, and have one more paper to go.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Publishing master thesis. Red flags? Hello everyone, I have a question regarding publications during Masters. I am working under a larger EU project, side by side to a PhD candidate that is also coordinating the project. He has been my unofficial supervisor and is helping me out a lot. In my university, it is not common to aim for publication in your masters and apparently, most students are not so interested in it either. This week my unofficial supervisor mentioned that my work is relevant for his PhD and asked me if I would be interested in publishing it together, 50-50 + main supervisor, etc. I am a bit insecure regarding my data, I don’t have a lot of experience with the methodology I am using and I am afraid to jump on this and fail miserably. On the other hand, I am very excited and would love the opportunity! He is however treading very carefully, asking me a hundred times if that is something I would be interested in, telling me to take some time to think about it, etc. So, I am wondering, are there any red flags I should be in the lookout for?
RESPONSE A: I provide an opportunity to pursue a PhD to every masters and even undergraduate student of mine who has worked in my lab. I am always in need of motivated students. Don't take the word of the prof for it, do what you think will maximize your future professional success. Academia pays pathetically, and competition is tough. It's a rat race for limited funding
RESPONSE B: One thing that comes to mind: He might be hesitant and having you take your time because this could be a fairly large undertaking for you. Going from a half-way done project to final version is actually an uphill battle. You may have to work on revisions once you have left your MA, or spend more time on this project than you ever wanted to. Make sure that is something you are ok with.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Publishing master thesis. Red flags? Hello everyone, I have a question regarding publications during Masters. I am working under a larger EU project, side by side to a PhD candidate that is also coordinating the project. He has been my unofficial supervisor and is helping me out a lot. In my university, it is not common to aim for publication in your masters and apparently, most students are not so interested in it either. This week my unofficial supervisor mentioned that my work is relevant for his PhD and asked me if I would be interested in publishing it together, 50-50 + main supervisor, etc. I am a bit insecure regarding my data, I don’t have a lot of experience with the methodology I am using and I am afraid to jump on this and fail miserably. On the other hand, I am very excited and would love the opportunity! He is however treading very carefully, asking me a hundred times if that is something I would be interested in, telling me to take some time to think about it, etc. So, I am wondering, are there any red flags I should be in the lookout for?
RESPONSE A: Why wouldn’t you want to try to publish the hard work of your masters? In my field in North America everyone I know who has done a masters and moved on to a PhD or a job in the field eventually published at least one paper from that work. I’m doing a PhD now and finally (several years after finishing) published both chapters of my MS thesis, and have one more paper to go.
RESPONSE B: I provide an opportunity to pursue a PhD to every masters and even undergraduate student of mine who has worked in my lab. I am always in need of motivated students. Don't take the word of the prof for it, do what you think will maximize your future professional success. Academia pays pathetically, and competition is tough. It's a rat race for limited funding
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: stic or anything like that; I just didn't grow up with it and it's foreign to me. Some schools that I'm considering on my job search were founded in / through a religion and explicitly say on their job postings to list in the cover letter how one might assist the school in serving in its mission for higher education, community outreach, all that good stuff, in the spirit of God / the Church / etc. I can make such a statement, outright and honestly, without the connection to religion. The religion aspect is the distinguishing factor and where I might falter as a job candidate compared to others. The simple question is, given my background, am I just better off not looking at religion-focused schools? More in depth: what are the general religion knowledge expectations of a faculty member who is not of the same faith (or any faith) as the school?
RESPONSE A: At most Catholic schools, actually being religious is way, way down the list, if it is considered at all. They mostly just want to make sure you're not going to launch an anti-Catholic, uh, crusade while at their institution. Take a look at the mission statements of the schools that ask about mission. There may or may not be reference to religion/God/faith, and as you mention, these can usually be addressed without reference to personal religious beliefs. Exception: if it apppears in the Newman Guide, being Catholic is taken much more highly into account. Other denominations can be a bit hit and miss, but if they are mainline Protestant (Lutheran, Methodist, etc.) they'll likely be similar to Catholic colleges. Baptist, evangelical, or non-denominational colleges are more likely to want to create a little Christian bubble on campus, and may ask you about your church affiliation or to provide a statement of faith. However, it is in these colleges' best interests to make it abundantly clear what they are looking for, so it should usually be pretty obvious which ones not to bother applying to.
RESPONSE B: Schools I know,mint doesn't matter AT ALL. That's catholic schools. There are certainly "bible colleges" where it matters, but that's largely at the hiring stage.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How many self-citations is too many? I'm writing a review paper for a high-impact journal, and my advisor keeps telling me to cite their own papers, even when I already have a different author cited. I've already cited them several times in the review, and I'm worried if I do it too much, people won't take the review seriously. Am I overthinking this?
RESPONSE A: I don’t think anyone cares though the citation should be relevant.
RESPONSE B: As obnoxious as it may seem, self-citation is a bit important to 1) alert reviewers and readers that your work results from a long period of investigation and to 2) demonstrate to those who may be hiring that you’ve developed an area of expertise. As someone recently involved in the hiring process from the side of the employer, I have to read scads of publications. I can’t read everything and a bibliometric analysis is always going to be incomplete. But if I can read one (usually more) of your first-authored papers and see that it results from a deep well of experience, I’m on firmer ground knowing and understanding your area of focus. If you fail to self-cite, it does you as an early investigator a disservice.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How many self-citations is too many? I'm writing a review paper for a high-impact journal, and my advisor keeps telling me to cite their own papers, even when I already have a different author cited. I've already cited them several times in the review, and I'm worried if I do it too much, people won't take the review seriously. Am I overthinking this?
RESPONSE A: Cite the best paper in your opinion (and that of the reviewers). If your advisor still asks you to cite theirs, ask why theirs is better than the other one. Also consider which papers are more recent.
RESPONSE B: As obnoxious as it may seem, self-citation is a bit important to 1) alert reviewers and readers that your work results from a long period of investigation and to 2) demonstrate to those who may be hiring that you’ve developed an area of expertise. As someone recently involved in the hiring process from the side of the employer, I have to read scads of publications. I can’t read everything and a bibliometric analysis is always going to be incomplete. But if I can read one (usually more) of your first-authored papers and see that it results from a deep well of experience, I’m on firmer ground knowing and understanding your area of focus. If you fail to self-cite, it does you as an early investigator a disservice.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How many self-citations is too many? I'm writing a review paper for a high-impact journal, and my advisor keeps telling me to cite their own papers, even when I already have a different author cited. I've already cited them several times in the review, and I'm worried if I do it too much, people won't take the review seriously. Am I overthinking this?
RESPONSE A: Cite the best paper in your opinion (and that of the reviewers). If your advisor still asks you to cite theirs, ask why theirs is better than the other one. Also consider which papers are more recent.
RESPONSE B: As long as the citation is relevant / appropriate, go nuts.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How many self-citations is too many? I'm writing a review paper for a high-impact journal, and my advisor keeps telling me to cite their own papers, even when I already have a different author cited. I've already cited them several times in the review, and I'm worried if I do it too much, people won't take the review seriously. Am I overthinking this?
RESPONSE A: I don’t think anyone cares though the citation should be relevant.
RESPONSE B: Cite the best paper in your opinion (and that of the reviewers). If your advisor still asks you to cite theirs, ask why theirs is better than the other one. Also consider which papers are more recent.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How many self-citations is too many? I'm writing a review paper for a high-impact journal, and my advisor keeps telling me to cite their own papers, even when I already have a different author cited. I've already cited them several times in the review, and I'm worried if I do it too much, people won't take the review seriously. Am I overthinking this?
RESPONSE A: I had the EXACT same thing happen and it ended up working out because the reviewers made us balance out the citations more. I would say cite a mix of sources, especially when someone else’s is better, but there may be somewhat more from your lab in this scenario.
RESPONSE B: You're telling a story. Cite what you need to give the reader a complete picture. If you current paper is based on your previous works, then you should cite those previous works. "Thing was originally discovered by [person] who speculated idea. However, work done by [me] showed that idea was unlikely. In further studies [me, adviser et. al.] showed that [person] had missed an important detail. Later work done by [other person] confirmed our findings. This lead to a series of papers done by [person, other person, and me] etc. etc." If it makes sense, it makes sense.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Another post about Reference Managers for Mac OS X - Mendeley, EndNote, Zotero I know this has been posted in the past but as these programs are constantly evolving, I felt that obtaining your up to date opinion is of value. I have been using Mendeley happily for over a year. Occasionally there are hiccups with the word plugin, and the recent 64 bit update to Microsoft Word rendered it non-functional again. Given the unstable nature of Mendeley's product, I am looking at the alternatives. I use reference managers to keep track of citations and insert them in my papers. I do not store my PDFs or other documents in the program These are my (likely outdated) impressions on the programs: 1. Mendeley: great interface and usability, but unstable and slow to update/fix. Safari plugin makes adding citations very easy. 2. EndNote: bloated and slow, however it seems most commonly used by my colleagues and therefore collaboration may be easier. Less intuitive so simple tasks may take longer, such as jumping between adding papers and referring back to my list of citations 3. Zotero: less attractive UI and not as good at handling multiple citations in a page (inserting a new citation and refreshing the whole paper takes a long time). Also has a great safari plugin What are your thoughts? What do you use on Mac?
RESPONSE A: I use Zotero because I have to work across multiple platforms (Windows/Mac). I don't quite understand your issue with Zotero - I've not encountered issues with handling multiple citations like that.
RESPONSE B: Do you exclusively write in Word? I finally caved and signed up for Paperpile and I have to say their integration with Google docs and Chrome in general is pretty great, plus their customer service is super responsive and highly competent. Will be paying for it after my free trial runs out, and this is coming from someone who always goes for the free option even if it's less convenient.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Another post about Reference Managers for Mac OS X - Mendeley, EndNote, Zotero I know this has been posted in the past but as these programs are constantly evolving, I felt that obtaining your up to date opinion is of value. I have been using Mendeley happily for over a year. Occasionally there are hiccups with the word plugin, and the recent 64 bit update to Microsoft Word rendered it non-functional again. Given the unstable nature of Mendeley's product, I am looking at the alternatives. I use reference managers to keep track of citations and insert them in my papers. I do not store my PDFs or other documents in the program These are my (likely outdated) impressions on the programs: 1. Mendeley: great interface and usability, but unstable and slow to update/fix. Safari plugin makes adding citations very easy. 2. EndNote: bloated and slow, however it seems most commonly used by my colleagues and therefore collaboration may be easier. Less intuitive so simple tasks may take longer, such as jumping between adding papers and referring back to my list of citations 3. Zotero: less attractive UI and not as good at handling multiple citations in a page (inserting a new citation and refreshing the whole paper takes a long time). Also has a great safari plugin What are your thoughts? What do you use on Mac?
RESPONSE A: I use Zotero because I have to work across multiple platforms (Windows/Mac). I don't quite understand your issue with Zotero - I've not encountered issues with handling multiple citations like that.
RESPONSE B: I use Mendeley and have never had any problems with stability. Of course, I don't use Word, I use the Bibtex export, so perhaps it's the Word plugin that is unstable.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Another post about Reference Managers for Mac OS X - Mendeley, EndNote, Zotero I know this has been posted in the past but as these programs are constantly evolving, I felt that obtaining your up to date opinion is of value. I have been using Mendeley happily for over a year. Occasionally there are hiccups with the word plugin, and the recent 64 bit update to Microsoft Word rendered it non-functional again. Given the unstable nature of Mendeley's product, I am looking at the alternatives. I use reference managers to keep track of citations and insert them in my papers. I do not store my PDFs or other documents in the program These are my (likely outdated) impressions on the programs: 1. Mendeley: great interface and usability, but unstable and slow to update/fix. Safari plugin makes adding citations very easy. 2. EndNote: bloated and slow, however it seems most commonly used by my colleagues and therefore collaboration may be easier. Less intuitive so simple tasks may take longer, such as jumping between adding papers and referring back to my list of citations 3. Zotero: less attractive UI and not as good at handling multiple citations in a page (inserting a new citation and refreshing the whole paper takes a long time). Also has a great safari plugin What are your thoughts? What do you use on Mac?
RESPONSE A: I use Zotero because I have to work across multiple platforms (Windows/Mac). I don't quite understand your issue with Zotero - I've not encountered issues with handling multiple citations like that.
RESPONSE B: I use Mendeley across both Mac and windows. Admittedly, its not perfect and have had to reinstall the word plug-in a few times over the past 4 years. Overall I find it serves its purpose well and I would not considering substituting it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Migrate from Mendeley to Zotero? I been using Mendeley for several years. I use it for reading and annotating PDF documents and also as reference manager in word. I am getting increasingly annoyed with Mendeley because the link to ms word regularly breaks and requires a restart of word and an uninstall+reinstall of the extension to work. I'm now reading that most people here recommend zotero and that Mendeley was built from zotero. So maybe I should bite the bullet and switch? How would I in that case go about moving my several gb database from Mendeley to zotero? Any advice here. Thanks.
RESPONSE A: I have considered the same thing but have resisted because I don't think the on-page markups can get exported out of Mendeley. I have made so many notes and comments on PDFs in the Mendeley interface and they don't actually get save to the PDFs themselves. In Zotero you can mark up directly on the PDFs and it gets saved to the native file, but that means I would lose 5+ years of markups I have already done. I think when I finish my PhD I will be less worried about losing those annotations, will do a bulk migration and start over with new markups on new docs in Zotero.
RESPONSE B: I migrated from Papers to Zotero (about 2K pdf files) and have been using it for a couple of years. Stable and useful. Not quite as slick as papers was, but that was grinding like hell and the word processor integration is better with zotero. Recommended.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Any good Mendeley alternatives? Can you suggest any good Mendeley alternatives? After the new reference manager update, I am fed up with it. No more automatic citation keys, no settings whatsoever, no nothing. Is there anything else?
RESPONSE A: The only real answer is Zotero. I recently made the switch. You'll likely want the BetterBibtex extension too.
RESPONSE B: I'm probably an odd duck, but I like EndNote. Whatever version you purchase doesn't expire, so they bring out new versions your old one still works. I can download PDFs and index them to the citation so I can always read pdfs on my computer if I don't have internet. I have my endnote library saved on my Box folder so it is updated on the cloud across devices. The browser extension Endnote locker is super helpful on what I have browsed lately. It saves all the pdfs to the locker and I can search within it. I can download the citation and PDF to my desktop version of endnote. I organize my endnote library by topic. That means when I download a citation, I can put the citation in multiple topic folders. Later when I want to look through a topic I can find the papers that are related to that.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Any good Mendeley alternatives? Can you suggest any good Mendeley alternatives? After the new reference manager update, I am fed up with it. No more automatic citation keys, no settings whatsoever, no nothing. Is there anything else?
RESPONSE A: Paperpile is also excellent
RESPONSE B: Another vote for Zotero. I use the Zotfile (for pdf management), pubpeer and scite.ai plugins with it. BetterBibtex is also useful.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Any good Mendeley alternatives? Can you suggest any good Mendeley alternatives? After the new reference manager update, I am fed up with it. No more automatic citation keys, no settings whatsoever, no nothing. Is there anything else?
RESPONSE A: If you're a Mac user I'm very happy with Bookends.
RESPONSE B: Paperpile is also excellent
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Any good Mendeley alternatives? Can you suggest any good Mendeley alternatives? After the new reference manager update, I am fed up with it. No more automatic citation keys, no settings whatsoever, no nothing. Is there anything else?
RESPONSE A: Another vote for Zotero. I use the Zotfile (for pdf management), pubpeer and scite.ai plugins with it. BetterBibtex is also useful.
RESPONSE B: The two features keeping me moving from Mendeley to Zotero are: 1. If I drag+drop a PDF into Mendeley, it will search the DOI and autofill the correct info 99% of the time. 2. Cross-device syncing (including PDFs) is super easy on Mendeley. This was even true on my iPad before they stopped mobile support. Have these things improved in Zotero? When I tried a few years ago they seemed *doable* but a huge pain to setup. Maybe just user error.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Any good Mendeley alternatives? Can you suggest any good Mendeley alternatives? After the new reference manager update, I am fed up with it. No more automatic citation keys, no settings whatsoever, no nothing. Is there anything else?
RESPONSE A: The two features keeping me moving from Mendeley to Zotero are: 1. If I drag+drop a PDF into Mendeley, it will search the DOI and autofill the correct info 99% of the time. 2. Cross-device syncing (including PDFs) is super easy on Mendeley. This was even true on my iPad before they stopped mobile support. Have these things improved in Zotero? When I tried a few years ago they seemed *doable* but a huge pain to setup. Maybe just user error.
RESPONSE B: If you're a Mac user I'm very happy with Bookends.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Including submitted papers on CV for postdoc applications? I anticipate finishing my PhD in December and am starting to reach out to faculty about potential postdoc positions (mostly cold emails). I currently have three first author papers out for review. One accepted pending minor revisions and two that have not yet come out of review. Would it be inappropriate to include these in my CV, provided I note they have not yet been published? I don't want to misrepresent myself, but otherwise there's little indication what I've been working in the past three years. My field is public health, in case relevant.
RESPONSE A: They 100% need to be included. Write up the citation but instead of listing the journal and page numbers and such, just write “submitted at X” or “In R&R at Y.” You could also have it in a separate subsection—Papers in Progress or Papers in Review or something like this. Please don’t feel like this is cheating—it’s 100% what you are supposed to do.
RESPONSE B: Definitely include them! My favorite solution is to have a separate section for papers still under review and in revision.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Including submitted papers on CV for postdoc applications? I anticipate finishing my PhD in December and am starting to reach out to faculty about potential postdoc positions (mostly cold emails). I currently have three first author papers out for review. One accepted pending minor revisions and two that have not yet come out of review. Would it be inappropriate to include these in my CV, provided I note they have not yet been published? I don't want to misrepresent myself, but otherwise there's little indication what I've been working in the past three years. My field is public health, in case relevant.
RESPONSE A: I definitely agree with those above. Something a little more iffy that I’ve done is list some as “manuscript available upon request”. I found myself in a position where everything is coming together all at once and I have several collaborators slowing down the revision process for multiple publications. If it’s all right with the other authors, I think listing a manuscript like this shows that it’s complete and you’re confident in it, even if bureaucracy is holding it up.
RESPONSE B: The accepted one definitively, just make an extra category "Accepted publications" or add that in bold before/after, that's always ok. The ones you handed in are always a bit tricky because everyone can hand in everything everywhere. That doesn't mean the paper will actually be published in that journal, so it might give the impression that you're just padding your CV with stuff that might never be published. Highly depends on the PI how they see that, I've read recommendations to just leave it off or to be extremely careful how you word this as it can be seen as ngative. I'd always avoid mentioning a journal as it even more gives the impression that you try to improve your CV with the impact factor of a journal that hasn't actually accepted and published your work. You could add a line like "two more publications pending" or add them without further info (as you actually do not know when and where they will be published).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Including submitted papers on CV for postdoc applications? I anticipate finishing my PhD in December and am starting to reach out to faculty about potential postdoc positions (mostly cold emails). I currently have three first author papers out for review. One accepted pending minor revisions and two that have not yet come out of review. Would it be inappropriate to include these in my CV, provided I note they have not yet been published? I don't want to misrepresent myself, but otherwise there's little indication what I've been working in the past three years. My field is public health, in case relevant.
RESPONSE A: Yes. Add 'Submitted for review', 'Accepted for publication', 'In press', etc. Heck, I once wrote 'Pending adviser's review' to one of my papers.
RESPONSE B: Also, if I see 5 papers in prep and no publications (or under review), I fell like the applicant has a hard time completing project(s). Remember, unless it's published, it doesn't exist. It's harsh, but true.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Including submitted papers on CV for postdoc applications? I anticipate finishing my PhD in December and am starting to reach out to faculty about potential postdoc positions (mostly cold emails). I currently have three first author papers out for review. One accepted pending minor revisions and two that have not yet come out of review. Would it be inappropriate to include these in my CV, provided I note they have not yet been published? I don't want to misrepresent myself, but otherwise there's little indication what I've been working in the past three years. My field is public health, in case relevant.
RESPONSE A: Definitely list them! When applying for postdocs I had a section called "Manuscripts in progress", and actually I had it \*above\* the other actually published articles because those were older. I initially had it at the end of pubs section, but various profs told me to bring it to top cos this was my most exciting work and should be highlighted. For each manuscript, I would have the citation and then at the end, (accepted, pending minor revisions in X journal), or (R&R in progress at X journal), or (Under Review with X journal), or for those that were basically ready to be submitted but still waiting on one author's minor revisions, I just wrote (In prep, to be submitted to X journal). Having the journal is important to, as it indicates how far along/serious the paper is.
RESPONSE B: Also, if I see 5 papers in prep and no publications (or under review), I fell like the applicant has a hard time completing project(s). Remember, unless it's published, it doesn't exist. It's harsh, but true.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Including submitted papers on CV for postdoc applications? I anticipate finishing my PhD in December and am starting to reach out to faculty about potential postdoc positions (mostly cold emails). I currently have three first author papers out for review. One accepted pending minor revisions and two that have not yet come out of review. Would it be inappropriate to include these in my CV, provided I note they have not yet been published? I don't want to misrepresent myself, but otherwise there's little indication what I've been working in the past three years. My field is public health, in case relevant.
RESPONSE A: Some people do, some don't. If you have a lot of other papers then it seems unnecessary but if that section is sparse or has nothing recent, then you should keep them listed. It seems to be a matter of personal preference though. I don't list mine but my professor, who has way more pubs than me, lists all his works in progress.
RESPONSE B: Also, if I see 5 papers in prep and no publications (or under review), I fell like the applicant has a hard time completing project(s). Remember, unless it's published, it doesn't exist. It's harsh, but true.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: can group the participants in the following way: * Me and my collaborators who have done the majority of the work. * My principal supervisor who helped me to access the lab. * The person, let's call him Glideroy :-), who is the subject of this question. Glideroy has not made any substantial contribution. To be precise, he wrote one piece of code, which eventually was not used in the paper. Later we asked him for further investigation, which he didn't do. One of our co-authors expressed his reluctance to include the non-contributing co-author's name in the paper. According to him, the decision is in the hand of the authors who have made a substantial contribution. My principal advisor is not aware of this yet, but he has a good relationship with Gilderoy. Now I am in a tricky position, I agree with the non-contributing part. However, I feel a bit hesitant to burn the bridge and remove the author altogether. So, my questions are the following: 1. What are the criteria one should fulfill to be a co-author? 2. Should I talk to my principal supervisor? 3. Is there any way we can justify the inclusion of Glideroy's name? Any advice would be helpful.
RESPONSE A: A common course to justify inclusion would be to have Glideroy contribute to the writing of the manuscript, or at a minimum providing critical evaluation and feedback on it. He already made some intellectual contribution to the research via writing code, and whether or not it was ultimately used doesn't matter that much in my opinion - it was part of the process. Just as maybe interesting background - there's a bit of a movement to better acknowledge the contribution of the people who make the "technical" aspects of science happen, especially since that often involves substantive choices and creativity. In any case, tread carefully, there may be agreements/longer-term contributions/vendetta's involved you might not be aware of. It's also likely that the contribution-to-the-manuscript phase will happen pretty much automatically at some point without needing to open the can of worms with your supervisor.
RESPONSE B: Just put him in the acknowledgements.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I'd start writing. I* *During the revision process, I'd say I would pull in some new material as I needed it and would take time to research, but it was not to the same level as the rough draft. Once I figured out how this dissertation genre worked, I was able to revise the rest of the chapters in 8 months.* *Some bibliographic detail simply strengthens the credibility of the author and demonstrates his/her knowledge of the field.* I'm not in school right now but I like reading papers - and I would like to learn how to do research better so I too can develop such an extensive working knowledge of publications. So I guess the second question: how do academics do research and acquire a working knowledge of publications so they can cite them in this manner? I've done some reading on this and asked some librarians, and some people say they save every publication they've read along with a small summary, which I've started doing too. Is that really common? Thanks for your time!
RESPONSE A: >...many times, they'll use a citation for a simple phrase or sentence, and many times they won't even quote directly form the work. Why the effort to identify a work if it doesn't seem to expand much beyond the other literature in the bibliography? On top of what /u/SnowblindAlbino said, it is also incredibly useful for readers sometime if you are not super familiar about that phenomenon or argument. Sometime you will not have time to expend on something but you want to give pointers on where you are coming form. Remembering sources comes with practice. When it's your everyday job you start to get better at it. It's not that different from sport fans who can remembers every player in the league for the past 10 years.
RESPONSE B: There’s a difference between referring to something ‘quoting it’ or having read something ‘bibliography’ I found that when writing several papers on a similar theme, pretty much anything you have read can go into the bibliography as it’s helped your understanding of the subject. Keeping track becomes fairly routine and also Microsoft word has a citation / reference tool. Hope that helps with your learning!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Looking for suggestions of Blog/Vlogs about the Academia/PhD Life For some years I followed Simon Clark's channel about his adventure as a PhD student at Exeter. I really liked to arrive at home on Friday and spend some time looking at his week as a PhD student. Last year if finally started my PhD and I'm really missing something to entertain my self, for some reason I found quite interesting seeing or reading about other people story and adventures in the academic life. ​ Unfortunately, I don't know a lot of blogs that write about this subject or youtube channels and maybe you guys can help me with that. Any suggestions? ​ I will give some of my own The PhDDiaries (by Lucy Kissick) Gradhacker Veronika Cheplygina Blog (not about PhD life but really interesting content for becoming an academic) Get a Life, PhD (by Tanya Golash-Boza, also not about PhD life
RESPONSE A: pgbovine.net (and his youtube channel)
RESPONSE B: http://phdcomics.com So many of those comics are just spot-on. Too many hours spent reading through them.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Looking for suggestions of Blog/Vlogs about the Academia/PhD Life For some years I followed Simon Clark's channel about his adventure as a PhD student at Exeter. I really liked to arrive at home on Friday and spend some time looking at his week as a PhD student. Last year if finally started my PhD and I'm really missing something to entertain my self, for some reason I found quite interesting seeing or reading about other people story and adventures in the academic life. ​ Unfortunately, I don't know a lot of blogs that write about this subject or youtube channels and maybe you guys can help me with that. Any suggestions? ​ I will give some of my own The PhDDiaries (by Lucy Kissick) Gradhacker Veronika Cheplygina Blog (not about PhD life but really interesting content for becoming an academic) Get a Life, PhD (by Tanya Golash-Boza, also not about PhD life
RESPONSE A: pgbovine.net (and his youtube channel)
RESPONSE B: Terrance Tao has a fairly well known blog dedicated to this , he mostly posts his current research endeavors and occasionally class notes. There's also a ton of posts dedicated to the ancillary pieces to academic life like study habits and work-flow. https://terrytao.wordpress.com/ ​ Nick Higham is the former president of SIAM and his blog has lots of notes and peculiarities of work-flow (mostly related to numerical analysis and applied mathematics), but I think it might be insightful still. https://nickhigham.wordpress.com/
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Looking for suggestions of Blog/Vlogs about the Academia/PhD Life For some years I followed Simon Clark's channel about his adventure as a PhD student at Exeter. I really liked to arrive at home on Friday and spend some time looking at his week as a PhD student. Last year if finally started my PhD and I'm really missing something to entertain my self, for some reason I found quite interesting seeing or reading about other people story and adventures in the academic life. ​ Unfortunately, I don't know a lot of blogs that write about this subject or youtube channels and maybe you guys can help me with that. Any suggestions? ​ I will give some of my own The PhDDiaries (by Lucy Kissick) Gradhacker Veronika Cheplygina Blog (not about PhD life but really interesting content for becoming an academic) Get a Life, PhD (by Tanya Golash-Boza, also not about PhD life
RESPONSE A: Hello PhD. It's a podcast. Pretty good!
RESPONSE B: It's long since been completed, but Philip Guo (www.pgbovine.net) (now a CS professor) detailed his PhD experience in a large project he called "The PhD Grind". He also documented his experience switching between academia and industry, as well as his journey through post-docs and faculty positions.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Catch-22 for research areas? I’m currently facing a bit of a problem, which I can’t describe better as a catch-22-like situation. However, I think there is probably an actual name for the problem, and I suspect it has been studied. The situation is as follows: 1) There is an industry which, although interesting, has been little subject of academic research. 2) Thus papers are probably not going to get a lot of citations. 3) Thus researchers are not inclined to do research in that area. 4) Thus papers are probably not going to get a lot of citations..... and the cycle repeats itself infinity. Is this a known phenomenon? Does anyone know the name for this?
RESPONSE A: Reminds me of neuroscience -- neuroanatomy is extremely important and difficult and yet it gets such little love compared to flashier stuff. It's definitely not the best neuroscience sub-field in terms of risk-reward and resultingly the big names are aging without many new folks popping up to replace them.
RESPONSE B: In my research area, the exact opposite happened several times: 1) Something happened in industry, academics were unaware of it. 2) Some academic published a paper in which he wrote down what industry is doing. 3) Other academics found it interesting and did plenty of follow-up work. 4) The original paper now has hundreds of citations.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Catch-22 for research areas? I’m currently facing a bit of a problem, which I can’t describe better as a catch-22-like situation. However, I think there is probably an actual name for the problem, and I suspect it has been studied. The situation is as follows: 1) There is an industry which, although interesting, has been little subject of academic research. 2) Thus papers are probably not going to get a lot of citations. 3) Thus researchers are not inclined to do research in that area. 4) Thus papers are probably not going to get a lot of citations..... and the cycle repeats itself infinity. Is this a known phenomenon? Does anyone know the name for this?
RESPONSE A: In my research area, the exact opposite happened several times: 1) Something happened in industry, academics were unaware of it. 2) Some academic published a paper in which he wrote down what industry is doing. 3) Other academics found it interesting and did plenty of follow-up work. 4) The original paper now has hundreds of citations.
RESPONSE B: This is just reality. There will always be hot topics and fads in any field, but participation in these areas is not a guarantee of success. There may be a minority of researchers who are adept at navigating in and out of these topics to great success, but there are also those who consistently jump on the bandwagon just before the wheels fall off. Even if your timing is right these areas tend to be highly competitive and fast moving, so you run the risk of being beaten to the punch or having your work can get lost in fray. The same can be said for the other end of the spectrum, where your working well off the beaten path. Some researchers thrive and blaze a trail others will begin to follow, but most will just get bogged down. The fallacy here is that you have to exist at one end of the spectrum or the other. There is a middle ground where you can pursue a topic you find interesting and novel but remain connected with the rest of your field.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Catch-22 for research areas? I’m currently facing a bit of a problem, which I can’t describe better as a catch-22-like situation. However, I think there is probably an actual name for the problem, and I suspect it has been studied. The situation is as follows: 1) There is an industry which, although interesting, has been little subject of academic research. 2) Thus papers are probably not going to get a lot of citations. 3) Thus researchers are not inclined to do research in that area. 4) Thus papers are probably not going to get a lot of citations..... and the cycle repeats itself infinity. Is this a known phenomenon? Does anyone know the name for this?
RESPONSE A: In my research area, the exact opposite happened several times: 1) Something happened in industry, academics were unaware of it. 2) Some academic published a paper in which he wrote down what industry is doing. 3) Other academics found it interesting and did plenty of follow-up work. 4) The original paper now has hundreds of citations.
RESPONSE B: It is a problem when you use H-index and stuff like that.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: ResearchGate vs. OSF? Hi there. I'm thinking of switching from ResearchGate to Open Science Framework to share info on my projects and outputs. I'm looking for recommendations on which and why?
RESPONSE A: I’ve personally never used ResearchGate. It’s basically social media and generates a lot of spam. I normally have code and other objects that don’t neatly fit to PDF, so I typically use OSF or Zenodo to disseminate that. I prefer Zenodo since it has long term stable funding via CERN.
RESPONSE B: I think it all depends on your goal with the platform. ResearchGate can have more of a community and social media component built in. You are able to see others profiles and everything. OSF on the other hand is more like a super awesome DropBox. I love OSF and what it stands for (I promise that I am not Brian Nosek) and think that could be the way to go. Then you can always link to it with a stable DOI.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: ResearchGate vs. OSF? Hi there. I'm thinking of switching from ResearchGate to Open Science Framework to share info on my projects and outputs. I'm looking for recommendations on which and why?
RESPONSE A: I’ve personally never used ResearchGate. It’s basically social media and generates a lot of spam. I normally have code and other objects that don’t neatly fit to PDF, so I typically use OSF or Zenodo to disseminate that. I prefer Zenodo since it has long term stable funding via CERN.
RESPONSE B: Disclaimer- I work at COS (who builds OSF). OSF is really meant for documenting and posting a lot of the items that are normally lost (manuscripts, data, protocols, code, survey items) and then connecting them to your project- often with its preprint. The big difference I think is that COS's mission is about increasing reproducibility and transparency of research; whereas research gate is more focused on academic social connections and open access.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: ResearchGate vs. OSF? Hi there. I'm thinking of switching from ResearchGate to Open Science Framework to share info on my projects and outputs. I'm looking for recommendations on which and why?
RESPONSE A: Why only one? Why not both? Both is probably better. I've never heard of OSF, but I will check it out and probably get one.
RESPONSE B: I use both - I put my data and analysis code on the OSF, and I upload my papers to ResearchGate. The OSF is great in terms of having a stable (touch wood) link to your data that you can plonk in the paper. But I get a reasonable number of paper requests on ResearchGate, so it makes sense to have them uploaded there. No harm in making your papers as easy to find as possible.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Should I write a letter of thanks to my professor? Throwaway because I really don't post on reddit at all. Also, if this isn't the right place to post this please let me know! So for the past semester I had a really good professor. He was very passionate about the course material and was incredibly nice to everyone. This semester was particularly difficult for me for reasons I won't go into, but talking with him made it a little easier for me. He made his class worth going to when some other classes of mine were just a drag. I finished my final today and didn't really say much to him as I left and I feel like I owe him a little more than that. So would it be okay if I wrote an email or a letter of thanks? If so, how would I go about doing that?
RESPONSE A: At this point in the semester, letters from a student who really enjoyed the class and feel like they got something out of it are a really nice thing to get. As mentioned, letters can also go in a tenure/promotion file, and be a big help to your professor that way as well.
RESPONSE B: I've written letters of commendation for professors (I send it to the head of their department) in the past. It was a nice surprise for them, I'm sure, and have seen one of them framed in their office. A nice email works too, but it's also good to let their superior know that they've got an outstanding professor in their department.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Should I write a letter of thanks to my professor? Throwaway because I really don't post on reddit at all. Also, if this isn't the right place to post this please let me know! So for the past semester I had a really good professor. He was very passionate about the course material and was incredibly nice to everyone. This semester was particularly difficult for me for reasons I won't go into, but talking with him made it a little easier for me. He made his class worth going to when some other classes of mine were just a drag. I finished my final today and didn't really say much to him as I left and I feel like I owe him a little more than that. So would it be okay if I wrote an email or a letter of thanks? If so, how would I go about doing that?
RESPONSE A: Yes, of course you should! What's not to thank in a professor that communicates course material passionately and pedagogically, and that inspires his students to think better? That's what the world needs. Make sure he is encouraged by his knowledge of being appreciated. I would recommend you keep it short and sincere.
RESPONSE B: If you choose an email copy their department chair and/or dean.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How common is it to be denied tenure? It seems that lately I've heard several stories of people being denied tenure. And more often than not, they seem genuinely shocked (and devastated, naturally) that they were denied. I'm nTT so I'm really just asking out of curiosity, but that's not "supposed" to happen, right? That it's a surprise? Related, is being denied really very common? I've quite literally heard about a half dozen stories recently.
RESPONSE A: Optimally, there are crystal-clear guidelines in the program/department/college about what the T&P criteria are and how they'll be evaluated. Sometimes, unfortunately, there are not. At other times, there are assurances that things are fine when, in reality, they're not. At still other times, there may be support at one level but not another for some (almost always BS) reason.
RESPONSE B: It depends on the institution. Some places (I'm thinking Harvard?) from my understanding are incredibly selective with tenure and TT faculty almost never get it. OTOH I personally have only ever witnessed maybe 4-5 tenure denials in 21 years of teaching in three different institutions, and two of those were really sketchy (two faculty members from the same department were up for tenure in the same year, were approved for tenure by the faculty P&T committee, but the decision was reversed by the president and dean for spurious reasons --- Machiavellian campus politics at its finest).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How common is it to be denied tenure? It seems that lately I've heard several stories of people being denied tenure. And more often than not, they seem genuinely shocked (and devastated, naturally) that they were denied. I'm nTT so I'm really just asking out of curiosity, but that's not "supposed" to happen, right? That it's a surprise? Related, is being denied really very common? I've quite literally heard about a half dozen stories recently.
RESPONSE A: It depends on the institution. Some places (I'm thinking Harvard?) from my understanding are incredibly selective with tenure and TT faculty almost never get it. OTOH I personally have only ever witnessed maybe 4-5 tenure denials in 21 years of teaching in three different institutions, and two of those were really sketchy (two faculty members from the same department were up for tenure in the same year, were approved for tenure by the faculty P&T committee, but the decision was reversed by the president and dean for spurious reasons --- Machiavellian campus politics at its finest).
RESPONSE B: I’ve been in my position for 18 years. We have around 100 faculty at my institution and I’ve known of probably 8 or 9 instances where faculty members have been denied tenure. Some of them have sued and ultimately been granted tenure. I know of way more who have left/been asked to leave prior to the tenure year, though.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How common is it to be denied tenure? It seems that lately I've heard several stories of people being denied tenure. And more often than not, they seem genuinely shocked (and devastated, naturally) that they were denied. I'm nTT so I'm really just asking out of curiosity, but that's not "supposed" to happen, right? That it's a surprise? Related, is being denied really very common? I've quite literally heard about a half dozen stories recently.
RESPONSE A: It depends on the institution. Some places (I'm thinking Harvard?) from my understanding are incredibly selective with tenure and TT faculty almost never get it. OTOH I personally have only ever witnessed maybe 4-5 tenure denials in 21 years of teaching in three different institutions, and two of those were really sketchy (two faculty members from the same department were up for tenure in the same year, were approved for tenure by the faculty P&T committee, but the decision was reversed by the president and dean for spurious reasons --- Machiavellian campus politics at its finest).
RESPONSE B: I suppose it depends on the departments but denying tenure to tenure track faculty is fairly common. Famous schools have a higher rate of rejections than less famous ones but it happens. The faculty not getting tenure is given some time and reasonable hints that she will not receive tenure. So as devastating as it is it is seldom shocking.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How common is it to be denied tenure? It seems that lately I've heard several stories of people being denied tenure. And more often than not, they seem genuinely shocked (and devastated, naturally) that they were denied. I'm nTT so I'm really just asking out of curiosity, but that's not "supposed" to happen, right? That it's a surprise? Related, is being denied really very common? I've quite literally heard about a half dozen stories recently.
RESPONSE A: I suppose it depends on the departments but denying tenure to tenure track faculty is fairly common. Famous schools have a higher rate of rejections than less famous ones but it happens. The faculty not getting tenure is given some time and reasonable hints that she will not receive tenure. So as devastating as it is it is seldom shocking.
RESPONSE B: Optimally, there are crystal-clear guidelines in the program/department/college about what the T&P criteria are and how they'll be evaluated. Sometimes, unfortunately, there are not. At other times, there are assurances that things are fine when, in reality, they're not. At still other times, there may be support at one level but not another for some (almost always BS) reason.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How common is it to be denied tenure? It seems that lately I've heard several stories of people being denied tenure. And more often than not, they seem genuinely shocked (and devastated, naturally) that they were denied. I'm nTT so I'm really just asking out of curiosity, but that's not "supposed" to happen, right? That it's a surprise? Related, is being denied really very common? I've quite literally heard about a half dozen stories recently.
RESPONSE A: I’ve been in my position for 18 years. We have around 100 faculty at my institution and I’ve known of probably 8 or 9 instances where faculty members have been denied tenure. Some of them have sued and ultimately been granted tenure. I know of way more who have left/been asked to leave prior to the tenure year, though.
RESPONSE B: I suppose it depends on the departments but denying tenure to tenure track faculty is fairly common. Famous schools have a higher rate of rejections than less famous ones but it happens. The faculty not getting tenure is given some time and reasonable hints that she will not receive tenure. So as devastating as it is it is seldom shocking.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: a new doctoral researcher. In my country PhD positions are academic jobs, so it involves a hiring committee to screen and interview applications like any other positions. What are good questions to ask to get a better sense of prospective PhD researchers? I'm looking for something beyond "what are your strengths and weaknesses".
RESPONSE A: WHile I somewhat agree with the other response, I think we all recognise that performance in previous academic settings is not a particularly good predictor for PhD performance. I find it useful to ask questions which probe how well they understand what they are going into. The level of understanding they show is not a deal breaker, but it also gives an excellent opportunity for them to say what the **don't know**. And this really matters. I want students who can identify their knowledge gaps and be open about them. I also really like including big wide open questions. In the UK system where you have to ask each candidate the same pool of questions these are real opportunities to get an insight into the different characters. I find the "give an example" questions very leading, and exactly the type of question students are trained to prepare for. By leaving questions open, they can (and should) bring examples in, but itdoesn't give the restriction of a singular example, gives an opportunity to tie various themes together, and gives a better insight - I think - to their thought process. Central to all of this is making sure the interviewee is as relaxed as they can be, and ensuring things proceed as a conversation, not an interrogation. What do you think a PhD involves? What do you see as your career path over the next 10 years? What concerns you most about the PhD process? How do you approach time management?
RESPONSE B: I can recommend behavioral interview questions, as they are perceived as more informative about the past working performance than traditional interview questions (here are some examples). Ideally, you think about the skills that you are interested in (e.g. time management, teamwork, presentation skills) and then devise behavioral questions asking your candidate to talk about a situation during which they had to show this skill. Example for teamwork: *"Give me an example of a time you faced a conflict while working on a team. How did you handle that?"*
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What are good questions to ask when hiring new PhD researchers? For the first time I am joining the committee to hire a new doctoral researcher. In my country PhD positions are academic jobs, so it involves a hiring committee to screen and interview applications like any other positions. What are good questions to ask to get a better sense of prospective PhD researchers? I'm looking for something beyond "what are your strengths and weaknesses".
RESPONSE A: What my colleagues ask (and until now we've been pleased with the people we've hired): why did you choose our team? How familiar are you with our work? What do you think distinguishes our team from others? What part of our research is of interest to you/surprises you? What's your planned career path?
RESPONSE B: I can recommend behavioral interview questions, as they are perceived as more informative about the past working performance than traditional interview questions (here are some examples). Ideally, you think about the skills that you are interested in (e.g. time management, teamwork, presentation skills) and then devise behavioral questions asking your candidate to talk about a situation during which they had to show this skill. Example for teamwork: *"Give me an example of a time you faced a conflict while working on a team. How did you handle that?"*
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is "scientist" as a title only used if you have a PhD? I have a master's in neuroscience and my job title is technically "senior research associate", working at a biotech company. When people ask what I do, I just say neuroscientist because it's easier and more concise. One day someone told me that only PhDs can be called scientists otherwise you're just a technician or researcher, is this true? I mean, I know job titles that end with "-ist" typically have doctorates, e.g. biologist, chemist, physicist, but neuro scientist I thought is vague enough that if you study or research in the field, you can use the title. Does this hold up? Or would one only refer to someone as a "neuroscientist" if they have a PhD and a tenured professorship?
RESPONSE A: My friend is a scientist in his private industry job title, with a masters only. Computer science field, he designs real-time operating systems. Most of his team are engineers, he is one of a few scientist titles because his role is more planning/architecture and theoretical than programming.
RESPONSE B: The titles are not regulated or enforced. If your boss and HR are cool with it, you can print "Science Magician" in your business cards
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How important is undergraduate major to graduate school? Not sure whether this is the right sub I ask this because I'm currently considering between Industrial Engineering (at Georgia Tech) and Economics (at University of Georgia). The general goal is a graduate program in Economics. Industrial Engineering, from what I understand, is more competitive and Georgia Tech generally has a better reputation. Economics, of course, is economics. I don't know how these factors compare, so any advice would be helpful.
RESPONSE A: PhD Econ uses a lot of Math. You want to take as many math classes as possible. Industrial Engineering is okay as long as it doesn't keep you from those classes.
RESPONSE B: Nothing is impossible as long as you find an advisor willing to mentor you (be completely honest about your background) and you are willing to put the extra effort in to get up to speed. I would base your decision on how you feel about your potential advisor, the program, and the school, in that order. Reputation is difficult to quantify, and once you are enrolled it does very little for your motivation and educational experience.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How important is undergraduate major to graduate school? Not sure whether this is the right sub I ask this because I'm currently considering between Industrial Engineering (at Georgia Tech) and Economics (at University of Georgia). The general goal is a graduate program in Economics. Industrial Engineering, from what I understand, is more competitive and Georgia Tech generally has a better reputation. Economics, of course, is economics. I don't know how these factors compare, so any advice would be helpful.
RESPONSE A: Nothing is impossible as long as you find an advisor willing to mentor you (be completely honest about your background) and you are willing to put the extra effort in to get up to speed. I would base your decision on how you feel about your potential advisor, the program, and the school, in that order. Reputation is difficult to quantify, and once you are enrolled it does very little for your motivation and educational experience.
RESPONSE B: Provided you're in a similar field, having a different undergrad major from your grad school major can be a significant strength you bring to the table. It allows for diversity of thought in your program and tends to create well-rounded students who write the most interesting theses.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: appropriate? Otherwise, does anyone have any advice on how to be more social and friendly in the lab? Especially in regards to my PI? The general atmosphere in my lab is very quiet, so I often find it nerve-wracking to talk since I usually am the only undergraduate there (although there are about 4 others I rarely see them), everyone is very quiet and working/I don't want to bother them, and my PI is almost always in his office so I don't want to disturb him either. I'm not sure how to start off conversations, especially when everyone would be able to hear (because of the quietness), if anyone has any advice!
RESPONSE A: Is there a departmental club or student chapter for your field? That can get you contacts both on and off campus.
RESPONSE B: For the techs and grad students, you could probably just ask to tag along on a coffee run or something like that. Shouldn’t be too weird, especially if you’re already close with one of them. Obviously can’t do this now, but I don’t think it’s weird if you email the grad student you mentioned. In my experience, grad students tend to be pretty cool with hard-working undergrads, so if you know them already, go for it. The PI is a whole other ballgame, but hopefully your lab mates can help you out with this. If you’re comfortable, just be honest and say that you want to talk to the PI but you’re not sure how to approach them. They can probably give you advice on the PIs habits and policies (ex. My PI has an open-door policy, and generally we’ve found that his willingness to talk corresponds to how open his office door is). They’ll be able to suggest things like what days the PI has meetings or lectures, or if they expect you to email in advance or anything like that. Again, this whole thing is made more difficult by the lack of face to face communication, but it’s something to think about when your lab reopens. Best of luck, and I hope everything goes well! We’ve all been here, and networking is a learned skill just like anything else, so practice makes perfect.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: PI's -- How did your perform academically as an undergraduate? Please state your field of study.
RESPONSE A: 3.95—I got one B+ . Anthropology
RESPONSE B: 3.84 - Psychology
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: PI's -- How did your perform academically as an undergraduate? Please state your field of study.
RESPONSE A: I am a chemist. I started out my first semester with a 2.7 gpa because I didn't know how to study. The second semester I got a 3.6 but then was a bit under 3.0 both semesters with organic. By the time I graduated, I was able to pull my cumulative up to a 3.25. With that I got into a combined masters/phd program and am now tenure track faculty.
RESPONSE B: 3.84 - Psychology
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: PI's -- How did your perform academically as an undergraduate? Please state your field of study.
RESPONSE A: 2.05 First Semester 2.3 going into junior year 3.5+ every semester after graduated with a 2.994 overall and 3.4 in EE. 17 publications, two foreign research stays and a NSF Fellowship during graduate school.
RESPONSE B: 3.84 - Psychology
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: PI's -- How did your perform academically as an undergraduate? Please state your field of study.
RESPONSE A: 2.05 First Semester 2.3 going into junior year 3.5+ every semester after graduated with a 2.994 overall and 3.4 in EE. 17 publications, two foreign research stays and a NSF Fellowship during graduate school.
RESPONSE B: 3.492 (and no, they didn't round up for cum laude). BS in animal science.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: PI's -- How did your perform academically as an undergraduate? Please state your field of study.
RESPONSE A: 2.05 First Semester 2.3 going into junior year 3.5+ every semester after graduated with a 2.994 overall and 3.4 in EE. 17 publications, two foreign research stays and a NSF Fellowship during graduate school.
RESPONSE B: 3.85 / Engineering
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: From your perspective, what is the value to society of humanities research today? I was discussing this with my parents today because my SO is pursuing a history PhD. My parents are convinced that humanities research is a waste of time and funding. Do you have any thoughts on the value to society of humanities research? One of my majors in undergrad was English, which I loved studying. However, I never thought much about the purpose of researching English literature, other than that it was interesting and taught valuable skills.
RESPONSE A: I don't think trying to convince your parents of the value of a humanities PhD is the typical solution in this kind of argument. What you're probably looking for is the strength to tell your family not to disrespect your SO, regardless of how they personally feel about them, their career, or anything else.
RESPONSE B: There are many practical problems for which you need insight to the origin and history of the problem to solve it. The question "How to fight sexism?" necessarily needs understanding of what sexism is across different cultures, what institutions it's grounded on, what is its history in a specific area (in particular, how people in different age brackets perceive it), what have people done to fight it before, what was the outcome, etc. You want to help stopping the civil war in Syria? You need to understand the motivations of the different factions, and also you need to understand the history of post-civil-war countries to know what problems to expect, and what possible solutions to turn to. All of these important questions are best answered when a bunch of details and nuances of culture and history are understood. And those nuances are only built on mountains of careful analysis: research in humanities. After waxing poetic, I have to say I'm in the natural sciences myself, though. So maybe the opinion of an expert om the topic is much more informative!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: (like struggles between mental health and academia, financial issues, etc.)?
RESPONSE A: My partner is doing her PhD at Cambridge while I'm doing mine at Leeds, both in biomedical fields. I would say the main difference between students is actually outside of academic life. At Leeds your project is your main focus, people work very long hours in the lab and a lot of weekends, not that that is necessarily expected but it tends to be the norm. At Cambridge, college life takes up a large chunk of their time and commitments outside of the 9-5 for lab work. There are far more social activities, more people are involved in serious sports, college committee roles take up time etc. and this is understood by supervisors as the way postgraduate student life is there. In terms of what is required to get in, yes you have to have good grades, but at a postgraduate level practical experience goes a long way and having transferrable skills/ knowledge of the PhD project area from your masters is really what people are looking for irrespective of the university
RESPONSE B: Analogously I’m in Boston and doing my PhD and I have a lot of friends at Harvard and MIT. In my opinion, my friends that go there don’t seem to categorically be smarter or harder-working than many who don’t but only that they had been dedicated longer than most and are unusually well-connected with their academic subfields. Most have at least one parent with an advanced degree and many have academic parents; they also seem to have gone to the upper crust of prestigious universities and early on started in the labs of the very biggest names. They seem to understand the way the academic game is played and had been playing the game since at least the start of undergrad having made all the right moves: good gpa and standardized scores of course but primarily networked with the right people and worked in the right labs. They almost all come from families that were at least well-off enough that they never had to work a job but I’d say almost all could be considered “privileged”. In a nutshell, they’re universally smart, hard-working, dedicated, and come from privileged backgrounds, but the real differentiator is they are networked far beyond others.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: my question is a bit weird but I'm genuinely curious what kind of profile do people who go to those prestigious universities have. Do some of them have the same problems other people have (like struggles between mental health and academia, financial issues, etc.)?
RESPONSE A: Analogously I’m in Boston and doing my PhD and I have a lot of friends at Harvard and MIT. In my opinion, my friends that go there don’t seem to categorically be smarter or harder-working than many who don’t but only that they had been dedicated longer than most and are unusually well-connected with their academic subfields. Most have at least one parent with an advanced degree and many have academic parents; they also seem to have gone to the upper crust of prestigious universities and early on started in the labs of the very biggest names. They seem to understand the way the academic game is played and had been playing the game since at least the start of undergrad having made all the right moves: good gpa and standardized scores of course but primarily networked with the right people and worked in the right labs. They almost all come from families that were at least well-off enough that they never had to work a job but I’d say almost all could be considered “privileged”. In a nutshell, they’re universally smart, hard-working, dedicated, and come from privileged backgrounds, but the real differentiator is they are networked far beyond others.
RESPONSE B: If one is not a UK citizen, the number one thing they need is funding. > Is there something that draws the line between someone who studies at Oxford and someone who studies at an institution that's not at the top of rankings? This is kind of a meaningless question because there's lots of other institutions at the top of the rankings besides Oxbridge (also, what rankings? afaik the top 3 unis on the QS are all American right now), and depending on what you're studying, one or both of Oxbridge might not even be the top-ranked place in that area. > Do some of them have the same problems other people have (like struggles between mental health and academia, financial issues, etc.)? srsly
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: , because I'm aware a big difference can be resources (bigger labs, bigger librairies, etc.). Alternatively, what is it that makes certain academics do groundbreaking work (especially in the humanities) that other academics don't have? I know my question is a bit weird but I'm genuinely curious what kind of profile do people who go to those prestigious universities have. Do some of them have the same problems other people have (like struggles between mental health and academia, financial issues, etc.)?
RESPONSE A: If one is not a UK citizen, the number one thing they need is funding. > Is there something that draws the line between someone who studies at Oxford and someone who studies at an institution that's not at the top of rankings? This is kind of a meaningless question because there's lots of other institutions at the top of the rankings besides Oxbridge (also, what rankings? afaik the top 3 unis on the QS are all American right now), and depending on what you're studying, one or both of Oxbridge might not even be the top-ranked place in that area. > Do some of them have the same problems other people have (like struggles between mental health and academia, financial issues, etc.)? srsly
RESPONSE B: My partner is doing her PhD at Cambridge while I'm doing mine at Leeds, both in biomedical fields. I would say the main difference between students is actually outside of academic life. At Leeds your project is your main focus, people work very long hours in the lab and a lot of weekends, not that that is necessarily expected but it tends to be the norm. At Cambridge, college life takes up a large chunk of their time and commitments outside of the 9-5 for lab work. There are far more social activities, more people are involved in serious sports, college committee roles take up time etc. and this is understood by supervisors as the way postgraduate student life is there. In terms of what is required to get in, yes you have to have good grades, but at a postgraduate level practical experience goes a long way and having transferrable skills/ knowledge of the PhD project area from your masters is really what people are looking for irrespective of the university
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: next couple of years if I work really hard. Salary is pretty poor (about £2.1k per months after tax). I have been offered a associate prof post (similar to lecturer I think) at Tokyo Institute of Tech. It's a 5 year post with the intention to make it permanent. It comes with a better salary (about £3.1k per months after tax) and much lower taxes. So all in, I would have about 50% more money each month than currently. But money is not the most important thing for me. I love the UK and I'm happy there. But I'm worried I might end up turning down what is an incredible opportunity. I'm curious to hear about peoples thoughts on this? Do any of you have experience in something like this? It's a very long way to move for the potential for career growth. I can see myself publishing and getting money in both the UK and Japan. So really the questions is, should I take a post in Japan to develop my career through international work. With the intention of becoming more employable upon my return to the UK. I don't see myself living in Asia in the future. But could do it for a few years! Sorry if this is a badly defined questions, but I don't want to make it painfully long!
RESPONSE A: If you know you don't want to live in Japan permanently, I'd advise against taking this job there. I did a postdoc in China and I'm very thankful that was only a temporary position. Yours seems intended to be permanent. That being said, you don't really know until you go. Japan is a great country, and I would definitely recommend spending some time there if you get the chance without such a significant commitment.
RESPONSE B: Is the intention written into your contract? What are the conditions for doing so? Also, what is the exact name of the job title in Japanese? How much start-up comes with it, how much per subsequent year, and most importantly, are the funds pre-allocated to certain activities? If it involves teaching, how many koma (classes, not courses) per week? Japanese universities have many more class hours than US universities, so that's many, many more than in the UK.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: are pretty good. I work in materials and physics in the UK. PhD and post-docs were at the same University but different departments. Pretty competitive place to get a lectureship appointment but I might be able to do it in the next couple of years if I work really hard. Salary is pretty poor (about £2.1k per months after tax). I have been offered a associate prof post (similar to lecturer I think) at Tokyo Institute of Tech. It's a 5 year post with the intention to make it permanent. It comes with a better salary (about £3.1k per months after tax) and much lower taxes. So all in, I would have about 50% more money each month than currently. But money is not the most important thing for me. I love the UK and I'm happy there. But I'm worried I might end up turning down what is an incredible opportunity. I'm curious to hear about peoples thoughts on this? Do any of you have experience in something like this? It's a very long way to move for the potential for career growth. I can see myself publishing and getting money in both the UK and Japan. So really the questions is, should I take a post in Japan to develop my career through international work. With the intention of becoming more employable upon my return to the UK. I don't see myself living in Asia in the future. But could do it for a few years! Sorry if this is a badly defined questions, but I don't want to make it painfully long!
RESPONSE A: If you know you don't want to live in Japan permanently, I'd advise against taking this job there. I did a postdoc in China and I'm very thankful that was only a temporary position. Yours seems intended to be permanent. That being said, you don't really know until you go. Japan is a great country, and I would definitely recommend spending some time there if you get the chance without such a significant commitment.
RESPONSE B: Personally, I would jump on this opportunity in a heartbeat, but you mention salary; unless you currently live in London, a move to Tokyo would entail a massive spike in living expenses which may actually result in a net cut in disposable income.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Becoming part of academia in a foreign country? Hello everyone, in the future I hope to obtain a PhD in Psychology (specifically Clinical Psychology) from here in the U.S. My question is what are the opportunities of being apart of research/academia at a university in a foreign country?
RESPONSE A: There are several advantages to taking a global approach. Number one: you can bet that international researchers are competing with you for jobs in the US; if you are able to apply for jobs and opportunities outside of North America, you strengthen your position in the marketplace. Also, I once applied for a job in Norway, and there was a lot of transparency there: they sent us all a list of who else had applied and our relative strengths and weaknesses. I was on the shortlist and the head of the department called me to let me know I didn't get the job. It was obvious from our call and from the documentation that they felt I didn't have as much international experience as the top candidate, and that was a big part of why he got the job. I think seeing how academia is done in lots of different departments and countries can only be a good thing really. And also, presuming you don't have any attachments like kids and spouses, what's not to like about spending a couple of years in a foreign city, engaging with a different culture, learning which parts of your personality are really essential, and how much is just learned behaviour etc etc. You might even fall in love. Sorry I'm a little drunk (having drunk a bottle of wine in a park in a foreign city where I am currently doing a postdoc).
RESPONSE B: If that's what you want to do, you can make it happen. You need to forge links with particular institutions and research groups in the country you are interested in. Perhaps try to do a research exchange or be a visiting fellow. What are your reasons for doing this?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Finding a significant other as a postdoc I'm finishing my PhD and will be starting a 3 year postdoc at a good research school. The nature of my field is that likely I'll have to do a second postdoc afterwards before a tenure track faculty position. So I can't get used to settling down yet. I'm single now and curious to learn about stories of how people found SOs after grad school. I was in a long term relationship as a grad student (with another grad student) but sadly it did not work out.
RESPONSE A: And I'm over here hoping my significant other will stay with me through the uprooting of our lives while I do my PhD, postdoc and beyond.
RESPONSE B: do not go into a relationship by judging how long it will last. instead, just have the relationship - your boyfriend/girlfriend will know you are in academia, which is subject to LOTS of factors & makes you move around a lot. give them the credit of knowing this is a _possibility_. so just have a relationship & be okay with the idea that it may end up being the longest lasting thing youll ever have/need OR that it may crash & burn. either way youll learn from the event so i heavily suggest embracing that experience. get on tinder & swipe left (right?... i dunno. whichever means _im free tonight_)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Finding a significant other as a postdoc I'm finishing my PhD and will be starting a 3 year postdoc at a good research school. The nature of my field is that likely I'll have to do a second postdoc afterwards before a tenure track faculty position. So I can't get used to settling down yet. I'm single now and curious to learn about stories of how people found SOs after grad school. I was in a long term relationship as a grad student (with another grad student) but sadly it did not work out.
RESPONSE A: One of my friends met his now spouse when they were both postdocs and shared an office. My boyfriend and I started dating about a year before I defended and moved 5/6 time zones away (depending on if we're on daylight savings). About a year and a half of living apart, he found a great job (he is also a scientist) and moved to be with me. We may have to live apart again before both of us have permanent jobs, but it's kind of the nature of the occupation.
RESPONSE B: I think it's ridiculous that academics think there's no time in their lives to do normal person things. I was perfectly productive during my Ph.D. and continue to be productive during my postdoc now. I married my lovely wife during grad school and there was ALWAYS time for us to spend together. You don't find time to connect with other people, you make it. If you don't take time to feel like a regular person, you're going to fall apart, just ask the sad and lonely postdoc I work with. Science will be there in the morning, take some time to find something/someone that makes you happy outside of work.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Finding a significant other as a postdoc I'm finishing my PhD and will be starting a 3 year postdoc at a good research school. The nature of my field is that likely I'll have to do a second postdoc afterwards before a tenure track faculty position. So I can't get used to settling down yet. I'm single now and curious to learn about stories of how people found SOs after grad school. I was in a long term relationship as a grad student (with another grad student) but sadly it did not work out.
RESPONSE A: I think it's ridiculous that academics think there's no time in their lives to do normal person things. I was perfectly productive during my Ph.D. and continue to be productive during my postdoc now. I married my lovely wife during grad school and there was ALWAYS time for us to spend together. You don't find time to connect with other people, you make it. If you don't take time to feel like a regular person, you're going to fall apart, just ask the sad and lonely postdoc I work with. Science will be there in the morning, take some time to find something/someone that makes you happy outside of work.
RESPONSE B: And I'm over here hoping my significant other will stay with me through the uprooting of our lives while I do my PhD, postdoc and beyond.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Finding a significant other as a postdoc I'm finishing my PhD and will be starting a 3 year postdoc at a good research school. The nature of my field is that likely I'll have to do a second postdoc afterwards before a tenure track faculty position. So I can't get used to settling down yet. I'm single now and curious to learn about stories of how people found SOs after grad school. I was in a long term relationship as a grad student (with another grad student) but sadly it did not work out.
RESPONSE A: I think it's ridiculous that academics think there's no time in their lives to do normal person things. I was perfectly productive during my Ph.D. and continue to be productive during my postdoc now. I married my lovely wife during grad school and there was ALWAYS time for us to spend together. You don't find time to connect with other people, you make it. If you don't take time to feel like a regular person, you're going to fall apart, just ask the sad and lonely postdoc I work with. Science will be there in the morning, take some time to find something/someone that makes you happy outside of work.
RESPONSE B: Guys, this is looking very depressing!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Who took a gap year(s) before grad school? I'm curious to see how many graduates took a gap year before pursuing their studies? What were the pros and cons? What did you do? What made you decide to take a gap year?
RESPONSE A: I took a planned year and an unplanned year so two in total. I was going to apply to vet school so I had already taken the GRE so the gap years were mostly about getting research experience which has been invaluable, especially in the last year. The planned gap year was because I wasn't ready since I only had three years of undergrad and the unplanned year was because of issues with my graduate advisor which did not work out. PROS: Establish savings, get better idea of research path, network with people in my field, figure out life stuff, know what I want and don't want in an advisor. CONS: Starting grad school later, might not have as much enthusiasm? Honestly the pros outweigh the cons by leagues so it's not even a competition in my mind. All that matters is that you want to do a gap year so go for it!
RESPONSE B: I’m working at the NIH for my gap year. It’s already proving to be a great decision. There’s no way I would have found time to take the GRE, finish all applications, apply for fellowships, and attend interviews while also juggling all my undergrad stuff. I think my thesis would have suffered and I might have ended up making a rushed decision about where to go to grad school. Having this extra year allows me to take my time and not get too overwhelmed.
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.