label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
A
|
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 worked as a research associate at a pharmaceutical company, and then for the government over 3 years before enrolling in grad school (PhD in Pharmacology). It helped me make industry connections and gain perspective about which skills are transferable towards my future career goals. My understanding of different lab environments was a highlight of my personal statement.
RESPONSE B: 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!
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 two years off and taught high school. Made me a much better teacher right off the bat, and gave me some savings to fall back on for the first year. That said, first year finances we're tough because I found too late that my school pays TAs basically illegal amounts and the shift from "very comfortable income" to "tutorng on the side is the only reason I can leave my house and have a life" was though.
RESPONSE B: I highly encourage it, especially if you are not sure about what your funding will be in grad school. You basically get better pay and hours to gain those skills before having to do the same thing for less pay, and also take classes too. It sets you apart from other applicants and if you have all the lab skills required for the lab you want to work in, you are a better investment for that PI.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Decisions after first postdoc Hi everyone I moved to a different country for my 1st postdoc and completely changed fields from what I did in my PhD, into a very nice lab that I love working at. I love the city, the environment, the people. I love everything about being here. Today someone suggested that it would be wise to move after my contract is done and that made me really uneasy. I'm getting very comfortable here and I'm also struggling with mental health issues and I think the stability of staying here would be good for me, personally. However, how much damage would it realistically do to my career if I want to stay in academia? I may be naive but I never thought that moving after the first postdoc was a requirement... I'm in the UK in a STEM field, btw. Any input is greatly appreciated 3
RESPONSE A: How do you estimate your chances of landing a permanent job at the place where you currently are? What does your advisor say? In my field (also in STEM but not UK), it would be untypical but not impossible to get a permanent job at the place where you did your post-doc. You might need a particularly strong CV compared to the usual situation where you apply more broadly, for jobs at different universities and even countries.
RESPONSE B: When the other person told you to move, did they mean to look for a tenure-track faculty position? It's probably not a good idea to stay as a postdoc forever in one place or many places. Once you get your major paper out, it's probably time to transition to a new position.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Decisions after first postdoc Hi everyone I moved to a different country for my 1st postdoc and completely changed fields from what I did in my PhD, into a very nice lab that I love working at. I love the city, the environment, the people. I love everything about being here. Today someone suggested that it would be wise to move after my contract is done and that made me really uneasy. I'm getting very comfortable here and I'm also struggling with mental health issues and I think the stability of staying here would be good for me, personally. However, how much damage would it realistically do to my career if I want to stay in academia? I may be naive but I never thought that moving after the first postdoc was a requirement... I'm in the UK in a STEM field, btw. Any input is greatly appreciated 3
RESPONSE A: When the other person told you to move, did they mean to look for a tenure-track faculty position? It's probably not a good idea to stay as a postdoc forever in one place or many places. Once you get your major paper out, it's probably time to transition to a new position.
RESPONSE B: It is mainly about your chance of landing a tenured position in academia (strictly, the universities, excluding govt labs and research institutes). If you are not getting big papers out, you should move, to another group or to industry. Everything is about paper (and thus funding) in academia, your personal feeling does count that match. There is almost no stability until you get a tenure.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Submitting a near-identical abstract for two conferences? I recently received an invitation for a talk at a national conference after submitting an abstract. I now want to submit another abstract, covering essentially the same material, to another conference. It's been such a short space of time between these conferences that I don't actually have anything new to present. I'd like to know what the convention is for submitting near-identical abstracts to two different conferences. Do I have to worry about plagiarising my own content? If yes, how much paraphrashing is necessary? The conferences have quite different audiences, so I have to make minor edits for comprehension. Beyond that, I am not sure what is necessary. Thanks in advance!
RESPONSE A: Depends on the conventions of your field. In mine, it's quite typical to present the same work at several conferences, so submitting the same abstract multiple times probably wouldn't raise any eyebrows. It's not like the different conference organizers check with each other anyway.
RESPONSE B: It depends - are the proceedings of the conference considered archival, i.e. an academic publication, in say ACM or IEEE online proceedings? Are the two submissions independently peer-reviewed? Then you should not do the same twice - it can even reflect badly on your academic CV. while not illegal, it is considered inconsiderate practice. If it its not archival it may be less of a problem - if in doubt just check with them.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Should grad students buy stocks? I am receiving a PhD stipend, and some people tell me that I should use some of it to buy stocks. I know nothing about financial investment, and I'm wondering if it's worth my time and effort to study this whole new area of buying stocks rather than just saving money and focusing on my research. Is it unwise not to invest in stocks (or funds, or whatever)? I get the point that if you just save your money in your bank account, it will become less valuable as time goes on. But should even a low-income person like a PhD student also buy stocks?
RESPONSE A: As others have already stated, put money aside for incidentals, have an emergency fund, put money into retirement savings, pay off high interest debt first (e.g. credit card bills), and THEN if you have any money left to spare, you can consider investing.
RESPONSE B: I just wanted to jump in to say that I originally read this as “Should grad students buy socks?” All I could think was wow, the mental health of grad students is really going downhill if they’re this unsure about socks.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: is it a problem to require grad students to post their dissertation on-line? I just saw this [blog post] (http://blog.historians.org/2013/07/why-put-at-risk-the-publishing-options-of-our-most-vulnerable-colleagues/) from Bill Cronon. I thought it was an interesting perspective, and not one I had ever considered (honestly had never questioned the practice of requiring students to post their dissertations to proquest/UMI). What do you think? Is requiring graduate students to post their dissertations on-line harmful to their future in academia?
RESPONSE A: Copyright your dissertation.
RESPONSE B: Not in the least. If anything, more graduate students should try to publish their Thesis or Dissertation because a lot of original work is done by these scholars. I would imagine that posting them online through Proquest etc would still allow the authors retain rights to their work, so it's not as if someone is going to browse dissertation ideas and go publish the paper. As it is, it is very time consuming to get dissertations from ILL from other universities (they are already indexed in search engines like PsychINFO).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Care to share stories about your thesis defense? I'm less than a month out now and the freaking out has commenced. Can you calm my nerves by sharing stories about your defense? Some hilarious disaster happened, but everything was fine anyway? Nothing interesting at all happened, and you breezed through it and lived happily ever after?
RESPONSE A: A committee member (the old tenured archetype) looked up from a stack of papers and blankly said, "Well Churchilled, you did more right than you did wrong. But lets chat about the wrong." It crushed me. I later disregarded his statement and passed anyways. I walk in December.
RESPONSE B: I talked too fast during the lecture before the actual defense probably because I was nervous so I finished too quickly, but that wasn't a really big deal. As for the defense itself it went pretty much exactly as expected. The questions were fair and of an appropriate level of difficulty, there was some stuff I couldn't answer but most I did, and any corrections or additions they requested to my actual thesis made sense. The only thing surprising was how anticlimactic it felt afterwards. Everyone said how excited and relieved I must be but I didn't really feel anything at all.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Care to share stories about your thesis defense? I'm less than a month out now and the freaking out has commenced. Can you calm my nerves by sharing stories about your defense? Some hilarious disaster happened, but everything was fine anyway? Nothing interesting at all happened, and you breezed through it and lived happily ever after?
RESPONSE A: In my proposal defense, an outside (invited) guest picked a fight with one of the committee members about the merits and drawbacks of the research design I had proposed. I gather that this has gone down in department legend. BTW, the proposal was accepted and, later, the dissertation was successfully defended.
RESPONSE B: A committee member (the old tenured archetype) looked up from a stack of papers and blankly said, "Well Churchilled, you did more right than you did wrong. But lets chat about the wrong." It crushed me. I later disregarded his statement and passed anyways. I walk in December.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Care to share stories about your thesis defense? I'm less than a month out now and the freaking out has commenced. Can you calm my nerves by sharing stories about your defense? Some hilarious disaster happened, but everything was fine anyway? Nothing interesting at all happened, and you breezed through it and lived happily ever after?
RESPONSE A: In the week leading up to it I experienced both my first earthquake and my first hurricane.
RESPONSE B: In my proposal defense, an outside (invited) guest picked a fight with one of the committee members about the merits and drawbacks of the research design I had proposed. I gather that this has gone down in department legend. BTW, the proposal was accepted and, later, the dissertation was successfully defended.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Care to share stories about your thesis defense? I'm less than a month out now and the freaking out has commenced. Can you calm my nerves by sharing stories about your defense? Some hilarious disaster happened, but everything was fine anyway? Nothing interesting at all happened, and you breezed through it and lived happily ever after?
RESPONSE A: I defended my thesis on Friday the 13th... worked out ok anyway :) I had a fever the whole time & during the evening festivities, so I only have fragmentary memories of the evening (I was totally sober). Still a great party! I'd been really stressed-out for a while, my husband says I was a mental patient for the last 6 months before the thesis, I believe him. You're always stressed-out before the defense, and during the first 10 mins or so. After that you are mostly on autopilot and do fine. Good luck!
RESPONSE B: I talked too fast during the lecture before the actual defense probably because I was nervous so I finished too quickly, but that wasn't a really big deal. As for the defense itself it went pretty much exactly as expected. The questions were fair and of an appropriate level of difficulty, there was some stuff I couldn't answer but most I did, and any corrections or additions they requested to my actual thesis made sense. The only thing surprising was how anticlimactic it felt afterwards. Everyone said how excited and relieved I must be but I didn't really feel anything at all.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Care to share stories about your thesis defense? I'm less than a month out now and the freaking out has commenced. Can you calm my nerves by sharing stories about your defense? Some hilarious disaster happened, but everything was fine anyway? Nothing interesting at all happened, and you breezed through it and lived happily ever after?
RESPONSE A: In my proposal defense, an outside (invited) guest picked a fight with one of the committee members about the merits and drawbacks of the research design I had proposed. I gather that this has gone down in department legend. BTW, the proposal was accepted and, later, the dissertation was successfully defended.
RESPONSE B: I defended my thesis on Friday the 13th... worked out ok anyway :) I had a fever the whole time & during the evening festivities, so I only have fragmentary memories of the evening (I was totally sober). Still a great party! I'd been really stressed-out for a while, my husband says I was a mental patient for the last 6 months before the thesis, I believe him. You're always stressed-out before the defense, and during the first 10 mins or so. After that you are mostly on autopilot and do fine. Good luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How was your experience with the two body problem? (Good or bad) My wife and I lived together and got married while doing our PhDs in two universities that were very close to each other. Last year I started a 3 year post doc in England while she had a couple of nearby temporary research and teaching jobs. This meant her working away during the week and coming home every weekend. This gave us a taste of living apart but was quite bareable. She has just started a 2 year post doc... in Norway. I am really happy for her because she is in a lab where she can follow her interests and it is a group she has worked with before and works well with. Her first day was today and I've just got back from a weekend of helping her move over there. Door-to-door the trip is about 8 hours. So I'm feeling a it down in the dumps and wanted to hear other people's experiences with academic couples working and living apart.
RESPONSE A: Overall it worked out ok for us. We did about 5 years apart. First different continents, then different countries in Europe, then different cities in UK and now we work at the same University :) It was tough though, and also it wasn't so easy to adjust to being together all the time when we finally did get a place together! Be prepared to compromise. We settled in the place where the first one got tenure. Make sure to discuss how you'll handle such big decisions before they arrive.
RESPONSE B: I’m earlier in my career than you (postbac fellow) but in a similar situation. I’ve been living 6hr away from my fiancé while I pursue this fellowship and he finishes his Bachelor’s. We’re about halfway through the 1-year fellowship period, planning to move back in together once I start grad school and he gets a job in the same area. It sucks but we are surviving. Be sure to set very clear expectations about communication. We always talk on the phone/video chat 3x per week and text every day, with in person visits once a month.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: just started a 2 year post doc... in Norway. I am really happy for her because she is in a lab where she can follow her interests and it is a group she has worked with before and works well with. Her first day was today and I've just got back from a weekend of helping her move over there. Door-to-door the trip is about 8 hours. So I'm feeling a it down in the dumps and wanted to hear other people's experiences with academic couples working and living apart.
RESPONSE A: When my husband and I were dating we lived about 3 hours. We did this for five years and then another one when I started grad school and before he found work down in my area. We spoke every day on the phone and texted all the time. And at least one of us (usually me since he lived close to our families so it made finding a place to stay easier) once or twice a month. We never went longer than 3 weeks without seeing each other. Then the four years of grad school, he had to move away for awhile for work but we continued the texts and calls all the time. We finally are living together while I am a postdoc in a larger city with more opportunities for his muggle job. The biggest thing was the trust we had in each other to be faithful and caring during those times. And keep communication open. When it came time for a life change (like where to look for a postdoc), we talked together. The time apart is hard but knowing it wasn't forever and discussing the areas we were both happy with when a move was coming was critical.
RESPONSE B: I’m earlier in my career than you (postbac fellow) but in a similar situation. I’ve been living 6hr away from my fiancé while I pursue this fellowship and he finishes his Bachelor’s. We’re about halfway through the 1-year fellowship period, planning to move back in together once I start grad school and he gets a job in the same area. It sucks but we are surviving. Be sure to set very clear expectations about communication. We always talk on the phone/video chat 3x per week and text every day, with in person visits once a month.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How was your experience with the two body problem? (Good or bad) My wife and I lived together and got married while doing our PhDs in two universities that were very close to each other. Last year I started a 3 year post doc in England while she had a couple of nearby temporary research and teaching jobs. This meant her working away during the week and coming home every weekend. This gave us a taste of living apart but was quite bareable. She has just started a 2 year post doc... in Norway. I am really happy for her because she is in a lab where she can follow her interests and it is a group she has worked with before and works well with. Her first day was today and I've just got back from a weekend of helping her move over there. Door-to-door the trip is about 8 hours. So I'm feeling a it down in the dumps and wanted to hear other people's experiences with academic couples working and living apart.
RESPONSE A: I’m earlier in my career than you (postbac fellow) but in a similar situation. I’ve been living 6hr away from my fiancé while I pursue this fellowship and he finishes his Bachelor’s. We’re about halfway through the 1-year fellowship period, planning to move back in together once I start grad school and he gets a job in the same area. It sucks but we are surviving. Be sure to set very clear expectations about communication. We always talk on the phone/video chat 3x per week and text every day, with in person visits once a month.
RESPONSE B: For work, I lived four hours away from my husband for six years. I now live with him, but still work in my original city (four hours away). So I have an eight hour commute two days a week. I do not recommend this, and if we don’t manage to get academic positions in the same city by next academic year, I’m quitting the academy. Just not worth it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Are you ever too old to go back for a PhD? I've been in the industry for 10 years after graduating with a bachelors. I've always entertained the idea of going back to for a Masters/PhD program but never pulled the trigger. Is it harder to get into such a program after being away from school for so long? Is there such a thing as a "cutoff age"?
RESPONSE A: NO. Are you ok with the pay cut ?
RESPONSE B: We had a PhD colleague in his 60s. By the time he had finished he was in his 70s. Everyone loved him he was like a sort of dad like figure to us all. We knew that for him it was a passion project, not a career choice. After he finished the uni set up a sort of honorary position for him, a bit of teaching and a little office space.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Are you ever too old to go back for a PhD? I've been in the industry for 10 years after graduating with a bachelors. I've always entertained the idea of going back to for a Masters/PhD program but never pulled the trigger. Is it harder to get into such a program after being away from school for so long? Is there such a thing as a "cutoff age"?
RESPONSE A: No, one of the most cited people in my sub-field only completed her PhD 25 years after her bachelor. (Worked other jobs and raises children in between.) Now she’s a PI, professor and fellow in the National Science Academy with too many grants and awards under her name to count.
RESPONSE B: We had a PhD colleague in his 60s. By the time he had finished he was in his 70s. Everyone loved him he was like a sort of dad like figure to us all. We knew that for him it was a passion project, not a career choice. After he finished the uni set up a sort of honorary position for him, a bit of teaching and a little office space.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Are you ever too old to go back for a PhD? I've been in the industry for 10 years after graduating with a bachelors. I've always entertained the idea of going back to for a Masters/PhD program but never pulled the trigger. Is it harder to get into such a program after being away from school for so long? Is there such a thing as a "cutoff age"?
RESPONSE A: We had a PhD colleague in his 60s. By the time he had finished he was in his 70s. Everyone loved him he was like a sort of dad like figure to us all. We knew that for him it was a passion project, not a career choice. After he finished the uni set up a sort of honorary position for him, a bit of teaching and a little office space.
RESPONSE B: Im 30 and finishing my master! I want to do a PhD after. I don’t feel like too old at all!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Are you ever too old to go back for a PhD? I've been in the industry for 10 years after graduating with a bachelors. I've always entertained the idea of going back to for a Masters/PhD program but never pulled the trigger. Is it harder to get into such a program after being away from school for so long? Is there such a thing as a "cutoff age"?
RESPONSE A: I know someone who was in his 50's when he started his PhD. It was something he had always wanted to do, and he had the funds to do it, so he went for it. Doing a Post-Doc now.
RESPONSE B: Im 30 and finishing my master! I want to do a PhD after. I don’t feel like too old at all!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Is a 9-month $90 K salary for asst. prof in chemical engineering competitive? This is in an offer from a public school, if that helps. In the negotiation stage!
RESPONSE A: Congrats on the offer! Based on one data point (my PhD advisor's salary from an east-coast public R1), I would say that is in line. If you happen to be a member of ACS, you can access their database of salaries filterable by type of job, location, experience, etc.
RESPONSE B: Yes. My guess is you know this and are subtly gloating. Nicely done! http://www.aaup.org/our-work/research/annual-report-economic-status-profession Chem E's can expect to be above average given the salary pressure exerted by the private sector. Also, if you want to see where your salary compares to others, most states require public disclosure of salaries for state employees. If you can't get your state try other states with similar demographics. That is, don't search for salaries in New York City if you're in Omaha. Given the good salary, play your negotiation cards for other things.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How hard a line do you keep between work and social spheres? A few threads here have edged around a particular topic - how much is there a line between your work life and your social life? For me - I don't interact with either students or my fellow academics outside the 9am-5pm and have no desire to do so. My colleagues are good people and we have a good laugh in the workplace but I feel my mental health is better because I keep the job in a box. (Btw I'm not saying my way is better, just curious what other people do).
RESPONSE A: None. Especially as a postdoc, moving to a new continent every couple years ... they're in the same boat and share at least one interest. Most adults arent really looking to make friends ... postdocs are a pool of pre-made exceptions.
RESPONSE B: This thread surprised me, but I come from a very social department where younger faculty and advanced PhD students hang out socially outside the office (we are all the same age group, give or take 5 years). I can't imagine working somewhere that had no overlap between work and social life. I'm just an outgoing person and make fast friends, especially with colleagues. Our field is also known for being social in general, with organized and impromptu parties at our annual conference, so that likely plays a role as well.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How hard a line do you keep between work and social spheres? A few threads here have edged around a particular topic - how much is there a line between your work life and your social life? For me - I don't interact with either students or my fellow academics outside the 9am-5pm and have no desire to do so. My colleagues are good people and we have a good laugh in the workplace but I feel my mental health is better because I keep the job in a box. (Btw I'm not saying my way is better, just curious what other people do).
RESPONSE A: I keep them separate as well, but have a very friendly relationship with some co-workers. I did at my last job and the same is true here, I will have coffee with them and we do talk about personal things (and I do this with my grad students as well occasionally - often less personal then from my side as I feel like it is inappropriate depending on topic) but if I had friends over for dinner for example, my coworkers would not make that cut (however for a larger party they probably would). For our wedding my wife and I each invited the colleagues we most interact with for example.
RESPONSE B: This thread surprised me, but I come from a very social department where younger faculty and advanced PhD students hang out socially outside the office (we are all the same age group, give or take 5 years). I can't imagine working somewhere that had no overlap between work and social life. I'm just an outgoing person and make fast friends, especially with colleagues. Our field is also known for being social in general, with organized and impromptu parties at our annual conference, so that likely plays a role as well.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How hard a line do you keep between work and social spheres? A few threads here have edged around a particular topic - how much is there a line between your work life and your social life? For me - I don't interact with either students or my fellow academics outside the 9am-5pm and have no desire to do so. My colleagues are good people and we have a good laugh in the workplace but I feel my mental health is better because I keep the job in a box. (Btw I'm not saying my way is better, just curious what other people do).
RESPONSE A: This thread surprised me, but I come from a very social department where younger faculty and advanced PhD students hang out socially outside the office (we are all the same age group, give or take 5 years). I can't imagine working somewhere that had no overlap between work and social life. I'm just an outgoing person and make fast friends, especially with colleagues. Our field is also known for being social in general, with organized and impromptu parties at our annual conference, so that likely plays a role as well.
RESPONSE B: I can see there's a good case to keep the things separate, and it's great that you can do that. I guess part of it is that for some people '9am-5pm' isn't really a relevant concept in describing the way they get their work done. And indeed 'colleague' doesn't necessarily describe all the people that you might discuss work with. So in my last job (currently not in work! woo!) the people I worked with, sure, I worked with but didn't make exceptional effort to socialize with - of course going out for drinks and dinners after seminars. But then, my partner is a researcher in a field close to mine and we talk a lot about the shared interest: I'm not sure whether that's 'bringing work home', or what.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Institutional affiliation for publication during transition period? I recently had an article accepted for publication, and they want a bio. I'm currently finishing up my PhD (defending on Wednesday, eeeep!) and have an assistant professorship lined up starting in the fall. Should I list my current PhD-granting institution or the future asst prof one? Or both? Thanks for any guidance on this!
RESPONSE A: I think asking the editor would be entirely appropriate in this case.
RESPONSE B: With people leaving my group we usually add the group's address for papers that result from work that was done during the PhD. We then add a qualifier "now at: new institutions address" to indicate the person has moved. In my field addresses are typically given as footnotes, so the list of authors would then look like A. Author^1,2 , B. Buthor^1 , C. Cuthor^3 , S. Senior^1 ^1 address of PhD institution ^2 now at: address of Postdoc position ^3 some other institution
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: book that breaks down disciplines and their approach to problemsolving/information seeking sry if this doesnt belong here but I am curious to read about different disciplines and how their processes look like when it comes to information-seeking and problem-solving as I can imagine that it might differ between disciplines? I am not in academia so I feel a bit vulnerable posting this question here as I am not sure what I might get in response, maybe this is a very stupid question - haha! I would also be interested in articles/examples of how methods from disciplines been used to solve a problems if there is any book on that.
RESPONSE A: For the disciplines within social science you can get crottys "the foundations of social science ". I think what you probably want to do is read about ontology (what knowledge is ) and epistemology (how we come to know ) These are the things that define what viable methods and methodologies are
RESPONSE B: Your best bet would be to look at undergraduate research methods texts used in different disciplines. One single book would be difficult to produce, because even within broad areas (like the social sciences) there are significant differences by discipline. Even within my discipline there are significant differences among subfields.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: right of activist groups? [x-post /r/AskSocialScience] Original: https://np.reddit.com/r/AskSocialScience/comments/4g51gi/why_is_academia_generally_left_of_public_policy/ I was recommended to ask this here since there was a lot of speculation but little data on the topic over there (there was some though). The original question was more focused on those in the social sciences - though it appears most people considered it to be primarily about differences only with regard to academic / public / activist feminism - but here I'd like feedback from any academic field with either speculation or data on why the knowledge dissemination between academia and these social groups (public / activists) tends to differ if it does at all (though I suspect it does). Before it got nuked, I discovered that some groups are indeed a bit more radical and, as expected, it will vary from department to department. For example, I learned that anthropologists are much more likely to be anarchists (albeit one anthropologist's anecdote) which is pretty much a radical position by definition. Though speculation is great, obviously any data on meta-analyses of academia is appreciated!
RESPONSE A: In America: Because we as a nation have a fiercely anti-intellectual streak. Elsewhere: Dunno- is that the case?
RESPONSE B: My thought is that it has little to do with education level and a lot more to do with who is willing to take an academic job. Anyone who is able to get a PhD is intelligent and hard working enough to get jobs that pay significantly better than jobs in academia. Still, they choose a job in academia for other reasons. Maybe the kind of thinking that leads someone to accept lower pay for higher perceived personal satisfaction tends to come from more liberally minded people. For the other side of the issue, I'm not sure that I have a good argument. I just think that many activist groups contain very closed minded people who aren't willing to consider the other side of an argument. I don't think that lends itself well to academia.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: thus renouncing to these PhD opportunities I may have now. I have been working hard for my future my whole life, but I am in a situation where I find myself as lost as if I had to choose again my career. Have you ever been in a situation like that? Having a PhD does compensate all the difficulties am I going through now? Thank you for your time reading this and your comment (if you have one!). TLDR: I have always wanted a PhD on neuroscience, but even though I have a great CV, starting one is becoming extra difficult for me (2 years delayed on it). I may have two PhD options on the table, although none of them is guaranteeing me financial support yet. Nevertheless, I am starting to think to move to the pharmaceutical industry and start a master's degree that could open me those gates and thus forget the PhD.
RESPONSE A: I have been having a lot of discussions recently about leaving academia because someone I know abruptly decided to quit his post doc and get the very next flight back home. The conclusion is that you've really got to love the work. The academic life isn't easy early on - it's a bit like being a monk. If you don't absolutely love worshipping god, you shouldn't become a monk. Ultimately if you don't absolutely love doing research, you probably shouldn't go into it (or you should get out as soon as you realise that fact). It seems to me that if you are not going to do something you love, you should consider whether your job has the following desirable properties: * Every major city (in particular, your home city) will have several companies that offer the kind of jobs you can do * It is possible to do it 9-5, and leave it behind when you go home * You get paid (or have the future possibility to get paid) enough to comfortably pay off your student load, and enjoy most of the 72 hours a week you're not working or sleeping.
RESPONSE B: You're going to be pretty disappointed with what your options in pharma actually are without a phd. This isn't much of an either-or proposition assuming you don't want to be at your career ceiling in 5-10 years.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: 't think I would really enjoy programming as a career, but I don't really have any other marketable skills. About my background in math, these are the courses I've taken beyond the standard calc and linear algebra sequence: Advanced Calculus I and II, Number Theory, Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometries, Intro to Abstract Algebra, Linear Algebra, Combinatorics, and Intro to Mathematical Logic. If I am able to go back next year, I will likely take Topology, Numerical Analysis, Complex Variables, and a second semester in algebra to finish up my bachelor's. I'd really appreciate any advice. I'm quite embarrassed about this whole situation so it's very hard for me to reach out for support.
RESPONSE A: No college advice, but your story is not unusual. We are all human. You are obviously smart and part time retail is underperforming your abilities. Go do something great.
RESPONSE B: You still got a great shot at making it. With what you described, it’s quite obvious that something happened. It’s easy to tell on paper, but I would still mention it on your personal statements. I had something similar to this happen to me, but I only failed two classes one of which was research. You can only imagine how that looked. I also didn’t have such a strong background in math (upper level courses) given that I originally intended to go into Math Ed instead of pure math. I still applied to 3 PhD programs and got denied to all three. All three programs didn’t even mention my F’s since they said it was obvious something happened. Instead they only cited my lack of upper level courses. By the time they told me this, I knew I wanted to do pure math. I moved back home and enrolled at the local college in a masters in Math. I worked my butt off and graduated with 4.0 and an MS. I also convinced my advisor to do a functional analysis/operator algebras thesis with me (this was an applied program). I ended getting accepted into three PhD programs. I am actually currently enjoying the summer after my first year. You can do it man. I honestly think you still have a chance.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Self-funding a PhD: Pros and Cons? I was accepted onto a fully-funded PhD programme a couple of years ago, but turned the offer down due to personal issues. I don't regret it because the project wasn't quite right, but I'm now really interested in doing one. I recently spoke to someone I work with who is doing a PhD, and they said they funded it themselves. This sounds like an interesting way to do it, as you can continue to work/earn while you study. This sounds like another way for me to get my foot in the PhD door, and is something I'd like to know more about. My questions are: - How do I go about beginning a self-funded PhD (in UK)? - What are the pros and cons of self-funding?
RESPONSE A: It's a full time job. Would you like to work without pay? You can of course apply for grants but it's not something I would bank on going in.
RESPONSE B: I'm currently applying for PhDs myself, but I was told by my personal advisor that self funding really depends on what your bench fee is. Living and tuition costs may not be too bad but he said that he personally requires an £8,000 a year bench fee which can throw your expenses off! As well as this, a PhD is meant to be the equivalent of a full time job in itself. So it really depends on your circumstances and what field I guess Edit: I do a science subject, just realised you didn't specify a field!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Self-funding a PhD: Pros and Cons? I was accepted onto a fully-funded PhD programme a couple of years ago, but turned the offer down due to personal issues. I don't regret it because the project wasn't quite right, but I'm now really interested in doing one. I recently spoke to someone I work with who is doing a PhD, and they said they funded it themselves. This sounds like an interesting way to do it, as you can continue to work/earn while you study. This sounds like another way for me to get my foot in the PhD door, and is something I'd like to know more about. My questions are: - How do I go about beginning a self-funded PhD (in UK)? - What are the pros and cons of self-funding?
RESPONSE A: My professor's advice was: if you want to stay in academia, don't self-fund because you should be good enough to get a funded PhD. Either go straight for a funded PhD or find funding from an independent body and then apply.
RESPONSE B: I'm currently applying for PhDs myself, but I was told by my personal advisor that self funding really depends on what your bench fee is. Living and tuition costs may not be too bad but he said that he personally requires an £8,000 a year bench fee which can throw your expenses off! As well as this, a PhD is meant to be the equivalent of a full time job in itself. So it really depends on your circumstances and what field I guess Edit: I do a science subject, just realised you didn't specify a field!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Self-funding a PhD: Pros and Cons? I was accepted onto a fully-funded PhD programme a couple of years ago, but turned the offer down due to personal issues. I don't regret it because the project wasn't quite right, but I'm now really interested in doing one. I recently spoke to someone I work with who is doing a PhD, and they said they funded it themselves. This sounds like an interesting way to do it, as you can continue to work/earn while you study. This sounds like another way for me to get my foot in the PhD door, and is something I'd like to know more about. My questions are: - How do I go about beginning a self-funded PhD (in UK)? - What are the pros and cons of self-funding?
RESPONSE A: My professor's advice was: if you want to stay in academia, don't self-fund because you should be good enough to get a funded PhD. Either go straight for a funded PhD or find funding from an independent body and then apply.
RESPONSE B: Why not just reapply for a funded phd? If you were accepted before you probably have a strong enough application to be accepted again.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Self-funding a PhD: Pros and Cons? I was accepted onto a fully-funded PhD programme a couple of years ago, but turned the offer down due to personal issues. I don't regret it because the project wasn't quite right, but I'm now really interested in doing one. I recently spoke to someone I work with who is doing a PhD, and they said they funded it themselves. This sounds like an interesting way to do it, as you can continue to work/earn while you study. This sounds like another way for me to get my foot in the PhD door, and is something I'd like to know more about. My questions are: - How do I go about beginning a self-funded PhD (in UK)? - What are the pros and cons of self-funding?
RESPONSE A: My professor's advice was: if you want to stay in academia, don't self-fund because you should be good enough to get a funded PhD. Either go straight for a funded PhD or find funding from an independent body and then apply.
RESPONSE B: It depends on your reasons for doing a PhD to be honest. I have a friend who just passed her viva having self-funded. She needed a PhD in order to teach in a university (UK). She lived at home and taught classes all the way through and managed to finish in 3 years. Generally, if your PhD question is considered "worthwhile", you will be able to get funding from somewhere. If you really cannot get funding then you should consider whether it's worth spending time, money and effort in doing something that may not be held in high esteem when you're finished, particularly given the competitiveness of the jobs market for postdocs. Also, it would help if we knew which field you are working in to give you more specific advice.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Self-funding a PhD: Pros and Cons? I was accepted onto a fully-funded PhD programme a couple of years ago, but turned the offer down due to personal issues. I don't regret it because the project wasn't quite right, but I'm now really interested in doing one. I recently spoke to someone I work with who is doing a PhD, and they said they funded it themselves. This sounds like an interesting way to do it, as you can continue to work/earn while you study. This sounds like another way for me to get my foot in the PhD door, and is something I'd like to know more about. My questions are: - How do I go about beginning a self-funded PhD (in UK)? - What are the pros and cons of self-funding?
RESPONSE A: Be prepared to do paid work as well as studying definitely!! But ask yourself a few questions beforehand - does the research you want to do allow for this, i.e. Will you have to attend a lab 5 days a week restricting your availability to work? How much money do you (realistic) need to live (not survive)? How do you think you will be able to earn this money e.g. Teaching is only sessional and not guaranteed. A friend self-funded and she regretted not thinking clearly through all the consequences first. Living off below the UK minimum wage, having to do bar work at night and working during the day meant that she had a crap life for 5 years (her words and yes it took 5years). Only thing she has is a PhD - no publications or even presentations at conferences as she had no time or money. Moral of the story just check with yourself that you can do it all before you start -- best of luck!!
RESPONSE B: My professor's advice was: if you want to stay in academia, don't self-fund because you should be good enough to get a funded PhD. Either go straight for a funded PhD or find funding from an independent body and then apply.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: should see if I can get into Wall Street, even though I'm not a mathematician. When I tell them my end goal is to become a professor or similar, they always ask if they make a lot of money (but never if they make a good living—can you tell money is way too important in my family? it doesn't help that my dad and uncles are successful business owners and I really do have a cousin making bank on Wall St with a PhD); and they also really suggest I take some time off in industry because how do I know I won't like it if I don't try it? They think I'm just being a kid and that I'm not old/experienced enough to understand what they are telling me. It's really annoying because they are belittling my choice of career, and my maturity/age. You guys who have gone through this, what did you do to either tell your non–supportive family/friends to fuck off and/or convince them that this is a real career path?
RESPONSE A: There will always be people in your family who have no concept of the level you're working at. I gave up on trying to convince my aunt that I don't do research on meteors. /meteorologist
RESPONSE B: "I always thought grad school was for people who wanted to do research, who saw a future in doing research, not as a stepping stone for getting into industry." I really don't understand why you keep saying that those in industry are just in it for the money, and not for the research. You do research in industry as well. The responses you are getting wrt grad school just being a stepping stone to a better job, must correlate with what your program is. I am a grad student in a cell and mol bio program, and almost everyone I know is at grad school because they love research, want to do research, and are planning to do research when they finish. You really can't survive if you don't love research, and aren't planning to continue when you are done. What would be the point in struggling for 5 years of your life, when other more practical routes exist?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: mathematician. When I tell them my end goal is to become a professor or similar, they always ask if they make a lot of money (but never if they make a good living—can you tell money is way too important in my family? it doesn't help that my dad and uncles are successful business owners and I really do have a cousin making bank on Wall St with a PhD); and they also really suggest I take some time off in industry because how do I know I won't like it if I don't try it? They think I'm just being a kid and that I'm not old/experienced enough to understand what they are telling me. It's really annoying because they are belittling my choice of career, and my maturity/age. You guys who have gone through this, what did you do to either tell your non–supportive family/friends to fuck off and/or convince them that this is a real career path?
RESPONSE A: "I always thought grad school was for people who wanted to do research, who saw a future in doing research, not as a stepping stone for getting into industry." I really don't understand why you keep saying that those in industry are just in it for the money, and not for the research. You do research in industry as well. The responses you are getting wrt grad school just being a stepping stone to a better job, must correlate with what your program is. I am a grad student in a cell and mol bio program, and almost everyone I know is at grad school because they love research, want to do research, and are planning to do research when they finish. You really can't survive if you don't love research, and aren't planning to continue when you are done. What would be the point in struggling for 5 years of your life, when other more practical routes exist?
RESPONSE B: Hey there, no real solution but just wanted you to know that you're not alone, I'm in the same boat too. I want to be a professor/researcher too, and my dad keeps trying to get me to have a side-job as well. Chin up, my man.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: important in my family? it doesn't help that my dad and uncles are successful business owners and I really do have a cousin making bank on Wall St with a PhD); and they also really suggest I take some time off in industry because how do I know I won't like it if I don't try it? They think I'm just being a kid and that I'm not old/experienced enough to understand what they are telling me. It's really annoying because they are belittling my choice of career, and my maturity/age. You guys who have gone through this, what did you do to either tell your non–supportive family/friends to fuck off and/or convince them that this is a real career path?
RESPONSE A: "I always thought grad school was for people who wanted to do research, who saw a future in doing research, not as a stepping stone for getting into industry." I really don't understand why you keep saying that those in industry are just in it for the money, and not for the research. You do research in industry as well. The responses you are getting wrt grad school just being a stepping stone to a better job, must correlate with what your program is. I am a grad student in a cell and mol bio program, and almost everyone I know is at grad school because they love research, want to do research, and are planning to do research when they finish. You really can't survive if you don't love research, and aren't planning to continue when you are done. What would be the point in struggling for 5 years of your life, when other more practical routes exist?
RESPONSE B: "I'm finishing up a terminal master's program" ... "I always thought grad school was for people who wanted to do research" PhD programs are for people who want to do research. In many (if not most) fields, people who know they want to do research go straight from undergrad to PhD. Presumably these people you talked to who were doing graduate studies for the pay increase were fellow master's students, because when the opportunity costs are taken into account, a PhD doesn't get you a lifetime earnings premium in most fields.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: transition from neuroscience to data science Hello! I am just entering neuroscience and my long term plan is this. Although i am not from a technical background, i genuinely like working with messy data, data visualization and stats. Is there anybody who's done the same.? Can i get some advise on what electives to choose and how to keep my profile relevant for data science Will i need a pHd?
RESPONSE A: You should definitely try and take some stats courses and potentially some bioinformatics if you can. A PhD depends on your career plans. To be an academic absolutely. To work in industry, yes if you want a more senior scientific position, no if you are either interested in a lower level scientific role or want to move sideways into management (although a PhD can help with this too).
RESPONSE B: I did this, Neuro is a great background for DS. Feel free to DM me if you have any questions! A transition to DS is something that diff people do very differently, DS being so _ridiculously_ diverse, and people having so vastly different backgrounds. But if you have any specific questions, I'll be happy to help! Best of luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Should I use a pen name for my (fiction) writing career? (Using a throwaway.) Hello! I’m a current JD/PhD candidate at a top university in the US with an interest in joining the legal academy. In my free time, I enjoy creative writing, and I was lucky enough to have my first novel picked up by an agent and a large publisher here in the States. I have a very unique name (first Google hit), and I’m wondering if I should publish this novel under a pen name. I hope to continue to write fiction throughout my life and don’t want it to adversely affect my academic publications or hiring. My fiction isn’t anything particularly spicy (not erotica or anything) but it doesn’t have much to do with my legal research interests, and I’m wondering if it’s best to keep them entirely separate. I’m generally a very, very private person so I’m leaning towards the pen name, but I’m wondering if you all think it’s necessary in terms of protecting my academic career. Thank you so much!
RESPONSE A: If it were me I'd probably use a pen name (because chances you'll hit it really 'big' as a writer are very small, and the chances that others see this as odd as a law professor are not insignificant...) You can always bring it up at faculty mixers *if you want to*, but also won't have to worry about your law students chuckling behind your back because of your weak characterizations.. ;-) But more importantly: *Of course*, because how often do you get to choose your own name??!!!?! "Remembrances of Yesterday" by Buzzsaw Spike Mc'Tavish
RESPONSE B: As everyone else has said, I'd recommend separate. That doesn't mean it can't be common knowly later on - I know at least three people in my discipline who are successful academics, and also successful fiction authors, all under not particularly secret pen-names.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What are the best research programs to use (e.g. "Mendeley" etc.)? I have just began postgraduate research at a university, and I am comfortable defining my own structure and rough timetable, etc. However, I am not informed of the best programs to use for overall organisation or research in general (e.g. how to chronicle inputs and outputs of each week's work, etc) Can anyone here offer recommendations to help me in this regard please? Thank you - I'm looking forward to your suggestions!
RESPONSE A: I personally use Zotero instead of Mendeley and I love it, especially the Google Chrome extension to get a citation from every website/article directly from your browser. For plots Origin is often used in our research group. If you are more into LaTeX than MS Word and often collaborate on papers or any other documents, I would recommend Overleaf, which is an online LaTeX platform. To edit images for your different reports (add text, add arrows, put many pictures in one figure,...) I personally use MS PowerPoint, because you can have all you figures for the same paper in one document and you can easily save each slide as a PNG to import the figure in your report. Hope it helps!
RESPONSE B: They're all good at different things, so it depends on your own personal workflow. I've used a lot of them over the years, and in the timespan I was testing them out I found that I preferred Qiqqa. That said, I made that decision several years ago, and the competition has changed since then. Download some pdfs, install all the different software. See how you get on with importing those pdfs, annotating them, searching for and inserting references into the different software you might use.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What are the best research programs to use (e.g. "Mendeley" etc.)? I have just began postgraduate research at a university, and I am comfortable defining my own structure and rough timetable, etc. However, I am not informed of the best programs to use for overall organisation or research in general (e.g. how to chronicle inputs and outputs of each week's work, etc) Can anyone here offer recommendations to help me in this regard please? Thank you - I'm looking forward to your suggestions!
RESPONSE A: They're all good at different things, so it depends on your own personal workflow. I've used a lot of them over the years, and in the timespan I was testing them out I found that I preferred Qiqqa. That said, I made that decision several years ago, and the competition has changed since then. Download some pdfs, install all the different software. See how you get on with importing those pdfs, annotating them, searching for and inserting references into the different software you might use.
RESPONSE B: I'm a huge fan of Mendeley. I've tried zotero only to go back to Mendeley. I love it and use for references and to sort my pdfs
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: . Medical physics is still something I'm very interested in, but when I started applying to grad schools, I put this interest on the back burner. Anyway, when I think about going into industry in a field like this, I think about the work-life balance, the job prospects, and the chance to make a direct impact on people's lives. All these factors are important to me, which is why I don't think I've been able to shake my interest in them and focus solely on particle physics. I know thoughts like this are normal (especially as an undergrad), but these thoughts just won't go away for me. I just finished applying to PhD programs in particle physics. My PI "definitely thinks I'll get in somewhere", which is great. I should be excited and reassured, and yet I'm again conflicted. Has anyone experienced this?
RESPONSE A: Yes. Hell, I'm pretty sure that I fantasized about my high school landscaping job most days when I was walking to my office/class during my PhD
RESPONSE B: Totally normal. Heck, I just finished my postdoc and still have those same thoughts (did I make the right choice, should I have done option B, etc). I don't think having a physics background is a huge problem for a program like neuroscience or biomedical engineering. Heck, I'd think it would be a bonus. If you still can, go ahead and apply for those programs. So you can at least try. If possible, take a year off and do some career searching. Even if not, you can do career searching while a grad student (and you should do that anyway). You can do informational interviews with people who do jobs you'd be interested in. You can find them using LinkedIn or alumni databases. You're just asking someone to talk about themselves and their job. You can even ask about if your background could work and what steps to take to get to where they are. There are a lot of options still at this point. There will be always pros and cons with every choice. And even if you do a PhD in one field, there are ways to transition to another field, especially if you have the knowledge to work with large data sets.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: don't have the relevant background and was told it'd be too difficult to change gears now. Medical physics is still something I'm very interested in, but when I started applying to grad schools, I put this interest on the back burner. Anyway, when I think about going into industry in a field like this, I think about the work-life balance, the job prospects, and the chance to make a direct impact on people's lives. All these factors are important to me, which is why I don't think I've been able to shake my interest in them and focus solely on particle physics. I know thoughts like this are normal (especially as an undergrad), but these thoughts just won't go away for me. I just finished applying to PhD programs in particle physics. My PI "definitely thinks I'll get in somewhere", which is great. I should be excited and reassured, and yet I'm again conflicted. Has anyone experienced this?
RESPONSE A: Totally normal. Heck, I just finished my postdoc and still have those same thoughts (did I make the right choice, should I have done option B, etc). I don't think having a physics background is a huge problem for a program like neuroscience or biomedical engineering. Heck, I'd think it would be a bonus. If you still can, go ahead and apply for those programs. So you can at least try. If possible, take a year off and do some career searching. Even if not, you can do career searching while a grad student (and you should do that anyway). You can do informational interviews with people who do jobs you'd be interested in. You can find them using LinkedIn or alumni databases. You're just asking someone to talk about themselves and their job. You can even ask about if your background could work and what steps to take to get to where they are. There are a lot of options still at this point. There will be always pros and cons with every choice. And even if you do a PhD in one field, there are ways to transition to another field, especially if you have the knowledge to work with large data sets.
RESPONSE B: Yes, common, this will continue for your entire career.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Has anyone made a shift out of academia with a humanities/social sciences PhD? Hi all, I'm in the last year of my PhD history program at a top-tier research university. I can't say I've ever been happy in the program, but I've held on this long and expect to complete this year. I don't think that I wish to continue with academia--the idea of spending another one or two years in a postdoc just fills me with dread. So I was just wondering if there was anyone here who had made a switch out of academia from a PhD and if, in fact, they enjoyed that change? Thanks for your help!
RESPONSE A: I did it too! I had a religious studies Ph.D. I networked really hard and got offered a job running projects for a think tank. I then went and worked in government for a little while as a policy analyst helping other countries develop Refugee programs, and I now do Consulting. Nobody talked about what you could do with a Humanities Ph.D what I was studying, probably because nobody really knew. The reality, as other people have said, there are a lot of really interesting things you can do with it. I wrote a blog post about it here https://roostervane.com/non-academiccareer/
RESPONSE B: Yup, I work in tech as a researcher. Comes with a LOT of pros/cons. I still adjunct on the side, because I enjoy it, but realized it was a better fit for me in industry. Also nice is I can be super selective about when/what I teach. You do have to find the right role/opportunity and there is no perfect situation. Are you more humanities or more social science?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Feeling forced to finish a Masters degree that I don't want to. I started a masters degree in computer science 1 year ago and ever since I feel more and more depressed everyday.. I just can't handle the pressure anymore. I'm feeling forced to finish this because I don't want to disappoint my parents and relatives who believe in me. It's not that the assignments/exams are so hardcore, they just seem so uninteresting, useless and boring to me..Programming used to be so much fun, now it feels like just an obligation that needs to be done. My main interest is to create programs that could be helpful to me and also to others, and not spend whole weekends thinking of how to create a 10000 line algorithm that doesn't help me and probably will never use it (I know you'll say that it helps my thinking and concentration skills but in reality I just want to hit my head on the wall while doing those assignments). I believe my'strong skill' is finding a faster way to do things, just like macros or scripts, but I want to have more control on the programming side. What should I do with the masters degree?? Also what careers would be more suitable for me? Thank you
RESPONSE A: It sounds like you might be suffering from burnout. Does your school have a mental health service you can visit? Many have free consultations for students and can give good advice for dealing with what you're feeling.
RESPONSE B: I wish you the best of luck, petols, as you go through this hurdle. It sounds like the decision is ultimately up to you. I recommend that you ask yourself this: **What do you want to do ten years from now? And will finishing the Masters help you, or hinder you?** For example, you say: >My main interest is to create programs that could be helpful to me and also to others Maybe ten years from now (or earlier!), you want to get well-paid doing just that. Will the degree in your current Master's program help you secure such a job? Or is there something else that you could be doing instead, which would help you achieve that goal better?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Feeling forced to finish a Masters degree that I don't want to. I started a masters degree in computer science 1 year ago and ever since I feel more and more depressed everyday.. I just can't handle the pressure anymore. I'm feeling forced to finish this because I don't want to disappoint my parents and relatives who believe in me. It's not that the assignments/exams are so hardcore, they just seem so uninteresting, useless and boring to me..Programming used to be so much fun, now it feels like just an obligation that needs to be done. My main interest is to create programs that could be helpful to me and also to others, and not spend whole weekends thinking of how to create a 10000 line algorithm that doesn't help me and probably will never use it (I know you'll say that it helps my thinking and concentration skills but in reality I just want to hit my head on the wall while doing those assignments). I believe my'strong skill' is finding a faster way to do things, just like macros or scripts, but I want to have more control on the programming side. What should I do with the masters degree?? Also what careers would be more suitable for me? Thank you
RESPONSE A: The point of the masters is to demonstrate breadth (exams) and some early steps at creating knowledge (the thesis). You will have to learn some things about your chosen discipline that you may not be interested in, but that is sort of the point. The credential is likely worth it, if you wish to work in programming. And, recall, that in the private sector you'll be expected to focus on things for eight hours a day or more that may not interest you, or may only help line the pockets of your superiors. System administration might be more your cup of tea (or, for your talents systems programming), but you'll still be better off finishing the Masters first.
RESPONSE B: It sounds like you might be suffering from burnout. Does your school have a mental health service you can visit? Many have free consultations for students and can give good advice for dealing with what you're feeling.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Feeling forced to finish a Masters degree that I don't want to. I started a masters degree in computer science 1 year ago and ever since I feel more and more depressed everyday.. I just can't handle the pressure anymore. I'm feeling forced to finish this because I don't want to disappoint my parents and relatives who believe in me. It's not that the assignments/exams are so hardcore, they just seem so uninteresting, useless and boring to me..Programming used to be so much fun, now it feels like just an obligation that needs to be done. My main interest is to create programs that could be helpful to me and also to others, and not spend whole weekends thinking of how to create a 10000 line algorithm that doesn't help me and probably will never use it (I know you'll say that it helps my thinking and concentration skills but in reality I just want to hit my head on the wall while doing those assignments). I believe my'strong skill' is finding a faster way to do things, just like macros or scripts, but I want to have more control on the programming side. What should I do with the masters degree?? Also what careers would be more suitable for me? Thank you
RESPONSE A: Have you ever had a real job or internship?
RESPONSE B: It sounds like you might be suffering from burnout. Does your school have a mental health service you can visit? Many have free consultations for students and can give good advice for dealing with what you're feeling.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I fucked up and now I'm afraid to talk to my professor Relevant backstory: A few years ago I had a solid life plan and I had put a lot of thought and work into it. I got a fantastic internship in my field and everything was going well. Then, through a bizarre string of events, I became completely disqualified from my dream career and lost my internship, which to me was totally devastating. Now, I'm a couple credits from meeting the requirements for my master's degree. Around a year ago, as I was nearing graduation with still no idea what to do with my life and hearing nothing but discouraging things about the job market, I started having a lot of anxiety. Somehow I managed to scrape through all of my class requirements, but I am MONTHS behind on my thesis. I've always had a hard time focusing (ADD), but since the anxiety has grown I can hardly focus for half an hour, let alone think I can defend a proposal without having a panic attack. So now, after telling myself I'll email her "tomorrow" a few hundred times over, I haven't even spoken to my professor since May. I'm probably better fit to take the comprehensive exam for my degree instead of the thesis, but I still have to complete the work for the Independent Study I took under my professor. So I don't know what to say. I don't even have a good excuse and I really feel like a piece of shit who doesn't even deserve the degree. Any advice is much appreciated.
RESPONSE A: Tell the truth “for the last couple of months I’ve been dealing with personal issues that have been preventing me from making progress as expected on the thesis. Now that I have been able to address and resolve these issues...” then put whatever your request is, an extension? A meeting? Etc.
RESPONSE B: Lack of communication or ignoring a problem isn't usually the best way to handle a situation. Best to get a head of this now and deal with the aftermath than keep telling yourself otherwise. If nothing else you won't need to worry about this part in your life.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Bad Candidate Presentations - Any memorable ones? What made them so bad? Hi folks, I'll probably add my own story to this thread after my academic interview in a few days. It's for a research rather than a teaching position, so public speaking isn't my thing. I'm trying it anyway. Cheers and be well!
RESPONSE A: A candidate once made himself a cautionary tale in my dept. Our Chair asked a question in his Q&A, framing it with language like "I have one main question..." and the candidate interrupted him and snarked back something along the lines of "Oh you have ONE question?". I don't know what the goal was there. He did not get the job and even worse, that response is all I think anyone really remembered about him (at least it was the only thing I heard anyone talking about when he came up in conversation). The lesson I walked away with: Don't snark or be flip to your audience or interviewers. It might vex them enough to axe your candidacy. Suggestion: Check out Stanford Business school's youtube channel if you want some quick and easy tips/strategies for shining as a public speaker.
RESPONSE B: I (the female department chair) asked a question of the candidate (male) and he made a hash of answering it. My boss sitting next to me (the male dean) asked him my question again. The candidate replied "good question" and my boss said "it's her question!" When I walked into my boss's office later, he immediately said: "we can't hire him." We had to continue with the interview process and during the dinner with the candidate, two male colleagues, and me, the candidate replied to everything I said by speaking only to my male colleagues. Odd bonus: the candidate got a job elsewhere and ended up being an active and effective advocate for female students. I interacted with him years later and he really had changed. Go figure.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Bad Candidate Presentations - Any memorable ones? What made them so bad? Hi folks, I'll probably add my own story to this thread after my academic interview in a few days. It's for a research rather than a teaching position, so public speaking isn't my thing. I'm trying it anyway. Cheers and be well!
RESPONSE A: At the last round of recruiting at a uni I used to work at, there was a guy who faked his CV. He got invited to interview and it wasn’t until they were prepping that they actually looked up all the papers he was claiming and realised his name wasn’t on them. It was a zoom interview and they were fascinated so they went ahead. Even worse was that he claimed to be in an incredibly niche field that they happened to have a Prof of. Like, imagine… train economics. So they ask him about his paper on [economics of the great northern railway] and he waffles and can’t pronounce [great northern railway] and the prof says, because I’ve written with Lead Author, so how did you find working with him? In fact I think he presented this at the [transport economics] conference we hosted at this uni last year… The guy started doing the zoom equivalent of ‘going through a tunnel’ and eventually hung up. Hard to imagine what the end goal was.
RESPONSE B: I (the female department chair) asked a question of the candidate (male) and he made a hash of answering it. My boss sitting next to me (the male dean) asked him my question again. The candidate replied "good question" and my boss said "it's her question!" When I walked into my boss's office later, he immediately said: "we can't hire him." We had to continue with the interview process and during the dinner with the candidate, two male colleagues, and me, the candidate replied to everything I said by speaking only to my male colleagues. Odd bonus: the candidate got a job elsewhere and ended up being an active and effective advocate for female students. I interacted with him years later and he really had changed. Go figure.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST:
RESPONSE A: I (the female department chair) asked a question of the candidate (male) and he made a hash of answering it. My boss sitting next to me (the male dean) asked him my question again. The candidate replied "good question" and my boss said "it's her question!" When I walked into my boss's office later, he immediately said: "we can't hire him." We had to continue with the interview process and during the dinner with the candidate, two male colleagues, and me, the candidate replied to everything I said by speaking only to my male colleagues. Odd bonus: the candidate got a job elsewhere and ended up being an active and effective advocate for female students. I interacted with him years later and he really had changed. Go figure.
RESPONSE B: My own failure, during an interview for an Assistant Professor (TT with promotion to Associate after evaluation) in Austria. Compared to Germany, the pay was subpar, but I loved the region, the field I would be doing research and teaching on, and the chair is well established and renowned in her field. So, I get there. I give the lecture on my research project (transnational national-socialist networks between 1945 and 1968), then the obligatory Q&A ensues. At some point a professor associated with the chair looks at me, asks (in my view) a kind of inappropriate and stupid question regarding the timeframe of the project, which she thought was nonsense. I reply, admittedly a bit open, pointing at methodology and primary sources, mentioning blocking periods and problems with oral history as a substitute for archival sources. She looked at me, and literally said: "Dr. LeifRagnarsson, I think you're afraid of your topic." At that point I just lost it. I stared back at her and replied: "Dear Prof. XYZ, rest assured I am only afraid of very few things, and neither the project nor you are among them." Longer story short: It went downhill from there. So, the morale of the story is: Sometimes it is better to bite your tongue. Some chances only come once and sometimes they come back to bite you in the behind, like that one does for me.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Bad Candidate Presentations - Any memorable ones? What made them so bad? Hi folks, I'll probably add my own story to this thread after my academic interview in a few days. It's for a research rather than a teaching position, so public speaking isn't my thing. I'm trying it anyway. Cheers and be well!
RESPONSE A: I (the female department chair) asked a question of the candidate (male) and he made a hash of answering it. My boss sitting next to me (the male dean) asked him my question again. The candidate replied "good question" and my boss said "it's her question!" When I walked into my boss's office later, he immediately said: "we can't hire him." We had to continue with the interview process and during the dinner with the candidate, two male colleagues, and me, the candidate replied to everything I said by speaking only to my male colleagues. Odd bonus: the candidate got a job elsewhere and ended up being an active and effective advocate for female students. I interacted with him years later and he really had changed. Go figure.
RESPONSE B: My own failures: I did a round of job applications in the middle of a few months of pretty horrible health issues which meant I was running around doing interviews literally bleeding through my suit and half-psychotic from sleep deprivation. Highlights I can even remember include a PowerPoint presentation full of superimposed images, which I thought looked amazing; a research presentation that was supposed to be mini-keynote style in an auditorium that I'd thought was going to be an informal chat about my research interests and background; and just completely failing to be able to answer a standard interview question and gazing at the floor for like 10 seconds; and when I somehow got an offer, I promptly turned it down in horror. From the other side of the table, I remember far less. There was one I remember being deeply horrified by at the time but not really why any more. I also remember one candidate dodging a bullet because the sociopath of a PI pretty literally said they felt they weren't displaying enough desperation and vulnerability to abuse.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Bad Candidate Presentations - Any memorable ones? What made them so bad? Hi folks, I'll probably add my own story to this thread after my academic interview in a few days. It's for a research rather than a teaching position, so public speaking isn't my thing. I'm trying it anyway. Cheers and be well!
RESPONSE A: One who for every question I asked replied with "I would ask a manager". As a manager I knew this person would drive me insane!
RESPONSE B: I (the female department chair) asked a question of the candidate (male) and he made a hash of answering it. My boss sitting next to me (the male dean) asked him my question again. The candidate replied "good question" and my boss said "it's her question!" When I walked into my boss's office later, he immediately said: "we can't hire him." We had to continue with the interview process and during the dinner with the candidate, two male colleagues, and me, the candidate replied to everything I said by speaking only to my male colleagues. Odd bonus: the candidate got a job elsewhere and ended up being an active and effective advocate for female students. I interacted with him years later and he really had changed. Go figure.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Job market and pregnancy I am ABD and planning to go on the job market in the coming year (interdisciplinary humanities/social sciences -- I will likely apply for a lot of both TT and postdocs in a variety of departments). However I am also planning to get pregnant sometime this year. I am a pretty meticulous planner but I also know there is a lot I cannot predict about either job offers or when pregnancy will actually happen. However I would love to hear first hand experience from people who did both at the same time (as in you were the one who was pregnant not your partner): how do in-person campus visits work if you are heavily pregnant or just gave birth? Do you think it's an issue to interview when pregnant? Is this just too much and I'm being too ambitious to think I can do both a full academic job search and finish the diss and have a kid? I am open to if I don't get a job taking another year to finish writing and not file, but if I do get a job I want to be ready to file in the summer. I'm just trying to see if there is an "optimum time" to give birth with the yearly cycle of the job market or if I just have to let go of control and let timing fall where it may.
RESPONSE A: I'm neither in the US, nor do I have experience of being pregnant and on the job market, but the one point I want to raise as I've seen it often cited in other (more female focused) subs is to do with your maternity leave entitlement in a new job, in case you haven't considered it. To receive maternity leave protections under the Family and Medical Leave Act you need to have worked for your employer for 12 months. Now what the state/employer rules end up being wherever you're employed, I think it is at least worth keeping the federal rules in mind. You don't want to get a job while pregnant/become pregnant soon after and then find that you aren't protected/covered to take maternity leave.
RESPONSE B: I guess you are in the US? (As many Redditors assume this.)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: full academic job search and finish the diss and have a kid? I am open to if I don't get a job taking another year to finish writing and not file, but if I do get a job I want to be ready to file in the summer. I'm just trying to see if there is an "optimum time" to give birth with the yearly cycle of the job market or if I just have to let go of control and let timing fall where it may.
RESPONSE A: This is a great question and I’m interested in seeing the answers others have. I’m not a expert in this area, and had kids well before I completed my PhD or participated in academic job searches. But, here is my two cents… It depends on the culture of the university/department and you as a person (and couple) and your career goals. Recently I was talking to a dept head and she mentioned a previous hire who had just delivered when she was interviewing. The dept head mentioned making sure she had a comfortable place to care for her newborn, breastfeed, etc. I can 100% guarantee you this is unlikely the attitude in other places. It may just depend on who you want to work for. I don’t dwell on my kids in interviews, but I personally don’t think I’d like to work somewhere where me being married or having kids (teens in our case) is going be a problem. Also though, for me, I would rather take a different type of job in industry or non-profit than have a work culture that is anti-mothering. Academic jobs aren’t the only jobs that can make me happy/fulfill my goals. From others people’s and my own experience I will say academic interviews are quite exhausting, and the first part of a tenure track job can be grueling (again depending on position/university…). Personally, I wouldn’t have had an issue being pregnant and interviewing (on my end), but it would have been very difficult for me to work at that kind of a job the first year I had a baby. Other women handle it all beautifully.
RESPONSE B: I guess you are in the US? (As many Redditors assume this.)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: and finish the diss and have a kid? I am open to if I don't get a job taking another year to finish writing and not file, but if I do get a job I want to be ready to file in the summer. I'm just trying to see if there is an "optimum time" to give birth with the yearly cycle of the job market or if I just have to let go of control and let timing fall where it may.
RESPONSE A: I guess you are in the US? (As many Redditors assume this.)
RESPONSE B: Context: I’m based in the US and been pregnant while postdoc and on the market. FMLA and any protections and insurance you might have in your current employment/school situation is exactly the reason to do this in your final year, if your load is otherwise generally light (i.e. good progress on the diss, publications in the pipeline, and remember that applying for academic jobs is a substantial effort in and of itself to build and tailor materials if you haven’t already). More likely than not, you will need to slow down a little bit in the first and third trimesters, and please for the love of glob if there is any way, please give yourself at least a month if not six weeks to recover from the birth and the roughness that is having a newborn. Parenting subs and first hand experience say that month 2 postpartum is often the hardest. Build this in to your work schedule. I can’t imagine trying to prep for campus interviews mere weeks after delivering. And get your partner on board with this planning and balancing the load postpartum now. Do they also get parental leave? In general, I also got pregnant for a year on the market, though I didn’t get any interviews, and I took the same tack as another commenter above: that if a program has a problem with the fact I am a mother or have (or will have) children, then the department culture is not one in which I want to work. Otherwise, you might be able to negotiate in the new position for a delayed start for maternity leave purposes, but you may not be eligible for health insurance or other protections.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: too much and I'm being too ambitious to think I can do both a full academic job search and finish the diss and have a kid? I am open to if I don't get a job taking another year to finish writing and not file, but if I do get a job I want to be ready to file in the summer. I'm just trying to see if there is an "optimum time" to give birth with the yearly cycle of the job market or if I just have to let go of control and let timing fall where it may.
RESPONSE A: As a mother and a scientist I have to say I still think their is bias against pregnant women in the job market and within the field of science. I personally also wanted to take more than 6 weeks leave. I would wait until you are established in a job somewhere and done with your dissertation. Pregnancy can do some wierd things to the mind and body. For me I experienced absent mindedness, forgetfulness, nausea, leaking boobs. All things that for me would have been easier to deal with when I wasn't still trying to establish a positive work reputation I would wait a while for the baby. I think once employers know how valuable you are, they are nore likely to cut you some slack should you need it. But its your life and you should do what you think is going to be best for you. I live in the southern u.s. for context.
RESPONSE B: I was pregnant while job searching in 2020-21, applying for both academic and industry jobs. I ended up getting a job in a university teaching & learning center at 12 weeks pregnant. I checked the parental leave policies at each place I interviewed and universities were the only ones with paid leave policies for employees who were with the company for less than a year. Not every uni offered that though. So it's possible even without FMLA to get leave benefits. For the logistics, I would have been able to travel for interviews pretty much only during months 3-6 and definitely not in the 6-8 weeks after birth. My interviews were all virtual and I wasn't showing during them anyway so can't really comment on that part but as others have said a good employer won't make it an issue.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: as an undergrad? Take a certain course earlier? Not take a certain course? Pick a more interesting thesis topic? Apply to a different grad school? Collaborate with a certain professor? Try industry instead? Submit to journal x or conference y instead? Spend less time studying and more time with family? Feel free to share your thoughts. Thanks.
RESPONSE A: Undergrad publications aren't worth much. As an undergrad I would have taken more classes in my major. (I switched majors after two years and took all my major's required classes in two years.) I also would have attended a graduate conference as an undergrad--just to see what they're like. I would have attended and applied to professional conferences (starting with regional ones) earlier in grad school. I would have viewed a lot of advice as limited to that person's perspective--R1 universities are great careers but so are liberal arts and regional colleges, the job market is tough and new grad students shouldn't expect to walk into tenure track careers, research schools tend to hire Ivy League graduates, the new PhD should expect to move a couple times early in the career. I would have been more demanding earlier in my grad career, especially with administration, to make sure everything was taken care of on time. University administrations have firm deadlines on things yet administrative people are a lot of times not proactive about getting things done. I would have realized that grad school is an insular and limited part of life. It's a job not a complete way of life. Family members get sick, friends have kids, health concerns pop up, people get married. People can get really wrapped up in grad school and forget about all the other important parts of living. Otherwise... It just kinda is what it is. Grad school is a wonderful type of hell. My advisor was always pushing me to finish sooner and to get done sooner than the pace I actually set for myself. After defending my dissertation my advisor said to me that it had turned out that I was better for having taken the extra time and that my work was better for it. (I took the average amount of time in my field.)
RESPONSE B: Invest more effort into statistical methods courses. Learn R asap.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: If you could redo your entrance into academia, what would you do differently? Would you aim to publish more as an undergrad? Take a certain course earlier? Not take a certain course? Pick a more interesting thesis topic? Apply to a different grad school? Collaborate with a certain professor? Try industry instead? Submit to journal x or conference y instead? Spend less time studying and more time with family? Feel free to share your thoughts. Thanks.
RESPONSE A: Invest more effort into statistical methods courses. Learn R asap.
RESPONSE B: I would learn how to tackle my doubts earlier and approach everything with a healthy sense of perspective (not succeeding in academia is not the end of the world. At all.)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: If you could redo your entrance into academia, what would you do differently? Would you aim to publish more as an undergrad? Take a certain course earlier? Not take a certain course? Pick a more interesting thesis topic? Apply to a different grad school? Collaborate with a certain professor? Try industry instead? Submit to journal x or conference y instead? Spend less time studying and more time with family? Feel free to share your thoughts. Thanks.
RESPONSE A: Invest more effort into statistical methods courses. Learn R asap.
RESPONSE B: I jumped on every project I could and ended up not having a very narrow focus. I would say no a bit more.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: If you could redo your entrance into academia, what would you do differently? Would you aim to publish more as an undergrad? Take a certain course earlier? Not take a certain course? Pick a more interesting thesis topic? Apply to a different grad school? Collaborate with a certain professor? Try industry instead? Submit to journal x or conference y instead? Spend less time studying and more time with family? Feel free to share your thoughts. Thanks.
RESPONSE A: Just to add on to OP's questions, how soon after undergrad did you apply for your graduate program(s) and would you have done it earlier (straight out of school if you waited) or later (taken some time off first if you went straight on)?
RESPONSE B: Invest more effort into statistical methods courses. Learn R asap.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: take a certain course? Pick a more interesting thesis topic? Apply to a different grad school? Collaborate with a certain professor? Try industry instead? Submit to journal x or conference y instead? Spend less time studying and more time with family? Feel free to share your thoughts. Thanks.
RESPONSE A: Undergrad publications aren't worth much. As an undergrad I would have taken more classes in my major. (I switched majors after two years and took all my major's required classes in two years.) I also would have attended a graduate conference as an undergrad--just to see what they're like. I would have attended and applied to professional conferences (starting with regional ones) earlier in grad school. I would have viewed a lot of advice as limited to that person's perspective--R1 universities are great careers but so are liberal arts and regional colleges, the job market is tough and new grad students shouldn't expect to walk into tenure track careers, research schools tend to hire Ivy League graduates, the new PhD should expect to move a couple times early in the career. I would have been more demanding earlier in my grad career, especially with administration, to make sure everything was taken care of on time. University administrations have firm deadlines on things yet administrative people are a lot of times not proactive about getting things done. I would have realized that grad school is an insular and limited part of life. It's a job not a complete way of life. Family members get sick, friends have kids, health concerns pop up, people get married. People can get really wrapped up in grad school and forget about all the other important parts of living. Otherwise... It just kinda is what it is. Grad school is a wonderful type of hell. My advisor was always pushing me to finish sooner and to get done sooner than the pace I actually set for myself. After defending my dissertation my advisor said to me that it had turned out that I was better for having taken the extra time and that my work was better for it. (I took the average amount of time in my field.)
RESPONSE B: I jumped on every project I could and ended up not having a very narrow focus. I would say no a bit more.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: but did give me a long detailed response via e-mail. Is this standard especially for teaching focused institutions? I feel like it's hard to negotiate / even accept when I don't know the full details of the offer so that I can think about everything. Plus, if I am to accept, how do I even know what all I am accepting if there's no contract or details shown to me? I'm worried about accepting and needing to turn the other options down without having seen what I'll even be signing! I know they will probably do everything in good faith, but it still worries me a bit. I do like both of these jobs. I also had another campus visit, we'll call School C, that I notified that I had an offer who said they will update me soon as well after they finish their campus interviews.
RESPONSE A: Negotiate with both, they might have very different approaches. Engage with young TT in both and see how they've been treated
RESPONSE B: Practice varies. My SLAC will negotiate over the phone/email, but we then send a detailed written contract-- as a chair I don't close a search until the signed contract has been received. It's not inappropriate to ask for details in writing, but I also wouldn't assumed resistance is nefarious. Congrats on the dual offers! Among things to negotiate beyond salary and teaching load (which we *will not* negotiate as they are set in the job description) can include: office and lab space, startup funds (not just for STEM fields!), additional travel funding for first year(s), moving expenses, summer research support, IT support (if you want a MAC on my campus you'd better negotiate it up front as we only buy PCs by policy), library acquisitions (that journal you can't live without), special support staff needs if any, summer teaching assignment (if wanted/not wanted), course assignments for first year, etc. All of those things should be spelled out in writing-- what if the dean or chair who hires you leaves? Without a written agreement there may be no way to prove anyone agreed to give you a MAC with a 32" screen and two research assistants your first summer.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Which math topics and how good do you need to be in them in order to do a PhD in Economics? I was wondering, for someone who wants to do a PhD in Economics, which math topics should they be able to handle? How good do they need to be in those type of math topics? I hear that if you are not good in a certain type of math then you will inevitably fail a PhD in Economics.
RESPONSE A: Game theory, statistics, calculus, some linear algebra. More importantly, it depends on the kind of work you end up doing, as in, whether it is theoretical or applied. You might do more empirical stuff and use a lot of softwares, or work on solving fundamental problems in economics. You should look at books like Mathematics for Economists by Blume and Simon.
RESPONSE B: I took linear algebra, diffeq, calculus through III, and baby statistics before enrolling in my PhD program. This was just barely enough math to squeak through my first year. I wish that I'd taken real analysis, and maybe math stats.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Which math topics and how good do you need to be in them in order to do a PhD in Economics? I was wondering, for someone who wants to do a PhD in Economics, which math topics should they be able to handle? How good do they need to be in those type of math topics? I hear that if you are not good in a certain type of math then you will inevitably fail a PhD in Economics.
RESPONSE A: As far as skills you will have to have when finishing a PhD, though not necessarily starting: Required: linear algebra, statistics, econometrics, calc 1 Helpful: higher levels of calculus, real analysis, set theory
RESPONSE B: To do economics at a research level, you need a reasonable grasp on multivariate calculus and optimization and calculus-based probability and statistical theory. That would buy you an understanding of 95+% of research papers—my dissertation didn’t use anything more complicated. Most of economics is built, fundamentally, on the logic of calculus. (I think people always undersuggest probability theory. It’s so, so, so helpful for so many things to have a good understanding of probability, it’s used so often) To get through the PhD, at some point you’ll have to learn linear algebra, real analysis and measure theory, a little bit of topology, and a little bit of differential equations. It helps to have learned this in advance, but programs provide catch-up “math camp” in the summer before. The main uses of analysis and topology are in first-year micro theory, I’ve never used it since.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: . Some of the frequently asked questions included "Why did you spend so long completing your PhD", "What is your motivation like", "Why are there gaps in your resume", "How do we trust you to finish our projects in time", "We need someone who can work hard". I really don't want to use my personal failures as excuses for myself. I should have pushed myself over the line earlier. But what happened has happened. I just want to find a way to dig myself out of this hole. Do I still have a chance in academia? Do you think there will be principle investigators out there willing to give me a chance?
RESPONSE A: Well, this was more or less my situation as well. Five year PhD, with the last two years, as you put it, part time. Then came a two-year gap, in which I sent out lots of applications for a postdoc. Got only 4 interviews, but finally landed a position in Germany. My postdoc basically feels like a second PhD, which is a bit tough, because now I'm older and competing with more experienced researchers, but all in all, I'd say worth it. I wanted to stick to academia, and it worked out. I believe you'd be okay too. Just don't give up, and accept that your path might be a bit more difficult than the average.
RESPONSE B: It's a fine line when you acknowledge career interruptions. I once heard a professor talking about rejecting someone from a fellowship because she had this long sob story about how she had 3 kids and an elderly mother to take care of and that's why she had no publications recently. I thought it was totally unfair that he rejected her for that, and he explained that it's about how you frame it. He said he'd seen someone else get funding who had framed it like "I had a baby and went on maternity leave for x months. I published one paper after that. If I had been full time with no babies that level of productivity would have equalled 3 papers. In my field the top scholars are publishing on average 3.2 papers. I'm amazing" I don't know if that helps you, it's tough out there! Chin up.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Struggling to start my postdoctoral career due to disastrous PhD I have a PhD in Cell Biology from an Australian institution, but the journey wasn't the most ideal. Took 4 years longer than the norm due to many seen and unforeseen circumstances. Talking about this still brings back demons from the past. I never really talked about this to anyone let alone put these thoughts online. Just to summarize my PhD: Project changes, ostracized in a collaborators lab, personal issues, problems within the advisory team, overworking and not sleeping enough. Gradually snowballed into long periods of self doubt and defeat. Converted my PhD to part time, spent a few years adrift doing anything but science or research, and finally conjured up the energy to cross the line and submit my thesis. Fast forward to my job search. I have regained my passion for science and research, and would like to remain in academia or some capacity of scientific research. I actually miss going into the lab, leading an interesting scientific project, develop new techniques, and publish more papers. Spent the past 1 year applying for research positions, from postdoctoral positions to research assistants, research technicians and research officer roles at various Australian universities and industry. 95% of the applications failed to make it past the first stage, 5% made it into interviews but always ended up unsuccessful. Some of the frequently asked questions included "Why did you spend so long completing your PhD", "What is your motivation like", "Why are there gaps in your resume", "How do we trust you to finish our projects in time", "We need someone who can work hard". I really don't want to use my personal failures as excuses for myself. I should have pushed myself over the line earlier. But what happened has happened. I just want to find a way to dig myself out of this hole. Do I still have a chance in academia? Do you think there will be principle investigators out there willing to give me a chance?
RESPONSE A: Honestly, you'll have to consider leaving Australia.
RESPONSE B: You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. Keep applying. You will likely fit someone's bill at some point.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Struggling to start my postdoctoral career due to disastrous PhD I have a PhD in Cell Biology from an Australian institution, but the journey wasn't the most ideal. Took 4 years longer than the norm due to many seen and unforeseen circumstances. Talking about this still brings back demons from the past. I never really talked about this to anyone let alone put these thoughts online. Just to summarize my PhD: Project changes, ostracized in a collaborators lab, personal issues, problems within the advisory team, overworking and not sleeping enough. Gradually snowballed into long periods of self doubt and defeat. Converted my PhD to part time, spent a few years adrift doing anything but science or research, and finally conjured up the energy to cross the line and submit my thesis. Fast forward to my job search. I have regained my passion for science and research, and would like to remain in academia or some capacity of scientific research. I actually miss going into the lab, leading an interesting scientific project, develop new techniques, and publish more papers. Spent the past 1 year applying for research positions, from postdoctoral positions to research assistants, research technicians and research officer roles at various Australian universities and industry. 95% of the applications failed to make it past the first stage, 5% made it into interviews but always ended up unsuccessful. Some of the frequently asked questions included "Why did you spend so long completing your PhD", "What is your motivation like", "Why are there gaps in your resume", "How do we trust you to finish our projects in time", "We need someone who can work hard". I really don't want to use my personal failures as excuses for myself. I should have pushed myself over the line earlier. But what happened has happened. I just want to find a way to dig myself out of this hole. Do I still have a chance in academia? Do you think there will be principle investigators out there willing to give me a chance?
RESPONSE A: I agree, you can make it. I'd say maybe look at some non-standard postdocs, maybe ones involved in public outreach or private-public fusions.
RESPONSE B: Honestly, you'll have to consider leaving Australia.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: unforeseen circumstances. Talking about this still brings back demons from the past. I never really talked about this to anyone let alone put these thoughts online. Just to summarize my PhD: Project changes, ostracized in a collaborators lab, personal issues, problems within the advisory team, overworking and not sleeping enough. Gradually snowballed into long periods of self doubt and defeat. Converted my PhD to part time, spent a few years adrift doing anything but science or research, and finally conjured up the energy to cross the line and submit my thesis. Fast forward to my job search. I have regained my passion for science and research, and would like to remain in academia or some capacity of scientific research. I actually miss going into the lab, leading an interesting scientific project, develop new techniques, and publish more papers. Spent the past 1 year applying for research positions, from postdoctoral positions to research assistants, research technicians and research officer roles at various Australian universities and industry. 95% of the applications failed to make it past the first stage, 5% made it into interviews but always ended up unsuccessful. Some of the frequently asked questions included "Why did you spend so long completing your PhD", "What is your motivation like", "Why are there gaps in your resume", "How do we trust you to finish our projects in time", "We need someone who can work hard". I really don't want to use my personal failures as excuses for myself. I should have pushed myself over the line earlier. But what happened has happened. I just want to find a way to dig myself out of this hole. Do I still have a chance in academia? Do you think there will be principle investigators out there willing to give me a chance?
RESPONSE A: You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. Keep applying. You will likely fit someone's bill at some point.
RESPONSE B: The fact that you’re getting some interviews means that some people are willing to look past any perceived flaws in your CV. You may have to just keep trying to find the right fit. If you think there’s a problem with your interviewing skills, maybe you could do some mock interviews with colleagues or acquaintances and ask them for their honest feedback. Good luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: back demons from the past. I never really talked about this to anyone let alone put these thoughts online. Just to summarize my PhD: Project changes, ostracized in a collaborators lab, personal issues, problems within the advisory team, overworking and not sleeping enough. Gradually snowballed into long periods of self doubt and defeat. Converted my PhD to part time, spent a few years adrift doing anything but science or research, and finally conjured up the energy to cross the line and submit my thesis. Fast forward to my job search. I have regained my passion for science and research, and would like to remain in academia or some capacity of scientific research. I actually miss going into the lab, leading an interesting scientific project, develop new techniques, and publish more papers. Spent the past 1 year applying for research positions, from postdoctoral positions to research assistants, research technicians and research officer roles at various Australian universities and industry. 95% of the applications failed to make it past the first stage, 5% made it into interviews but always ended up unsuccessful. Some of the frequently asked questions included "Why did you spend so long completing your PhD", "What is your motivation like", "Why are there gaps in your resume", "How do we trust you to finish our projects in time", "We need someone who can work hard". I really don't want to use my personal failures as excuses for myself. I should have pushed myself over the line earlier. But what happened has happened. I just want to find a way to dig myself out of this hole. Do I still have a chance in academia? Do you think there will be principle investigators out there willing to give me a chance?
RESPONSE A: I agree, you can make it. I'd say maybe look at some non-standard postdocs, maybe ones involved in public outreach or private-public fusions.
RESPONSE B: The fact that you’re getting some interviews means that some people are willing to look past any perceived flaws in your CV. You may have to just keep trying to find the right fit. If you think there’s a problem with your interviewing skills, maybe you could do some mock interviews with colleagues or acquaintances and ask them for their honest feedback. Good luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What are your tricks for travelling to conferences on a tight budget?
RESPONSE A: See if you can volunteer at the conference - - they often need students to help and will give your free registration, in my experience. Airbnb is usually much cheaper than a conference hotel, you can also look at hostels.
RESPONSE B: I've always stayed in an AirBnB or in a hotel with at least two other people. Sure, that means I slept on a couch in an apartment that smelled more like weed than weed does, but it was heckin cheap.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What are your tricks for travelling to conferences on a tight budget?
RESPONSE A: * Bring high protein snacks to stay awake and sub for lunch. * Just in case the conference doesn't have free coffee, bring some instant coffee. * Learn the mass transit. * Be prepared to walk to eat, and don't be above spending $5 at subway over whatever over-priced nonsense is in the hotel.
RESPONSE B: AirBnB! Cheaper than a hotel and you don't have to eat it since you have a full kitchen!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What are your tricks for travelling to conferences on a tight budget?
RESPONSE A: I think Expedia has a function where you can search for hotels by an address; you can give the conference hotel as the address and see how far other (cheaper) hotels are. Use public transportation when available, and if not, Uber is usually much cheaper than taxis. I have brought food with me, especially bars I could eat for breakfast. Sometimes there are groceries near the conference, but not always. Most conferences have receptions with enough food for a meal.
RESPONSE B: * Bring high protein snacks to stay awake and sub for lunch. * Just in case the conference doesn't have free coffee, bring some instant coffee. * Learn the mass transit. * Be prepared to walk to eat, and don't be above spending $5 at subway over whatever over-priced nonsense is in the hotel.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: this and always helped me get through it all. He even stopped me from dropping out at the worst phase, and gave me room to think about it through. And if it wasn't for that, I would've dropped out a two years ago. You see, I'm in a dilemma. I'm afraid I might not have the qualifications for industry or academia if I follow down this path, but at the same time, I really don't want to change advisors. What would you have done if you were in my shoes? What advise do you have for me?
RESPONSE A: That’s a really difficult decision to make. Nothing is likely to feel good because there are pros and cons to staying or going. Firstly, are you absolutely sure you want to pursue a PhD? You can do a lot with a masters. If you aren’t convinced you need this PhD or feel that it compromises your health and well being, don’t do it. If you’re sure, how close are you realistically right now to finishing? If you think you’ve got a good portion of your dissertation down and just need to muddle through with the help and advice of other mentors, I’d recommend you stay. If you have nothing to show for your work and you don’t think you can finish where you are now, you lose nothing from finding a different mentor. Your situation is not about your current PI. It doesn’t matter how much of a saint he is or how much you like him. Think hard and pragmatically about what is the best decision for you and the career you want. You need publications but more than that, you need a clear direction in your work to graduate. If your PI isn’t concerned about your position then he isn’t prioritizing you enough. I think if you talk to other students, post docs and PIs, you might get a better feel for what is right for you. Good luck!
RESPONSE B: I think you are overthinking the role of your advisor too much. In the end you have to take ownership of your phd, you will be the expert. You are already far in your phd. You cannot expect him to hold your hand.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: If you weren't in academia, what would you be doing? A simple question with some maybe not so simple answers.
RESPONSE A: Making bank in industry while having a healthy work-life balance.
RESPONSE B: I was working at a comic book shop when I got called back for my first (and only) interview in academia. If I hadn't landed that job, I would probably be managing the comic shop.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: If you weren't in academia, what would you be doing? A simple question with some maybe not so simple answers.
RESPONSE A: teaching/applied research at a "university of applied science" I guess... Tenure track ends this summer, as of september I'm out :(
RESPONSE B: My dream is to be a park ranger. Sadly astrophysics has gotten in the way.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: If you weren't in academia, what would you be doing? A simple question with some maybe not so simple answers.
RESPONSE A: sleeping
RESPONSE B: My dream is to be a park ranger. Sadly astrophysics has gotten in the way.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: If you weren't in academia, what would you be doing? A simple question with some maybe not so simple answers.
RESPONSE A: teaching/applied research at a "university of applied science" I guess... Tenure track ends this summer, as of september I'm out :(
RESPONSE B: Teaching high school-- *shudder*-- one of the most difficult jobs in the world.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: If you weren't in academia, what would you be doing? A simple question with some maybe not so simple answers.
RESPONSE A: Teaching high school-- *shudder*-- one of the most difficult jobs in the world.
RESPONSE B: sleeping
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Do you have any tips on quickly but efficiently reading academic texts? University started back this week. Last year I really struggled with reading so much content each week. It takes up so much time. Give me all your tips, please!
RESPONSE A: Comes with practice. The more time you spend reading, the faster you'll get
RESPONSE B: If you're taking STEM: 1. Read the abstract 2. Carefully look at the figures 3. Go to the main text to answer the questions that the figures have raised. 4. Read the conclusion
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How long would it actually take to learn programming from zero? I'm a synthetic biology PhD student and I have recently realised the strong need for dry lab skills! Ive always had an interest for modeling biological systems, but the thought of learning programming seems overwhelming. Also knowing that it probably will take so much time to only achieve average coding skills makes me feel like I will never be able to achieve novelty/ publication standard understanding. Do you think I'm just being scared or should I concentrate on what I'm good at?
RESPONSE A: No one has really answered the question properly. The question was ‘how long’ not ‘how hard’
RESPONSE B: I’m going to disagree with others’ advice here and say that it would be most effective for you to take an intro to programming course. This is because although you can learn most coding by working on a project and googling, even knowing what to google (keywords etc) is challenging for complete beginners. Taking an intro course gives you the mental representation and vocabulary to become self-sustainable and helps you progress much faster. There are many free ones offered on Edx/Coursera etc, and since Python is probably the most useful and beginner-friendly language, perhaps start with that. It’s going to take a while. For me it took around a year of frequent coding to become comfortable and two years to become relatively fluent for research purpose.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How long would it actually take to learn programming from zero? I'm a synthetic biology PhD student and I have recently realised the strong need for dry lab skills! Ive always had an interest for modeling biological systems, but the thought of learning programming seems overwhelming. Also knowing that it probably will take so much time to only achieve average coding skills makes me feel like I will never be able to achieve novelty/ publication standard understanding. Do you think I'm just being scared or should I concentrate on what I'm good at?
RESPONSE A: programming is like cooking. you can feed yourself easily, but cooking good food takes theory, practice, and intuition. sure, you can "pick it up quickly", but getting good at writing correct, efficient, understandable software takes time. I see a lot of HPC code that was written by domain experts that is correct, but that's about it. while research code has different demands than commercial products, you may be working on a model for years.
RESPONSE B: I’m going to disagree with others’ advice here and say that it would be most effective for you to take an intro to programming course. This is because although you can learn most coding by working on a project and googling, even knowing what to google (keywords etc) is challenging for complete beginners. Taking an intro course gives you the mental representation and vocabulary to become self-sustainable and helps you progress much faster. There are many free ones offered on Edx/Coursera etc, and since Python is probably the most useful and beginner-friendly language, perhaps start with that. It’s going to take a while. For me it took around a year of frequent coding to become comfortable and two years to become relatively fluent for research purpose.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: student and I have recently realised the strong need for dry lab skills! Ive always had an interest for modeling biological systems, but the thought of learning programming seems overwhelming. Also knowing that it probably will take so much time to only achieve average coding skills makes me feel like I will never be able to achieve novelty/ publication standard understanding. Do you think I'm just being scared or should I concentrate on what I'm good at?
RESPONSE A: I’m going to disagree with others’ advice here and say that it would be most effective for you to take an intro to programming course. This is because although you can learn most coding by working on a project and googling, even knowing what to google (keywords etc) is challenging for complete beginners. Taking an intro course gives you the mental representation and vocabulary to become self-sustainable and helps you progress much faster. There are many free ones offered on Edx/Coursera etc, and since Python is probably the most useful and beginner-friendly language, perhaps start with that. It’s going to take a while. For me it took around a year of frequent coding to become comfortable and two years to become relatively fluent for research purpose.
RESPONSE B: Programming is not difficult for anyone with reasonable problem solving skills (something I'd expect from a PhD student anyway). As far as publication is concerned, coding is a tool to aid research for us and we can often get away with writing slightly sub-optimal code as long as it doesn't have any errors, works well and presents a novel idea. If it can help you and your research in any significant way, I'd strongly suggest you give it a shot. Besides, it's also quite rare to find as much time to learn new stuff in the future as you have during your PhD years. I'd suggest you start by focussing on a relevant problem and learn to code on the job. All you really need is reasonable googling skills, there's quite a bit of good help online. These days, a lot of researchers also publish their code online. You can use them as a springboard and start yourself off. Once you get comfortable, you can start learning about good coding practices and efficient coding strategies and incorporate them into your code.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How long would it actually take to learn programming from zero? I'm a synthetic biology PhD student and I have recently realised the strong need for dry lab skills! Ive always had an interest for modeling biological systems, but the thought of learning programming seems overwhelming. Also knowing that it probably will take so much time to only achieve average coding skills makes me feel like I will never be able to achieve novelty/ publication standard understanding. Do you think I'm just being scared or should I concentrate on what I'm good at?
RESPONSE A: Programming is not difficult for anyone with reasonable problem solving skills (something I'd expect from a PhD student anyway). As far as publication is concerned, coding is a tool to aid research for us and we can often get away with writing slightly sub-optimal code as long as it doesn't have any errors, works well and presents a novel idea. If it can help you and your research in any significant way, I'd strongly suggest you give it a shot. Besides, it's also quite rare to find as much time to learn new stuff in the future as you have during your PhD years. I'd suggest you start by focussing on a relevant problem and learn to code on the job. All you really need is reasonable googling skills, there's quite a bit of good help online. These days, a lot of researchers also publish their code online. You can use them as a springboard and start yourself off. Once you get comfortable, you can start learning about good coding practices and efficient coding strategies and incorporate them into your code.
RESPONSE B: No one has really answered the question properly. The question was ‘how long’ not ‘how hard’
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How long would it actually take to learn programming from zero? I'm a synthetic biology PhD student and I have recently realised the strong need for dry lab skills! Ive always had an interest for modeling biological systems, but the thought of learning programming seems overwhelming. Also knowing that it probably will take so much time to only achieve average coding skills makes me feel like I will never be able to achieve novelty/ publication standard understanding. Do you think I'm just being scared or should I concentrate on what I'm good at?
RESPONSE A: Programming is not difficult for anyone with reasonable problem solving skills (something I'd expect from a PhD student anyway). As far as publication is concerned, coding is a tool to aid research for us and we can often get away with writing slightly sub-optimal code as long as it doesn't have any errors, works well and presents a novel idea. If it can help you and your research in any significant way, I'd strongly suggest you give it a shot. Besides, it's also quite rare to find as much time to learn new stuff in the future as you have during your PhD years. I'd suggest you start by focussing on a relevant problem and learn to code on the job. All you really need is reasonable googling skills, there's quite a bit of good help online. These days, a lot of researchers also publish their code online. You can use them as a springboard and start yourself off. Once you get comfortable, you can start learning about good coding practices and efficient coding strategies and incorporate them into your code.
RESPONSE B: programming is like cooking. you can feed yourself easily, but cooking good food takes theory, practice, and intuition. sure, you can "pick it up quickly", but getting good at writing correct, efficient, understandable software takes time. I see a lot of HPC code that was written by domain experts that is correct, but that's about it. while research code has different demands than commercial products, you may be working on a model for years.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I was part of a successful funding proposal, but I was not allowed to be "named" as a co-investigator. How can I put this on my CV anyway? I was part of a successful funding proposal. I provided a lot of scientific input into the proposal, but because of my employer's regulations I was not allowed to be named on the grant*. Despite this, I want to include the grant under "funding awarded" on my CV. How should I indicate my contribution on my CV? I'm picturing some kind of parenthetical statement or something...thanks in advance for any suggestions! *Yes, this is absurd, but there's nothing I can do about it. You are only allowed to officially apply for funding if you are already funded...I wish I was joking.
RESPONSE A: My PI has me do this on my CV for grants I helped out with but am not named on due to my postdoc status, to show that I both have grant-writing experience and have contributed to successful applications: ***Grant Writing Experience*** **National Institutes of Health** *Title*: GRANT TITLE *Role*: Co-authored grant proposal, including significant contributions to specific aims, methodology, paradigm design, and supplemental documents. *Funding term*: July 2017-June 2018 *Award amount*: $999,999,999,999,999
RESPONSE B: Are you a grad student, RA, faculty member? Part of a college or university? Did you help write the grant, or just provide data/figures? Providing some scientific direction may warrant inclusion, but not always. Grad students/RAs can't apply for funding, but I've seen them included on grants as an "additional applicant", "knowledge user" or similar wording, depends on the granting agency. Ask the person who wrote the grant, because ultimately, they'll have to back up your statement that you significantly contributed to the grant if asked. And they may very well be asked about it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Your best/worst conference experiences? Hi all, U.K. undergrad here - I'm part of the organising committee for a finance conference taking place early next year. As someone who obviously hasn't had much personal experience at conferences/recruitment fairs or similar - it'd be great to know what the sub's experiences have been of those kind of events (I know a lot take place in the world of academia) in the past and anything particularly good/bad that stuck with you - right down to the smallest details! Thank you in advance :)
RESPONSE A: I've only had one conference, which was a mix of a good and bad experience. I think the biggest thing I wished was different was giving us more break times in between all the events, and maybe fewer events overall. I understand the value of having so many talks, but at the same time, conferences are also places to foster networking. I felt like I didn't have the time or energy to do so at the end of each day. Additionally, it wasn't very accessible for people with joint issues, as we would basically have like 5 minutes to run between conference rooms on the other end of the building or up/down 2 flights of stairs, so more time in between would've immensely helped with that.
RESPONSE B: Worst- a PI I had just met asked me if I wanted to go back to his hotel to have sex with him when I was an undergrad.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Your best/worst conference experiences? Hi all, U.K. undergrad here - I'm part of the organising committee for a finance conference taking place early next year. As someone who obviously hasn't had much personal experience at conferences/recruitment fairs or similar - it'd be great to know what the sub's experiences have been of those kind of events (I know a lot take place in the world of academia) in the past and anything particularly good/bad that stuck with you - right down to the smallest details! Thank you in advance :)
RESPONSE A: Worst- a PI I had just met asked me if I wanted to go back to his hotel to have sex with him when I was an undergrad.
RESPONSE B: Are you asking what we expect? Or what we wish had been different? I’m trying to understand if you’re asking about our personal experiences AT a conference or if you’re asking about we experience THE conference. Does that make sense? Like the difference between the time I had a PowerPoint with spelling errors and how awful that was to see on the projection vs. the lack of guests at an 8am panel because the organizers, for some awful reason, thought people would want to be at a panel that early. One is me, the other is the conference organizers.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Hi all, U.K. undergrad here - I'm part of the organising committee for a finance conference taking place early next year. As someone who obviously hasn't had much personal experience at conferences/recruitment fairs or similar - it'd be great to know what the sub's experiences have been of those kind of events (I know a lot take place in the world of academia) in the past and anything particularly good/bad that stuck with you - right down to the smallest details! Thank you in advance :)
RESPONSE A: Worst at a conference itself: they had barely any food for vegetarians or vegans. The first night included a dinner with a massive buffet. The vegetarian option was a salad with cheese in it. For the vegans, it was grapes and bread. Worst personal experience: Gave a 20-minute presentation during a doctoral consortium. Spent the next 40 minutes listening to everyone tear my project apart. The worst part is that they had major problems with my project itself, which I had nothing to do with. So I couldn't even defend myself. One guy started laughing at me saying that he'd be embarrassed to have me as his student.
RESPONSE B: The most important thing for my experience at a conference mostly based around talks IMO is having humane timings that are rigorously kept to. You can't have sessions overrunning so participants get no coffee breaks, or 15 minutes to eat lunch. Participants need to be able to efficiently get food and coffee in breaks. I would much prefer an option for not-great food that is faster than needing to sit for an hour and a half to get a sit-down meal when I really need to catch up on emails, work on my talk or take some personal time in the lunch break. A good conference dinner and some evening activities are also great for building connections. For example I've been to some good evening poster sessions with freely flowing local beer and nibbles facilitating a well attended poster session with lots of great exchange. Ideally posters should be hanging around in the coffee break area for a couple of days before the session so people get a chance to look around and decide which posters they specifically want to talk to people at.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Your best/worst conference experiences? Hi all, U.K. undergrad here - I'm part of the organising committee for a finance conference taking place early next year. As someone who obviously hasn't had much personal experience at conferences/recruitment fairs or similar - it'd be great to know what the sub's experiences have been of those kind of events (I know a lot take place in the world of academia) in the past and anything particularly good/bad that stuck with you - right down to the smallest details! Thank you in advance :)
RESPONSE A: Worst at a conference itself: they had barely any food for vegetarians or vegans. The first night included a dinner with a massive buffet. The vegetarian option was a salad with cheese in it. For the vegans, it was grapes and bread. Worst personal experience: Gave a 20-minute presentation during a doctoral consortium. Spent the next 40 minutes listening to everyone tear my project apart. The worst part is that they had major problems with my project itself, which I had nothing to do with. So I couldn't even defend myself. One guy started laughing at me saying that he'd be embarrassed to have me as his student.
RESPONSE B: In my own experience smaller conferences are a much better experience than large conferences (although I haven't been to very many due to the pandemic). The main advantage of going to a conference is to network, form collaborations, and get feedback on your work. It's very hard to do that at some of the big conferences when you have 10,000+ attendees spread out over hundreds of sessions. So if you're organising one I would say make sure there are plenty of opportunities for attendees to interact and ask each other questions, rather than just having an endless blitz of presentations and posters.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Your best/worst conference experiences? Hi all, U.K. undergrad here - I'm part of the organising committee for a finance conference taking place early next year. As someone who obviously hasn't had much personal experience at conferences/recruitment fairs or similar - it'd be great to know what the sub's experiences have been of those kind of events (I know a lot take place in the world of academia) in the past and anything particularly good/bad that stuck with you - right down to the smallest details! Thank you in advance :)
RESPONSE A: Worst at a conference itself: they had barely any food for vegetarians or vegans. The first night included a dinner with a massive buffet. The vegetarian option was a salad with cheese in it. For the vegans, it was grapes and bread. Worst personal experience: Gave a 20-minute presentation during a doctoral consortium. Spent the next 40 minutes listening to everyone tear my project apart. The worst part is that they had major problems with my project itself, which I had nothing to do with. So I couldn't even defend myself. One guy started laughing at me saying that he'd be embarrassed to have me as his student.
RESPONSE B: I've only had one conference, which was a mix of a good and bad experience. I think the biggest thing I wished was different was giving us more break times in between all the events, and maybe fewer events overall. I understand the value of having so many talks, but at the same time, conferences are also places to foster networking. I felt like I didn't have the time or energy to do so at the end of each day. Additionally, it wasn't very accessible for people with joint issues, as we would basically have like 5 minutes to run between conference rooms on the other end of the building or up/down 2 flights of stairs, so more time in between would've immensely helped with that.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: negotiating salary as a postdoc? Hi all! I just received my PhD from a top 10 US institution, and am going abroad (Netherlands) for a postdoc position in biology/biomed/developmental biology. The typical salary for a postdoc just receiving their PhD was shown to me on a salary pay scale and different "levels". However, I did have a year of experience directly related to the postdoc position before my PhD, and I feel that the institution I received my degree in also might carry some weight to maybe go up a level or so on the pay scale. Long story short, do postdocs usually negotiate their salary? I just have a feeling that I don't want to come across as too greedy or demanding right away, etc. (a lot of posts in this subreddit are specific to professors). Any way to phrase the question or proposition would be helpful too! Just curious! Thanks a lot.
RESPONSE A: When considering seniority, normally they will only count years post-PhD. As it is the Netherlands, though, remember that this is no longer a "training" position, but a proper salaried job which will include all the usual medical and dental benefits. In addition, there will likely be a contribution towards your retirement funds, unemployment insurance, etc. Most often these additional contributions will not figure into the headline salary you are offered, so it would be worth examining them to get an idea the value of what you are being offered. Consider especially the retirement funds, as you might be able to withdraw these if you leave NL/Europe at a later date (which may or may not be possible depending on the fund). Some other info: Major contract to support new pan-EU pension fund
RESPONSE B: It can be done, no harm in asking. Just be aware that in Europe pay scales tend to be standardised and difficult to move between without meeting specific criteria.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Academia vs Industry Why is it harder to get a job in academia compared to industry sectors although the salaries in academia are significantly lower?
RESPONSE A: Fewer academic jobs means the academic supply-demand supply is lower. Academic jobs are more desirable to a number of people per the number of available ones.
RESPONSE B: Sample bias. Professors have never been in industry, and they are the only people who train new Ph. D.s. So they tell all of their students "go be a professor - that is what success is". All the students go out and compete for the tiny number of jobs, driving down salaries. Those that catch on enter a marketplace that actually values their intellectual abilities and ability to run projects, and pays them for it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: in this equation. I understand it is not fair for me to ask her to move. But at the same time I know this (academic) job opportunity probably won't appear ever again. How would you solve this conundrum? Any advice on how to ponder between the different aspects, or how to take decisions in this regard? How should one navigate the different scenarios? Any take on this is very much welcomed.
RESPONSE A: I can only speak for myself. A few years ago I did decide to stay in my country to pursue love. I do not regret anything, but I am bummed a little bit that I didn't go in the end. We are not together anymore & I didn't go to my first choice school. Would have been an interesting adventure. I have to live with this decision forever, which is fine... but... Dunno. After the break up I made the decision that I would listen to me first. You have to live with you forever, that is a fact. Perhaps it is a good idea to think about where your relationship is, what do you both want in the long run etc. Perhaps you can work something out. It is indeed not fair to ask her to move, but it is not fair for you to stay. The academic position sounds more attractive. A once in a lifetime opportunity. If it was me on either ends, I would try to make it work. I would follow you. I want my partner to catch an opportunity like this and work it out if there is something there for me. If not, well, then we can always move back. You're still young. For a little bit, at least. A conundrum indeed...
RESPONSE B: I don't know how much advice I can give you, so I'll tell my story. There was a time when I was nearing the end of my program and my (then) girlfriend was looking for something else career-wise. The question was if one of us got a good position in another city would the other be willing to move and figure out a career in the new location. We both answered yes. She ended up finding a better position and I moved with her and eventually figured out a job/career, but I knew she would have done the same for me.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: policy to be that fellows must work the full 20 hours, and justify it by claiming that this encourages PhD fellows to be "more involved with the department". So now as far as the PhD fellow is concerned there is no difference in having the fellowship or not, but the department gets a bunch of half price TAs. I am a TA, so this has doubled my work load (which was already more than 10 hours per week) and I already worked 7 days a week to try and get enough publications =[ Part of the reason I came to this university was because I would have more time to work on research because of the fellowship, and now that is gone. In your opinion, does this sound like a reasonable decision for the department to have made? Also, is this technically allowed? Because my university is not allowed to spend grant overhead money on TAs, and it seems that is exactly what they are doing. I understand that universities are experiencing budget cuts and must cut costs, but it doesn't really seem fair to target already overworked PhD students in this way while more and more administrators with giant salaries are being hired.
RESPONSE A: This is university-specific. My university would not allow a department to make this decision, and in general, a fellowship is different from an RA or TA in that you are not required to do RA or TA work to receive it. I would ask the Dean of your Graduate School (assuming there is one) about it.
RESPONSE B: The real scam is the fact that the fellowship doesn't cover 100% of your tuition. The department changing the terms on the limit of hours you spend on TAing is a different thing. As others have said, that limit is usually set by the school, not the department itself. You should also check out your hourly rate in either case, most schools I have passed through have per hour rate for everything. So if you are now doing 20 hours instead of 10 hours, then I would expect double the salary. ​ \> Because my university is not allowed to spend grant overhead money on TAs This I find extremely weird. Grant overhead can be spend on anything, that is the whole point of every grant having indirect costs, is way to give money to the school with almost no strings attached.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: ego that I had developed, and humbling myself. Last semester was better, and because I had kept myself relatively afloat in prior years, I'm currently sitting on a 3.05 GPA. I really want to get into research again, not because it's what I'm supposed to do, but because I genuinely enjoyed doing it back in high school. In addition, while I plan on going into the industry, I want to give research another shot, because I want to make sure I don't have second doubts about post-graduation plans. Since I'm a second semester senior who hasn't done any research in four years and who has a mediocre GPA, I realize that I don't have a competitive advantage. I have a list of lab P.I.'s I want to e-mail, but I'm not sure what I can do to distinguish myself. I'm also not sure if I should explain why I *just* started looking for research as a second semester senior, because that would open up the can of worms seen above. Any advice on how I can approach this situation would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: If you’re close with any professors or know your interests align just reach out to them. I needed a independent research course for a certificate I’m pursuing and I was able to have a course created in my department. It’s been one of my best college experiences by far.
RESPONSE B: I agree with wg90506, it's hard for a new RA to learn enough to be useful, and an assistant who doesn't know how to assist is a drain that people may be reluctant to take on if you're not sticking around long enough for them to reap the fruits of investing in you. If you want to do research and intend to stay in that lab for a while, I'd suggest focusing on that -- on the other end of things, I'd be more concerned with "will taking on this person ever pay off for us" than "why didn't they come to us sooner?" It's good to reassure them that you are likely to be useful to them someday, to pay them back for training you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: these difficult credit hours because a part of me was still obsessed with proving that I was as "smart" as I was in high school. This spiraled into bad grades and me hating school completely. ​ The summer before senior year, I did a lot of self-reflecting, pulling apart the ego that I had developed, and humbling myself. Last semester was better, and because I had kept myself relatively afloat in prior years, I'm currently sitting on a 3.05 GPA. I really want to get into research again, not because it's what I'm supposed to do, but because I genuinely enjoyed doing it back in high school. In addition, while I plan on going into the industry, I want to give research another shot, because I want to make sure I don't have second doubts about post-graduation plans. Since I'm a second semester senior who hasn't done any research in four years and who has a mediocre GPA, I realize that I don't have a competitive advantage. I have a list of lab P.I.'s I want to e-mail, but I'm not sure what I can do to distinguish myself. I'm also not sure if I should explain why I *just* started looking for research as a second semester senior, because that would open up the can of worms seen above. Any advice on how I can approach this situation would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
RESPONSE A: Volunteer to work for free. Bust your ass. Show the PI or grad student that you are a self starter. Most undergrads are just looking to resume pad with minimal effort and thus are a waste of time/effort/$ for PIs. Attitude is key. The approach above is what the most productive undergrad I have worked with did. No way would I have hired him otherwise.
RESPONSE B: If you’re close with any professors or know your interests align just reach out to them. I needed a independent research course for a certificate I’m pursuing and I was able to have a course created in my department. It’s been one of my best college experiences by far.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: 's certainly OK, and if I end up staying here that's alright as well. So I'd rather not alienate fellow faculty members (it's a quite small department, 20 people). I assume people here have done this sort of thing, but how did/do you word your cover letter to ask for "discreteness?" Or is there a better way to go about it? For references, I assume they will want to hear from my current colleagues (I would if I were in their shoes)? Any general advice on this aspect of the application?
RESPONSE A: Being on many search committees, I have seen several letters that have asked us not to contact their current department unless they were being considered as a finalist for the position. We have always honored that kind of request. They usually tuck that into the last paragraph of their letter of intent. I would phrase it just like you said above, you are not unhappy, but this institution is a better fit, please be discreet unless you are seriously considering me. That being said, if you have a good relationship with your chair, I would let him/her know. Just say you are happy and not on the general job market, just this is a dream job (for whatever reason...I've used closer to family before) and you would kick yourself if you did not take a chance. Reiterate you are not on the job market and you are happy. Most reasonable people would be fine with that and they will not be caught off guard if they get contacted by the search committee.
RESPONSE B: Don't assume that your current colleagues will think differently of you if they know - chances are many of them have either gone through or considered this situation. Identify which of them you want to use as references and make sure they understand your feelings about fit (be honest and straightforward, if they think you aren't being genuine then you don't want the letter they will write). Put a similar statement in your cover letter to clarify why you are applying. Don't hide the fact from your current colleagues, but don't make it the leading topic of conversation either. Go about your normal routine and answer questions if you are approached with them - this doesn't have to be awkward.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Rejection Letter with Positive Feedback Hello everyone. I recently submitted a manuscript for publication to a Q1 journal (Electrical Engineering) but the editor decided against its acceptance. She mentioned that the work is sound and definitely worth publishing, but it doesn't fit the scope of this journal. She also suggested a different journal of similar IF that would be more suitable for my work and urged me to submit it there. Since this is my first submission, I am not sure if I should respond to the editor. I want to thank her for the comments and the suggestion but I am not sure if this is appropriate or if it happens in general. Any feedback would be helpful, thanks!
RESPONSE A: Disclaimer - I am an undergrad, but I have published a few papers where I am the corresponding author. I usually reply to the editors. But sometimes you can see that there is reply to: no-reply then obviously you should not. But I don't think there is any harm thanking the editor.
RESPONSE B: From my personal experience, in this situation, you definitely should thank the editor.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Rejection Letter with Positive Feedback Hello everyone. I recently submitted a manuscript for publication to a Q1 journal (Electrical Engineering) but the editor decided against its acceptance. She mentioned that the work is sound and definitely worth publishing, but it doesn't fit the scope of this journal. She also suggested a different journal of similar IF that would be more suitable for my work and urged me to submit it there. Since this is my first submission, I am not sure if I should respond to the editor. I want to thank her for the comments and the suggestion but I am not sure if this is appropriate or if it happens in general. Any feedback would be helpful, thanks!
RESPONSE A: Disclaimer - I am an undergrad, but I have published a few papers where I am the corresponding author. I usually reply to the editors. But sometimes you can see that there is reply to: no-reply then obviously you should not. But I don't think there is any harm thanking the editor.
RESPONSE B: Always be kind; it doesn’t cost you anything and who knows what it might bring. So yes, send her an appreciative email!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Rejection Letter with Positive Feedback Hello everyone. I recently submitted a manuscript for publication to a Q1 journal (Electrical Engineering) but the editor decided against its acceptance. She mentioned that the work is sound and definitely worth publishing, but it doesn't fit the scope of this journal. She also suggested a different journal of similar IF that would be more suitable for my work and urged me to submit it there. Since this is my first submission, I am not sure if I should respond to the editor. I want to thank her for the comments and the suggestion but I am not sure if this is appropriate or if it happens in general. Any feedback would be helpful, thanks!
RESPONSE A: Disclaimer - I am an undergrad, but I have published a few papers where I am the corresponding author. I usually reply to the editors. But sometimes you can see that there is reply to: no-reply then obviously you should not. But I don't think there is any harm thanking the editor.
RESPONSE B: Do it, just dont write a novel, be short and concise! Win win.
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.