label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
B
|
POST: The ethics of authorship order? I'm having a hard time deciding what is most fair, so I would love any insight. Who should go first (note: I am first author, I can't decided who should go second v. third): the person who assisted in designing one of the experiments but then did not contribute in any other way, or the person who did probably 40% of the work to get the data?
RESPONSE A: First author is whoever did that majority of the work. From there it can get a bit of a shit-shower. Either, co-authors in order of decreasing involvement, or alphabetical, or a hybrid of those two. I've also heard of a standardisation in some fields of putting the funding PI last regardless of involvement.
RESPONSE B: I'd probably give second to the person who did 40% of the work to get the data.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: The ethics of authorship order? I'm having a hard time deciding what is most fair, so I would love any insight. Who should go first (note: I am first author, I can't decided who should go second v. third): the person who assisted in designing one of the experiments but then did not contribute in any other way, or the person who did probably 40% of the work to get the data?
RESPONSE A: First author is whoever did that majority of the work. From there it can get a bit of a shit-shower. Either, co-authors in order of decreasing involvement, or alphabetical, or a hybrid of those two. I've also heard of a standardisation in some fields of putting the funding PI last regardless of involvement.
RESPONSE B: If the person who did 40% of the work had to do a lot of analysis, procedure changes, etc, then they should go first, but if they were just following the procedure completely and that person who designed it handled all the thinking, then that person (the designer) should go first. Just my opinion! edit: I also wanted to add that it could help to have a meeting with both of them and basically put it in their hands--just ask them what they think the order should be. Academics are usually pretty good at being honest about their contributions. You'll want to play this by ear though, depending on the personalities of those two people.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: The ethics of authorship order? I'm having a hard time deciding what is most fair, so I would love any insight. Who should go first (note: I am first author, I can't decided who should go second v. third): the person who assisted in designing one of the experiments but then did not contribute in any other way, or the person who did probably 40% of the work to get the data?
RESPONSE A: In mathematics it's strictly alphabetical, which I think is nice. I've heard informally that otherwise the correct order is 1. Did most of the work 2. Had the funding 3. Did some of the work
RESPONSE B: I'd probably give second to the person who did 40% of the work to get the data.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: The ethics of authorship order? I'm having a hard time deciding what is most fair, so I would love any insight. Who should go first (note: I am first author, I can't decided who should go second v. third): the person who assisted in designing one of the experiments but then did not contribute in any other way, or the person who did probably 40% of the work to get the data?
RESPONSE A: If the person who did 40% of the work had to do a lot of analysis, procedure changes, etc, then they should go first, but if they were just following the procedure completely and that person who designed it handled all the thinking, then that person (the designer) should go first. Just my opinion! edit: I also wanted to add that it could help to have a meeting with both of them and basically put it in their hands--just ask them what they think the order should be. Academics are usually pretty good at being honest about their contributions. You'll want to play this by ear though, depending on the personalities of those two people.
RESPONSE B: In mathematics it's strictly alphabetical, which I think is nice. I've heard informally that otherwise the correct order is 1. Did most of the work 2. Had the funding 3. Did some of the work
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Do you consider lab outings (dinner, drinks etc) as part of the work?
RESPONSE A: Socializing in academia and making connections is just very smart. Just see it as a part of work and it will help you later. Academia is just very very small.
RESPONSE B: I mean, no, I don't bill my time for them, but I do maintain a professional demeanor because I am around colleagues.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Do you consider lab outings (dinner, drinks etc) as part of the work?
RESPONSE A: Really depends on who joins. If it's only with colleagues of mine I have a friendly relationship with, then it's not work. And we don't necessarily talk about work, although every now and then that may happen. If the bosses are involved, though, even if it's not a strictly professional setting it makes sense to look at the outing as a more serious event where, for example, you don't want to get wasted.
RESPONSE B: In East Asia, it totally is. I was required to go to at least one event per semester during my Master's in Korea.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Do you consider lab outings (dinner, drinks etc) as part of the work?
RESPONSE A: Really depends on who joins. If it's only with colleagues of mine I have a friendly relationship with, then it's not work. And we don't necessarily talk about work, although every now and then that may happen. If the bosses are involved, though, even if it's not a strictly professional setting it makes sense to look at the outing as a more serious event where, for example, you don't want to get wasted.
RESPONSE B: Man, I didnt know that so many people considered lab get togethers a chore. I personally love getting together with my labmates and PI and look forward to it... we spend so much time together every week, might as well make an effort to get to know and like them outside of the lab as well.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What makes a successful dissertation? I often hear those who say "this dissertation is not impressive" or "this dissertation is bad" when referring to some dissertation they see on ProQuest or something of the sort. In your history of advising students, what makes a dissertation "good," and in the tenure track job search, would this compensate the fact that the student's home institution was not a top 10 program?
RESPONSE A: In my field the dissertation is best when portions are already published or accepted at decent journals before the defense. I’ve told my students that their dissertation will be 3 or 4 (roughly themed) papers stapled together with an introduction and conclusions. This breaks the work down into digestible, publishable components. Getting them submitted is especially important for landing a TT job, not so much for industry. A good dissertation is publishable.
RESPONSE B: A good dissertation is a done dissertation.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How to write a diversity statement as a cis, hetero, white male? I’m putting in the work to read from others online. I’m looking for any perspectives you’re willing to share. Thanks
RESPONSE A: Some good points here already, and I would like to add a resource: https://ofew.berkeley.edu/recruitment/contributions-diversity/rubric-assessing-candidate-contributions-diversity-equity UC Berkeley has resources online to help their hiring committees, and suggests a rubric to evaluate these statements. I've found this very helpful because when you go to write about your own contributions you get a clear idea of the depth and detail the evaluators are looking for. Many early career people have contributions commensurate with their level but struggle to explain them in an integrated way like we typically do with research or teaching.
RESPONSE B: Agree with the first post about how you will support diversity, equity, and inclusion in the classroom, lab, and among your colleagues. Also everyone contributed their identity to the mix. Did you grow up in a rural area? First generation? Think about what you bring to table.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: I’m looking for any perspectives you’re willing to share. Thanks
RESPONSE A: Some good points here already, and I would like to add a resource: https://ofew.berkeley.edu/recruitment/contributions-diversity/rubric-assessing-candidate-contributions-diversity-equity UC Berkeley has resources online to help their hiring committees, and suggests a rubric to evaluate these statements. I've found this very helpful because when you go to write about your own contributions you get a clear idea of the depth and detail the evaluators are looking for. Many early career people have contributions commensurate with their level but struggle to explain them in an integrated way like we typically do with research or teaching.
RESPONSE B: Like your other written materials, it's generally important to show rather than tell. While a person may mention a marginalized identity they hold as part of a diversity statement, you can still have a strong diversity statement from your position of privilege if you demonstrate how you will foster an environment of inclusion and equity at an institution. A couple of things that I included in my diversity statement that you might consider (I'm a queer cis white man, so I hold some but not all of your identities): -Discuss how I integrate diversity-related topics into my courses, using specific examples of class activities and assignments that I've used to help students learn about diversity -Describe my process of creating an inclusive classroom environment and, specifically, preparing students to discuss at times heavy topics (e.g., privilege and marginalization) while maintaining an inclusive and respectful environment Some of this depends upon your specific discipline--for example, I understand that a physics course may not have a deep dive about diversity. I will say that colleagues of mine in the hard sciences have shared how they have made efforts to highlight the accomplishments of researchers who are women and/or people of color but whose work may not have had the spotlight it deserved in the field. The key is to write something that is true to yourself and the kind of courses you teach, or the research you do, while painting a picture of the kind of (ideally sensitive and inclusive) teacher and colleague you will be.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: write a diversity statement as a cis, hetero, white male? I’m putting in the work to read from others online. I’m looking for any perspectives you’re willing to share. Thanks
RESPONSE A: I think these (below) are meaningful questions to reflect on. You wouldn't necessarily want to answer them all in your statement, but they should help you get all your thoughts out. Personally, I am also a huge proponent of concept maps, and there are a lot of free online options. Put words, quotes, concepts, etc. into disjoint bubbles, then start to group them and connect them. Label all the connecting lines in some meaningful way. The different groups that form I typically turn into sections or paragraphs in my writing. I am in the process of writing my teaching statement right now, so other more experienced opinions are worth more, but this is what I'm doing. I did something similar to make my teaching statement. How would you classify diversity? Why is it valuable? What life experiences have led you to these conclusions? How should diversity be cultivated on a large scale? How can you contribute to a more diverse workplace on the small scale? How are you learning about the disadvantages and systemic challenges levied against marginalized groups? How have you supported students from underrepresented groups in your field? How would like to support them in the future? How does your privilege (if you have any) position you to be an advocate? What does advocacy look like for you? \[Edited: clarified\]
RESPONSE B: Some good points here already, and I would like to add a resource: https://ofew.berkeley.edu/recruitment/contributions-diversity/rubric-assessing-candidate-contributions-diversity-equity UC Berkeley has resources online to help their hiring committees, and suggests a rubric to evaluate these statements. I've found this very helpful because when you go to write about your own contributions you get a clear idea of the depth and detail the evaluators are looking for. Many early career people have contributions commensurate with their level but struggle to explain them in an integrated way like we typically do with research or teaching.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How to write a diversity statement as a cis, hetero, white male? I’m putting in the work to read from others online. I’m looking for any perspectives you’re willing to share. Thanks
RESPONSE A: The only box I check is being gay, and tbh I’d be disappointed if I felt I got into some program because of that check mark. I’d use the opportunity to talk about how you relate to diversity and diversity of opinion in your field as opposes to trying to check off marks of marginalizes groups you don’t belong to. Any reputable program shouldn’t dock you for not being part of a minority group, but being supportive of groups that are disadvantaged will always be beneficial imo
RESPONSE B: Some good points here already, and I would like to add a resource: https://ofew.berkeley.edu/recruitment/contributions-diversity/rubric-assessing-candidate-contributions-diversity-equity UC Berkeley has resources online to help their hiring committees, and suggests a rubric to evaluate these statements. I've found this very helpful because when you go to write about your own contributions you get a clear idea of the depth and detail the evaluators are looking for. Many early career people have contributions commensurate with their level but struggle to explain them in an integrated way like we typically do with research or teaching.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How to write a diversity statement as a cis, hetero, white male? I’m putting in the work to read from others online. I’m looking for any perspectives you’re willing to share. Thanks
RESPONSE A: I think these (below) are meaningful questions to reflect on. You wouldn't necessarily want to answer them all in your statement, but they should help you get all your thoughts out. Personally, I am also a huge proponent of concept maps, and there are a lot of free online options. Put words, quotes, concepts, etc. into disjoint bubbles, then start to group them and connect them. Label all the connecting lines in some meaningful way. The different groups that form I typically turn into sections or paragraphs in my writing. I am in the process of writing my teaching statement right now, so other more experienced opinions are worth more, but this is what I'm doing. I did something similar to make my teaching statement. How would you classify diversity? Why is it valuable? What life experiences have led you to these conclusions? How should diversity be cultivated on a large scale? How can you contribute to a more diverse workplace on the small scale? How are you learning about the disadvantages and systemic challenges levied against marginalized groups? How have you supported students from underrepresented groups in your field? How would like to support them in the future? How does your privilege (if you have any) position you to be an advocate? What does advocacy look like for you? \[Edited: clarified\]
RESPONSE B: And to add to comments here: remember that equity, diversity, and inclusiveness is not only about nodding to equity seeking groups, but that the topics may intersect with all sorts of forms including things like inequity, experience, abilities, etc., which some people forget.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: if a ph.d student makes a discovery with high economic viability, does the student get any of the money made off of the research?
RESPONSE A: The UK Medical Research Council has an interesting split for any revenue coming from IP for the projects it funds. Basically, if the idea makes ~£20k, then you get to keep almost all of it, but if it makes ~£200m, then you only get to keep a small percentage (but still £1m+). And a sliding scale in between. The answer to the question is that different universities, funders, and probably even groups (if you come up with the idea as part of a PhD, is it your idea or your supervisor's?) have completely different policies, ranging from 100% yours to 0% yours. Most universities that I have contact with also have an "academic ventures" division aimed at helping to bring ideas to market.
RESPONSE B: I think it depends on the individual school. My university just revised these rules in favor of the faculty in order to attract more economically minded researchers to our institution.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: me seem too passive but I try to spin it like, "I'm a diplomatic leader..." Thoughts? *I have an interview later today for a position I'm very interested in. I currently work full-time at a community college and this would be for a position in a department of teaching and learning.
RESPONSE A: I would say mention that you don't tolerate conflict very well in those exact words. Then mention that this causes you to be a very diplomatic leader which is not always very efficient. But also mention that you're been improving your ability to take quicker decisions. At least, that's the answer I'd appreciate as an interviewer
RESPONSE B: I strongly advise against giving that as an answer. I interviewed some PhD and Master students for industrial and academic internships (engineering) and we ask the same question. Where I worked, we didn't ask this question to see if you have humility or own up to your mistakes, it's to screen for potential red flags in work ethics or knowledge that might be missing (I struggles with xyz subject) and that we need to be aware they would probably need some adaptation time/formation. If someone mentions anything that could remotely indicate that they don't work well in teams, have issues with authority or communication issues with other team members = it's an instant refusal. Always avoid mentioning that one of your weakness is related to communication or team work. It's not something any manager or supervisor is really good at dealing with and want to actually risk dealing with... It's easier to teach people the knowledge they lack than to teach them new social behaviors. You can definitely twist this question in a subtle way by using something that wouldn't affect your work quality or work dynamic with others and that you have almost resolved (so almost no longer an issue). Google some answers that are less cliché and could apply to your work area (technical weakness that can be fixed, minor time management weakness, etc.) What is important is to give an example that shows how the steps you have taken to resolve the issue have improved your weakness and to mention a time frame and what new steps you are taking currently to further improve the situation. You can provide background information of where this weakness comes from if it can help you twist the question
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: ...aren't those statements true for most of us? How do you answer this question? My honest answer is that I don't tolerate conflict well. I want to leave the room when things get tense (due to childhood issues, etc). I feel that could make me seem too passive but I try to spin it like, "I'm a diplomatic leader..." Thoughts? *I have an interview later today for a position I'm very interested in. I currently work full-time at a community college and this would be for a position in a department of teaching and learning.
RESPONSE A: I've never been asked this question, but I've known people on hiring committees to ask ones of a similar nature (e.g. "tell me about a time you made a mistake and how you rectified it"). The point of them is to see if the candidate displays humility, self-reflection, and will seek help/improvement where it's needed. Framing it in terms of "something I'm currently working on in is..." as another poster suggested seems reasonable to me. I don't think you want to spin a negative in to a positive as it isn't answering the question IMO. I would also suggest something where you can show evidence that you're working on it. With the not tolerating conflict well example, it could work with the right phrasing, but signing up for management/leadership training course or something would actually demonstrate that you're taking active steps in your development. Tbh every time I hear someone talk about this question, they talk about things like "I'm a perfectionist" as being a bad answer. It's an obvious stock answer and doesn't tell the hiring committee anything about you. But obviously you also don't want to be saying things like "Well, I'm pretty lazy..."...
RESPONSE B: I would say mention that you don't tolerate conflict very well in those exact words. Then mention that this causes you to be a very diplomatic leader which is not always very efficient. But also mention that you're been improving your ability to take quicker decisions. At least, that's the answer I'd appreciate as an interviewer
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Interview Question: What Is Your Weakness? The interview question I loathe is: "tell us about your weakness(es)." I've heard a lot of people say "I work too hard," or "I'm a perfectionist" but this academia...aren't those statements true for most of us? How do you answer this question? My honest answer is that I don't tolerate conflict well. I want to leave the room when things get tense (due to childhood issues, etc). I feel that could make me seem too passive but I try to spin it like, "I'm a diplomatic leader..." Thoughts? *I have an interview later today for a position I'm very interested in. I currently work full-time at a community college and this would be for a position in a department of teaching and learning.
RESPONSE A: I would say mention that you don't tolerate conflict very well in those exact words. Then mention that this causes you to be a very diplomatic leader which is not always very efficient. But also mention that you're been improving your ability to take quicker decisions. At least, that's the answer I'd appreciate as an interviewer
RESPONSE B: That is a bullshit question that warrants a bullshit response. Say that you are a perfectionist and that can be a hindrance sometimes. That is a question that I have only been asked by interviewers who knew they weren’t going to hire me before the interview...
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Interview Question: What Is Your Weakness? The interview question I loathe is: "tell us about your weakness(es)." I've heard a lot of people say "I work too hard," or "I'm a perfectionist" but this academia...aren't those statements true for most of us? How do you answer this question? My honest answer is that I don't tolerate conflict well. I want to leave the room when things get tense (due to childhood issues, etc). I feel that could make me seem too passive but I try to spin it like, "I'm a diplomatic leader..." Thoughts? *I have an interview later today for a position I'm very interested in. I currently work full-time at a community college and this would be for a position in a department of teaching and learning.
RESPONSE A: I’d share something that is REAL. Like do you do well when interrupted often? How about a loud environment? What do you need to be able to FOCUS? That’s a good swing on this question IMO.
RESPONSE B: I would say mention that you don't tolerate conflict very well in those exact words. Then mention that this causes you to be a very diplomatic leader which is not always very efficient. But also mention that you're been improving your ability to take quicker decisions. At least, that's the answer I'd appreciate as an interviewer
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: I got a CS summer internship but I want to go to physics grad school So I got (and accepted) an offer for a Google internship this summer. I am a sophomore undergrad, so I don't have to decide what major I am quite yet, but I think I want to go physics instead of CS. If I go physics I probably want to go to grad school. How much will doing the CS internship this summer instead of an REU or any research hurt a grad school application? (Also I can somewhat influence what project I work on. Is there anything I could do at Google that would be better than others? I'm interested in astrophysics mainly...)
RESPONSE A: Given their reach into telecommunications, wireless, energy, self driving vehicles, quantum computing, etc. they'll have a need for those that can bridge both computer science and all manner of STEM, including physics, for the foreseeable future.
RESPONSE B: Don't drop the Google internship you already locked down. It's going to look great on your resume and do nothing but help you regardless of whether you end up in CS or physics or something else. And it's just for a summer, you still have next summer to do research and start applying to grad school.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: I got a CS summer internship but I want to go to physics grad school So I got (and accepted) an offer for a Google internship this summer. I am a sophomore undergrad, so I don't have to decide what major I am quite yet, but I think I want to go physics instead of CS. If I go physics I probably want to go to grad school. How much will doing the CS internship this summer instead of an REU or any research hurt a grad school application? (Also I can somewhat influence what project I work on. Is there anything I could do at Google that would be better than others? I'm interested in astrophysics mainly...)
RESPONSE A: Given their reach into telecommunications, wireless, energy, self driving vehicles, quantum computing, etc. they'll have a need for those that can bridge both computer science and all manner of STEM, including physics, for the foreseeable future.
RESPONSE B: Do the internship for sure! Physics professors love to have someone who can code well as many physics undergrads can't before they start doing research. It's a huge bonus to be able to show that you can code and actually have some experience doing so.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: but help me recognize my "blindspots" in what I should do.
RESPONSE A: * Reading without writing (or typing, or drawing, or indexing, or tagging) is worthless. Don't think you can inhale literature without an external permanent memory aid. * Hard work is not its own reward. You can't succeed without hard work, but you can easily fail with an abundance of it. Work smart, use tools (and find or build new ones!), be efficient, feed back rapidly when failing. Depending on discipline, basic competence in a programming language is either very much recommended or mandatory. * When ~~fighting~~ engaging in spirited academic debate with people above you in the hierarchy, if you want to get what you want, be willing to concede other stuff you want but don't care about as much, and always give them a path to look back on the encounter as a 'win' for them. People fight twice as hard if they think you're going to hold it over them.
RESPONSE B: Congrats on your PhD acceptance! >I can assume reading a lot within my field, publishing a lot, and networking at conferences are suggested, but help me recognize my "blindspots" in what I should do. Reading and networking are important, yes. Publishing is more complicated, and it depends on the field. Apparently in math there's such high-hanging fruit that publishing during the PhD isn't as critical, because it's much harder to prove new things (at least, my friends in math tell me so). One or two publications in competitive journals may look a hell of a lot better than 10 conference proceedings, but it may be good to have some of both. It may also be important to be the sole author on a paper. No matter the field, I think it's important that when you go on the job market, you should have a cohesive trajectory of research that defines you as a job candidate. My recommendation is that when you arrive at your program, start asking your advisors these questions. They should have a good idea of how to make a competitive job applicant -- after all, it's in *their* interest to get you a job, since it will reflect well on your program.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Advice for a New PhD Student I am going to be starting a PhD in the Fall for hydrogeology (if I pass my Masters thesis defense on Wednesday ) in the US. Afterwards, I hope to get into a career in a research field (either USGS, research institutions, or academia). What can I do from the start that will help me be more desirable for an academic/research career? What do you wish you had known when you were starting a PhD? I know academia is extremely competitive, but I recently started thinking this is the path I want. I can assume reading a lot within my field, publishing a lot, and networking at conferences are suggested, but help me recognize my "blindspots" in what I should do.
RESPONSE A: * Reading without writing (or typing, or drawing, or indexing, or tagging) is worthless. Don't think you can inhale literature without an external permanent memory aid. * Hard work is not its own reward. You can't succeed without hard work, but you can easily fail with an abundance of it. Work smart, use tools (and find or build new ones!), be efficient, feed back rapidly when failing. Depending on discipline, basic competence in a programming language is either very much recommended or mandatory. * When ~~fighting~~ engaging in spirited academic debate with people above you in the hierarchy, if you want to get what you want, be willing to concede other stuff you want but don't care about as much, and always give them a path to look back on the encounter as a 'win' for them. People fight twice as hard if they think you're going to hold it over them.
RESPONSE B: I don't have any tips or advice, but best of luck for Wednesday!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: asking for corresponding authorship I'm a postdoc, 3 years in a biology lab. I wrote my own fellowship proposals, which were ideas that originated from my PhD work. I designed the experiments, drove the project and did most of the work on my own. Sure, I was given advice and help refining the project by my boss and colleagues, but my Prof didn't even believe in it before the results started to make sense. I am now writing up the paper and I told my boss that I would like to discuss corresponding authorship. I got the answer: 'that's an unusual request for postdoc level, but we can discuss it next week'. I don't know what to expect. I assumed that since this is my brain baby and I also got the funding for it (which includes my salary and the lab costs) that it's a no-brainer. I also wish to expand on the project in the future so it makes sense that questions should be directed to me. Is this really so uncommon? Do you have any suggestions for what to bring up in the meeting next week?
RESPONSE A: Are you asking for senior authorship (last author) or first author + corresponding author? Senior authorship might be seen as a bit weird. First + corresponding author should not be an issue, unless there is a chance you may move on and be unable to see the publication through the process.
RESPONSE B: I'm a post-doc - have pretty much always been corresponding author because my PIs haven't wanted to deal with it. The only paper I wasn't corresponding author for ended up having an email from the editor left sitting in an inbox for 2 months :-/. I've even been corresponding author while I wasn't first or last author because I was the person that was going to deal with the journal. It's only an unusual request because it shouldn't even be particularly controversial
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: asking for corresponding authorship I'm a postdoc, 3 years in a biology lab. I wrote my own fellowship proposals, which were ideas that originated from my PhD work. I designed the experiments, drove the project and did most of the work on my own. Sure, I was given advice and help refining the project by my boss and colleagues, but my Prof didn't even believe in it before the results started to make sense. I am now writing up the paper and I told my boss that I would like to discuss corresponding authorship. I got the answer: 'that's an unusual request for postdoc level, but we can discuss it next week'. I don't know what to expect. I assumed that since this is my brain baby and I also got the funding for it (which includes my salary and the lab costs) that it's a no-brainer. I also wish to expand on the project in the future so it makes sense that questions should be directed to me. Is this really so uncommon? Do you have any suggestions for what to bring up in the meeting next week?
RESPONSE A: How much of an asshole is the PI? How egotistical/status/hierarchy-focused? How precedent-obsessed? Are they pre-tenure or pre-grant where every corresponding-author article counts?Do they care about fairness? Are they transactional in nature? Your approach seems reasonable, the advice below is good, but it depends entirely on the nature of the PI....
RESPONSE B: I'm a post-doc - have pretty much always been corresponding author because my PIs haven't wanted to deal with it. The only paper I wasn't corresponding author for ended up having an email from the editor left sitting in an inbox for 2 months :-/. I've even been corresponding author while I wasn't first or last author because I was the person that was going to deal with the journal. It's only an unusual request because it shouldn't even be particularly controversial
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How to organise my Zotero Collections (or Papers/Mendeley etc.) I am struggling how to organise my zotero library. Do you simply put all the papers you've downloaded into it, or do you only do this one by one, as to make sure that you've read every single paper? I tried the former approach first, but it quickly became cluttered. At the same time I'm worried I will be forgetting about certain pdfs I've downloaded etc. Another question regards the collections you guys create. I have first tried to order everything by topic, but this quickly became very large. Then I thought maybe I should create folder for each paper I am intending to write, and then put everything I read for that paper into that folder. Is this the usual approach people follow? My problem with this is that I don't know where to put papers that I don't read for a certain paper I want to write, but don't want to lose track of. Or papers which I do not end up referencing in my paper -do you still keep those in there, or how do you handle things like that?
RESPONSE A: I do this by topic, which typically also lines up with a paper(s) I am writing. I may not cite everything in the file, but leave the PDFs as the topic collection then serves as a reference list for relevant papers should I need one. For misc. papers I create a catch all folder to hold the PDF until such a time that I am working on a project that has a topic the paper might fit into to. I would also consider creating a general all-purpose folder. I use this for main citations of primary prevalence data (I.e. CDC overdose data, SAMHSA treatment admissions data, etc). If you, like me, often cite primary data in your introductions this has been helpful. Lastly, I would do a similar setup for a methods folder. I do a lot of mixed methods and grounded theory, so I have a collection of papers to cite in the methodology section.
RESPONSE B: The way I do it is to use collections for projects and tags for topics.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: games or firmware/gpu binary blobs. Docear looks like it should be the most useful to me, based on this: http://www.docear.org/2014/01/15/comprehensive-comparison-of-reference-managers-mendeley-vs-zotero-vs-docear But when I open up Docear, it comes up with weird mind-mapping charts, and wants me to create projects etc. What I really want is just to keep track of all of my article/chapter/book PDF files and be able to more easily generate bibtex entries.
RESPONSE A: Docear has an entirely different philosophy than other reference managers, so if you don't like what you see, it's probably not for you. Moreover (and I say that with lots of respect for Joeran and the folks at Docear), since Joeran, the lead developer has taken a private sector job, it's seeing very little development. Compare Docear's commit history, with no commit for 3 months: https://github.com/Docear/Desktop/commits/master with Zotero's https://github.com/zotero/zotero/commits/master I think given your preferences, Zotero is _exactly_ what you're looking for and tons of people use it for exactly what you want. One of the big strengths of Zotero is how easily it can be extended using add-ons. For your purposes, I'd especially recommend zotfile (www.zotfile.com), which enhances PDF management, and betterBibTex, which makes bibtex integration even more powerful (e.g. including auto-updating of a central bibtex file, easier customization & display of citekeys): https://github.com/ZotPlus/zotero-better-bibtex/ (disclaimer: I contribute actively to Zotero as a volunteer and occasionally get paid by 3rd parties to consult on Zotero and related software)
RESPONSE B: Have you looked in to Qiqqa? I absolutely love it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Lead author of a bad paper? I've been an unpaid volunteer for a few years. A professor I'm working with wants to make me lead author of a paper because of all the work I've done to help him. I've done a lot of basic programming to manipulate genetic data. But the guy really doesn't seem to know what he's doing. I have to keep explaining things to him and telling him/sending him the same things over and over. And reading some of the paper he's made a lot of basic mistakes. So we'll use a program somebody else made that does one thing, and he'll list it as doing something slightly different in the paper. But still enough that anyone who knows what they're doing would look at it and say "What?" I don't think I'll ever be able to afford to get a Bachelor's degree, so if I planned on having a career in academia I might be more worried. But are there any other negative effects from being the lead author of a bad paper? For me I thought it would just be a cool thing to be able to say. When he initially offered it to me I declined because I thought I'm really not educated enough on the subject to be attached to the claims being made in the paper (though he told me he was very cautious with his claims). Am I being used as a scapegoat or something? Thank you for any input, we've been working on this for years and quite frankly I just want it to be over
RESPONSE A: When something like that happened to me, I simply refused because it was unethical. You can't make me write claims that are untrue just to publish. Yep, it strained the work relationship but I don't want to be compromised.
RESPONSE B: Can you improve the paper? If you are careful with your claims, you needn't feel unethical about anything. But, a sobering thought...if it's this bad, it probably won't pass peer review, so you have little to worry about. Author lists frequently change during the peer review process in any case.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: able to afford to get a Bachelor's degree, so if I planned on having a career in academia I might be more worried. But are there any other negative effects from being the lead author of a bad paper? For me I thought it would just be a cool thing to be able to say. When he initially offered it to me I declined because I thought I'm really not educated enough on the subject to be attached to the claims being made in the paper (though he told me he was very cautious with his claims). Am I being used as a scapegoat or something? Thank you for any input, we've been working on this for years and quite frankly I just want it to be over
RESPONSE A: When something like that happened to me, I simply refused because it was unethical. You can't make me write claims that are untrue just to publish. Yep, it strained the work relationship but I don't want to be compromised.
RESPONSE B: Just because you submit a paper does not mean that it will be published. The ethical issues are if you make unfounded claims. However, if you cautious and data backs up what you say, there is nothing wrong with submitting the paper. As for the quality, bad papers are submitted by good researchers all of the time. I have peer-reviewed papers from excellent labs that were complete trash. I look back at some of my papers from grad school and cringe. Most papers are never read anyway. At your stage of your career, any publication is quite impressive. Just also be prepared that if it is as bad as you think, that the peer-reviewers will tear it to shreds. Also, someone mentioned about last author being more prestigious. I publish in the bio-med field. Yes, last author is important, but so is first author. The first author is usually the trainee that did the most work and the last author is the professor who runs the lab. This system was developed so that both the trainee and professor get credit appropriate to their stage of career and so that trainees did not get screwed out of credit by senior faculty like you see in other fields. So there is nothing shady if he offers you first author and he takes last.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: ), and I don't have anyone I can go to for help or for an outside perspective. I've been reading a lot of books on the coding and analysis process, and while they help, I'm completely just stuck. My questions are: Is it ethical to hire an outside person for assistance with this? (My guess is probably not) Any suggestions for getting unstuck? Whenever I look at my data it just seems like obvious answers to questions, and I ask "so what?" to everything.
RESPONSE A: I actually have done this several times for students' dissertations (served as a quant consultant), and I've been doing it since graduate school. It's always occurred with the full knowledge of the committee. My role has always been as a resource to help someone learn how to do their analyses, to troubleshoot analyses when they might be struggling, to help them think through their analyses, to proofread and give feedback on their writeups, and sometimes to double check analyses for them if they are unsure of how they ran them. In other words, it's an "intensive tutor" role, and never an analyst role. I've always seen my job as being to make sure the student knows really well how to do their analyses correctly, how to explain it to their committee, and how to think through and troubleshoot all steps and stages of their analyses. They are the ones who are going to have to defend it, after all, not me. If I did the analyses for them, it would kind of defeat the purpose. Many students are at places with few to no faculty with statistical sophistication, but they (or their committees) might have high aspirations about the analyses they think they ought to be doing. Or, sometimes a student is off-campus for an internship in my city, and can't get help easily from their committee members. That's where I can come in and be helpful. So yes, I think it's ethical, if you do it the right way, and everyone on your committee knows what you're doing and why.
RESPONSE B: To be fair, many labs use grant money to hire bioinformatics services on-campus and off to do analysis. If your advisor is on board with it, is this much different?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: they help, I'm completely just stuck. My questions are: Is it ethical to hire an outside person for assistance with this? (My guess is probably not) Any suggestions for getting unstuck? Whenever I look at my data it just seems like obvious answers to questions, and I ask "so what?" to everything.
RESPONSE A: What kind of data analysis are you talking about? Is there *no one* on your campus that you could talk to? *None* of your committee members might be helpful? I know sometimes when I'm stuck, I think no one can help me. Usually it just means I'm being close minded and I need to find someone new to talk to about it.
RESPONSE B: I actually have done this several times for students' dissertations (served as a quant consultant), and I've been doing it since graduate school. It's always occurred with the full knowledge of the committee. My role has always been as a resource to help someone learn how to do their analyses, to troubleshoot analyses when they might be struggling, to help them think through their analyses, to proofread and give feedback on their writeups, and sometimes to double check analyses for them if they are unsure of how they ran them. In other words, it's an "intensive tutor" role, and never an analyst role. I've always seen my job as being to make sure the student knows really well how to do their analyses correctly, how to explain it to their committee, and how to think through and troubleshoot all steps and stages of their analyses. They are the ones who are going to have to defend it, after all, not me. If I did the analyses for them, it would kind of defeat the purpose. Many students are at places with few to no faculty with statistical sophistication, but they (or their committees) might have high aspirations about the analyses they think they ought to be doing. Or, sometimes a student is off-campus for an internship in my city, and can't get help easily from their committee members. That's where I can come in and be helpful. So yes, I think it's ethical, if you do it the right way, and everyone on your committee knows what you're doing and why.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: just keep going, he says), and I don't have anyone I can go to for help or for an outside perspective. I've been reading a lot of books on the coding and analysis process, and while they help, I'm completely just stuck. My questions are: Is it ethical to hire an outside person for assistance with this? (My guess is probably not) Any suggestions for getting unstuck? Whenever I look at my data it just seems like obvious answers to questions, and I ask "so what?" to everything.
RESPONSE A: You may also see if your university's math or statistics department offers assistance or tutoring. The school I went to offered consulting to graduate students in other department.
RESPONSE B: I actually have done this several times for students' dissertations (served as a quant consultant), and I've been doing it since graduate school. It's always occurred with the full knowledge of the committee. My role has always been as a resource to help someone learn how to do their analyses, to troubleshoot analyses when they might be struggling, to help them think through their analyses, to proofread and give feedback on their writeups, and sometimes to double check analyses for them if they are unsure of how they ran them. In other words, it's an "intensive tutor" role, and never an analyst role. I've always seen my job as being to make sure the student knows really well how to do their analyses correctly, how to explain it to their committee, and how to think through and troubleshoot all steps and stages of their analyses. They are the ones who are going to have to defend it, after all, not me. If I did the analyses for them, it would kind of defeat the purpose. Many students are at places with few to no faculty with statistical sophistication, but they (or their committees) might have high aspirations about the analyses they think they ought to be doing. Or, sometimes a student is off-campus for an internship in my city, and can't get help easily from their committee members. That's where I can come in and be helpful. So yes, I think it's ethical, if you do it the right way, and everyone on your committee knows what you're doing and why.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: for an outside perspective. I've been reading a lot of books on the coding and analysis process, and while they help, I'm completely just stuck. My questions are: Is it ethical to hire an outside person for assistance with this? (My guess is probably not) Any suggestions for getting unstuck? Whenever I look at my data it just seems like obvious answers to questions, and I ask "so what?" to everything.
RESPONSE A: I actually have done this several times for students' dissertations (served as a quant consultant), and I've been doing it since graduate school. It's always occurred with the full knowledge of the committee. My role has always been as a resource to help someone learn how to do their analyses, to troubleshoot analyses when they might be struggling, to help them think through their analyses, to proofread and give feedback on their writeups, and sometimes to double check analyses for them if they are unsure of how they ran them. In other words, it's an "intensive tutor" role, and never an analyst role. I've always seen my job as being to make sure the student knows really well how to do their analyses correctly, how to explain it to their committee, and how to think through and troubleshoot all steps and stages of their analyses. They are the ones who are going to have to defend it, after all, not me. If I did the analyses for them, it would kind of defeat the purpose. Many students are at places with few to no faculty with statistical sophistication, but they (or their committees) might have high aspirations about the analyses they think they ought to be doing. Or, sometimes a student is off-campus for an internship in my city, and can't get help easily from their committee members. That's where I can come in and be helpful. So yes, I think it's ethical, if you do it the right way, and everyone on your committee knows what you're doing and why.
RESPONSE B: > I ask "so what?" to everything. I'd say you're doing it right already. Don't lose faith in yourself yet! You're too young. Wait a bit and keep at it a bit longer. I believe in you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: anyone I can go to for help or for an outside perspective. I've been reading a lot of books on the coding and analysis process, and while they help, I'm completely just stuck. My questions are: Is it ethical to hire an outside person for assistance with this? (My guess is probably not) Any suggestions for getting unstuck? Whenever I look at my data it just seems like obvious answers to questions, and I ask "so what?" to everything.
RESPONSE A: I get what you're saying. I asked our graduate school for some suggestions of people outside of my committee that might be able to talk with me. Is it just stats that's the issue or the research question?
RESPONSE B: I actually have done this several times for students' dissertations (served as a quant consultant), and I've been doing it since graduate school. It's always occurred with the full knowledge of the committee. My role has always been as a resource to help someone learn how to do their analyses, to troubleshoot analyses when they might be struggling, to help them think through their analyses, to proofread and give feedback on their writeups, and sometimes to double check analyses for them if they are unsure of how they ran them. In other words, it's an "intensive tutor" role, and never an analyst role. I've always seen my job as being to make sure the student knows really well how to do their analyses correctly, how to explain it to their committee, and how to think through and troubleshoot all steps and stages of their analyses. They are the ones who are going to have to defend it, after all, not me. If I did the analyses for them, it would kind of defeat the purpose. Many students are at places with few to no faculty with statistical sophistication, but they (or their committees) might have high aspirations about the analyses they think they ought to be doing. Or, sometimes a student is off-campus for an internship in my city, and can't get help easily from their committee members. That's where I can come in and be helpful. So yes, I think it's ethical, if you do it the right way, and everyone on your committee knows what you're doing and why.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How relevant is undergraduate major? Hi. I've seen many people whose undergraduate major and their graduate field of research are unrelated. For example, Alice Isen majored in Russian literature as an undergraduate, and then did a master's and PhD in psychology, to publish many research papers on emotion and their effects. I can't remember others, but I remember thinking "how did someone major in that and go onto graduate school focusing on *that*?" Are any of you out there doing graduate work in a field unrelated to your undergraduate major? How is the experience/transition?
RESPONSE A: All it has to be is tangentially related. And to be honest, like your story, if you have the connections and can make an argument most liberal arts skills and knowledge are transferable.
RESPONSE B: PhD in biology here, anthropology BA. I needed 1.5 years of postbac work and a 1.5 year MS in biology to get up to snuff to get into a top notch biology doctorate program. For biology, straight biology, as opposed to a degree in biology in public health or biological anthropology, there is just no other way -- the competition alone from all the people who *did* major in biology would squeeze you out. Plus, there is just too much to know to absorb in two years of coursework. And I still see the gaps in my education, particularly since I ended up far on the other end of the spectrum as a molecular/statistical geneticist. Ironically, if I had wanted to actually get an anthropology PhD, the programs made if pretty clear they didn't care about my undergrad major, just my GREs and recommendations.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: in that and go onto graduate school focusing on *that*?" Are any of you out there doing graduate work in a field unrelated to your undergraduate major? How is the experience/transition?
RESPONSE A: PhD in biology here, anthropology BA. I needed 1.5 years of postbac work and a 1.5 year MS in biology to get up to snuff to get into a top notch biology doctorate program. For biology, straight biology, as opposed to a degree in biology in public health or biological anthropology, there is just no other way -- the competition alone from all the people who *did* major in biology would squeeze you out. Plus, there is just too much to know to absorb in two years of coursework. And I still see the gaps in my education, particularly since I ended up far on the other end of the spectrum as a molecular/statistical geneticist. Ironically, if I had wanted to actually get an anthropology PhD, the programs made if pretty clear they didn't care about my undergrad major, just my GREs and recommendations.
RESPONSE B: Psychology is such a diverse field (from neuroscience to counseling) that people come into the field with all kinds of backgrounds. Usually they want to see you have a stats and research methods class and then a handful of core classes. Many people can pick these up as electives during their undergrad or the summer before they start grad school. Med school is like this also. I had friends that went to med school with literature or philosophy degrees and others with biology or chemistry degrees. It is all about taking the right "other" classes. I considered going the MBA route with a science undergrad. The program at my school worked out so that it was basically a one year program if you had an undergrad degree in business and a two year program if not (you took a year of basic classes to "catch up"). I have a friend in social work and their master's works much the same way depending if you have an undergrad degree in social work or not. On the other hand, I looked into a computer science grad program and with the list of classes they required, you basically had to have a CS degree. It all depends.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How to find your thesis subject? Hi! Sorry if this is asked too much. How can I find my thesis subject before applying for PhD in fine arts / contemporary art? Please share any and all tips you have! What are good characteristics for a lucrative subject? I'm interested in performance art, intersection of art and dance, clothing, participation, activism, financial inequality, identity, and visual aesthetics, mental health, psychology, feminism, painting, installation. I'm 33, female in Europe, if it matters. I just have no clue where to begin? Thank you in advance!
RESPONSE A: I found success choosing my topic by considering the location where I was getting my degree, and what that part of the state/country valued, what they were producing, and what they are known for once you leave the area. It not only made my research more relevant to my committee and my own interests, but it also made it easier to gather texts, participants, and field experts who were nearby.
RESPONSE B: You already need to know your thesis topic? What are you passionate about? what piques your interest? What personal connection do you have to the topic.. Otherwise, I've been trained to look at previous research and: find the "gaps" the future direction of research, implications of previous research... \[maybe too social science of an approach\] ​ Good luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: The two body problem Hi all. I want to get your thoughts on how to balance moving for your career (for PhDs, jobs etc...) while in a relationship. I don't want my partner to be a trailing partner. Is it inevitable in academia? If you've already been through this, how did you figure out where you'd end up with your partner? I'd appreciate any thoughts.
RESPONSE A: I think you will find that: a) it is very common b) everyone's experience is different Things that will be important are if you are at the same stage of your career, same or different fields, both well published/funded, kids and maternity (or paternity) leave, willing to live long distance, etc. My personal experience is we decided to have kids during our postdocs and after a really tough pregnancy that didn't work out, a second that gave us our awesome son, and another kid on the way now, my wife's career has just really been put on hold. I don't think either of us would have ever considered her a "trailing spouse" but I suppose that is the situation we are in. The only advice I can offer is to discuss clearly what are everyone's career, relationship, and family goals. And be flexible and willing to put your partner's interests ahead of your own. Some of this is really hard and the relationship, or career might not survive. Good luck
RESPONSE B: I actually am interested in people’s thoughts on this too… !RemindMe 2 days
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: The two body problem Hi all. I want to get your thoughts on how to balance moving for your career (for PhDs, jobs etc...) while in a relationship. I don't want my partner to be a trailing partner. Is it inevitable in academia? If you've already been through this, how did you figure out where you'd end up with your partner? I'd appreciate any thoughts.
RESPONSE A: I actually am interested in people’s thoughts on this too… !RemindMe 2 days
RESPONSE B: Be prepared for one of you to not have a real job in their field. For real. If your relationship can handle that, then you'll survive.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: The two body problem Hi all. I want to get your thoughts on how to balance moving for your career (for PhDs, jobs etc...) while in a relationship. I don't want my partner to be a trailing partner. Is it inevitable in academia? If you've already been through this, how did you figure out where you'd end up with your partner? I'd appreciate any thoughts.
RESPONSE A: It's a discussion every couple has to have even if one partner has the degree or any kind of job that can cause relocation. My experience is having the degree while my partner is in the trades. For them, moving states means new licenses and codes that would be difficult to deal with while my job can be limited in where I can work. We've agreed to a location (one state but can be opened to a region in the US if my job search requires it) which works for both of us. Additionally I don't want to stay in academia as a faculty so that issue of multiple moves to different universities isn't a problem. But even to go to industry, I need a strong enough presence to have companies I can work for. My partner prefers to stay with one company to they can move through the ranks and build a good reputation. For my postdoc (to build some skills I needed for industry plus give time for networking), I looked at cities that had the industry presence I wanted plus good trades my partner could work for and build their reputation. But this was a discussion we majorly had when I finished grad school and was figuring out my next steps. For other couples, they may find a balance that works better for them. Some have two phds where one finds a faculty job and their spouse is found a job at the University (a perk Universities may provide to get good candidates) but it's not always a guarantee and that second job might not be a good fit for the spouse. I can only speak from my experience but it's something every couple has to deal with.
RESPONSE B: I actually am interested in people’s thoughts on this too… !RemindMe 2 days
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: The two body problem Hi all. I want to get your thoughts on how to balance moving for your career (for PhDs, jobs etc...) while in a relationship. I don't want my partner to be a trailing partner. Is it inevitable in academia? If you've already been through this, how did you figure out where you'd end up with your partner? I'd appreciate any thoughts.
RESPONSE A: My wife and I have had a rough go trying to balance two careers. I have a PhD and she’s an attorney. She graduated a few years before me and had a good job when I graduated. After my defense I landed a tt job in the area we thought we wanted to live. Unfortunately, that area had far fewer opportunities for her and at half the pay. She made more when I was in grad school than we made combined with me in a tt job. After two years of that we moved to a larger market. Now she has a good job but I am adjuncting at two schools. It is not satisfactory and for me and I am starting the process of retraining in another field.
RESPONSE B: I actually am interested in people’s thoughts on this too… !RemindMe 2 days
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: The two body problem Hi all. I want to get your thoughts on how to balance moving for your career (for PhDs, jobs etc...) while in a relationship. I don't want my partner to be a trailing partner. Is it inevitable in academia? If you've already been through this, how did you figure out where you'd end up with your partner? I'd appreciate any thoughts.
RESPONSE A: I actually am interested in people’s thoughts on this too… !RemindMe 2 days
RESPONSE B: My husband and I have had this issue a few times over the years. I have a PhD and he works in television. We tried the long distance thing where we live apart until something comes up in the same city but that is something we never want to do again. We always discuss our options and decide whose career takes precedence this time. We try to apply for jobs in the same city, but it doesn’t always work out that we both get offers. It’s definitely been about communicating our expectations and how happy we are in our current city/positions.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: be. At the same time, I've recently had a job offer from a local consulting agency. The work they do is vaguely in line with my skills, but would offer no opportunity to continue on in research. It's a difficult problem- do I abandon my dreams of becoming a research scientist for, essentially, comfortability? I guess I am worried that if I were to take the consulting job, I'd feel like I didn't live up to my potential. Maybe that thought is derivative of a sunk-cost fallacy; I'm not sure. I know reddit can't solve this dilemma for me, but if anyone has any insight, or experiences they can share, I'd appreciate hearing them.
RESPONSE A: We did the second option. I got a assistant professor job offer, and my husband followed me and has ended up doing statistical consulting. It's not ideal, as he misses bench science. We haven't given up the thought that he'll be able to get back into science in the future. I've had friends that did long distance for post docs successfully, and I had friends who tried and immediately quit because it was too hard being apart. It really depends on the two of you.
RESPONSE B: Yeah, I don't have any solutions either. Just wanted to say that I'm in the same boat and I'm dreading it - I move away from my fiancé next month for a 2-3 year postdoc position. The current plan is to apply for permanent jobs where we can both live and be happy, and if I don't get something after 2 years, we re-evaluate. Fuck, if I'm miserable after 1 year I might re-evaluate and just do something else. >I guess I am worried that if I were to take the consulting job, I'd feel like I didn't live up to my potential. Maybe that thought is derivative of a sunk-cost fallacy; I'm not sure. Yeah, I get it. It sucks. I'm considering going to a therapist to talk that part of it out, because it seems like a pretty complex mental hang-up.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: essentially, comfortability? I guess I am worried that if I were to take the consulting job, I'd feel like I didn't live up to my potential. Maybe that thought is derivative of a sunk-cost fallacy; I'm not sure. I know reddit can't solve this dilemma for me, but if anyone has any insight, or experiences they can share, I'd appreciate hearing them.
RESPONSE A: Yeah, I don't have any solutions either. Just wanted to say that I'm in the same boat and I'm dreading it - I move away from my fiancé next month for a 2-3 year postdoc position. The current plan is to apply for permanent jobs where we can both live and be happy, and if I don't get something after 2 years, we re-evaluate. Fuck, if I'm miserable after 1 year I might re-evaluate and just do something else. >I guess I am worried that if I were to take the consulting job, I'd feel like I didn't live up to my potential. Maybe that thought is derivative of a sunk-cost fallacy; I'm not sure. Yeah, I get it. It sucks. I'm considering going to a therapist to talk that part of it out, because it seems like a pretty complex mental hang-up.
RESPONSE B: I don't think anyone can tell you how hard it is, you have to see for yourself. And... I've come to see it as a lose lose situation. My husband and I have been doing long distance for 5 years.. with no end in sight. I have a professorship at an ivy league, and he is a well paid biotech exec. But we can't figure out a way to have jobs in the same place. Either one of us gives up our dream, or we're together. There's no other solution. You just need to find a solution you can live with. If you want to live with your so, it means giving up your dreams. If you want to do long distance forever, you will always be saying goodbye. There's no compromise here unfortunately.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: is vaguely in line with my skills, but would offer no opportunity to continue on in research. It's a difficult problem- do I abandon my dreams of becoming a research scientist for, essentially, comfortability? I guess I am worried that if I were to take the consulting job, I'd feel like I didn't live up to my potential. Maybe that thought is derivative of a sunk-cost fallacy; I'm not sure. I know reddit can't solve this dilemma for me, but if anyone has any insight, or experiences they can share, I'd appreciate hearing them.
RESPONSE A: Can your wife just transfer schools?
RESPONSE B: I have been 3 years apart from my fiancée. I took an assistant professor position in another continent (!!) while she finished a postdoc in our country of origin. It has been hard, but we made it work with lots of intercontinental travel and long stays. It can work, but it tests you both and can delay a lot of things. We won't have a large wedding (how can we plan it if we don't live in the city we want to get married?), we haven't bought a house (which country are we gonna live now?), etc. It is not ideal, but we make it work and we decided it was the right thing for us. Postdocs are tricky because they are not permanent and you might need to move again. Even if you do find two jobs, the timings might not fit and you might end up with one year where one of you is unemployed while the other one finishes or still end up apart when one takes a new job. To avoid this try to stay in places with lots of unis, or directly negotiate joint positions if possible. The latter is more likely if you are being offered a permanent position, and comes with its own set of hard choices, but such is the nature of the two body problem sadly. My fiancée is also in earth sciences and we have found that some countries/regions are much better in terms of job openings for geoscientists, so I suggest to scout around for possibilities in the region you are applying to for when your wife can join you. Good luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: from a local consulting agency. The work they do is vaguely in line with my skills, but would offer no opportunity to continue on in research. It's a difficult problem- do I abandon my dreams of becoming a research scientist for, essentially, comfortability? I guess I am worried that if I were to take the consulting job, I'd feel like I didn't live up to my potential. Maybe that thought is derivative of a sunk-cost fallacy; I'm not sure. I know reddit can't solve this dilemma for me, but if anyone has any insight, or experiences they can share, I'd appreciate hearing them.
RESPONSE A: Can your wife just transfer schools?
RESPONSE B: Sorry to hear this, friend. Navigated two body problem and postdoc myself, albeit in a country where there were more options. Hit the jackpot and landed postdoc positions in two different fields at same location which was golden for a while...but ultimately also revealed complexity of trying for dual academic path in different fields. We had multiple two body mentors who had all decided at some point that someone had to blink. So for that reason among many others we triaged options for one of us (me) and jumped at a great job offer, requiring a “build your wings on the way down” strategy for the other of us. That has worked out in part, but only because my partner has been willing to switch gears. My scenario is minimally relevant to yours but I mention it to draw attention to us specifically hearing from two body folks about the choice they made to prioritize the life half of work/life balance, even if only in a partial way. I know that is sometimes easier said than done but at the same time it is worth taking a realistic look at where you long term options lie and what your (individual and mutual) goals are. At this stage it may be better for your partner to begin in a new program in a larger city with more options if that’s viable. Or if you are both committed to staying in your country, what are the realistic options for doing so in academia? Sorry you’re dealing with this. It is fun to have a partner to do science with. The logistics part sucks.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: line with my skills, but would offer no opportunity to continue on in research. It's a difficult problem- do I abandon my dreams of becoming a research scientist for, essentially, comfortability? I guess I am worried that if I were to take the consulting job, I'd feel like I didn't live up to my potential. Maybe that thought is derivative of a sunk-cost fallacy; I'm not sure. I know reddit can't solve this dilemma for me, but if anyone has any insight, or experiences they can share, I'd appreciate hearing them.
RESPONSE A: I've seen several academic couples do the long distance thing, my officemate in grad school had a wife in germany (We are in the US) and they basically had an open relationship where they hooked up with other people, and talked over skype daily (for hours, in german, right next to me in the office) and then after he graduated with his phd he got a more permanent position and she relocated to the US. They also spent summers and winter breaks together. Also have a colleague whose husband spend the last 4 years in a phd program about 5 hours away, who just graduated and got a lectureship position at the university we work at. I know two couples who ended up with tenure track positions at the same university but most spent a year or more apart while in separate universities or at a postdoc. Another friend had a husband with a great job in DC and she got tenure in florida...that worked until they had their second kid and it was just impossible at this point. She ended up giving up tenure to get a non tt directorship at a university in DC. We also just hired someone (with an infant) whose wife got a TT job 3 hours away and they are planning to spend half the week here and half the week there, and I guess one or two nights a week apart. Anyway that's what I've seen among my friends. My husband was a non academic/not very career driven and basically gave up having a career to follow me to my job, and is now a stay at home dad.
RESPONSE B: Can your wife just transfer schools?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: age for a PhD in EU Good afternoon people, I am an European guy who is searching a PhD in northern Europe (I am currently 30 years old). I think about my age and wonder if it's maybe too late for further studies even if I'm passionate about them. What's your opinion is there an age limit for a PhD?
RESPONSE A: Had a TA back in undergrad who was working on his PhD after spending the past 20 years working as a lab tech. My bach thesis supervisor was a PhD student in his mid-30s. I live in northern Europe where it's pretty common to start uni in your early to mid 20s (and also to not graduate on time lol), so PhD students in their 30s are nothing out of the ordinary. You're also entitled to parental leave etc as a PhD student here, and it's not unheard of for people to take a year off in the middle of their PhD to stay home with their baby.
RESPONSE B: You can be 35 with your PhD or without But you'll be 35 anyway. Follow your bliss.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: age for a PhD in EU Good afternoon people, I am an European guy who is searching a PhD in northern Europe (I am currently 30 years old). I think about my age and wonder if it's maybe too late for further studies even if I'm passionate about them. What's your opinion is there an age limit for a PhD?
RESPONSE A: You can be 35 with your PhD or without But you'll be 35 anyway. Follow your bliss.
RESPONSE B: I was at one of the major conferences of my sub-fields last week, where I met this person (60+). I assumed he is a professor but turned out that he is a PhD student who started his PhD after retirement. His talk was one of the best at the conference. Edit: Removed offensive content.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: age for a PhD in EU Good afternoon people, I am an European guy who is searching a PhD in northern Europe (I am currently 30 years old). I think about my age and wonder if it's maybe too late for further studies even if I'm passionate about them. What's your opinion is there an age limit for a PhD?
RESPONSE A: As I read somewhere else: in five years you’ll be 35 so the question is whether you want to be 35 with a PhD or 35 without one ;-) there is absolutely no age limit whatsoever.
RESPONSE B: You can be 35 with your PhD or without But you'll be 35 anyway. Follow your bliss.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: age for a PhD in EU Good afternoon people, I am an European guy who is searching a PhD in northern Europe (I am currently 30 years old). I think about my age and wonder if it's maybe too late for further studies even if I'm passionate about them. What's your opinion is there an age limit for a PhD?
RESPONSE A: You can be 35 with your PhD or without But you'll be 35 anyway. Follow your bliss.
RESPONSE B: No. My friend is just starting a PhD here at 50.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: age for a PhD in EU Good afternoon people, I am an European guy who is searching a PhD in northern Europe (I am currently 30 years old). I think about my age and wonder if it's maybe too late for further studies even if I'm passionate about them. What's your opinion is there an age limit for a PhD?
RESPONSE A: i dont see a reason to limit education? some people further their education their whole lives. there is no age benchmark that will say "you are a complete person at this point in life. you can´t change further." people will change through the course of their entire lives, whether they want to or not, so giving that change a direction is a good step. tldr: there is no age limit
RESPONSE B: You can be 35 with your PhD or without But you'll be 35 anyway. Follow your bliss.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: 4-5 chapter 200pp. Humanities dissertation written, and need to finish the rest and submit the complete draft to my committee by August 1. Any helpful strategies, short articles, or moral support (I.e., people who pulled this off)? Not a frequent Redditor, but was curious and wanted to post something. Thanks in advance, academiacs!
RESPONSE A: Get off Reddit and write.
RESPONSE B: I wrote mine \(in History\) in about five months while teaching full time, about 110,000 words total. The key for me was to basically exit my social life for half a year \(hard, because I was married\) and to carefully divide my work responsibilities from my writing time. I basically worked on campus from 7:30\-3:30 weekdays, went home for dinner with my wife, then returned to campus and wrote from 6:30\-11:30pm. On weekend I went to my office and wrote from 9\-4, and again from 800pm\-100am. Sunday nights I stayed home. Making clear blocks of time available for writing and refusing to do *anything* else during that time was the only way to make progress. For the writing itself, it's close to impossible to give advice to someone in another field and without knowing their project. What I did was work on two things at once: I would be writing on one chapter and outlining another, so any time I got stuck on either I could turn to the other task for an hour. I also set specific goals, i.e. 4,000 words a day or revising 20 pages or incorporating 10 sources into the draft. I also used software to keep myself focused, basically a product that prevented me from opening any program on my PC except Word and Endnote for 90 minutes, after which it would give me 15 minutes of freedom. This kept me from getting distracted or wasting time chasing down sources or whatever when I really needed to be writing. I managed to write my entire diss in about four months, complete a revision, and get it to my committee. The following semester I completed all the revisions they wanted and defended in less than two months, also while teaching full time. You have less time than I did OP, but you're also farther ahead so it's certainly possible!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Time spent on Literature Review As an incoming PhD student, I'm curious as to how long (on average) it takes to complete the first literature review from start of gathering the literature to completion of the review?
RESPONSE A: My literature review ends when I'm forced to turn in my final draft 🤣
RESPONSE B: I struggled so hard with writing my first (and so far only) review paper. It was an idea for awhile, then I'd get started and print off 40 research papers to "read," get sidetracked, then another thing after another and eventually I just had to do it. It was hard for me to know when to avoid tangents or know how much to include. I did a lit review on microRNAs and metazoan alternative splicing, so there's a lot of ways I could go. I kind of had to just pick the best examples and put some of the rest in a table. I don't know how much time it took altogether, actually working but it was more difficult than my research papers by far. I also am more of a hands on kind of person with the attention span of a goldfish, haha. I'm getting ready to graduate and so far I have to say that review paper was the most difficult part of my PhD- probably because it required so much discipline on my end.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: more inclined to use GPA for hiring decisions? Do you think college degrees would become devalued because more people would hold degrees? This question is more for the short term as I think in the long run everything will even out in the end. My personal opinion is that I think the more people who pursue higher education, the more advancements we can achieve as a society faster. Just like the industrial revolution from what I understand, it was rough at first before benefiting everyone. But any idea what the short-term impact could be? Or even long term?
RESPONSE A: If college becomes free, then that causes one of two situations to occur; 1) Everyone gets a degree, at which point the degrees lose a lot of their value on the job market unless they're in highly stringent fields (e.g. engineering). 2) Institutions become *much* more selective, reducing class sizes in order to keep their institutional reputation high, entirely because that reputation ends up bringing in more grant funding. I don't think the answer is to make college free. I think realistically the answer is to reduce access to non-subsidized student loans by field, and to enforce a hard cap in how much an individual student can borrow for an undergrad degree. Then heavily encourage students to go to CC and either get into the trades or go after associates degrees. The economy doesn't really need as many psych majors as we produce, but we *do* need more associates degrees in engineering and tech fields, as well as electricians, welders, and tradesmen in general. Also go *hard* after the for-profit institutions; they're almost exclusively leeches and thieves. The only "good" (or at least, well-meaning) one I've ever heard of was Grand Canyon, when they did that brief stint as a for-profit institution in order to get their financial affairs straightened before changing back to non-profit.
RESPONSE B: Based on how it is in my country, I would assume admissions become more meritocratic. This means it will, on average, become harder for rich kids and easier for poor kids to attend. I also anticipate this will lead to better graduates (looking at e.g. PIAAC, US is lagging behind).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: the future of college education? Not sure if this is an acceptable place for this question. If there is a more appropriate sub for this let me know and I will post this question there. Please no political arguments. This is not meant to be about politics or anyone's feelings about 'free college', but the impact to students should this occur. Several Democratic candidates have expressed the desire for free college (community college and aid for lower income families from my understanding). If college essentially becomes free, what impact could that have for college graduates or students? I would imagine jobs post graduation would be more competitive at first before eventually leading to more diversity in available jobs. Do you think employers would be more inclined to use GPA for hiring decisions? Do you think college degrees would become devalued because more people would hold degrees? This question is more for the short term as I think in the long run everything will even out in the end. My personal opinion is that I think the more people who pursue higher education, the more advancements we can achieve as a society faster. Just like the industrial revolution from what I understand, it was rough at first before benefiting everyone. But any idea what the short-term impact could be? Or even long term?
RESPONSE A: The answer is probably found by looking at other countries that have free education, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Finland, and others.
RESPONSE B: > Several Democratic candidates have expressed the desire for free college (community college and aid for lower income families from my understanding) That's not really free college though - it's just more subsidies for certain parts of the population. I don't see how this is different to what is already available (especially since the people getting priced out of education are the middle class, not the low income families), nor how this will facilitate much needed structural change. I think the problem is that US education is priced against a 5-7% GDP growth rate, not the 1-2% that it is in reality, and whilst putting more of that burden on the taxpayer rather than having the private individual assume all of it is a step in the right direction - that's still a stupidly unrealistic discount rate for anyone to be paying. Rather than shifting around cost burdens, I think the government should look at how to make education cheaper in real terms.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: being recommended to a famous prof. via e-mail? I just started my postgraduate studies in the UK, and my advisor really liked the idea of one of my side-projects and sent an e-mail to a famous US professor. In it he just says that he thinks that the project that I'm planning might also be of relevance to him and that we should talk if we find time, all the while praising me very highly. I am, of course, flattered but unsure what to do next. Should I now send this prof an e-mail? Or should I wait for him to respond to my advisor and me (I was cc-ed). Please help. :)
RESPONSE A: This is happens quite often when PIs attempt to initiate collaborations or maybe your boss is hoping that you could go over to the other group to learn a technique or a method that'll help you get your side project rolling which is why he would need to vouch for you that you are smart and capable (because people know that PhD studies in the UK cannot go forever like in the US and so having too many projects/side projects is risky but clearly your boss thinks you are capable and he has to show that to your potential collaborator) I would wait for the reply. If all works out, this famous professor will say oh u/ri32pie can work with my postdoc/grad student as that person is working on a similar idea or whatever and then you can jump in. Always. I mean ALWAYS discuss with your boss or immediate supervisor (post doc or staff scientist) when you write emails or any kind of correspondence to your collaborators initially. Because there are things that your boss might not want to reveal to the other professors group (for reasons that they might be collaborating with your rival group as well) or your boss might be of the personality that he/she likes to be incharge. So running things past them atleast in the initial stages cannot hurt. Later on, based on how people are, you can just correspond in your own way. Good luck
RESPONSE B: Why would they need two emails saying the same thing? Just wait so you don't come off as desperate or clingy.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: My name is on a book chapter and I didn't do any work for that. Should I do something? I'm a PhD and my professor told me an year ago that she wants me to prepare some microscope pictures for this book chapter. At that time I told her that I don't know when I could do that and she didn't give me any deadline for it either. We haven't talked about the book chapter for an year and I thought she found someone else to do the picture. Then 2 weeks ago Research Gate asked me if I'm the one on that chapter. I absolutely did not know that she would actually put my name there (although I knew she did this before to some other people), I genuinely thought she was going to exclude me because of other things that happened... Now. She's a very vindictive person. She did a lot of nasty stuff to people that pissed her off in the past, so I'm afraid that she'll do the same with me. But do you have any suggestion on what to do? How could I explain this to a future employer? Should I explain this or just pretend that I did some work? Is this going to ruin my career? Could I report it after I get away from her?
RESPONSE A: If you don't say anything nobody else ever will either. Often just "being in the lab" is enough to get fifth author, this isn't that abnormal.
RESPONSE B: Are they your samples? This is work covered in your PhD, right?
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: What’s your best job interview awkward moments? Just finished a job talk at a very diverse discipline bio department (mix of human health, ecoevo) serving grads and undergrads. Gave a good talk (I think) that was simple enough for anyone across disciplines to understand. Apparently it must of bombed because no faculty talked to me about my research afterwards at all! Plus my shirt became untucked half way through and I had microphone issues. Fun. Now after meeting the department I think they are looking for a more “let’s make everything over complicated” type. Currently wading in some post talk anxiety. Reddit, what are your favorite awkward interview moments? I’d love a good laugh now.
RESPONSE A: I clicked on the zoom link and joined someone else’s interview LOL. I quickly got off but had paid enough attention to her name to go read up on her! She was a competitive candidate but I got the job!!!!!
RESPONSE B: I once applied for a 1 year work placement for between my studies. It was a pharmaceutical company that creates solutions for dispensing medicine. I study biomedical science so I have a broad understanding of anything medicine related and can usally say SOMETHING about anything. I got super nervous. I was stuttering like crazy. The guy asks me:" tell me a medication you have studied in your degree". I could have said anything! Aspirin, warfarin, paracetamol, penicillin.... But my mind went blank. I was there for 3min straight like "uhmm.... Welll.... Uhmmm......" Never felt so stupid before in my entire life
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What’s your best job interview awkward moments? Just finished a job talk at a very diverse discipline bio department (mix of human health, ecoevo) serving grads and undergrads. Gave a good talk (I think) that was simple enough for anyone across disciplines to understand. Apparently it must of bombed because no faculty talked to me about my research afterwards at all! Plus my shirt became untucked half way through and I had microphone issues. Fun. Now after meeting the department I think they are looking for a more “let’s make everything over complicated” type. Currently wading in some post talk anxiety. Reddit, what are your favorite awkward interview moments? I’d love a good laugh now.
RESPONSE A: Must have bombed*
RESPONSE B: I clicked on the zoom link and joined someone else’s interview LOL. I quickly got off but had paid enough attention to her name to go read up on her! She was a competitive candidate but I got the job!!!!!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: always have my comedy career to fall back on (I tell a mean yo-mama joke). Overall, do you have any advice or guidance for me? I'm young and not sure about my direction right now. I would really appreciate if a friendly stranger pointed me in a helpful direction.
RESPONSE A: The field that you're interested in exists, and it's called cognitive science. Cognitive science is the study of thought and learning, and it is an interdisciplinary field that draws from psychology, neuroscience, computer science, philosophy, linguistics, and sometimes some other fields. Most of the questions that you're interested in - including the philosophy and ethics questions - can and often are explored by cognitive scientists. Some undergraduate schools have a major in cognitive science, but you can put together a similar course of study either by creating an independent/individual major at whatever college you transfer to (you can use the course catalog of a school with a major in cognitive science as a guide), or by continuing to major in computer science and taking a lot of coursework in psychology, philosophy, and neuroscience. I was never a straight-A student (my undergrad GPA was a 3.4) and I, too, hate homework, and I managed to get a PhD. The question is whether you are capable of doing work outside of class in areas that you are really passionate about. If the answer is yes, then you can probably get through a doctoral program, Of course, you have to get through college first, which will involve sometimes doing homework in areas you may not be passionate about, so you'll have to get through those. If you're interested in doing research, seek out opportunities to do research with professors who work in areas interesting to you. If you are currently at a community college, some of your professors may be doing some research, but you may find more options at your closest four-year university/college. Don't be shy about seeking out opportunities at a college other than your own. I went to a small LAC and I had lots of friends who did research at universities other than my own; and in graduate school, we had several people in my lab who were undergrads at different colleges, including a few community college students.
RESPONSE B:
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: post PhD? I did my PhD in one of the hard sciences, finishing about a year ago. I realized more and more as my time in grad school went on that I'm not *super* into the field I did my PhD in. I don't hate it, but I think I'm more into computer science. So I'd like to switch, if possible. I'm taking time off before searching for a job, to learn more CS and work on related projects. I'm wondering how likely it is for me to be able to do interesting work in CS when I don't have a degree in (although I've tangentially used a bunch for my research). To be clear, I never wanted to be a professor (in my PhD field or now), so I'm not harboring any delusions about becoming a superstar. Ideally, I'd just like to be able to do research in CS rather than my current field, either as a postdoc or in industry, or at least work on some cool projects. Is this realistic? What are some steps to get my foot in the door? I've done a bunch of online advanced CS courses, and have done some personal projects that I could show/talk about to a potential employer, and have an active github. But am I just fighting a horribly uphill battle or is it doable? thanks for any advice.
RESPONSE A: Grain of salt needed for this one, too, since it's not the same set of fields ... I changed fields (albeit fields within chemistry) completely, and it has worked out great. I got my PhD in synthetic inorganic chemistry, but I did a long (5 year) post-doc during which I switched fields completely to molecular imaging and radiochemistry. The learning curve was a bit steep at first, but now I'm a Associate Prof. working with dual appointments in a chemistry department and a radiology department.
RESPONSE B: There’s no major barrier making it impossible. It’s your life, so do what YOU need to do. It’ll probably be challenging however you seem to have a lot of knowledge to start off which helps a lot.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: but I think I'm more into computer science. So I'd like to switch, if possible. I'm taking time off before searching for a job, to learn more CS and work on related projects. I'm wondering how likely it is for me to be able to do interesting work in CS when I don't have a degree in (although I've tangentially used a bunch for my research). To be clear, I never wanted to be a professor (in my PhD field or now), so I'm not harboring any delusions about becoming a superstar. Ideally, I'd just like to be able to do research in CS rather than my current field, either as a postdoc or in industry, or at least work on some cool projects. Is this realistic? What are some steps to get my foot in the door? I've done a bunch of online advanced CS courses, and have done some personal projects that I could show/talk about to a potential employer, and have an active github. But am I just fighting a horribly uphill battle or is it doable? thanks for any advice.
RESPONSE A: CS is FULL of cross disciplinary pupils. Personally I found nailing down research topics in grad school with limited cross disciplinary interest difficult; in part because of the department I was in which had a heavy focus on genomics and computational biology. I also seemed to be in the minority of grad students in the department having a pure CS background. It sounds like you're on the right track, in CS success is about being able to demonstrate your abilities and deliver value. Plenty of people working in the field with no academic background much less a PhD. At the same time there are plenty of people who slacked through their CS undergrads, can't even use git, don't know squat, and are borderline unemployable. So if the field interests you, peruse it!
RESPONSE B: There’s no major barrier making it impossible. It’s your life, so do what YOU need to do. It’ll probably be challenging however you seem to have a lot of knowledge to start off which helps a lot.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How possible is it for me to switch fields, post PhD? I did my PhD in one of the hard sciences, finishing about a year ago. I realized more and more as my time in grad school went on that I'm not *super* into the field I did my PhD in. I don't hate it, but I think I'm more into computer science. So I'd like to switch, if possible. I'm taking time off before searching for a job, to learn more CS and work on related projects. I'm wondering how likely it is for me to be able to do interesting work in CS when I don't have a degree in (although I've tangentially used a bunch for my research). To be clear, I never wanted to be a professor (in my PhD field or now), so I'm not harboring any delusions about becoming a superstar. Ideally, I'd just like to be able to do research in CS rather than my current field, either as a postdoc or in industry, or at least work on some cool projects. Is this realistic? What are some steps to get my foot in the door? I've done a bunch of online advanced CS courses, and have done some personal projects that I could show/talk about to a potential employer, and have an active github. But am I just fighting a horribly uphill battle or is it doable? thanks for any advice.
RESPONSE A: There’s no major barrier making it impossible. It’s your life, so do what YOU need to do. It’ll probably be challenging however you seem to have a lot of knowledge to start off which helps a lot.
RESPONSE B: I kind of did this. Ph.D. in a hard science and now work in scientific computing and publish either at comp sci conferences (though more in the practical application of CS) or computing conference related to my Ph.D. Granted, the field I did my Ph.D. in is already very computing heavy
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: have awards first), and **C)** if I should worry if my CV is longer than two pages. Here is what I have on it right now: **EDUCATION:** **-Basic education info:** Year, major, GPA -**Graduate courses:** I list the four I've taken so far and one that is upcoming. -**Research Objective:** Short paragraph (three sentences). **RESEARCH EXPERIENCE:** Two labs, one professor research assistantship, and my current capstone research project. I also have "traits and skills" in this section. **OTHER ACADEMIC ROLES:** I had two academic jobs on campus and am the undergraduate representative for a campus student leadership team. **SCHOLARSHIPS AND AWARDS:** I've won five writing contests (two for history, two for creative writing, two for journalism), have the highest merit-based scholarship awarded by my university, and am certified in using a particular type of neuroimaging equipment. **CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS:** Five listed, three are the same conference three years in a row. **SELECT INDEPENDENT HONORS AND GRADUATE PROJECTS:** This is a section for specially-contracted projects I've done that were NOT part of regular coursework (or were done as a final project in a graduate-level course). There are 8 projects listed, ranging from papers to 90-minute presentations to delivering a training workshop, etc. This section also includes a paper for a group fMRI project. Thank you for any advice, it is much appreciated! And good luck to all the other undergrads applying for summer internships this month. :)
RESPONSE A: Nix any class project, grad level or not. Paper for a class, cut it out. Traits? Out.
RESPONSE B: I would remove the graduate courses section and the projects, which you completed as part of a class. Also, note that you cannot mention in your CV things you haven’t done already. The “Academic roles” section should probably be removed as well unless the roles are directly related to the internship you’re applying for.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: -exact copies of a journal article from the same people (occasionally it's the same title), same results, same figures. Are all of these normal? Do you do these things, too? (I'm in Physics/Engineering, but I'll listen to people in other fields)
RESPONSE A: Most psychology conferences won't accept submissions based on work that is already published. Things about to be published are fair game, but it would be uncommon to see the exact same materials presented over multiple years -- that would only happen if the person opted not to move forward with publishing their research. That said, I'll certainly recycle background slides from related past presentations, and I'll submit work to conferences that is under review and likely to be accepted such that the presentation might roughly co-occur with publication. That's normal and helps promote visibility of good work.
RESPONSE B: >Because I thought conferences are mostly a way to show off your published/about-to-be-published results. >I've seen people present the same slides in different conferences for multiple years. I've seen people use the same posters for different conferences. I've seen conference proceedings be near-exact copies of a journal article from the same people (occasionally it's the same title), same results, same figures. I don't see these as contradictory? You present something that you're about to publish, and then you continue to present it after it's published to make sure it gets attention. Generally, you want the research presented in a conference to eventually be peer-reviewed and more thoroughly presented in a journal article. I'd be more concerned if conference results *weren't* present in any article (published or upcoming). Of course, the actual formatting of the graphs etc might be different, but I really see conferences as another venue to present the same results. Most projects are big enough to take several years and produce several journal articles. A few years isn't all that long in academia, and you'd expect to be working on a lot of the same stuff. So I'd expect most people to present very similar presentations over years, adding new results and insights as they go. Some people do take it a bit far though, I guess.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Do you run experiments/run calculations/generate new results just for the sake of a conference presentation? Title. Because I thought conferences are mostly a way to show off your published/about-to-be-published results. I've seen people present the same slides in different conferences for multiple years. I've seen people use the same posters for different conferences. I've seen conference proceedings be near-exact copies of a journal article from the same people (occasionally it's the same title), same results, same figures. Are all of these normal? Do you do these things, too? (I'm in Physics/Engineering, but I'll listen to people in other fields)
RESPONSE A: Most psychology conferences won't accept submissions based on work that is already published. Things about to be published are fair game, but it would be uncommon to see the exact same materials presented over multiple years -- that would only happen if the person opted not to move forward with publishing their research. That said, I'll certainly recycle background slides from related past presentations, and I'll submit work to conferences that is under review and likely to be accepted such that the presentation might roughly co-occur with publication. That's normal and helps promote visibility of good work.
RESPONSE B: I've worked in two fields: science literacy education research and hydrology. In my experience, no, we don't run new experiments JUST for conferences. Mostly because we are too busy with the projects we are currently juggling. In science literacy, it's normal to have the same presentation (with slightly changed information as research progresses) at different conferences with in the same year. It's also typical to have presentaions about innovative course designs that are just updates on how the course was designed and the types of assignments, technologies, and materials used. In a way, hydrology can be the same. As long as the work is progressing and you are adding new findings to the presentation, you can use it at multiple conferences. While some of the people overlap at these conferences, in my experience the vast majority will not and there will be tons of people who have never seen your work and are excited to learn about your findings.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Phd and the industry Most people I’ve spoken to usually get their phd and go into academia as their profession, but that’s not what I want to do. I really enjoy research and want to work in the industry ( research companies, biotech companies, pharmaceutical companies, etc). What are peoples thoughts on getting a phd and working in the industry? Is it worth it? Any personal experiences?
RESPONSE A: I just defended in October, was considering a postdoc but explored industry openings. Found really cool positions in biotech/pharma (still doing research that I love, no chasing after grants!), applied, and just got an offer for… no joke… 5x my offered postdoc salary. Definitely check out your options
RESPONSE B: I did an industrial PhD (CIFRE) in France and I loved it. I had virtually none of the typical grad school complaints about finances or work-life balance. The solid experience and training made it pretty easy to find a job in industry in the US.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Phd and the industry Most people I’ve spoken to usually get their phd and go into academia as their profession, but that’s not what I want to do. I really enjoy research and want to work in the industry ( research companies, biotech companies, pharmaceutical companies, etc). What are peoples thoughts on getting a phd and working in the industry? Is it worth it? Any personal experiences?
RESPONSE A: It’s fucking great. It was worth it. I did it, would do again.
RESPONSE B: [Beyond the Professoriate](beyondprof.com) was mentioned on here a couple of days ago and I saved it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Phd and the industry Most people I’ve spoken to usually get their phd and go into academia as their profession, but that’s not what I want to do. I really enjoy research and want to work in the industry ( research companies, biotech companies, pharmaceutical companies, etc). What are peoples thoughts on getting a phd and working in the industry? Is it worth it? Any personal experiences?
RESPONSE A: I did a PhD and then went to industry. I'm much happier in R&D in big pharma than I was in academia.
RESPONSE B: [Beyond the Professoriate](beyondprof.com) was mentioned on here a couple of days ago and I saved it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Phd and the industry Most people I’ve spoken to usually get their phd and go into academia as their profession, but that’s not what I want to do. I really enjoy research and want to work in the industry ( research companies, biotech companies, pharmaceutical companies, etc). What are peoples thoughts on getting a phd and working in the industry? Is it worth it? Any personal experiences?
RESPONSE A: I say go for it. I've been considering a similar path. Most universities are starting to rely more on adjunct rather than tenure-track faculty, which is disgusting. I'm at a fairly large university in the southeast, and they recently advertised for a tenure-track ecology professor (most of the openings are adjunct). They received well over 200 applications. My PI is on the search committee and she said it was a very eye-opening experience. Most of the applicants had multiple postdocs, first-author papers in Nature, Ecology, Science, ect. Most recent PhD grads won't have a shot at those positions with that level of competition. I was a federal employee for 2 years. The salary I had in my most recent position wasn't bad, but the environment was toxic as hell. I took a considerable pay cut to come back to work with my PI as a postdoc. Federal jobs have similar problems with hiring though. It's antiquated, and there's a lot of nepotism. It wasn't an industry position, but it is another option to consider. Right now, geneticists are in high demand in a variety of federal agencies, and they pay very well. But I think you'd still get a better salary with an industry position. My background is fish ecophysiology. Basically I study how environmental changes affect fish biology and behavior. I haven't completely given up on industry, but I have to do a little more research on which skills are transferable. I was interviewed for an environmental consulting firm, but it was more of a desk job than anything else.
RESPONSE B: I did a PhD and then went to industry. I'm much happier in R&D in big pharma than I was in academia.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: of the penis. It is shaped so that the semen of previous mates is expelled during sexual intercourse and gives each sexual partner a fighting chance of impregnation. But none of this matters at all because evolutionary psychology is a violation of the appeal to nature fallacy. Our species is the only one to date that can self-reflect on its self with such a degree of complexity. We are smart enough to exceed the limitations of our biological constraints and we do so on a daily basis.
RESPONSE A: I think the field of evolutionary psychology is a mixed bag. I feel like theres a lot of hand waving along the lines of "behavior X is explained by natural selection pressure Y." Its difficult (but not impossible) to come up with a testable hypothesis in this way. Steven Pinker is one of the only intellectuals I trust in the field of evolutionary psychology. His book "The Blank Slate" is amazing. He is very careful with his reasoning and to not make unsubstantiated claims. Here is a short interview he does on the topic of evolution and homosexuality. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5oC5KzAcf8 Edit: Heres another interview with Steven Pinker. The first question is "Does the theory of evolution apply to behavior?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_lfFYpVlGE
RESPONSE B: Psychology Professor here. Evolutionary psychology is on its firmest ground when it's discussing traits that are common to all mammals, or even better, all animals. Take taste aversion. If both rats and humans associate tastes with gastrointestinal distress or other forms of sickness, this is very likely an evolved trait. You can't explain it with appeals to culture. But when we start talking about specifically human behaviors, it can be difficult to tease apart what's cultural from what's evolved. I'm especially skeptical about evo psych approaches to dating which seem to assume what humans were like 50,000 years ago by observing indigenous cultures today, which is problematic on a lot of levels. Here is a recent critique of evolutionary psychology in *The American Psychologist* which you might find helpful.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: deal with the immediate consequences. Proponents of evolutionary psychology also ignore the anthropological evidence that our ancestors were promiscuous as hell. A woman sleeping with one individual is not the best strategy for passing on genes when living in a tribal society that faces dangers from predators, natural disasters etc. Having every man in the tribe believing that every child in the tribe has a strong likelihood of being theirs makes for a better strategy of passing on their genes. This idea is backed up by the anatomy of the penis. It is shaped so that the semen of previous mates is expelled during sexual intercourse and gives each sexual partner a fighting chance of impregnation. But none of this matters at all because evolutionary psychology is a violation of the appeal to nature fallacy. Our species is the only one to date that can self-reflect on its self with such a degree of complexity. We are smart enough to exceed the limitations of our biological constraints and we do so on a daily basis.
RESPONSE A: I think the field of evolutionary psychology is a mixed bag. I feel like theres a lot of hand waving along the lines of "behavior X is explained by natural selection pressure Y." Its difficult (but not impossible) to come up with a testable hypothesis in this way. Steven Pinker is one of the only intellectuals I trust in the field of evolutionary psychology. His book "The Blank Slate" is amazing. He is very careful with his reasoning and to not make unsubstantiated claims. Here is a short interview he does on the topic of evolution and homosexuality. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5oC5KzAcf8 Edit: Heres another interview with Steven Pinker. The first question is "Does the theory of evolution apply to behavior?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_lfFYpVlGE
RESPONSE B: To inform the discussion, here is the open-access journal 'Evolutionary Psychology'. People can read the articles and see for themselves the kinds of topics and discussions that evolutionary psychology works on (at least, when for whatever reason it isn't published in a closed journal).
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: What are the best "teaching" colleges? I'm interested in working towards getting a position at a teaching college, one that doesn't focus on research as much as teaching, but frankly I don't really know how to tell if a university is a research school or a teaching school. What are the best teaching universities out there?
RESPONSE A: In California, the CSU system focuses more on teaching. From the top of my head, the more well regarded schools are CSULB, Fullerton, San Diego State, San Luis Obispo, and Cal Poly Pomona but it might vary by field. In all there are 23 campuses across California. Here's the rest of them http://www.calstate.edu/search_find/campus.shtml
RESPONSE B: Four year liberal arts colleges (and four-year engineering schools like Harvey Mudd) are teaching-oriented. State universities that do not offer Ph.D. degrees are teaching-oriented.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Did any books on how to write help you? If so, which ones? I feel like I am just an okay writer, but I want to improve. I had professors suggest random books, like Zinsser’s On Writing Well. But, I am so skeptical when it comes down to reading a book to learn to write, especially since I feel like I had the basics already drilled in my head. Can anyone change my mind? And maybe offer suggestions on what books changed their mind/writing?
RESPONSE A: I really like Alan Alda's sci comm book and Houston, We Have A Narrative. Both are less concerned with the actual details of what's "proper" writing (like Elements of Style, etc) and more about actually presenting a clear compelling argument people will remember when they put down the page.
RESPONSE B: I love this super simple book that lays out the "formula" for academic writing: They Say, I Say. It's not so much about style but rather the rhetorical moves that almost universally happen in an academically structured text.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Did any books on how to write help you? If so, which ones? I feel like I am just an okay writer, but I want to improve. I had professors suggest random books, like Zinsser’s On Writing Well. But, I am so skeptical when it comes down to reading a book to learn to write, especially since I feel like I had the basics already drilled in my head. Can anyone change my mind? And maybe offer suggestions on what books changed their mind/writing?
RESPONSE A: I love this super simple book that lays out the "formula" for academic writing: They Say, I Say. It's not so much about style but rather the rhetorical moves that almost universally happen in an academically structured text.
RESPONSE B: Bird by Bird by Anne Lamott (especially the chapter called “Shitty First Drafts.”
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: To the professors... why be a professor? What were the main determining reasons why you stayed in academia, this especially goes to the stem folk. Why not cash out and go to industry? All I hear is how long and grueling the process was to get to where you are, was it worth it? I’m a first year applied math PhD student, looking for advice on the road ahead. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: Tenured professor here. It's not about the money. It's about helping students achieve their goals. It's about creative freedom to pursue research in any facet I want. It's about doing what I love without people telling me what to do. It's about having a research lab with students who have a passion for the exact same thing you are doing. I love my job. Wouldn't have it any other way. There's just so much I can learn. I'm teaching a brand new class this semester that I've had to basically create from scratch and it's amazing.
RESPONSE B: For me: I love my field (finance) and I love teaching it. There's also a lot of freedom which I enjoy as well. I've worked outside of academia and there is plenty of challenge (you don't stop following the literature just because you're outside of academia), but it was generally more applied than what you would find in academia: you're encouraged to find what works rather than doing a real deep dive. So: Industry was fun, academia is more fun to me right now. Not sure if I'll feel the same way in 5-10 years, but for now I'm really enjoying this life!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: why you stayed in academia, this especially goes to the stem folk. Why not cash out and go to industry? All I hear is how long and grueling the process was to get to where you are, was it worth it? I’m a first year applied math PhD student, looking for advice on the road ahead. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: Tenured professor here. It's not about the money. It's about helping students achieve their goals. It's about creative freedom to pursue research in any facet I want. It's about doing what I love without people telling me what to do. It's about having a research lab with students who have a passion for the exact same thing you are doing. I love my job. Wouldn't have it any other way. There's just so much I can learn. I'm teaching a brand new class this semester that I've had to basically create from scratch and it's amazing.
RESPONSE B: Do professors actually make that much less money? I feel like the 12 month salary at an R1 isn't bad, even compared to industry. Tenured STEM faculty make well into the $200-300k range. It takes a while to get there, but if you don't go through a PhD your salary in industry can have a much lower ceiling anyway. State schools have all their faculty salaries online and searchable (but they report 9-month salaries, so you have to multiply that number by 4/3). Just a quick look around seems like starting Assistant Profs in STEM are all around $100K 9-month salary range. That is higher than even senior engineers in industry (see https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/high-engineer-salary), maybe excluding Silicon Valley (but then you're paying a lot to live in SF as well). One more note, engineering faculty can consult at incredible rates. One of my previous professors was an expert witness on a high-profile patent case and was paid 900$/hr over a several year period. That's a pretty special case, but I wouldn't even blink an eye if a typical consulting project was billed at 200$/hr.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: in academia, this especially goes to the stem folk. Why not cash out and go to industry? All I hear is how long and grueling the process was to get to where you are, was it worth it? I’m a first year applied math PhD student, looking for advice on the road ahead. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: Do professors actually make that much less money? I feel like the 12 month salary at an R1 isn't bad, even compared to industry. Tenured STEM faculty make well into the $200-300k range. It takes a while to get there, but if you don't go through a PhD your salary in industry can have a much lower ceiling anyway. State schools have all their faculty salaries online and searchable (but they report 9-month salaries, so you have to multiply that number by 4/3). Just a quick look around seems like starting Assistant Profs in STEM are all around $100K 9-month salary range. That is higher than even senior engineers in industry (see https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/high-engineer-salary), maybe excluding Silicon Valley (but then you're paying a lot to live in SF as well). One more note, engineering faculty can consult at incredible rates. One of my previous professors was an expert witness on a high-profile patent case and was paid 900$/hr over a several year period. That's a pretty special case, but I wouldn't even blink an eye if a typical consulting project was billed at 200$/hr.
RESPONSE B: For me: I love my field (finance) and I love teaching it. There's also a lot of freedom which I enjoy as well. I've worked outside of academia and there is plenty of challenge (you don't stop following the literature just because you're outside of academia), but it was generally more applied than what you would find in academia: you're encouraged to find what works rather than doing a real deep dive. So: Industry was fun, academia is more fun to me right now. Not sure if I'll feel the same way in 5-10 years, but for now I'm really enjoying this life!
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: prepare speaker notes and practice before the lecture? Do you prepare speaker notes and give a practice talk of your lecture before actually delivering them? - First time assistant professor
RESPONSE A: If it's something I've never talked about, or presentation I've never given, I will always talk through it as though I'm giving the presentation. As a professor, I would always do that. Now that I've left academia, I still do it when I give presentations to clients, or when I do conference talks. The better prepared you are, the more coherent and organized you will appear. And like it or not, appearances and perceptions are important.
RESPONSE B: During my first semester, I used to informally practice my lecture (like reading in my head, but trying to follow the same pace as my lecture), because I had trouble evaluating the time of my lecture (I was worried about not having enough material so I always prepared too much). I loved my subject, but I wasn't very comfortable speaking in public so I had to work on that. Eight years later I simply go through my notes before printing them to see if there is anything wrong and what I should skip if I don't have enough time. I still write way too much for my taste (still not as comfortable as I would like to be), but I'm working on it, and things are slowly getting better as I get more experience. I would suggest: do what you need to do to feel comfortable, and gradually take more risks.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: prepare speaker notes and practice before the lecture? Do you prepare speaker notes and give a practice talk of your lecture before actually delivering them? - First time assistant professor
RESPONSE A: Speaker notes, yes. (Not verbatim manuscripts, but more like handwritten versions of Powerpoints.) I have never done practice talks. If I give a lecture for the first time, I build it around questions or small activities that I have the students do. If I have a 1-hour lecture, I'll put 2-4 of those in the presentation. (I talk for 45 min, and they react/discuss for 15 min total, sort of.) Other than that, I make sure I "own" the last 15 minutes of the presentation, where I can summarize and highlight important things without interruption. If I'm uncertain how things will turn out, I usually have a second line of stuff that I keep in reserve, in case I had too little to talk about and/or if the audience doesn't chip in as expected. I pretty much never have to use these backups. If anything, time runs out prematurely.
RESPONSE B: If it's something I've never talked about, or presentation I've never given, I will always talk through it as though I'm giving the presentation. As a professor, I would always do that. Now that I've left academia, I still do it when I give presentations to clients, or when I do conference talks. The better prepared you are, the more coherent and organized you will appear. And like it or not, appearances and perceptions are important.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: prepare speaker notes and practice before the lecture? Do you prepare speaker notes and give a practice talk of your lecture before actually delivering them? - First time assistant professor
RESPONSE A: If it's something I've never talked about, or presentation I've never given, I will always talk through it as though I'm giving the presentation. As a professor, I would always do that. Now that I've left academia, I still do it when I give presentations to clients, or when I do conference talks. The better prepared you are, the more coherent and organized you will appear. And like it or not, appearances and perceptions are important.
RESPONSE B: I prepare a written manuscript for the talk. Then I read the manuscript out loud to get an idea how long the talk would be. Then I edit the manuscript. Once the manuscript is finished, I practice the talk 3-4 times. Works very well for me.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: understand what different types of research are actually like, so if you could help me out I would appreciate it.
RESPONSE A: I'm a professor in Aerospace Engineering. I think one of the key features of being a professor is that you have multiple jobs you're responsible for. * I'm a teacher, so I spend some time teaching classes, grading, preparing future classes, writing exams, etc. * I'm a manager, so I spend time meeting with my research students to hear what they've gotten done in the prior week and helping them figure out what to do next, as well as planning out what projects my students could work on that would be meaningful scientifically and interesting to the students. * I'm a fundraiser / CEO of my research group, responsible for bringing in money, so I write documents that ask the government for money to do new research that I'm excited about. * I'm an academic who is responsible for sharing the knowledge I gain with the rest of the scientific community, so I write papers on research that I've done, travel to other universities to give seminars, go to conferences to present and hear other presentations, and read papers that others have written to understand where my research fits. * I also spend a lot of time planning my schedule to make sure I prioritize all of these different tasks an appropriate amount day to day and week to week. There's a lot to juggle, but I love all the different pieces of the job. There isn't much time to do actual research, but I really enjoy thinking of the ideas for what research to do and seeing what my students can do with the ideas I give them.
RESPONSE B: I spent all morning dealing with student's timetable clashes before term starts next week and catching up on e-mails. I'm now spending the afternoon on the train, going to give a seminar on my research tomorrow at another university. While on the train I'm checking the corrected version of a PhD thesis I was examiner for. You can imagine that when teaching actually starts it gets busier... When I actually get time to do research I'm a mathematician so all I need is time, space and a blackboard, preferably with a collaborator.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Professors, what is your area of specialization and what does your day-to-day research ACTUALLY consist of? I am an undergraduate freshman interested in a PhD and becoming a professor, but my interests are so wide! I’m trying to understand what different types of research are actually like, so if you could help me out I would appreciate it.
RESPONSE A: I'm a professor in Aerospace Engineering. I think one of the key features of being a professor is that you have multiple jobs you're responsible for. * I'm a teacher, so I spend some time teaching classes, grading, preparing future classes, writing exams, etc. * I'm a manager, so I spend time meeting with my research students to hear what they've gotten done in the prior week and helping them figure out what to do next, as well as planning out what projects my students could work on that would be meaningful scientifically and interesting to the students. * I'm a fundraiser / CEO of my research group, responsible for bringing in money, so I write documents that ask the government for money to do new research that I'm excited about. * I'm an academic who is responsible for sharing the knowledge I gain with the rest of the scientific community, so I write papers on research that I've done, travel to other universities to give seminars, go to conferences to present and hear other presentations, and read papers that others have written to understand where my research fits. * I also spend a lot of time planning my schedule to make sure I prioritize all of these different tasks an appropriate amount day to day and week to week. There's a lot to juggle, but I love all the different pieces of the job. There isn't much time to do actual research, but I really enjoy thinking of the ideas for what research to do and seeing what my students can do with the ideas I give them.
RESPONSE B: You need to specify a major at least.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Professors, what is your area of specialization and what does your day-to-day research ACTUALLY consist of? I am an undergraduate freshman interested in a PhD and becoming a professor, but my interests are so wide! I’m trying to understand what different types of research are actually like, so if you could help me out I would appreciate it.
RESPONSE A: I have a PhD in physics, specializing in observational cosmology. Day to day, I don't really get any research done. I have a 3-4 teaching load and a supervisory position, so I really don't have the time to work on my research except over the summer. In addition, I had trouble maintaining my collaborations and finding students willing/capable of assisting in my PhD work at my current institution, so I've switched fields entirely to something a bit closer to engineering that students can more easily contribute to and I can find more funding in. My day-to-day work includes teaching, grading, meeting with students, and a ton of committee work. But I'm enjoying it and wouldn't trade it for a different type of position. I feel like I make more of a difference in the student's lives with my committee work and teaching than I would have with my original research field.
RESPONSE B: You need to specify a major at least.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Professors, what is your area of specialization and what does your day-to-day research ACTUALLY consist of? I am an undergraduate freshman interested in a PhD and becoming a professor, but my interests are so wide! I’m trying to understand what different types of research are actually like, so if you could help me out I would appreciate it.
RESPONSE A: You need to specify a major at least.
RESPONSE B: I work to develop sustainable materials. This sits on the edge of chemistry, materials science, and engineering. Some days im just trying to make jello in a rock tumbler. Other days I am getting waste chemicals from large corporations to turn them into something safer and more useful. I like sustainable science because its very interdisciplinary. You can work on the economics of the problem, or social justice side, or the environmental parts. It means you need a good team but requires you to get out of the lab an collaborate.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How do you all do figures/illustrations of concepts for your papers? Meaning, not an autocad rendering of some device or a comsol simulation...just the conceptual drawings meant to illustrate the overall idea. Such as, if I wanted to show a stylized image of bacteria like this: http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/images/issue/2007/jul30/4_AntibioticResistantBacteria_13.jpg but obviously not as well done, just trying to give an idea of what I mean. Is there some software you all are using to get nice professional drawings? any recommendations? im just tryna get published u no wut im sayin
RESPONSE A: It's not uncommon for people to work with professional artists, especially for high profile journals, review articles, etc, where the figures are critically important and will be widely distributed. Otherwise, I've heard of people using photoshop, google sketchup, or just good old powerpoint.
RESPONSE B: Illustrator or Inkscape
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do you all do figures/illustrations of concepts for your papers? Meaning, not an autocad rendering of some device or a comsol simulation...just the conceptual drawings meant to illustrate the overall idea. Such as, if I wanted to show a stylized image of bacteria like this: http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/images/issue/2007/jul30/4_AntibioticResistantBacteria_13.jpg but obviously not as well done, just trying to give an idea of what I mean. Is there some software you all are using to get nice professional drawings? any recommendations? im just tryna get published u no wut im sayin
RESPONSE A: Illustrator or Inkscape
RESPONSE B: I use omnigraffle
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do you all do figures/illustrations of concepts for your papers? Meaning, not an autocad rendering of some device or a comsol simulation...just the conceptual drawings meant to illustrate the overall idea. Such as, if I wanted to show a stylized image of bacteria like this: http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/images/issue/2007/jul30/4_AntibioticResistantBacteria_13.jpg but obviously not as well done, just trying to give an idea of what I mean. Is there some software you all are using to get nice professional drawings? any recommendations? im just tryna get published u no wut im sayin
RESPONSE A: Illustrator or Inkscape
RESPONSE B: I use Omnigraffle for 2D images but for more detailed 3D images like the one you linked to, I've used AutoCAD or Strata 3D with post editing in Photoshop or Gimp. It's a lot of work to go the 3D route, so make sure you have the time and aptitude. When you work in a corporation or university they'll have an art department that can help you out.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: How do you search for state of the art papers? I am searching for a state of the art paper on the topic multiclass classification. What I am doing is searching it on Google Scholar and then from the results I check whether the journal or the conference where the paper has been published is an A* conference or not. I am not sure whether it is the best way to do it or not. How do you search for the state of the art paper on a topic?
RESPONSE A: You read them. Honestly, your approach is pretty terrible. The best journals do not always output the best papers - Psych Science, for example, has been publishing SHIT this year. You don't have a retraction on good papers. Same for Conferences. Yes, checking by citation count is a basic way, but then you're not getting state of the art, you're getting seminal for the most part (unless you limit the years). Google for the most part already does sort by citations. 'State of the art' is a stupid phrase, because research is so heavily broken up that even people who all go to the same conference would probably argue over what 'state of the art' paper is this year. The only other thought would be to look for Paper of the Year awards, but even then, you're finding one paper, judged by a very small group of people...
RESPONSE B: Look up some relevant papers and snowball forward to find anything they were cited in. (Do reverse snowballing for the seminal papers) Edit: Spelling
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How do you search for state of the art papers? I am searching for a state of the art paper on the topic multiclass classification. What I am doing is searching it on Google Scholar and then from the results I check whether the journal or the conference where the paper has been published is an A* conference or not. I am not sure whether it is the best way to do it or not. How do you search for the state of the art paper on a topic?
RESPONSE A: If you want to find state of the art papers go to paperswithcode.com They have leaderboards of various tasks and datasets
RESPONSE B: Research papers are a conversation between people studying similar topics. So you find someone doing work you like and you start reading. Then you read the things that paper cited. Then you read that guy's papers for a while, then you read their citations. You keep doing this until you can follow the conversation. Then you think hard/calculate/measure and try to come up with something to add that they havent said that they would care about and you write. "State of the art" is for industry. Research is more fluid, more of a conversation. By the time a fact is no longer in contention it is well past what the most recent conversation is about.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: How do you search for state of the art papers? I am searching for a state of the art paper on the topic multiclass classification. What I am doing is searching it on Google Scholar and then from the results I check whether the journal or the conference where the paper has been published is an A* conference or not. I am not sure whether it is the best way to do it or not. How do you search for the state of the art paper on a topic?
RESPONSE A: I mean, you do it more based on your knowledge of the field, your knowledge of where the state-of-the-art is (or is going), and your ability to manipulate keywords in the various search engines that you end up using. On top of that, you pretty quickly learn who the major names and institutions are and you keep an eye out for any papers from those particular labs.
RESPONSE B: Research papers are a conversation between people studying similar topics. So you find someone doing work you like and you start reading. Then you read the things that paper cited. Then you read that guy's papers for a while, then you read their citations. You keep doing this until you can follow the conversation. Then you think hard/calculate/measure and try to come up with something to add that they havent said that they would care about and you write. "State of the art" is for industry. Research is more fluid, more of a conversation. By the time a fact is no longer in contention it is well past what the most recent conversation is about.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: When to make contact with professors about a PhD I am currently doing a part-time MSc, I am in my first year of three. I am thinking that I would like to pursue a PhD after this. When is it appropriate to reach out to professors who have an interest in what you want to research for you PhD, I am in the UK and plan on doing the PhD in the UK.
RESPONSE A: What discipline are you in? In my uni/faculty (Tech) you usually contact when you want to start the application process. You should come with a proposal and let the prospective supervisor give you some feedback before you submit. They may also be able to tell you about any scholarships etc. that might be available for you/them to apply for. I'd say the sooner the better, but also make sure you have a good idea first :)
RESPONSE B: It really depends on the discipline. In some departments, the students are not expected/supposed to contact the professors before they are admitted to the program. In other cases, you have to be pre-approved by a professor/lab to be considered for a PhD. In short, you should ask this to your adviser/mentor.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: When to make contact with professors about a PhD I am currently doing a part-time MSc, I am in my first year of three. I am thinking that I would like to pursue a PhD after this. When is it appropriate to reach out to professors who have an interest in what you want to research for you PhD, I am in the UK and plan on doing the PhD in the UK.
RESPONSE A: I'm not in the UK so YMMV. I began reaching out to potential supervisors in the August/Sept timeframe for schools with application deadlines of December/January. I would not recommend doing it much earlier (certainly not if you still have 2 yrs of masters left) for three reasons: 1. in the one or two years between now and then you may find your interests change slightly. 2. Profs may not know the funding situation that far in advance and therefore if they'll even be accepting new students. 3. It's an awful long time to remain on their radar. With point 3, my experience was that with a few potential supervisors I had a great response relatively quickly. I used the opportunity to arrange school visits closer to application deadlines. But ultimately because different schools have different acceptance timelines I ultimately had to wait until the spring until I could find out which schools I had gotten into and which I ultimately wanted to attend. In the intervening months the profs would occasionally send polite emails asking if I had made up my mind yet, which I had to politely respond to and say I hadn't yet. It just made all begins to feel awkward relatively quickly. And that period from first contact to accepting a position was only 7 or 8 months.
RESPONSE B: It really depends on the discipline. In some departments, the students are not expected/supposed to contact the professors before they are admitted to the program. In other cases, you have to be pre-approved by a professor/lab to be considered for a PhD. In short, you should ask this to your adviser/mentor.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: When to make contact with professors about a PhD I am currently doing a part-time MSc, I am in my first year of three. I am thinking that I would like to pursue a PhD after this. When is it appropriate to reach out to professors who have an interest in what you want to research for you PhD, I am in the UK and plan on doing the PhD in the UK.
RESPONSE A: It really depends on the discipline. In some departments, the students are not expected/supposed to contact the professors before they are admitted to the program. In other cases, you have to be pre-approved by a professor/lab to be considered for a PhD. In short, you should ask this to your adviser/mentor.
RESPONSE B: I've heard of situations where people would 'upgrade' their research based masters into a PhD. That is, they forgo a masters degree and that time becomes the first year(s) of their PhD. This might be something worth exploring as it would save you time overall. This would likely require you to stay at your current university and your currently line of research.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Applying to PhD with a driving violation record I have "driving without lights" on my record. To be more precise, I was driving at night with partially broken headlights, and I didn't realize it until I was pulled over. I paid the fine and the issue seems to have been settled, but the record still remains online; it can be found by searching for my name on Google. I have no other driving violation record of any sort. How much would this hurt me, when applying to PhD programs in the physical sciences? If they are trying to choose between and me and another candidate with similar stats, could this possibly be a factor in making them choose the other candidate over me?
RESPONSE A: For the apps that I've seen, they only care if you've been convicted of a crime for which a pardon has not been granted. Moving violations don't count, and remember: almost everyone has gotten a ticket for something at some point. I'd be shocked if it were an issue. Good luck. :)
RESPONSE B: Literally no one on an admissions committee will care in the slightest.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
B
|
POST: Applying to PhD with a driving violation record I have "driving without lights" on my record. To be more precise, I was driving at night with partially broken headlights, and I didn't realize it until I was pulled over. I paid the fine and the issue seems to have been settled, but the record still remains online; it can be found by searching for my name on Google. I have no other driving violation record of any sort. How much would this hurt me, when applying to PhD programs in the physical sciences? If they are trying to choose between and me and another candidate with similar stats, could this possibly be a factor in making them choose the other candidate over me?
RESPONSE A: Lmao this is the best post.
RESPONSE B: This is the one of the most important parts of any application. In my department (which happens to be the one you're applying to), the importance is: 1.) Research Experience 2.) Absence of extremely minor traffic violations. 3.) College GPA 4.) GRE scores.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Applying to PhD with a driving violation record I have "driving without lights" on my record. To be more precise, I was driving at night with partially broken headlights, and I didn't realize it until I was pulled over. I paid the fine and the issue seems to have been settled, but the record still remains online; it can be found by searching for my name on Google. I have no other driving violation record of any sort. How much would this hurt me, when applying to PhD programs in the physical sciences? If they are trying to choose between and me and another candidate with similar stats, could this possibly be a factor in making them choose the other candidate over me?
RESPONSE A: This is the one of the most important parts of any application. In my department (which happens to be the one you're applying to), the importance is: 1.) Research Experience 2.) Absence of extremely minor traffic violations. 3.) College GPA 4.) GRE scores.
RESPONSE B: For the apps that I've seen, they only care if you've been convicted of a crime for which a pardon has not been granted. Moving violations don't count, and remember: almost everyone has gotten a ticket for something at some point. I'd be shocked if it were an issue. Good luck. :)
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Applying to PhD with a driving violation record I have "driving without lights" on my record. To be more precise, I was driving at night with partially broken headlights, and I didn't realize it until I was pulled over. I paid the fine and the issue seems to have been settled, but the record still remains online; it can be found by searching for my name on Google. I have no other driving violation record of any sort. How much would this hurt me, when applying to PhD programs in the physical sciences? If they are trying to choose between and me and another candidate with similar stats, could this possibly be a factor in making them choose the other candidate over me?
RESPONSE A: This is the one of the most important parts of any application. In my department (which happens to be the one you're applying to), the importance is: 1.) Research Experience 2.) Absence of extremely minor traffic violations. 3.) College GPA 4.) GRE scores.
RESPONSE B: Metaphorically, getting a PhD is often like driving without lights. :) Humor aside, it wont' matter in the least.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: Applying to PhD with a driving violation record I have "driving without lights" on my record. To be more precise, I was driving at night with partially broken headlights, and I didn't realize it until I was pulled over. I paid the fine and the issue seems to have been settled, but the record still remains online; it can be found by searching for my name on Google. I have no other driving violation record of any sort. How much would this hurt me, when applying to PhD programs in the physical sciences? If they are trying to choose between and me and another candidate with similar stats, could this possibly be a factor in making them choose the other candidate over me?
RESPONSE A: This is the one of the most important parts of any application. In my department (which happens to be the one you're applying to), the importance is: 1.) Research Experience 2.) Absence of extremely minor traffic violations. 3.) College GPA 4.) GRE scores.
RESPONSE B: You should have seen this one coming.
Which response is better? RESPONSE
|
A
|
POST: plagiarism software I'm finishing off my masters dissertation and I was wondering if there was any particular plagiarism software that anyone recommends? There are so many out there I don't know which one to pick! If it's good, I don't mind paying as long as it's not really expensive. One of our lecturers mentioned putting our assignments through such software to our class earlier this year - is this a normal thing for students to do?
RESPONSE A: Do you not remember if you plagiarized someone else?
RESPONSE B: Literally used WriteCheck an hour ago. It uses the same database as TurnItIn.com to check for plagiarism, but the program/website does not upload your work in the TurnItIn database. Source: http://en.writecheck.com/faq/
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.