text:
On the qualification for teacher-researcher/enseignant-chercheur (MCF) positions in France and its recent abolition - what exactly does the law say?
My question is about the necessity of the qualification for teacher-researcher/enseignant-chercheur (maître de conférence- abbreviated as MCF below) positions in France and its recent abolition in 2020. I'm unable to conclude if a PhD who doesn't already have a relevant position of teacher-researcher, can apply for the same in France without the qualification? (N.B. please note that the qualification is a process or at least used to be a process, which every applicant has/had to go through, it's a technical term, not a generic English word in my post.)
I did some research and asked people already in the French academia, and from there, I'm getting two seemingly contradictory information:
Information 1: from December 2020, one is no longer required to have qualification to apply for the MCF (= enseignant-chercheur) positions, see link1, link2,
Information 2: On the other hand though, when I wrote to the people of Galaxie, they replied:
"Pour information, si vous n’êtes pas maître de conférences titulaire (ou assimilé) vous devez disposer d’une qualification délivrée par le CNU en cours de validité. La loi de programmation pour la recherche supprime l’inscription par le CNU sur une liste de qualification aux fonctions de professeur des universités pour tous les candidats qui ont la qualité de maître de conférences titulaire (ou assimilé) et non pas pour ceux qui souhaitent devenir maître de conférence."
The above essentially says that the qualification step is no longer mandatory for the post of university professors only and not for MCF. As you see, the two above pieces of information seem contradictory/confusing, as I don't have the link to the exact law that was passed. Hence my question to the academic people in France - can a foreigner apply to the MCF positions now without having the qualification?

Since there seems to be some uncertainty in the other answer / comment thread, I will offer my point of view. (I'm a MCF in a French university.) If you just want the answer, skip to the section that starts by It depends below.
You are misreading the information available. Qualification was removed for PR jobs. It remains mandatory in most cases to be a candidate for MCF jobs. The reply by Galaxie (which you should take as authoritative: Galaxie is managed by the HR department of the ministry of higher education and research, and they are the ones who are going to process your application) is pretty clear about that: if you are not already a titular MCF, then you need the qualification to be a candidate for MCF positions. This is also what is written in your links. I will provide translations in case you are not a French speaker:

(link1) Toujours est-il que la qualification aux fonctions de professeur des Universités est supprimée. => Nevertheless, the qualification for the assignment of professor was removed.

(link2) L’article 5 de la LPR supprime la qualification par le CNU pour les maîtres de conférences (MCF) qui veulent accéder au corps de professeur des universités (PR). => Article 5 of the LPR [Law of (budgetary) Programmation of Research] removes qualification by the CNU for MCFs who want to reach the ranks of professors.

And since nothing beats actually looking at the actual law, here it is on the French Republic's official legal website: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/article_jo/JORFARTI000042738037

Article 5
Le code de l'éducation est ainsi modifié :
1° Au premier alinéa de l'article L. 952-6, après le mot : « particuliers », sont insérés les mots : «, et sauf lorsque le candidat est maître de conférences titulaire » ;

In short, persons who are already titular MCFs are not required to pass the qualification anymore. Moreover, if you read the rest of the article of law, some universities may ask to receive the permission to hire persons for any job (MCF or PR) without the qualification. But every university will have its own policy on this.
So to answer your question:

can a foreigner apply to the MCF positions now without having the qualification?

It depends:

If you are already a titular MCF, then yes;
If you are applying to a job in a university that has asked and has received the authorization to hire MCFs that have not received the qualification, then yes;
In other cases, that would be a no.

The nationality of the applicant is in principle irrelevant. French nationals and foreigners alike are bound by the same laws for French academic jobs.
Note that to my knowledge, since the law is very recent, no university has yet asked for an exemption from the qualification procedure (since this is a hot topic, I would have heard about it, at least if it were for jobs in my field).
Given the possible discrepancies that will appear between the universities' policies regarding the exemption, your best bet is to get the qualification. Note that the procedure starts very early, in October of the year preceding job applications, so be proactive about it! Don't wait at the last minute, if you miss the deadline you have to wait a whole year.
Finally, note that the law about the exemption (case 2 above) is marked as experimental and the experiment will end in 2025. At that time, there will again be a vote on the law and it will either be maintained or rescinded.
Welcome to French academia, where the rules change all the time, no one's really sure of what's forbidden or allowed, and an error can easily cost you opportunities. Enjoy your stay :)

Thank you for this detailed answer! Yes I see that in my case, I do need qualification to apply for the MCF positions. In this regard, I'd like to know how the processes are line to apply for CNRS or INRIA CR positions? Do they need qualifications too? Is there somewhere I could get the most updated detail? I'm not a part of any university/academia at this moment, so this is why getting this type of information is a bit tricky. Thanks again!

@scienceman There is no qualification for CR positions. The most up to date information can be found on the CNRS's website for CNRS positions: http://www.dgdr.cnrs.fr/drhchercheurs/concoursch/informer/default I don't know about Inria but I'm sure they have a similar platform.

But don't you have a single contact inside French academia that could give you at the very least basic info about these issues? Because if not, I would unfortunately be a little bit pessimistic about your chances, unless you have an exceptionally strong record...

Thanks - my situation is different for sure. I've done my PhD in pure math in the US, moved to computational neuroimaging where I worked on more applied stuff at INRIA (1 year), University of California at Los Angeles (one year), Ecole Polytechnique (15 months). I moved to industry afterwards, but this transition wasn't a successful one, leaving me somewhat isolated from academia. I do have 6 publications and 4 preprints and my current interest includes geometric machine learning/manifold learning. I'm in a bit of difficult position. If you're in a related area, can I contact you privately?

I forwarded my CV and research statements to a few professors in France, and the ones that liked my CV don't have funding at this moment. I also gave a research presentation at a French research uni. in Paris (and I'm in Paris) where it wasn't badly received, but I didn't know anything about qualification, so the chance slipped. I certainly  don't mind doing a postdoc as it'd help me get back to full research mode, and I also have a microentreprise - so I can pay bills anyway, but can't pursue my passion. If you're ok, please let me know how to contact you, but it's perfectly okay to say no.

I'm not in a related field. Good luck for your search.

I don't have a definitive answer because this is the first time I hear about this, but from following the links you provided, here is what I think is happening.
First some comments. "link2" further links to the actual text of the law, but I don't think you really want to read it. It is very, very long. Next, you early on in your question equate enseignant-chercheur with MCF, while it's MCF + professeur. From your prior questions here, I think you know this.
As to what is going on, both the first point discussed in "link2" and the reply you share under "Information 2" seem to make that clear. The suspension of the need to obtain the "qualification" dispensed by the CNU relates to those MCF desiring to become "professeur," but not researchers desiring to become MCF.
As to the actual process to apply as a foreigner for an MCF position (your essential question), I don't know. But the law you refer to does not appear to change that procedure from what it was before the law was passed.

Thank you for your answer - appreciate it! But please see below.

Follow-up question:  I see in the link1, "Toujours est-il que la qualification aux fonctions de professeur des Universités est supprimée.
Les Universités pourront donc recruter, en tant que Professeurs, les Maîtres de conférences de leur souhait, sans que la carrière de ces derniers n’ait été expertisée par le CNU. Quant à la qualification aux fonctions de Maître de conférences, elle est, pour faire simple, également supprimée, sauf pour les sections 01 à 06 (qui comprennent notamment le droit), à titre expérimental et pour une durée de quatre ans. Là encore,

(contd.) les Universités pourront recruter, en tant que Maître de conférences, les docteurs de leur choix, sans que ces derniers aient été nécessairement qualifiés par l’instance nationale."
But doesn't also mean that qualification is also abolished equally for the lecturers/asst. profs/MCF as well?

(contd.) In English: "In any case, the qualification for the functions of university professor is abolished.
Universities will therefore be able to recruit, as Professors, the Lecturers of their choice, without the latter's careers having been appraised by the CNU. ........... Here again, the Universities will be able to recruit, as Lecturer, the doctors of their choice, without the latter necessarily having been qualified by the national authority." So doesn't this mean qualification is no longer necessary for lecturers/MCF's as well?

@Science Man : After reading half of link1, it struck me as an angry blog - a secondary (tertiary?) polemic source (I apologize if the author is a member here!). I’d stick to the very professional looking link2 (and your Galaxie source) as they agree and seem to say what I summarized. A blog can easily highlight as they see it serves their agenda and over-simplify to tell a lie without telling a lie.

Thank you for the clarification - is the qualification process equally applied for non-French/non-EU PhD's? I recently applied to an ATER position at Paris Sorbonne, but didn't have to go through any qualification, not even through Galaxie: I just went to their site and applied directly.*

@Science Man: Im not that familiar with the French system as it is today. As a foreigner, I was at one of the Parisian Ecoles more than 20 years back, with friends from that time to today, but that’s mostly it. At the time, France was a total meritocracy: no matter where you’re from, if you pass whatever test applies, they will hire you as long as your French is ok (two Greek friends from my past were number 1 and 2 at X in their years, say). So I assume where you’re from doesn’t matter, except for maybe visa related issues (every foreigner I knew in the French system was EU). Fingers crossed.


text:
What are the upsides for British science from Brexit?
This is a companion question to Why do most scientists think Brexit is bad for British science?. Based on this meta discussion, it was suggested that I ask a new question about potential upsides of Brexit...
From the answers to that question about Brexit, it sounds like there are no upsides to British science. However, there are still roughly 12% of UK researchers who think the UK should exit the EU. It seems that these 12% must see something positive from Brexit, otherwise they would not be voting to leave.
What could these positives be? Or are there no positives, and they are just more optimistic that the UK government will provide the political support to let British science emerge unscathed and / or they think the gains elsewhere outweigh the losses?
Only thing I've seen about this is Royal Society president Venkatraman Ramakrishnan saying:

Will Brexit open up any new opportunities for UK science? Are there burdensome EU regulations you’ll be glad to see go? Will collaboration with scientists in non-EU countries, like the US or China, become easier? Will tranches of non-EU funding become accessible?
The only thing I can say is that if you have new technologies and you need to make regulations where current regulations don’t exist, then it’s easier for a single country. Britain is very rational about balancing risks and benefits. Its easier for one country to move fast. This is a sort of theoretical, possibly marginal benefit. Whereas the actual risks and drawbacks of Brexit are much more real and immediate.

However this sounds extremely marginal. Unless these 12% of UK researchers know in advance that they're going to come up with groundbreaking new technologies for which current regulations don't exist, it's hard to believe that 12% of UK researchers would vote to leave for this reason.
I am interested in all positives, short-term or long-term.

If anyone thinks they can word the question better so the core remains but it's less loaded, please go right ahead and edit the question (this applies to the original question as well).

For comments about this question, please go to this meta discussion

Not sure how this comment relates to the Controversial Post policy, but it isn't really an answer... simply a note that if 12% of UK scientists think that Brexit should happen, while they presumably believe that that is advantageous for the UK, it doesn't necessarily mean that they think it will have advantages for UK science (maybe, in their view, other upsides of Brexit outweigh detriment to science)

Open to changing the title to "Why did some scientists vote for Brexit if there are no upsides for British science?" or something like that (c.f. the bounty notice).

"British posts for British researchers" - Not even close in terms of brutality, but I suggest investigating the "advantages" of the "purification" of German scientific establishment from "unwanted elements" before the war. German science was internationally leading before, it fell into mediocrity (despite occasional successes) after and is only slowly rebuilding its position with nowhere the overall effect. For a localised study, see Göttingen before and after the war. I do not think the effect will be as bad in Britain, of course, as emigration is mostly voluntary, but the tendency remains.

@allure The current question asks for intrinsic positives to Brexit, but it seems nobody has found any. However, two somewhat-related questions could be asked: (1) What factors mitigate the potential for damage (e.g., English-language prevalence makes it likely that the UK will remain reasonably attractive to overseas students)? (2) What opportunities could UK science exploit post-Brexit (e.g. closer co-operation with growing markets in Asia)? These seem too far from your original for me to be comfortable proposing an edit.

@avid to be honest I'm not really interested in #1. As for #2, wouldn't an answer to it also answer this general question as well?

@allure I see the current question as asking for benefits that will follow directly as a consequence of Brexit. I see my #2 as asking about more remote effects, for which Brexit may be a stimulus or catalyst, but for which it is probably not a necessary condition.

@avid I'll edit the question to include the more remote effects into the scope of the question.

How someone votes is not purely based on their job, so trying to makexplain useful inferences about how an academic scientist thinks Brexit will affect science based on voting patterns is probably a worthless endeavor. Had the politicians promised massive increases in science funding as part of Brexit, it is not clear to me how many academic scientists would have changed their votes. The vast majority of academics object to Brexit for a number of reasons not directly related to their jobs.
As for the effect on academic science, the one major benefit will likely be an increase in the number of full fee paying international students as EU students will presumably not get discounted fees.

I don't think your second paragraph is correct. EU applicants are already dropping in numbers, as are other international students. I think it's more likely there will be fewer international students in total, and hence reduced fees.

Also about the second paragraph: Remember that in multiple EU countries, studying is free. So students might not be able to afford the non-discounted fees. Furthermore, EU-grants for student exchanges (e.g. Erasmus) might no longer be applicable, forcing all students but the very rich ones to turn towards other countries.

@DirkLiebhold sure, but there are likely a few "very rich" EU students who will pay full fees. As long as there are enough of them to offset any drop from rrently full fee paying students not wanting to be in the UK, it is nominally a net gain. Further the target number of international students often depends on the number of home/EU students, so an overall drop in student numbers is not awful and makes it easier to hit the target.

There are no upsides for British science from Brexit.
This is a corollary of the almost certain fact that there are no upsides for British society from Brexit.
Science funding has never been a priority of the current government and I hardly expect that situation to change once we leave with no deal. In truth, we are cutting off access to collaborations (e.g. ESA) that we can never hope to compete with as a single, tiny nation with a floundering economy.
To understand, then, why in spite of this 12% of UK researchers still voted to Leave, you have to realise that when the referendum was held, a large number of people in the country used their vote as a protest-- against the establishment, against immigration and against the perceived power of the EU parliament over our own.
People were generally misled by self-serving politicians that societal benefits would occur once we left the EU-- more control over our laws for instance, forgetting that we elect MEPs to the European parliament so have just as much say in EU law as our own. They perhaps believed that there would be more money for the NHS, even though the reason the NHS is underfunded is not due to the EU but due to the same Conservative government that has been in power for the last eight years.
I am certain that not even the politicians gunning for Leave actually thought the benefits they claimed would ever happen-- they simply picked the side they thought would gain them votes, and for many Conservative MPs with very right wing, anti-immigration constituencies this was Leave.
For the reasons I have outlined above (and doubtless many more), a person may have decided to vote to leave. The vote was a very personal decision for a lot of people and as Thomas says, scientists are people too. The 12% that you quote likely voted to leave based on non--scientific issues, just as I voted to remain based on non--scientific issues, namely that I believe that a diverse and multicultural society is better and more productive for everyone, I am averse to hatred and xenophobia and I like going on holiday to other EU countries without needing a visa.
If our politicians were capable of thinking about something other than their own ratings in the polls, they might have been able to negotiate a sensible leaving deal, with every eventuality considered and taken care of. In that case, I would be less worried about the effects of leaving on British science.
However, we are now faced with the prospect of a no-deal Brexit. The government is trying to hide the fact that it is stockpiling food and mobilising the army to prepare for the worst (presumably they are afraid of rioting and looting).
People's wilful ignorance of the wholly negative effects of Brexit will be sorely tested when food rots in the fields with no EU workers to harvest it, when a black market begins for "luxuries" like cheese and chocolate, and when their relatives die in hospital because their medicine is on the other side of the border.
Society will suffer. Science will suffer.
I am aware that this is an emotive and partisan answer, but Brexit is a very emotional subject for most British people. I am still living in hope that one day soon we will have a general election, form a sensible government and call the whole thing off.

I think that rather than hoping for a very slim chance, it might be more worthwhile to start organising to get back in, and rejoin Europe. That would finally eliminate all differences between the UK and the other EU countries

@TheWanderer well, we haven't left yet. So stopping us from leaving seems like a better plan than waiting until after we've left then campaigning to rejoin, especially as a number of EU politicians have said that we are welcome to stop the process at any time and remain a member.

Well there are just less than 8 months left, and whatever deal is agreed must be ratified well in advance. What I wanted to say is that if you cancel Brexit now, what  would you offer now that it would not happen again in a few years?
A UK that is fully committed to the European project, that is, a UK that adopts the Euro, that forfeits the rebate, that joins Schengen, would probably provide that safeguard.

@TheWanderer That's a good point and the chance of "Brexit Take Two: This Time We Mean It" if we abort the first one is something that is weighing heavily on my mind. However, I think it's quite optimistic to think that the UK could turn around become so pro-EU in such a short space of time. I guess we will have to wait and see.

Just in case your answer is edited later (by you or anyone else): I'd just like to say I hear you and personally I echo your closing paragraph, even if I am pessimistic about the chances

This sort of answer is why we close primarily opinion-based questions. However, the question was reopened after @astronat and I closed it, so I shall upvote this opinion even though I ordinarily would consider it inappropriate.

I'm curious: Is that pro-Brexit, anti-immigrant faction of British scientists aware that the current President of the Royal Society, a Nobel Laureate, is an immigrant and from one of those much derided "non-EU" nations at that?

@user_of_math I think at this point anyone who is still pro-Brexit is hardly aware of reality, let alone the nationality of the Royal Society president.

nice "the end is near" post

'I think at this point anyone who is still pro-Brexit is hardly aware of reality ...' Classic proof-by-intimidation! Good to see it's not dead.

@Bernie: At least now, four years later, we have data to compare with emotional speculation.

Scientists are people too. They may vote for Brexit for non-academic reasons. For a list of (non-academic) reasons in favour of Brexit, see  http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
Many academics may think that Brexit will have minimal impact on academia. The UK government has given assurances that it will make up for any lost EU research funding. And EU research funding is available to some non-EU countries. So perhaps they are won over by non-academic arguments about immigration, costs, trade, and regulation.
Of course, every individual has their own reasons for voting one way or another. Some may just view Brexit as an anti-establishment protest vote. I can only speculate!

Maybe off topic but I would like to comment that the Vote Leave campaign have recently been fined for breaking electoral law and the case has been referred to the police, so take anything you read on their website with a pinch of salt.

@astronat Yeah, I definitely do not consider these arguments good. If you know of a better resource, I'd happily swap out the link. The more important point is that there are better places to look for non-academic Brexit arguments than academia.se.

As an American academic, I will note that there are significant upsides to Brexit for non-UK science. As denizens of a defensible 'center of the world' for science, British industry has generally looked inward for academic-industry collaboration. In the past year, I have seen a truly stunning number of outward-looking partnerships arise.

How does this answer the question?

As others have written (and as I wrote here), the short-term prospects for science from Brexit look pretty bleak. However, this question asks for positives.
It seems inevitable that Brexit will necessitate re-evaluation of strategies, systems and infrastructure across the spectrum of science and academia. This will be painful in the short-term, but may stimulate new growth and developments that ultimately turn out to be beneficial.
In particular, it seems likely that any decrease in interaction with the EU will be replaced by stronger links with other scientific 'markets'. It is plausible that governments/funding agencies in non-EU countries will see the 'hole' created by Brexit as an opportunity that can be exploited to support the growth of domestic science, and new partnership opportunities may emerge. In this regard, the UK is fortunate to have a large number of scientists and institutions with world-class reputations.
Of course, none of this is guaranteed to follow from Brexit, and much will depend on future government decisions and policies.

Massive emphasis on the last paragraph, I feel...

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Are political/ideological reasons for career moves acceptable in academia?
Suppose one is happy at one's institution until something happens that makes it impossible to stay given one's strong ideological beliefs. Is it a good idea to mention these beliefs if they are the main reason for wanting to move?
For example:

"Why do you want to study at this university?" Because this university is in Russia and I approve of Putin's actions as President.
"You've worked at this institution for 10 years. Why do you want to leave now?" Because it's in the UK and after the Brexit referendum, I no longer feel welcome here.

Nothing special about these examples; one could equally have "I want to leave Russia because I disapprove of Putin's actions as President" etc.
I tag this with "academic life" because it could apply to any decision to move.

There's always a possibility that even a reasonable position based on personal experience someone will take to heart.

Mentioning it to whom? Are you asking whether it is a good idea to mention it to the new institution (as assumed in some of the existing answers), or are you asking whether it is a good idea to explain to your current institution why you are leaving?

@MårtenW, both, and to anyone else who might ask.

"Is it a good idea..." This probably depends on the specific circumstances. I think this question might be a bit too broad and should specify more the possible contexts.

Political/ideological reasons can differ a lot and be infinitely complex. "I'm leaving because the war has started and I'm gonna die" - that one happened many times over the course of history

Not a bad idea. Sometimes explaining your thinking to someone else brings you a different perspective for consideration. Don’t expect the world to change though, just your own world. I think this makes sense even if you’re in a nation (or institution) that doesn’t support philosophical or ideological dissent.

I’ve found that, in general, scientists tend to be quite accepting of political or ideological motives as factors in career decisions. To some extent, this will even be true if they disagree with your politics.
That said, the cases you present obviously differ, and thus will engender different degrees of acceptance: the first case takes a strong, political, affirmative stance about something that doesn’t affect you personally. Whereas the second affects you directly.
To illustrate using a more direct comparison, consider these two statements:

I don’t want to work in the US because, as a muslim, I no longer feel welcome.
I don’t want to work in the US because I disapprove of the Trump administration.

Most (all?) reasonable people will accept (1) as a valid reason. Many (in Europe) will also accept (2) but it’s unarguably much more divisive (I speak from personal experience): even people who agree with you politically might not agree with such a decision.
Here’s another example: a former colleague turned down a position at a very prestigious institute (in favour of a much less prestigious one) because it would have meant working with stem cells, which she opposed on ethical grounds. I and others strongly disagree with her reasoning but we never had a problem accepting it, and it hasn’t impacted our impression of her as a researcher.

A political or ideological answer, albeit honest, is usually a missed opportunity to make a point about the move being a good academic fit.
Your goal as the candidate in this kind of exchange is not just to answer the questions accurately; it's to answer the questions accurately while also trying to convince the committee that you are the right person for the position. Virtually any question can be used to make a point about how excited you are about the institution you'd like to move to, how much you can contribute given your past experience, etc. A political answer doesn't usually help you "sell" yourself.
For example:

Why do you want to study at this university? "Because I'm really interested in the work Professor Twist is doing on basket weaving in extreme underwater conditions."
Why do you want to leave your current institution? "Because I am looking to gain expertise in the hot new field of basket weaving in extreme underwater conditions, and your faculty are the best in the world in that area, while my current institution  doesn't have anyone working in this field." Or "Because I am really interested in working with Professor Twist, I think that with my background in freshwater basket weaving I could contribute to her research in an exciting way."

So even a completely non-controversial political or ideological reason is not necessarily the best reason to use in answer to this kind of question.

What if the political or ideological reason is the only reason for moving? E.g. Alice is a graduate student at a Russian university, and she's happy right up until Russia annexed Crimea. Afterwards she finds it impossible to study in Russia anymore because of her strong political beliefs. Presumably her only option then is to transfer, and she cannot say "you do this topic better than my current institution" because her current institution is also good at her research topic. Will edit this into the original question.

@Allure Presumably there is a reason she picked the institution currently asking her this question, over all the other institutions that are not in Russia. Answering with that (academic) reason makes the most of this opportunity to "sell" her application, answering with the political reason is often a waste of that opportunity.

Thanks for answer. Follow up question: is it a good idea to mention this if pressed? For example, "you've worked at this institution for 10 years. Why the desire to move now?"

What good does an "academic fit" give you, if the country's politics quite clearly tell 'you', that you are not wanted there? (Pretty much the feeling one gets/got as a European in the UK...) - You might have a great department/colleagues, but those don't help if the government keeps telling you that you should leave and aren't wanted in the country. - While I agree on the idea of an academic fit for wanting to move to a place, I don't see how this is always applicable when leaving a place.

@DetlevCM Najib's answer might be thought of as analogous to the following. Let's say you had a job and then you got fired for some reason. When asked at your next interview, "why do you want to work with us?" you don't respond "because I got fired", you give a valid reason for wanting to work with them. If they press and ask "why did you leave your last place of work?", again, you don't say "I got fired", but give a more tactful response, dependent on the strengths of the place at which you're being interviewed.

@NajibIdrissi I guess you can look at it that way. Though if you are leaving a "better" place for a "worse" place, that may not be an argument that would be very convincing.

@DetlevCM-If an academic can't figure out some way to convincingly take both sides of an issue, as in a debate (and answering this kind of question sort of falls in the same kind of concept), then they probably have no business being in academia. Being incapable of such a basic skill seems to indicate a severe lack of ability to apply educational skills.

@Dunk You seem to forget that not everything is researched everywhere. - I can think of one field where the UK has the only well established research location in the European Union, with the other well established research location being in the US. If one applied your logic, one would be trapped in the UK, unless one looks outside of the EU - while constantly being told by the government how one isn't wanted there...

@NajibIdrissi A single individual doesn't make "established researchers" if your colleagues stay. In addition, some work is expensive/requires equipment which may not be present/will not travel with you. - Effectively, if one is in a country that one desires to leave, the application can boil down to: "I want to leave where I am - you are doing something that somehow fits my expertise." - Even if the new institution is less renowned/worse, etc. At least it is a 'home' where you hope to be happier (as a person and academic). - And the reason you are leaving can very well be political.

ff524 has covered the question from the angle of a PhD student hire, I will discuss it from the angle of (senior) faculty hires, which I think are slightly different in that regard.
If you have already, as you say, 10 years faculty at an institution you are presumably tenured there. When you then apply elsewhere, an undercurrent of the entire application process will be
"How do we know you really want to accept a potential offer, and not just negotiate with your home university?".
Topical fit as mentioned by ff524 is important, but not really a convincingly strong reason in that regard. A political answer may actually be stronger here, if convincing to the committee. Your Brexit example may, for instance, be convincing enough, as you can link it to reduced funding possibilities and potentially job security problems for your spouse. The Putin example - well, maybe it's helpful if the committee is full of die-hard Putin fans as well, but that one is more iffy as it does not so strongly impact academic life.
Obviously, a political answer that goes against the belief system of the committee is never going to help you. To use a recent loaded example, in most left-leaning universities arguing that you would really like to move to the US because the US, unlike your European home, allows you to buy a semi-automatic weapon with relative ease, is neither a convincing reason for a move nor will it strike brownie points on an emotional level with many faculty members.
So to summarize:

Suppose one is happy at one's institution until something happens that makes it impossible to stay given one's strong ideological beliefs. Is it a good idea to mention these beliefs if they are the main reason for wanting to move?

Yes, if (a) the reason will appear to be a "big thing" to most people, (b) the committee is likely to share your view, and (c) it can be linked to impacting your academic life.

I did my BSc, MSc and PhD in Russia, and I was Russian citizen up until 2020. I left Russia to work abroad in 2011. My main reason was political disagreement with Russian President, Government and establishment.
When asked about my reasons to leave Russia, whether in social or workplace setting, I never hesitated to explain that the reasons were political. If this was an interview talk, I would focus on academic reasons during the interview, but reveal more about political reasons during the interview lunch. I feel that academics generally are curious about the political views of their potential colleagues and like to see that the disagreements over politics won't compromise workplace relations or cause any conflicts. This concerns the views per se, but even more importantly the communication skills and the ability to express your points clearly but diplomatically and remain professional at all times.
In my early days I did feel sometimes that I was not able to find the right moment or the right balance when talking about politics, and it might have had a negative effect on my interviews. As I grew more confident with my communication skills and improved my ability to control myself during the long and emotionally difficult interview, I now believe that a balanced and proportional mention of political views usually has a positive effect, as it gives my potential colleagues more information about myself, which helps them to make a decision.
On reflection, I think that talking about your political views as the reason for career change is not very different from explaining gaps in your career due to illness or childcare responsibilities or other personal factors. People feel that they need an answer, but as soon as  they have any reasonable answer, they are satisfied and don't care much anymore about the details.

Did you meet any Putin supporters when you gave these reasons? If so, how'd it go?

I think I maybe did. I mean, you never truly know, do you? We shared a few weird comments, and 4 weeks later I received a polite "we are sorry to inform you" letter. I was not given the job (for one reason or another) but I still think it's better than getting a wrong  job.

Context: I am from Czech Republic, where high tier positions, including academia, were strongly influenced or directly managed by the government fully controlled by the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. Usually, one needed to be member of the Party to get the position (in some cases it was the only requirement).
You first example will seem odd to me. One seldom decide an instution because of the political system of the target country. The "pros" are usually more broad than the "cons" to say "I have chosen this perticullar institution because of the political system here."
On the other hand the second example you gave, is in "my" context acceptable reason to leave. There is a political change you are not willingfull to accept and you don't find a way how to live with that change. Reasoning that you can no more accept the backgroud you were living in for years is acceptable as well, it may trigger two questions: "Why did you decide it is enough for you at this moment?" and "What did keep you there agains your beliefs for so long?"
There were 3 waves of political exodus in Czechoslovakia in the last century. 1938, when Protektorät Böhmen un Mähren was estabilished, 1948 after communist putch and 1968 after the Soviet invasion terminating the loosen rule of the Communist Party here.
The decision to leave the position after X years of working there doesn't need to be triggered by the change in the country government. The change of the rector, dean or department head is also acceptable reason for a change. Outside the academia, the company merger is also acceptable reason to leave when you do not accept the buyer's policy.

I agree it's a little far-fetched to choose an institution because of the political system of the target country, but it's plausible to me that a person would say "I want to work in this country because of the political system here, and yours is the best institution in the country for my research interests".

To back up @Allure’s point, there seems to be a general love for academic positions in the Scandinavian world predominantly not because of a reputation for academic excellence (though that may also exist) but specifically because of the political system, and the liberties it entails.

That's the point. "I want to work at your university because it is based in my dreamland, period" seems odd to me. "I want to work at your university because it is based in my dreamland and I am interested in one of the fields you cover." seems legit. Yes, your primary filter is a dreamland-based workplaces. It is not the only filter though; you apply another one - field match, sallary, benefits, etc.

Once you take it to the extreme, the answer will become an obvious yes. Take for example the position of some medical researchers in Nazi Germany.
Meaning that it is acceptable. However, some issues might be seen by others as too small to be of importance, or a bit odd. And of course, your reasons might upset someone else who has a different opinion on a topic, such as the two sides of your Putin example.

Indeed, Professor Einstein was on a 2 month visiting appointment when the NAZIs came to power.  He lost his position due to new laws against Jewish professors.  He was just one of many and these things continue to happen in modern times.

tl;dr: 1. Don't tell your superiors nor HR. 2. Consider staying and being politically active.

Suppose one is happy at one's institution until something happens that makes it impossible to stay given one's strong ideological beliefs.

Are you sure it's impossible to stay - or is it impossible to stay and not get highly active in trying to influence surrounding society? If you've lived someplace long enough, if you've set down some roots, if you feel it's important to you, perhaps you should stay and struggle.
In my public/political activities, especially within academia (mostly union business), I was very exasperated at people who agreed with us just leaving or withdrawing.
For the rest of this answer, suppose that you're leaving and it's final.

Is it a good idea to mention these beliefs if they are the main reason for wanting to move?

Faculty-management relations, and to a great extent even junior-researcher-tenured-senior-researcher relations are too confrontational in economic class terms for you to be committed to be forthcoming with them. Specific circumstances might differ, but - unfortunately - they're not your friends and are not committed to you and yours. Only tell them what they need to know.
As for personal acquaintances at work - now that's different; it depends on your specific relationship with each individual.
But of course - you could also go for the entirely-public option, if the reason you're leaving really pains you: Making a public statement at some faculty event, publishing an open letter to all faculty and local press, putting up posters as you leave etc. That's again if you think it'll have an effect and are willing to burn some bridges.
Now for your examples:

"Why do you want to study at this university?" Because this university is in Russia and I approve of Putin's actions as President.

Bad example, not buying this at all. I mean, if you said this, people would assume, and be right, that you're just giving them a bad lie, or rather, that you're not willing to tell them the truth and are mocking them instead. Now, that's irrespective of whether you approve of Putin's presidency or not; people who do would not move to Russia because of it. So I'm ignoring this example.

one could equally have "I want to leave Russia because I disapprove of Putin's actions as President" etc.

That wouldn't be convincing either. If you were worried about some specific actions of the Putin-led government, that's something else, but this sounds like a lie. Plus, Putin has been in power forever, and you've just decided that bothers you? ...

"You've worked at this institution for 10 years. Why do you want to leave now?" Because it's in the UK and after the Brexit referendum, I no longer feel welcome here.

Yeah, so this is exactly what I was talking about. Try: "It has been 10 years - a full decade! I feel I need a change in my life - I'm too settled into my routine." Or tell them it's for personal reasons relating to your family, and say you'd rather not discuss the details. Or whatever works. Better not to lie, either; just list other priorities that weigh in favor of leaving.

It's surprising to me you find the Putin example unbelievable. I can genuinely imagine someone who wants to do that (e.g. Artem Oganov quoted above). There could be all sorts of factors, e.g. "Putin's high approval rates implies Russia approves of Putin, and I approve of Putin, so I approve of Russia". Similarly I can imagine people wanting to move to France because of how Emmanuel Macron invited US climate scientists over. Same goes for leaving a country - I know someone who left Burma because of military rule, for example (this was decades ago).

@Allure: Approving of Russia is fine, as is approving of Putin (I mean, I don't, but it's fine as a rhetorical point) - but nobody would make that a reason for moving to Russia, or into an academic institute in Russia. What Artem Oganov said is completely different: He went back because his country/state is besieged and beleaguered by US imperialism, and he's going to back to hold the fort and help his countrymen. That's nothing like what you wrote - and is quite believable, even understandable, and probably safe to state (since it's not hostile to his current environment).

I have completely different point of view, maybe because of completely different expirience. Totalitarian system, Putin's rule in Russia seem to fit to several descriptions of totality, are lethal to intelligent people. Their loyalty to the ruler is not guaranteed and are not as easy to manipulate as Average Joe. Also people with high moral standards are to be elliminated as soon as possible so they cannot undermine the Ruler's power over public decision making.

@Crowley: I was summarizing Oganov's position, not stating mine. This is not the place to debate Russian politics...

@einpoklum debate over Russian politics was not inteded. Feeling not being welcome in UK after Brexit can be same sort of decision trigger. It was mainly about totalitarian systems. Or about aggressive groups in the society. After reading this: http://www.radio.cz/en/section/curraffrs/czech-republic-still-seeking-justice-for-czech-killed-in-london I can understand some Polish, Czech or Slovak people leaving UK just because they no longer feel welcome.

I'm not sure if you have lived in the UK, but Brexit is/was indeed a trigger for people to leave. There wasn't such an open anti-EU mood prior to about 2010 and after that, it was mainly a slow gradual process that kept getting worse until 'Brexit happened'. - And that is the kind of even that can make on switch from "I can sort of live here" to "what the hell am I doing here if the country hates me?".

Both of the examples you give in your post involve ideological dispositions in relation to the country a university is located in, rather than the nature of the particular university itself.  I would think the more common case where this would be relevant would be where an academic holds to a political ideology that is either welcome or unwelcome in the particular university (e.g., if a university has a strong political culture that is either consistent with or contradictory to the academic's beliefs).
Obviously you can prefer a particular university for all sorts of reasons, including it being welcoming to your political/ideological beliefs.  There are many university departments (or entire universities) where a particular ideological culture holds sway, and it is not uncommon for people to self-select along ideological lines to some degree.  Notwithstanding this, I think an interview panel would be unimpressed if this was a major reason for selecting their university - it might suggest that you are inhibited or unwilling to work in an environment where your own views are not the majority view.
In view of the examples you mention, it is also worth noting that if you were to state a preference for a particular university based primarily on the political conditions of the country it is located in (which might be at odds with the prevailing political ideology of the university), then this would be extremely foolish.  Just imagine applying for a position in the sociology department at Berkeley and making a point of telling them, "I really want to work here in the US because I love Trump!"

There were a lot of people who wanted to leave the US because Trump won the elections though, weren't there? There's also this case: https://www.nature.com/news/putin-s-russia-divides-and-enrages-scientists-1.16571. Quoting Artem Oganov, "I could never forgive myself if Russia needed me and I was not there."

Where there?  Or were there a bunch of people who virtue-signal by saying they'll leave the country if he's elected, and then chicken-out when it actually happens.

@Ben more or less the same list of people who failed to follow though after the elections of 2000 and 2004 I assume.

@Ben There are people who virtual-signal, people who emigrate for reasons unrelated to Trump, and people who emigrate in opposition to Trump.  I don't have any counts or know where to find counts, but there is no good reason to assume zero.  The total emigrant count is definitely positive and these are mostly people you and I probably do not interact with.

My understanding is that the share of the US resident population who are overseas has been going up since about the 1970s and peaked in the late 1990s, so that long pre-dates the Trump administration.  Based solely on the most visible examples (i.e., Hollywood celebrities), I'd say a large portion of people threatening to leave the US under Trump were full of shit.

Maybe a large portion of people threatening to leave the US under Trump weren't serious about following through, but if you interview someone who quotes this exact reason, wouldn't that be implying that he/she is actually one of the people who were serious about leaving?

@Allure: I'm not even sure why this topic was brought up at all, since I made no claim on it to begin with.  (The only reference to Trump in my post was to give an example where the culture at a university is opposed to the prevailing government of the country it is in.)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
If Brexit is bad for British science, why hasn't the rankings of British universities worsened?
Follow-up question to Why do most scientists think Brexit is bad for British science?
If Brexit is bad for British science, then naively one would expect that the rankings of British universities should worsen after Brexit. This doesn't seem to have happened. Among the three most widely-followed rankings and comparing to the 2016 results (which is when the Brexit referendum happened):

In the QS rankings, Oxford improved (#6 to #2), Cambridge did not budge, Imperial & UCL switched places with one another, Edinburgh improved (#21 to #16), Manchester improved (#33 to #27), KCL dropped (#19 to #35), LSE dropped (#35 to #49)

In the THE rankings, Oxford did not budge (it couldn't improve either, since it is ranked #1), Cambridge dropped by 1 place, Imperial dropped by 4 places, and UCL dropped by 3 places.

In the ARWU, Oxford did not budge, Cambridge improved by 1 place, UCL did not budge, Imperial dropped by 3 places, Manchester did not budge, Edinburgh dropped by 3 places, and KCL improved by 3 places.

Overall it doesn't look like much has changed. Some universities certainly moved a lot, but not the UK's universities as a whole.
Why hasn't the rankings of British universities dropped? I can think of many possible reasons, e.g. the effect is delayed, the rankings are not reflective of the situation on the ground, the British government provided the political support to have Brexit without British science suffering (per avid's answer to linked question), etc., and I am wondering which explanation(s) are correct.

Well Oxford and Cambridge I get, but how did you select the others?

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. Additionally, almost every one of these comments is part of an answer to the question; answers should contain the answers, not comments, and most of the content of these comments is already in at least one of the answers, so please upvote those answers instead.

They are all the universities in the tables. E.g. Edinburgh is not ranked within the top 20 on the THE, so I did not list it.

Why do you believe "science" equals "University rankings"?  This position rejects the scientific activities of industry and government (civilian and military) labs, as well as other broad areas of "science".

@EricTowers I don't say it's "equals". But it's a reasonable proxy, unless you can think of a better way to measure how good British science is.

The lack of a better measure of the quality of British science does not imply the university rankings is a good measure. A meaningful attempt to measure the quality of British science would likely have to be an index based on several values. University rankings could be one value, new patent applications, science prizes and awards, number of papers submitted and/or accepted by major journals; the list of meaningful ingredients in an overall science quality index could be very long.

@ToddWilcox do you have data using those other indicators to illustrate if British science is improving or not improving?

@Allure "But it's a reasonable proxy" Is it, though? Is the impact caused by Brexit something that applies globally to all scientific endeavours? Because it seems a whole lot more relevant to businesses and industries who are taxed and have to import and export goods, as opposed to a university whose academic work is not being taxed on the international market. The effect on universities might be a secondary academic wave, triggered after the initial corporate wave has done its damage.

@Flater if that's what happens then I would guess that British science is not much impacted by Brexit. I would still like to see some data, though. Do you know of any?

@Allure: While not a direct impact, that doesn't mean it can't lead to indirect impacts. As an extreme example, if all scientific corporations leave, this will impact the popularity of scientific courses, which can impact academia which replenishes its staff from the student pool. I was merely countering your implicit expectation that the impact on academia must invariably have been visible today.

It's literally only been 1 year since Brexit... universities gain and lose their reputations over decades...

When the Brexit referendum happened is quite irrelevant... actual Brexit is 11 months old. Moreover many researchers etc probably have "VISA"s or similar paperwork to at least complete their PHDs/post-docs started before 2021, which means the current impact is probably minimal but will get higher and higher once these people will have to leave and wont be replaced by international researchers due to Brexit.

Most of the papers that are being published right now were written pre-pandemic. Most of the researchers who might, long-term, decide to leave the UK or who now no longer consider coming to the UK are ... still exactly where they were pre-Brexit, simply because all of these things take time.
Rankings don't change dramatically because of such reasons. And then there is also this: There is not really any difference between universities between rank 20 and 50, and probably also not between 2 and 6. In other words, whatever effects you quote in your question is simply noise.
It will take a long time -- ten years or more -- before you will be able to see an effect of Brexit on rankings, if any.

"It will take a long time -- ten years or more -- before you will be able to see an effect of Brexit on rankings." This prediction seems very vague and also very confident. Would you like to make a concrete prediction? For example, in ten years there will only be 2 British universities in the top 10 in the QS rankings, instead of the current 4, assuming no other major events that would obviously affect this?

@toby544 that's not the point. Whether there is an effect or not, it will only show up (or not) with a delay. (But I've made a small edit. @ Wolfgang Bangerth, feel free to roll back.)

Even if the papers weren't written, the work they were based on was done pre-brexit.  Even if not done, funded.

If there is no much difference between rank 1 and 6 or 20 and 50, is it conceivable that the ranking does not work semantically or, rather, should not be taken at face value? For example, it might not explain differences that in fact exist or might create differences that are in fact immaterial. If individual positions do not matter that much (or matter that little), probably only larger percentiles start to tell a story. In that respect, only movements between percentiles should be seen as noteworthy. Or something else?

There is no ranking system that should be taken as a face value.

@XavierStuvw Yes, precisely. When you teach a class of 50 students, you can rank their final numerical score from 1 to 50. But the top five students are all equally good, the difference is just whether or not they had forgotten a minus somewhere, or forgot to consult a specific reference and so their scores vary from 96 to 92 out of a hundred. The difference is not significant. But collectively, these five are better than the ones at ranks 20-25 who are in turn better than the ones at ranks 45-50.

Whether there will in fact be a change long term I don't know. @henning's edit to add "...if any" at the end captures my sentiment.

@WolfgangBangerth I feel much sympathy for your elaboration. I would even imagine situations without much of a difference between between 1 and 50 either. The finer the resolution of the test, the less robust the outcome of the ranking, because little omissions will cause a shift of positions. So, as rankings tend to be more and more resolving, as seems to be the case, their explaining value falls. Rankings may be good for simple events as sports matches, but not for complex organizations. Someone in formal methods must have elaborated on that, whether in the positive or in the negative...

@henning I think it is misleading to call your change ("if any") a small edit - it changed the meaning completely. But I agree it makes the answer better.

Are you taking Brexit to be in 2016 or 2020?

British universities are not limited to Oxford, Cambridge and a bunch of other top50 ones. In cases like this, it is usually the bottom line which suffers the earliest (and the most overall). Oxford may remain at top positions just by the virtue of having preferential treatment from the government: direct financing, possibly easier to get visas for international students, this kind of thing. All compared to a a significantly less prominent university, of course.
Plus, it is a really long process, but that was mentioned already.

This. The first admission process directly affected by Brexit immigration policies was the previous one, i.e. for the cohorts that are just starting. And we can definitely see a decline in the calibre of the students applying to what used to be "UK+EU" studentships (but are now UK-only) simply because the pool of potential applicants is now much smaller. No change in "international" studentships. As there are many more available funded PhD positions for UK students, mid-tier Unis will have to make compromises, and research output will suffer, more in time as more such cohorts are enrolled.

There has been a huge increase in international students in The Netherlands, which is now apparently the EU country with the largest choice of English language bachelors (maybe behind ROI, or even ahead of it).

@gerrit this means that the Dutch education system will need more fundings, to provide education to these new international students. ERC and other european fundings usually do not cover teaching, so this may be an issue, not an advantage for the Netherlands, at least in the short term. Why hasn't the rankings of dutch universities worsened?

@EarlGrey There are studies that show that international students bring economic benefits at least for the UK. Presumably the same is true for the Netherlands. Why there haven't been any changes in a short time frame has been explained well enough in the other answers I'd think.

@Voo thanks a lot. "£22.7bn is generated by non-EU students" so not only the poor countries are punished via brain-drain, but also via money-drain. That is an horrible situation.

@EarlGrey Glad to see that you found a new thing to be upset about so quickly after learning you were wrong.

@Voo what worries me is that so many things have been done in the past 20 years, and still the inequalities are sharply growing (in the western world) and reduced at an extremely low pace (in the developing countries). In the 60s, Europe was booming. In the 2020s, China and India are quickly sliding into dictatorships and the inequalities flattening is at a stagnation point. Then yes, ignoring that "non-EU students" are these two worlds, I will join you celebrating the economic success of having more international students!

@EarlGrey 110 years is quickly?

In statistical inference for time-series data, it is really quite difficult to test for whether or not a policy has a causal effect.  The main difficulty with this is that the policy itself may have a delayed effect or even an anticipatory effect (potentially both) and there may also be many confounding variables that impact on the analysis.  This kind of analysis is "uncontrolled" observation, which makes it difficult to determine whether a hypothesised causal effect was present or not.
The best you can really do in situations like this is to look for a temporal change in your output variable (e.g., university outputs, metrics, etc.) that coincides with the introduction of the policy (or some appropriate period of delay after it is introduced), ideally conditioning on a range of potential covariates.  For the production of scientific work you would need to include a delay that is roughly commensurate with the amount of time it takes to do a research project and have the resulting scientific paper(s) published, which is usually a couple of years.  If you are looking at an outcome like university rankings, there might be a further delay involved depending on the way the ranking is measured.
I have no strong view on whether Brexit did/didn't/will/won't harm scientific research output in the UK.  At best you might be able to make a rough guess about this hypothesis once you have about ten more years of university output data, but it will still be contingent on a lot of caveats that apply when trying to make causal inferences from uncontrolled observation of time-series data.  Another way to try to figure this out would be to look directly at whether there is a drop-off in external funding (that is not balanced by increased internal funding) and/or whether there is a decline in international research collaboration.  Regardless, it will take a while for data to come in, and all the normal caveats on causal inferences will apply.

+1. Also, Brexit may have an effect that was anticipatory, rather than delayed - even if the actual Brexit only happened in 2020, students (and academics) would have been very myopic not to take it into account already in 2016-2020. This means that the effect will be "smeared out" over multiple years, not a sharp structural change.

@StephanKolassa: Good point --- I have edited to note the possibility of an anticipatory effect.

There is certainly a reduction in EU-funded research. As grants run run they are not being renewed.

"The best you can really do..." It sounds like you are saying it's not possible to draw inferences over shorter time frames than 10 years and you are saying we only have access to circumstantial data, no causal models. I have to disagree. We can look at actual known effects of Brexit on factors that are known to be good for science (or university rankings). For example, changes in grant funding, enrollment, international researchers, university finances....

We can do that (as noted in the answer) but that is not what OP is proposing; he is proposing to use the university rankings for his inference.

Considering EU-funded research, the (massive) ERC funding remains accessible to UK researchers, for which they were quite successful in the past, and there is no reason to believe this will change in the short term.

Officially, Brexit only took effect on 31 December 2020, and only ten months have passed since then. I believe it will take more time before the full effects of Brexit impact the rankings of UK universities.
I've watched a number of short documentaries and interviews about EU professors quitting their posts in the UK and moving back to Europe. Some of the best professors I've ever had were from EU countries, so I do think the UK will suffer without them. My personal experience was that EU professors from Germany and Holland often put more time and energy into the students, compared with UK professors. UK professors often treat it like a 9-5pm job, but the Germans and Dutch would go the extra mile and work longer hours to help students out.
I also doubt that Boris Johnson will prioritise university funding, so I think the UK will lose out on funding over time and the university rankings will gradually decrease. That's just my opinion. I truly wish the UK the best and I hope everything works out in the long run.

This is an entirely fact-free answer. Your personal experiences with professors of various nationalities are not evidence of anything.

@KevinArlin I disagree. The post contains many facts (albeit without sources) and while they are not statistical analyses, qualitative evidence is still evidence of a kind. Moreover the answer addresses the question very directly. It suggests a possible negative effect, but it notes is too soon to show up in the rankings.

I imagine the idea that Brexit is bad for British universities depends on two factors:

no longer having access to EU research funding;
no longer being able to attract (or retain) so many EU scientists.

(There is also the fact of not being able to attract so many EU students, and losing out on EU student fees, but this is likely to be compensated by the fact that those EU students that do still come will be paying the significantly higher international student fees.)
How might these actually play out, and on what timescale? Well, the first one shouldn't really be so much of a problem, since the shortfall could be made up by increased funding availability from UK sources. After all, the UK was a net contributor to EU science funding, so this wouldn't actually involve spending more on science. In fact, in the short term increased UK funding has become available before EU funding has stopped being available (of course whether, in the long term, the increase will be sufficient is difficult to predict). However, even if universities don't lose out overall on funding, different priorities mean that individual areas may be significantly worse (or better) off.
The second one certainly has started to happen; I know people who have moved back to the EU because of Brexit. However, there are several reasons why this will take a long time to be felt. For one thing, there is less reason for established academics to leave, since often they have been in the UK long enough to qualify for settled status, etc. In many cases they also have more reason (e.g. family commitments) to stay. So the main effect is on junior scientists who perhaps have less of an impact on rankings now (but some of whom will eventually be senior scientists who might have worked in the UK).
The other issue, as well as the time lag between research being done and being measured by rankings that others have mentioned, is the following. Suppose there is a research group at UK university X, and as a result of Brexit, some members leave. Collaboration between members of the group is likely to continue (after all, COVID has made international collaborations not much harder than domestic ones). Meanwhile, new members are appointed. So the research output of members of the group is actually likely to increase - less of it will be entirely produced by university X, but that doesn't matter for the purposes of assessment and rankings. Of course, we might expect international collaboration to decrease as a result of Brexit in the long term, but in the short term it is likely to increase as existing domestic collaborations suddenly become international.

"After all, the UK was a net contributor to EU science funding" - Have you got a source for this? The UK was a net contributor overall to the EU budget, that doesn't mean it was necessarily a net contributor for science funding, as the UK received substantial science funding

Correction: UK has almost full access to the EU funding schemes under Brexit.

It can take years to know the full extent of the consequences/effects brought about by Brexit. It's not even two years since it happened. And less than two years is nothing in the evolution and operation of Academia.
Grads and undergrads that came to study to the UK before Brexit are committed to stay the course for years. Same with students that already had plans during/after Brexit.
The same situation applies to research/publishing work being done in collaboration with UK's academia. We are talking about commitment in years.
Whatever negative impact (if any) will occur slowly and over the decades. I suspect it will affect middle/bottom tier universities first/the most. The top tier might be affected, but not that much and would occur later.
There will be consequences, that's just logical. They will not happen immediately after Brexit for Academia, but we see them happening in the financial world (see here for an example.)
Whether the UK's financial and service sectors can adapt and shrug it (or even bounce back stronger) remain to be seen. And anything affecting wealth and work will have an impact on Academia (and just about anything.)
Moreover, anyone from the EU wanting to study or do research in the UK will have to adjust, change or perhaps even abandon plans just because of immigration changes and uncertainty.
But again, the world will not know the full effect for years to come. It is too soon after Brexit to conclude that nothing will happen, just because nothing has happened yet.

It will take many years for any effect to become apparent. Decades, probably. Also, Covid has thrown a big spanner into the works of higher education in all countries. Far greater than Brexit, I would argue. For the student experience, it has been little short of catastrophic. This will make identifying any long term changes of trends even harder than it usually is.
Many (most?) of the world's "top" universities are not in the EU (and never have been). Doesn't that fact suggest that it may not be a problem?
One major factor is that English is the World's second language, its lingua Franca. This is likely to be a major influence on students and scientists. Far greater, I would have thought, than any effects of a change of funding from receiving money from the EU out of money paid to the EU by UK governments, to receiving funding direct from the UK government. Obviously, the generosity of such funding is relevant, but the future a decade hence is not knowable on  either side of the English channel.
I would have thought UK universities are more in competition with universities elsewhere in the Anglosphere, than universities in EU countries.

authors: Xi'an ні війні


text:
Degree, degree program, field of study, or discipline?
I am currently writing my Master's thesis (in English, which is obviously not my native language) and on the title page I want to include that it is for "Computer Science". However, I come across different (probably most of them false) terms (used by my peers) of how to denote it. Is it:

Degree: Computer Science (I think not, since the degree is M.Sc)
Degree Program (ditto)
Field of study
Discipline?

In the US, a typical phrasing is:
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science degree in Computer Science
underneath the title. This is not quite set in stone as one could add the name of the institution and one usually does add the advisor or the thesis committee. In general, just find other accepted theses in your department and look what they did.


text:
What to include in a grad school reccomendation on behalf of my referee based on a course?
I'm required to draft a letter of recommendation on behalf of my referee. But I have only done a course under him and although I did really well in that course, I'm not sure what I can write in the draft.
I realize there's no way this would be a strong letter. But at this point I do not have another choice and have to go through with this. Any suggestions regarding the kind of content I can put in the letter are welcome. Thanks!

Why is this required? Seems odd. Or are you drafting a letter of recommendation for yourself that they will send?

@Buffy this is relatively common practice outside US and Europe as far as I understand.

@justauser, parts of it read like a student asking to write a recommendation letter for a professor.

@Buffy yes that does tend to happen sometimes unfortunately. Not good practice but professors here are often unwilling to write LoRs to the point where the student providing them a draft of the letter is common practice.

I assume that your instructor asked you to write a draft of the letter of recommendation that they then send out. That's a trick used by people asked to write references. When it comes to writing a letter of recommendation, you need to ask what the receiver wants to know. Therefore I would recommend:
(1) How does the instructor know the student? Because of a class with x students in it. What grade did the student get?
(2) Has the student displayed any attributes useful for graduate school. For example, was this a heavily mathematized class, or, was this a class with a big software project.
(3) How difficult is it to deal with the student? A student who asks insightful questions, ...
(4) What does the instructor thinks about the chances of success in a graduate program?
Nobody sane expects all letters of reference to be able to address all potential questions about the suitability of a student for further studies. Often, the fact that the letters were submitted is more important than what is in them (with obvious exceptions: "I do not know Ms. X very well, but to the best of my knowledge, she has never been convicted of a felony in the State of Wisconsin" would sink an application). Writing a letter of reference is dreary work, so somebody writing one that is not boiler plate is meaningful in itself. If it comes to scarce resources and an abundance of applicants, content of letters matter more. You did not talk about your field and your future alma mater, so I have no idea whether this is the case for you.
You can easily get admitted without a letter saying that it is expected that you will win the Fields medal, Turing price, and the Nobel price in at least two disciplines two weeks after graduation. Your recommender is not going to be sending out the draft you gave them and has hopefully done this a lot.


text:
Applying for NSF grant from Europe
I am a PhD candidate at a US university, considering a one-year post-doctoral fellowship at German institution 'A' right after graduation. Once I get my PhD [and move to 'A'], I would also like to suggest co-writing an NSF (or other federally funded) grant proposal with a professor at a US university 'B' that would potentially fund my post-doctoral research at 'B' after leaving 'A'.
My question is whether my being employed at a non-US institution at the time of grant submission disqualify me from receiving US federal funding for the work I intend to do at a US institution (and the co-PI is at a US institution)?
I checked this and this, but it does not quite cover the above case.

This will all depend on the funding call. Some grants require a PI who works at a US institution at the time of submission; some do not.
What is actually going to be be a bigger problem for you with this idea is that an awful lot of NSF grants (and federally funded grants in general) do not allow postdocs to be PI or co-PI - they require the PI to have a permanent position at their respective institute. (There are, of course, fellowships/grants intended for postdocs, but that doesn't sound like what you are describing here.) So doing this with the intention of doing a postdoc at University B will likely not work.
If you simply want to help the professor at University B write the proposal, and be one of the other personnel/staff on the proposal, that would almost certainly be fine even if you're not at a US institution at the time of submitting the proposal.

In that case, does the post-doc's name not appear as PI on the grant?

Correct, their name would not appear as a PI on the grant because in that case they would not actually be one of the principle investigators on the grant. They would be named in the "additional personnel" sections. And it is also possible for a lot of proposals to not even have a specific person named to fill a postdoc role at the time of submission, with the understanding that the PI would be hiring a postdoc to work on the proposal if it is funded.

@principles-investigator To add to this, it is very uncommon for someone in a postdoc position to be PI on any grant, federally funded or otherwise. First, because funding agencies want someone with a "permanent" placement at their institute to reduce administrative headaches, and second, because, to be perfectly blunt, most postdocs aren't ready to be PIs just yet and funding agencies by and large aren't going to take a chance with their limited pot of money on funding a project with an untested postdoc as a PI/co-PI.

Common misconception: the "PI" of a project is not (necessarily) the person who wrote most of the proposal text, nor the person you will be funded through the project. It's the person who will manage the funds and take responsibility for the grant. That's why most funding agencies look for the stability of (at least) tenure-track staff.

This bit from @xLeitix - "manage the funds and take responsibility for the grant" - is the part that most new postdocs need more experience with before they try to become the PI for a grant. There are so many background things that go on "behind the scenes" of even smaller grants that have very little to do with the research aspect, but are still the PI's responsibility - things like project reports to the grant agency, meeting with program managers, coordinating/approving expenses, tracking the budget, potentially hiring people to work on the project, etc.

Disclaimer: the world of NSF funding and rules is a complicated one and I am not an expert on it. This answer provides some partial information that I believe to be correct and that is potentially relevant to your question.
NSF has many different programs each with its own rules, so I think you haven't given us enough details to give a clear answer to your question. However, based on your description, I can speculate about two possibilities for how the arrangement you are proposing might work:

You can apply for an NSF postdoc. If you are a postdoc in Europe and looking for your next postdoc gig, and have a professor in the US who wants to work with you, and if you work in mathematics or a related area, then you can apply for the Mathematical Sciences Postdoctoral Research Fellowships (MSPRF), colloquially known in the math community as an "NSF postdoc". The rules for this program, described here, state, in a section titled "Eligibility Information":

Who May Submit Proposals:
Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

The Mathematical Sciences Postdoctoral Research Fellowships are awards to individuals, and
proposals are submitted directly by the fellowship proposer to NSF. Fellows must affiliate with
institutions or organizations (e.g., Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs), government and national
laboratories and facilities, privately sponsored nonprofit institutes and museums, and for-profit
organizations under certain conditions).

Who May Serve as PI:
An individual is eligible to submit a proposal to this program if all the following criteria are met:

Must, at the time of submission, be a U.S. citizen, U.S. national, or a legally admitted permanent
resident alien of the United States;
[omitting various other conditions - see page 3 of the PDF linked above]

This means that if you are a US citizen or permanent resident, you can apply for this grant even if you are working in Europe at the time you are applying. It won't be an application co-written by you and the professor - rather, you will be the sole "PI" and have to write and submit the proposal yourself. I think the professor has to write a letter of support expressing their desire to invite you to collaborate with them at their institution, and you'll need to include several letters of recommendation - read the program guide for details.
Keep in mind that the MSPRF program is very competitive, and usually only very high quality applications from promising candidates are selected for funding.
If you are not in mathematics, you should look to see if your discipline has an NSF program analogous to the MSPRF.

You can get hired as a postdoc funded by an NSF grant. The professor who wants to work with you could hire you as a postdoc where the money to pay your salary comes from an NSF grant. In this type of arrangement, the professor is the PI on the grant. It is the professor who has to write and submit the grant application, not you, and you will not be a named PI or co-PI on the grant. (In reality, one can imagine a scenario in which you help to write the grant application even though your name is not on it and you won't get the credit for obtaining the funding if it is approved; but you will get hired as a postdoc, so that's a reward of sorts. Keep in mind though, it is the professor who controls the funding and they could hypothetically decide to hire someone else.)
These sorts of postdoc funding setups are not common in mathematics, and I believe they are very common in other sciences. Typically the professor will have obtained the funding before they decide to hire a specific person as a postdoc, and the postdoc to be hired is not named in the proposal. So I have the impression it's less common for the postdoc candidate to be actively involved in seeking and obtaining the funding as it is in the situation you are describing.
This type of funding does not typically require that the hired postdoc be a US citizen or permanent resident AFAIK. And since they are not named in the proposal, the fact that they may reside in Europe at the time the proposal is submitted is immaterial and also not mentioned.

Hope this helps, and good luck!

This is a good response. Regardless of exactly which program the OP is referring to, I want to stress how competitive NSF grants are across the board. I would not make any future plans based on getting something funded by NSF. The process itself is quite random in a sense. You can be among the top 5% of all applicants one cycle (merit wise)... BUT you can find yourself in an incredibly strong batch of applications being handled by your assigned panel, and can end up with nothing because the other proposals will be championed.


text:
Effect of a "bad grade" in grad school applications
I had a "bad grade" in a class in my 4th year of undergraduate studies.
The problem is that this class is crucial for the graduate program I intend to pursue. I got a 91%, which I know is a really good grade, but I hoped to get more since I want to do a Master's in Photonics or Electromagnetics. I think that the reason why I got this grade is that one family member passed away a week before my exam and I didn't have the energy or the will to study at that moment.
Do you think that this grade can influence my graduate admission chances?

I have gotten grades lower than that, in the 80s or 70s, but I have performed really well in others, so that's why my GPA is strong. But this course is different, it's arguably the most important one for the concentration I want to follow. I know it's by far not a disaster, but I still worry about it, give the relevance for the graduate program. It wouldn't be the same if I got a 91% in Programming or Microprocessors.

Also keep in mind that the 91% I got in my university may be way lower somewhere else. The level of my university is good (compared to some universities in Canada for example), but if you do all the problems and study the proofs made in class, you shouldn't be getting less than 75-80% unless of course you had a bad day or something.

I had a poor undergrad GPA (less than 3) which is usually terrible to get into a good program. But I also had almost 3 years of decent research experiences backed up by good recommendation letters and a perfect quant GRE score. I got into multiple MS and PhD programs in photonics at decent (not top 20) universities in the US and the UK. I would be very surprised if your grades (even a 91% in this course) would affect your chances significantly. Other components on your application will play a role and especially for a master's degree, you should be fine.

Check out Jeff Erickson's home page and his comments on GPA...

I had an F and got accepted to every grad program I applied to (single digit number), but that was a couple decades ago, and the F was not in my major. Have a story about it and explain what happened in a letter.

You write on a comment that you made your undergrad studies in a different country to the one you want to pursue graduate studies. I am also doing my undergrad in Latin America and I have a few friends here that also applied to graduate schools in the US. From their experiences, I can tell you that when an international student applies to grad school, the members of the committee pay attention if you have a bad academic record (like dropped classes or a GPA below 3.0), but good grades are not as important as you think. It's really hard to assess the knowledge and capabilities of a student based on grades given by professors from another country (let alone from another culture!).
I have a great GPA on my home country, but I cannot compare it with the GPA of a Cambridge student. There's not point of comparison, since the things I needed to achieve in order to maintain that GPA are, in some cases, easier than the ones the Cambridge student needed to complete in order to have that same GPA. I am fully aware of that, and it really sucks, because even if I studied hard and I know how to apply the knowledge I struggled to get, my degree is not as valuable as a Harvard degree, or an MIT degree. I can tell you that I had quite demanding and challenging courses, and I'm proud of the grades I got, but I also had a few courses that were pure garbage:) and everybody gets good grades on them! I cannot show how "good" I am just with my grades, since the ruler my professors used to "measure me" is not the same ruler used to measure the other international students (or local students).
If you don't come from a renowned Latin America college (for example, IMPA or UNAM), you will have a hard time finding your way to a good graduate program in the US or the UE. You will improve your chances if you can find a way to engage in undergraduate research programs, or if you have good performance in academic activities. You can also try to find scholarships addressed specifically for Latino students. I cannot give you more advice because I don't know if you want to apply for research programs or more practical programs.
I don't say those things to bring you down, but in real life the sweat and tears we shed during our undergrad journey are not as valuable as those from our fellow students coming from renowned universities:) and our grades (even if we struggled to get good ones) are not as important.  That sucks but that's life.
Good luck with your future endeavors, I wish you luck in your admission process! Keep going!

+1 Not really an answer, but perhaps useful for the OP.

@Tony2015 imo, this new information changes completely your situation. If your college has a record of students going to graduate school in such institutions and if you even got such a good recommendation letter, I think you getting a 91% instead of a 100% on a certain course (even if it's heavily related to your future research field) is not a big deal. That's just my opinion, but as @.EthanBolker and I point out, you don't really know much your grades will matter. Either way, I hope that helps you ease your mind, don't worry for stuff out of your control!

Big +1 for the "engage in undergraduate research program" advice.  Showing that you've done some actual research — even of the more basic variety that an undergrad could crank out in a summer — is an extremely important indicator, and doubly so for experimentalists.  Also, @Tony2015, a recommendation from a prof with a PhD from Caltech is very good, because one assumes that the prof really understands the level at which you'll be expected to work.  Sounds like you'll do great!

I guess I should keep getting the work in and hope for the best. Thank you for your input!

If I were on the graduate admissions committee and saw a strong application my answer to

Do you think that this grade can influence my graduate admission
chances?

would be "probably not".
For someone else the answer might be "yes" but the real question is not "whether?" but "how much?". That no one can say. It depends on too many other factors.
So go ahead and write the best application you can. Whether you fail or succeed probably won't depend on this single factor.

The thing is if graduate admissions comittee look at the overall GPA, rather than the grades obtained in specific courses. If they do the latter, then it may be an issue, to some degree, depending on the level of the other candidates, which is usually really strong.
Also coming from a university from Latin America, I already have a disadvantage compared to my peers from US or European universities.

No one here can tell you how much this will matter (or even be noticed) at any particular school. All you can do is apply to an appropriate range of schools and hope for the best. Good luck.