text:
Trying to volunteer as a research assistant post-Master's and not having any success so far
I'm an MS in CompSci grad who wants to do a PhD someday. The one thing I don't have from my time in undergrad and MS is significant research experience. Of course, I did undergrad research but was never published in any papers. I make a lot as a professional and want to volunteer(read, free) part-time doing research for a professor or lab post-graduation, but I have no idea how to approach this or even find interest amongst professors or labs. Any ideas?
Edit: Undiagnosed disability crippled my undergraduate performance. I was unmedicated, untreated, and had no idea on how to cope. I really managed to redeem myself through my graduate performance and am basically looking for a second chance. If anyone has disability-specific resources as well, that would be great.

See How can I get research experience in between degrees?

There are a lot of issues with volunteer work. Some of them are addressed vaguely in the linked suggested duplicate; you might also search for "volunteer" in other questions on this stack.

Thank you, those kind of help- but seem to both come from an undergraduate perspective. I'm absolutely open to a multi-year spanning, voluntary position- but also wondering if it's even possible to get published if you are a volunteer.

@MaireWhite The question I linked is from someone with a masters degree (albeit a bit different from a US masters). They are in a very similar situation if not completely identical to you: they have a well-paid professional position in STEM and now want to do volunteer research in academia with a goal to do future academic research, and have little to no research experience. I'd advise considering all the other issues in that post before worrying about publishing possibilities: you have to get in the door to start.

Note that anyone can publish, even as an independent researcher. Academic affiliation isn't a requirement. But employers can get in the way and often want a veto or acknowledgement. That could even be an issue if you are a volunteer. Check your contract.

@BryanKrause maybe I should add more details to my post. The answers in that question suggest a pre-doctoral fellowship (kind of rare in CompSci), and the other answer kind of implies that one doesn't want to be in academia as much if they are in industry. In my case, I'm an individual with disabilities and hard life circumstances that crippled my undergrad GPA (including dealing with undiagnosed/unmedicated conditions), and industry was really the only option. I redeemed myself in my Master's program from that perspective. I really do want to be there- but have had to go down a circular path.

Why not apply to a PhD program? Maybe my answer there was unclear, but the key points I meant to make are: academic labs have a duty to train students enrolled at that institution rather than outside volunteers and there are legal barriers to accepting volunteers for otherwise paid work.

How would you feel if someone volunteered to do your job for free, so your company let you go?

@AzorAhai I work in Open Source so this has never seemed to be an issue.

@BryanKrause I don't think I will get in without research experience, it is strongly recommend that I have research experience to apply.

It sounds like you do have (limited) research experience, just not a published paper. Many others will be in a similar circumstance. You may not get into the top school of your choice, but there are excellent mentors at other institutions. Being accepted into a PhD program is in a sense validating that you are worth someone's time to mentor over other candidates; you have to convince them of the same thing even if you want to just volunteer. An alternative might be to do another masters degree that has more of a research focus, since it seems like you skipped that option while doing your MS.

It's probably going to be a bit difficult to get a professor to agree to take you on as a "volunteer," because they see it (in my personal experience) as a time-sink from what they're really trying to accomplish, which is train students, teach, get grants, and publish. This is especially the case for a potential "part-time" student, since research generally requires full-time focus to make good progress.
If you really wanted to pursue that path, I would recommend using your network. Do you have someone from your MS program who might be willing to write a rec letter to a colleague they know reasonably well? With a good introduction to pave the way, you are more likely to at least get a first conversation. Another avenue would be to get involved in your local chapter of your relevant academic society like IEEE. That might take some time, but would eventually be likely to lead somewhere in terms of opening doors to local researchers.
Finally, even if you don't get accepted on your first try, it's not a waste of time to at least try applying to your program of interest. Can't you consider some of your current work experience as "research experience"? Surely your work as a MS-grad isn't purely rote data entry or something. Maybe you have some patents or other quantifiable work products that could stand in for publications? If not, would you be willing to accept an MS position at the same institution that might get your foot in the door for a later transition to PhD?

Thank you for your answer! Those are great ideas, I will certainly try out joining IEEE, and getting rec letters from my MS program. The issue with doing an MS at the institution I would love to do a PhD at is that I already have an MS in an area I would want to do my PhD in. So I could do a different MS (i.e. management) but I'm not sure how it would help me in terms of getting the PhD.

Having an MS already doesn't preclude you from doing a second one in the same field. It's not super common of course, but also not super rare, especially when people change institutions during their graduate study. And, since you're using this as a "foot in the door", you don't necessarily even need to finish the MS if you can transfer to PhD mid-program.

PhD by definition is a training course in research, and thus doesn't assume research experience. An experienced PhD is postdocs. You don't need to have any paper to get into PhD, because that is what PhD is for.
You had mixed things up. Volunteering for papers just to get into PhD doesn't make any sense.

The answer seems "mixed up" more than the question. In many fields, students with publiciations have a major advantage in PhD admissions. (example)

@ff524 PhD is a study for making publications. Have you mixed up with postdocs? Just to remind you, PhD is a study for research whereas postdocs is a job for people who can publish. There is a difference.

Read the answer I linked. In many fields, it is common for strong MS students to publish, and these students have a distinct advantage in PhD admissions at top schools over MS students who did not publish.

Yes, this is definitely the issue. The program I really like requests that students have significant research experience.

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


text:
Should I reject a specific historic fact and not include it in my work? Advice needed on reliability of source
I'm working on a chemistry paper about the Belousov-Zhabotinsky-reaction (a chemical oscillator).
I included some information about the history of that oscillation reaction, in particular about Boris Pavlovich Belousov and Anatol Markovich Zhabotinskii.
Boris Belousov was the first to discover the Belousov-Zhabotinsky-reaction (BZ-reaction), whilst Zhabotinsky later continued Belousovs research. See also this question.
In the paper 'An Analysis of the Belousov-Zhabotinskii Reaction' I read the following:

Boris Pavlovich Belousov was born in Russia during the 19th century
  and was one of five children. His older brother first interested
  Belousov in science while constructing an explosive to assasinate the
  Czar. (It should be noted that they were unsuccessful in this
  attempt.)

I'm trying to check the fact if it is true that Belousov become interested in science because of constructing an explosive with his brother. I searched on the internet, but can't find an other source that confirms or denies this. Neither does the paper where I read this give sources for the claim.
On Google I can only sporadic find a link to a website that (presumably) says it, but I've (till now) always encountered 404-pages, so I've not been able to thoroughly check it.
Should I reject this and not include it in my work?
Or is it acceptable to use it, if I include the source correctly?
Something like:

According to ...., Belousov became interested in science when
  constructing an explosive with his brother to assassinate the czar.

What is your paper about? History or chemistry?

Chemistry, but I include a brief history of that specific reaction in the beginning. Sorry if that was unclear.

In that case I would not add this (possibly false) claim to your paper. Unless you can find a reliable source (but you say you can't).

It’s useful to consider the potential harm in making a wrong decision of either kind here. If you don’t mention the historical anecdote in your paper but it’s actually true, readers won’t miss out on much, and in any case won’t be actively misled — after all, you’re not claiming the anecdote never happened, you’re just not mentioning it at all. Those readers who want to learn about Boris Belousov’s life can still go and look for additional credible information about him. Presumably they will run into this anecdote. And your paper is in any case a science paper and not a history paper, so no one can accuse you of depriving anyone of critical information.
By contrast, if you mention the anecdote but it’s not historically substantiated, you do a great harm to your readers and to Belousov himself by helping to perpetuate a fallacious myth about him. The harm caused by this type of mistake is much greater in my opinion.
Another thing to consider is the credibility of the source and the level of scholarship that backs up the paper’s contents. The author of the paper you linked appears to be a high school student, and the journal it’s published in is a journal with low standards whose specific mission is to publish the work of budding researchers who don’t yet have a bachelor’s degree. The author doesn’t give a specific reference for the source of this anecdote, making it unverifiable. That’s not good practice, and it may reflect poorly on you to cite such a source without warning your readers about its potential lack of credibility if you rely on it for any information you were not able to verify from other sources.

Hmmm. What "great harm" exactly? The times in which he lived were chaotic. Are you judging that if he had actually done that he would have been wrong? The OP here is suggesting quoting another source, not making things up..

Hi @DanRomik thanks for the analysis. I agree with you that not adding is probably best.

@Buffy the harm in perpetuating fallacious stories about historical figures is self-explanatory. It could also harm OP’s reputation on top of the other obvious negative effects.

I don't see any problems with including a possibly apocryphal story in a scientific paper if you correctly note sources. It adds a bit of human interest to  your paper. As long as your wording doesn't imply that you have confirmed the story it should be fine. Your point is "interested Belousov in science", not "interested Belousov in revolution".
Not an earth shaking decision, though. It might depend on the tone of the rest of your historical background.

Hi @Buffy thanks for the answer. It might be true that an apocryphal story adds a bit of 'human interest', but I don't want to suggest that I back the rumour..

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Learning More CS, Physics, or Math on side as a Physics and Electrical Engineering major
Background and Context: I'm a rising sophomore double majoring in physics and electrical engineering. My research interests lie in quantum computing, theoretical physics, energy (renewable energy and grid-scale energy storage, robotics & AI, and space exploration and tech. I'm just interested in physics and engineering and doing really cool, impactful research. Currently, I spend my time doing robotics and AI/neuroscience research full time at my university. I'm slated to take classes like Advanced Linear Algebra, Intermediate Electrodynamics (uses the Griffiths book), and some electrical engineering classes this upcoming Fall.
Question: My dilemma lies in how I'm spending time on the side to learn more. Physics, Math, CS, etc. are all very interesting to me. In the time outside my robotics research, I'm stuck between deciding whether to advance my mathematical problem solving skills by working through books like the Art and Craft of Problem Solving and learning more combinatorics and graph theory, advance my physics problem solving by working through Morin's Mechanics (if I were to go to advance my physics problem solving skills on the side, should I get a head start on E&M by going through Purcell/Griffiths or advanced mechanics like in Morin Mechanics), or advance my CS skills by doing some more low level programming and learning more in depth about CS like working through the Structures and Interpretation of Computer Programs book and some algorithms or data structures or operating system stuff. What would you guys recommend in order for me to maximize the utility of my learning in my free time and maximizing my chances to gain more intuition in what I'm learning and the research I'm interested in? All seem fun to me, so I'm not sure how to decide. I feel like the CS one would still be relevant to physics because I think it might arm me with a new kind of perspective in physics research (even theoretical physics). I've been trying to go about this with the perspective of doing on the side what I will not learn later in my classes, but I don't know if that's a good way to look at it because I'm not sure if I'm going to be learning mathematical problem solving like in the Art and Craft of Problem Solving book (which goes over olympiad math topics and problems), and maybe if I work more on my physics problem solving now, then when I take those classes later, I can understand the topics a lot deeper/understand it better and go into other related topics. I want to be able to gain the most fundamental skill that will have ripple effects on my other skills, abilities, and research.
Edit: My goal is to prioritize the time I spend on the side learning new things -- rather than splitting up the time on the side for all three of physics, CS, and math as I described in my question, I would want to focus on one area that will serve as the best use of my time compared to the others. All three are equally interesting to me. I am having trouble choosing which to pick. Ideally, I would choose the subject that would serve as best use of my time (I'm talking about perhaps 1-2 hours on the side per day or spending my weekends on it) and improve my skills as a whole -- I guess I'm asking which skills are the most transferrable.

Learning lots of things is good. Not focusing on your majors is bad. But the choices are yours. Don't neglect your mental and physical health.

@Buffy I agree, I mean I'm still focusing on my majors -- everything I'm learning is relevant to the skills in my majors too. I think mental and physical health is very important; I always make time for exercise and have been exercising 5 times a week for the past year, and I always make sure to spend time with family and friends too.

You need to consider the why? Are you learning as a hobby or to serve a career or ...? My advice will vary accordingly. On the hobby side, do whatever is fun! Avoid over-working at all costs, perhaps opt for softer options, rather than deep technical material. On the career side, programming is surely a valuable asset. Developing some entrepreneurial business skills will likely set you apart from those with only technical skills. (I vote to reopen. Perhaps you can edit your question to make your goals clearer. That may get you more votes.)

@user2768 I edited my question to make my goals clearer, check it out and let me know what you think and what your thoughts are.

If you want the most fundamental skill, Math is surely the most fundamental as the other sciences are built on top of it to some degree. However, whether the math you learn will impact your future research is debatable. I had a friend with your passion for self study who went off the deep end for about a semester on Group Theory. To my knowledge he hasn't used an ounce of it in his current work, but of course that doesn't mean it was a waste of time.
There is a point after which "getting a head start" has diminishing returns. It's like if you're running a race, but you don't know the course layout, your ability to predict where you should go rapidly diminishes once you leave the starting line. In this case, getting too much of a head start could work against you as you might have fully left the racetrack.
In that case I would simply spend your free time studying what seems most interesting to you in that moment, and let the future take care of itself. If, down the road, you start to think you really do need to brush up on your fundamental CS (or whatever), you can always take the time to study that at that time. The good news is that in most roles you will fill in the future as a scientist or engineer (and many other career paths, too), your job is not to know all the answers, your job is to know how to learn what the answer is.

Thank you for your response. Your description of your friend definitely has helped me as well. I mean all seem interesting to me, but I can't do all three stuff and get far in them on the side, so I'm just having trouble how to prioritize that time on the side. Do you think it's better to focus on the CS stuff because I'll be learning mathematical and physics problem solving in my later classes?

Actually, both math and physics are pretty fundamental, and in different enough ways that one doesn't substitute for the other.

Yea I agree, but I was saying that I would be learning mathematical and physics problem solving in my later classes because I'm going to be taking more advanced math and physics classes in the future, as I said in my question

It varies with your personal learning style but I've always found it easiest to learn something that will help me solve a problem at hand. So, if it were me, rather than focus on abstract study, I would settle on some kind of project that gives your self study a concrete direction and concrete problem to solve. But, that's purely a personal thing that may not be relevant if you're a better abstract learner than I am.

Ah ok, yea I’ve heard that’s a common way of learning too. That’s how I’m doing my robotics research — basically learning robotics as I do my research. I’m fine with both ways of learning as both work fine for me, but I prefer the abstract way more because then I know the fundamentals and first principles before embarking on a project


text:
Prospects of Australian Ph.D. holder in CSE
please forgive my ignorance as I am from a third world country where people hardly pursue a Ph.D, so I am very unknowledgeable regarding this.
I have recently been accepted for a fully funded Ph.D in CS at a top 5 university in Australia. My research focus is mainly on Computer Vision and Deep Learning. What are the prospects of a Ph.D holder in Australia in industries? I am not interested in academia/teaching and I find myself mostly interested in R&D. For jobs in Europe or North America, will an Australian Ph.D hold as much value as a similarly ranked US one?

Given that most of the research in the areas you mention are in academia you have a very narrow path worldwide. Most "research" in industry is product focused rather than knowledge focused. It won't be the "ranking" of your degree that matters but the number of available positions thereafter. But your Australian degree should be at least as good as any other.

@Buffy  It's a bit odd to claim that computer vision and deep learning are "in academia" and a "narrow path."  There are quite a few self-driving car projects in industry.

To sort-of respond to the question:  your visa status is going to matter more than which country your PhD came from.   Also, if you want to develop products industry, you do not need a PhD.

@AnonymousPhysicist, who collectively employ a vast number of researchers with doctorates? I'd guess not.

@Buffy It took me just a couple of seconds to google that: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/28/this-tech-company-has-the-most-highly-educated-employees.html "16 percent of positions at Google require a doctorate degree."  Also, I just said the asker didn't need a PhD.

@AnonymousPhysicist, unfortunately jobs in technology are very scarce in my country, and product development is virtually non existent. My bachelor's degree is from a 1000+ ranked university nobody in the world will recognize. As far as I know, it is very difficult to obtain funding for Masters degrees. So a Ph.D is my best option at growing my career. Plus I really enjoy research.

It seems your problem is your location, not your degree.  Also, starting a business is a possibility.  It takes less time than a PhD.

Usually a masters is required before starting a PhD in Australia.  Your situation sounds odd.

I don't think anyone would disparage an Australian degree per se, especially since you're at one of the best Australian institutes. The bigger problem is that employers would have to sponsor you for a visa (I speak from a US perspective here), which will put you at a huge disadvantage compared to local candidates. Anyway: we do take questions about industry R&D here, but you might also try asking at [workplace.SE].

The top five Australian universities are highly ranked worldwide and have strong programs in computer science and related fields.  A PhD from any one of these universities would be sufficient to give you a strong grounding for a job in industry.  (Indeed, this is more that what you would need to obtain a job in computing work in industry.)
It is likely that you will need to obtain an appropriate working visa or residency in order to secure an industry position after your degree.  This is also something that is feasible if you undertake a PhD position.  While working as an academic at an Australian university, I supervised a student who migrated here from Nigeria during his PhD.  By the time he successfully completed his program he had earned permanent residency and he has since secured an academic position here.


text:
How to check if a person is faculty - confusing titles in UK academia
I am a master's student in physics, from outside the UK and I'm not familiar with the academic hierarchy/titles in the UK. I am working (remotely) with an academic from a prominent UK university, and we have been collaborating on a project for a few months now. I found out about him, through an advertisement for a PhD project listed on the university website. I did not get the position, but the project we are doing is different. In the past few months in interacting with him, he has also told me that he is looking to take PhD students in the next admissions cycle.
Now, I am unable to find him listed as a faculty member anywhere on the site. For example, he is listed under 'Research Staff' not 'Academic Staff' but he has also been awarded a prestigious fellowship. So under his webpage, it just says 'X Fellow' (not revealing the title for confidentiality), and it neither says postdoc, nor does it say reader or something, which I've seen commonly in the UK (in fact there are other people listed as postdocs under research staff as well). On his webpage in a field-specific research repository site, he is listed as a 'Junior', but I think this is a self-filled webpage.

How do I check if he is a faculty member or not? I'm confused since it is not officially listed anywhere (except for that research repository site) but the university has advertised PhD positions with him as the (sole) project supervisor.

Are 'research staff' in the UK at the same level of the academic hierarchy, with the exception that they don't teach?

The reason I ask is because I intend to ask him for a letter of recommendation when I apply for PhD programs again, and if he is 'officially a postdoc' then I'm afraid his letter may not be weighed equally with that of a faculty member. I'd also like to work on a PhD with him, but if he is not a faculty member, then I'd hesitate to apply to his project, should a project be floated under him again.

Have you considered asking that person?

"X Fellow" tends to connote a relatively junior person, yes. But not only. How many years post-PhD is the person? There do exist versions of "X Fellow" which are long-term, and higher status/rank. :)

I think you are asking the wrong questions.  The right questions are:  Is this person permitted to supervise PhD students?   And when does their employment contract expire?  Not all countries even use the word "faculty."  There is not necessarily a comparable category.

@paulgarrett this person has done 3 postdocs post their PhD and normally from my understanding, people are competitive for and obtain faculty positions after around 3 postdocs, at least in physics.

@AnonymousPhysicist, like I said the uni had an advertisement for a PhD position, with them as a the only supervisor. So I think they are allowed to supervise students. Of course, I do not know about their employment contract, but presumably a postdoc or a similar position is more short-term than whatever the UK equivalent of faculty position is?

You just need to google "X fellow", whatever X is. You will find a page like the ones below, and this will answer your question. For example, if it is for researchers in the first few years after their PhD, or early-career researchers, that means it is equivalent to a postdoc.

https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/funding/postdoctoral-fellowships/
https://www.ukri.org/what-we-offer/developing-people-and-skills/epsrc/fellowships/an-overview-of-epsrc-fellowships/

The university should have some kind of web site. You should be able to contact them through this. Since you would be attending the university, you will need the info about the school.
Ask the school for the info you need. Be specific and ask which persons at the school are qualified to be your PhD supervisor.  You can also ask what their areas of interest are. So you can possibly select the person you found, or maybe somebody else on the same project. This info will have been asked for many times, so it might already be on their web site.
You need to know a lot of other stuff about the school, your requirements to apply, what you need to know about funding, visas, degree requirements, etc. etc. So you need to contact the school first anyway.


text:
What goes on behind the curtains after a PhD interview in mathematics at a university in UK?
I contacted a professor X at an university in UK regarding a PhD position in a particular area of mathematics. I briefly described my research interests in my email to which the professor encouraged me to apply officially since the department has a centralized admission process. So I submitted my application two weeks ago and the deadline was on 7 January. Next day (8 Jan), the professor invited me for an online interview. The interview took place yesterday. There were three more people on the panel; 2 profs. and a postdoc all working in the same area as X. The interview wasn't a technical one and they asked me about background in mathematics, academic history, research work and stuff like that. In return I also asked a few questions from a series of papers published by Prof. X, his future projects, and some general questions regarding the programme. It went on for an hour and  everything went well. Although I feel maybe I could have added some more detail in my description of my previous research works. At the end, they informed me that I will be informed about the admission committee if I will be getting any funding or not as an international student and I thanked them for this opportunity. So, I thought maybe this was an unofficial acceptance and I only have to wait for a confirmation on funding. After the interview I emailed the professor around 1 p.m. GMT to confirm the same and thanked him again for the interview. But I haven't received any response from him yet. In all our previous communications he has always replied within 2-3 hours as long as he received the email within official business hours.
Questions 1. Should I consider this as an unofficial acceptance?

Is the official acceptance conditioned upon receiving full funding from the department and which will be decided by the admission committee?

What generally happens after these interviews? Do the professors recommend students to the admission committee who they want to take in as their student? In that case, does his silence mean he has rejected me?

As an international student I am unfamiliar with the admission process at universities in UK. So, any answers or perspectives preferably from other professors in UK or somebody who is familiar with the system there would be highly appreciated.

Are you extremely wealthy? If not, then yes, funding is effectively necessary to consider yourself admitted. How are you going to support yourself otherwise?

Yes, I understand that. Actually, I have seen that often people get accepted first then they are informed if they will be receiving any funding or not. Perhaps, I should have mentioned this in my post.

Please don't expect anyone to respond to emails within 2 or 3 hours. You may have gotten responses that quickly before but that should not be seen as setting a standard. If you write a follow up email that quickly you will come over as extremely pushy and annoying. Don't do that.

Thank you for this advice but I didn't write a follow up email.

I am based in a UK Maths department. I would emphasise from the start that there is no national procedure, so my local expectations may not apply.
First, PhD offers at my institution have a similar status to job offers: there is substantial administrative overhead to ensure that the applicant can legally and practically take up the position before the offer letter is sent out.
I would typically expect the report of the interview to go through at least one level of academic oversight (in my institution it would be two: a comparison with other candidates within the same sub-discipline in order to rank candidates, and then a comparison with other candidates across all Mathematics to rank and also take into account broader strategic goals where relevant). When these meetings are timed depends on the number of applicants and interviews and the window within which interviews can be done. At my institution these meetings can be bi-weekly, sometimes weekly.
I would then expect the full candidate portfolio to go through at least one level of administrative checking (language requirements, ensuring the funding is in place and sufficient, checking that all reference letters are in place, ATAS statements, ethics issues, etc).
Only after these steps are completed will the offer letters (one for academic acceptance, one for the funding) be written. If the academics you're communicating with are following the rules they won't be able to give you a verbal offer until this point: in any case, such a verbal offer is substantively meaningless IMO. The academics may be able to tell you that you've been ranked highly and recommended for funding (which may happen much earlier in the process), but that's not a formal offer. Many academics will try to say as little as possible in order to avoid giving a false impression here.
In my experience, with luck around specific meeting times and assuming all documents are in place, this process can be done in a couple of days. In most cases early in the cycle, particularly with non-UK applicants for whom the funding and visa issues are more complex, I'd expect at least a week, maybe (much) more.

Thank you so much for this detailed explanation of the admission process.


text:
Presenting teaching experiences and teaching plans in job talk
I have received an invitation to give a job talk for a tenure track Assistant Professor position in at a Agriculture university (U.S.). The position entails 80% research and 20% teaching responsibilities. As part of the presentation, I am required to discuss my teaching experiences and present my teaching plans. I am uncertain about how to create slides for this presentation and whether I should include information already mentioned in my teaching statement or CV. What should be on my slides? At this point I am unsure if they will allow to design my own courses. Can I still propose new courses?
Additionally, I am unsure about what types of questions are typically asked when presenting teaching-related slides. Can you provide some guidance on how to effectively present this information and what kind of questions I might expect?

Just a quick comment. Don't be afraid to ask about what is expected of you. Just send a polite email and ask, I don't think it'll hurt

Here are some of the questions that we seek to ask as we sit on the other side of the interview from you. I add my comments in each case.

Do you have adequate experience to teach Courses ABC and Course XYZ, as they will be your course assignments when you start? You should certainly ask what courses you will be expected to teach in your first years. Provide a summary that highlights where and how you have experience to teach them.

Are you adequately prepared to manage the administrative aspects involved in teaching a course? Provide an example lesson plan for the course that you should teach.

Do you have sufficient confidence in your knowledge of certain topics that should be covered in Course ABC or Course XYZ? A reasonable way to demonstrate this is to pick a specific topic for the course that you should teach and show a few lecture slides that you will use for that topic.

Do you project yourself in a way that will engage undergraduate (and graduate) students in the learning experience? Here again, a reasonable way to demonstrate your style in teaching presentation (versus research presentation) is to give a 5 min - 10 min lecture presentation as though you are teaching the topic (versus as though you are giving a research review on the topic).

To your specific comments, you can/should certainly ask in advance

What courses will I be expected to teach in my first few years?

To what extent will I be at liberty to design my own course plan versus following a template? An example of the former is being asked to design a special topics graduate course. An example of the latter is being told to teach one section in a freshman lecture with multiple sections, each section with a different instructor yet all required to follow the same lesson plan.

What learning management system is being used, and how extensively is it required that I use it in my teaching?

What faculty or staff resources are available to help me structure my courses and/or provide insights to improve them?

Otherwise, at the assistant professor level where you are applying, we ask you mostly to demonstrate only that you have a modicum of temper, skills, and style to avoid being a poor mark on record as one of our teaching faculty. This especially with only a 20% teaching load.
Finally, depending on the size of the department faculty and the attendance mix between faculty, staff, and students, you should not be surprised that some audience members at your presentation will not be fully up to speed with all details in your application package. No need to re-hash all the details again. Simply do the curtesy to summarize the salient aspects.


text:
How do PhD programs use information on where admitted and waitlisted students will be going?
I applied to several American PhD programs in statistics in the fall. A few days ago, I accepted an offer from one of them. I have since been emailing other programs that admitted me to decline their offer and programs that waitlisted me that I can be removed from their waitlist. Some programs have asked me where I'll be going. What do programs typically do with this information?

Put it in a folder and file it away, never to be looked at again? Well, they do look at it to try and figure out where they sit in the opinions of their applicants and what then think what they could do to get a higher number of acceptances in the future.

@JonCuster To do that, wouldn't they need the reasons why applicants decided to attend other programs? Only one of the programs that asked me where I'll be going also asked me why I decided to go there.

They have a general idea of what other programs are doing (support, RA vs TA, whatnot). So they are looking for general indicators of falling behind or catching up to other programs.


text:
Can a statement of interest be a narrative storytelling kind of style?
I'm doing this for a program. More specific is the prompt here:

Share why you want to serve on this committee! Your statement of
interest should describe your background, knowledge, and any
experience that would add value to the committee’s work, and how your
qualifications will contribute to the overall diversity. Please also
include how you learned about this opportunity in your statement.

I kind of want to show when I started becoming interested by putting in a little story at the beginning then go on to explain my knowledge, experience, etc...

What does "program" mean? The text mentions a committee, what is this exactly for?

I would guess that the "style" is less important than that you cover the points requested. If writing is an important part of the activities of committee members then it might be an advantage to use a narrative style. OTOH, if it is a strictly technical committee, populated by geeks, then something more "bullet-pointy" might be best to permit others to "check off" the requirements.
As in most writing, consider your audience.


text:
switching phd due to bad fit
I am first a semester PhD student from India. I am not a good fit at my current university, so I want to drop my PhD here and start anew in the US. I made a terrible mistake while applying for the Indian university, I did not research the university in full. My mistake is so bad that my area of research interest is not currently available at my university.
I feel like a moron by making this mistake. But I am a mature person now and I am doing extensive research about which universities I need to apply to and enroll in (in case I get admitted). My area is available at many universities in the US and I talked with multiple professors and they said that there is a vacancy in their lab and I can join them if I get admitted. In the past I made a mistake, but learned my lesson and I need a second chance to do my research.
I am planing to disclose this in the SOP to avoid any academic dishonesty, will this hurt my application despite the fact that I understood my error and rectified it and have passion to do research?
P.S.: I have three internships at top universities (2 from TIFR india and one from MIT in USA) and independent research based on my research interest which might help me

In any US application don't focus on "the mistakes I made", but on your future plans and how you plan to achieve them. Make it positive and forward looking, not the opposite. Make sure you get good letters of recommendation as the canonical question suggests.
Note that in the US, applications are generally made to a department, not to an individual faculty member.


text:
PI cutting 2/3 of stipend without notice. Any recommendation?
I am asking on behalf of a friend who is in their second year of their PhD in the US. This month, without any notice or warning, their stipend is reduced by two-third (normal stipend is $2300, now is $725, which is way below minimum wage).
This had happened before but never at this extreme rate. In the past, the PI had reduced all PhD students' stipends by $100-200 for a few months due to lack of budgets (sometimes with notice, other times without notice). This month, my friend asked another PhD student in the same lab if their stipend was reduced and it turned out that the other PhD student's stipend was reduced by only $200 while my friend's was cut by almost $1600.
In the beginning of summer, the PI was not pleased with the direction of my friend's research idea and threatened that he would stop supporting their PhD if there is no better research idea or progress. However, in the most recent meeting with the PI (2 weeks ago), both were happy with the new research direction and the PI didn't mention the earlier threat anymore. My friend also just submitted a manuscript for another paper so they were very surprised (and sad, and anxious) about the sudden cut of stipend.
My friend emailed the PI and the associate director but hasn't gotten any reply. Who should my friend contact about their situation (department dean, program director, graduate director)? Is there any legal action they can take? They don't really want to escalate the situation but this is honestly unacceptable. They are also international student so they are not sure if legal action even is an option. If this continues, they plan to just take a few more courses in the Fall and graduate with a non-thesis master and go somewhere else. Is there anyway they can seek assistance from the school if the PI refuse to pay for tuition in the Fall?

Note that the "finance" tag is for the field of finance, not for student finances. I hope you apply it correctly. Otherwise it should be removed and perhaps replaced with a field specific tag.

"I am asking on behalf of a friend" - better that your friend asks themselves, otherwise we're playing a game of telephone about the circumstances here.

The student must have a PhD contract. How much funding does it guarantee for how long and what does it say about notice periods?

The answer really depends on the school and what the student was offered during admission. These days, it is common for US universities to offer a guaranteed 5-year stipend, with the money staying constant. Now, the way advisors and/or departments get around it is by saying that the money will come from a combination of teaching and grant funds, then expect students to support themselves through teaching alone. That is, the guarantee is a guarantee that students will be offered a teaching spot, not a guarantee of string-free money to spend time on research. So it could very well be that your friend is being cut from the unrestricted salary money, not teaching money, and that they now have to teach. If that's the case, then it's time to learn Power Point and join the club.
Given that it's the start of the summer, another possibility is that your friend was promised semester funding, either from a TA or RA source, but no summer funding. Then what the advisor is doing is funding some students but not others during the summer with RAs. It's not common, but I've seen some labs in which grad students were expected to leave during the summer. Some went on extended vacations, others went to their parents' house to catch up with thesis writing, etc. international students be dammed (I was not an international student, but could not afford plane tickets anyway.)
More about the issue of advisors picking and choosing whom to give summer funding: there are good, bad, and ugly reasons to do this.
Good reasons: when funding is limited, say the advisor only has enough for 1 summer stipend, they can choose to pay a student who is taking care of an experiment that needs year-long care, e.g. feeding animals, or they might prefer to fund their star student, someone who is about to finish and writing important papers, someone who takes extra tasks in the lab, e.g. equipment maintenance, etc. They might also prioritize students who have children. Bad reasons include pleasing students who threaten to leave if not paid the summer stipend, and the advisor deciding to give them the money instead of someone more deserving, or distributing the money equitably among students. Ugly reasons include the coward's way of dealing with problems, e.g. avoiding a confrontation with an underperforming student and instead cutting off his funding with the hopes he/she will go melt and go away. Note that international students are notoriously vulnerable to exploitation, as visa requirements require full-time student status. So it's just too easy for unscrupulous advisors to cut off international students from funding, as they are the ones who are not able to find part-time work outside of the university, and thus have no leverage.
Regardless of the reason, there is a real failure of communication from the advisor's side. I wonder how the advisor would take it if the admin cut HIS salary 2/3rds without notice, regardless of how justified the admin felt.
Now, if the advisor is cutting stipend money AND there are no opportunities for your friend to make money through a TA/RA job, then they should go to the director of graduate studies, the office of financial aid, etc. (whatever they are called at their institution) and plead their case. No department wants a reputation of being the place where grad students can be cut off from funding for arbitrary reasons (they do it all the time; they just try to avoid the reputation of doing that.)
Always keep in mind that if your friend is not making good academic progress, as determined by the advisor, all bets are off.

Off-topic comment: Admittedly, the usage of "then it's time to learn Power Point" as a metaphor for "start teaching" gives me a rather creepy feeling... ;-)

My gut instinct on reading the question was 'how can this possibly be legal?' but seeing your explanation of a mix of grant and teaching funding gives a good explanation. However I would still expect that there are some department rules on how this is planned and communicated and no professor can just on their own adjust monthly funding without notice? So what OP describes still seems way off?

It could also be an issue of summer funding. I added a note to the answer.

Finance person here who handles payroll. The first thing you need to consider is that it could be a mistake. One of the crazy but common things we see is that people are paid incorrectly and never say anything, often for months. This is even true of faculty. Before assuming the worst, find a department administrator and ask who handles payroll.  Finances and appointments are complex and mistakes happen, even at prestigious universities.
Second, in terms of legality, there may not be any minimum wage. Institutions of higher education individually determine if their students are employees or not. If your institution determines that students are trainees, there is no minimum wage to consider because some of the student activities are determined to be educational. You may be able to determine this by researching your school's financial policies.
Finally, in terms of school policy for lowering the salary, you should understand if you are admitted by the PI or the school. The department or school may have minimums that are guaranteed, and faculty are then restricted on who they can admit based on funding. However, if your school classifies grad students as trainees, no payment is required and is simply customary.
Find the department administrator and ask about the payroll. It is important not to blame people for the mistake. Most of these folks are overworked and get very little help. If it is an error, I'm sure they will be highly embarrassed and eager to fix it. Check your payroll every month and say something as soon as you see an error.

This is school specific, but many schools have internal rules about what minimum stipends must be. This is a stipend not a wage though.
Unfortunately it is not unknown for professors to do stuff like this with complete disregard for what the university rules are.
As to point of contact, I'd try the graduate office / graduate director, try and find out what the rules for your school are. The admission letter may also be relevant.
Id very strongly advise looking for another advisor, as someone who pulls this kind of stunt is probably not someone you want to be working with. Being 3 years into the phd and the advisor having no money to pay you is going to be a bad situation

*Id very strongly advise looking for another advisor, as someone who pulls this kind of stunt is probably not someone you want to be working with. * This.

Kind of adding to what @cheery.beach7701 said.
If it is Summer specific, then a couple of legit scenarios come to mind.
The student is normally supported by TA/RA but in this specific scenario seems to be supported by RA (explains why PI can adjust salary). In that case:

Non-Summer (previous cases) times when there was a salary adjustment. The PI adjusted their salary. Departments, even within the same school have different stipend requirements. These are the minimum requirements, for a lot of public schools (some of the ones I know) they can be even $1600 or $1800. Then some advisors while giving RA try to give more by topping it off maybe by 10-15% (Havent seen a more generous advisor yet). Since RA has no cap, your advisor can choose to give you whatever money (more, not less than that minimum amount) they want (the department might raise an eyebrow...). Now it seems he was doing that and when he doesn't have money he just takes away that leeway and sticks with the minimum (seems this school might have around $2100 as a minimum, judging form the post).
Now this is all well and good, but all employments (including tenure track professorships, nontenure track is diff...) come with 9 months of employment. Hence that 3 months of summer, either Prof's want their students to go do internships or whatever they want (since otherwise they will have to pay them from their own pocket/grant, which they also use for their own salary at that time). A lot of Prof's dont want that, hence the extended holiday/internship encouragement etc. In some schools you can be supported by getting a summer TA with reduced course enrollment. And some profs if they ave grant will support you through RA.

In this case, it seems point 2 is at play if this is summer-specific. He probably doesnt have fund to pay for summer hence reduced pay. But some schools also cut you off from summer enrollment without a RA/TA in summer, hence maybe he is paying.
Whatever it is, in my limited experience it always is crucial to talk to your PI about summer plans by January/february so you can plan internship etc.
Completely written from my conjecture.
And I am an International Student myself. So with that perspective

In terms on who to contact, in some cases each department has Director of Graduate Education (DOGE). They will be the best person to contact to better understand the policy if financial aid. These policies vary from school to school and lab to lab. If you don’t have a DOGE, dep chair will be another option. Just remember, in most cases, PI reserves the right to remove you from a research project (thus completely eliminate RA funding). They definitely have to meet minimum wage requirements irrespective of the department. So find out how many hours are they paying for, atleast you can threaten to look for other jobs.

You probably mean "PI reserves the right", not "PI restricts the right". But even more probably you just meant "PI has the sole right".

Yes :) thanks for the correction


text:
Is there an academia-specific convention for possessive nouns?
I am fairly certain academic papers do not use apostrophe " ' " for contraction, like "won't", but what is the academic way (in engineering) to do this.  For example, " A humans walk cycle " , it is the walk cycle belonging to the human, so " A humans' walk cycle " seems appropriate.  However, I rarely see apostrophes used in academia, so should it be " The walk cycle of a human " instead?
I realize this is a bit of an english stack exchange, however, my question is the academic convention, not what is right or wrong in grammar.

In my experience, proper grammar (including the proper use of apostrophes) is always preferred. Perhaps you seen this mainly because engineers are not the best grammaticians?

The word you are looking for in the first sentence is not conjunctions but contractions.  Contractions are generally avoided in formal writing, but the apostrophe is also used for the possessive as in human's; this is perfectly acceptable.  There isn't an "academic convention" on this point as far as I know; these are just conventions for formal writing in general, and will be discussed in any English style guide.

A humans' walk cycle is incorrect as humans' would the possessive of the plural humans which is not what you want.  So anyway, this is better for English.SE or possibly ELL.SE (English.SE might close it as "general reference").

I agree with both of @NateEldredge's comments, but I've never been convinced that mathematics papers are so formal that I shouldn't use contractions.  I don't use contractions often, and I don't complain when referees or editors or copy editors want them removed, but I make no special effort to avoid them in the first place.

@NateEldredge , it is supposed to be the plural humans, as it refers to all humans, not a specific one.  If it was specific I would imagine something like person vs people.  Maybe human is a confusing example.  Thanks for pointing out the contraction thing

If "humans" is intentionally plural, then preceding it with "A" is misleading. Presumably, "A" was intended to  go with "cycle" rather than "humans", but then the whole phrase needs to be rewritten.

okay, I guess there are issues with the grammar im not aware of, but the question still remains, are there specific rules for academic grammar regarding apostrophe.  Is it just 'formal writing', since formal writing can use first person, but from the papers I read, it is usually third person

I disagree with the close votes, as the OP specifies that he is not looking for an answer on the English. Reopening.

@AndreasBlass I think the asker is misinterpreting the sentence. "A human's walk cycle" makes perfect sense: it's the walk cycle of a generic human.

@DavidRicherby I agree that the OP is misinterpreting the sentence, unless it's one that he himself wrote (which wasn't obvious to me from the question).

I agree with ff524 answer of there are 'no academia-specific convention to avoid the use of apostrophes to form possessive nouns.'
However some universities now have developed guides in relation to grammar that can be referred to. It may also be worth while checking if your college has an academic writing centre(AWC) that runs workshops on writing skills. I know in my own university there is an AWC but also when at undergraduate a number of lecturers referred us to a general guide, The Penguin Dictionary of English Grammar.
For example on the University of Canberra website they deal with a number of grammar points including the use of the apostrophe (see point 6). Here is a second example of a guide

There is no academia-specific convention to avoid the use of apostrophes to form possessive nouns. Follow the usual rules of correct grammar and good style.

I am not aware of any style guide or convention that advises against using constructions that need apostrophes as a general rule, or says anything other than "Use correct English grammar and spelling to the best of your ability."
Style guides may advise against using contractions such as "won't" or "isn't" but that is because they are seen as being less formal, not because they need an apostrophe.
"A humans walk cycle" is nothing more than an error that wasn't picked up by the author or proofreader.

The OP is not proposing that he use "A humans walk cycle," but that instead of "A human's walk cycle" he use "walk cycle of a human" which is also technically correct.

@ff524 And I'm saying that I'm unaware of any style guide that recommends writing "the walk cycle of a human" just to avoid the apostrophe in "a human's walk cycle."

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


text:
What does "principled approach" mean in papers?
I encounter this term "principled approach" in some papers of computer science. Since I' m not a native speaker, I don' t quite understand what this means. And I didn' t find any results online.
I' m not sure if this site is appropriate for such questions. Please let me know if I posted at the wrong place.

I believe this question is off-topic for this board. Asking about the meaning of terms in academic papers is not appropriate for this board, unless it has something to do with being an academic. Otherwise, this should be asked on a CS board.

You might be right. But the search result shows some papers not in CS.

I think this is a broad enough term and approach to tackling research problems that it is relevant and on topic. I would be interested in an answer that provides an definition and explanation.

there is a similar question on stats.se http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/60812/what-does-principled-mean-as-in-principled-bayesian-analysis (with an open bounty expiring 2013-06-21)

I would add that in experimental biology, a principled approach includes usage of rigorous methodology to derive optimal experimental design and analysis.

A 'principled approach', at least the way that I've been exposed to this term, implies due care and diligence with regards to the rigor and discipline used in the materials context. A paper that describes a principled approach would be one that is presenting a procedure for the execution or evaluation of a given subject matter. For example, if I picked up a paper titled 'A principled approach to algorithm selection and implementation' then I would expect the contents of that paper to clearly enumerate a system of algorithm analysis, with exhaustive supporting documentation.
Conversely, a paper which uses a principled approach would be one that follows such a detailed and rigorous methodology that the data collected from its research may be considered to be functionally with out bias and with a low probability of corruption or inaccuracy.

(I am in mathematics, but similar language is used roughly similarly, I believe.) As a place-holder answer: a "principled" approach in science is at least opposite to a quick-and-dirty, or ad _hoc_, or "kludge-y" approach, the latter three synonymous expressions meaning that the priority is getting some result out, perhaps even finding some rationalization for the conclusion one wants. Obviously a non-principled approach more lends itself to corrupted (but also quick, desired, easy) results.
The "principled" approach "takes the high road", does not bias conclusions, does not rationalize-away weaknesses or flaws in methodology or information.
That is, one could hope that a "principled" approach involves no conflict of interest for the parties involved, and could be trusted. At its worst, "unprincipled" approaches (which no one would ever admit to, except perhaps as a mildly perverse claim to fresh unorthodoxy) produce completely untrustworthy outcomes, because those outcomes are chosen in advance, and whatever results are obtained are "interpreted" to support the original premise.
A hilarious example I witnessed was a computer science M.S. (details elided to protect privacy), on which I was an "outside examiner", in which "the goal" was to prove that two bunches of events were correlated, thus proving that the people who were promoting the one as "cause" of the other were right, and people should invest in their product. (Nevermind that correlation is not causality.) The guy failed to find any correlation in any of the first twenty or so statistical tests he applied... but he kept at it, until he found a statistical test that did seem to assert a slight correlation.
Of course, what he had really proven was that there was apparently no correlation... but, taking an "unprincipled" approach, claimed the opposite of what his own evidence showed, etc.

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


text:
What should I do with requests to be my PhD student?
Putting aside the issue of obviously automated inquiries, what should I do with personalized emails I receive from students asking to be my PhD student?  Assume that I know the student is not going to become my PhD student any time soon, possibly because there are no vacancies currently. In particular, I am interested in departments where PhD admissions are not centralized.

Tell the student that there is no vacancy in your lab...?

If you do not have any vacancies, writing that on your homepage should reduce the number of requests you receive.

create a template email with fill in spaces thanking the student of thinking about you as PhD mentor but informing him that there are no positions, and point him to your homepage as @theindigamer stated.

Do you have no vacancies or no funding? Would you take students who had their own funding (NSF, etc)?

No answer was good enough..?

If your department or institution has an established centralized procedure for admitting graduate students, I would prepare a template that says:

All interested students must apply through (insert method here). I do not respond to direct unsolicited requests for PhD positions.

Be careful with templated responses. Even if you don't make admission decisions yourself, potential advisors are (and should be) a major factor in application/acceptance. Coming off as someone who doesn't care about potential students - especially ones who show specific interest in your lab - is a good way to send thoughtful, enthusiastic, driven students to your competitors. (Though giving no-effort form letters the brush-off is different.)

Again, this isn't a one-size-fits-all solution. If you get an email that obviously shows specific interest in your group, then you should feel free to pursue it. But anything that reeks of a "cold call" email could be responded to in such a manner. That's also why I said templated, instead of an auto-response.

If the local culture is to apply to professors and then to the department, school, college, or university, then you might respond that you're full, not accepting students right now, or don't see a fit or whatever else is true. If the local procedure is to apply to the large organization first, then you could pass along that information and a link to the instructions. I just ignore them since I only post GRA position openings when I have them open and expect interested students to be able to find relevant postings for jobs when we have them just like other applicants do.

@clarmso this seems so strange. when I was looking for a position, the people I contacted were very happy to be contacted / excited about a new student. i wonder if this depends on field. or if i just got lucky.


text:
Is it possible to get a PhD through government/industry/military lab, and if it is, what is the process?
Is it possible to apply for a PhD through a government or a military research laboratory?
If so what would be the process? Is the qualifying exam required? How is that scheduled? How about course work?

Which country do you have in mind?  In the U.S., this is impossible unless the laboratory has a close relationship with a university (in which case you would be a Ph.D. student at that university, so you would officially be at a university after all).  However, I don't know whether there are some countries in which it might be possible.

@AnonymousMathematician I think its very country dependent. Definitely possible in the UK, although not that common and probably not at a military lab.

They aren't military labs, but in the US you can get a PhD from the Air Force Institute of Technology or the Naval Postgraduate School, which are fully accredited institutions.  Most of the students are military officers, but they do accept civilians as well, though US citizenship is required.

In the US, you cannot have your PhD degree awarded by a government or military  laboratory, and similarly industrial labs generally cannot award degrees, either.
However, having worked at several government labs, I can confirm that it is possible to be a grad student and do your thesis research at a government lab. Usually this is done under a co-advising arrangement within an existing collaboration (Prof. X at university A works with Dr. Y at lab B), or under a cross-affiliation (Prof. X has a joint appointment at both university A and lab B).
More specific details differ too much depending on the university and department's regulations, as well as those of the lab in which you're interested in working, so you'd need to ask them specifically. However, it is also worth noting that many graduate departments still have a "residency requirement" on the books—which states that you must spend some number of semesters actually registered as a student at the university before receiving a PhD.

I am in the UK so in other countries things may be different.
Some government research institutes fund PhDs, where you are based at the institute for your research. However the PhD itself must be awarded by an academic institution (i.e. a university). You will generally have a supervisor at this university and its name will be on the certificate.
The specifics are going to vary for place to place including: what, if any, taught courses you must do, how often you must visit your university etc. In my experience these factors are often a compromise between the two institutions, particularly the university often has various requirements for the PhD while the research institute just wants you to do research for them.
As for applying, you should expect the same/similar requirements to a standard PhD. when looking for positions the host university or the industrial lab are the best places to start. Although it is not always clear whether the position is just funded by the lab, but based at the university, or actually based at the lab.
A related option, not sure how location dependent it is, is doing an EngD. These tend to be more industry focused, often in a company.

There are very few exceptions to this, and those exceptions that exist are usually simply collaborations between an institution and a PhD-granting academic institution. For example, the Danish Council for Independent Research funds PhDs that are hosted at research institutions that do not normally grant PhDs. However, you have to maintain and actually earn the degree from a university, even if you spend the entire time working at the non-academic institution.
Similarly, some institutions that are not universities grant PhDs. For example, the RAND Corporation runs a graduate program in public policy analysis, even though it is not a university and grants no degrees other than that single PhD.
In general, however, you need to be at a research university to earn a PhD.


text:
Why are honorary degrees awarded to celebrities?
Chiranjeevi was awarded an Honorary Doctorate by Andhra University. He is an actor, so how did he earn an honorary degree if he has not contributed anything to education?

About "how did he earn an honorary degree": Honorary degrees are not earned. In fact, one uses the "earned doctorate" to emphasize that it's not honorary.

The "degree" part of "honorary degree" is largely irrelevant.  Honorary degrees are simply honors bestowed by a university, and they are considered degrees just because degrees are what universities hand out: a degree is the one distinction not available elsewhere in society.  Honorary degrees do not necessarily have anything to do with study or recognize any scholarly accomplishments, even in the loosest sense.  (This is true both historically and today.  There has never been any strong connection between honorary degrees and scholarship.)  Scholars can be awarded honorary degrees, but so can anyone else.
In particular, politicians, donors, and celebrities are sometimes honored by universities for entirely non-academic reasons.  For example, in the United States a university typically awards an honorary degree to the primary speaker at its graduation ceremony, who is chosen for fame and speaking skills.  The speaker might be a distinguished scholar or might have no scholarly credentials whatsoever, but an honorary degree will be awarded either way.
There's nothing wrong with this, and there's no reason why universities should restrict their honors to scholars.  The only strange part is calling the honor a degree, but in practice people who care about such things know it's not a real degree.  Honorary degree recipients occasionally take the degree part too seriously (by bragging about it or insisting on being called "doctor"), but that just serves to make them look foolish.

To explain it in a linguistic perspective, in the beginning there is only one meaning in the word "degree": an award for something you deserve. By calling the tribute to a non-scholar a degree as well, the word has a different meaning, and it becomes a polysemy. The difference between two meanings is large enough for the insiders to distinguish a honors degree with a real one, but small enough for the outsiders to be unable to make that distinction.
So by making a simple word become a polysemy, the university can gain more benefit without violating any ethic. In other word, this is a way to dance around what is right or wrong by applying knowledge in linguistics and psychology.


text:
Do exercises in a theoretical reference book need to be solved when doing research?
I am a first year graduate student in a computational math program. Based on my background (I just finished a one-semester graduate real analysis course), instead of reading a specific textbook, my supervisor suggested me starting reading papers. And if I find unclear concepts, I can refer to some books in library, learn the specific knowledge and come back to the paper.
In general I agree with this method since I think this is the most effective way to learn a new technique, that is, applying the new knowledge directly to my research. But I am not sure what I should do if it's a pure math concept, instead of a numerical scheme. For example, say the existence of weak solution of a particular PDE. After reading the relavant chapter or chapters of a classic book which I borrowed from the library, should I try to do the exercise after those chapters before moving back to the paper? Based on the suggestions here, I should try to solve as many as exercises in that book to make sure I understand the theorems and techniques, and this is what I usually do in my undergraduate study.
But I have several concerns about this approach. Firstly, it may be time-consuming and may delay the research process. Secondly, unlike reading an undergraduate textbook, I started the reference book in the middle, while the exercises may require some previous chapters' techiniques,  which I may not know and may not be directly related with my current research.
So may you share your experience about how to deal with this senario? Do you come back to the paper immediately (say after knowing the statement of a theorem) or do you spend some time solving exercises? If the exercises involving previous chapters' concepts, do you usually read previous chapters as well or do you just skip those exercises? I know it's good to learn more things, but given the time constrains and tons of things I need to learn, sometime it may not be practical.

I wanted to put in a word that mathematics really is hard and takes time to learn.
In particular, in my experience -- which is, I must say, almost exclusively with pure mathematics, but in many programs in the US the distinction between pure and applied only emerges later on -- relatively few first year math PhD students are reading papers independently.  Unless I very much misremember, I did not start reading "serious" math papers until my second year.  For what it is worth, I was a student at Harvard, and I entered with a BAMS from the University of Chicago.  I was not poorly prepared compared to my American peers.  Also for what it is worth, "one-semester graduate real analysis" is what I took as a third year undergraduate.  And then I followed it with another semester.  And by the way I was a student of number theory.  As I recall I spent the first semester of my first year studying for my quals, passed them at the beginning of the second semester, and spent the second semester learning about elliptic curves, local fields and schemes from textbooks of Silverman, Serre and Hartshorne.  The idea of plunging into papers without having learned this material: well, it might have added some drama, but almost certainly it would have added to my total time to degree.
I have very mixed feelings when I hear people on this site say things to early career graduate students like: "don't get too bogged down in any one thing"; "you can read textbooks forever; time to start reading papers"; "only spend as much time to learn something as is needed to apply it to your own work"; and so forth.  It is not that such sentiments are not applicable in mathematics: I have said all of these lines myself.  It is rather that in mathematics this kind of advice gets given out much later in the day: some of it is great advice for mid- and late-career grad students, and some of it sounds more appropriate for postdocs.  On the other hand I have seen a lot of students -- including talented ones -- get snagged because they prioritize "their research" over basic learning.  I did my PhD thesis on moduli spaces of abelian surfaces with quaternionic multiplication.  I didn't know what any of those words meant as a first year PhD student.
Now I write all this knowing that the OP is in applied math, which depending on what that means could either be identical to the pure math experience, wildly different, or anywhere in between.  But he is asking about pure math knowledge and seems to have the intuition that it will not come so quickly or easily.  I think the most honest, helpful answer is: it does not come so quickly or easily to pure math students at top places.  So if you're expecting it to come quickly and easily to you, then you're setting yourself up for disappointment.  A certain amount of patient, textbook-driven linear learning will pay immeasurable dividends down the road.  How much?  Good question: that's what advisors are for.
Well, after all this I may as well take a crack at the precise question asked.  Should you solve exercises in textbooks you read in order to gain background on your research?  Sometimes.  I think that whenever you're reading a math book and get to some exercises you should at least look over them and get a sense of how close you are to being able to solve them.  This is an important clue to how much of the material has sunk in.  On the other hand, how much time should you spend solving any one "problem set" when you're reading the text in "research mode"?  Not very much unless you see how solving that particular problem is relevant to your work (in which case: lots of time, potentially).  If you don't know whether the exercises are relevant to what you're doing, you either haven't read closely enough or are reading too linearly: you don't have to read textbooks in order or one at a time.  Grab several off the shelf at once.  Play them off against each other.  Often what you actually need is something that most texts will hint at, drive somewhere near, leave to you as an exercise....but the right textbook will do it wonderfully.  Or maybe no one text will say exactly what you want, but together they will.  Being able to "triangulate from multiple sources" is, I would say, an intermediate research skill: I know many PhD students who don't seem to have mastered it (e.g. for complete lack of trying!), but it is one well worth developing if you're trying to dive head-first into the literature.
Good luck.

Thank you for your great sharing! I guess at this moment, I should spend some time learning from textbooks.

You are definitely looking at the wrong factor here. The question for you should not be "Should I solve the examples?", but rather "Do I understand the technique well enough to confidently apply it to my own research?".
If the answer to the second question is yes, you don't need to waste your time on doing more examples. If the answer is no, you need to study the technique more before applying it, and doing the examples may or may not be a good way to do it. However, in the second case, doing the examples cannot be "too time-consuming", as you will need to spend more time on learning the technique anyway. At the end of the day, it isn't about "solving as many examples as possible", but about understanding the material well enough. As a young researcher, you should be advanced enough to tell when this is the case.
That being said, the way how you phrased the question makes me wonder to what extend you actually understand the technique. Specifically:

I started the reference book in the middle, while the exercises may require some previous chapters' techiniques, which I may not know and may not be directly related with my current research.

Of course one needs to know the concrete example to be sure, but if you are unable to do the examples because you have not read the previous text book sections, it seems to me that your understanding of the overall area is not all that great yet.

Thank you for pointing out my mistake. I will keep your advice in mind. As a first year graduate student, there are a lot of things I have to get used to. It seems the pace in graduate school is much faster compared with undergraduate study, especially for computational math program. There are some senior students who don't understand real/functional analysis well but start to write papers by implementing numerical simulations, which makes me wonder what I should do (while indeed, our thesis topics are different).

Btw, what I want to learn from the reference book is functional analysis but that book's exercises involve a lot of convex analysis, which is introduced in previous chapters.

@JohnZHANG I often just try to work out simple examples I come up with myself, but perhaps you should try looking at other books for more useful exercises/examples.

The only way of knowing if you indeed understand a math concept is to do the exercises. It's REALLY hard to judge your own ability in pure math without doing the dirty work.

It depends in your learning process. My philosophy is in general:
*To be able to say that you understand something, you need to be able to code it.*

This leads me to code lots of things in order to fully understand them. While it seems time consuming, once I have code it I realised that I do understand a lot of the high end research in the field and It saves me a lot of time that would be spent into trying to understand each specific paper using the technique I coded (or variations).
However, you can not code everything. There are THOUSANDS of methods in each field. My recommendation: Solve the textbook problems that will be relevant to your work, the ones that you are going to use/modify.

This approach might seem more time consuming but I prefer it to doing examples because it has an objective stopping point and it forces me to clarify my understanding. I know I understand a technique when I can make the program do it. Afterwards if I need a refresher I have the program as notes, written in exactly the way that made sense when it was last clear to me. If I'm doing examples until I feel good about it there's always the risk that I'm rushing, being lazy, over estimating the problem, etc.  If you can't program spreadsheets make a good substitute.

@gunfulker Yes indeed. Once you have coded the discrete Fourier transform (for example) you really know that you understand the problem and will probably never get stuck in a problem that may arise from it.

Coding something is very different from proving mathematical problems, e.g matrix multiplication is easy to code, but give no insight about properties of linear application composition.

instead of reading a specific textbook, my supervisor suggested me starting reading papers. And if I find unclear concepts, I can refer to some books in library, learn the specific knowledge and come back to the paper.

This is how you learn to read papers.  When you first start, there will be several gaps as your undergraduate classes couldn't prepare you for every grad-level sub-field there is.  You can fill in the gaps with reference books, your advisor, or other knowledgable students.
Don't worry about missing something out of one of the reference books.  Either you'll notice it when a paper makes a claim you don't understand (will be common at first), or your advisor will realize you do not understand it.
Focus on understanding the papers you read.  There is no way anyone would have time to read multiple text books and keep up in grad school.  It feels overwhelming at first, but stay focused, and it will get MUCH easier.

Thanks for your advice. May I know whether your advice is also applicable to applied math program? I always have a feeling that math students (especially pure math students) should learn enough fundamental theories before reading papers. But I gradually realize that my knowledge can never be "enough" and as an applied math student, time doesn't allow me doing that. So usually how to determine whether a student is ready to read papers? Is being able to pass qualifying exam is the criterion?

My area is CS, but I would bet its cross-discipline.  There is no way you can be prepared to read papers by a general curriculum.  Part of the grad-school (and quals) process is learning how to "drink from the fire hose" so to speak.


text:
In India, can you do psychiatry after graduating with an undergraduate degree in dentistry?
I am a BDS (dental undergraduate) student in India in final year. I am interested in psychiatry after completing my graduation.
I have heard that I could pursue an Msc in Psychology after my graduation. But, I can't find whether I could do a medical degree in psychiatry. From what I can tell, it might not be allowed.
So: (1) are dental students eligible for medical school in India? (2) if not, is there any way I could become eligible?

So find a psychiatry course and apply.

Did you already reach out to a university that offers a MSc in psychiatry and ask them about application requirements?

@Solar Mike as mentioned in the question, it's not just apply. In India, as per my research no university gives admission to a dental student for psychiatry course. Psychiatry is for medical students.

@JeroendeK there is no university offering Msc in psychiatry but only psychology. For psychiatry atleast to my knowledge graduate in medicine is required not dentistry

If you apply, they will tell you what is relevant from what you have studied and what you have to cover - we can’t.

Are you willing to move. The US is pretty lenient about switching fields after a bachelors. But the assumption here is also that the student has certain broadening courses. And yes, psychiatry is a medical profession here also, and has a long educational requirement.

@Solar Mike but I can't apply for psychiatry in India. That's the whole point. Hence I am asking for any alternative

@Buffy I am willing but is a dental student eligible?

Anyone is eligible to apply for anything. But most programs will list some requirements and many programs are very competitive. Of course, you also need to deal with visas and the pandemic.

@Buffy Thanks. Can you provide some more information. Or share some websites where I can research on my own. Since I have no idea about education abroad

Sorry, the research is up to you. Google is your friend.

Don't neglect Canada in your search. Their system is, in some ways, similar to the US, but I don't know if it will help you here. Visa issues might be easier to manage.

I'm confused about where the US / Canada came into this. Do you want to be a psychiatrist in North America, or in India? In general, medical degrees do not cross national borders so easily. I don't know anything about the Indian system, but it seems to me that if you want to be a psychiatrist in India, you should look for a medical school in India that will accept you (which may require doing additional undergraduate coursework, no idea).

At any rate, I took a stab at clarifying the question; perhaps this will stop the flood of downvotes. The major unknown to me is whether India's system is such that this question will be answered at the national level (in which case it's a matter of checking the rules) or at the university level (in which case it's a matter of finding a university that will allow it).

Psychiatrist and therapists are different things , to become a psychiatrist you will have to clear Neet-ug and Study mbbs for 5 years and then clear neet-pg and take a seat in MD psychiatry, no shortcuts even if you are a BDS

Yes it is not possible in India unless I pursue MBBS.

Let me summarize.
In the US, an undergraduate degree is not completely specialized. Students study lots of things outside their "major". So, graduate programs don't expect as much specialized knowledge of an incoming student as might be typical in other places.
As most places, psychiatry is a medical profession and the normal path is to get a medical degree, say an M.D., and then specialize in psychiatry beyond that. Medical schools might require a number of science courses for entry, however, especially chemistry and biology. A dentistry undergraduate degree might already include those. Otherwise you have a deficit and a harder path. And the path is quite long in any case. In the US, a psychiatrist would require a license as well as a degree in order to practice. I don't know what that entails, but probably at least an examination. But a researcher, as opposed to a practitioner, might not need a license.
I think the Canadian educational system is similar in some ways to the US system, but I'm not sure it is similar enough to help in your case, especially for medical school. But it might be worth an initial search to discover the options.
But look for medical schools that have an option for a psychiatry specialization.


text:
I am employed full-time with a part-time PhD. Can I take up an internship and get paid in my home country to bypass limits on number of hours worked?
I am working as an International research assistant in a public organization in Germany. I am also doing a part-time PhD from a different university, and the topic of the PhD is different. So, I am working full-time 40 hours and doing a part-time PhD 4 hours per week (not being paid). I have informed my employer that I am working for my PhD and spending 4 hours per week, and they gave official permission for doing so.
Now, I got a summer internship offer from a company based in London, and he will pay some grants for two months full-time.
Legally, I am not now allowed to work for an internship, but this opportunity is from a very big company. It will also help me in my PhD. In the end, I want to continue in the direction of my PhD topic.
Suppose I finish the internship and ask the employer to pay the stipend in the bank account of my home country. Is it possible to bypass the process of maximum working hours?
I do not want to hide my income, but I am sure my employer will not allow me to join the internship.
Kindly suggest.

What about getting an unpaid leave for the time of the internship?

I notice you keep asking the same type of questions over again - you asked in essence the same on workplace a while ago: https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/166409/working-hours-in-eu-with-multiple-jobs, and also previously here (several times, in fact!). What's the point of that? Do you want someone to promise you you can game the system without being caught?

Yes, please avoid posting duplicate questions; this is not allowed. There may be some subtle differences between the posts (and the UK's legal situation may be evolved), so I will not hammer anything this time. But more broadly, please do note that we are academics, not forensic accountants or lawyers, so (1) most of us have no expertise to offer you about your legal options, and (2) we are, of course, not going to advise you with resect to illegal options.

@cag51 People who want to go for illegal options don't post publicly, the question was posted to get the opinion.

Like always in life, it is your decision whether you want to do something illegal, and to judge whether the risk of getting caught (and the resulting potential long-term damage) is worth it. I don't think we can give advice on this, nor do I think we should. Note that such an action comes with follow-up questions, like whether you would like to equally hide this from the tax authorities. Also, it is not clear whether/how you will manage to hide this fact from your employer, and keep in mind that you might not have all factors under your control (imagine you appear on their web site!).
However, there might be another option, which is what I would recommend: You can ask your employer in Germany for an unpaid leave for the duration of your internship. Depending on the nature of your employment in Germany (I assume it is in the public sector), it is likely that you are even entitled to such an unpaid leave.
EDIT: Just to clarify: In the public sector in Germany, you have the right to do a side job up to ~8h/week. Your employer can't forbid you that, unless it conflicts with your main job (or with working in the public sector in general). You are, however, obliged to inform your employer and, depending on the nature of that side job, get permission ("anzeigepflichtig"/"genehmigungspflichtig"). Thus, if you stop working on your PhD during the duration of the internship, you would have 8h/week to work on the internship, without getting into any trouble. (Unless the pay is disproportionately high, that is.)

Thanks for the suggestion. It make senses

@Yes, pay is high. but is it make difference between high pay and stipend?

@AlexKujur The pay can be an issue if it is out of scale relative to your regular pay (but doesn't have to be an issue). I believe that if it is >40% of your regular (40h/week) pay for the 8h/week side job, this is considered problematic (but not per se illegal).

okay, thanks @user151413 for making suggestion


text:
Is this citation for reference correct? (APA 7th edition)
Is the citation in APA 7th edition format correct for this technical report?
Citation:
Servan-Schreiber, D., Cleeremans, A., & McClelland, J. L. (1988). Encoding sequential structure in simple recurrent networks. Carnegie Mellon University, Computer Science Department.
The only part I'm not sure about is whether the "Carnegie Mellon University, Computer Science Department" is correct or not as I'm not sure if that's the publisher.

You're missing the technical report number.
Going by APA 7 guide: 10.4: Report and gray literature (with Individual Authors References), you should be looking at:
Servan-Schreiber, D., Cleeremans, A., & McClelland, J. L. (1988). ServaEncoding sequential structure in simple recurrent networks (Technical Report: CMU-CS-88-183). Carnegie Mellon University, Computer Science Department.
NB: CMU-CS-88-183 is not archived on Carnegie-Mellon University, Computer Science Dept Technical Reports Collection site.
If your source is PDF from DTIC (DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER), your year will be 1989, report # will be ADA218928 and URL will be https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA218928
Or maybe (though not proper):
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA218928.pdf
You might want to also take a look at

UMGC APA 7th Edition Citation Examples: Technical + Research Reports
Victoria University Australia APA 7th Referencing: Reports & Grey Literature


text:
When Masters advisor is toxic, is it a good idea to request a rec letter for ph.d?
My former Master's advisor is toxic, and we had conflicts. I cannot go into detail, I am afraid it will reveal who I am. I am an international student, and I earned a master's degree in the United States.
My advisor said they will write a rec letter for my PhD program. I am so afraid that they will write an unfavorable recommendation letter. I cannot control how my advisor thinks of me. Fortunately, another professor in the same department said they will write a recomendation letter for me, but they will not be able to say much about research skills because they are not my advisor, so they never have done research with me before. However, this other prof said they will write a favorable recommendation letter, because they saw how I suffered, and I impressed them in their class.
Is it a good idea to nevertheless also ask for a recommendation letter from my former master's advisor?

We can't really know what a toxic person will do. Perhaps they will be super nice and write a good recommendation or perhaps they will just write "Never hire Tube, they are the worst". We can't really guess. You know the person, so you are most likely to know.

It is better to err on the side of caution and NOT ask your former supervisor (let's call him X) for a recommendation letter. There are three possibilities how your situation can go down:

Let us assume that X will write a bad rec letter, trashing your skills and achievement. No matter how glowing the rest of the two recommendations are (further assuming you'd need three), your direct supervisor's rec will weigh more than the rest (it will most certainly not be overlooked). Dr. X’s letter will cast a dark shadow over them, and you will lose your shot at your dream college.

In the second scenario, let's assume Dr. X shrugs and writes a mediocre, bland rec letter, without putting too much thought into it. He doesn't say anything remarkable about you and doesn’t care enough to make you shine or sink. Keeping in mind that most of the prestigious schools won't just look for a run-of-the-mill recommendation, they are most likely to look for a brilliant and glorious one. If you are aiming low and you are almost certain that the grad admission committee or prospective supervisors will just count your rec letters (and will not peruse through it), then by all means go ask for rec letter from Dr. X. But why would you sell yourself short?

The third possibility is a rather dramatic one. It demands that Dr. X has a change of heart, he regrets how he treated you, he loses his sleep thinking how had wronged you, and/or he has finally found it in his tender heart or probably had an epiphany that he should redeem himself by giving you a boost. Ask yourself what are the chances of that happening. If you have a good realistic reason to believe that Dr. X has turned over a new leaf, then go ahead and ask him. Otherwise, you'd always blame yourself for not taking the chance.

A buddy of mine did something rather mischievous, which I cannot condone in good conscience. It involved asking his professor for three recommendation letters, for one "urgent" paper application and two online ones. The professor sealed his rec letter and gave it to my friend for his paper application, which never made it to its destination. Turned out his prof gave him an effortless rec letter that didn’t do him justice and my friend never included that prof as a recommender after that.

Option 3 is very unlikely, unless the prof has highest integrity. In the latter case, they probably would be transparent to the student that they were not happy with X, Y and Z, but that they would write a letter highlighting the strong parts of the student's work. If they don't do that, it's risky business. As for the trick of your buddy, I admire their subversive approach. But careful, some profs want to know whether their reference arrived at their destination.


text:
How to properly list your papers that were "published" in a symposium proceedings?
I was recently listed as an author on some papers that my PI submitted to the ASNE Technology, Systems, and Ships Symposium: see here. It says that the papers submitted to the event will be published as Symposia Proceedings which are now listed on their website here. Should these papers be listed as conference papers or do symposia proceedings papers have their own classification? Also, are symposia proceedings seen as lower quality than conference papers? These papers primarily cover the fields of machine learning and computer vision if that makes any difference.

"Also, are symposia proceedings seen as lower quality than conference papers?" This will quite certainly depend on the specific symposium and conference you compare.

I'm a relatively new R&D engineer in a government lab so I don't have an advisor unfortunately. I would ask my PI and or lab manager but a lot of our work doesn't get published in a traditional way so this is a little new for us. @ChristianHennig that makes sense. I wasn't sure if there was a hard hierarchy for publication quality venue.