text:
How much technical / debugging help should I expect my advisor to provide?
My supervisor said to me that a supervisor isn't expected to help a student with such problems as errors in statistical packages (R, etc). I suppose it refers to all sort of data managing questions. I asked him, what if I am stuck, what should I do? Go to a stats teacher or do it on my own and he said do it on my own (Google it, etc, etc).
While I understand that I can't expect my supervisor to sit with me all day, I'm lost... Is it okay? Like, aren't there situations when you're just lost and need help? Especially when for him it will be a five minute solution while I can sit there for days and weeks, frustrated and helpless.
This attitude of his makes me anxious and self-doubting even more. Now I hesitate every time I want to ask him something.
I really don't know how to deal with this. I wonder if I'm just not suited for academia since I "can't work independently enough".

You mention a "stats teacher" - do you have questions about statistical analysis or do you have questions about programming? You wouldn't ask a stats teacher, either, how to handle an error message in R. See also the difference between StackOverflow and CrossValidated (stats.stackexchange.com).

@BryanKrause: That depends --- quite a few stats teachers are well-versed in R and could give advice on handling error messages and other issues.

@Ben Oh of course, but that doesn't necessarily mean you should bother them with such things, unless perhaps you reach indirectly one of the many who, say, follow the R tag on SO or one of the R mailing lists.

I wonder if I'm just not suited for academia since I "can't work independently enough". The same situation also holds in industry: you will usually have someone to help you at the beginning, but will be expected to figure a lot of stuff out on your own. But that is OK! Finding solutions to problems is a skill you have to (and can!) learn just the same as many other skills. Specifically, for error messages in R, it is usually very helpful to just google the error message (set your locale to English to get the exact English wording).

It's not really clear to me what kind of supervision situation this is; the wording is rather ambiguous.  Can you please [edit] the question to clarify? For example, I would expect more concrete guidance towards a bachelor student than a PhD student, and similar more concrete guidance from a post doc leading a small group than a professor leading an entire lab.

I had a prof. who was on my committee but not my advisor give me a hint, "If the statistics aren't converging, increase the snapshot size parameter".  This is usually denoted as N.  But in general, one can't expect such help.

It seems kind of insulting to ask your supervisor for tech support...

Surely you anticipated that there would be technical issues using the software, since you're not an expert in R?  I'm confused why you seem to have absolutely no plan for something that was 100% foreseeable...

I'm a bit confused. Why would you want your supervisor to help you with coding error? Are you using software your supervisor wrote, and there's no documentation?

@Blackhawk Most supervisors I know complain that their students don't ask for help when they get stuck. Lack of communication appears to be much more common than too much communication. And these kinds of remarks, "it seems kind of insulting to ask for help", are at the root of the issue. The supervisor can always make it clear what kind of help they will provide and what kind of help they will not provide, but "not asking for help by fear of being impolite" sounds like a terrible idea.

Do you have other students/staff in the same group? Can they help? I'd imagine ideally a professor would want to have balance of skillsets distributed among his group -- some strong in programming, some with pure math background for theory, etc. And chances are, the ppl with technical backgrounds have already been asked by the prof to help others in the group. So it stood out to me that you didn't describe the rest of your research group.

Your supervisor is correct. Most supervisors don't help at this level of detail. You have some options: take a class in that particular programming language/stats software (sometimes there are things like summer workshops you can enroll in), Google and get responses from listserves or somewhere like StackeExchange, or ask a peer.
One of the benefits to being a student is that there are usually peers or older students who you can form groups with. This is the benefit of sitting in a lab or PhD student offices - you will make friends and be able to help each other with these mundane roadblocks.

Actually my grad school peers and I still maintain a google chat, while most of our topics of conversation have evolved as our roles have shifted to faculty, we still occasionally ask each other about coding issues!

Good answer, except, taking a class in some language/package to try and track down one error is a non-starter.

@DanielR.Collins - yeah, you should take that class before you use a language/package.

Sure, but I get the sense this person needs some basic/beginner help if they are not sure how to debug.

My opinion is wildly uninformed, but it seems to me that gaining the skills to research and solve technical problems like this must surely be one of the beneficial outcomes of attaining a PHD.

I would suggest that it is quite OK to ask during a standing meeting or something ("I've asked around, but no one knows, have you seen this error before"?) Sometimes errors, like non-convergence, might be related to your research Q!, but I would agree that it is not necessary to ask for a meeting or drop an email in their overfull inbox just

a supervisor isn't expected to help a student with such problems as errors in statistical packages (R, etc).

This is correct. Your advisor should look at your results, give you feedback on them ("this looks buggy!"), and suggest next steps. Or, even better, should discuss next steps with you. Getting from one wicket to the next is your job.

Especially when for him it will be a five minute solution while I can sit there for days and weeks, frustrated and helpless.

Don't be afraid to own your time. If you don't know much about software fundamentals, you can devote a couple of days or weeks to studying the topic. This may save time in the long run.
If you know the fundamentals but still can't solve something (even after many attempts), it is totally OK to ask for help. Seeing someone else's workflow can be very useful to you. But, the person you ask for help might not be your advisor -- it may be another student or post-doc. Some advisors haven't touched code in 20+ years and couldn't help you if they wanted to. Hopefully you can identify someone; having to figure everything out by yourself is really challenging, since you "don't know what you don't know."

I wonder if I'm just not suited for academia since I "can't work independently enough."

This is an overreaction; if you could already work independently, there would be no need to attend graduate school. It sounds like your advisor has thrown you in the deep end a bit, expecting you to learn how to use unfamiliar software to solve difficult problems with minimal guidance. This is mostly OK, so long as he understands that things will move slowly while you are getting up to speed. If he is pressuring you for instant results and insulting you for not already knowing these things, that's poor supervision on his part.

One faculty I know used an "order of magnitude" approximation for when to go for help, loosely based on salary.
Suppose a faculty member is paid $50/hr, the graduate student is paid $15/hr, and the undergraduate is paid $8/hr. Actual numbers certainly vary on time, field, and location. Then, the grad/undergrad ratio is 1:2, the faculty/undergrad ratio is 1:6, and the grad/faculty ratio is 1:3.
Your advisor certainly can solve many of your problems, and probably quicker than you can, but doing so is not always the best use of resources. You are paid as a student to solve problems on your own, because what your advisor really needs is independent effort. If a grad student thinks a 1 hour meeting would solve their problem, it still might make overall sense to have the grad student grind away at it for 2-4 hours instead of taking up an hour of their advisors' time. An advisor might want their undergrad to work for an entire day without making progress before they come and seek out faculty time. Conversely, if you know this is a 20 hour problem for you, but a 1 hour problem for your advisor because you have genuinely different skill sets, then calling them in immediately might make perfect sense.

This seems surprisingly generous with the advisors' time.

Careful with these kind of calculations. Students aren’t just there to get a job done; they’re there to learn to do a better job as they progress and for core topics to learn full stop. If I expect a student to need a skill say 50x during their work, or even need it to progress at all into more difficult tasks, things look very different.

Is this your degree, or your supervisor's?
If the answer is the former, why are you expecting your supervisor to put in effort to complete your degree for you?
Their job is to guide the direction of your studies, not babysit you through the day-to-day minutiae involved in them. If the concepts that you are having problems with are something you can reasonably be expected to already know or figure out on your own as part of your degree's focus, it's your responsibility to put in the effort to master them.

As a rule of thumb the concrete, low-level help from supervisor to student is inversely proportional to the seniority of supervisor and student. A bachelor student will need more help while a PhD student will be expected to work largely independently, for example.
Crucially, there's a point at which "you're the expert now" and there simply is no-one else to ask. Much of university/higher education aims at getting you there.
So it is usually not really about how long it takes an expert versus you to get the job done. Most of the time, it's about how long it takes you to learn the skill to get the job done; getting the job done is a nice side-effect and learning opportunity but not necessarily the goal itself.
In this regards, try and see both experts and supervisor as tools – just like a book on the topic, or Google, or forums, or peer groups, or courses, or similar. Notably, human experts and supervisors are a much more limited resource than, say, an instant search engine 24/7 available. As a rule of thumb, your first instinct should always be to start at the more available resources and move to more expert resources as a) your grasp of the topic increases to narrow the issue down and b) the necessity for expert advice to solve the issue becomes clear.
So yes: You should try and do it on your own. Only if that fails, then go ask an expert.

That said, your supervisor should not just be an elusive mastermind that you do not dare talking to. Learning to work independently includes learning when you are at your actual limits. Your supervisor might want you to push your limits to improve them but the point is not to ignore those limits. So:

This attitude of his makes me anxious and self-doubting even more. Now I hesitate every time I want to ask him something.

No matter where you are in your studies, this is something to talk about with your supervisor. That is not about putting blame on them or you, but about making you learn how to deal with such a situation yourself. Be honest, be upfront, ask for their advice and make them aware there is a problem that keeps you from working independently.
Ultimately, your supervisor is not there to give you a fish. They are not there to teach you how to fish. They are there to teach you how to teach yourself how to fish.

There are multiple layers to the answer:
First, tools evolve fast, and when working at the cutting edge, your advisor can't reasonably be expected to know everything. Other answers are correct: find a community of other students with similar interests. Some papers will also include open source code, as a knowledge base that can help learn from those who came before.
However: that doesn't mean that your advisor or department is powerless. Many big schools are developing ways to help: semi-official orgs (like Software Carpentry) offer workshops in programming or stats tools, run by and for students. Some departments will also have dedicated stats or methods consulting: either through a local employee who helps with coding questions, or another department. (where I am, several stats groups have "consulting" hours where they invite interesting mathematical problems for potential collaboration) Ask around.
My rule of thumb: even if I don't know the answer, I try to build a collection of learning resources that prior students found useful (oreilly has some good introductory R books, for example- your library might even have a way to read them free online).
I've seen too many faculty cover for lack of knowledge with bludgeons like "it's easy" or "if you're smart you'll figure it out". If a tool or skill is critical to your group, expect to get asked this question more than once, and help foster those connections that make a training program come alive.

Read the documentation of the packages. Test the packages - not only check if they provide a sound result (e.g. in comparison with NIST's Statistical Reference Datasets), but to get familiar enough to work with them.  Consider attending user group meetings in your area (a directories, R-Ladies, or the RUGS program), or joining a discussion group - either linked to the program (like r/rstats on reddit), or "just statistics"/ agnostic to the software you use like crossvalidated* - even if your initial intend might be to listen / read only, they may be a source of inspiration (like the R journal) and help.
If you are a beginner in R, perhaps the starter workshops Programming with R and R for Reproducible Scientific Analysis by software-carpentry.org help you to get started.  There equally are many recordings of tutorials/conferences on sites like youtube, too.
* Said sibling site cross-validated offers to tag questions with R for which R is "considered as a critical part of the question or expected answer" but [the question is] "not just about how to use R".  So far, the page hosts 28k+ questions and answers.  With a minimal reproducible example, there are good chances to obtain help specific to the statistics.


text:
What recourse do I have if the disability office grants unreasonable accommodations to a student?
I've talked to several colleagues who have expressed frustration at the amount of and kind of accommodations that some students receive. I know the Approved Position is "the disability office knows what's best so you can't question them". But what if it seems legitimately unfair to the other students in my class?
There are some students who several colleagues and I believe are abusing the system. Not doing work for months in every class every semester, then requesting "accommodations" at the end of the semester that amount to significantly less work than the average student. Also they have the benefit of solutions being posted, etc.
I know our position is not the Approved one. But if I honestly think a student is abusing the system and getting away with significantly less work than the average student, do I have any recourse?

Are you a student or a professor?

The first step would be to take your questions to the disability office itself. Have you done so? Requesting accommodations at the end of the semester does not sound reasonable if the underlying condition already existed at the beginning.

Which country are you in? The mechanics and legal framework will vary.

(1) What does your syllabus say? (2) At what point in the semester are the students identifying themselves as needing accommodations? (Identifying, not requesting)

It seems odd to me that these accomodations are being made retroactive- Are these students presenting you with an accomodation letter at the start of the semester?  Does the letter from your disability services office say that they can turn in any assignment at any point in the semester?

What is an example of an accommodation that results in less work on the part of the student? For all of my students receiving accommodations, the most frequent one I see is more time, not less work.

Could you define what you mean by "unreasonable accommodations"? "Unreasonable" seems to be very subjective.

Just want to drop the possibility that the student could appear as an able-bodied individual but may in fact be struggling through an extraordinarily difficult life.  As a person with a severe-profound hearing loss, I've met more than a few able-bodied people who, after seeing the hearing aids, noticing the deaf accent, reviewing the audiogram, and noticing that I don't turn when my name is called, continue to insist I use the phone to communicate.

In the US, disability accommodations do not need to be applied retroactively by law. Many institutions state explicitly in their policies that retroactive accommodations are not required. I did not find any example where retroactive accommodations were considered part of policy. Some examples:
UW–Madison:

Students should not expect accommodations to be retroactively applied to course assessments or materials for which due dates have passed.
[...]
Faculty are not required to retroactively implement accommodations for course assessments or materials for which due dates have passed.

University of Montana:

Students with disabilities are responsible for requesting accommodations in a timely manner. The University is not required to provide retroactive accommodations.

The University of Iowa:

Accommodations are not retroactive.

University of Miami:

Accommodations will not be granted retroactively.

Loyola University:

In general, professors do not have to provide accommodations prior to the delivery of the accommodation letter from the student.

Of course, you're required to follow not only the law on these things or the policies of other institutions, but rather the policies of your institution. I would check to see whether your institution has a posted policy on application of retroactive accommodations, and if it's not clear, ask to have a conversation about it with your disability office.
I do think in some cases it may be appropriate to consider some retroactive accommodation, just like it's appropriate to consider offering flexibility for students for various other reasons besides disability. I'd consider especially the timeliness and where the students are in their studies. For example, if students are in their first semester of university education they may be having their first experiences with not being able to perform well without accommodations, or may be experiencing stronger symptoms coinciding with the new university environment. However, your depiction:

Not doing work for months in every class every semester, then requesting "accommodations" at the end of the semester that amount to significantly less work than the average student

doesn't immediately suggest this is the case. I think if you want to make an argument to your disability office that you should not be expected to make retroactive accommodations, you could use the policies from other institutions in your argument. I would not make these arguments directly to your students or implement a unilateral policy against retroactive accommodations, though: your quarrel is not with the students but with your institution's administration of accommodations.

The "Accessibility Resource Center" where I work explicitly invites instructors to contact them if the suggested accommodations do not work.  Not all my requests to them have been dealt with in a way that keeps me happy, but many were.  Policies were altered in some cases, while in other cases ad hoc adjustments were made.
It takes time to have these discussions, so one must choose one's battles.  I find "the disability office knows what's best so you can't question them" to be a caricature, but it could be accurate where you are.  Of course, I can tell tales where our office was inflexible.  I am sure such tales are told about me.  This site is full of tales of woe.  It is not always that way.

I feel that we received responses quite similar to what you describe as caricature from the inexperienced accommodations employee at Lake Forest College in Illinois, overriding the clear recommendation of an educational psychologist's evaluations. They are now the subject of a federal civil rights complaint.

Faculty in my department have successfully pushed back against unreasonable accommodation requests (USA, college in a large urban university).
As others note, this depends on a rather deep matrix of interrelated institutional factors:

State law
National law
Institutional policies
Possible union contract language
Position of accessibility services
Position of the academic department
Specific staff in all of these roles

In our case, we have a very experienced, capable, and proactive department chairperson who is willing and able to defend us against unreasonable requests.
One of the things that our accessibility office somewhat took advantage of is the capacity of new or adjunct instructors to receive their demands and not know if it's truly a management requirement, or whether reasonability is a thing they might even need to consider. Once our chair finds out and takes up the case, the proposed accommodations sometimes evaporate without an argument. (E.g., if it would obviously violate our union-contracted workload numbers.)
So the first step is not to try to deal with this in your own silo. Have a conversation with your department chair or other mentor about what your department's policies, practices, and experiences currently are. Given that so many local factors can be at play, that chat will likely be more informative than anything we can say here.

I'm going to guess this is the USA.  The delicate aroma of the ADA wafts over this question.
The ADA is quite controversial. There are a wide variety of complaints, both from the POV of it going too far and not going far enough. You can easily find them on Google, and it's quite a bit outside this SE's topic to discuss it.
However, I would suggest you want to tread carefully here. People get excited about the ADA and anything connected to it. Pretty much regardless of your position you will find that there are people upset with you over it.
So, before you dive into this fight, gather yourself a bit and scope out what the results might be. See how "those who went before" have fared. See if they produced changes you thought were good. A little searching for news articles on the subject in your local university and city might be instructive.
There may not be a solution within your university. The administration may be hamstrung by laws and entrenched policies, both at the state and federal level. And the personnel involved in enforcing those policies in the university are likely to be quite intractable, even quite hostile to people who resist.
You may be faced with a choice of putting up with it, moving to a different political situation (probably a different state at least), or finding a political solution (new leadership at least within your university, maybe as far as the state level). None of those is attractive, I admit.

In Sweden, teachers are by law allowed to conduct examinations in the way they see fit for their subject (with some limitations regarding needing to follow the approved syllabus, etc.). A consequence is that any accommodations are always up to the teacher, the disabilities office or exam administration can only make recommendations (or, in the case of exam administration, refuse to administer your exam, which would mean you are on your own conducting the exam). So yes, in Sweden you are definitely free to disagree with certain accommodations.
However: note that being legally permitted to do so does not mean freedom of the consequences. If you decide, on a blanket basis, that you don't do accommodations anymore, expect massive pushback from affected students, student unions, and potentially program managers and your own managers. This may have severe implications for your student evaluations and evaluations you need for promotion.

I'm really wondering why this was downvoted. (One might of course argue that this Swedish approach gives too much power to the individidual teachers; but this answer does not argue for or against this approach - it apparently simply describes facts, and thus answers the question for the case of Sweden.)

In case somebody is wondering, the argument behind that is not that teachers should be able to say "I don't care if you are blind, you write the same test as everybody else", it's more the acknowledgement that there are many different forms of assessment, and it's difficult for a central entity to say if a certain disability would disadvantage a student in a discipline-specific form of examination, or what an alternative assessment form would look like that tests the same skills. Hence they describe the condition and provide recommendations, but then leave the decision to the subject expert.

Of course this leaves this model open to abuse by unreasonable teachers, but that's in practice really not a problem. I do not know a single teacher that does not follow the recommendations in the vast majority of cases, adapting them only in the rare case where the recommendation simply doesn't work or doesn't make sense in the course context. If a student gets recommended additional time in a written exam, or a quiet exam hall, you tell exam administration to given them that and that's the end of the story.

@JochenGlueck: if this is of any clue - I am with SE for 10+ years and never understood the idea of downvotes. They are supposed to highlight that "an answer is not useful", but are often used to disagree with the answer. I guess the downvoter was not happy with the Swedish law :)

As others have pointed out, the result may be determined by the laws of your country, and there will be little you can do about that.
However, you have written, "...'accommodations' at the end of the semester that amount to significantly less work than the average student..." That means the students are getting significantly less learning, presuming that work is assigned to students for pedagogical reasons.
That seems like something that should concern a body such as a faculty senate. Such a body probably has more influence than one or two individual faculty members.

Not really a part of the answer, but  reasonable policies seem to me to be "no retroactive accommodations," and "students with accommodations must complete the same work as others."  In the latter case, extra time might be granted, but the students still have to complete the work.  In the latter case, you can defer posting solutions until the deadline those with accommodations has passed.

I would say before going to the faculty senate, the professor should talk directly to disability office staff. Present the problem and ask them to help think of solutions. I get the sense that this faculty member is just conversing with students, as I have never been asked for this type of thing by the disability office…

@Dawn Talking to the disability office first is probably a good idea, at least for the politics.  If the professor really is just talking with the students, i.e. not getting disability accommodation instructions in writing from the disability office, then that's a big problem and possibly easy to solve.  However, I'd be surprised if the professor is not getting written instructions.

Simply put, this is beyond your pay grade.  The university has mechanisms in place to assure compliance to their regulatory environment, and you can't really ignore them, and asking them to reevaluate the resulting decisions is likely fruitless.
You can, however, seek the help of the office coordinating such things when the accommodations aren't reasonably providable by you on your own.  Also, if the suggested accommodation, for whatever reason, just doesn't work for your situation, to get them appropriately modified or waived.  For example, if for some reason the accommodation is that the student gets to take an exam in a quiet room with one proctor, but your examination is oral in front of a board of 4 examiners, you obviously can't follow that direction.  In that case, you would contact the office, explain your planned accommodation, so that they may "improve" it, or at least document the variation.
Yes, there are PLENTY of issues about fairness.  For example, the evaluations for some of the things people seek accommodations for can be very pricey, and might well be out of reach for some students who could really use the accommodations.

You're definitely free to disagree with them, but I recommend against making changes to the recommended accomodations without clearing it with the disability office first as they've already ran the recommendations though the legal compliance process.  Having an official sign-off can save you a lot of headache later.

Not doing work for months in every class every semester, then
requesting "accommodations" at the end of the semester

If I'm reading you right, the student has done this in more than one semester.  That really changes a lot of things and should make your case easier.  The student already knew they had a qualified disability - as evidenced by filing accommodation paperwork the previous semester - and then willfully delayed the paperwork for the next semester until it gave them the maximum benefit.  The disability office should be able to confirm this by looking through their records to see when paperwork was filed in past semesters.  Filing paperwork late in the semester makes sense when someone is first diagnosed with a disability but if they've filed for accomodations in the past, filing paperwork extremely late should have raised some eyebrows at the disability office.
I would definitely approach them from an attitude of "I see a pattern that I think might be abuse of the system, what should I do?"  That's more likely to get a positive response than arguing that the accommodations are excessive (set up the interaction as you and the office working together, not you arguing against the office).  For best results, have documentation of the specific advantages that the student gets that aren't explicitly part of the accommodation and that wouldn't happen if paperwork was filed when it was supposed to be (like solutions being posted already).  Those sorts of details are not always taken into consideration since the disability office doesn't know the details of your course, plus their processes probably assume that all the paperwork is done at the beginning of the semester.  At a minimum, they should take the particulars of your course into account and adjust the accomodations so that they give the student what they need without giving them an unfair advantage.

As other people have mentioned, assuming you are in the US, there is no such thing as accommodations before the date you are informed of the disability. Students are required to provide the information from the office on the campus to the professor, and it is up to them to make the choice about when and to take the consequences.
However, I'm also concerned about something else you said.  Accommodations never should reduce the expectations for students. They cannot excuse a student from doing the work. What they are supposed to do is to is make it possible for students to do the work.  Most common is extended time on tests.  Sometimes they have a note taker. Or they need to have adaptive software, like a screen reader for blind students, or an ASL interpreter for a deaf student.

Not doing work for months in every class every semester, then requesting "accommodations" at the end of the semester that amount to significantly less work than the average student.

If you have a group of faculty who think that a student has done this repeatedly, then I think that you should speak with whoever runs that department (in a respectful way) in a face-to-face meeting, maybe with your chair. Also, you might want to document the whole thing if it is really the same student over multiple semesters or in multiple classes. This will let you get clarification about these issues. But it also lets that person know that they need to meet with the student in question. (Even if it is multiple students, I would handle each one differently.)
I was going to suggest next steps, but it really depends on what happens.
If you don't already include an "Accommodations" section in your syllabus, you should add one that explains the procedures and spells out your expectations about notification.
Now, if the issue is that you are not providing documents or interfaces that don't use accessible javascript or don't have alt text on your images, that is very different; you should do those things by default or work with the disabilities office to achieve them, as hard as it may be sometimes.

Is it right that accommodations shouldn't reduce the work, or is it better to say that accommodations shouldn't reduce the criteria students are expected to meet? For example you might have two tests in a course testing the same learning outcomes, one as a mid term and one as a final, but only require a student with special requirements to complete one. They have still demonstrated that have met the learning outcome, but will have done less work to do so.

I guess you could make that decision but it would seem very strange to me. What would be the rationale for that? Tests themselves are part of  the learning process by rewarding studying hard.  If a student failed the final and you refused to give them a midterm I think that would be a problem.  If the final isn't different than the midterm what did you do in the second half of the semester?

Pre final Tests are part of the learning process because they allow the student to measure there own learning and work out if there are holes in their understanding before moving on to more advanced concepts. As you say, they also encourage hard work (although I've no interest in rewarding hard work for its own sake). Thus they benefit the student's learning. One can imagine students for whom they do more harm than good however. I would never refuse to give a mid term to someone, but that's different from passing them without one if they still met the learning outcomes.

It really depends on the teaching model.

Being proactive is better than complaining in hindsight.
In our department, disagreements like this are largely avoided because we have had a general discussion with the disability office on what kinds of accommodations are reasonable from our perspective, ie taking account aspects like impact on the workload of the academics and the meaningfulness of the assessment. As a consequence, the disability office has a standard list of accommodations, and is usual able to meet the individual needs of a student by selecting something from the list. Occasionally, additional conversation might be needed, but this is rare.
Don't discuss individual cases.
Nothing good can come from questioning the appropriateness of measures taken for a concrete student. We would usually not know the precise diagnosis (and we probably shouldn't), and even if we knew, we probably lack the expertise to draw appropriate conclusions from it. So rather than discussing individual cases, it seems much more prudent to have a conversation regarding what are and what are not potential accommodations to offer in general.

It's good that your department has hammered out a pre-approved menu of acceptable options. But at other places: say a completely novel and burdensome accommodation is registered for a student. It seems like discussing this unique accommodation is ipso facto discussing the individual case it's applied to. (Obv. I don't suggest debating the student's diagnosis, but in a case like this the unique accommodation is itself an individual case.)

Update nearly a year later: I've recently run up against exactly this myself. A novel accommodation was suggested that would totally change my grading/feedback cycle. My chair put it on me to negotiate with the accessibility office. We did discuss the specific student case, and ultimately I convinced them to back off from the disruptive thing they were suggesting.

If you are a student, then I'd guess you have no "standing" to complain unless you can show that you are, somehow, disadvantaged personally by this. If your grade suffers because another's grade is advanced then the marking system itself is at fault. This is my objection to "grading on the curve", in fact. In that case, you can complain to the prof that, no matter the accommodation to another, you shouldn't be made to suffer for it.
If you are a professor, then I suggest that you and similar minded faculty request a meeting with the disability officer(s) to discuss the situation and the application of the laws.
I'd guess that such a meeting is unlikely to result in much of any change in policy, but you might learn more about the intricacies of the policy and why it is needed. If nothing else, that might ease your discomfort.
But also note, if you are a prof, that the student position, as stated above, needs to be considered in your grading scheme. You can discuss that, also, with the disability office.

Does it really need to be proved that a student gaming the system has a negative impact on other students, even if there is no "grading on the curve"?

@Chris_abc, I don't understand. Do you assume that it necessarily does? It wouldn't at all the way I graded. If you think it must, please say how.

A degree is meant to represent a certain level of knowledge and skill in a particular field. When a student games the system, they find ways to obtain a degree without truly acquiring the knowledge or skills required to earn it.
This can diminish the value of the degree: Employers, colleagues, and others may assume that other graduates with the same degree are equally incompetent. This can lead to a decrease in trust and respect for the degree as a whole, negatively impacting those who have earned it legitimately.

@Chris_abc, yes, gaming the system (any system) can be a problem, but it needs to be proven not assumed. Certainly not all accommodation made to students is "gaming", nor does it lessen the value of a degree.

Of course, there are legitimate reasons for those accommodations. I do not include those when I say 'gaming the system'.

It would strongly affect other disabled students. If disabled student A games the system, gets a qualification without having learnt the skills, gets employed, is a total disappointment and gets fired (which may be difficult since they learned to game the system), and then hardworking disabled student B gets a degree, the same company will find excuses not to hire them.

@gnasher729, that seems to require pretty strong stereotyping. I have more faith in humanity, actually.

Just simple patern matching, more than example and the brain quickly learns the pattern.

It seems to me that the OP should do two things...
First, figure out why said person/people are seeming to get retroactive relief and seeming to have to do LESS work than the average student and what exactly was the specific nature of the accommodations that were proposed that makes it seem unreasonable.
Second, if this has occurred in the past, that said person/people don't do any work and then wait until later on to either go to the disability office and seek accommodations or wait until late in the process and spring the I have a disability and I need these things done to 'help' me.
OP doesn't say if they are a student or teacher...so that means two different things.
A student is kind of limited in what they can do...other than complain to the powers that be about the perceived unfairness and perceived nature of gaming to system that is thought to be going on.
As a teacher, they could talk to the disabilities office about what they have recommended and how it's somewhat unreasonable -- and can we hash something out that's reasonably fair.  Also, something that means that the student doesn't get LESS work, maybe in leu of doing X, they need to do Y, which is slightly more /equivalent amounts of work.
Additionally, they could explore the patternality of the 'requests' --that late in the system, requests are being asked for...and possibly wanting retroactive relief.
As a teacher, they could also pretty much state that accommodation requests should be tendered early on in the process and that would allow the teacher to fold them into their teaching/testing style and processes...e.g. do I do X for a single person or do I for everybody.
Also state that late accommodation requests would NOT be retroactive and that would be evaluated on a case by case basis depending on WHEN the request was received (and subject to the teacher talking to the disability office)...Ok, so maybe you'd be somewhat receptive if the request came after the start, but not too far in (when maybe a student figures out they'll need help with how you do things, that they didn't anticipate) but, very late, you'll be more suspicious of.

source: Stack Exchange

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

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава

sort: votes


text:
Is it true that scores > 80% are effectively unachievable in the UK?
No one from my UK university appears able to give me a concrete example of an answer for coursework or an exam that would get over 80% for any of my MBA modules.
It was suggested here that this is because scores over 80% are not really achievable in the UK; that such a score would indicate having done better than the instructor could have done themselves. Is this true? Are these scores basically unachievable in the UK?

Assorted discussion and answers-in-comments have been moved to chat.

I have to admit, as somebody coming from a different academic system, I also find it quite odd that in the UK system, 70% is enough for the best grade ("first"). As a result, there is a fairly wide range of marks (70-100) in this highest "grade band".
As you say, 80+ (or 85+) marks are indeed extremely rare and definitely more of an exception than the rule. Your typical CRGs (Criterion Reference Grids - student-facing, module-specific marking guidelines) would not usually contain any guidance on any nuance above 70%. However, here are some quotes from my Universities general assessment policy. I know you asked about an MBA (so, Master level), but I am including some quotes referring to undergraduate, for completeness:

Level
Band
Description

UG
80-89
Work consistent with first class performance which is exceptional in most areas.

UG
90-100
Work consistent with first class performance which is exceptional in all areas.

UG
85-100
The student has shown exceptional knowledge and understanding, well beyond the threshold expectation of a graduate at this level and significantly beyond what has been taught.

PG
80-89
Work consistent with a distinction and is exceptional in most areas.

PG
90-100
Work consistent with a performance which is exceptional in all areas and could have the potential for publication.

PG
85-100
This work meets and often exceeds the standard for distinction, as described in the 70-85 band, across all subcategories of criteria. Typically, the work is of such a quality that indicates a student capable of doctoral research in the discipline and, in principle, has potential for publication or exhibition with further refinement as appropriate. Reflects critically on own positionality, nature and status of knowledge with discipline.

For me, personally, even the description of something being "exceptional in all areas" is quite vague -- but I find the Postgraduate level explanation for the 85-100 band to be the one that clarified it up for me: a mark of 85+ indicates a student who would be a strong doctoral candidate in the topic. In my experience so far, there are about 1-2 students with the potential to do doctorate-level research in every cohort of 100-200 students at the MSc level at my University. This about matches my observed frequency of marks in the 85+ range amongst our student body.
For more details, you can check our assessment policy yourself (or maybe try and find an equivalent document from your own University) - the parts relevant to this question are sections 3.2 (UG), 4.3 (PG), Appendix 2 (UG) and Appendix 3 (PG).

Thanks for this. My university does publish similar guidelines. My issue is that as a non-academic, I have no idea what the standard for a distinction actually looks like in practice. Thinking about something with potential for publication is helpful since I've read a fair few articles, although won't learn to write one until I have to do my own research project, so this is putting the cart before the horse in some ways. Anyway, the challenge is demonstrating this standard in a 2500 word essay which may contain 2 questions with multiple subquestions.

Then maybe the better guideline for you would be significantly beyond what has been taught? Maybe think of it like this: a "regular" distinction of some 70-75 marks means you have fully mastered the course material. A much stronger distinction means you have gone above and beyond on the topic, researched and studied additional materials by yourself and demonstrated more knowledge and understanding than expected/required. Think of learning things without having to and without being taught them.

Our criteria go into a little more detail than this.  All work is graded on several categories.  (e.g. accuracy, breadth, structure, writing, outside reading etc). To get a first you have to met most of the examiners expectations (i.e. if they examiner were to write a criteria list, you ticked most of the criteria). To get 80 you have to tick every criteria, make every point an examiner can think of, etc. 80-90 is when you exceed the examiners expectations of what is possible under the circumstances (time limit/word limit etc).

@IanSudbery the linked document does go into more details: in the appendices, there are criteria for transferable skills, practical skills, cognitive skills and knowledge&understanding. I've only included the ones for knowledge and understanding in my answer to keep it concise, as well as the general descriptions from the middle of the document.

@penelope sorry, my discussion of different categories somewhat confused the point, which was provding a closer I terpretation of terms like "exceptional", "first class perfromance", "expectations" etc.

No, though it depends on the course and probably depends on the university. In some courses e.g. pure mathematics it has to be possible to get 100%. Perhaps in an MBA at your university it is very rare.

such a score would indicate having done better than the instructor could have done themselves.

This doesn't seem very relevant or meaningful. It is possible for a student to do better than an instructor would have done. Perhaps the student works very fast.

Anyone with a math PhD should have no trouble writing a pure mathematics exam where scoring 100% is impossible in practice.

@AlexanderWoo Yes, but the point was that it is mostly objective whether an answer is right or wrong. I was assuming that the exam was fair and reasonable.

@Oliver882 See, the entire problem is with "reasonable": it is still reasonable to devise a test where achieving the perfect score under given time constraints is near-impossible (International Mathematical Olympiad does that to an extent). If students have trouble grasping the concept of "we do not expect you to beat the test", I'd argue such a system would teach them that not every real-world problem has a clear-cut solution.

@Lodinn This is not really the point. I was answering OP's question. Perhaps I should have said just "In some mathematics courses at some universities it is possible to get 100%."

You don’t get 100% in Maths by “giving the right objective answer at the end” of every question . Higher marks are awarded for elegance, simplicity, and brevity. Often there’s many ways to an answer, but getting the right answer doesn’t even guarantee a first. A 90% in a Pure Maths exam would likely mean using novel (publishable) techniques or framing the problem in a new light via alternate disciplines

I don't think that is true for an exam on Introduction to Linear Algebra at a not very high-ranking university

@Oliver882 The question was about graduate courses. If your graduate math course is a single choice "what's the solution to this formula" you're probably doing it wrong.

@Voo for UK taught masters, the distinction between graduate and undergraduate courses is very small, and sometimes essentially zero, although obviously MBAs are a little different again.

@Voo No, OP is on a graduate course but the question was not just about graduate courses,

@Matt Even at the best UK universities, a 90% on a Pure Maths exam (as opposed to dissertation) does not involve using novel techniques, or even writing particularly elegant solutions. Correctly giving the expected answers using the expected techniques with few mistakes suffices. The majority of students could do it if they were only given double time and access to lecture notes.

I remember a colleague remarking that, when he was a maths undergrad at Cambridge, the mark for a first was 30%.  This may be out-of-date hearsay, but (whatever the actuality) makes the general point that 'the mark for a first' is essentially arbitrary, highly institution-dependent, and depends on the examiners' goals (here, presumably, to design the exam to really spread out the firsts, sacrificing resolution on 'the rest'). This is obviously not a strategy portable between institutions, but it's not illegitimate. (I presume scoring 100% would elicit 'OK occultists, who summoned Gauss?')

Parenthetical addition: in case it's not obvious, this is (partly) why UK universities typically don't report (or even pay much attention to) GPAs or similar statistics, and instead merely class the final degree as first, 2:1, 2:2 or third.

@NormanGray Cambridge undergraduate exams get all sorts of weightings and curve-scoring. In sciences you're usually given a selection of optional questions (to match the selection of optional courses that were available) written by different lecturers. If you choose all the hardest questions you could score lower than a colleague who chose all the easiest questions, but still come out a class above.

Thanks, OrangeDog and @DanielHatton – that sounds like the un-garbled version of what I was told (I did Part III having done a first degree elsewhere, and do remember some of the exam questions being a rather... disturbing experience). Cambridge may be an outlier in how intricate it's willing to let the grading process be, but this emphasises better than I did, that most UK universities would have some non-trivial mapping from exam scores to final result, and thus undermines the original question's premise, that the raw assessment scores would be necessarily meaningful.

This will depend significantly on the university and the course. From my experience of teaching computer science at two UK universities, coursework marks in the 80s and 90s were very much achievable and some students did achieve them.
I once set a coursework project with a completely objective marking scheme which was communicated to students in advance, and one student (out of about a hundred) scored 100%. There was no leeway for me to give that student less than 100% on that assessment without grading according to different rules than I had set out, nor would I have wanted to - they earned it fair and square.
That's obviously an extreme example, but no eyebrows were raised at the exam board when the marks were approved, and indeed it was not that unusual on the large courses to see a few coursework marks in the 90+ range even when the marking schemes required more academic judgement from the examiners. But I suppose there were other courses, including some at the same universities, where the distributions of marks were substantially different.
So the claim might be true at particular universities or on particular courses, just you can't really make general statements about all UK universities like this because each lecturer sets their own standards, and the university would only demand a lecturer change their module's standards in rare cases.

Firstly, most UK universities I've been involved with explicitly make a point of saying that although they mark on a 100 point scale, that it shouldn't be thought of as a 0%-100% scale: getting evertying wrong doesn't get you 0, and getting everything correct doesn't get you 100, but more importantly, getting half of things correct would not score you 50.
Once upon a time we used to mark on a 1-16 scale, where a mark of 16 corresponded to what we would now give 80, and I think that was much less confusing.
Lots of comments here about marking things that are objectively correct or incorrect. Worth pointing out that where we have such elements, getting everything correct would not get you a mark of 100 (because 100 points =/= 100%). Actually, the only exam where all questions on the exam have right/wrong answers is a first year multiple choice exam, and that's the only exam we have curve grading for.
At Oxbridge, I believe mathematics exams and home works are marked alpha, beta, gamma to avoid confusion. Where you only get an alpha if you not only solve the problem, but solve it with particular elegance.
Certainly when I was a Cambridge undergrad (in Biology), to get 70 use needed to demonstrate one or more of:

Writing with flare and verve
Evidence of original and novel thought
Knowledge and understanding beyond that in the taught curriculum.

and that only got you 70!
Where I am now we have the following criteria:

72, 75: student meets the marker's full expectations on most criteria. Translation: If you wrote a list of the things a student could be expected to achieve in different categories (Accuracy, Breadth, structure, reading outside the course etc), then they tick all the boxes, in most (but not neccessarily all) of those boxes.
80: Student meets all of the marker's expectations for the best that could be achieved in the circumstances. Translation: What ever the examienr could have written down as things required of the student, they have fullfilled them all. Taking into account that this is a 1 hour exam essay/1 week course. This will almost always include knowledge outside that taught on the course.
80-90: Student exceeds what the examiner could have expected of them under the circumstances. Translation: The student went above and beyond what the examiner thought possible, and this would also most always include evidence of extensive personal reading beyond the recommended reading, and evidence of critical or original thinking.
90-100: Student substantially exceeds what the examiner could have expected to produce an exceptional piece of work. Translation - don't even bother thinking about it. There is probably a joke somewhere about 100 meaning perfect, but only god is perfect, and since god isn't a student at the uni, no one will ever get 100.

It is possible to get above an 80 on an individual piece of work, indeed, there will probably be one or two 85 on our all-student courses (around 100-150 students) every year. I can think of two grades of 90 that I have given in my 8 years marking undergrad and taught-postgrad work. Both for coursework where an undergrad student went above and beyond to produce work that was more or less worthy of publication.
One way to think of it might be that relationship between quality of work and grade is logistic: with increased quality, the grade asymptotically approaches 100, but never actually gets there.

A couple of other points:

the range of grades given is something repeatedly brought up by external examiners, and an exhortation to "use the full range of marks available" is something I've seen on every external examiners report.
Your department might be reluctant to show you a piece of work with an 80+ grade, because they don't want you using it as a template. At least part of getting a good grade is about being original, and not following a template.

Based on the last transcripts I've seen, even the Cambridge undergrad Maths Tripos have bowed to the inevitable and now scale the "merit mark" (i.e. alpha/beta based) formula to a "transcript mark" with 40/50/60/70 boundaries using linear interpolation. Note that a Cantabrian alpha corresponds to 15+ out of 20 on a long form question, so is, at least theoretically a mark of "mostly correct".

In short, it's not impossible. The proof being that I averaged around 83% in my time at a UK university doing an electronics engineering degree.

In long, it does depend somewhat on the subject matter. If your exams consist of right or wrong answers, like in maths, then getting 100% is a simple matter of doing the calculations/proofs correctly. If your exams are more analytical/essay/project base, then it's a lot harder. I had a mixture of both, but I actually tended to do better in the longer-form stuff than the right/wrong stuff, but I'm somewhat of an anomaly there.
As a general rule, anything that earns above 70-80% should be of a publishable standard (obviously it won't meet the requirements of novelty, but it should be of that standard of quality). This is an extremely high bar for an undergraduate, but it can be achieved. You just generally have to go above and beyond what's expected of you in the assignment.

My perspective as someone who went to the University in the UK is that it depends on the nature of the course or exam.
Some exam questions, particularly in technical subjects have a very definite "right answer". On these it is very much possible to get full marks if you know the material, show your working and don't make any mistakes. If you know the course material well and are good at not making mistakes it's very much possible to get marks in the 90s on such exams.
On the other hand, as you move from exams to cousework or you move to less-technical more human subjects, the marking becomes rather more subjective. The impression I get is that academics are far more reluctant to give super-high marks for such answers.
My brother who did a maths degree got quite a lot of marks in the 90s, I did an EEE degree and I think I got one course in the 90s, some in the 80s but also many much lower.

UK education system is very peculiar and full of lies (as everywhere).
First, as long as you pay your tuition, the probability of failing a course and module depends on not doing ANYTHING. in fact, failing students is bad for the rankings, so why should they fail them? so, having a pass 50, is super achievable.
then, to get above 70 depends on how objective the questions are, and how fair the exams are.
Even in engineering, there are subjective questions to which the grade falls under the opinion of the person who assess the exams (PhD students may times). Many times they ask things they never taught. Uk education is based on self independent study rather than what they teach at lectures (most lectures suck at teaching), so it is kind to see of students have done more research about the topic, but then, that keeps being subjective and not objective. it falls under the opinion of the person who marks.
However, I can tell you if you are a good self independent student who covers the modules, and do a little bit more than the average, more than 70 is achievable. Of course, it depends on the person who marks.

It really depends on the test. In many subjects, there are hard, medium, and easy questions. In a test you need a mix so you can grade everyone reasonably well. My first maths tests at university were enough hard questions to fill the whole time, enough medium questions to fill the whole time, and enough easier questions to fill the whole time, so doing everything was physically impossible. With one exception, nobody scored more than 50% ever.

I will give an anecdotal answer:
A long, long time ago (mid '80s) I was a graduate student at Cambridge University, and got involved in "marking" entrance exam papers. The section I was asked to mark had a potential score of 40 points, and I was supposed to score "leniently enough" (in accordance to a rubric I was given) to get a median of 20 points. Basically, "a hint of a correct answer" would get a fraction of the available points (10 questions with 4 max points each). But this was a deliberately HARD exam - trying to select the few that were exceptional.
After grading about 100 papers (where one submission would typically comprise 15 - 20 pages of "answers") with a median close to 20 points, I found myself holding a 4 page answer sheet. "Oh, here we go" I thought. How wrong I was...
4 points; 4 points; 4 points; 3 points; 4 points; ...
When I was all done, using the same criteria that was getting me the median of 20 points, this person had 37 out of a possible 40 points. Using just 4 sheets of paper, where the "wafflers" had needed 15 to 20.
Truly exceptional. Rare? Yes. Possible? Apparently. 37/40 is over 90%.

This question is unanswerable, as what counts as a good mark varies institution to institution, subject to subject. It's not uncommon for 70% or less to be enough for a 1st, and 40% for a pass, with much higher scores attainable, but probably only if you are going to get a nobel prize in the future. From what I have seen, institutions that forbid the same staff teaching and examining the same year group of students often have lower scores for high final grades. Many (but not all) UK universities implement this. Obviously, if the lecturer is also examining, then the examination is likely to be much closer to the lectures and marks are higher.

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


text:
New faculty position – expectation to change research direction
I am mainly looking for advice, perspectives and thoughts from other colleagues.
For many years I have undertaken self-directed research as a Senior Researcher in the field of mental health. It has led to many successes including academic outputs and research income. This success paid off when I was recently awarded a permanent academic position but in a new Faculty.
Since joining this new Faculty it has become clear that the Head is not keen on me continuing my own research portfolio (for which I believed I was hired for), but instead directing me to undertake work that is aligned to their own interests which are a significant departure from my own (no reference to this in the job listing). Time allocated to my own interests (and associated projects) has been removed, and it is expected I do this in my “own time”. I have done this, but kept the Head informed, but they have never asked a question or shown any interest.
It is also unusual, as no academic objectives were set: It was agreed when I joined I could continue some work in my primary area of interest but also support the wider Faculty. I have attempted to discuss this with the Head, but they appear to say one thing in the meetings, then do the opposite afterwards.
I am keen to get different perspectives, advice or guidance on how best to handle this situation. Or if this is normal?

How permanent is permanent? In other words, what power does the new Head have over your employment? Have you considered discussing with the Dean?

You are a tenure track faculty at a respectable university and are being told what to research by your department head? Sorry but this seems very fishy to me, I think there are some important details you’re not communicating. If you want to get a good quality answer, can you clarify: 1. What country is this in? (Or what part of the world if you are concerned about anonymity.) 2. Is this a university or some other kind of research institution? 3. Any other details you can share about the nature of your position? “Permanent academic position” is unhelpfully vague.

One of the main features of Academic Freedom is the ability and expectation that one sets one's own research direction, so yes, this is unusual. But probably not unprecedented. There are two factors here.
First is that the department/faculty is new and they might generally want to become known for a certain research direction. But even if that is the case, it should have been made very clear to you in the application process.
The other factor is the Head, himself, who may be over-controlling rather than collegial. That is unfortunate and you have decisions to make as to whether you can accept it. I'd suggest you keep your eyes open for other opportunities, actually.
Academic Freedom applies, or should, to even low level faculty, such as newly hired Assistant Professors and the equivalent. Actually it should apply even to part-time faculty. This distinguishes academia from the industrial world where you are expected to comply with the demands of management.
Note that I'm assuming that you are in a university situation and not a focused research laboratory, which might operate more like the industrial world in expectations. But, even there, the expectations should have been made clear as part of the application process. You do say "faculty position", of course.

One comment -- academic customs differ greatly by subject, by country, by institution type, and many other factors. So take any advice you get from strangers on the internet (including mine!) with a grain of salt.
I would see if your university has a "faculty ombuds" or similar position -- and, if so, meet with this person. Generally speaking, an ombuds (or ombudsman) is someone who will listen to faculty concerns, give advice, and maintain confidentiality. They will not intervene, but they will give you the "lay of the land" and let you know how typical your head's demands are for your institution -- and what the consequences might be if you decide to pursue your own research interests instead.
At my university, department heads rotate fairly frequently, and hold limited power. Consider that when you go up for tenure, there might be a new department head who does not share the old head's priorities. Overall, where I work, your head's demands would be considered ridiculous.
Tread carefully, seek advice from as many people at your institution as possible, don't do anything rash. My initial thought -- knowing nothing of your individual situation -- is that you should seek a way of continuing your own research program, while perhaps contributing a bit to your head's -- but, above all, please seek advice more reliable than what this anonymous stranger on the internet can give.

This is a good answer. Get a picture of how things work at your place, who wields the power, etc. Even if formally the Head has no power to tell you what to do, they can make one's life miserable. It is a red flag that nothing of the change to research direction was mentioned in the interview. That is really not in anyone's interest in the end. Find out what really counts. Your agreement on hiring, or the Head's opinion.

It depends on the situation. As a tenure tracked professor, I would not expect it. In Germany there are "akademische Räte", who have permanent positions and are expected to work with their professor. They have some minor freedoms but it is limited. When the professor changes, they have to adjust to completely new direction of research.
So there is a spectrum. I don't know how this applies to mental health and the country you are living.


text:
Why are small cap and old style numerals not used in technical writing?
According to the de facto standard book for typography, The Elements of Typographic Style, when we write abbreviations with 2 or more letters like SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope), small cap should be used and in LaTeX this would be \textsc{sem}.
Another case are old style numerals. When we write Arabic numerals in the passage, according to the book, old style numerals should be used and in LaTeX this would be \oldstylenums{1234567890}. I know mathematical equations or numerals in a table should not use old style numerals as they are considered standalone and do not disturb the flow of passage.
For me, I have never seen any publications with small cap abbreviations and old style numerals, and this seems to go against the typographic style suggested. The author of The Elements of Typographic Style said actually there is no rigid rule for typography when we aware we are breaking it. So my question is why are small cap abbreviations and old style numerals not used in technical writing when they appear on the passage? Why are these rules are broken in technical writing?
EDIT:
The papers I usually read are from natural science like physics, chemistry and biology without computational nature. It seems to me the use of small cap and old style numerals is very rare in these fields.

"never" ? I use small caps all the time in my papers, for precisely the use case you mention. Maybe you're thinking of a particular discipline ?

May I ask which journals you are talking about?

I publish in database/data mining/theoretical computer science venues, and use small caps especially in the first two.

In my experience, small caps are widely used in computer science, but only to denote algorithms or problems, e.g., \textsc{GraphTraversal}. Common abbreviations such as "DAG" or "TCP/IP" are written in all caps. That said, my experience is not that vast, so there may be other contexts in which standards are different.

I see small caps and old style numbers quite often ...

It seems that the use of small cap and old style numerals is not uncommon in computer science. I have edited my question to include the field of papers I usually encounter.

Some journals do use small caps, but it was never a particularly strong recommendation anyway.  I've seen small caps used for paper titles in bibliographies as well - it looks awful when chemical names are in the title. The acronym package for latex allows smaller text to be used (like fake small caps I guess), requiring the relsize package - I don;t know why it doesn't use \textsc- maybe it can but I stick to normal caps.  I also don't know about the rather more full-featured glossaries package, which I believe was written with a CS thesis in mind.  The author is active at tex.se.

@JeffE It's an acronym for "Directed Acyclic Graph".  Don't most acronyms still get capitalized?  I see BST for binary search tree, but not bst.  Have you examples of those not being capitalized?

Laser and radar are also acronyms, but they've become regular words by virtue of being pronounceable as such. (Or do you say "dee ay gee"?)

If you're going to quibble about typography -- when's the last time you saw a ligature other than &? When's the last time you saw REAL kerning? Fact is, fine typography just isn't a high priority in publications whose goal is to communicate factual content rather than to be exemplars of the graphic arts.

@keshlam: It will be very difficult to find a paper without the ligature w. Nitpicking aside, all journals using LaTeX and most other ones I know use ligatures. Whether you consider their kerning “REAL”, is something only you can tell.

@Wrzlprmft: That's actually much better news than I expected. Thank you, LaTeX. (I'm an occasional letterpress operator/typesetter, among my other distractions; the mess most computer typesetting makes is a low-level background annoyance.)

Well, if they are not used, they are probably not that useful. Also, in many fields, authors never typeset their publications themselves, so they wouldn't even know what you are talking about.

The answer lies in a combination of technology and efficiency. In the old days when all was typeset "by hand" and not electronically, switching between Roman numerals and old style ones was not difficult. When electronic publishing became available, typography as a whole was ruined because everyone thought they now could make professional looking typography on their own personal computer and laserwriter. For a long time the digital typefaces did not include old style numbers because the character sets were too small to include those (E.g. PostScript Type 1) but now with the unicode standard, much more is included in a single type face. Thus, for a long time one had to switch from one type face to another to include these effects. In LaTeX, this was a little easier as you point out than in, say, Word.
The use of old style numerals was thus partly lost through the "digital revolution" but I also think it was lost because they simply went out of fashion. As with everything else typography and ideas within typography changes over time. I am not sure that the loss is entirely due to the introduction of digital tools but this introduction was a sort of final "stab in the back" from which it is hard to recover. In fact we are still seeing the effects of the PC in many publications since everyone is now the typographer without knowing much about the trade.
So to cap off, in the scientific publishing world, where speed is a key ingredient, attention to these details have simply not been considered as worth the time. One therefore must look at publications with more aesthetic goals to find fine typography.

Good answer, but I suspect that there may be more. For instance, I think that en- and em-dashes have encountered the exact same problems in the history of computer typesetting, but they are now in wider use in both Word and LaTeX.

Yes, you are quite right and the list can be made much longer since, for example, spacing is a key issue as well. The problem, in my opinion, is that typography, an art and a profession, cannot be replaced by mechanics alone. Deeper understanding is always necessary to get the most out of the existing technology.

I suspect this has as much to do with (late 19th century) typewriters and thence (mid-20th century) character encodings as with modern (late 20th century) typesetting.

Old-style numbers being included in modern typefaces is not thanks to Unicode but to intelligent font standards such as OpenType, AAT and Graphite. Old-style numbers are not (specifically) encoded in Unicode and doing so would arguably be a very bad idea.

As my edit seems to have got rejected: You seem to have mixed up Roman numerals with lining numerals in the first paragraph.

There are actually good reasons to break the general typographical rules and use uppercase numerals in technical writing.
In usual texts, uppercase numerals are considered ugly or negatively affecting the readability as they form one block without ascenders or decenders and as they stand out from the text and are more difficult to read (for the same reasons that all-caps are more difficult to read). However, the properties of uppercase numbers are often desirable in technical writing:

You may actually want numbers to stand out.
In a formula, you usually want a number consisting of more than one numeral to be perceived as one element at first. For example:

x = 1234 + 5678

Here the first thing you want the reader to see is that x is the sum of two numbers and not the exact values of these numbers (which would be more emphasised with lowercase numerals). Also, from a readability’s point of view, most formulas are a chaotic mess – using lowercase numerals would only add to this.
There are several mathematical notations that do not mix well with lowercase numerals, such as indicating repeating digits in a decimal fraction with a bar above the number.
You usually would not want to use lowercase numerals for super- and subscripts, as it makes it more difficult to recognise whether something is a super- or supscript or not. (Note that this is not the same as for lowercase letters, as they are easier to distinguish from their uppercase counterparts and exceptions, such as the letter o, are usually not used as variables for that very reason.)
Using lowercase numerals for axis tics would make them optically less regular and thus be more emphasised, which is usually not what you want.
In tables, uppercase numerals help outlining the rows, while lowercase numerals obfuscate the structure. (On the other hand, lowercase numerals may make some aspects of the data easier to recognise.)

While you could use uppercase numerals for tables and figure legends specifically, there is a gray zone between

formulas in which lowercase numerals do not work well
formulas in which lowercase numerals are no problem
just numbers.

Therefore using lowercase numbers not at all or only in a few special cases like page numbers or affiliations is arguably the only way to achieve consistency.
A similar thing applies to super- and subscripts: While in normal writing no consistency issues arise, as a super- and subscripted numbers is always super- or subscripted, the semantically same number often appears in normal size as well as super- or subcripted in technical writing. Therefore using uppercase numerals only has a larger impact on consistency than in normal writing.

It's consistency really - in theory you could use old style numerals for page numbers, chapter numbers etc., but then they would clash with numbers in inline maths, or be inconsistent with e.g. equation numbers.  There's no clean place to draw the line, and it would have a similar awkwardness to using similar but not quite the same fonts.

Actually, there is a clean place to draw the line.  If a number is used as a convenient label (pages, chapters, equations, figures), use lower case. If it's used as an actual numerical value, use upper case.  Or in TeX terms: text mode=lower case, math mode=upper case (in parallel with text mode = italic, math mode = roman for Latin letters).

@JeffE: True, though this usually makes uppercase numbers the majority. I added a remark regarding this.

I am just finishing 250-pages scientific-technical book.  I wrote it in Latex and made sure that every proper physical/mathematical number is in math mode, leaving only years and label numbers out.  So, what would you advise, mode=osf and math mode=lining, or all numbers=lining?

@Pygmalion: If you really used this consistently (and do not perform any calculations involving years), I would recommend lowercase numbers for non-math numbers. (In fact, I did the same thing for my thesis.)

Without any evidence to back it up, my guess is that people don't know it, so they don't use it. As a consequence, it becomes a de facto standard of the field not to use them.
One would expect editors to at least be aware of this rules, but if they are not experts in typesetting, or don't personally like some of the rules, they may not be interested in enforcing them.

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


text:
Is it seen negatively to apply to PhD programs "explorationally" (and re-apply after declining offers)?
In normal job-hunting, it's acceptable to apply for jobs "informationally", to learn about new opportunities before deciding whether the new opportunity is better than your current.
Suppose I'm a published MS-level researcher in industry, but have gotten interested in certain research projects in academia and see PhD student lab openings. I'd like to learn more about the projects to see if the project direction is a good fit for my interests, see if I like the culture of the team, see if I like the location, learn more about the funding situation and expected work-life balance of the lab. All five of these things are unknowns when applying to a normal job, and it's acceptable in industry (I'm in EECS) to interview for several rounds with on-site visits to find answers on both sides before deciding if it's a good fit. If for any reason the applicant declines, it's perfectly acceptable to interview with the same team a few years down the road as projects, willingness to relocate, family situation all change dramatically over the course of one's lifetime.
As a practicing researcher in the field, I can of course do due diligence and read the relevant papers/ codebases, etc., but interviewing with the faculty and meeting the future team by being accepted to the associated graduate program are necessary to fully evaluate whether the new position is more desirable than the current one.
Would this attitude be seen negatively, both by the potential future advising faculty or the larger admitting institution? Would schools be more reluctant to admit me if I re-apply? For context, I'm in the US and would be applying to top-N schools.
If this approach is not appropriate for grad-school, how would I go about managing how project/location/team/cultural fit, from my perspective, could change over my lifetime as, e.g., the kids grow up and move out, the field changes and develops. It seems a bit absurd that, because an opportunity or team was not a good fit at some point in my lifetime, it would be closed to me for the rest of a 30 year career, so if this is the case I have trouble understanding the underlying reasoning.

Good luck, but you have a lot of misconceptions about how things work. If you waste people's time they won't be happy with you. It isn't like dealing with HR for an industry job. And "top N" schools for a small N in the US pretty much guarantees failure.

I'm pretty sure you'll look at the funding on offer (even from the most generous programs), think about what that would do to your lifestyle, also realize that having a PhD won't improve your salary that much, and after not much consideration, decide no PhD could possibly be a good idea for you.

Thanks for the feedback @Buffy. It's my intuition that the negotiation power dynamics are substantially different when I'm mid-career, not dependent financially on a PhD stipend and doing a PhD "for fun" to work on research topics that are higher risk than is acceptable to my current company (e.g., let's suppose it's a big research org like Microsoft/Google/Nvidia research). Open to your perspectives here, but I've deliberately started my career first and avoided going straight to grad school out of my MS to avoid exactly the power dynamics you might have in mind.

Continuing to apply for, and turn down, jobs in my group will result in you not being selected for an interview real quick. Not worth wasting peoples time.

@Buffy (continued). My team already collaborates regularly with faculty labs, so I'm not sure I following your reasoning that exploring working from within a lab instead of from without is a waste of their time or mine. I certainly don't mean to apply 3+ times, just apply once, and if it's not a good fit but the underlying reason it isn't a good fit changes a few years down the road, start the conversation again.

@Buffy: "if you waste people's time, they won't be happy with you" also applies to HR outside academia.

Is there a reason to do this as a PhD if the PhD itself is not the major end goal for you?  PhD students are not the only ones working in academic labs.  It can vary quite a bit by field, but there may very well be research scientist/programmer positions available that may be more in line with your apparent goals.

You'll probably get away with such behaviour at the level of PhD applications, but not beyond.

Do note that "the culture of the team" - at least the part that you might mostly interact with, namely other PhD students - may have completely changed by the time you return, because, say, 5 years later, hardly anyone of the previous bunch of people will still be around.

In my view, it's completely different to apply intending to find a position but not find the right fit than it is to apply "explorationally" to gather information without intending to follow through during the current admissions cycle. And I don't think that's unique to grad school/academia, it's rude to waste any interviewer's time.
In industry, it's more common to be contacted for an interview or to go into an interview where both parties know you aren't on the immediate job market. That's different from abusing someone else's time for practice or whatever else. Yes, you'll find professional articles written that say otherwise. Sure, you might see other people doing it. Rude people do rude things all the time, selfish people coach others to be selfish; that doesn't make them less rude or selfish.
Applying isn't a commitment to take a position, and it would be wrong for someone to take your honest rejection of their offer too personally. However, they have every right next time around to be skeptical of your interest. Offers for grad school positions usually come on a fairly competitive calendar; if someone doesn't accept your offer, their second choice might have already committed elsewhere.
It seems you aren't quite sure if you want to go the academic route. I'd recommend reaching out to labs to communicate without applying. Let them know, honestly, what your position is. You probably have resources to travel, so visit some potential cities as a tourist and see how you like the vibe on your own. If you're doing research work now that's of academic interest, you may be able to arrange to visit and give a talk like an academic would, which typically comes with opportunities to meet with faculty and current students (and maybe even a honorarium for speaking, or at least a free meal).
And know that you aren't that special for having started an industry career first - most people have. A PhD in the US is usually a 5+ year commitment, and it's coming with a likely big pay cut for you. Rather than having negotiating power due to your salary and experience, you are probably in a negotiating hole because you are a higher risk to drop out after experiencing a cost of living crunch than a fresh student who has always lived in shared student housing. You'll be needing to explain why exactly you're a good fit for academia, and you'll have to convince programs that you're committed to them.

Thanks Bryan, really appreciate your making this distinction and offerring me advice. I agree that I should really introspect about what my level of confidence/interest is, and only then will I know how to act appropriately to this level of interest. And I certainly agree that applying for practice or with a "faint" chance of accepting wastes people's time, both in industry and academia. Giving talks/ finding professional ways to engage with these labs sounds like an excellent way to feel out future career options before making a decision to apply.

+1, in particular for the reaching out informally part. Most people in academia hate dealing with applications and interviewing people, but love talking about future research opportunities.

For better or worse, there are some major differences between applying to PhD programs and applying for industry jobs, that mean that treating an application for a PhD spot like an application for a job probably won't work.
For one thing, in the US normally you are applying to a graduate program, rather than a specific lab. While it helps a lot to have a clear idea of what groups you want to work for, being admitted to a graduate program is not a guarantee that you will be able to work with a specific group.
For another thing, you are applying for an educational program, not a job. The goal is not just for you to produce, but to learn. This has a lot of implications, but relevant to your question, if you apply, receive an offer, and reject the offer to stay in your current job, there can be a perception that you are not serious about pursuing further education, which can color how your application will be viewed (should you apply again).
Finally, the laws of supply and demand are not on your side. There are more graduating BS and MS students every year looking for PhD slots, then there are PhD slots. Furthermore, while there are people who leave to go to industry and return, the "typical" path is to go to a PhD shortly after finishing a BS or MS degree. So if you apply, receive an offer, and then reject the offer, there is not an incentive to offer you another spot.
Therefore, I think that if you want to avoid potentially burning bridges, you should only apply if you think you want to go to school instead of remaining in industry.
In terms of power dynamics: fundamentally there is a power imbalance when you get a PhD, in a way there probably isn't in a typical industry job, because you are the one seeking a PhD. You will need to commit to one group for at least 3-5 years to make enough progress to get the PhD. It's very hard for you as a student to change groups, and if you do this will only set back your own timeline. Therefore, unlike in industry, the (implicit or explicit) threat that you could leave to go somewhere else, does not carry as much weight for PhD students in academia. Any PI will have certain resources available based on funding, there is a standard package you will get as a student, so you can't really bargain with your current salary. The bargaining chips that carry weight, are things that give you ability to produce high-impact research and win grants. But, if you are applying as a PhD student, you probably don't have already those things; you may have the promise to learn enough to do such things, but a typical PhD student is in the role of an apprentice being groomed.
As practical advice, I think you should use your academic network. Talk to the professors whose groups you work with about what it is like to do a PhD with them. Ask to talk to their PhD students. Maybe you could try to arrange spending a month in their lab, like an internship (of course I don't know how this would work with your company). Maybe the PIs can provide contacts for groups at institutions where you want to get a degree. I think you can learn a lot from talking to these groups before you apply about what to expect.
IMPORTANT CAVEAT This advice about your academic network is assuming that you feel comfortable reaching out to your academic collaborators without jeopardizing your current role. This may not be a safe thing to do, particularly if you are a junior person on your team, since (a) the faculty may tell your boss that you are thinking of leaving your job, and (b) there could be agreements between your collaborators and your employer that they are not supposed to "poach" current employees. I can't judge how likely (a) and (b) are in your case. There are usually agreements like (b) if two companies work together, but I don't know if that is true for academic collaboration. If you don't feel safe directly talking to people you work with about this, then you can find a lot of general advice about what a PhD is like online, including on this site, for example Advice for thinking about whether to pursue a PhD
Philosophically, I think that if you really want to do a PhD, you can't look at it as a normal job. You have to look at it as fulfilling your passion for a subject by pursuing it deeply at the highest level. This often means making sacrifices in terms of pay, work-life balance. That's not to say there aren't ways to manage a healthy work-life balance as a PhD student, but it's not a job where you can expect to work 9-5 and get everything done. To be successful, rather than negotiating power dynamics between you and your PI, you should focus more on finding a group that will intellectually match your interests and on learning how to be a successful researcher. Now... I am not passing a value judgment on whether these attitudes are a good or bad thing. I am just saying that this is the prevailing culture in academia, which you should be aware of before deciding to purse a PhD.

Thank you for your input, you really make some great points. I'm very aware of prevailing academic culture :) At the same time, when I see answers like the top one here, I really believe I'm not alone and that I can "be the change" I want to see in academia so long as I can find an aligned PI. I've seen great aspiring 9-5 scientists can get pushed by mismatched PI's, but I also know there's PI's even at top-N schools who believe it's better to accept the diversity of 9-5'ers than to lose their talent from the field. I'm optimistic overall.

My comment above, standing mostly separate from the original discussion about the right level of confidence/interest to have before applying.

@Dragonsheep I definitely agree that finding a good advisor is a key part of a successful PhD. As you know, it can be very hard to know whether someone really is a good advisor before you join their group. Unfortunately there's not as much transparency around group culture as there is in the corporate world. The best way to find out is to talk to students in the group. But, getting access to the students can be tricky. You could try cold emailing students in a group you are thinking of joining -- I bet you'd get some hits. Probably a good idea to at least tell the PI first if you do this.

Thanks @Andrew, I really appreciate your follow-up. You really seem to have a caring demeanor in your advising (for all that means on stackexchange), so wanted share gratitude that it's not unnoticed.

@Dragonsheep I actually went the other way (left academia for industry, fairly recently). I find it strangely cathartic to be able to point out pitfalls I learned from my many misadventures.

PhD programs will happily continue accepting your application fees.  It is your life and your money.  If you were not serious about doing PhD study, then the money budgeted to such fees could be better spent on such things as a vacation, dinner at a fancy restaurant, etc.
If you really have nothing better to spend your money on, you could give it to me.  I will without complaint relieve you of any surplus money that is holding you back from achieving your dreams.

I feel this answer is missing the point a bit. Someone in OP's shoes may be perfectly willing to pay a $50-$100 application fee if it means an opportunity to interview and gather information, and they may be willing to do so many times if their finances support it. However, the people whose time is being wasted are not the people pocketing the $50, and they haven't agreed to meet in exchange for $50, they've agreed to meet in hopes of taking on a promising student. It's still rude whether or not it's how OP wants to spend their money, because the other parties haven't agreed to this.

@BryanKrause For the first round of applications, how is that different from a serious applicant who applies to 10 programs.  Obviously, the applicant is going to enroll in at most 1 program.  Is this applicants wasting the admissions committee time.  For subsequent rounds, I believe (but could be wrong) that the admissions committee will be clued in that the applicant is not serious and no time will be wasted.


text:
Should I write a thank you note to a professor for his recommendation letter even if I didn't get the scholarship?
One of my favorite professor is a very gentle, kindhearted, and extremely-well-teaching man who wrote a recommendation letter for me back in February 10th or so. Well he is super nice to all people and is extremely skillful teacher, making him a favorite teacher to all people, but when I asked for a recommendation letter for a scholarship I could tell that his letter was very good, just by judging from how thick the sealed envelope was - probabily at least three pages, if I am not mistaken. I told him thank you right after getting his sealed letter, but have not had the chance to say thank you to him after that.
The result for scholarship came in July 30th and I found out I wasn't selected. But given the factors like: (1) the professor has a liking on me and put pretty decent amount of time for my letter, (2) I will probably ask him for another letter for grad school, and (3) I didn't get the scholarship, and (4) the date I last talked to him (about the scholarshio, in particular) was about 5 months ago, should I write an email/note telling him that I thank him for the letter and let him know of the bad outcome?
If yes, what things/how should I write such a letter to him? A rough template and/or an example letter would be great - not trying to copy but to get a sense of things
Also do you think an email is fine? I'm like over 2000 miles from the campus so if I decide to go for an actual hand writtrn thank you card, I wouldn't be able to do that until the beginning of next school year, like September 22nd or something, although an actual thank you card shows more thankfulness than an email. So I guess my second question is: would a quick email or 2-month-later hand-written thank you card be better?

"Should I do [a nice thing] for someone who did [a nice thing]?" Signs point to yes.

Your last paragraph seems to imply that you think the only possibilities are email and in person. I can think of other possibilities, such as telephone and postal mail. I don't know whether it would be appropriate to telephone him, as this seems to vary with culture and the ages of those involved. But surely a short personal handwritten letter sent by postal mail would be better than sending an email, or am I missing something?

@DaveLRenfro, a handwritten note is definitely to be preferred if possible. Some people want to do this in a purchased thank you card, but a letter is fine. Send it to the university address if none other is available.

Absolutely. He probably feels bad that you weren't selected. Not as bad as you, of course, but he will want to know that you are ok in spite of a setback. Moreover he may be in a position to help you in future so you will want to make sure you keep lines of communication open.
Beyond that, however, a professor who thinks enough of you to write the letter in the first place, probably is the sort of person who wants to be kept in the loop as your career progresses. He will greatly appreciate your thanks, I assure you.
I once had a mentor in grad school. He was not my advisor, but I always used him as an example of a great professor, just as you describe your professor.
Many years after I graduated I had occasion to revisit the campus, where he was still teaching (Dept Chair, I think). I told him how much is model of a professor and his mentoring meant to me, not only at the time, but over the intervening years. He thanked me and also said that professors don't hear such thanks very often. That saddened but also surprised me. He died not long after that, so I've been happy that I was able to express that to him in time.
As for the words to use. Thanks is enough, but fill him in on your current plans and what has happened to you since you were last his student. Wish him well.