text:
How to move forward following an unpleasant situation with colleagues?
I'm a recently hired assistant professor at a small teaching
university.  The department head has been successful in dramatically
increasing student enrollment, such that our department is viewed
almost as keeping the faculty and university afloat (and the
department head is VERY highly regarded on campus).  The department
head is close to the office admin (he treats her like a daughter
and she acts like a quasi assistant department head - approving new
classes and setting the schedule, for example).
When I was newly arrived I foolishly agreed to a scheme proposed by
the office admin where an instructor would develop a course that I
would teach next term.  After not hearing anything for quite some
time, I checked up on the course progress and it turned out the
instructor didn't intend to give me anything related to the course
until the first day of class (when I was suppose to be teaching it
that day).  There was some back and forth and eventually the
instructor committed to me that they would get me the course by the
end of November.  The end of November came and went, and when I asked
about it I was assured I'd get it Friday.  Friday came and went and on
Monday I was assured I'd get it the next day, which I didn't.  When I
saw what she had made available to me on Tuesday, it turned out she
had barely started working on the course.
I went to talk to the office admin (who had set the whole thing up and
been acting as an intermediary) and told her the course wasn't near
completion and at this point I wouldn't be able to teach it.  She told
me to talk to the department head.  Previously I had wanted to involve
him and she had told me repeatedly not to.  As I left she began
heckling me (telling me the instructor had been very busy with other
projects), when I tried to respond to her, she cut me off and told me
to talk about it with the department head.  Again, as I turned to leave,
she started heckling me (asking me why I expected the course so
early) and told me I hadn't treated the instructor fairly.
I told her that I felt she and the instructor hadn't treated me
fairly, and that they had thrown me under the bus as a newly arrived
member of the department.  She went NUTS.  She started screaming,
saying she didn't appreciate being accused of throwing someone under
the bus and that I'd thrown her under the bus.  She said she wouldn't accept being talked to that way and she would be complaining to the department head and her staff supervisor (which I found out later she did) and she slammed her door on me (I began walking away when she started screaming).
The department head came to my office and told me I wouldn't have to teach the
course and that I'd be assigned another section of a class I'd already
taught (which was fine with me and one of the solutions I'd previously tried to suggest).  He didn't seem to want to hear anything else and just wanted
it wrapped up as quickly as possible.  I had written up my understanding
of what had happened, which I gave him a hardcopy of (he didn't want to take it) and sent to him via e-mail.  In the e-mail I asked to have another member of the faculty present at any meeting on the issue.
I think the existence of an e-mailed copy of the incident caught the department head's attention, as he then (later in the day) wanted to set up another meeting (but made it very clear no other faculty members could participate).  At the meeting he again seemed very eager to brush things under the rug.  I said that I wanted to be sure this didn't happen again, which he said he had no control over.  I also said that I felt this shouldn't have happened and I wanted it to be treated seriously if it happened again, which he agreed to.  I told him that the office admin had threatened to make complaints against me (which he said I didn't have to worry about).  I asked him if I should be going on record about what had happen to HR and he told me not to.  He told me that if I couldn't resolve things with him, the Dean was the next person to talk to and that under no circumstances would he involve other faculty members in meetings of this nature.
I talked to one of the senior faculty members and he told me that the department head has deliberately concentrated authority with himself and delegates things to the admin (so that another faculty member doesn't have control over them).  He also said that he definitely didn't chastise the admin (and probably didn't even say anything to her).
I've thought about this situation and how unpleasant things will be in the department going forward.  Since the new term has started I've been receiving dirty looks from the office admin whenever I've been forced into contact with her (I've been avoiding it as much as possible).  I'm basically at the point where being in this department for the next 5 years leading up to tenure is pretty depressing (to say nothing of the idea of spending the rest of my career there) and am planning to set up another meeting with the department head.
Basically, I want to express that I think there's still a problem and I'm prepared to resign if that's the only solution.  I obviously will make my resignation effective at the end of the school year (I won't leave them in the lurch).  I'll tell him I wanted to give him another chance to solve the problem (and also feel that I should talk to the dean and HR before I tender my resignation so that they aren't blindsided - I want to let my department head know I'll be talking to them so he isn't surprised).
I'd be willing to stay if it was clearly expressed to the office admin that her actions were inappropriate.  At this point I think that would require something along the lines of an official rebuke that would be put in her employment file.
For what it's worth, my teaching evaluations (from the one term I've been here) are very high and my research profile is probably the best in the department.  I have a large number of other options for employment (which will probably be outside of academia). I don't need references or anything, so while I realize I'm "burning a bridge", that won't cause me any problems.
Does anyone have any advice on how I should move forward?  I'd certainly understand anyone who thought I was "making a mountain out of a molehill", but this is still bothering me more than a month after the fact.
Sorry for the length, I thought it was important to include all relevant details.
EDIT:  A moderator asked me below what I want from people who respond.  I'm hoping for tactical advice (the best way to achieve an official rebuke, if it's impossible, advice on how to move past it). I'd also appreciate opinions on whether or not I'm justified being upset by the situation.

What kind of answer are you looking for? It seems like you know what your options are (do nothing and try to move past it, push for an official rebuke and possibly make things more uncomfortable, resign and pursue employment elsewhere). What are hoping we'll tell you that you don't already know?

You have certainly given a lot of detail; in particular, it would probably be enough for any of the people involved to identify you from this post, if they should come across it.  I am guessing this post shares more of your thoughts than you want to share with them.  You can edit the post, but the original version remains publicly available via the edit history.  You can delete it, but users with reputation over 10K can still see it.  If you should want to make permanent changes or deletions, you will need to flag for moderator attention and explain.

ff524:  I guess I'm hoping for tactical advice (the best way to achieve an official rebuke or if it's impossible or advice on how to move past it).  I'd also appreciate opinions on whether or not I'm justified being upset by the situation.

Nate:  I am definitely aware of that.  It's worth the risk to me to try to get some feedback.

Ok, I wanted to make sure.  You should also know that once answers are posted (and upvoted), it becomes much more difficult to delete your question; you can't do it yourself, and moderators will likely be reluctant (because it would also delete the answers which others spent time on).  So you should expect that your post will effectively be public forever.

Walk away.  Send a copy of your detailed resignation letter to all parties, including the dean.

Holy $deity, this is a long wall of text.

"the best way to achieve an official rebuke" - what do you hope to achieve here with an official rebuke? If your problem is that dealing with the admin is now awkward, this will make matters only much worse. In the worst case, the department head will then also be awkward around you because you annoyed her "assistant". I advise you to consider @gnometorule's answer.

What makes this specific to academia, as opposed to a general [workplace.SE] question?

@mxmxmx RoboKaren's advice would also be perfect for industry, in my experience, except for replacing "grant applications" with "budget requests", and "research publications" with "shipped products".

@mxmxmx: JeffE may of course clarify if he wishes, but he has previously stated that when he says "Walk away" he means it as sincere advice.

@NateEldredge, thanks that was interesting! If that's how he meant it, I disagree with his advice.

Why is this important? Couldn't you just… ignore her? Sure, there might be better ideas, but doesn't this have crossed your mind for some reason?

You have to move on from this ! Dont worry I have been able and willing to work with  people whom I have assulted .Just act as if it never happened which will show that you are the better person .

Just curious; what was the outcome in the end?

I left the department (and am very happy I did so).  Eventually, the head and secretary left, the new head tried to get me to return and I refused.

I can't tell you what is the 'best' solution to your situation, but I can share with you how I would approach it. If you allow, a few words about my background. After a Ph.D., I went to Wall Street. In my second job, a person who was senior to most people in my group was universally despised (the mere fact to be assigned to work with him made a female analyst begin to cry. Another time she had to be talked out of quitting because of how he had treated her.). While generally well-liked, I had a vendetta with this person for the entirety of my job with this firm, which was detrimental both to my and the other guy's standing.
This is meant to be an obvious analogy. You, as I did, appear to believe to be entirely in the right (and in your case, it's fairly obvious that you probably are); but morality, and success and happiness at work are not the same. While you seem to have the academic side of your career under control (you mention being well-regarded in your department for your research, etc.), I think you should spend some time working on the softer social side of your job...which will be part of any job you might have. What happened to you here, could easily happen again if you go through with quitting, and run into a similarly entitled admin at your next job. So instead of running at the first obstacle, tackle it head on.
And for this, I would warmly recommend to de-emphasize due process, and to swallow your pride. Get some chocolates, and ask the admin to sit down with you in private - just you two. Tell her that you regret that you started off on the wrong foot, and for your part (even if you don't see a part at all, say it), you'd like to apologize; then hand her the chocolates. She let you down this time, but you can make her (and most) admins an ally. This doesn't always work. Some people simply cannot be worked with, but before you conclude that, work on your relationship with her. If you manage to make up, it will also reflect well on you with other department members, or at least your department head. If she's tardy in the future, remind her with a smile, and talk to your boss (in person), asking him to give her a nudge (which you could formulate along the lines of "She's probably crowded, but I really need X urgently. Could you have a word with her and give her a friendly reminder?")
Minus the chocolates, this is what I would do now were I again in my old situation.
It's your choice, but I'd value not hating going to work every day, over feeling that I've been slighted; and it's clearly better than remembering having "had" to leave your first job. And really, what you describe here is work 101: you'll have that one admin in most jobs you'll have in your life.

+1. Your second paragraph made me think of this old turn of phrase: "Would you rather be right or happy?" In the end this all seems to boil down to a personal conflict that neither party handled very well and is complicated by the unbalanced power dynamic. "Playing well with others" is a necessary skill in most work environments to resolve situations like this.

Excellent advice, defuse the situation directly and in person.  There's too little of that nowadays.

I'm probably going to get rated through the floor for this one, but there are two obvious things sticking out to me I consider worth pointing out.
First the possible resolutions you list and want to decide between appear equally ridiculous to me.  Basically it sounds like you want to have St Peter descend from heaven with the book of good and bad deeds, get the scores added up and paid out, everybody shakes hands and then life can continue.
Life doesn't work that way.  There is no compensation for past losses, and particularly life is not a zero-sum game: if shit happened to you that does not mean that somebody else profited equally from it, or that he or she had planned for that to happen.
For another, I think that the office admin appears to be doing an excellent job.  She has been set up as the fall girl, and she works pretty well for that: an academic was supposed to provide you with course material in time and did not follow through.  Obviously that is the person who actually let you down and who should have known what was needed by you when and provide it.  Now it is hard to guess whether there is another story behind that (writing course material for someone else from scratch does not sound like something that should usually happen or be a good idea): if stuff is misorganized, a whole lot of negative consequences can accumulate all over the place without St Peter having anybody chalked up for malice.
But let's keep at this end of the story: whatever the reason, your course material provider did not come through, and you want the office admin on the hook for that.  Are you surprised that she's not enamored with you?
Now how did she get to be responsible for someone else in that manner?  The way your office setup sounds, some people think they are doing her a favor by pushing responsibilities on her which she has a problem handling, responsibilities that are outside her area of expertise.  She'll probably get paid more than usual because of handling more than usual, but likely not as much as a proper handler would get.  And she's not been wise enough to refuse those favors of trust and responsibility.
Now she's in a situation where she has to improvise and guesstimate a lot, and in that situation of getting more shoved onto her than she can competently dispatch, stuff went wrong.  And mostly because somebody else did not carry the weight that she was told he would be lifting.  She wasn't smart enough to just connect you and step out, so now she's being painted as the bad guy by you and you want her disciplined.  And likely could have some chance of getting this accomplished.  And you did try this via the department head already and she likely knows this.  And you wonder why she's not all smiles at you.
Now if you get her fired, the department will need to get another fall girl that the department head can load with the stuff he does not want to deal with himself but for which he does not seem to have the funds to hire somebody with more than administrational capabilities.  It would be a fresh chance, sure, but one starting from scratch.
Do you want to be the guy responsible for changing the department?  Do you consider yourself sufficiently skilled in HR to make that decision?
I'd rather suggest that you try rebooting your relation.  Try getting out of the "threat to her position and career" role since you won't improve your standing with either her or the department in that manner.  Avoid situations where she is responsible for stuff she has no clue about and that should not be part of her job in the first place.
Try to avoid helping to set her up for failure.  I don't know whether she has a chance to grow into the job that is expected from her, but it is not your basic task to fix that.  If you can manage that she does not perceive you as a threat, you'll likely see much of what irks you now abate eventually.
Most importantly: get rid of your notion of justice: when things go bad, you cannot pin all the badness to one bad person's score.  Often there is minimal cause for large effect.  Intrigants enjoy working with minimal cause for large effect, but you don't make it sound as though the office assistant is enjoying what she is doing.  Nor do you make it sound like she is subtle.  She is rather reacting like a frightened child.

I really appreciate your reply (thanks!  I agree with you on many points), but just wanted to clarify one thing:  I'm not upset about the course, that's been settled to my satisfaction, I'm upset about being screamed at, threatened, having complaints lodged against me and a door slammed on me.  I definitely wouldn't want to get her fired.  Do you think resigning is a ridiculous resolution?

@user2406714: You didn't ask me, but the word 'ridiculous' rings unnecessarily like judging again. Resigning over an admin as faculty is immature, rash, impulsive, and certainly unnecessary I would say. This is an excellent answer. The actions that (understandably) upset you result from its last sentence. I know of someone coming to work to find all trash bins emptied on his desk (that was in Paris/France). Use what happened as an opportunity to learn dealing with future, more serious workplace issues.

While your point about seeking justice is wise, I would not call heckling a new hire an excellent job.

"She has been set up as the fall girl... Obviously [instructor] is the person who actually let you down." I couldn't disagree more. When everyone thinks everyone else is responsible for something, noone's in charge. That's an organizational failing, which ultimately falls to the dept head. When instructor flaked out, admin should have given him an ultimatum and stuck to it; when he failed that, she should have escalated to both the OP and dept head. In the real world, people will let you down, all the time. Fingerpointing fests are not a substitute for managing other people effectively.

Whoa there.  The instructor is the one who dropped the ball with respect to getting the course set up.  But the admin has hardly acted properly.  She shouldn't have given conflicting advice to the OP about involving the department head.  She shouldn't have dismissed his concerns about the incomplete work.  She shouldn't have become rude and confrontational over his expectation that the work be done on time.  She shouldn't have carried a personal grudge forwards after the fact.  The instructor screwed up the most.  But the admin is not far behind and is hardly deserving of sympathy.

There are a couple of unspoken truths about academia:

Administrative people can make your life hell. From misplacing your grant applications to not ordering new toner for your printer, it entirely behooves you to be on their good side. This is triply the case for department heads -- I'm currently a program chair and I am deathly afraid of pissing off my staff.
Toxic departments are very common. There is no guarantee that your next job will be better. It may be, or it may be worse in different ways.
Being unemployed really sucks. Being underemployed (adjuncting) also sucks. Both are likely possibilities given the vagaries of the job market.

You're currently spending a great deal of emotional energy on this. I would try to clear the books as quickly as possible (chocolates help) and get back to focusing on your research. There's just one currency that's universally exchangeable on the job market, and that is research publications.
If your situation sucks, keep your head down and quietly apply to other places. But don't quit until you have a job offer in hand.

"I am deathly afraid of pissing off my staff". That sounds a little odd. Your staff work for you, don't they? They should be worried about upsetting you, not the other way around. That makes it sounds a bit like the world of "Yes, Minister", where the civil service actually run the country, not the politicians.

Technically they work for me, but I am just a short blip in their careers. In another three years will be another chair, another 3-6 after then another chair. Because they hold all the institutional memory, the administrative support staff have incredible power. Yes, I suppose I could fire an individual but it would take an incredible amount of effort to do so given union rules -- and 1) the university may decide that I don't need staff if I'm firing them and so their replacements won't be authorized; 2) the actual replacement may or may not be any better.

"I'm currently a program chair and I am deathly afraid of pissing off my staff."  That sounds a little oddly insightful for a program chair. :)

Just picking out one tidbit from a comment of yourself on your question:

I'd also appreciate opinions on whether or not I'm justified being upset by the situation.

That, in a nutshell, is your problem.  Feelings are caused, not "justified".  They are no currency which you can cash in for action if they are not counterfeit.
You are willing to escalate the situation as far as it will go since you are convinced that the feelings you have in your hand beat hers.  "I take your complaint to your supervisor and raise you an official rebuke."  And you ask for advice whether you should go "all in" and put your job on the table.
But this is a game that has no winner: the house takes all anyway.  Don't worry about whether you are more righteously upset than the office admin.  The question is how you are supposed to get along while you are there and you have not seriously attempted figuring that out.  Your solution is that you want to have a permanent record on her file and then you both will get along fine and neither will be upset anymore to the degree where it would disturb the other.
You are a smart guy.  That bet has lousy odds.

I retitled this "untouchable administrative member of department" since that seems to be the crux of the issue:
the department head is in general excellent, however for reasons unknown [*] he has elevated the office admin beyond her competence and she is untouchable; you didn't sense this early enough and now you've walked into a landmine. Your issue is the political setup, not the particular issue with the new course not being ready; doesn't matter much and clearly she's out of line (although evidently she's also very insecure, and maybe if you'd privately managed to resolve it with her before it became a huge problem, this might have been avoidable; seems like she was genuinely afraid of getting the head involved, regardless whether he gives her a public rebuke or not; some would say it was a little naive to not have detected her untouchable status early enough; anyway it's too late now).
So it comes down to pragmatism vs principle; only you can weigh the following:

How many other people has the admin tangled with? Is she widely despised? Is she likely to leave/retire/get replaced(/promoted out)? You haven't supplied any context to us, we really need to know if you can muster the leverage to get her dealt with or not. Do some discreet asking around.
How long do you intend to stay there? How uncomfortable is it likely to get?
You can't get an official rebuke without at very least getting the dean involved (try that), threatening to resign, or maybe HR, which is burned-bridge territory.

[*] As to the dept head and admin's unorthodox setup, there may well be more than meets the eye, maybe he will protect her, or turn a blind eye to her excesses, or she has the goods on him. Again, try to ask around before you make a decision.
After you supply the missing information, it comes down to four options:

You don't have the muscle to rectify this. Either a) resign quietly, b) resign to the dean and/or make a formal complaint, or c) stay and have to eat shit for a while until it blows over. Only you can determine what is the best career option. Put your pride and ego aside, admittedly hard to swallow.
You do have the muscle, or she has made too many enemies. Palace coup time. Try not to alienate the dept head though. He is protecting her.
In general what they advise about conflict: only start a battle if you're pretty confident you can overwhelmingly win it. Seems doubtful based on what you've said.

You haven't told us enough to advise.
The only actionable thing I can say is to develop better radar for strange political setups like that, and the moment you do, discreetly figure out what their deal is, and don't cross insecure dangerous people needlessly.
Both academia and large organizations are stuffed with incompetent insecure people capable of being vicious who are nearly impossible to dislodge and flaunt it; the longer they're there the more intractable they get. The art is to flatter/ charm/ keep them sweet and working for you instead of against you. Strictly, this one shouldn't have been your battle.

"I foolishly agreed to a scheme proposed by the office admin...". This was indeed foolish, and extremely unusual. I have to wonder what you were thinking. To a large extent, the whole situation grew out of that. Don't let office staff make your decisions for you. They're not qualified, for one thing. I'm also unclear how someone else can "develop" a course for you. What does that even mean?
I agree with the general message of the other answers in that there is no point targeting the office admin. You should recognise that you made a mistake taking advice/suggestions from someone you should not have been taking advice from (and who isn't qualified to give it). Learn from your mistakes. The world is full of people giving bad advice. Just like the world is full of germs. You can't do anything about it, so develop better defenses. You probably have already have a filter for bad advice. So develop a better one.
Yes, it sounds like other people screwed up and behaved in less than ideal ways, but forcing them to confront their screwups isn't going to do you any good. You're not their father. And these people aren't criminals. They're your colleagues. Or department staff. Don't treat them like criminals or naughty children. I suggest you talk to the office admin, and basically say that you got off on the wrong foot, that there were some misunderstandings, and that you'd like to let byegones be byegones and get a fresh start.
I agree with others that resigning would be a gross overreaction, unless of course, you are seriously dissatisfied with the job for professional reasons.

+1 for "indeed foolish". It was a dangerous decision. OP made a mistake with agreeing to this. The situation is unpleasant, but, on the long run, my recommendation is, swallow it, and do not do it again. Putting oneself at the mercy of massive lot of undeveloped teaching material is like flying without map, or filming without script. The instructor was unreliable, and the admin inexperienced, but when one works with people, unreliability must be factored in from the outset. I have a fantastic group of people to work with, still I know - and accept - everyone's weak points.

Almost all of these answers involve some form of manipulation, political maneuvering, or else tongue-holding. These sorts of solutions ignore the fact that everyone involved is human, and as such, possess some level of humanity.
The issue here (as in all human conflict) is communication. The admin behaved very poorly. We can agree on that. But it seems clear to me that she was communicating fear. She is afraid of the department head, but more basically afraid that it will be revealed that she is in some way incompetent. Her fear led to an outburst which, of course, made her appear to be incompetent.
Now she is living with her worst fear. You know she is incompetent, and you are raising it as an issue with the people from whom she most craves respect. How terrifying!
You are afraid as well. You fear that the admin will continue to make you feel uncomfortable, negatively affect your work life, and possibly involve you in another traumatic confrontation. Valid fears if nothing changes.
As long as she believes you view her as incompetent and are attempting to convince others to view her likewise, she is likely to make all your fears a reality. So the solution is simple: convince her that you do not view her as incompetent, and that you are not attempting to persuade others.
Communicate to her the following:

You respect the amount of responsibility she has, and the volume
of work she is able to successfully organize and manage.
You understand why she was upset at you. She has a lot on her
plate and she probably felt it was unfair to hold her responsible for
the actions of another. (Avoid discussing whether her actions were
justified, including her attempts to belittle your concerns.)
You regret the confrontation you shared, and the actions you took
following it. You were attempting to prevent another conflict through
mediation, but you realize now that neither of you desire conflict.
You are afraid that your relationship may not recover, which may result in the failure to work together effectively.
You hope that after communicating you can develop an
understanding of each other to produce a relationship in which mutual
respect can survive whatever minor point of contention may arise.

Your goal is to alleviate her fear of losing respect. She needs to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you respect her. Then you can have completely acceptable interactions in which her fear does not overcome her self-control.
Most of these answers are about getting what you want, but I would recommend considering that what you want might just include relationships filled with bidirectional trust and respect.

My reaction after finishing reading this long question is:  a "Storm in a teapot" with the office admin, but a bigger problem is in the department.
Quit an academic job (assistant professor) because of some problem with an office admin? I think you are over-reacted. The person responsible really should be that instructor and the department head shares some of the responsibilities. The office admin is only the messenger.
If you really want to start a fight. Please fight against that instructor and the department head because they didn't do their jobs. Please don't target that office admin. If you get that office admin fired, do you really think the problem is solved? It won't happen again?
And I would like to say something for the students of that university. Please finish that scheme proposal for that course before you quit (if you ever quit that job) because you promised you would do it and it will be good for the students. You are a Professor in a teaching university. Please don't forget you have your responsibilities.

A lot of the answers are really good if you really needed the job.  I think by your post, you don't.
I found myself in a position almost exactly like yours at an old job.  I was a manager of a tech desk, I had a lot of credentials and found a job in a day.
The head project manager, chewed me out, belittled me, complained all the way up to senior VPs... a lot of drama.  Because I wanted to change technology (and this would involve a few of her projects being squashed).  It was my job to upgrade technology and I found it insulting that someone who didn't even understand what an IP address was, was telling me what we should use.
To make my story short, it basically turned out exactly as yours.  Bosses told me she shouldn't have done it, she had no business even having the conversation, then tried to sweep it under the rug.
How did I deal with it?
I was ultra open about it.  I was new and didn't want people talking behind my back or thinking I was some kind of doormat.
I have many examples.  One of the first was her giving me dirty looks.  I simply waited until she was talking to one of our directors and they seemed to be having a good chat.  I walked by to get a coffee and said something to the effect, "I am glad you can smile at work, I thought the dirty looks were a constant."
In a meeting she butted in loudly while I was talking a couple months in.  I simply said, "Excuse me I am talking.  I appreciated that you can be loud and slam doors but you need to wait your turn for that."  [almost everyone in the room was laughing but it was a little mean]
She promptly left the room and went to HR.  Which was funny because our HR had to write her up for her previous outburst and put her on anger management watch - if she had one more issue she would have been required to go to a class.
She left a couple months later.  I didn't try to stay away from her, ignore her, or anything like that.  I simply completely acknowledged the situation and handled it with a bit of humor.
I noticed quickly that my reaction really helped with my reputation in our offices.  First, I didn't run to HR and file a complaint.  Really this gets you nowhere and makes you look like a tattle-tale (also it is very easy for the person to just lie and act like it never happened or that you did something inappropriate).  Second, the higher-ups saw that I would not let a person railroad me or (my ideas) because they had been there 10 years and I just started.  Third, I didn't go talk behind her back and bad mouth her.  Everything I said about her was to answer a direct question from a higher up or with her in the conversation.

Tech jobs are easier to change than academic jobs.

@RoboKaren - you are joking right?  I am in academia now.  Much much easier for me to move around than the tech industry.

@RoboKaren - and you completely missed the point of my answer.  The OP said he would have no issue finding another job and didn't NEED this job.  I would only give this advise to a person in this situation.

You seem to work at an astonishingly unprofessional, antagonistic, and unpleasant place of work. Any supervisor should have talked about your behavior (hers obviously too) 1-1 at the first, or at least second occasion.

@gnometorule - Every workplace has bullies and they come in a variety of packages.  Your take is that I should have been more professional and "worked with my director" (who didn't want to deal with her and frankly could care less)?  Again I am not saying I was ultra professional.  I do know that it was a great place to work and wasn't unpleasant because I didn't let it be.  Everybody knew she was a bully, she left.  Again and maybe you are missing the point here - the author said that he can find another job with no problems.  This strategy is for those who can.

@gnometorule - To further this and to be really clear.  This is an answer to the author's specific question.  Not how you should deal with things or how an average person that got yelled at should deal with things.  It is funny that I do get downvoted for not reading the question fully sometimes but when I do and try to tailor an answer for a specific person then same thing from other side........

As I see it, the point of this answer is a bully not realizing he is one (or fondly relating he is) proudly sharing stories of extreme, hostile, passive-aggressive acts that would anyone in a professional work environment get reprimanded and, if not ceased, fired. You can suggest that OP bully similarly, but that doesn't make it a good answer.

@gnometorule - bluntly telling/converying to someone that I will not accept their bullying makes me also a bully?  If so to you then be it.


text:
Why does a UK university need to know my sexual orientation and religion?
I want to apply to a postdoc position at a UK based University.
They want me to fill a "Equal Opportunities Data" form with questions about my marital status, sexual orientation, religion and race. Why do they need that? Will there be any consequences from not specifying these?
Will the employing professor have access to the data?

I think you are allowed to not specify these, if you so wish. I was also applying to some UK positions recently and it was never obligatory.

@MarcClaesen I hope the evaluators do not have access to the information. At least during the process.

I'm pretty sure that they must also give you an explanation of: 1) Who will read that data 2) When they will be allowed to read the data 3) Who is responsible for the privacy of the data 4) A guarantee that they are using at least the minimum security measure to protect your data as defined by law. Read carefully those points, or request them.

@AE Note that the link you posted clarifies that you can do that only if the person with the "protected characteristic" is as qualified as other applicants. In other words, given equally capable applicants you can choose the one with a protected characteristic over the others for that reason. You can not choose one such person if someone else is more suitable to the job. And in any case you cannot define a policy to follow, but this decision must be done on a case-by-case basis.

I was shocked when two years ago I was an invited speaker on a workshop at a UK university, and I was asked to declare my ethnicity on a travel expenses reimbursement form (so no sensible excuse about collecting recruitment statistics), and to top it off, the field was explicitly marked as mandatory.

@Bakurui, that's right for most protected characteristics, for disability the law seems to be a bit more open.
EmilJeřábek, they've probably just made a mistake drafting their form. Any UK university discriminating against any person on grounds of ethnicity would be absolutely crucified. If it's a serious concern then contact the EASS.

@VladimirF, did the form not have a preamble indicating why they were asking and who would see it and that the information was entirely voluntary?

I think they did it for humor reason. jk, they did it so that when they compile the aggregate data they can say to the public: "hey, we have a representative distribution of all kinds of people. There is no discrimination here"

@Dancrumb Now I see they state this is not for selection purposes, but for "equal opportunities monitoring purposes". But they do not state (at least not enough clearly to me) who will have access to it after potential admission and why they need it -- what is the "equal opportunities monitoring".

@VladimirF this is standard practice in the UK with any job, its usually on a seperate form and those who make hiring decisions never see it. Its optional so don't fill it in if you don't feel comfortable but seriously it is not something to worry about.

About 8 years go, such questions for a job and bank account, in the U. S., select fields (race, age, sex) left unfilled, were filled in by the application taker to the "best of their ability".  Do not know if that applies today nor if it applies here, but passing on the thought that leaving the answer blank might somehow still get an answer by someone.

This information is completely optional (as I'm sure is stated on the form, if you look for it) and is only used in aggregate form.

I think it's absolutely daft.

I always indicate that I'm a transgendered black lesbian on such forms. I've never been called on it.

The employing professor will not have access to this data.
You can omit anything in this form.
The data from this form goes to HR and is aggregated there so they can prove to auditing bodies that the staff distribution is not skewed (i.e. that they are not discriminating on basis of whatever)

Do you have a reference for this?

only personal experience of being hired, and then interviewing people, in one UK university. these rules were written down somewhere, but since I don't work there anymore, I don't have access to the HR regulations DB.

The same is true in the US, and this information is (in my experience) always explained on the form itself.

The U.S. regulating body is called the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, you can check on their website why they do this. I am sure that the UK analogue pursues very similar purposes.

I second this, when I was applying to UK institutions it was explicitly mentioned that only HR looks at this.

This is good to know, but does not answer the question.

@CapeCode this answer specifically addresses the OP's question. Can you highlight where you think it is lacking?

@Dancrumb the question in the title and repeated in the question is why do they need this information.

"so [HR] can prove to auditing bodies that the staff distribution is not skewed"

@Dancrumb yes but why how is this relevant or useful?

@Wrzlprmft this is a relevant UK reference: http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Equalities-Monitoring-Guidance-final.pdf
However, the specific policy of the university would be what applies here. One would hope that it is a policy that is in compliance with UK law

@CapeCode Because it can be a way of detecting intentional or unintentional bias in the hiring process.  Much of the racism inherent in hiring is unintentional - white people naturally have a slight preference for other white people [and same for other races, but in many cases there are more white people in hiring positions].  It is helpful to know to what extent (if any) this applies at your place-of-work, so you can take steps to correct it if it is occurring.

But doesnt this system discriminate more? What about if all the best candidates are straight? or female? or African? Aaahhh UK, UK....

@Joe "intentional or unintentional bias". that would be simply "bias" . And given two equally capable candidates (which I've yet to ever actually encounter in my 30 years in industry) I firmly believe the less information outside the job requirements the hiring decision maker knows the better. I would prefer a PRNG selection to anything else (IOW a coin-flip in the case of two candidates). It is the only truly "fair" outcome. Nice comment, btw.

I specify both, to make clear I mean either one.  Many say "racism is dead, nobody's discriminating any more", but even if that were true for intentional bias, there would always be a fair amount of unintentional bias.

@WhozCraig In any event, the hiring decisionmaker does not have this information.  It is solely used (at least in the US, and likely in the UK from other answers here) after the fact to make sure there isn't institutional racism at the aggregate level.

As a lifelong UK resident who has filled in many forms in their life, this answer is completely correct. I'd seriously doubt that this information wasn't included on the form itself, or in the supplemental materials that came with it.

I would also add that it's a way for organisations to prove that they're not biased when someone looks at their organisation later. If someone says "Hey, you're racist, all your employees for  are white!" they can say "Here's our data; you can see that everybody that applied for the position was white" or something similar.

@AnderBiguri Thank god other people can see the lunacy of it.

@Pharap I'm glad I am not alone!

No, this information will not be made available to the hiring committee and not filling out this information will not have any negative consequences.
The university uses the data to monitor discrimination - from time to time, it is checked whether the percentage of successful applicants from minorities is roughly the same as the percentage of the respective minorities among the applicants. If the ratio is very off and the number of hirings was sufficient to indicate a "trend for discrimination", the university will take measures to prevent this in the future. And for this, they need to collect the data.

Useful answer. Note that using 'race' or 'ethnicity' as demographic categories is location dependent. Although it can be shocking when one comes from a non-Anglo-Saxon country to fill a form with a 'race' or 'ethnicity' category, it is common in these countries for a variety of reasons having to do with politics and history. It can be very puzzling (say, you are from Spain and speak Spanish, and you study in the US it's hard to figure out which category to check).

@CapeCode: I'd think that being from Spain and speaking Spanish were irrelevant to the question of ethnicity. Surely Spain contains people of many different ethnicities.

@AE so what is relevant? Does this person classifies as 'Hispanic'? Apparently not, but why? The whole thing is just absurd to anyone who is not used to American racialism.

@CapeCode: 'Hispanic' usually means someone of Latin American descent, so it would be relevant if the person was descended from a Latin American family (which someone Spanish might or might not be). The best box to tick depends on what the choices are. You usually get the option of 'other'. Worth emphasising here that the point of these questions is normally to avoid racial bias in recruitment - I wouldn't call that 'racialism'.

@AE there are multiple issues with the concept of 'Latin American descent' but this is not the place to discuss it. Just keep in mind that when racial categories are normal in an Anglo-Saxon/American setting, they are uncommon and surprising to newcomers.

@CapeCode: yes, I'm sure that's true (multiple issues). I thought about some of them as I was writing that comment but didn't feel I had the space to get into it.   Still, it's better that they monitor their recruitment process for potential bias - even if that monitoring is imperfect - than that they ignore the issue of bias altogether, which is what happens if you don't collect this data.

It would be illegal for them to take this type of information into account when making hiring decisions - it would be 'direct discrimination':

It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:

age
being or becoming a transsexual person
being married or in a civil partnership
being pregnant or having a child
disability
race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
religion, belief or lack of religion/belief
sex
sexual orientation

These are called ‘protected characteristics’.
You’re protected from discrimination in these situations:

at work
in education
as a consumer
when using public services
when buying or renting property
as a member or guest of a private club or association

https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/types-of-discrimination
As other people have already said, many employers collect this information (while keeping it secret from the people making the hiring decision) in order to ensure that their recruitment process doesn't contain systemic 'indirect discrimination', which is:

putting rules or arrangements in place that apply to everyone, but that put someone with a protected characteristic at an unfair disadvantage.

https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/how-you-can-be-discriminated-against
If you leave that section of the form blank then it should not count against you in your job application (often the form will say this on it somewhere).
There is an exception in that 'positive discrimination' is (since a change in the law quite recently) allowed in certain, quite limited, circumstances:

Employing people with protected characteristics
You can choose a job candidate who has a protected characteristic over one who doesn’t if they’re as suitable for the job and you think that people with that characteristic:

are underrepresented in the workforce, profession or industry
suffer a disadvantage connected to that characteristic (eg people from a certain ethnic group are not often given jobs in your sector)

You can only do this if you’re trying to address the under-representation or disadvantage for that particular person. You must make decisions on a case by case basis and not because of a certain policy.
You can’t choose a candidate who isn’t as suitable for the job just because they have a protected characteristic.
Disabled people
When recruiting you can treat a disabled person more favourably than a non-disabled person because of their disability.

https://www.gov.uk/employer-preventing-discrimination/recruitment
See also: The Equality Act 2010 and positive action - Commons Library Standard Note
If you find that an employer is breaking the law in respect of discrimination, then contact the Equality Advisory and Support Service (free).

Some examples of the types of issues we have advised on:

An individual who was unhappy about the way that the younger clientele at work treated him and spoke to him because he was an older person.
A Trans individual, who had transitioned from male to female, who worked for a security company and reapplied for a security pass only to discover that the process for renewing her pass had disclosed the fact she had undergone gender reassignment surgery.

http://www.equalityadvisoryservice.com/app/about

Under the equal opportunity act UK employers are not allowed to discriminate on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
These forms allow them to help check that this is not happening by comparing the characteristics of successful and unsuccessful candidates, as well as the general population.
The data should be treated as confidential, although exact wording varies between forms.
Completing such forms is generally not compulsory and most forms will have a prefer not to say option for most categories.
My advice if you are still concerned would be to contact whowever is running the admissions process and ask them (politely) what the data will be used for. They should be able to tell you (or find out).

As a lecturer and department head, at least in the UK I can tell you this answer is far simpler than those above.
Colleges and universities are able to sell the information gained from the equal opportunities segment of our application forms. There is no legal requirement to include it in the process, but it does generate extra income which every educational establishment is fighting for these days.
You do not have to put anything, and I would actually advise you not to. It does not form any part of the administrative profiling for students, and the majority of the time teachers never even see these forms once you fill them in and any employers would certainly never have access to them.

Jay, are you sure? Selling 'sensitive personal data' without the consent of the individual whose data it is (and without meeting any of the other conditions for processing), is very definitely illegal under the Data Protection Act. Could this just be an urban myth among the university's staff?

Yes, I am very sure. It is not illegal at all and is not considered sensitive as it is sold on as simple statistical numbers. It would be illegal if it contained names for example, but to sell on the information that there are X number of homosexual students at X college is legal.

Oh sure, of course it's legal for them to disclose the demographic mix of the college. That's not the same thing as selling individuals' personal data.

@JayCobb Why would teachers see this information anyway? (Not least, in this case, because the asker is applying to be an employee, not a student.)

@David Richerby, I am also concerned by the "majority of the time" statement. If any teachers are seeing any of these forms it most likely represents at least a breach of internal procedures, if not an offence.

The general idea behind "equal opportunity" employment is that if two candidates appear equally suitable for the job, the candidate with a more favourable "minority status" will be selected.
You may always ask if it's compulsory to give that information. My personal stance is that none of that information is relevant to the job, so the employer has no need to know.
Edit: Contrary to the comments suggesting I am wrong, this does happen, though not in the UK. For example, see the DESY.de jobs website.

"Comment on all job offers:
  Handicapped persons will be given preference to other equally qualified applicants. DESY supports the careers of women and therefore encourages especially women to apply."

NOAO says:

Preference granted to qualified Native Americans living on or near the Tohono O’odham reservation.

I don't know how widespread this sort of policy is. But if I can find one institute in Germany and another in the USA, surely I can find more.

The other answers suggest that this information is not even part of the hiring decision. Do you have evidence to suggest that it is?

I do not believe this is correct. In fact most of these forms explicitly state that the information will not be shown to the selection committee.

@NateEldredge This is what I remember from reading a couple of job adverts a while back. I guess I was mistaken in thinking that was a common policy. Hey, maybe I even remember incorrectly. Consider this answer a "senior moment", unless I can dig up the employer's policy that said this.

Such positive discrimination would likely be illegal under UK law: "positive discrimination continues to be illegal in most cases". Parliamentary Briefing Note: The Equality Act 2010 and positive action

For times when positive discrimination is legal, see https://www.gov.uk/employer-preventing-discrimination/recruitment (section "Employing people with protected characteristics")

@Moriarty Under UK law, they're not allowed to do anything stronger than encouraging minority candidates to apply.

@NateEldredge Evidence found, post updated. Although it may not happen in the UK, it does happen elsewhere. I was unaware of the UK laws that would likely prohibit these cases.

The downvotes on answers such as this, particularly this one with some research and definite references behind it, demonstrates just how easily such ignorant policies can stay in place for so long.

@zxq9 the downvotes occurred before I added references, and my claim is still wrong for UK universities (as are specified in the question). The downvotes to my original answer were fair and justified.

It can happen legally in the UK, people with a particular "protected characteristic" just need to be demonstrably under-represented in a particular "workforce, profession or industry". I.e. you can't positive-discriminate unless there's proof of existing negative discrimination in your particular field against people with the characteristics of this particular applicant. Exception: in the case of disability it's always legal. See the final two sections of  https://www.gov.uk/employer-preventing-discrimination/recruitment

@AE Incidentally, the part you linked is the built-in defense for the pressure/agenda situation you asked about in a comment to my own response. The government has made it legal to positive-discriminate against those who have the lowest perceived claim to injury. The favorable balance indicates this course of action rather than merely making appearances or actually avoiding discrimination. The sad part of this is that discrimination is still the best choice, its just discrimination made legal.

Some good responses to this question are already supplied (especially to OP's "Why do they need that? Will there be any consequences from not specifying these? Will the employing professor have access to the data?").
What there seems still to be lacking in the answers is any specific data from the UK university sector. This is not hard to find, and here are a couple of representative examples:

University of Cambridge

We understand that some applicants may not wish to provide sensitive personal information to us at this stage, which is why we have provided the option to answer each equal opportunities question with ‘Prefer not to say’.

University of Nottingham

It is not necessary for you to include personal information in the main body of your application form, e.g. sex, age, marital or civil partnership status, gender reassignment, sexual orientation, nationality, country of birth, religion.

A lot more information is found on even those two pages, and many universities put their policies online in PDF form, so not so convenient for linking here. This sort of search also demonstrates that such policies and procedures are found across the sector, and not restricted to a few odd-ball institutions.

So they can prove that they aren't discriminating against non-majority race/sex/orientation individuals. The unfortunate bit is that this means they must prioritize anything in the non-majority r/s/o category (usually something rather specific, depending on the prevailing politics), which has the unfortunate effect of de-prioritizing folks who happen to fall into the category considered "the majority" (which is often a perceived majority and not an actual one, if a majority even exists).
Your professors or whoever else don't have access to individual information of this sort, it is used as an aggregate for central planning authorities. Isn't politics lovely?

Another answer pointed out that "positive discrimination" of the kind you're referring to is in fact very limited (by law) in the UK. The question specifically refers to a UK university.

@ff524 You're right, because the law is always upheld, especially when it is in conflict with an organizational agenda.

The other answers also point out that the people making the hiring decisions don't have access to this information at the time they're doing the hiring, which makes the kind of "positive discrimination" you refer to impossible.

@ff524 Since when are universities are exempt from The Equality Act of 2010? Were they also exempt from the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975, Race Relations Act of 1976, and Disability Discrimination Act of 1996? To pretend that there is no bureaucratic pressure at all is a bit simple. The history of the origin of such entries even existing on application forms traces to this very phenomenon.

@zxq9: What is the "organizational agenda" and "bureaucratic pressure" that you're talking about? If you read the relevant Act you'll find it's not about being in a minority but rather being in a group which is discriminated against. And why shouldn't central government have access to demographic information?

@AE To prove discrimination one must prove intent. This is close to impossible. There are penalties for appearing to discriminate, whether true or not. This is the bureaucratic pressure. The agenda of any organization is to survive, and part of that is avoiding negative perceptions, particularly of the primary fiscal patron (the government, which set the non-discrimination rules itself). It then becomes a tradeoff among appearing to take measures, injuring those who have a weaker claim to injury to improve one's numbers, and taking actual measures to avoid discrimination.

@zxq9: no, I don't believe you have to prove intent. You just have to show that you have been "treated unfairly because of a protected characteristic". See: Employment tribunals - the general legal tests that tribunals will apply to your discrimination claim

@AE How do we distinguish "because of a protected characteristic" from any other cause without addressing intent? An underqualified candidate may have been denied because of quality or because of a "protected characteristic"; a claim can exist even if the claimant is underqualified if the court determines that the reason was the protected characteristic, and this is indeed a proof of intent. The wording of the rule may not read that way to allow the law to be "testable", but there is no dodging that a proof of intent is what is required.

@zxq9: even if the claimant is under-qualified? Really? Do you have links or case law to show that?

@AE In the case of U.S. law this situation was explicitly included as an EEOC reaction to "Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989)" in USC 42 § 2000e-5(g)(2)(B) (related discussion of "Preston v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1994)"). The ambiguity still exists in the current UK Equality Act of 2010 but does not appear to have yet occurred in UK case law; it is uncertain which precedent UK courts will choose to set (follow the US and rule the employer liable or not) but a case could certainly be filed under the current wording.

@AE But anyway, this response has been downvoted and probably marked for removal already by someone eager to free the site of what they perceive as controversy, as opposed to actually examining law and legitimate use cases. Checking takes time and sucks, and one often discovers that reality isn't the one assumed and hoped for.

source: Stack Exchange

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

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава

sort: votes


text:
Does giving compliments to the fellowship help?
The fellowship (I'll call it XYZ) I'm applying to requires me to write a personal statement (note that this is not a research statement). This is their definition:

The Personal Statement includes information about the  applicant’s background, practical experience, special interests, and career goals, with some attention to  plans  after  degree  completion.

After satisfying all the needed information, and trying not to be bombastic, I intend to compliment them a little bit, like this:

I have been in regular contact with the XYZ team via email and I am pleased to say that they respond promptly and quickly.

Do compliments help? Will they feel that I'm fawning over them, so I make a bad impression? Will it be not good but not bad, and just a waste of space (which I don't have) and a waste of their time to read such a useless thing (which it may be)? If it does help, how much?
I think we should have an Impression tag

Which does it address: your background, practical experience, special interests, career goals, or plans after degree completion?

Erm , all?

More likely none. It's flatter. With that said, you're still free to take liberty in expression.

@PatriciaShanahan oops, sorry, I misunderstood your question. Sure, none. But that's why I ask this question.

@IvanIvković sure, but should I?

The point I am trying to make is that they have asked you to cover specific topics in your Personal Statement. The best way of showing respect for the granters is to do as they asked.

Re "I have been in regular contact with the XYZ team via email and I am pleased to say that they respond promptly and quickly.", to me that comes over as patronising, which is even worse than fawning. Strongly suggest you leave it out.

@AE what? I don't even think that it can be patronising. Which part makes you think so?

@Ooker, it's because you're giving them a "well done!" for doing something very easy ("respond[ing] promptly and quickly"). If you were impressed with the world-class quality of their research then that would be different, but being impressed with their ability to reply promptly to emails ......

Only if it's the Fellowship of the Ring.

@AE oh I see. My initial idea is using minutely and quickly (minutely for detail-y, since there is no such word for that). My native friend suggests that it would be more natural to be promptly and quickly. I didn't expect to have their respond after some hours with much detail, so I impressed.

@Nit Can you explain the joke? I don't get it.

Leave it out.  I think it definitely comes across as fawning.  It's clearly irrelevant to your qualifications and plans, which is what the personal statement is supposed to be about, so it shouldn't be included.
If the fellowship's administrative staff have been particularly helpful, you could send a separate email or letter saying thanks.  But this shouldn't be part of the application.

On the other hand, "I have been in regular contact with the XYZ team via email and I am pleased to say this has resulted in new research idea A for me and a change of direction towards B for them" seems completely on-topic -- and potentially more complimentary anyway.

@daniel: Remember that XYZ in this case is the organization sponsoring a fellowship. I was assuming the email contacts related to administrative details of the application process.

@DanielWagner so do you agree that compliment is good, as long as it's appropriate?

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


text:
Undergraduate transcript for graduate addmission
If your undergraduate degree transcript shows that you failed one subject, and in the other you barely passed but still you have a good WAM (say 85) or GPA (say 6.5 out of 7), would those two subjects in your transcript destroy your chances of being admitted?
To be more specific, I graduated last year with a combined degree (Electrical engineering and Mathematics). I got 40 in Digital Fundamentals and 61 in physics. These two subjects were first year, first semester subjects of my undergraduate. All my other grades were greater than 85. My current GPA is 6.8 (out of 7) and my WAM (weighted average mark) is 86 (out of 100). The second time that I did digital fundamentals, I got 96.
I am planning to do a phd in electrical engineering.

You're not going to like this, but the answer is, "it depends."
If you flunked computer science, it'll be hard to find a CS program that will take you.  If you flunked underwater basket weaving and want admission to a CS program, well, that might work.  If "failed one subject" means "failed one course," that might not be too bad.  If it means "never passed even one history course, " not so much.
It also depends on how long it's been since you were an undergraduate.  Admissions committees understand that people mature and that a poor showing in the distant past doesn't necessarily mean you'll be a poor scholar today.
To be blunt, it also depends on the school to which you apply.  Harvard probably won't take you, but there could be schools that might.  Pick a couple, visit them in person with a copy of your transcript, and ask.  You'll need an appointment for that personal visit; if you just show up, no telling who will talk to you.  You're visiting in person to show them you're serious.

Those two subjects were first year subjects. The one failed was a subject about digital fundamentals and the other was first year physics.

That doesn't sound fatal, unless you're applying to a EE program, and maybe not even then.  Consider editing your question to include this information, your undergraduate major, and what kind of graduate program you want.  You'll get far better answers if you supply more information.

You may get better answers than mine with the added information.  I do not think your situation is anything like hopeless.

With my added information, do you think that some universities would reject my application?

Sure.  Harvard probably still won't take you. {grin}  But, as I wrote earlier, I don't think the situation is hopeless at all.  Ask them!  You can visit, as I suggested, or just send in a couple of applications and See What Happens.

If you flunked computer science, it'll be hard to find a CS program that will take you. — But, from my own personal experience, not impossible.

I should say it depends to what school you are applying. GPA is considered as an important factor but I should tell you something. GPA is considered as a negative factor meaning that most of graduate schools have a threshold GPA and if your GPA is below that then you are not considered as a competitive and if your GPA is higher than that then they will consider other factors in your application.
 You see that every graduate school requires you to upload your transcript because transcript shows whether you have have failed the course, have received late drop,have received an incomplete grade and many other things. They also look what course you have taken and what grades you have received in your transcript. Now the answer to your question varies based on your interest.If you want to study electrical Engineering then your Electrical engineering courses are more important for admission and specifically within Electrical Engineering courses those that stress more on your research and your pathway caries more weight. For example, if you are studying communication or control theory physic might not be that big of deal but if you are planning to study solid state or photonics low grade in physic might be a matter of concern.
Important point you should consider is that most of graduate schools ask you to upload additional documents such as your personal statement or something similar to  that. This lets you explain why you receive a bad grade in your physic and Digital fundamental course and how you improve your grades.


text:
Do the results of evaluating cutting-edge methods in an industrial setting constitute new knowledge?
For example, suppose a new programming language is invented and some research regarding it is published, containing small, "toy" examples of its application. Suppose then that someone else takes this language and evaluates it in a real industrial case study, and reports on its usefulness and/or shortcomings.
My question about this second report is twofold:

Is it novel research (I suspect it probably is)
Would this kind of work be appropriate for a PhD thesis?

Can you taste a drink without drinking it? Nobody here can answer this broad question without having precise information about it.

Apologies, I have edited the question to include an example that will hopefully make things clearer.

Science focuses on the acquisition of new knowledge.
"Does this really work outside the lab?" is a valid question on which to acquire knowledge.  Industry usage of a method often requires changes in scale and context which pose fundamentally new challenges to overcome.
Not all industrial evaluations, however, would be meaningful science.  The distinction is whether the information acquired by the evaluation constitutes a contribution to human knowledge or if it is just a recommendation for a decision by the company.
For example, I saw a talk yesterday which included future work to evaluate a new membrane material in an industrial water-treatment facility.  Let's see some examples of how this evaluation might be science or not:

Science: When used at scale, is water quality maintained to appropriate standards? How well does the material hold up over time?
Not Science: Will this be easy to integrate into the current procedures of this particular plant?  What business and legal contracts will be necessary to switch suppliers?

Thanks for your answer. I think the distinction between different kinds of acquired information is an important one that I hadn't thought about.


text:
To include part of a published paper in a dissertation?
Context
It's becoming common in the natural sciences for grad students to include papers they have previously published as part of their dissertation as a "sandwich thesis" or "stapled thesis". Some joke about merely "stapling three papers together with an intro and conclusion" and calling it a dissertation. This allows grad students to focus on doing research rather than writing a monolithic document in addition to any other publications.
My Concerns
This practice -- though I love the intent -- concerns me because I care about copyright issues. If I've published a paper, the publisher has the copyright, so I may not be able to use my own work in a dissertation that gets published.
My Question
Assuming that this practice is approved of by one's dissertation committee and university, how might one go about doing this correctly? What legal requirements might there be?
Although the following list of questions might be best split into multiple questions on this site, my intent is to clarify what kinds of procedures I'm asking about.

Which Creative Commons licenses would permit this?
Would one need to ask permission from the publisher(s) of the paper(s)? (I assume so....)
Does it matter whether or not the manuscript(s) are published under an open-access license?
Does it matter how the dissertation is published?
If this is allowed under any circumstances, how much modification is appropriate? Would the paper(s) need to be reproduced in their published form (i.e. with the publisher's typesetting et al.), or could the author copy-paste the text into their dissertation with new formatting?

I acknowledge that this question is similar to Can I use the work in my journal/conference publications as chapters in my dissertation?. Whereas that question broadly asked whether such a practice was permissible, I'm asking more about how to handle copyright issues — assuming one's committee and institution are okay with it.

I have never signed a copyright agreement that didn't explicitly assign back to me the right to use the paper in a thesis of mine as part of its standard text. Is that not usual?

Why are you asking us, instead of consulting the journal's copyright agreement?

@AnonymousPhysicist Because I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one with this question. Sure, the journal’s copyright info is critical, but even if it’s permissive, there may be other obstacles.

The copyright issues are the same as always. If you don't hold copyright on something, say you have given it to a publisher, then you need permission from the copyright holder to reproduce it for publication.
But you also need to be clear, if you just include copies of old work (copy paste) that you cite the original to avoid claims of self plagiarism. Claiming old work as new (or seeming to) is normally treated as an ethical lapse, similar to treating the work of others as your own. Cite and be safe.
To me, a "stapled dissertation" should be exactly that. An introduction, some material tying everything together, a conclusion, and literally stapling copies of the old papers. I doubt that very many would agree with me, but if that is what it is, then present it as such. Those places that permit such dissertations believe that a doctoral should be awarded for a body of work not necessarily for a single major work. The philosophy is sound, though I've never used it. That is to say, the "joke" isn't really a joke. It is fine if permitted by your committee and university.
Creative commons doesn't apply if you have all rights to your own work. Any license or no license would be fine. But it is the permission of the actual copyright holder that is needed. If they have licensed it generally under Creative Commons then it is likely that you can rely on the generally permissive nature of those licenses in your work. But if not, you can request permission (an individual license) to do what you want to do. I think that most reputable journals and conferences would be happy to give you back any required permissions, while they still hold the copyright.

Stop worrying about this.  No legitimate academic journal is going to come after anybody for reusing material from their own published paper in a thesis.  Doing that is just a normal part of the research process.

I have taught hundreds of students the importance of academic integrity and obeying copyright laws, and hope to teach thousands more the same. It doesn’t matter whether or not you get caught. I’m not about to disregard all that I’ve taught.

@jvriesem it's not about getting caught or not, it's that a publisher that decided to disallow students from using their published work in a thesis would basically be putting themselves out of business, because they would be avoided like the plague.

Here’s part of the copyright transfer agreement from IOP Publishing which relates to residual rights of the authors.

3.2 The rights are:
...
3.2.2 To include the Final Published Version of the Article (all or part) in a research thesis or dissertation provided it is not then published commercially;
3.2.3 To make oral presentation of the Final Published Version of the Article (all or part) and to include a summary and/or highlights of it in papers distributed at such presentations or in conference proceedings; and...

so you’d be covered there under 3.2.2. I could hunt down the agreements for other publishers but I can’t recall any publisher being at great variance from what is above.
Of course it is better to check ahead of time but I would be amazed to find an instance where permission is NOT granted: no sane thesis director would publish there with any student, and the journal would loose out.

Copyright issues are significant when doing a hybrid or a thesis by publication. In the early 2000s, there was the suggestion to focus on journals that are open-access due to copyright fears. Now that advice is not as relevant as most publishers accept the importance of e-theses and storage at an institutional repository (as ZeroTheHero suggested). It was only recently that the Elsevier changed their sharing policy on etheses to support PhD student publications.

Theses and dissertations which contain embedded PJAs as part of the formal submission can be posted publicly by the awarding institution with DOI links back to the formal publications on ScienceDirect

Realise that PhD students are a major player in the academic publishing world. I heard a speaker say that nearly 50 to 60% of articles are written by students, PhD/Masters etc (google is not coming up with evidence for me). So no surprise that if PhD students are starting to avoid journals with their significant research, then journals will react to protect their impact factor.
Another issue, hybrid theses has evolved over time as well from the 1990s. In general, it is no longer acceptable to cobble together a thesis - "stapling three papers together with an intro and conclusion and calling it a dissertation". Hybrid theses now need to adhere to a coherent narrative throughout. Publications that don't add or fit the narrative tend to go into the appendix now.

a research thesis is a coherent and cohesive narrative describing a body of scholarly activity that adds to knowledge.
  At the University a collection of published papers is not a thesis, neither is a publication on its own sufficient to warrant the award of a research degree - Sydney Uni theses including publications

"The suggestion is to focus on journals that are open-access even if they are lower ranking due to copyright fears. " Suggested by whom? I never heard about a single case where a non-open-access journal took action against someone who reused material from a paper for their PhD thesis.

There has been instances where publishers have refused hence advice like this is given - "If permission has not been obtained at the time your thesis is submitted, please remove the materials for which permission was not received from the public version of your thesis. In the place of the redacted materials, you may include a short statement, such as: "Publication has been removed due to copyright restrictions” - https://openresearch.anu.edu.au/contribute/contribute-your-thesis  - hearsay and feelings should not be the basis of advice for PhD students unfortunately.

This 2011 study was referred to in the ANU link found that 4.5% of publishers would refuse e-theses or repository submissions and 13.5% of publishers would want substantial changes. I couldn't find a recent survey, but you are probably right and all journals would accept etheses re-publication and repositories now. My comment was more a discussion about the history of hybrid theses.

That source doesn't support the suggestion to focus on open-access journals. Also, it's arguably a poor suggestion: There's hardly a point in submitting to a lower-ranked journal, when there's higher-ranked non-OA journals that support e-thesis republication. -> Downvoted

The point is that assuming that a non-OA publication will support e-publication due personal experience is a very poor choice. Not checking and not getting a case by case decision by the editor and publisher can render the article useless in a thesis by publication. Open access was the advice especially ten years ago. No longer relevant now as the big publishers have moved to recognize and accept e-publications.

That would be an OK point, but it's not what the answer suggests.

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


text:
Need help — Principal investigator with abusive behavior
I am doing a postdoc with a principal investigator (PI) at an American university. Research is going great, with three publications in one year.
But the PI has serious issues. I would say he is a psychopath. I would have probably laughed in the past if someone would have used this description, but now it seems the best description and apparently he has the reputation to be this kind of person and a long list of postdocs who have suddenly left.
He lies endlessly, changes agreements we had (even behind my back, telling other scientists involved I would have agreed to things I did not agree to). If he does not get what he wants, even if it is unreasonable, he starts yelling. He has also been throwing around things in the office.
He also does not work scientifically, I don't know what he does. I have my own money, and he does not want me to leave because of that, but also does not treat me in any way well.
He also threatens me: If I leave, he will ruin my career. I have already an offer from another PI but am super scared that my current PI intervenes and I would lose my visa over that. Apparently he has intervened in the past when postdocs had offers such that offers were cancelled. How should I proceed? I am scared and can't focus, hate myself for that but can't handle the situation mentally. Feel like trapped. I love science and don't want to leave academia.

"Apparently he has intervened in the past when postdocs had offers such that offers were cancelled" - where did you get this information from? From your PI or from actual former postdocs? Talk to the latter if you can.

Run. Go away from him as soon as possible and expose him

One of my friends was in a similar situation. After having one of his job offers canceled at the intervention of his boss, he searched quietly and left without warning. I'm not sure what your boss can do about your visa, once you accepted and signed an offer elsewhere. You need to talk to someone who really knows the legal aspects.

I know it from other prior postdocs that he intervened. I reached out to them as soon as things got difficult. I am, right now, his only student (postdoc or otherwise) at all.

This person might be a psychopath except those are usually cleverer and more manipulative than this PI sounds. There may be  a serious mental illness or even brain injury involved if they have uncontrollable anger. Find a way out, as far away as possible. Consider which is more important, your sanity or your visa. Get advice from the college counsellor. Say that you are actually scared for your physical safety. Get the counsellor or another trusted person to sit with you in any meetings. Unfortunately these people exist. I was lucky only to meet one during my career. Never again. Good luck.

You say I am doing a postdoc with a principal investigator (PI)... but also I have my own money... I'm probably misunderstanding (that "principal investigator" usually implies "grant-holder"), but if you are 100% funded per se such as a research fellowship then maybe the funding body can help: they will be keener to get the work completed at another institution rather than being abandoned completely, and may be able to encourage other groups to take you on in spite of your boss's tantrums.

Is it possible to have an independent third person who can sit in on your meetings?  That at least maintains your safety as there is someone else in the room with you.

You've got your three publications and research is going well, can't you just keep your head down whilst you use those to secure a job elsewhere, then once you have that just tell them you are leaving for a new position, what can they do?

I want to emphasize one point of @chasly-reinstateMonica's remark if you decide to report him: Repeatedly state that you are scared for your safety and feel extremely worried that he might harm you. Some people have a higher likelihood to treat the situation seriously if you keep repeating about your safety. Don't add false exaggeration, but definitely don't miss out any single problematic behaviour towards you, especially if it could be interpreted as a threat, implicit or not.

In my view you have three options: sit out, leave and stand up.
I share some thoughts about standing up. Your institution must have a behavioral integrity policy. You can talk to an ombudsperson or thrust person. You can do this anonymously. You are not the first and this is important information. Document the cases. Try to find and speak to your predecessors. What have they done in their situations and why? What was their outcome? What advise do you get from your ombudsperson or thrust person?
It takes a lot of courage to walk this route which in the end may lead to a formal complaint against this PI. There is no guarantee for success. Apparently this PI has been protected for a long time already on the expense of people with temporary contracts and lesser power. But it depends on history. You are not the first.
I cannot give you a single advice. If you can emotionally detach yourself, you can sit out your contract. But I understand you bring your own money. I fear he will not let you go easily anyhow. You are valuable to this PI bringing in research results and publications. You are feeding your PI.
If you can’t emotionally detach yourself, you should leave or stand up.
When leaving, do not be afraid that this PI may harm your reputation in science. Science is a huge place and your PI will have a reputation too. Trust me, PI’s loosing postdocs, PhD’s and students, not delivering results (publications and grants) are not taken that seriously. Especially when you can show your results.

Just reading someones empathetic words helps. And the options make sense. Thank you

Re first sentence: A.O. Hirschman famously called these options "exit", "voice", and "loyalty".

If you have the other offer and you are about to take it, make sure everything is ready so that you can jump ship in one fell swoop. Do take care that your PI does not know your other option, until everything is in a safe way. Is your other offer at a different institution? Good. Is it at your current institution? More difficult, tread carefully.

@henning--reinstateMonica Please clarify. Hirschman identified two options, "exit" and "voice", and described "loyalty" as a factor affecting the choice between the two. So they are not the same as Peter's three options. As I see it: "exit" = "leave"; "voice" = "stand up"; and "sit out" is bearing it in silence, which is not what Hirschman meant by "loyalty".

Some crazy people are worth working with, others not. Try not to internalize the craziness if you decide to stay. Consider whether there is any upside to staying other than avoiding retaliation.

Being in your shoes is extremely difficult. But from my related experiences the best option, in my opinion, is to leave this PI.  The moment he throws something or yells, immediately raise a complaint with the university. Throwing something at someone with the intent to injure is a criminal offence. Your PI might very well lose his job. Yelling at you is tantamount to bullying you which directly affects your mental health.
It is the duty of your university to provide a safe environment for working. You mental and physical health is under threat. And it is a breach of your fundamental rights. Therefore, give a written complaint with precise and accurate wordings.
But even before that, do not let anyone abuse you or threaten you.  The moment your PI does something unscientific challenge him on the face. Ask him such questions over email and demand email responses. Also tell him that his behaviour is causing you issues, again, over email. Build a strong case for yourself. You could think about cc-ing this email to other support structures in your university.
Get an immigration lawyer. You cannot let such people and universities bully you in the name of the visa. This is exploitation and unacceptable in the democratic free world.
Know your rights and under no circumstances let anyone breach it. You are a scientist, you are special, be proud of it and act like one. While you are doing this do not let your research get slowed down. I know it is difficult, but it is a must.
Do the right thing while being smart about it.

If you believe this person is abusive, the first step is to quietly discuss this with students/postdocs in the group or who are or were otherwise in contact with this person.  If indeed this is not a singular issue, then you should quietly talk to either the chair/graduate chair/some faculty member to discuss the situation.
Please be sure to establish first that your observations are shared by others.
You will not get any mileage out of the claim he doesn’t do anything academically.  The reality is that this person might be instrumental in getting funding for the group, without which the research endeavour is impossible.  Moreover, suggesting that someone’s a liar should be done very carefully, as circumstances in research are subject to constant revisions.  You need to establish facts not about lying or laziness but about abusive behaviour and/or bullying.
I do not have first hand experience of the type you describe, but I am aware of cases where abusive faculty members were sanctioned by the unit in one form or another, v.g. this person can no longer take students or postdocs until some remedial action has been completed.
While this may not be immediately useful in your case, this kind of sanction also came - in the cases I know - with some sort of anti-retaliation clauses, and other means of supporting the students/postdocs/technicians so they could switch elsewhere without penalty.

In general, in my experience, the universities do not care about a particular student or postdoc. They care more about their permanent employees. So from the perspective of OP, it is better if they fight this on their own. It is easier for the university to help a specific person without punitive action on someone else.

Get an immigration lawyer.  We can't give you legal advice.
Leave.  This PI is abusive.

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