text:
Teaching high school math between PhD and postdoc
I am considering spending a few years, perhaps two or three, teaching math in a high school between completing a mathematics PhD and moving on to my first postdoc. My ultimate goal is a professorship, and I'm particularly interested in teaching at the university level (still undecided on how important doing research is to me).
I've been told a few times that taking any sort of break or gap year makes it more difficult to continue on the standard track in academia afterwards. I'm well aware that getting a professorship in math is not an easy thing. I am hoping to get some more opinions on how much such a break could hurt my chances of getting back into academia, or how I could mitigate the adverse effects. Many thanks in advance.
This is all taking place in the US. I am currently an undergrad (planning far ahead).

I don't think it's reasonable or possible to plan this far ahead. Finish your undergraduate degree, go on to grad school in math, see what math and research and academia feel like at that level. Flexibly adjust goals and plans as you learn more math and more about yourself.

if you'd like to teach high school and eventually be a professor, you have to do the high school teaching before getting your PhD. (speaking from a US/STEM perspective)

@JohnMadden I see, thanks. For logistical/personal reasons, I need to be taking this break between PhD and postdoc

@rake that's going to be tough, because people evaluate your productivity in terms of production/(years since PhD), loosely speaking.

I would personally advise against it, it's tougher than you may think.  Also, did you ever get a degree in math education?  If not, it will be hard to pursue K-12 in most U.S. schools.

@JosephDoggie You do not need a degree in math education in order to teach mathematics in the US.  Typically, what you need is a secondary education teaching certification.  Usually, the easiest way to get such a certification is to get a math ed degree, but that isn't the only way to go about things.  For example, my BA is in mathematics; I completed a secondary ed credential while completing that degree.

A PhD student is beyond a full-time job, it's a life style really. You will not have time to properly do your PhD and teach high School. Not to mention, having a teaching background won't really help you as much as having good research.

Perhaps I should clarify something: I am not planning to do this to improve my chances of getting a professorship, but rather in spite of the fact that I realize it probably won't.

Also @SpencerKraisler, I understand but I'm not planning to be a grad student and teach high school simultaneously.

Getting a postdoc in general is quite hard.  I'm not saying that it's impossible, but I think teaching high school for a while and getting onto a postdoc would be difficult.  My friend is a school mathematics teacher after doing her PhD and it is extremely time consuming.

I don't understand how you can be an undergraduate and planning to take a break after a PhD "for logistical/personal reasons".  That's at least six years away.

It may sound absurd, but teaching is not a skill required for professorships.
To land an academic professorship position you may need to have some minimum bureaucratic criteria, i.e. "having been TA in 3 courses for at least 3 years" or the more general "the candidate must demonstrate teaching experience", but no one is expecting that you took years outside from research/PhD/postdoc positions to develop these skills. It is expected that you gained these teaching skills in parallel with your research experience.
So if your goal is to become a university professor, the way (especially in the US) is to publish as effectively as you can and get as many grants as possible (but the larger the better).
Being a high school teacher for some years is absolutely detrimental to both these two things (with this I do not mean that being a high school teacher is a bad thing, quite on the contrary, it is a very important role in our society, albeit not well rewarded nor recognized ... ).
Disclaimer: there may be some peculiar things related to mathematics. Please chip in with field specific suggestions.

The exception would be a professor position for teaching math educators (e.g., you teach people how to teach K-12 math). Here's an example profile https://www.uwlax.edu/profile/mchedister/ I've known other similar people who (often) start out a K-12 educators and then realized they want to teach at a university.

But, I agree with your advice, unless the OP wants to be a person who trains K-12 educators.

@RichardErickson I don't think the teaching standards are higher to be a math ed faculty than a research math faculty, but I agree K-12 experience would be more common in that case.  (I'm not sure what "exception" you were talking about---to teaching not being a skill required or it being detrimental?)

This depends on whether you want a professorship at a large research university or a small liberal arts college, where they actually care about teaching.

@PeterShor Even at small, private, liberal arts colleges, there is generally an expectation that faculty will conduct research and produce papers, though this is often with an eye toward conducting undergraduate research programs.  Even at such institutions, taking time out of academia to teach high school is likely to be something of a wash in terms of CV building.

@Kimball in my experience with R1 universities, historically teaching ability/experience often does not help obtain a faculty position. However, I have met several faculty at regional compressive universities who teach in the edu programs (e.g., math, environmental,  physical) where people started their careers as K-12 educations, realized they wanted to teach completed at least an MS or MA (often PhD or EdD) and ended up as TT faculty. These people were hired because of their K-12 experience. But, they are outliers that make the rule.

This is especially relevant in mathematics. Teaching gets you nothing. Since mathematics is broadly considered as part of the sciences now, pedagogy is almost irrelevant from the perspective of your application package. You need to publish and get grants. That's it.

Personal background
I include the following in order to establish my bona fides with respect to both secondary and post-secondary education.
My bachelors degree is in mathematics, with a minor in secondary education.  I was certified by the State of Nevada to teach mathematics at the middle school and high school levels (6th grade and above in the district I worked in).  After completing my credential, I spent a couple of years going from one long-term substitute job to another—this was just after the housing crash in 2008, property values had dropped dramatically, and the district had no money to hire new teachers, so they instituted a hiring freeze and employed long-term subs to fill the gaps.
I eventually gave up on the idea of a teaching position with security of employment—both because it seemed like the district was not going to fill those positions, and because there were some aspects of the job that, it turns out, I really didn't like.
I went back to school and earned a masters, and then a PhD, in mathematics.  I defended my thesis in the spring of 2020, which gives you some idea of what the academic job market looked like (COVID shut things down), and I had no desire to get on the postdoc treadmill (I am somewhat older than most of my grad school cohort, and needed long-term security).  I applied for many tenure-track positions, as well as teaching positions (primarily at community colleges).
I am now a member of the faculty at a community college in northern Arizona and, having completed three years here, am on a "continuing contract" (e.g. I have "tenure", though the state legislature does not recognize the existence of such an institution).
Post PhD employment in academia
Someone with a PhD has a number of options in academia, both in terms of short-term contract or "gig" work, and in terms of positions which promise more long-term security of employment.  The general categories of employment which offer more long-term security are, broadly speaking, those listed below.  Note that this is not exhasutive.
Professorships
As noted in the other answers, most professorships are research positions, rather than teaching positions.  At R1 universities, the ladder faculty are typically required to teach only two or three courses in a term (sometimes even less), and are judged much more on their research output than on their teaching quality.  Indeed, it is possible that teaching, while required, will not really be evaluated in any meaningful way, nor included in tenure or promotion.
I would expect that taking time off to teach will hurt, rather than help, one's prospects with respect to this kind of position.  While a hiring committee will be happy to see evidence of teaching ability (and may require it, despite the fact that it is often not valued once one actually has the job), they are not going to want to hire someone who has not published in the last several years.  The cost of not producing papers is likely to outweigh the benefits of obtaining more teaching experience.
At other types of institutions (e.g. small, private, liberal arts schools; bachelors-granting state institutions; etc.), there is still generally some expectation that those in tenure-track positions will conduct research and publish papers.  Teaching experience in these positions is more valued, and teaching high school may help but, again, the lack of research output might hurt more.
If this is the kind of position you are looking for, I would recommend very much against taking time out of academia to teach high school.
Teaching positions
Many institutions (R1 and otherwise) have teaching positions, with titles like "professor of instruction" or "lecturer".  These are sometimes ladder positions (i.e. tenured), but are often not.  As such, the people who take these positions are often excluded from certain faculty functions, e.g. they may not have a voice in the faculty senate, or may have little representation in the administration of the department.  Moreover, these positions often pay significantly less than research positions (though, for example, I have a good friend with a "professor of teaching" title who is considered ladder-faculty, and has all the rights and benefits of someone without the "of teaching").
On the other hand, all that is typically expected of such a position is teaching and, perhaps, curriculum development.  Some in this kind of position is probably going to be teaching mostly lower-division classes (e.g. precalculus and calculus in a math department), but might sometimes have the opportunity to teach more advanced or focused material (e.g. real analysis or abstract algebra).
These kinds of positions used to be somewhat rare, or poorly compensated.  However, my impression is that institutions are starting to hire more teaching faculty, and that there may be something of a market for folk who can fill these roles (though this is only my impression—I could be way off.
If this is the kind job you are looking for, taking time out of academia to teach high school might help.  The lack of research output probably won't hurt.
Community college positions
Another option is to teach community college.  The advantage is that these institutions focus almost entirely on teaching (we have a total faculty of around 80, probably around 40 on the non-vocational, non-remedial side of the house; collectively, the faculty have published three or four papers in the time that I have been here), and research output is not expected (or, often, even valued).
At many community colleges, the minimum requirement for a faculty position is a masters degree, rather than a PhD, and hiring committees will often see a PhD as being an over qualification.  There is an impression among some folk that having a PhD indicates that one is too much of an ivory-tower egghead, and can't speak well to students.  Having spent time teaching high school could be seen as an indication of commitment to teaching and might be viewed positively.
If you are looking for this kind of position, taking time out of academia to teach high school might be a good idea.
Certification
Something which others are not addressing, so far as I can tell, is the certification process.  In the United States, it is very difficult to get a high school teaching position without a secondary education certification.  Obtaining such a certification usually requires at least an extra year of coursework, plus a semester long internship (student teaching).  There are very few public school positions which don't require this certification process, though it is sometimes possible to get a provisional certification (these are typically temporary, and expire if you do not complete the standard certification process within two or three years).
Private and charter schools can be a bit fast and loose with certification (since there is generally no requirement that teachers be certified), and there are some exceptional and/or specialized public schools which do not require certification, but certification is often still valued, meaning that an uncertified instructor may have a harder time finding a job.
If the plan is to teach high school for a period of time, one has to go into their education with that plan in mind.  Start working towards certification now.
Timing
Taking time off after completing a PhD in order to teach high school is very likely to be detrimental to the prospect of obtaining a ladder position in "mainstream" academia.  Most of those positions require publication, and you won't be publishing while teaching high school (let's be real here; teaching high school is hard, and you aren't going to have time to research; there are probably some exceptions to this, but don't plan your life around be an exception).
Moreover, you are young, and just starting your career.  It doesn't seem reasonable to me to plan so far into the future.  In the next year, you might decide that you hate mathematics.  Or you might decide that you hate teaching.  Or that you hate research.  Or you might fall in love and follow a partner where ever their career takes them, while you stay at home and raise the kids.  It is good to have long term plans, but you should always be flexible, and recognize that your plans will very likely change.
For what it is worth, I tend to make plans with 2-, 5-, and 10-year horizons.  I have never gotten to the end of a 2-year plan without major modification.
Having said all of that, the following path may be more advisable, in terms of not locking yourself out of either secondary teaching positions or mainstream academic positions.

While still an undergraduate, start working towards secondary certification.  If your institution has a certification program, talk to an advisor there, and see what they have to say.  Avoid saying that consider high school teaching to be a temporary postion—focus on the idea that you are interested in teaching, and that you are interested in becoming a better teaching in furtherance of your long-term goal of an academic teaching position.
Note that this is very likely to add an extra year to your bachelors program (though it might not—just be prepared for that news).

After completing your bachelors, teach high school (if you can).  Really commit to that job—don't view it as a short-term gig, since people will pick up on short-timer-ism, and are not likely to be happy about it.

If, after teaching high school for a while, you are convinced that you still want to pursue graduate school, apply.  Graduate programs are typically much more open to students who have taken time off to do other things than are hiring committees looking for tenure-track faculty.  Do note, however, that you might have more difficulty getting into an "elite" program, as they, too, will be focused on research.

After completing a PhD (or masters, if you decide that a PhD isn't for you), you can make decisions about where to go next.  Maybe you will want to go back to teaching high school!

The advantage of this plan of action is that (1) you get an understanding of the theory of instruction in addition to teaching experience, and (2) you still get to put that teaching experience on your CV when you start looking for academic positions.

Worth mentioning are these schools (along with LSMSA, where I taught for 3 years), in which certification is not needed (or even all that much considered if you're deemed suitable) and in which a Ph.D. is generally valued, rather than being a red flag, as can often be the case when applying to high school positions after a Ph.D. (unless the Ph.D. is in education). @rake

@DaveLRenfro Thanks for the reference.  While those are public schools, I might put them in the same general category as private or charter schools, in that they are the exception, rather than the rule (at least, in comparison to "standard" public schools).

The only way this makes sense to me is if, after high school (HS) teaching, you apply to primarily teaching college/university positions, these being EITHER long-term or permanent lecture/teaching-only positions at a university OR tenure-track positions with little to no research expected (excluding teaching related and service type activities, such as directing undergraduate capstone projects and the like) at a liberal arts type college whose mission is strongly focused on undergraduate education.
Teaching HS, and then looking for research post docs sounds really strange to me. Indeed, if you wish to do both, then a post doc immediately after your Ph.D. followed by HS teaching -- and the latter due to not getting an appropriate college/university position after your post doc -- makes a lot more sense to me, after which if you still want a college/university position, then apply to the types of college/university positions I mentioned in my first sentence.
For what it's worth, I've taught HS both before (1 full-time year of teaching HS) and after (3 full-time years of teaching HS) my Ph.D., and I've taught in a university (3 full-time years) before my 2nd HS job (this being after my Ph.D.) and in several colleges/universities after my 2nd HS job (total of 6 full-time years). However, I've never had a post doc, but I was told I was 2nd choice for a post doc in 1996, the only post doc I ever applied to (due to their relative exclusivity in math at the time, especially in my areas of interest).

I'll give the contrarian opinion.
When people talk about the "standard track in academia" or "professorships", the implicit assumption is a research-based tenure track position where you will do basically what your PhD advisor did. The time where you could reasonably expect that after the PhD is long gone. Your chances of finishing the PhD are in the 30-50% range, your chances of getting a job as a professor is in the 10-30% range, and of those that end with a professorship, the percentage that end up in positions where research is their main job is abysmally low. I don't have a statistic, but my guess is that it's in the single digits. In other words, most PhDs with jobs in academia teach, teach, teach.
It is true that for some positions, say those that advertise a 50/50 teaching/research spit, they evaluate you on research and assume you can do the teaching. But anything below that split, which is the majority of jobs out there, we want to see that you can teach, that you know what you are getting into. Nobody wants to hire someone who is using the teaching position as a stepping stone and continue applying to research positions. Now, you might hear a different story from grad students and postdocs, and even professors who work at R1s (after all, it's the only thing they know), but I have been on dozens of faculty search committees and chaired a good portion of those committees, and I can tell you that we are looking for experienced teachers. Your story sounds great, that you want to teach at the university level, but want to cut your teeth at the HS level before that. Everything else being equal, I'd put you on my short list of people to hire.


text:
What happens to postdoc applications when they've been received? (US)
On the internet I found that some universities list their committees. For instance, the postdoc hiring committee might have two faculty members. What is their role? Are they the only people who read the applications? Is everyone in the department involved in postdoc hiring or is it just a few faculty members? I'm mainly referring to positions in the United States. Who is involved in postdoc hiring and how are the applications processed?
Also, a lot of job applications say that they prefer to pick somebody whose research interests align with those in the department. How much does that matter? I also am thinking that maybe I should cold e-mail potential postdoc mentors in the department to let them know I exist and to express interest in their department. How do I demonstrate in my application that I belong in their department?
My understanding is that they have to narrow down the list of applicants to a "short list," and I'm wondering how that is done. Then they have to rank the applicants and then go down the list until they get enough applicants to accept their offer. How do they make the short list?

Very dependent on the institution or department.

In particular, this will depend on whether postdocs are hired by the department or by the individual PIs.

There are several models of postdoc hiring (in the US, assuming the hiring is by the department rather than by individual PIs). In all of this, random factors play major role. My examples and suggestions are in math (which is what you are interested in, I think.)
Model 1. There is a postdoc hiring committee of, say, 3 people. The committee solicits names for making a "long list" from the rest of the departmental members. If nobody volunteers to mentor an applicant X, then X will not make it to the "long list," no matter how many "Annals" papers they published. Then the committee meets in order to make a short list. Suppose that this year the department has two postdoctoral positions to fill and members A and B of the committee are both interested in mentoring a postdoc. They meet somewhere over a coffee and propose that the offers go to Y and Z (top of the lists of A and B respectively). The third member of the committee, C, is outvoted, and Y and Z are hired. Mission accomplished!
Model 2. Say, there are 5 members of the hiring committee and there are 3 postdoctoral positions to be filled. After getting a feedback from the faculty, the committee meets to make their "short list." There are quite a few arguments based on parameters such as gender, ethnicity, who had a postdoc recently, whose CV is most impressive... The arguments last for, oh well, 5 hours since applicants in PDEs are compared to applicants in Number Theory. In the end, after making increasingly narrow lists, the committee comes up with a ranked list of 6 applicants: 3 will get offers, 3 more are alternates in case some offers are declined.
Lastly, to your question: "How do I demonstrate in my application that I belong in their department?" My only suggestion is to ensure that your research interacts with the research of some faculty at the department, otherwise you will not make it to a "long list." In particular, go to conferences, give seminar talks, meet people in your area of math, talk to them, etc. Make your research statement potentially "interesting," including a list of open problems you would like to pursue.

It does seem like there is a lot of randomness involved. At one place where I applied nobody in my field or even adjacent field got an offer. The applicants who were offered positions worked in a completely different area. Myabe it was time for the PDE faculty member to get a postdoc.

@cgb5436: That's right.  Similar randomness (plus some "horse-trading") one observes at the tenure-track level hires.

One way of putting this is that it's not "intrinsic virtue" that gets jobs, but virtue+fit. Which is reasonable, for most models of hiring/admission.

@paulgarrett: virtue+fit+politics

@MoisheKohan, ah, well, indeed :) Though "politics" does start to sound like an inappropriate criterion... Still, yes, I agree, and "politics" can be manifest in ways that smart people, such as academics, can dress up as something less subjective, etc.

@paulgarrett: politics is probably inevitable.

@MoisheKohan :)  "Upon prolonged observation, I think you're right." :) Though/and perhaps the more explanatory description is something about "power", or similar. ... or, maybe, I'm just "late to the party" of understanding that myself!?! :)

What my PhD advisor told me was that the reason he got a job was because out of all the people who applied there, he was the best.

@cgb5436: Who knows, maybe your advisor was right about that particular place and particular time. What I observed in 30+ years at two different departments is roughly what I wrote in my answer.

@cgb5436, good... but/and if only we knew what "best" is/was. It's surely not a "scalar"... Perhaps one way of describing hiring/admissions, all this stuff, is that "merit/virtues" is not a scalar, to begin with. We don't get jobs purely on "virtue", in any case, even if we declare that "math virtue" is a scalar, etc.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What are the consequences of leaving a postdoc position without notice?
What is the worst thing would happen to a person who leaves their postdoc position without any prior notice and leaves the country?

Worst for whom? Also, what is bad depends on a lot of other circumstances.

it will also depend on the country you are trying to leave (and its labor laws) and if you are planning to go back there in the forseeable future.

What is the worst that could happen: Your current/former employer could find you and take some inspiration from horror movies and takes revenge accordingly on you, your family and loved ones. It is highly unlikely, but you asked the worst case scenario...

Why was it worse to not give an appropriate notice?

I would like to take this chance to clarify that this is merely a question, not an implication. I neither did nor am I planning on doing such thing.

I assume that personal consequences for OP are being asked.
If the postdoc position is ruled by a working contract, you can be sued for failing to delivery what you promised. It is a workplace issue, more than an academic issue.
You may be put on trial and judged in-absentia, you may be prevented from entering again that country and/or you may have nasty surprise while travelling.
It depends a lot on which country you are citizen, which country you are working, what kind of agreement rules the postdoc.

In addition to the legal problems mentioned by @EarlGrey your reputation could also suffer. If you need a letter of recommendation, then you have a problem. More generally, a lot of (sub-(sub-))disciplines are like small gossipy villages. You pull a stunt like that, then that will be known. Who wants to employ someone who might just leave without warning?

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


text:
Should Professors use COVID as Discussion Board Material?
I am not a professor, but I work at a Community College. I work with students directly (basically a tutor) and someone asked me a question that I didn't know how to respond: Is it appropriate for professors to use COVID as a topic in their online discussion boards?
Obviously, the whole COVID situation can provide professors an ample supply of material directly related to the content of the course. If you study math, then you can look at different data and statistics about it. If you study economics, then you can look at the economic impact and response. If you study sociology, you can look at it through a sociological lens. Basically, every subject has the potential to use COVID in their class. At my community college, all of the online professors require weekly discussion board posts, as a way to keep the students talking and engaged with each other. It appears that most professors are making their discussion board posts COVID related. But issues can arise when a student has high anxiety or stress about their quarantine. Basically, the student I was working with said something along the lines of "I have been in quarantine for 5 months already, COVID is all over the news and social media, I read about it and listen to it 24/7. I'm tired of it. I don't want it waved in my face from all of my professors trying to get me to discuss it even more. I'm having a tough time as it is, why are they making me re-live it?"
Should professors use COVID as a real world example of their material? Or should they be more sensitive to possible student issues of quarantine?
I wasn't sure what to tag...I tagged health-issues more for mental health issues. I couldn't find a tag for discussion boards or online forums for classes.
EDIT: I am based in the U.S. if that helps shape any thoughts/answers. And now after reading the accepted answer, it makes me worry about this particular student I have. She had to write a discussion board post and the professor said "write about 3 examples of xyz as it relates to the COVID pandemic. Keep this dscussion post in mind later this week when I give you your first paper assignment." So now I am afraid she will have to write about something COVID related for a 5 page paper. Would it be acceptable for her to ask for a different assignment, since she has high anxiety about anything COVID related? (she is very high risk since she is older and has had previous lung surgery. She literally has not left her house since March, so I know the topic compounds her mental health difficulties).

Yes, I would pass along this feedback that you're getting that students aren't engaging well with this material.

I think I would avoid using COVID-19 as an example except in situations that are most directly relevant (those involving viral biology or epidemiology, for example), for exactly the reason your student raised.
At the same time, I wouldn't say it is inappropriate, just that it is quite a saturated topic for many people right now. It's also definitely appropriate to open forums for students to converse about managing aspects of the pandemic, especially in their experience as students, on topics like social isolation, remote learning, etc.
I would also encourage students to relate topics to COVID by their choice when there are most open-ended assignments, while also allowing them to use different cases.
Usually there is some benefit for relating content to current events to make the content more salient, but I do think this is a time where there is a bit of overload. Ordinarily, you would do this to make a bridge, where students are now thinking about the material in a relevant-to-them way. With COVID, there is enough going on that instead they might be distracted by other thoughts about COVID (including anxieties about themselves or others being infected, loved ones who are currently sick or have died, general uncertainty and impacts of measures to reduce spread, etc), unrelated to the course material, so you lose the benefits.

There is also the risk of encountering a student who has lost a loved one to covid-19.

@BobBrown Agreed (and added explicitly to emphasize), though one could argue that's true for many other topics including health topics like cancer. I think the difference here is that it's just so hard to escape in the current news cycle, especially for those who as you point out have been most directly affected.

I think this might vary depending on country. Not every country dropped the public health ball as badly as America has.

@nick012000 Perhaps. OP seems to be in the US, as am I. Though I will definitely not argue the US has done anything besides drop the ball, several countries elsewhere, particularly Europe, have still observed a similar or higher total per-capita death rate, so Bob Brown's comment still applies. Thankfully things are mostly more in control in those places now, though.

Yes, thank you for the answer! After reflecting a bit throughout the day I pretty much feel the same way as this answer. Professors shouldn't explicitly ask for students to discuss, but they should create a welcoming environment and provide a place for students to discuss it on their own without being forced to.

That COVID can become boring is interesting feedback. I and other people I know who teach use COVID examples to make the material more approachable for students by showing how that material is relevant for their daily life. I can see how this can be over-used. This feedback could help to find the right balance.
However, I don't think we should avoid discussing COVID altogether. It is an important phenomenon that needs to be discussed and taught in universities.

Use the COVID topic only if it's relevant to the course. At the community college, courses are at an introductory level with only a few that are more advanced.
It would depend on the instructor's comfort level and classroom dynamics. There are many historical examples that I use in class without mentioning COVID as an example. As an instructor, I refrain from using it as an example of the course as it triggers my anxiety. Nonetheless, if a student showed an interest in COVID research, I am ready to provide them with resources and research within their fields of interest to assist them to seek trustworthy information and develop their research.


text:
Degree equivalence between Argentina and Europe
I graduated as an Electronic Engineer at University of Buenos Aires (UBA), Argentina. I want to apply to scholarships to undertake a Master's course in Europe, and I'm often asked the level of my degree. Here is where things get confusing.
At UBA we have somewhat unorthodox course durations and syllabuses. While in most Argentinian universities an undergraduate course  has a duration of 3 to 5 years, at UBA courses last 6 years (when passing every single subject at once and not lagging behind). Additionally, at Engineering School we have some subjects that would correspond to MSc level abroad (in the last 2 years we can choose specific subjects about advanced topics we want to specialize in, while general engineering topics are covered during the first 4 years). We also have to carry out either a research project or a professional one before graduating, and then write a thesis about it.
What would be the European equivalence for this degree? I've seen a few, but I'm really not sure which one I should choose when applying for a scholarship abroad. The ones that I think would be good choices are:

BSc
BEng
MSc
MEng
MEngSc

As far as I understand after doing some research about this, I think the one that looks the most similar to my degree would be BEng. I also think that putting MSc could be detrimental to my application (even if the degree has a Master's degree level), because I want to pursue a Master's abroad and not a PhD.
Which one would you suggest is the right one to choose?

Note that in the UK the honours suffix ("Hons") denotes that you didn't fail any courses during the degree, nothing more special than that. But why can't you just put the actual name of your degree?

@astronat Because I'm offered a list with degree types, so I have to choose one option among those in the drop-down list. BTW thanks for the observation regarding "Hons"!

I see, in that case it's probably a good idea to get in touch with whatever university/organisation you are applying to, explain the situation and see which option they suggest. I'm not an engineer, but to my mind an MSc is a one year taught Master's whereas an MEng probably indicates a four year "integrated Master's" (common in UK STEM; you do 3 years of BSc equivalent plus the Master's year, so you don't get a separate BSc), so quite different degrees. I won't post this as answer yet, as I expect someone with more knowledge of Argentina/ engineering will have a better one.

@astronat possibly at your institution, but that’s certainly not generically true.

@astronat I did Hons in my UK degree and it means doing more credits compared to an ordinary degree, nothing to do with not failing a course.

@SolarMike ah, I only commented that because that's how it was at my university and for a number of friends at other unis. Overall it still seems OP should get in touch with the scholarship they are applying to to determine which option to choose on the form.


text:
Is an acknowledgement worth putting in a CV?
Of course, the bread-and-butter of an academic CV are degrees and publications, and citation index is a primary means of judging the value of said publications, but it's also common for academics to give out acknowledgements to people who contributed to a paper, but not in a way deserving of a citation or authorship.
Is a history of being thanked in acknowledgements worth putting on one's CV or otherwise touting in the context of academic faculty appointments?
I can come up with arguments both ways. On the one hand, an acknowledgement without a citation or authorship implies that one's contribution was non-academic in nature or, if academic, was too minor to merit being cited or granted author status, but on the other hand, an acknowledgement could be seen as demonstrating so-called "soft skills". For example, one might claim,

My biochemistry citation index speaks for itself, but also see that Dr. Jones acknowledged me for "faithful emotional support while [he] was undergoing cancer treatment while also teaching a heavy load", and Dr. Smith acknowledged me for "standing firm in support of the department's goals and [her] projects in particular as major funding cuts rocked through the university in 2018 and 2019". I have thus demonstrated excellent hard academic skills as well as organizational and interpersonal soft skills, and that is why I am the best candidate for department chair!

I would suggest not. That is for Dr. Smith to say in a letter.

It's worth putting in a CV everything that a selection committee would positively consider. In my personal experience, I've never seen any committee consider acknowledgements.

At best it shows you don’t have much to put on your CV, which probably isn’t what you want to show. So, there are better uses of that space.

No. We don’t hire people to be our friends or to offer us emotional support, and I don’t even understand what “standing firm in support of the department’s goals” means. We hire them to teach, do research, and do other more or less well defined tasks, none of which are evidenced in any meaningful way by being mentioned in the acknowledgements to someone’s paper.
You can be the world’s most amazing, virtuous, supportive person, and that’s great, but no one will hire you for an academic job for those qualities. For your CV, focus on quantitative, measurable achievements that hiring institutions actually care about.

Also, what do two acknowledgments really say? What statistical inferences can be drawn from just two points?

Hm. While you are right, I think this is also quite sad. In my alma mater, tgere were great reseaechers. But they never worked together (concerning teaching) or supported each other. For students, this was really bad.

Honestly, I think mentioning the first acknowledgement would be seen as a negative by a selection committee (i.e. not even just neutral). You would presumably have provided emotional support to Dr. Jones while he was undergoing cancer treatment because e.g. (i) you're a decent human being, and/or (ii) you care about Dr. Jones' wellbeing. Trying to use that as a CV point later would be extremely tacky and would suggest to people that you were only being nice to him so you could tell everyone about it later. Few people are likely to want to hire someone who would use their friend's (or colleague's) illness for personal gain.
TL;DR: Basically, hell no, in as far as the question relates to whether or not you should mention an acknowledgement like that one in your CV. For acknowledgements more generally, also no, because they're too trivial to mention - people will just assume you have nothing better to tell them about.


text:
Is it a red flag if the justification for my research (why it is likely to matter) is popularly sourced?
I want to write a paper on a certain specific topic (it's not terribly important what it is, this is intended to be a generic question). I can find sufficient peer-reviewed sources to provide a foundation for much of what I want to synthesize, but I'm coming up short when it comes to establishing a justification for my paper - that is, why it matters now, why someone would care to read it or use what I hope to find. What I can, find, however, are popular writings - newspaper articles, blog posts, random mentions in chat rooms, etc. saying something like "oh, I wish we could accomplish Specific Goal X under Conditions Y! Here's how it would help me/us/Bill/those guys down the street/etc.". I'm not seeing that in the literature - papers about X don't seem to cover using it under Y, and papers about Y don't seem to consider how it would affect X.
Is it reasonable to set up the justification for a paper by citing primarily popular (non-peer-reviewed) works (as long as I have a proper peer-reviewed foundation for how X and Y work), or is this more likely a red flag, indicating that I lack a sufficient foundation to study this right now (i.e. either I would have been able to find sources specifically about the theoretical utility of future research into X under Y, or the very fact that there are no sources indicates that there is actually little or no likelihood that X under Y would mean much)?

Given the quality of popular science writing recently (at least in the mass media), I would certainly consider it a yellow flag with some shade of red in it. It would definitely not help. Have you taken half an hour or so to look for authoritative, well-written and/or well-referenced sources? (Searching on Google Scholar instead of google.com is the first step.)

Research need not be completely inward looking: a snake eating its own tail. All applied research, in fact, is rooted in real world concerns. The fact that the questions have been little studied in the past is not a reason to avoid them in the future.
In fact, "its interesting" is enough of a justification for a lot of research, whether theoretical or applied.
And having a potential application immediately may make it more interesting, actually.

Having someone care about the topic in the wide world is great, but what the OP is intending to do sends the additional implicit message that only laypeople are interested in the topic, and that's not a good message to send.

@darijgrinberg, unless it is an issue that has only recently arisen and the OP is a pioneer. Vaping death comes to mind.


text:
Can I cite a secondary source if the primary source is available?
Assume that there are two papers A and B that give two different approaches to the same problem.
Paper A. This paper presents the method I used in my assignment.
Paper B. As reported in paper C (and some other sources):
  Paper B improves and combines the ideas in papers D and E. Without understanding D and E, it would be hard to understand B.
  Paper F shows that the method in paper B is no longer good/usable/recommended.
Reading all of papers B, D, E, F would take me a lot of time.
I did not use the method in paper B, but it is still part of the literature and has historical significance.
In the background/literature review section,

Should I omit paper B in my report (background section), or
Should I cite paper C as a secondary source?

I believe you should at least cite all of the papers, and the focus of the discussion should be on what is relevant for your paper.

@MikeyMike Does that mean you choose option 2?

Depends on what you have in your discussion.

The norm for secondary sources varies by field, and it is generally suggested that you follow what is normal in your field.
As I note in my answer to this related question, Should I cite a paper for its literature review? - some institutions insist on secondary citations, like Columbia, while some style guides (APA) permit secondary source citation. IEEE on the other hand explicitly calls out not to use secondary sources, period.
If you were in any of the fields I work in (computer science, psychology, HCI, etc.) which use APA/IEEE styles, I would suggest a third option: cite paper B if it is important, and don't accept that you first have to read the whole chain of papers leading up to B. Saying "B is important for [reason], and shows an important historical method that is not used here", and cite it. You don't have to understand every aspect of it in detail  to get the gist and determine if it should be cited or not.

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


text:
Breaking figure order by referencing a figure in a later section
I am submitting an SPIE journal article. In between references to figure 5 and figure 6, I reference figure 14 (which appears in a much further section) as an example of something specific. One of my reviewers has complained that it breaks the ordering of the figures. I could, of course, insert figure 14 after this first reference, and then back-reference it in the corresponding section, but I think that would be even more confusing for the reader.
Is there some standard preference for this kind of references? Or maybe should I avoid the early reference altogether?

Standard is to introduce them in sequence. I agree with the reviewer. Call 14 figure 6, call 6 figure 7. Backward reference is a lot more common and acceptable.

Why not use the same figure twice, first as Figure 6 (perhaps with less detail) and again later as Figure 14?

@JeffE: I don't think many reviewers encourage the reuse of figures that lightly.

@ÉbeIsaac Really? Why not? Do referees really value conservation of ink over readability? Is there some expectation of figure novelty within the same paper? Or are you used to publishing in venues with strict page limits?

@JeffE: The discussion is about a journal article not a book; page limit is only another concern. Besides, the OP's concern -- the SPIE -- do have a strict page limit.

@JeffE: Coming from a field with strict and tight page limits, showing any graphic (or actually, any kind of content) twice is out of the question in papers. But come to think of it, I would also perceive multiple depictions of the same figure in a book or other medium of unlimited length as odd. But maybe that is just my programmer-personality that naturally abhors any kind of code or resource duplication and would prefer a single "instance" that is referenced from various places at any time ;)

@JeffE without a page limit you might get away with recapping in an inset (if it wouldn't be too small); even that would be rare, and with a page limit -- forget it.

@JeffE wouldn't it leave the reader wondering what is the difference between figure 6 and 14 ?

@laika Of course. Which is why you tell the reader the difference between Figure 6 and Figure 14.

Certainly, there are vastly different personal preferences among readers and authors alike. Unless you can establish a pattern that matches the preferences of the reviewers1, you will have to go with what you (and your co-authors, and others who you ask for advice) think makes most sense in the concrete case.
If you conclude that Figure 14 is best left where it is (between Figures 13 and 15), because e.g. Figure 14 is descussed in depth in a later section while the mention between Figures 5 and 6 is only a side note, it sounds correct to me to leave Figure 14 as Figure 14, even though it is mentioned earlier. (More concretely, it would sound extremely cumbersome to show Figure 14 early in the paper between Figures 5 and 6, and then, later on, where the figure is discussed in depth, force readers to constantly switch between pages while reading the text.)
In that case (if only to appease reviewers who think otherwise), it could be adviseable to explicitly acknowledge the side note character of the early mention of Figure 14:

This can also be seen in Figure 14, presented/discussed below in Section ... .

1: Note that I consider it at least somewhat ethically questionable to deviate from what might be most conductive to the readability/comprehensibility of the paper just to please a specific small set of reviewers (who might not think in terms of what supports the reader's mental model in the concrete case, but rather based upon "general formal criteria" such as "Are figures ordered by the order of their first mention?"). So, it is up to you whether to actually follow such a pattern.

And this exemplifies what I meant by symptom of a bad text structure. If this back and forth is justified, your text is not linear, which is always harder to understand.

@FábioDias: I think it's a good text structure to introduce the topic first (possibly while pointing outnsome of the concrete points to follow) and only then discuss things in-depth.

I don't disagree. But is this the best way of doing this? For instance, one can create a new image, with the outline of several cases, in simplified form, to convey this "overview" information then a full version, with more detail, later.  Even with space constraints, I would prefer this approach, because each image has a clear message. In extreme cases of space restriction, you can use the same, but then, by definition, the page turning problem is less relevant.

@FábioDias: Maybe I'm thinking of a different situation than what's the OP's case here, but imagine the later detail section shows various screenshots of an application to describe the various parts of the user interface in-depth, while the introduction section makes a general statement about design principles of the user interface. It seems appropriate for such an introduction section to concretely point to one of the later screenshots as an example of how the design principle is applied. Showing a new graphic would raise questions about whether the design principles are actually applied ...

... to the crucial parts of the user interface described in-depth below. Showing the graphic only in the introduction would introduce the inconvenience of frequent paginating in the detail description, as described in the answer. Duplicating the graphic would seem weird (as if trying to stretch space without adding new content, if there is unlimited space in the first place ...), and might also send readers on a hunt for differences (because of a possible assumption "certainly, no-one would show the same graphic twice"). And not mentioning the later graphic in the introduction will ..

... typically cause at least one reviewer to remark that they do not understand what is meant by the principle and that a practical example should be added. With these points in mind, yes, I do think referring to a figure that follows only much later is the best way of doing this.

Apart from teasers, I usually don't use images on the intro, but that's me. Anyway, in the case you mentioned, I'd suggest first an overview of the whole interface, then, in the detailed discussion, you do blow up versions of each part of the interface you are explaining. And, in your case, the reader would have to pause reading the intro, hunt down the figure X pages ahead, then come back, same problem, different order, with the figure order broken...

@FábioDias: The reader has to pause reading the intro only once, at the specific mention of the example, compared to constantly, if the image is not in the section where it is described in detail. Furthermore, the pausing is restricted to readers who actually need the example to understand the general aspect announced in the introduction, and to readers who care about the specific aspect (much of the introduction can be understood independently of that particular figure, whereas none of the detail subsection describing the figure can).

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Thanks @O.R.Mapper. Your reply pretty much sumarizes my opinion. After discussing it with other co-authors we all think it's best to keep the reference to figure 14, just clarifying that it's from a different section to avoid confusion.

If you mention a figure after fig 5, that figure is fig 6, by definition.

You are confusing your own mental order with the order in the paper, which are not the same. Your reviewer is correct, that is, at least for me, weird and indeed breaks the flow of the text. And it could be a symptom of bad text structure.

"Figures should be numbered in the order they appear" is a direct quote from many author guidelines (the emphasis is mine).  A full-page figure could easily appear after a smaller figure though be referred to first (for example).

As you stated that the related figure appears in a much later section refer the section instead of the figure like this

... as illustrated/explained in Section N ...

or something similar. To be general, it would be better to avoid mentioning the figure at all, but rather refer the concept of the section which is ahead.
This way, you don't break your ordering of figure references.
Referencing a section earlier in the topic is not too uncommon in literature. It is usually done at the beginning for an overview, so this won't be a bad practice. You may take a look at this sample SPIE journal for reference.

Downvoted. This would still be referring to the figures out of order, only using a more complicated syntax to avoid having the numerical labels appear our of order.  If the figure is captioned "Figure 14", then you really should call if "Figure 14"( and point forward to section N).

@JeffE: This isn't an ill advised practice. Kindly look again at the edit.

I'm not saying it's an ill-advised practice.  I'm saying it doesn't address OP's referee's objection.

@JeffE: The referee doesn't want the OP to mess up the order of Figure referencing. By my answer, you are not referencing the figure, but the concept associated with the section the figure is contained in. To be clear: I mean, you may refer the section ahead but avoid referring the figure ahead.

"the illustration provided in Section N" is a reference to a figure.

@JeffE: necessary edits have been made to avoid ambiguity.

If the work is long enough for this, repeat the figure.

@FábioDias: I agree with the long enough part. But some of SPIE journals limits to only 8 pages (e.g., SPIE Journal of Applied Remote Sensing), would that be long enough?

8 pages should be room enough for a simplified figure + full figure. And that has the advantage of not showing details you are not going to explain on the first mention. For instance, if you have 2 case studies, first show one figure with overviews of both of them, then, in the case studies section, you show a full version, with more detail and discuss them al :)

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


text:
How to gain strength for an exam I have been studying for 2.5 years which is only 15 days away?
I have been preparing for a very important exam for 2.5-3 years. And now I am completely exhausted, the exam was scheduled to happen in May, but due to COVID-19 it got delayed to September end. This delay and uncertainty did break my motivation a bit but I still kept on pushing, and now I'm completely exhausted. I don't have the strength to go and take the exam. I have prepared well for the exam, and have been putting about 7-8 hours each day with very little breaks in between, so acing this exam does mean a lot to me and my future also depends on it. But I just don't feel like taking the exam. Even my preparation has been suffering due to this for a week or two.
The exam is just 14 days away, so I don't want to take a break as this time is very crucial to revise the material, but obviously I'm unable to focus on it, which is worsening the situation and acting like a negative feedback loop.
It's like in the saying "Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe", now I have worked hard to actually get a sharp axe, but no energy to actually use it. Please help me, what can I do to get out of this situation.
With the amount of effort I have already put in preparing for the exam, and with my future depending on it, I really don't want to mess this one up.

You are to take an exam at the end of September, so you have not taken it yet.  But what "paper" are you talking about?  What does it contain, and who are you giving it to?

@JoelReyesNoche One of the meanings of paper is a set of questions in an exam, so that's the likely meaning in this context.

How would you rate your current level of preparation? Are you satisfied with the results you are getting while practicing?

@JoelReyesNoche "give the paper" = "take the exam". I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but see here

Yes it's take the exam, well English is my second language , and that's a common phrase here

@GoodDeeds Well I would say I'm relatively well prepared for the exam, I have done the best I could have till now and I'm mostly satisfied with my results in mock/practice tests

"my future also depends on it" - does it, though? If you fail, can you take it again? If yes, then, sure, failing would be a setback, but it wouldn't cost you your future. So that sort of shift in perspective can be helpful. "I don't want to take a break" - you're not going to achieve anything substantial in 15 days that you didn't in those 3 years. You can just run through the material to trigger some recollection and reestablish a sense of the big picture. If I were you, I would take a break; just forget about the exam for something like 3-5 days and relax.

Writing the exam does not require much energy or motivation, I suspect it is only a days worth of work at most. What energy are you searching for? Are you searching for energy/motivation to study for 14 days straight? If so, that isn't reflected in the question. If you're looking for energy to write the exam you already have it. Rest, sleep, relax, study a bit if you like. Write the exam when the time comes.

@Manish Mittal Just curious, if you don't mind, are you talking about JEE Advanced?

@DeepakMS If the OP says this question is about JEE, I am going to vote to close this question because undergraduate admission is off-topic on this site.

what is JEE? which topic at all?

@scaahu but the question has been worded in a general sense and does not ask anything specific to a particular exam. So I think what the actual exam is should not matter, the question should be judged as presented.

@GoodDeeds You missed my point. I said "if the OP says this question is about JEE". Did the OP ever mention JEE? If he did, this question needs to be closed per our rule. Until then, I do nothing.

So what if the OP said the exam was this JEE, but not in the question, but in a comment? Then it should not be closed as, like @GoodDeeds said, the question is more general.

I have no advice, you got a lot already. Just wanted to say that I sympathise with you. I've been in similar situations at various times and it is unpleasant. Stay strong.

@Manish Mittal how were your exams ? (I think you are talking about JEE advance exam :). Am I right ?

@Ankit Under 100.. I am not kidding

@Manish Mittal score or rank :)?

@Ankit Rank bro

@Manish Mittal great :)

Congratulations!

Take a two week vacation. Do things you enjoy. Relax. Exercise. Watch TV. Sleep.
The gain from any studying you can do in two weeks will be minimal, compared to the previous three years. The gain from going into the exam rested, relaxed, and with energy will be immense.

To clarify, are you recommending the OP not even think about the exam until the start time?  While I certainly agree with some "vacation" I wonder whether it might not be beneficial to spend some of a day or 2 in advance reviewing to get back into "exam mode."  (And maybe this depends on the type/format of the exam.  I can imagine a brief review period being useful for a timed, written technical exam.)

In this particular case I think a complete break is essential. Any studying would expand and lead to panic. The OP is much, much more likely to fail from stress, panic, and lack of rest than from lack of another day or two of studying.

I completely agree with taking a vacation, but two weeks is likely too long. Take a vacation for one week, maybe even 1.5 weeks, but not two.

This only works if the op is the type of person that can turn off their brain and enjoy the time off.  It's not going to be good if instead every day the op just loses their mind with worry and guilt about not studying.

I've applied the relax technique and to me entering in exam mode like 30 mins before the exam, is already more than enough to mentally review a whole semester at least for engineering fields. It's about well mastering the concepts mostly. I'd say it can differ for a field which exam (alas) rely on off by-heart knowledge and sometimes short term memory such as medicine. Here I'd imagine at least a few minutes a day could help keeping the memory fresh, but I'm not really sure either.

Sleep. Sleep as much as you can. Then sleep some more. Nothing you could possibly do to prepare further will help you even a tenth as much as getting lots of sleep in the last few days before the test.
On top of that, give yourself some time to relax and do things you like. Again, being relaxed and in a good mood will help you more than further repetition of things you've already memorized.
Do regular physical exercise. Many studies show benefits of physical exercise for mental alertness. It will probably also help you relax and sleep.
Create a high-level list of all the things you've learned in preparation. Mentally go through all of them and see where you feel least confident, then specifically repeat those. Your weakest areas are most likely to benefit from the limited time you have remaining.
Prepare to cheat, but don't. No, seriously. Write a cheat sheet, one sheet of paper that contains exactly those difficult things you think you might want to look up during the test. Go through it a few times over the coming days and revise it if necessary. Then throw it away the day before the test. You'll almost certainly remember all of it.

"Cheat" sheet is a good idea, as is sleeping. I would ramp up preparations again in the second week, though. Normally, it is a good idea to have a month's break and then reactivate the preparations for a few weeks, but the OP does not have time for that.

+1 for "Cheat sheet". I found my most effective exam preparation was done away from the books with my cheat sheet in my pocket. It was then that I figured out exactly what I didn't know and still had the time to remedy it before the exam.

Too much sleep can make you lethargic

This is a great list.  I would add getting some exercise to it.

@Jeff: very good point, I've added that.

What you experience is totally normal.
Take a break for one day, calm down, meditate.
This will help you much more than trying to sit at your desk every day.

But the paper is just a fortnight away!! I just need the energy till thrn

You really sound like you need rest. Try to regain mental strength. This will help you more than rereading another chapter.

@ManishMittal, it may seem contradictory, but sometimes rest can be more effective than working, especially if you are close to burnout. Consider the analogy of an athlete: a runner doesn't run a marathon every day in the weeks before a big race.

In fact, athletes deliberately reduce their training gradually to nothing in the days/weeks leading up to big races. Tapering isn't counterintuitive at all if one considers it as DavidH said.

@Nij The tapering down is correct for physical effort. For mental effort it is slightly different. As I said earlier, it would have been better for OP to take about a month or so off and than ramp up (not down) over the period of a few weeks, but there is no time for that. A week's break and reactivating himself during the second week should be reasonable compromise.

I would suggest a full vacation that really forces you to distract yourself. give it 2-3-4 days, and enjoy it.

I don't have the strength to go and take the exam.

This is called pre-event nerves.  This phenomenon happens all the time. I personally have given lectures that I fully prepared for and yet at the last minute got cold-feet. I forced myself to go ahead and did the talks and they were fine. When people are planning to get married, massive doubts can surface in the two weeks before the wedding.
I was once so scared of an exam that I overslept through tiredness and arrived late. Unfortunately because of the lateness I failed. Luckily it wasn't a 3 year effort.

When we have a very important event coming up imminently, fear surfaces.
Unconsciously we find any excuse to allay the fear - the most obvious excuses are "I'm not ready", "I feel unwell", and "I feel exhausted". Some people will even have a car accident because their unconscious mind is so determined to avoid the fearful event.
The key is to accept that you have prepared as much as you possibly can. You will get a result and it will be good, bad, or indifferent. Life will continue afterwards in any case. Famous people have been known to have failed at college and still make good.
Your fear will try to keep you awake worrying. It will give you brain fog. It will throw your biological clock out of kilter. It will make you unable to concentrate on revision.
See it for what it is and trust in fate and your preparation - pray if you are religious (not to pass but for peace of mind and courage). Most importantly, use relaxation/meditation tapes (available on Youtube) to give your brain a rest from time to time and to get to sleep if necessary.

Afterthought: Use the technique of athletes. Spend time each day visualising success. Imagine yourself walking into the exam room, seeing the ideal questions you want and completing them easily. Your brain will become attuned to a successful frame of mind and your unconscious mind will stop nagging you.

EDIT on comment by @benjaminaaron_m
On reflection, I think benjaminaaron_m is right. I heard a live interview with an athlete once, saying that they always visualized winning and that there was no point in visualising anything else. However in the case of an exam, I agree that it is probably better to imagine being able to answer some questions immediately and others after a little bit of consideration. Also visualize yourself having a confident and calm attitude.

Very nice suggestion... that visualization technique.

I would like to quibble with the visualisation technique a little bit. Doing it, as written above, with imagining that you get the ideal questions will help with pre-event nerves, but if the exam doesn't play out that way, you may start to panic on the spot. So I propose not to imagine particular questions, instead visualise that you'll just do fine throughout the exam, knowing some answers right after you are done with reading the question, but also being able to figure out those answers which you don't instantaneously know.

Of course, you should be aware of your strengths and weaknesses, so technically you should know which questions you would like to get. I’m just saying I would not do this kind of visualisation with imagining that I get exactly them.

@chasly-reinstateMonica I don't think there's a problem with visualising winning or visualising passing an exam. My quibble was about imagining that one will receive the ideal questions. As in the case of a sport, I think it would be a similarly bad idea to do the visualisation for example like this: "I throw the jab, he slips, and I throw the straight punch and it knocks him out". Instead, you should imagine in my opinion that you are just the better fighter throughout the fight, you are coolheaded, etc. So my problem was not with imagining success, it was with imagining too specific things.

@benjaminaaron_m - Yes, I agree that the visualization needs to be be tailored to be  both positive and realistic, and that this will differ according to the activity.

There are two components to succeeding on any exam. The first, obviously, is command of the material - you need to know what you're doing in order to do it. The second is emotional preparation. Intense stress or exhaustion can severely compromise your ability to recall important information or to attend to important details when you're taking the exam. It sounds like you've done good work preparing yourself in the first way - you've studied extensively, and you've reached a place where you perform reasonably well on practice exams (as you said in a comment). Now, it's time to attend to the second component. Thinking about your "axe" analogy: you've sharpened your axe. But if you're too sleepy when the time comes to see where you're chopping, all the strength in the world won't do you any good.
So take this time to rest and relax. Don't think of it as slacking off: think of it as preparing for your exam. Attending to your personal well-being is just as important to success on that exam as studying is.

When I was prepping for the prelim, the last week before the exam I was just memorizing equations. It's annoying that memorizing actually helped, and the exam should have been better-written so that problem solving was better tested. Still, under a time constraint you don't want to derive everything from first principles.
Anyways it was (for me) a low brain energy consumption activity that made me feel productive. And bonus: one equation I memorized was actually the final answer to a problem (that test really needs to be improved) so I could derive it backwards really quickly. Maybe you can find something similar that is low-key and rests your mind so you're fresh for the test but also makes you feel productive.
If you're too tired for even the most tedious study activity, then I recommend taking 24 hours completely off. Don't do chores either, just rest. Play a relaxing video game, read a fun book, spend the day in bed binging netflix, go for a hike, out to a bar with your friends, whatever you find energizing and not draining. The time you lose for studying you'll hopefully make up by being fresh for the last stretch of studying and ready to perform on the test. Sometimes you have to sink down and push off the bottom of the pool to get back up to the surface.
Monitor your own energy levels to see how much time off (if any) you need and adjust accordingly. If you think the time off will just make you more guilty, then go with a low-energy but still productive studying method until you're able to recover. If you're an extrovert, try studying in a group. Even if it's not as efficient for you, the group may make you feel less drained and more motivated.
Best of luck!!

I have prepared for competitive exams myself and like you I too spent more than 3 years to give a 3 hour long exam. After preparing for a single thing for such a long time, you get past the 10,000 hours of the 10,000 hours rule.

The key to achieving world-class expertise in any skill, is, to a large extent, a matter of practicing the correct way, for a total of around 10,000 hours. 1

You are quite likely to crack anything that comes at you, at this point.
From your perspective, you may not have the energy left to use your axe. However, from the perspective of the external world, you have trained and strengthened yourself for so long that your average shot will be better than the best shot of an average person. Quite the same way that an injured Usain Bolt can run faster than a fit Manish Mittal.
After such a long preparation, it will be difficult for you to screw this up. The ability to answer the questions is ingrained in your reflexes now, for next few months.

I'd suggest you to stop focusing on things beyond your control and start focusing on things within your reach. This implies focusing on revising the fundamentals and revisiting your strengths.
Attach yourself with the effort and detach yourself from the results. That means ensuring that you are putting in your best effort and after the effort has been put in, disconnect.
Don't take mentally taxing tasks if you don't feel like it. Just go and give your best shot in the exam. That's the best that you can do. And most likely, it will be good enough.

1 Let's not over-discuss this and take it at the face value for now.

Agree with the general idea here, but do not fully agree with "After such a long preparation, I don't think you even have a chance to screw this up.". I know people who unexpectedly underperformed quite a bit due to stress, so minimizing that is important. The rest of the answer is good.

@GoodDeeds: I wanted to add that caveat, but I trusted that the readers will get what I’m trying to say.

@GoodDeeds: BTW, I appreciate you reaching out so far down the post to read this answer. Typically people don’t.

Remember your main reason and main purpose of why you are taking that exam. Do not over stress yourself, give time to yourself, do the things that makes you happy, and remember you have already come this far, and you have already overcome a lot of hardships and challenges, so I know you can do it, do your best and good luck.

Do not be upset or confused by this. You've already done a lot! Take a look at what you've already achieved, at all the knowledge you've got. Isn't that great?
I do believe that if one has the strength and motivation to prepare for 3 years, that person will pass any exam.
Take a day off (two is better). Relax, clear your head, get good sleep, and go back to study all the weak spots (if you have any).

Please try to keep posts focused on the aim - here, answering a question about pre-assessment energy management. Links should be included only when relevant, and in no cases purely for the purposes of contacting you or advertising yourself.

From the context it seems OP is going to give JEE Advance. I've been through this phase and had made it through. The following answer isn't limited to the scope of this exam and is also true for all other relevant examinations.
Feeling this way is completely natural especially when you've worked for it for so long, we start seeing things in absolutes- either it's a success or it's a failure. This sort of thinking isn't exactly correct but as a student who has been at your position, no amount of arguments against it would have changed my mind at that time. I would rather urge you to focus on what is in your control and that's temperament. Temperament is what can make or break your 6 hour examination.
Answers above have already gone through important things you can do and I just want to point out that as a student who has been at your position, it works. Practice meditation and mindfulness and stay calm. Competitive examinations are more than knowing the most, it's about not losing your mind amidst immense pressure, so take a step back, relax, do things that you enjoy.
There's always some concept that is yet to be mastered, but what you couldn't do in three years, how would you in two weeks? :) All the best, you'll do great!

I know what you are talking about friend. Yes the pressure is really immense. I am gonna give this exam with you this year. And the only thing that I learned about this exam in my 2.5 yrs of preparation is that there is no need to fret or get stressed about it. The grades I used to get by giving the exam with a cool mind were really nice. The thing is let yourself cool a bit. Don't get distracted but try focusing on simpler things and basic concepts. Go out and feel the breeze on your face and breathe deeply.
All the best Bhai!!

How do you know which exam it is?

Two weeks is plenty of time to recover your physical well-being.  Fixing that will prevent the "worst case" scenario of an incomplete test.  You have already prepared for the best-case scenario of a perfect score with two years of study, there is nothing more to do there.
Step one, is to set a fixed time at night for going to bed, and time for waking up in the morning.  Set fixed times for meals, and make sure the calories are not too low or too high.  Ask your family to help you support these times for your exam preparation.  Use your favorite type of regular exercise too, it is good for the brain.  Instead of more studying, which is causing you anxiety, read your favorite fiction.  If you really don't like fiction, catch up on movies you have missed while studying so much.
Take a practice exam one week before the exam.  This should give you an idea if your recovery is on track.  If you feel that the health strategy is working, keep doing it for the last week!

I guess it has been mentioned enough that this is due to stress and probably also anxiety for the test. So its essential to find a strategy to cope. The two weeks will pass and you will do a good job if, and only if you go to the test without feeling totally burned out.
I would feel you are not the person to just go on holiday and forget about it. Same here, so what I do in such situations:
Divide the work you have left (revise Topics, learn stuff by heart) into packages: Try to balance the packages that each package takes about the same time (and max 5hours) and assign a package per day you have left. On that day do the package.
If you are finished and feel exhausted: reward yourself: Read a nice book, go for a movie, meet friends or just watch stupid TV shows. If after you are done with the package you still have energy: start with the package for the next day. But also reward yourself once you are done!
With the packages you also have the possibility to stop studying earlier the next day if you already did parts of your task for the next day. So if you do no feel well and feel you cannot study you can stop and then just assign the remaining parts to the next day.
This way you get everything done and you make yourself feel good if a package is completed. Overall you will have good and bad days, so ultimately you shoudl get everything done even if you have a few bad days where you are not able to study a lot.
That is at least what got me through many exams without losing my mind.

Sleep for enough time. Dream about the long term goal in life.
Wake up early.
Have day dream about the long term goal in life.
Stay healthy.
Revise, practice, revise and practice again.
Keep focus on the exam and only the exam and nothing else for the next 2 weeks.

As confirmed, an outstanding amount of effort was already put into the preparation for the exam.
The fact that 7 hours a day was invested for the past 3 years is a direct proof of how valuable the exam result is.
The covid situation is a common problem that is affecting everyone preparing for the exam, and also everyone in the world right now.

Shifting the attention away from the ongoing covid problem and dreaming about the long term goals and wonderful events that will happen after clearing the exam will definitely give the strength and encouragement to go for it!


text:
Letter of Recommendation From A Coach
I was recently asked to write a letter of recommendation for a young women that I coach for a sport. I am aware that she is a good student, however my only interaction with her is through coaching. She is an Olympian and I have coached her since she was a child. I have never written a letter of recommendation. Several of the colleges she is applying to have an online portal where the "letter" is to be written. How might I transform my knowledge of her as an athlete to be of interest to ( -U.S.) colleges ?
Update/Edit: She was excepted into a US service academy and stepped away from the Olympic Games. With respect to the Olympic Games and the training therein all she said was "it was trivial and easy, like seriously really." Indeed it is curious this "trivial introspection" despite years in which she felt she was constantly failing to preform. I now believe similarly to academicians, world class athletes see problems and problem solving differently than does the ordinary person. In particular, upon retrospection world class athletes tend to see problems as trivial and straightforward at either first glance or upon delivery of solution.

What kind of colleges are those?

Do you have any knowledge if she is hardworking, friendly, intelligent, reliable etc? Teamplayer?

Have you been to college yourself? If so, can you think about what challenges you or others around you faced when you were there, and how any traits your student possesses might serve her there? Colleges want to enroll successful students.

@user111388 US Colleges and the Naval Academy. And yes she is all that you mention except possibly friendly. Most certainly laser focused.

These are all traits you could mention in your rec letter. Don't know much about Naval Academy, does one have to be sporty to be there?

@BryanKrause you should answerize your comment so I can accept it. I can leverage my knowledge of her as a coach and answer those questions.

I'm voting to close as this question is about undergraduate admissions.

@astronat true, but cum grano salis this applies to other levels as well.

Just a remark, no full answer: Admissions may wonder if the athlete will be able and motivated to fully commit to her education, given her time- and focus-consuming athletic commitments. That might be something you'd want to address as well in your letter.

@henning--reinstateMonica - This a non-trivial observation. One that has been exasperated by the pandemic COVID-19. Indeed the tournament season puts her away + 20 academic days in any college with a 2 semester format.

@user3195446 I think the existing answers have covered my thoughts. Only thing I might add is that there is a bit of a tradition, at least in the US, of very praiseworthy language in recommendation letters. If you think she'd be a good student, say so unequivocally and don't be afraid that "too much praise" would seem insincere.

@henning--reinstateMonica Not really, an LOR from a sports coach for a grad program would not be nearly as useful as these answers suggest.

This question generalizes to non-undergrad letter writers, it has a good number of upvotes, includes several good answers, and made it onto HNQ.  Voted to reopen.

This is a great question IMHO.

I’m not sure that it does generalize to letters for graduate school admissions.  Having a letter from a coach is very reasonable for undergraduate admissions, but for graduate admissions you want letters that can speak to research promise and a coach can’t do that since they’re not a researcher.  This is especially true if the coach has a college degree but not a PhD. At the PhD level the right answer is “tell the student to get a letter from a researcher in their field.”

That said, if someone is the best in the world at anything, I’d certainly consider that a huge plus for graduate admissions.  It’s just that it should be a line on the CV and not a letter.

To the OP: remember that you won't be the only letter-writer for this applicant, so don't feel that you have to say everything possible that could be praised about her. Presumably she chose her set of letter-writers to be able to speak to her various strengths.

I found the following at MIT: How To Write A Good Letter of Recommendation, helped me to ask the right questions in order to gather my ideas and write a good letter.

The skills required to become an Olympian are (with the exception of athleticism and a talent for a particular sport, which I’d imagine are the least exceptional part of the package) obviously transferable to the setting of college education. A letter from you attesting to your firsthand knowledge of the young woman’s skills would be, as others said, extremely valuable and useful to the colleges she is applying to.
My suggestion is that you simply describe your experience of working with her, and what good qualities you are convinced she has based on that experience. Focus on things that would help a college predict that she would do well as a student and enrich the educational environment for her peers. For example, you mentioned she is hardworking and “laser focused”. Those are obviously awesome qualities. Anything else along those lines would be similarly useful. Does she have good leadership qualities? Is she an inspiring person to be around? Etc.
Also, given that you seem to have a lot of experience with the world of international competitive sports, it could help if you manage to describe a bit of that world and put across just how hard it is for a young person to get into the Olympics in your trainee’s particular sport or event. Of course, it’s common knowledge that this is an insanely impressive and difficult thing to achieve, but more concrete details from you are sure to drive home the message that this person has exceptional abilities and would be a coup for any college to admit.

+1 I have accepted your answer. I thought all of the answers were immensely helpful. Indeed as her coach I, counter intuitively,  tend to see her weaknesses. The crying, the self doubt, the fear of defeat and her personal belief that all of her accomplishes are by pure luck or circumstantial because someone else was injured, did not show or had a bad day. In writing the letter it would seem I have an opportunity to write about how she has overcome all of those issues in order to be #1 in the world.

@user3195446 incidentally, these issues are not unknown in the academic world. If you're interested, enter "imposter syndrome" into the search box above.

@user3195446 glad I could help. I’m sure it will be an amazing letter. And incidentally the qualities you mention don’t particularly sound like weaknesses, and are shared by many very successful people (including, as henning suggests in another comment, in academia).

@user3195446 I don't think it's counterintuitive at all. You'd be a pretty poor coach if you couldn't see her weaknesses; it's your job to identify them and help her correct/overcome them :)

A letter of reference from a coach, especially at the elite level, can be extremely valuable for an application. For example, you may be able to speak to:

the athlete's leadership and interpersonal skills, such as the ability to build connections with peers and teammates
their initiative, discipline, and focus in accomplishing a goal
how they might act as a role model to their peers
other soft skills such as time management, communication, and integrity

Of course the details will depend on your experience with the athlete. Obviously this person has been successful if they reached the Olympic level so it might be worthwhile to reflect on what qualities of theirs allowed them to succeed, and how those might translate to other areas of life (i.e. school). Personally, I have had a coach write a reference letter for me when I was applying to post-secondary institutions and the admissions committee commented that it made a strong impact.

Being an Olympian athlete (as a high school student) would be a huge positive to a US university (or service academy like USNA). This is independent of a particular school participating in that sport (which of course would make him/her a target of the coach, bringing in a whole other level of interaction with the university).
By any measure, the undergraduate admissions office will understand the level of time commitment, time management skills, and capability to establish and work toward long term goals that it takes to be an Olympian.
So, yes, write a letter, talk about the person's work ethic, performance, integrity, teamwork, all that you see that has enabled them to become one of the best in the world.


text:
Awaiting ME decision and reviewers selection
I submitted a manuscript through ScholarOne two months ago. During the first week they asked me a few doubts and once they were answered, the manuscript status appeared as "awaiting reviewer selection". Then they change the status to "awaiting ME decision" and stayed this way until a week ago, when they changed iy back to "awaiting reviewer selection"
I'm a bit confused. Can anyone give me an explanation? Thanks


text:
Keeping door open to return to academia
I'm a lecturer in a good UK university with 10 years research experience (64 publications, £800k in grants, lead 3 teaching modules) and am at the end of 5 interview process for a pretty high up position in research at a charity. The role sounds great and is twice the salary, however I would not be contributing to research, rather I would be spearheading multiple programmes.
I would enjoy the role, but if 5-10 years down the line I missed the research and flexibility to chase what I saw fit with my expertise, will I have a written off a chance to return? Am I saying this is it? Are there any ways I could keep one for in the door just in case I might want to return to academia? Would this role be seen as an advantage to academia that I have not thought of?

Hard to say.  The nature of academia is changing.  For example, Uni. of Sydney appointed a Vice Chancellor without a PhD; apparently he has good connections to the government.  It is possible that the skills you've acquired in the industry/charity become valuable to academia and opens a door back into academia.   However, if you are competing based on say publications, you will probably lose out to some young researcher.

The biggest hurdle you might face, unless you are proactive, is to get necessary letters of recommendation that are positively viewed by academics. Some of those might come from your employment, but it would be a mistake to lose contact with people in academia, such as your current colleagues. Your old university professors are probably less valuable at your stage, of course.
And, yes, some teaching on the side will help somewhat, but it isn't research that adjunct faculty do. Perhaps collaborating in research with your current colleagues would be better.
And, the nature of your employment might factor in, if you want to return to academia. You will probably be a bit behind in your field in a decade, unless what you do at the charity is closely related.
Industry research is usually very different from academic research, though it might not be so disparate at a charity. But if it is closely related, developing collaborations with academic researchers might be especially valuable for everyone. That will keep you relevant.
But, going back to an academic salary will be very difficult if you then have financial obligations that don't mesh well with a much lower income.
I'd spend some time thinking long term about your goals before you make a jump. And think about what the path will be along the way if you want to keep your options open.


text:
Publications for small time research
I've been working on an interesting sorting algorithm that is efficient for an array of problems. I wrote up a paper on my findings and it has turned into about 5 pages.  I've researched pretty thoroughly and there aren't any papers that use the method I have found or solve the problem I was working on as efficiently.  I'm curious if there is an easy place to publish work.  I got my undergrad in statistics and never did research so I don't really know how the process works.  Just checking to see if y'all have any recommendations.

I would advice you to prepare your report for conferences such as FOCS, SODA. These are top conferences in the field. Just read a few previously published paper from the same conferences. However, you may talk to one of your professors who might show some interests in the findings.


text:
What does "ad indicem" mean in a citation?
I've seen this latin term in footnotes several times and still don't know the meaning of it. It is usually used like this:
[34] About this, see John Smith 2003, ad indicem.
or like this:
[65] Jane Smith 2006, 98-101, and ad indicem.
What does it mean? Does it mean "there are too many pages in this book related to this topic. I don't want to list them all. Just go check the index yourself"?

To be short, yes.
According to the post in English.SE, it means 'see the index'. It basically tells you to refer the index section and look for the topic that is discussed in the context where it is cited.
Note: This question was asked in both Academia.SE and English.SE to benefit both communities as there isn't a single standard dictionary that could be found online to define this term. Credits go to the original answer in English.SE for answering my post.


text:
How to Establish a Community-Scope Means of Sharing Code/Knowledge Across Labs?
In my field there has been a growing interest in establishing a means of sharing resources (i.e. software and technical knowledge) across labs. Currently, these resources are shared ad hoc, and as such it can be difficult for researchers, particularly students and junior faculty, to find out how to do particular things or avoid reinventing the wheel.  I'm working with a few other people in my field to attempt to establish a centralized, public (within the field) means for sharing these resources across the research community, but have no prior experience setting up anything like this.  We're considering setting up a Google Group for facilitating discussion and announcements, but I am concerned we may have difficulty engaging and growing the user base to the point where the group can sustain itself.  Therefore, my questions are:

Are there community wide resource sharing methods in other fields that might serve as an example for us? How were they established?
What are the critical factors that determine the success or failure of this sort of community level collaboration?  How do successful collaborations handle these factors?

Who is financing the collaboration / sharing process?

We don't have a dedicated funding source for the sharing process yet.  To date, we've had two conferences let us run panel discussions on the topic, which is why we believe there is at least some interest.  I'd feel more comfortable applying for funding once we have some proof of concept.

An institutional Intranet?

Perhaps the closest one I ever came to know is the PROMISE Repository. It is dedicated to store Software Engineering research artifacts. You can check about their history and some management policies on their "about" page.
I feel that this repository has been quite useful to the Software Engineering research community or, at least, it has been cited.