text:
When is a postdoc "too long"?
Consider the following background information. The field is natural sciences. The goal is professorship/tenure. The country is Germany. It has been exactly two years since the completion of PhD at a different German institute. The plan is to move to the industry if the goal is not achieved within 5-6 years after the PhD.
Currently, the postdoc is actively applying (without success so far) for programs like Emmy Noether, DFG, BMBF, etc., including other third-party funding agencies. They most often state they are looking for people with experience abroad. None currently exists. Due to personal reasons, it is very difficult to do a postdoc in North America (abroad) to become the 'ideal candidate' for such programs.
Also, the postdoc supervises (unofficially) 3-4 PhD students full-time and manages other group-related affairs in the absence of the group leader. The group leader will not be able to supervise these students without the postdoc. Therefore, the group leader's interest is to keep the postdoc, she cannot guarantee tenure but has promised to 'help' (but nothing concrete). She has offered to extend the postdoc contract to a total of 5 years.
Question:
At what point in time does staying at this institute become detrimental to the goal of achieving tenure?

I find it distracting to write in this odd, detached, third-person style.

This question implies that only postdocs in North America would be considered "abroad" by the system? Are those same personal reasons preventing the postdoc from seeking another postdoc in close-by European countries, for example in Austria or the Netherlands? Considering decent train connections in Europe, and the lack of border control in the Schengen zone, the postdoc may even be able to find something close to the German border and continue residing in Germany in exchange for a slightly longer commute. Or is that also not an option for this person due to personal reasons?

Is this about the same person as you other question? Because this sounds increasingly like the position is not in the best interest of said person, regardless of duration.

Staying in Europe is possible. @MisterMiyagi yes

The postdoc is too long when you give up other, better, options. Or when you turn them down. There is no clock, though there may be firm time limits for postdocs. Times are hard in many places and many fields in academia.
Note, however, that people will start to wonder about you if you spend too much time in one or more postdocs. This may be unfair, but it happens.
If the person is actively seeking better options, by their own standard, then that is all they can do. They don't need to be the "ideal" candidate for any position, just good enough and equal to or better than the competition at the moment. And they need to use the postdoc to improve their chances by writing papers and collaborative work and such. Make sure that the activities of the postdoc enhance your own reputation and CV, not just that of the PI.
Note that the supervisor shouldn't be an obstacle, and there is no reason that future collaboration is impossible if the person gets a  position elsewhere. If they are an obstacle, then that needs to be discussed and a solution found. Hard and dependent on personalities and an expectation of ethical behavior that isn't always present. If they can't guarantee a future, then they need to spend effort of help the person move on.
But there is no optimum for any of your questions. No easy answers. No magic cookie. Keep looking, carefully evaluate options.
A postdoc is meant to be a stepping stone to a career, not a career itself. It can be helpful to a person when the time to publication of papers, perhaps based on the dissertation, is long. But effort to move beyond it is required throughout.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Generally I agree. However, I think the way it works in Germany at the moment there is no denying that missing international experience is a disadvantage for tenure applications. Such jobs are hard to get, and you would have to make up your 'deficiencies' by some other achievement, such as a top publication record or some major scientific breakthrough.

Like the previous commenter, I generally agree with this answer, but I disagree with the statement that "there is no clock". There is a clock, which starts ticking the second you finish your PhD.  There is no set expiration date, but the longer it has been since the completion of your PhD, the harder it is to get your foot in the door. This can be ameliorated to some extent by having a strong research / publication record, but people are going to what's wrong with a candidate who is 6 years out form their doctorate and still in a postdoc position. (This is a US-centric perspective, however.)

@XanderHenderson I agree and would add that the clock is specific to location. Some places in the US do not have a clock but, I know some places do have a clock. For example, the U of Minnesota limits postdocs to 5 years if I recall correctly. Other places can have or not have their own clocks.

@RichardErickson Oh, that is actually a different point from the one I was making (but a very good point, nevertheless).  I was more thinking about how hiring committees look at long postdocs.  Generally speaking, the longer it has been since phd conferral, the more scrutiny an applicant is going to get by a hiring committee.

@RichardErickson, I assume that is the maximum length of any postdoc there. The absolute deadline after which you are no longer employable anywhere is a completely different concept. That was behind my "no clock" phrasing. No drop dead date for your career. It depends on what you accomplish. But as we all have noted, people start to ask questions.

@Buffy, actually there is a practical limit in Germany for being employable as a postdoc. After 6 years employment as a postdoc, it becomes very hard to be employed in a non-permanent position, and permanent positions are rare.  Details are here (in German): https://www.bmbf.de/DE/Forschung/Wissenschaftssystem/WissenschaftlicheKarriere/Wissenschaftszeitvertragsgesetz/wissenschaftszeitvertragsgesetz_node.html

@Snijderfrey, I'd guess the OP wants a career, not a non-permanent position. They specify professorship/tenure. And, again, it gets harder the longer you go for a variety of reasons.

Germany requires that researchers go into permanent positions after, IIRC, 12 years of temporary contracts. This imposes a necessary limit on the postdoc period for people who do not travel overseas for experience.

As I was finishing my PhD, a good friend gave me advice about postdoc duration. He said that a postdoc will likely continue to be useful to their host institution for much longer than they will be useful to the postdoc - and judging by your description of the postdoc's situation, this seems to hold true for this person as well. As Buffy's answer suggests, the goal of a postdoc is to continually improve and enhance one's profile and CV, in order to be better suited to the positions they are targeting.
He did put a timer on it - he suggested two years in any single postdoc will likely be the point when the returns from the positions diminish sufficiently that it may be better to move into a different position (even if just a postdoc). Since the focus of my research slightly shifted from my PhD to my postdoc, I set my own limit to 3 years rather than two. I then promptly ignored both his original advice and my revised version, stayed for four years, and then got a permanent academic post at the same University (while he made a career change and went to industry; can't remember if by choice or not). So this time limit is by no means set in stone.
Nonetheless, when I am advising postdocs now in my current permanent post, I do tell them that staying too long in any one postdoc will start raising eyebrows after a few years. I also tell them that I consider this unfair, as I understand there are likely family and other personal considerations, and that I hope that the number of academics sharing my opinions is slowly increasing. I strongly disagree with my colleagues that try their hardest to keep any outstanding postdoc we might have - I think this is selfish and only benefits the groups research, but not the postdoc in question.
Finally, consider what qualities are demonstrated by holding a position abroad at some point when applying for academic positions. Certainly, the ability to board a plane, get by in an environment that speaks a different language, or being familiar with diverse architecture styles, are not the qualities that any interview panel is interested in. Having the ability to collaborate within different research groups that likely practice different research styles, the ability to create your own research line while exploring a wide range of applications, and familiarity with different organisational structures that research departments may come in, are much more important.
So, taking all of this into account, consider how this postdoc can build their profile to demonstrate as many of these qualities as they can. Taking up a different postdoc position, even in Germany, will certainly demonstrate that the postdoc can collaborate with a wider profile of academics than staying in the same postdoc for 4-5 years. If even a move within Germany is not something this postdoc would consider due to personal reasons, they may consider compensating thru establishing strong international collaborations - they might achieve this by initiating research with any departmental academic guests that pass by their department, or attending more conferences and engaging academics in that way. It is likely that establishing collaborations in this way would be more challenging than if this person took a postdoc position elsewhere, but they might be prepared to accept this trade off considering their personal reasons. Or they may attempt to do short-term, week-long visits to departments and Universities abroad (considering that their current lab is benefitting greatly from this postdoc supervising PhD students, maybe this is a benefit they could negotiate with their current advisor). If their personal reasons allow them to be a bit more flexible, just not as flexible as to look for a position in North America, they may consider looking for postdoc positions elsewhere in Europe - this would likely be less of an administrative hussle if the postdoc is an EU citizen. Considering decent train connections in Europe, especially between bigger cities, as well as an increasing practice of remote working for several days a week, the person might even be able to stay living in Germany while holding a postdoc position abroad. Finally, consider that the idea of a footloose and fancy free postdoc who is free to gallivant all over the world for the sake of academic betterment is a fairly old one, and rapidly changing in modern times. Therefore, this person may have better luck applying for permanent/tenure-track positions in departments that are on average younger and staffed by younger academics - as they are more likely to share my opinion that collaborative qualities demonstrated by a candidate are more important than demonstrating those qualities thru international experience.


text:
How do you interpret the message I received from the chair of search committee?
I recently attended a campus interview for a tenure-track faculty position. I think it did not go too bad overall. As soon as I came back I sent thank-you notes to which I got generally positive responses, even two said that they would like to collaborate with me in the future. Earlier this week I sent an enquiry email asking if there was any update and received an email from the chair of the search committee moments later saying that I should "definitely" watch my phone in the next two weeks for a call from the Dean, also highlighting that if I get an offer from another university I should let them know asap so that they can "speed-wrap" things faster on their end. I tend to interpret this as if I got the job, but I do not want to get carried away. Any idea would be much appreciated. I find it very hard to live my life with this uncertainty!

This question is not a good fit as it depends on individual factors. Noone except the people involved in hiring at that university know exactly what is going on. Just wait.

https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/189399/40589

Such decisions are usually done by more than one person (e.g., a committee), and what is not uncommon is that there are meetings scheduled for making the final decision. This means nothing is fixed until the meeting. You getting an offer from elsewhere may be a reason for them to reschedule the meeting (to earlier) or make the decision without a meeting earlier, so you can get a decision earlier. But this is extra work, so it is not unreasonable to only do that if you have an offer from elsewhere. Of course, I can't know if all of this is reason in your case, but it's plausible.

The signs are good, but until such time as you have the actual offer in hand, you won't know and there is nothing you can do about it: Before it is legally decided that you should get the job, nobody is going to tell you something definitive. As a consequence, the only thing you can do is pour yourself a glass of good wine and stay positive.

It ain't over till the fat lady sings. Or better make that: it ain't over till the enormous person sings.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Academic affiliation when changing universities
I am an incoming student at University A. Currently, I work as a research assistant at University B, but will be leaving this position within the month. Likewise, my affiliation with University B (including email and other means of contacting me through University B) will disappear within the month.
My group at University B is currently preparing to submit a paper on which I am a lead author. Since it will soon no longer be possible to contact me via University B, it would seem to me that listing both my A and B contact information would make the most sense. This way, should anyone wish to reach me, they would be able to do so.
However, all of this raises a question: if I will soon be leaving University B, should I list both A and B as my academic affiliation, especially considering that I will likely have to provide contact information for both affiliations? How should I proceed?

Look at various papers in your field. Quite often there is a standard (for a given journal) way to indicate your affiliation with B (properly since you did the work there) and you Current address at A.

Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/171418/etiquette-for-institutional-affiliation-if-you-changed-institutions-during-the-r/171446#171446

In my field it's common to list both affiliations in cases like this.

Depending upon the specific journal, you have 4 options:

List only University A
List only University B
List both Universities A and B.
List only University B with a current address or affiliation of University A.

I suggest options 3 or 4 depending upon the journal's styling format.
Option 4 probably makes the most sense, but some journals have quirks about author affiliations.

The point of displaying authors' affiliations in a paper is two-fold:

It allows to recognize the institution in which the work was performed and results obtained (in your case: University B).
It also allows readers to have the most up-to-date information about the authors' current affiliations and contacts (in your case: University A).

Both are non mutually exclusive. As stated in the previous answer, I would recommend you indicate both affiliations (preferably also stating which one is the current one).

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


text:
What is the research on taking a gap year between undergrad and medical school (or PhD)?
I have some studies (below), but was wondering if anyone knows of any that I'm missing.
Studies I've already read:
2020 study: “In multivariate analysis, gap years were independently associated with lower levels of burnout (p = 0.041). Further, burnout decreased in a stepwise fashion with students who took 0 (p = 0.350), 1 (p = 0.192), and 2+ (p = 0.048) gap years.” “Students taking gap years exhibited significantly lower levels of burnout than those who did not.” The average matriculating medical student age is 24 years old. ⅔ of all students take a gap year. Less “emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment” at p=0.002. Not taking a gap year has a much larger effect (3-4X) than being female, for example. “Gap years should no longer be viewed as undesirable compared to direct entry into medical school. Taking time off to explore other opportunities and have life experiences should be encouraged, as it can play a role in reducing burnout.”
2015 study: “This study reports the views of… medical students from 6 Universities… obtained from an anonymous questionnaire. Nearly all who had taken a gap year (77/79) would advise current school leavers to take one” and “48/105 who had not (p <0.0001).” So about 70% of med students advise to take a gap year. Nearly all gap year students “thought a gap year helped students become more mature (78/79).” Nearly all “gap year students were significantly more likely to consider that a gap year made it easier for them to make friends (70/79).” There was no support among either group that a gap year makes it “difficult to settle into work at University.” “This study shows overwhelming support for deferring entry to medical school and taking a gap year from those students who took one, and nearly half of those students who did not. Medical school entrance committees should reconsider their advice to students who wish to defer entry in order to take a "gap year."” Half of non-gap year students regret their decision not to take a gap year and “wished that they had taken a gap year.”
“The percentage [of people taking gap years] is even higher [than average] for undergrads at high-powered research institutions such as Johns Hopkins [and other selective/research]  medical schools.”
2021 study: “According to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), more than half of matriculated students now have taken time off between their undergraduate studies and medical school.” “>65% of matriculating medical students indicated a gap of at least 1 year between college graduation and matriculation into  medical  school in the 2019  AAMC  Matriculating Student Questionnaire.” “Across virtually all responses, one of the primary things students spoke about was the connection between their gap-year experiences and a greater sense of adaptability in medical school. One after the other, students consistently cred-ited work-life experiences from their gap years for their enhanced ability to withstand change and failures.” “The consensus among students was that most of the bene-fits of their gap year(s) manifested as other skills, competen-cies, and virtues, including patient interface skills, greater maturity, empathy, humility, and patience. Virtually all students spoke to all of these qualities.” “We conclude that gap year experiences, in general, provide significant benefits to students and their medical schools.”
2022: “A total of 176 of 486 residents (36.2%) completed the study. There was no significant association between Emotional Intelligence (EI) level and age, gender, type of medical degree, having an advanced degree, or being in a specific specialty. We found that residents who took time off before matriculating into medical school had higher overall EI scores than those who did not take time off (p = 0.02). Similarly, those who took time off before medical school scored higher in interpersonal skills (p = 0.04), empathy (p = 0.03), decision-making (p = 0.02), and impulse control (p = 0.03).” Again, there is more emotional intelligence gained by taking a gap year compared to being female, to put it into perspective. “Residents who had taken time off before matriculating in medical school had higher overall EI scores and higher scores in the EI components of interpersonal skill, empathy, decision-making, and impulse control.” Also confirms a majority of students take a gap year. They conclude with: “Residency program directors may consider interviewing or ranking an applicant more highly if the applicant has taken a gap year before starting medical school.”
A 2020 study: Their sample of gap year students got into medical school twice as much as the average applicant. “Completing a gap year between college and medical school… can benefit both the learner and the program.”

I have no data, but the Dean of Admissions of our med school was a colleague of mine, and I asked him about a gap year a year or two after our preprofessional advisors started thinking of them as standard.
Basically, he told me that once in Med School, you can really tell the difference between those who took a gap year and those who didn't.  He said that the three top things they look for in an applicant are maturity, maturity, and maturity.  Toward that end, I suggest that your odds of admission are much better if you can show that the gap year was used effectively to help develop maturity than if you sit and play video games for a year.


text:
How do PhD letter of recommendations actually get sent?
Is there usually a person at the undergrad university that handles it? Or does my recommender have to fill it out for every single program? Or something else?

This is highly dependent upon what field you are studying, which institutions you are applying to, what country those institutions live in, and about a million other variables.  Can you be a bit more specific about your situation?

Owl post, at least for Hogwarts.

There are a lot of possibilities. If there is staff available, it may just get passed to them. But that is probably less available than in the past (US perspective).
But, given that the professor saves a copy of one, it isn't much work to prepare another unless it needs to be tailored. Usually, though, the body of the message won't change much for a given candidate.

Usually, if you need multiple recommendation letters from the same person, they will submit more or less the same letter to each institution, with maybe a few modifications depending on whether the institution has requests for particular information from the recommender.
Most, if not all, institutions in the US will have an online portal where you'll put in your recommender's information, and they will upload their letter and whatever other information the institution requests (some will have something to the effect of "rate the student in these key areas on whether this student is in the top 1%, 5%, 25%" etc.) If you are applying to multiple colleges/programs within the same institution, they may only need the recommender to fill out that information once, but this is again institution-dependent.


text:
Can two people write one letter of recommendation?
I have two cofounders who I've worked with in a similar capacity. Can they write a joint letter of recommendation for me?

Related: Is it possible to ask two professors to write a joint letter of recommendation?,

That would be up to the receiving institution to judge, but I suspect so. But it would possibly count as one letter of the (likely) three that you need, however.
Individual letters might be a bit better, though, as it is clearer where the ideas in it come from. And given that you have a continuing relationship with them, there might arise questions of conflict of interest.
Note also, that for graduate (especially doctoral) admissions, the writer needs to be in a position to know what is entailed and to make an honest prediction of your likely success. "Two cofounders" might be in a position to know that, or not.

Good point on the conflict of interest. I wonder what the norm is around that

Yes, they certainly can. My lab head and I have done this for students I have directly supervised so that they have the benefit of my detailed comments on their day-to-day performance, and also the name recognition that comes with my supervisor's name on the letter.
In situations like this, it is common for one of the authors to write the letter, give the other an opportunity to look it over and give additional comments/approval, and then that author will submit the joint letter to the institution.
This generally only counts as one letter of recommendation.

Why aren't both of them writing letters? Typically, recommendation letters aim to provide a 'personal' perspective from a supervisor, co-author, director, etc. Since both of them may not be able to assess your qualities in the exact same manner, I don't think it's a good idea.
Another consideration is that each person writing a recommendation letter usually starts by explaining how and in what circumstances they worked with you. I assume that you interacted with these two individuals in different situations, and they likely had distinct experiences with you. Even if the experiences are somewhat similar, there are likely differences.
To illustrate, suppose person A is experienced in task A1, while person B is experienced in task B1. Even if you performed well in both tasks, they would (and should) likely focus their feedback on their respective areas of expertise.

Makes sense! I will probably go with separate letters then. However, I think they do overlap quite a bit


text:
A prospective PhD supervisor requested for an interview with me but no response afterwards
I sent an email with my qualifications to a prospective PhD supervisor and he responded by asking for my availability for interview and the likely days of the week, this could hold. I responded that I am available for interview and also chose a day from the available days he gave.
He didn't reply to my email. I sent a reminder a day before the interview day asking for the link for the interview session and the time of the day when the interview will hold but there was also no response. Please, what could have happened?

It's time to move on.
There are many reasons why the prospective advisor might not be replying, and none of them are good for you.
It could be that they are too busy to reply, which shows you a person who is either not well organized or who lets work back up. An organized person would reply saying something like "I'm about to submit a grant proposal, I'll get back to you in a couple of weeks."
It could be a simple case of ghosting: they initially thought it would be a good idea to correspond with you, but since then a better candidate showed up, the funds dried up, or they didn't like the way you wrote your last email (too rude, too submissive, too needy, whatever). So they changed their mind but also don't want to spend 30m writing an explanation to a stranger.

Thank you for the reply. I just felt bad for the silence after receiving a confirmation for interview.

It's a two -way interview. They are interviewing you for a job, and you are interviewing them for advisor position. Agreeing to an interview and then ghosting you is rude and unprofessional. They failed your interview by default. You'll find a better advisor.

Don't think about why this guy might not have responded to the follow up. That won't do any good to you. Look out for another potential advisor. However, I understand this sort of outcome is NOT expected. You have the opportunity to learn from it, and ensure that --- when you become a full-fledged academician and get such correspondence from genuine person, especially the young students --- you don't end up putting this guy's shoes on.

Thanks for the comment

First of all, academics, just like everyone else, have a life. Something personal may have happened, which made it impossible for them to attend the meeting and reply to you. They may be sick and bedridden.
There certainly is a culture in Academia of bringing work at home (or rather never really stopping), which can expands even when people are sick or have personal issues, but that's not something to ignore.
Alternatively, academics are also very busy. They receive a lot of emails, and yours may have been missed. Some people are not very good at organising their schedule, emails, ... and will make more mistakes of this type, but it can happen to everyone.
While for you, that was the only event of the day/week, they may had 4 other meetings that day, and 3 other interviews during the week.
And plenty of other things could have happen. We can't say, and we can't properly answer your question, because only the PhD supervisor themselves can. They may send you an email in a few days apologising.
Now, about academia, as I said people receive a lot of emails, and you sadly would not be the first to stop receiving answer from prospective PhD supervisor or other academics. It happens all the time. Some academics will try to answer everyone, but some don't bother, and some may just apologise later.
I once received an answer to my prospective email to a supervisor 5 months later when they cleaned their mailbox.
I'm aware you had contacts with them, but just as they may have a totally reasonable reason to not have been able to contact you such as being sick, they may have also decided to not continue and not answer to you.

Thank you for the reply. I just wished he could at least reply my emails

@Jiboy I understand how it feels. I went through the same trouble of not getting answer or getting ghosted. As Cheery said, you should move on. There is plenty of other PhD supervisor. Maybe this one wouldn't have been good for you. And if something happen and they answer very late, then you can get back to the interview and maybe work with them. But don't get stuck on one possibility

Thanks. I appreciate your comment.


text:
I applied for a France fellowship with my university as my host organisation. Now PhD supervisor is fighting with me and making grounds to give TC?
I am pursuing PhD at a university in India under a toxic supervisor. I received a fellowship in France for which the university is given as host. I got the results that I am selected for the fellowship in July 2023. My supervisor gave me NOC for visa purposes. Now due to some personal issues, she harassed me and I applied for a change of guide, but the university is not supporting me. I found out that the professor brings too many central government funded projects to the university. And when I approached the dean with my issues, he made a statement that I am trying to hold on to my PhD just for the fellowship in France and not for other reasons.
My intention was to do a PhD with foreign exposure and build collaborations to get postdocs abroad.  If my university removes me from the PhD program, will my fellowship get cancelled or will they consider my situation? I am very scared as this is happening in the last moment.

This is probably too vague to collect any useful answers. Why do you think the university will remove you from their PhD program? Typically this requires more than a professor with a bad attitude.

What are "NOC" and "TC" please.

No Objection Certificate for visa and Transfer certificate


text:
Funding Regulations Involving Industrial Partners for PhD Students in the Netherlands
I currently have a working contract of 4 years with my university in the Netherlands as an employed PhD candidate (werknemer-promovendus). The funding for this PhD, as I was told by my promotor (term for PhD advisor in the Netherlands), comes mainly from an industrial partner (IP) with a supplement from the Dutch Ministry of Education.
Given this funding, the PhD involves close collaboration with this said IP. There have been multiple cases of violation of the scientific integrity code of my university involving this IP with former/current colleagues of my lab: Coming up with formulas that are incorrect and publishing them in conferences, even though they have been demonstrated to be incorrect. Cases of publications involving obvious plagiarism. And an overall lack of seriousness and scientific rigor that you would expect in academia. I haven't yielded yet, and I will not. I have been showing more and more resistance to their way of working. My promotor isn't willing to go against the IP since this allows funding for PhD positions/Postdocs, and isn't very happy with the resistance I am showing. I should also perhaps mention that the thesis, as well as my other PhD colleagues' theses, which my promotor is supervising, is a bit far away from their field, so they may also have a hard time understanding why a given formula is incorrect, or how a given publication may constitute plagiarism when contrasted with another one. It's not their domain of expertise.
In case the IP decides to retract its partnership (and hence funding) with the university, can I be dismissed? If I keep maintaining my current standing, can my promotor fire me? For those of you familiar with Dutch academia, are there any resources I could consult on this matter?

This seems like a local question for someone at your university. Perhaps there is an office that manages such grants from partners. Perhaps someone in administration has knowledge of the funding possibilities. It may not be a national standard.

I got an answer from an education union that specializes in these legal matters.
Q1: The answer is no, unless there is a specific provision in the signed contract with the university that stipulates that there will be a dismissal in case the funding is retracted from the industrial partner. In case there is no such provision, which is usually the case for werknemer-promovendus contracts, the university has the obligation to continue funding you as an employee given the signed contract even if the partner rectracts their funding.
Q2: The employer has the obligation to uphold the signed contract for its duration after a probation period. The university (and not the promotor) thus cannot simply dismiss the PhD candidate after the probation period (usually 9 months) has elapsed.


text:
Recommendation letter during COVID
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic situation, I was bound to do my masters in mathematics via online mode.
As a result I don't have my master's project thesis and also have less interaction with the professors of my institute. But I have done a few summer projects for two months at other institutes.
During my PhD application abroad, will it be accepted if I take the recommendation letters from my summer project supervisors instead of the professors of my institute?
Will it be a disadvantage of my application profile as an international applicant?

Letters of support are ideally written by an academic or researcher you have worked with, and who can attest to your good research skills (or other skills you believe you would like to showcase in your PhD application, e.g. communicating your ideas in writting).
In the situation you describe, your summer project supervisors sound like ideal letter writers, if those were research projects or otherwise relevant to the topics of the PhD programmes you are applying to.
You can always address this, together with why you have no MSc thesis or supervisor from your own institution, in the cover letter. That is the place to provide context for the facts you demonstrate with your CV. Something like:

As the requirement of a MSc thesis was removed from my study programme at University X in my final year due to the pandemic, I have taken the initiative to obtain relevant research experience by participating in summer projects at Institute Y.

(And then, like in any other cover letter, you talk about your relevant experience, which in your case would be the one from the summer projects rather than the thesis).

I agree with this answer.  As someone who participates in the HR process at my company, I'll note that I would place more value on "optional" work done by students, as it suggests that the candidate either has initiative or has interest in the field.  Such work is worth even more than a master's project, because nobody stood behind the student and said, "do this or you won't graduate." I agree with this answer that it's still good to address that the recommendation letters aren't coming from the school: That's atypical, even without a master's project.


text:
Got a terrible letter from my PI instead of a promised good letter. Is not including it a lot better than incluidng it? Should I work for a while?
I posted earlier about my situation. I'm changing PhD programs, and I got a terrible recomendation letter form my advisor. I found out by accident. What do I do now? I'm shocked
To recap: I'm a PhD student in a STEM field, and I'm transferring because I was fired from my lab despite good academic and research performance. My PI promised me a decent/good letter, but I was warned by another professor that it's actually a pretty bad letter that sounds really negative and dismissive.
I cannot post the letter for evaluation obviously, but it starts off by saying that he no longer supports me as a PhD student in his group despite me having passed candidacy. Then, he mentions that I am definitely smart and that a lot of professors (course instructors) even told him they are impressed with my grasp of the field; and the positive side ends on him saying I worked hard and put in long hours in the lab, and that we are still working on a paper. But then, he lists a lot of negatives (like me being a lone wolf, unorganized, and that my presentations are terrible). The negative part is a bit longer. The worst thing is however, the fact that in the end, he says that he has reservations, but that he thinks I deserve a chance to try my luck getting a PhD somewhere. That sounds negative, right?
I know the situation is pretty grim either way, but... Is my only choice to hope for a miracle? Should it actually significantly increase my chances if I use a good letter from another professor instead? Or is it my negative perception (that is shared by the professor who warned me apparently) and this letter is actually not that bad? Some people told me not using my former PI's letter is an even bigger red flag than this letter. Or maybe, it's better to work for a while in my field, and then, apply to PhD programs?

I know this is not an answer to your question, but the things you mentioned like "bad presentations", "lone wolf", "poor organisation" are all skills that can be improved so don't feel bad about yourself.

I recommend simplifying the question to "In math, how much will this letter hurt my application?" To me what you describe seems pretty normal -- certainly the fact that he "fired" you but still recommends you requires a detailed explanation, and so he listed both your pros and cons. But you said in your other post that his letter was so negative that a random person felt compelled to give you a heads-up. So getting a clear verdict from people who know your field about how damning this letter is seems like the first step.

Oof, that's rough. Sorry you're advisor shafted you like that.
You're stuck between a rock and a hard place - not sending the letter is going to read as "the letter was so bad I couldn't send it". Which, while true, is not the impression you want to make. Obviously sending the letter isn't ideal either. My experience in academia is that great letters are good, good letters are okay, and okay letters are a red flag on their own. Bad letters can be a death sentence.
So what to do? My gut reaction is to try to stay in the program with a different advisor. I don't know if that's realistic for your situation but if there are others that have worked with you, and don't share your advisor's opinion, you might be able to find a new home. If you can't stay at that program, this would be the time to leverage whatever network you have - other professors, researchers, whoever you have interacted with thus far who might be able to help. Basically you need someone to either take you in themselves or vouch for you.
Alternatively you can try to get ahead of the problem and explain your difficulties in whatever personal statement you're submitting with your application. This is probably the time to be frank about the issues you had, frame them in a more flattering light, and focus on your strengths - including the strengths your advisor mentions.
Whether or not you keep sending out the letter is up to you though. I think either option is equally bad (for slightly different reasons), but which you choose depends on how you put together your application. It might be better to not send the letter, explain you had a falling out with your advisor and see where that gets you.
Example 1: Send the letter (because at least your advisor is providing some support for you getting another position). Focus on how you have recognized your weaknesses, addressed them, and include a letter that is much more positive. Ideally have that writer address the same things you do - i.e., VroomVroom123 had a,b,c problems but has improved in x,y,z ways. This option is rough because obviously the letter says what it says.
Example 2: Don't send the letter. Focus on the same things, but control the narrative a bit more. Include the most positive letter(s) you can kind. Know that people will assume the worst in this case.

Thank you. Another re letter writer briefly mentioned one of the mitigating circumstances in his letter. Do you think that would make the situation a bit better if I don't send my advisor's letter?

I don't think I will hurt. But you really need someone who understands the situation to help you make these decisions and put together a coherent application.


text:
I lost my research assistantship due to poor grades and miscommunication. Does this count as being "fired" from a job on future applications?
I was in a graduate program in the sciences and started with full funding + stipend which came from a research assistantship. I then lost the assistantship after a year mainly due to miscommunication - I dropped a class that was actually required for my research group. I did not realize that their were class and academic requirements specific to each research group but there were "academic standards" mentioned in my original RA offer.
EDIT: I ended up going on to complete a master's, which is what I had originally signed up for anyway, just to give more context.
On some applications I've applied to, it asks me if "I have ever been fired from any job for any reason." Since an RA is sort of a "job," and I don't want to give the appearance of lying and then later be found out, I've been leaning towards saying I was fired and then giving the explanation.
Does this make sense? Or should I just leave this out since it was academic and not a "job" per-se?

I am not looking at the criteria of whether or not an RA-ship is a "job" but I am wondering if you were actually "fired" or you "quit" by dropping the class.

@Dawn that's a good point. I guess you could say I accidentally quit, and by the time I realized my mistake it was too late since my grades were already suffering too much to complete the class.

Assuming this was not in the middle of a semester in which T.A.-teaching/work-duties were on-going, this might be a case of not being renewed rather than outright firing. Also, at least in the U.S., I think for the purposes of non-academic work after your degree, an RA would be considered more as a scholarship than a job. But I'm rather unsure about all this, and I'm mainly raising these points out of curiosity as to what the general consensus here (if any) might be on these points.


text:
Alternative experiemental or evaluation methods for programming language construct (artefact)
I am writing my B.Sc. in Computer Science. I am currently writing my methods  chapter and adhering to the IMRaD structure (https://writingcenter.gmu.edu/writing-resources/imrad/writing-an-imrad-report).
I am designing and implementing an interpreted programming language. I do classify my implementation as an artifact, as is normally classified and described within the Information Science Design studies.
According to Briony J. Oates, Researching Information Systems and Computing
Second Edition:

Having developed an IT artefact, it must be evaluated. There are many criteria for
evaluating an IT artefact: functionality, completeness, consistency, accuracy,
performance, reliability, usability, accessibility, aesthetics, entertainment,
fit with organization, and so on. The criteria you use depend on the reason you
developed the artefact in the first place---they will be related to your original
research objectives. The evaluation can lead to conclusions about the design
process as well as the design product, and may suggest that further modifications
to either or both are needed.

Artefact:
An interpreted programming language that is inspired by Scheme, and aims to be closer with the nature of Mathematical Expressionism (Notations and Symbols) of expressing a equation, sigma or other notations and functionality to a problem of investigation.
According to this book: Concepts of Programming Languages (10th Edition)
by Robert W. Sebesta.
The 1.3 Language Evaluation Criteria includes this table:

Question(s):

Are there other methods for evaluating a programming language? (I am aware that performance can be used as a metric, quantitative research)

N.B: I have already posted here a different questions concerning methods section/chapter in a thesis, Choice of design science method for artifact creation in Computer Science.

I am a new here but I wish to share a few things because I am a researcher in the same field, however, it is not easy to list all possible methods or requirements.
I have reviewed papers on programming language evaluation, I have a seen few other points that have been discussed (besides what you listed). I admit I am not 100% certain about all the names. Hopefully this answer would eventually be edited to become more complete and correct... but here is how I could come up with it:
Language Cost

How hard to create a compiler, i.e. your effort to build the compiler;
How hard to generate the compiled output, i.e. the computer effort to run the compiler, if all compilation must start from scratch or can be incremental;
How hard to optimise the output, i.e. how good is the non-optimised and how hard is to optimise;
How hard to teach users, i.e. how different is that from what users are seasoned;
How hard to code (possibly duplicate with simplicity);
How hard to debug, i.e. how hard to run and follow the lines at runtime;
How hard to test, i.e. how hard to write tests, to see the test outputs, to compare the expected to actual.

Popularity

Many publications often cite popularity ranks (e.g. https://spectrum.ieee.org/top-programming-languages-2022) for new languages, they use it as a motivation for "making it similar to this specific language that is popular".

Portability

How the language model is portable to many platforms. In other words: Even if it is meant to be interpreted, could it be compiled to machine code, what kinds, how well it works on each platform.
How the language can be used by different tools. For example, text editors, version control, encoding requirements.

Besides, I have watched some presentations about how some simplicity and syntax characteristics often allow users to write bad code.
There are many non technical characteristics that makes a language to thrive even if it is not good. Example: good tools, availability.
I am not sure if I am welcome to dump a load of references here, but there are many works on language testing and evaluation. Some create programs to automate testing; others conduct experiments with programmers or their code; besides other references. Your question reminded me of these references:

Testing an optimising compiler by generating random lambda terms (Haskell compiler tests);
How (and why) developers use the dynamic features of programming languages: the case of Smalltalk (Smalltalk expressivity analysis);
The Eval That Men Do (Javascript feature usage).

I also recommend searching related papers from ACM POPL.
By the way, remember to check the specification documents for programming languages that are similar to yours! They often include motivation for each evaluation.
I hope this is useful, best wishes!

One reason this is hard to answer is that we don't know what goals you had in designing a new language. Your evaluation of the outcome should be in line with those goals. Somewhere early in your paper/thesis you should describe those goals and then develop some testing methodology to see if they have been met.
Some such are harder than others. If your goal was to be faster than C then there are benchmarks you can use.
Safety is a bit harder and we keep failing at it, but it remains a goal. For that you can do a theoretical analysis to explain how the language and/or its implementation makes certain common attacks hard/impossible. But a formal system of letting others try to attack your code is required in serious systems, though unlikely for an undergrad thesis.
But expressiveness is much harder. Is Java or Python more expressive? Is Common Lisp or Haskell? How easy is it to say the sorts of things that normally need to be said in programs in the anticipated problem space. Some comparison syntax with similar languages might do for this.
Design the evaluation around the goals.

Hi Buffy, I described here too, you missed it: An interpreted programming language that is inspired by Scheme, and aims to be closer with the nature of Mathematical Expressionism (Notations and Symbols) of expressing a equation, sigma or other notations and functionality to a problem of investigation.

Then use that to compare your language with others in the same paradigm. Showing equivalent programs, making sure you have best practice coding for all.

Buffy, I listed the Language Evaluation Criteria above. But, besides this one and Performance metric (quantitative), what other potential methods exists?

I doubt that performance evaluations are going to get you anywhere in an interpreted language. That depends on the implementation. If your goals are expression of math stuff, just do that. People are willing to take a big performance hit for expressiveness. C vs Python, for example. The others like reliability are a lot to ask for in a new language, unless you have an extensive test suite.

FWIW, I know people using Haskell to express key ideas in category theory. If you can do that, especially generating commutative diagrams, they would love it.


text:
Leading a campus ministry group addressing pornography addiction while also serving as a professor
Context: I am a math professor at a small Christian college in the US.
Shortly after starting my undergraduate education, I made choices that lead me to an addiction to internet pornography, and that addiction grew considerably worse in graduate school.  Exposure to this content deeply affected the way that I looked at and perceived women, and I have invested considerable time and effort into healing the psychological damage resulting from my behavior.  I hid this addiction very effectively throughout my education and early career and never truly began dealing with the problem and its roots until shortly after I was married several years later.  (My wife has been immensely and undeservedly gracious, patient, and wise throughout the whole process.  I could say much more, but that's not relevant to my question.)
Now that I am sufficiently into my recovery, I am building a healthier vision for my future.  In particular, I feel called to help undergraduate men who are struggling similarly to how I did all those years ago.  I know that a campus ministry group related to sexual addiction would have been a serious blessing to me at the time, and I would like to consider starting one.  I plan to meet with a representative from our campus ministry office (and potentially my department chair) about this when the time is right, but I wanted to ask this question here first.
Question:
Would it be possible to lead a group aimed at helping young men who struggle with sexual addiction while also serving as a professor at my institution?  This group would probably operate with internal confidentiality, but I know that in the course of leading the group that I will need to disclose a nontrivial amount of my personal history.  This would include ugly details about the extent of my pornography use and the objectification of many of the women who I studied with as a undergraduate and taught in graduate school and my early career.  In particular, I am concerned about how this information could affect my career or standing among both my colleagues and students at the college if the confidentiality of the group is not respected.  Even if the confidentiality of the group is respected, should I be concerned about the likelihood that a student from the group might end up in one of my classes?
Although my college is indeed a Christian institution, there are many faculty and students who are not practicing Christians or may even hold other faiths.  That said, I am interested in any and all opinions.
[Disclaimer: I realize that some people consider pornography use morally acceptable behavior, but for the sake of this question I am not interested in discussing the morality, necessity, or usefulness of the campus ministry group I described.]
Clarifications:

Doing such a ministry outside of the university is an option, though more students would probably attend if it were on campus.
I have previously volunteered in campus ministry, but have not yet done so as a professor.
Most professors at my institution are quiet about their faith (or lack thereof); a few are very open about their Christianity. I'm not aware of any professors that are directly involved in student ministry.

Wow, that's a tough question. Congrats on your recovery in any case, and thanks for considering helping other suffering with similar addictions.

I think you should live under the assumption that anything that happens in that group will eventually become public knowledge in both oral and written form.

I suggest that you don't do this and leave it to professionals while you focus on teaching math and setting a good example for others.
If you have a dual role you are likely to confuse students, rather than to help them. Even revealing your past behavior could be an issue for many, both young women you are responsible for teaching and men who may or not share your past.
If you think such things need to be addressed at your institution, talk to the administration about hiring a trained professional. Addictions of all kinds likely need to be addressed, actually.
Note that I'd give the same advice to people at secular institutions.
And, for other addictions that I can think of the answer would probably remain the same. Some of your students may have suffered from addiction of others, say alcoholism in parents. It might make them less likely to trust you generally. If students come to you with concerns, refer them to a professional.

Strongly agree. OP, you're basically suggesting you tell the entire student body. "Hey, I struggled with a pornography addiction. Do you?? Come to my meeting." This would make me very uncomfortable in the same way a professor advertising their (former) drinking problem would.

This absolutely makes sense.  I am curious to see what other opinions or suggestions might appear, but it sounds like I will need to find a different setting (probably within a church) if I desire to help others facing similar issues.

@MathAnon  (probably within a church) why? the pornography issue runs across religions.

Strongly agree with this one. Groups like AA work because they are anonymous, a group where the facilitator is also in a position of authority (and many of the participants know and interact with not only the facilitator, but also each other, in other contexts) seems like a disaster in the making.

@EarlGrey It does indeed, but my recovery has been entirely dependent on my Christian faith.  I would feel comfortable walking alongside other Christians facing sexual addiction, but my experience wouldn't be much use to people with a different (or no) faith.

That is why professional are needed. I'd guess that everyone who overcomes any addiction has a personal and somewhat unique path. Professionals understand this sort of thing. What worked for you might not work for another.

Your desire to help others if commendable.
Confidentiality within a group may be violated, so please consider how public knowledge of your struggles with pornography addiction would make your female students and colleagues, present and future, feel in your presence (I am not justifying any such feelings). Maybe specifically ask women for their opinion.
Maybe you could find people who have led help-groups for pornography addiction, and ask them how their role has affected them.
Perhaps you could consider helping others in an online anonymous setting.

Also consider that the participants will often also know each other. How would OP react if it turns out that things that participants tell privately in group quickly turn to become campus rumors?

Congratulations on your sobriety!
There are self-help groups similar to Alcoholics Anonymous that address sex-addiction, namely SAA. I would suggest you seek them out with the view of setting up a new group on your campus. They would not want to be sponsored by campus ministry or the college, but they would accept room and maybe free coffee. After you participated in a few meetings and have found a sponsor with contact to the organization, you can then approach campus ministry.
Since they are anonymous and since the meetings are usually NOT open (you need to suffer from the problem addressed in order to attend a meeting), your privacy is somewhat guarded, though not absolutely protected. You should not be the convener anyway, as you are not qualified for addiction work.
You need to have the backing of campus ministry or someone high up in the administration, because there are probably morality clauses in your contract. Even though you are not violating them (You are NOT using for a long time), you do not want to appear to have violated them recently or that you are likely to violate them.
Addiction to pornography has become a big problem on campuses and in the work-force. Acting out can have close to career destroying effects, so that groups like the one you are contemplating are very useful. However, do not re-invent the wheel. The AA methodology works for motivated sufferers, but they had to learn how to do it. Similarly, sex addiction is a bit different than alcoholism, and you want to benefit from their collective knowledge.
You can of course go a very different route, trying to set up a Christian self-help group. Working with addiction is difficult, you are not trained, you do not have the relevant degrees, and you would expose yourself to ridicule that will make your other work very difficult. I would suggest that you do not do that since the chances of success are slim and the personal costs quite high. As you can see from one of the comments, your students might be queasy about your personal struggles.

I think that's an important point to highlight too: "feel[ing] called to help undergraduate men who are struggling similarly" does not actually make one qualified to provide help. It's not entirely clear how the balance between doing good and not being helpful is if someone with no background in treating addiction would run such a group.

I'm not sure whether I understand the following part of your answer correctly: "there are probably morality clauses in your contract. Even though you are not violating them (You are NOT using for a long time)." I'm having difficulties to imagine that an employer can forbid their employees the (private, of course) consumption of pornographic materials by including some clauses (be they about morality or whatever) in the contract. (Although my imagination might be overly limited in this respect; I continue to be surprised again and again by what certain laws say and what they don't say.)

Christian colleges in the US tend to restrict behavior of their faculty. Just like a Catholic hospital in Germany will not allow a chief officer remain in position if (s)he remarries. By admitting having a "sex problem", the original poster could expose himself/herself to sanctions.

@tschwarz: Yes, but my question is to what extent such restrictions are legally possible. Clearly, each jurisdiction will impose limits on which contracts are legally possible. Catholic hospitals in Germany (which also immediately came to my mind) is already a quite strong example of an employer interfering with things that are none of their business (although, interestingly, the Federal Constitutional Court doesn't seem to bother). Interferring with specific sexual practices of one's employees is even a more extreme example, so I'm wondering whether this is legally enforceable.

Whether morals clauses could prohibit private viewing of pornography is an interesting question; you might consider posting on [law.SE]. I find it very unlikely that OP could face sanctions in this case though; my experience with evangelical culture in the US is that it looks very favorably on those who successfully overcome past moral transgressions (which is not to say that professors discussing their sexual histories with students may not raise different concerns).


text:
Postdoctoral Catch-22
I graduated with my PhD in January. In my field (biophysics) and country (US), we only have a 1 year time window to apply for fellowships.
However, my advisor is sitting on the paper from my dissertation and refuses to submit it (he keeps asking for more and more tiny tweaks) even thought it’s perfectly ready for submission. There is no end in sight here and I have tried politely arguing to no avail.
Since it takes many months from submission to publication and since I can’t apply for fellowships without a paper published in a high-ranking journal, I’m stuck in a sort of Catch-22.
My time is running out for the fellowships which I need to get competitive professorships, my career is at risk because of my graduate advisor.
What are my options here?

Related, possible duplicate: 1, 2, 3.

You’re confident it would be accepted at a “high-ranking journal”?

Some clarifications have been edited into the main post; the rest of this discussion has been moved to chat. Please use the chat for continued discussion; see this FAQ before posting a comment below this one.

This advisor's "negligence" is an act of academic bullying. There is a few things one can do to counter academic bullying, but one has to think them thoroughly well in advance. I'm not writing them here, by now, since some advisors could read them to neutralize counter-bullying.
Maybe you can get some advice from a union representative or someone from your faculty to monitor the situation as an outsider.
Do you have a paper agreement?
Can you write another paper on your own?
If the above does not work, discreetly tell your advisor that you have some work duties from a certain date and that you will not be able to work more on the paper.
After some weeks/days tell your advisor that she is ruining the expectations that this paper is going to be submitted. If she doesn't consider this paper submittable then you can stop wasting the time on it, but you are not giving up coauthorship.
After some weeks/days tell your advisor that you are not going to tolerate any kind of academic bullying or power abuse.


text:
Was it appropriate to discuss the reply-all?
A female instructor has had conflict with a much younger male co-instructor and has complained to her chair and associate chair about what she experienced as sexist and other difficult behavior. When the new schedule for the following year again has her paired with the same co-instructor, she asks for a different assignment.  The entire message is very short, basically, "Oh, please don't pair me again with X. He's an uncooperative young male. You said you'd pair me with Y."  Y is also a much younger male, only slightly older than X. She's worked with Y in the past and it's clear she likes him.
Unfortunately, instead of replying only to the associate chair, she accidentally reply-alls to the entire department.  She apologizes to the department a few minutes later for copying everyone on what was intended as "a private response".  In a private email to the associate chair a few hours later, she makes clear she's complaining about gender bias, that she believes her co-instructor disrespects her in part because she's a woman. (Complaining about gender bias is a protected activity in the US, meaning, e.g., it can't be used as a reason for an "adverse employment action" like denying promotion.)
Most recipients of the reply-all did not know about the previous complaints.  The chair and associate chair both knew about the complaints.  Only the associate chair also knew about the later email.
A few hours later, the promotion committee begins discussion of her major review, leading up to a vote on her contract and possible promotion. The unfortunate reply-all is discussed and some of the members express shock. Only the chair and associate chair are aware of the previous complaints and neither reveals that information. To the contrary, the chair uses it in his words as an "opening" to argue she was involved in lots of conflict and that questions of who "instigated" the disagreements should "explicitly" be set aside, remarking, "We're really not trying to adjudicate any of the disagreements."  So, different people knew different things.  In a split vote, the review fails.  (Months later, everything becomes more widely known.)
Was it appropriate to discuss the reply-all and did that taint the process?  To answer, you may need to decide if it was a protected complaint about a gender bias or perhaps something else, and whether the chair and/or associate chair should have disclosed the previous complaints or the follow-up email declaring it to be a complaint about gender bias.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Edit:  The question has been modified 19 times so far.

How important is it to know about the previous complaints and the later email to be able to decide she was probably complaining about sexist behavior?

If you are a member of the department who receives an email like this, it is not important because the whole situation is none of your business.

would you likely regard her characterization of her co-instructor as an "uncooperative young male" as a merely an unflattering description, a personal attack, unprofessional, a protected activity, or perhaps something else?

I would describe the inclusion of the words "young" and "male" as both bigotry.  Bigotry is unprofessional.  Imagine how people would react if the email said "It is fun to teach with this cooperative young male."  The implication seems inappropriate.
Complaining that someone's behavior is sexist is fine.  Implying that someone's behavior sexist because they are young or male is wrong.
You did not ask, but my advice to the female instructor would be:

Apologize for mentioning the other instructor's age and gender in that way.
Pursue complaints about sexist behavior, difficult behavior, and teaching assignments through university policy or legal mechanism.
Carefully consider the risk of libel/slander accusations before making public complaints.

Young males are not a protected class.  And what would make this libel or slander if the uncooperative behavior is documented and he's clearly young and male?  The
instructor claims the reply-all was accidental, not intended to be public.  Do you think it was really intentional?  She has previously complained about her co-instructor's sexist and other difficult behavior to department leadership and is about to be paired with the same co-instructor again. A complaint only counts if it's "pursued" through a "university policy or legal mechanism"? Complaining to your chair isn't enough?

"Young males are not a protected class."  Bigotry is bigotry even if it's legal.

"And what would make this libel or slander if the uncooperative behavior is documented and he's clearly young and male?"  I did not say it was.

"Do you think it was really intentional?"  I did not say what I thought and I do not see why I should care.

"Complaining to your chair isn't enough?"  If the chair did not handle the complaint properly, then it was not enough.  Pursuing a complaint is optional.

The difference here is that women often face male gender bias from men in the workplace, but men don't generally face bias from women.  This is why one is a protected class and the other is not. Furthermore, she's made specific complaints in the past.  Is she expressing a dislike of young males?  Or is she connecting up his uncooperative behavior to a gender bias sometimes seen in young males?

@NicoleHamilton drawing attention to a colleague's age and gender clearly indicates some kind of bigotry, since it shouldn't really matter whether he is young or male. Implying that all, or even most/many people of similar age and gender demonstrate similar behaviors is bigotry as well. The fact that this particular age/gender combination doesn't usually face gender bias doesn't make this any less biased.

"men don't generally face bias from women."  Not true.  Try being male and applying for a job in child care.  "one is a protected class and the other is not"  Not true under US federal law.  https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protected-employment-discrimination "connecting up his uncooperative behavior to a gender bias sometimes seen in young males?"  That's bigotry.  All sorts of people are prone to gender bias.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90542252/how-to-address-and-overcome-damaging-internalized-biases

@AnonymousPhysicist Your source points out age discrimination only counts for age over 40.  The co-worker is a young person, well under 40.  And there's no indication she's objecting to young males, just this one because of his behavior.  She asked to work with a different young male, so she can't possibly be discriminating based on sex or age.

@NicoleHamilton "She asked to work with a different young male, so she can't possibly be discriminating based on sex or age" I don't think that is correct, the OP indicates that her chair had said they would partner her with Y (another male), not that she had asked to work with Y.

"Your source points out age discrimination only counts for age over 40"  According to the law, not according to ethics.

@NicoleHamilton “Young males are not a protected class.” Say what? Age and gender are both protected characteristics, so young males are in the intersection of two protected classes. You seem to be implying that committing two simultaneous and distinct acts of bigotry is somehow less bad than committing just a single act. Care to clarify what you meant?

@DikranMarsupial I think you misunderstand.  The associate chair had previously promised to give her an assignment with Y.  The new schedule had her working with X again.  She wants Y.

@NicoleHamilton that is what I said.  The chair offered an assignment with Y, according to the OP she didn't ask for it, so it doesn't indicate that she wants to work with Y and therefore cannot possibly be discriminating based on age or sex.  Just that she viewed Y as preferable to X (but might have preferred an assignment with Z and older female).

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/denial/art-20047926

@AnonymousPhysicist I don't think that helps your case.

@DikranMarsupial Apologies if my description seemed unclear.  She had been promised a chance to work with Y.  To me, that sounds like something she had asked for, or at least, was a proposal she liked.  Since both X and Y are young males, that can't be the reason she likes one, not the other, even if you don't know about the complaints she's made about X.

"And there's no indication she's objecting to young males" I don't think that is fair.  If she had left it as "uncooperative person" then she would indeed have been complaining about behaviour, the "young male" is an indication that she is objecting to a "young male".  It comes across as an email sent in anger - I'd be willing to make allowances for that, electronic forms of communication are usually interpreted adversarially - it's human nature.

@NicoleHamilton it doesn't imply that she likes either X or Y, just a preference for Y over X and she is willing to work with Y.  It does not imply that she has no bias against young males.  I am trying to give a neutral interpretation of the text that is given.  If it was a male complaining about a female colleague, I would view it as sexist and in need of action (as my area is sadly male-dominated)

@DikranMarsupial  Very well.  Perhaps you'll accept my assurance that most people in the department are aware she does like Y.  She's worked with Y before and everyone knows she likes him.

@NicoleHamilton +1 I should have said "our area".  Hopefully everybody else will know her (and X) well enough to judge the email in that context.  As I said, I'd take a "Golden Rule" approach and treat it the way I'd like to be treated if I accidentally sent an angry reply-all (which is what I assume happened)!

@NicoleHamilton "Protected class" is a legal term, not a set of people you can't be rude to.

@NicoleHamilton In American law, a "protected class" is a characteristic which cannot be used for the purposes of discrimination.  Both "age" and "sex" are protected classes, and it is therefore illegal to discriminate against a person on the basis of either age or sex (broadly speaking).  "Level of competence" and "likability" are not protected classes, thus it is fine to discriminate between people who are competent or incompetent, or people who are "fun" to work with with and people who you want to punch in the face.

US Federal protected class for age is for people over 40 only.

@mkennedy but discriminating against males is just as illegal as discriminating against females

@Esther I very carefully didn't say anything about gender or sex discrimination, just age discrimination.

"Carefully consider the risk of libel/slander accusations before making public complaints."
True, but the complainer seems to have not sought to complain publicly.
The emails were made "public", either by error (reply to all) or against her will, since OP states she knows "In a private email to the associate chair" either OP is the associate chair or the associate chair made the content almost public.

Edit: the answer below answers OP’s original question, which she has now edited, clarifying that the actual main question of interest is substantially different than what was originally posted. My original answer now appears to be less relevant, but I’m leaving it up since it may still contain some useful insights.

Original answer:
I have been a witness to many embarrassing situations stemming from someone’s unintended use of “reply all”. I have often thought that the prevalence of such incidents is largely due to the poor design of email software that should make it more difficult to send emails via reply all. So perhaps we should point the finger of blame where it rightly belongs: software designers. :-)
That being said, there is an aspect of the instructor’s behavior that would be unprofessional even if she had sent the email as a private message. It is never appropriate to imply that a colleague’s gender, age, or combination of gender and age, or combination of gender and age together with certain personality traits, is a valid reason for not wanting to work with the colleague. So, complaining about a colleague for being “uncooperative” is fine. (And complaining about a colleague’s sexist or harrassing behavior, if that’s what she meant, is also perfectly legitimate of course, if she indeed experienced such behavior.) But complaining about an “uncooperative young male” is unprofessional, either in a private message or a public one.
I wish for your instructor female to find a way to move on from this incident. I wish for all of us to be more tolerant of slight human mistakes and transgressions (and I say this as someone who has said some embarrassing things myself on occasion, as I’m sure everyone has), more willing to apply the principle of charity and give people the maximum benefit of the doubt about their intentions being good, and less quick to judge others and cast blame.
But in order to move on, I think it’s important to recognize the facts and not seek shelter in denial and excuse-making. The instructor’s choice of words was unfortunate and wrong, and she would do well to acknowledge that fact when dealing with the aftermath, rather than defend her behavior with the claim (even if it’s a correct claim) that the email was “intended as a private measage”.

But has she implied that the reason she doesn't want to work with X is gender and age?  Both X and Y are much younger males but she likes one, not other.  So isn't it more likely she's commenting on the combination of uncooperative and young male, that as she declares later, she's complaining about gender bias?  If you think it's a complaint about gender bias, I can see why she should still apologize for the accidental reply-all, which she did.  But why should she apologize for the complaint?  Women have to apologize when they complain of gender bias?

@NicoleHamilton I didn’t say she should apologize. She can do whatever she wants, I’m merely providing feedback on your question about whether the language in the email was unprofessional. Yes, it was. Generally I stand with any woman who steps forward to complain of gender bias, but that doesn’t logically imply that the way this particular woman expressed her complaint was appropriate and not itself tainted by bias. Two wrongs don’t make a right etc. Just because you have a valid complaint doesn’t mean you have free license to ignore norms of conduct we are all bound by.

Can it be considered in the promotion discussion?  If it is a factor in the outcome, does that taint the outcome?

@NicoleHamilton I don’t know. Let’s hope it won’t come to that. But in today’s climate where any microscopic transgression can be weaponized to demand severe retribution, nothing would surprise me.

Apparently, it did come to that.  The reply-all was discussed and the review failed.  Was that retaliation?

@NicoleHamilton "But has she implied that the reason she doesn't want to work with X is gender and age? " taken at face value, yes, the email does imply that.  "But why should she apologize for the complaint?" is anyone saying she should?  If an apology was necessary it would not be for the complaint but for the wording of the complaint and the accidental reply-all.  I don't think it would be necessary though.

@NicoleHamilton oh dear. She should get a lawyer ASAP. This is getting way above my pay grade, or above the pay grade of academia.se. Of course it would be in her interest to argue that this was retaliation. Whether she can argue that successfully, I can’t say.

@NicoleHamilton "Apparently, it did come to that." - I am confused, I thought that was a hypothetical resulting from a comment under the OP "@ AzorAhai-him- Okay, I think that's a good way to look at this. Let's suppose you're on a promotion committee voting on her contract." https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/185707/was-it-appropriate-to-discuss-the-reply-all?noredirect=1#comment500081_185707

@DikranMarsupial It seemed to matter whether this hypothetical or actual, so I clarified.  Please understand that in asking the question and reading the feedback, I was learning what additional facts were needed to make sense of situation.  For example, I learned from AzorAhai-him- that it was important to know if there were real world consequences.  From others, I learned it was important to know both X and Y were young males and she liked one, not the other.  As I learned more about what's important, I've tried to respond by clarifying.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem consistent with what you wrote in your earlier comment in which it was clear that it was a hypothetical.  If it is what actually happened, then this really is a matter for the workplace SE, as @DanRomik suggests it would be a situation requiring a lawyer.

@DikranMarsupial  I truly feel terrible and apologize to everyone that it took so many edits to turn this into a proper question with only just the information necessary to analyze the case without making wrong assumptions because I'd left something out.  I'm pretty pretty good at answering questions, so if this was easy, I'd have just done it.  This was too complex for me and I needed help.  (And learning what facts were needed was very helpful!)  I have not said whether a lawyer was later involved.  Would you need to know that to analyze the case?

My first impressions are that it had something to do with gender (and by extension gender bias). This is for two reasons:

If details aren't necessary, they won't be given. If the focus of the phrase is on 'uncooperative', then 'young' and 'male' would not be necessary. In the same vein, this is why the phrase is 'uncooperative young male' and not 'uncooperative young human male with a height of [1.8 meters] and who was wearing [a blue blouse] today'. The fact that 'young' and 'male' are given implies they are important to the context, so this had something to do with either gender or age, possibly both.
The fact that the word used is 'male' instead of the more common 'man' implies the gender angle is more probable.

However: since I lack the details to draw any firm conclusions, I am likely to brush the incident off (unless I am the co-instructor, in which case I cannot predict how I will react).

This is correct, but it's unclear what your answer to the question is.

@AnonymousPhysicist Allure may correct me, but they appear to be saying they would interpret the reply-all characterization as very likely a complaint about gender bias, even without the additional information.

@NicoleHamilton I would understand this answer as exactly the opposite: stating that clearly she is biased against "young males" rather than complaining about gender bias. Specifically, the implication that "young males" are generally biased against females is itself a gender bias.

@NicoleHamilton I wouldn't say it is 'very likely', the total odds are probably still against it. It would make me think there is a gender angle, but that's all.

I am a male and I have been in power position. If someone below me, with whom I do not have much personal relation but only professional relation would write me what the complainer wrote, I would think "wow, she wrote this impulsively, she must really feel uncomfortable working with X".
Additionally, I would see a clear try in avoiding offensive expletive words, I would read young as immature and male as sexist ... so the complainer wrote impulsively, but trying to avoid slandering and defamation.
My (not asked) verdict: possible but unlikely bigotry, more likely impulsive writing moderated by 5 seconds thinking, instead of being stopped by overnight thinking.
Sum-up: I think the chair was correct in bringing up the reply all as an evidence of " she was involved in lots of conflict ", but it may be a classic case of "can't see the wood for the trees": if the "median" instructor is a young, narcistic, male chauvinist person, whoever tries to fight back the "median" instructor attitude would come out as a conflictual person.
Necessary reading: Science falling victim to 'crisis of narcissism'

Necessary disclaimer: I unfortunately do think that by enforcing gender quota we are just promoting the same narcisistic behavior, just in a feminist flavour. And from narcisistic behavior comes bullying, gang-like behavior. We may realize with great pain that the gender discrimination (specifically male vs female) is only a consequence of certain psychological traits, not the driver ...

The questions asked  are not about the contents of the email reply but rather

Was it appropriate to discuss the reply-all and did that taint the
process?

Hard to tell. A candidate's professionalism matters when making personnel decisions, and the language in the reply-all suggests some doubt (not much in my eyes). So perhaps discussing it in the meeting was appropriate.
But if it is to be discussed then the whole history should be known. That didn't happen.
Did the discussion taint the process? I can't offer a legal opinion. Nor can I tell from the data in the question whether the discussion switched votes in the split decision.


text:
Are "short bios" at the end of a letter of recommendation the new thing?
I noticed that a recent teaching faculty candidate's LORs from an institution outside the US all had not-so-short and shamelessly hagiographic "short bios" appended onto the end.  One went on for a whole page, making me wonder who they were recommending, the candidate or themselves.
I've always taken the attitude when I've written an LOR that the reader doesn't know or care who I am, they care about the candidate, my relationship to the candidate, and the up-close observations and evidence I'm able to offer in support of my recommendation, so they can judge for themselves whether this is really a top candidate.  (In the unlikely event they do want to know about me, I give them a link to my faculty page.)
So, this was the first time I've seen a short bio at the end of an LOR.  Is this the new thing or something that's been going on forever that I've just never noticed?

@Roland Apologies, but I'm deliberately avoiding identifying detail.

I suspect this is a cultural thing, whether recent or not. Sort of "and I have the authority and background to validate the things I've written here." You and I are both from a culture that makes LoRs very important, but not everyone is. So, your normal "attitude" is appropriate for US usage, but not everyplace is like the US.

It's well-known that a certain percentage of people in academia have a huge inflated ego, to the point that their behavior at times is perceived as ridiculous by others. That's the angle from which I would interpret this experience.

I’ve seen this a couple of times from faculty at universities that do not have very well developed multilingual websites so it’s difficult to verify exactly the status/position of the person writing the LoR…

When writing letters of recommendation, especially for graduate students, I start my letters with a short bio. I do this because I am not a faculty member, but instead work at a government research lab. This helps with context for the letter. I have noticed that some applications ask for me to rank students compared to other students I interact with. However, I only have limited interactions with students. But, the students I work with are almost all high quality. Also, this helps the letter reader see why I think the students will thrive in graduate school (i.e., that both the students and I are doing serious research even if I am not a professor).
Furthermore, I do this as an opportunity to link in the prospective student's research in with my research. And, ideally, their target program by describing collaborations with faculty there or alumni from their program. Here's a paragraph from generic template:

I am pleased to recommended XX XX for admission into YYYY. I had the privilege to <mentor/supervise/etc.> XX (usually first name only) as a <ZZZ then describe situation>. I am my job title at my org. Through this position I mentor undergraduate students and serve on graduate committees <_link to ZZZ>. My primary research focuses on <CCC> and XX has assisted me with CCC.

Yes, of course I see the need as well to start with a description of the relationship.  For students, it's class(es) they took with me and a summary of the content and how performance was measured, and their duties if I hired them as staff.  If I'm writing an LOR for a colleague, it's the class(es) they taught or we taught together and perhaps the committees we served on together.  But I would never want to make it so much about me.

@NicoleHamilton I agree. I could see where cultural reasons and/or ego reasons cause people to write LORs that focus on themselves and not the target, which is too bad for the target.

Upvoted.  I do agree that providing context of the type you describe to the LoR is usually enough (at least should be enough).

In actual practice, who the letter writer is actually matters quite a lot -- maybe not so much when it's a letter for an undergraduate applying to grad school, but certainly when it's for tenure or for promotion to full professor.
Now, we could argue whether that's useful or not, but it is what it is -- though we probably agree that when evaluating someone's qualifications as a researcher it does make a difference whether the evaluator is a senior faculty at a research-active university with a good perspective on the research landscape, or a just recently hired assistant professor at a teaching-intensive university. As a consequence, letters often do contain a brief paragraph about the letter writer's qualifications -- in essence, a short bio.
These paragraphs were typically at the very beginning of the letter. In recent years, at least some universities have asked letter writers to state their qualifications/affiliations/prizes/... along with how they know the candidate they are writing for, on a separate page at the end of the letter. That's because universities had to contend with candidates who use open records laws to gain access at the letters, and the letters had to be redacted to remove personal information about the letter writer. This is easiest done if all personal information is on a separate page.

but surely the letterhead and my professional title provide sufficient information for anyone really interested in my bio to hunt down my career highlights…

@ZeroTheHero - but the University President (or the Minister for Higher Education(!)) signing off on the appointment might want the information without taking the time to hunt it down.

@AlexanderWoo fair enough, although presumably the committee doing the hiring recommendation would do this kind of grunt work, and not the higher ups that do the final signing.

Point taken re: tenure or promotion to full professor.  But this was a candidate for a non-TT lecturer appointment.

Why in the world does anyone think that a non-US (excluding Canada) recommender would have anything useful to say when it comes to qualifications for a US teaching-oriented position?

@AlexanderWoo If that's what you've got, I guess you go with it.

@AlexanderWoo  The recommender could very well have worked in the US, or studied there, or postdoc’d there, or had a sabbatical stay there…

@AlexanderWoo Why wouldn't a well-versed researcher in Europe be able to evaluate the research credentials of a researcher in the US? Unless the latter's research area is "Community interactions of rural folks in Central Arkansas in the early 1840s", most research areas are sufficiently international that someone in a different country should be able to put someone's research contributions into the context of the broader field, and assess that person's impact on the field.

@WolfgangBangerth - a NTT lecturer in the US is a teaching-only position for which a person's research credentials are irrelevant.  Usually, a PhD is not even required, though it usually gives the applicant some advantage.  You might argue that being involved in research makes someone a better teacher (and I agree with you), but given the position neither provides time nor has expectations for research, the university disagrees.

(I'm in the U.S., in math.) I wouldn't claim that "it's a thing" in math in the U.S., but I have been asked occasionally to provide a brief auto-bio when writing letters in support of fellowships and other things. Not, to my recollection, for graduate admission (in math, in the U.S.).
But/and when I'm on our grad admissions committee, it does matter a bit to me what the context of a letter-writer is. Not so much about their childhood, etc., :) but certainly about their own experience with grad education in math in the U.S.  Many people I am vaguely acquainted with, so have an idea of their context, but more-and-more younger faculty I do not know, etc. And, in particular, being faculty at a small liberal arts college, or a branch campus, certainly no longer gives any indication of one's grad school experience! So some explicit remarks (often volunteered in any case within a letter of recommendation) are helpful.

but I have been asked occasionally to provide a brief auto-bio when writing letters in support of fellowships - Paul, that's something different in my mind.  I have noticed a few letter writers in the US including short bios in rec letters for faculty positions, and I have never once been positively impressed by such a bio.  Occasional comments throughout the text may be very helpful (e.g., "I was a grad student at UMN, and this candidate is comparable to the top 25% students there.")  However I personally am not a fan of adding short generic bios.

@Kimball :)  Well, indeed, possibly there is a new style of making letters-of-recommendation more about the letter-writer's wonderfulness. :)  I've not seen that sort of thing myself. Or, it might be some sort of not-solipsistic, but misguided, misunderstanding about what's going on. (Maybe I should make my own email signature be a mini-auto-bio... it had simply never occurred to me that this was an opportunity...) :)

Presumably the short bio is to convince the reader that the LOR was written by "not just anybody" which, presumably again, should correlate with the quality of the assessment in the LOR (spoiler: the rho does not equal 1). And yet we can usually tell from the LOR itself whether or not the referee makes sensible and or useful comments on the candidates; we don't need their bio. It makes some sense in our world in which academia has exploded exponentially and more often then not I am not sure of the quality of the referee (they may hold X rank at institution Y, but even so I am usually not sure about the quality Y is able to attract on average). But I bet all these bios are telling you that ref is world-class, world-leading, excellent etc.! It is part of a much wider trend of padding and puffing-up, I'm afraid.

Indeed, the short bios I saw were flagrantly hagiographic.


text:
Does somebody have experience with IRES and their coferences?
Recently I submited my research on this connference: http://theires.org/Conference2022/Canada/6/ICTTL/index.php
but after analysing some facts (eg. quick response from reviewer, lower price when paying earlier) it raised some red flags for me. So does anyone know have experience with IRES and there converences os maybe it is just a scam?
Best regards

This conference is definitely a scam. Just look at this page of their website, they put on 20 conferences a day all over the world.

Early bird fee is not a red flag by itself, but this conference has many more. Stay away. @Ian not only that, they have like 20 completely unrelated ones in the same place (http://theires.org/conference.php?dt=2022-12&place=Kiev,Ukraine). "1427th International Conference" - what?! 3rd - okay, 20th - established, 1427th - outright ridiculous. At least I had a good laugh, too bad it had to be at the expense of the OP in a sense...