text:
strategy to test a professor's research ability in an interview
Some professors might have many papers and a high reputation, but aren't necessarily good at theory/maths/research hard skills. In a face to face or video interview, what will be the best strategy to interview/test a professor's maths/theory/research ability? It's of course usually the other way around in that a professor wants to test a candidate's ability. But a strong candidate should also look for a strong professor to work with through clever interviews, in order to learn from the PI on hard skills.
Note here the candidate is not necessarily a student, but can be any employee a PI hires to work with as a colleague.

Theory and maths are rather broad terms. Can you narrow?

This attitude seems arrogant to me. If you see yourself as the best and want to make a competition to select an advisor, you will not get far in academia. The most knowledgeable mathematicians are very modest and only poor mathematicians like to show off. As a graduate student in mathematics, I feel that the more mathematics I know, I feel more that I know nothing so I think only those mathematicians show off who know little mathematics.

For what field of study is the professor applying for?  For example, is this for a history professor?  A theology professor?

@ user2768 clever boss is what i meant to say

@ Joel Reyes Noche physical sciences related

Can you tell me more about your field where someone might have many papers and a high reputation but be bad at their field?

This is so bizarre... maybe it's a troll?

Dan Romik's answer alludes to this point, but I'll make it here too: Seeming smart in an interview is a lot different from actually being smart. In particular, neither implies the other.

I'd disagree with a general premise that "professors want to test students' abilities" in interviews. I don't "quiz" prospective students, and don't expect to be "quizzed" myself, either. Discussion of advising/mentoring styles, interests, etc., is far more useful and less adversarial. I do try to make clear my own picture of what happens  in grad school, my expectations, and the trajectories of my former students.

@paulgarrett It might be of course, but life experience shows that such questions might have been asked in perfect seriousness.

@CaptainEmacs, yes, you're right, and, I suppose, the more seriously and innocently such a question might be asked, the more important to respond usefully...

I was not notified of your comment because you put a space between the "@" and my user name.  Next time, please type "@JoelReyesNoche"

Your question is vague.  Are you implying that a student will interview a professor?

@Joel Reyes Noche sure, an interview is a 2 way interview itself

The correct answer to the interview question "Prove to me that you're smart" is to thank the interviewer for their time and leave.

I think that the best way to do so is to read one of their papers and ask them questions about it. If they’re able to confidently and enthusiastically discuss their work on a technical level then it’s likely theirs. Go attend their seminar and ask lots of questions!
As a math/theory person myself I can tell you that people often take great pride in their pet ideas and would often be very good at some things but not others. Don’t expect professors to have expert knowledge in every detail. In fact it’s usually the case that students are better than the advisor in some topic (this is the goal at least!).
As a final note, if you’re testing in an obvious/confrontational way many professors will rather not take you on. A successful PhD experience is a lot about trust and collaboration, so starting it out by trying to get the professor on the defensive will likely not succeed.

+1 A student needs their professor to be able to explain relevant concepts in a way that student can understand. Discussing one of the professor's papers is a good way to test that.

@ Spark of course, one doesnt want to put the professor on the defensive, so that's what makes this issue tricky. on the other hand, one doesnt want to find themselves working with a less ideal boss in the end without testing the boss in the interview

@feynman The ability to answer random math questions is perhaps one of the least important abilities of a good boss. Ability to bring in funding and resources, ability to guide students, ability to select high-impact directions and write good papers are all more critical than answering questions on the fly.

@user71659 of course not to ask the professor about random quiz questions. important is to test whether they r strong in research and supervision

If you want to test whether they're strong in research, read their papers.  If you want to test whether they're strong in supervision, talk with their current and former students.  Testing their math ability in an interview does neither.

There is a story by Borges wonderfully illustrating the point. There, a prospective student comes to Paracelsus to study, but, before he would join him, he demands of him to prove whether it is true that he (Paracelsus) is able to convert matter from one form into another? This ends up with the candidate grabbing a rose from Paracelsus' table and throwing it into the fireplace.
The rose burns down to ashes and the candidate demands from Paracelsus to make the rose whole again. Paracelsus sadly shakes his head and the prospective student apologises for embarrassing him and leaves. After the candidate leaves, Paracelsus speaks a word and makes the rose whole again.
Moral of the story Even if I had the full set of abilities of a Feynman (who OP seems to value), I would not engage with a student that effectively demands from me to show them off. There are things that a student is entitled to know (such as supervision style, funding situation and similar), but effectively running an examination/interview for their prospective superviser is showing utter disrespect for the prospective supervisor's life experience, background and the fact that they simply can be assumed to have done quite a few things to become an academic teacher, whether strong in science or not (although, in an academic, without further evidence, a rule of thumb should be the "presumption of competence" - competent until found to be otherwise).
In short, the student is not the interviewer and shouldn't give themselves airs that they are. They should have the opportunity to judge their superviser via their publications and/or other visible activities. If that is lacking, they can have a conversation (not interview) with the prospective superviser to see whether they will get along.
Also, some supervisors have a number of students that are stronger than themselves (to name e.g. Sommerfeld or Feynman's supervisor, John Wheeler) - these are the best ones; they know how to get the maximum out from their students.
Bottom Line If the professor has a high reputation and you are not sure about their quality as supervisor, investigate whether their students end up successfully (e.g. publication record, visibility, academic or other career). Since you are considering joining their club, this is much more important than petty testing of the professor's specific skills.

Gosh, +1 on that bottom line. That really is a very telling metric. If a professor's students all have tenure track positions, you know that the professor is doing something right.

This metric only works for sufficiently senior professors, but not for young ones. Having a young yet good professor is sometimes a good career kickstarter.

@Walter Indeed: note that I say "if the professor has a high reputation" - so, a young professor may not have enough of a consolidated reputation to be able to be evaluated this way. I do not say anything about that case. In this case, the OP needs other criteria.

@JWH2006 What the professor does right in this case is, among other things, pick good students :-)

@Walter Of course. And good students who know what they want tend to pick him; which is just my point.

@Walter I have found it to be a self-sustaining cycle. Take my former adviser. She does good work and her students end up with tenure track positions (a good chunk at R1's); strong students are then attracted to be her students, those strong students are successful under her, those strong students then get a tenure track position at an R1 with her help. And so the cycle continues. Its a little like Alabama football and Nick Saban. Success breeds success.

I think that would be foolish to try. You aren't likely to find someone who is (a) good enough for your (in my view, ridiculous) expectations and (b) willing to work with you. Mathematics isn't a video game. It doesn't get advanced in quiz-like environments. And if the person is good enough, how will you be able to evaluate it anyway?
"Clever" isn't enough in mathematics.
What you want in an advisor is someone who (a) respects you, and (b) is willing to work with you. Someone with a good reputation could be a good advisor even if they are rather slow and methodical in their work. Someone who is "quick and clever" might be terrible as they leave you only scraps.
Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman!
(Sorry -again- for the final joke, but, your username ... Can't resist.)

as my username goes, i like working w clever bosses

@feynman I got the impression, from his biography and seeing him on TV, that Richard Feynman was far too busy thinking about physics to worry about judging other people's cleverness.

@PatriciaShanahan, read the book. It is very interesting. He used to do a lot of his "thinking about physics" in topless bars. Interesting guy.

@Buffy I probably would remove the very last comment of yours. Feynman's antics may have been considered innocent entertainment at some point, today this is no longer the case, and even in his own times there is also some less entertaining background to that (see e.g. Gleick's book). I am not judging him, but some of the laughs from Feynman's book get stuck in one's throat once one realises that postdocs could not have their partners or wives accompany them to an outing with Feynman without the danger of him - with some realistic success rate - trying to seduce them.

@CaptainEmacs. He is what he is. What do you think I should remove? Just "Interesting guy". I don't mean it to be approval. But useful to know that even superstars may have feet of clay. It would be wrong to whitewash it, I think.

@Buffy Of course, he is what he is. However, it is not clear from your comment how you see it, and many younger students find the book quite hilarious (and Feynman himself imitation- or at least admiration-worthy); so I am not sure you get the right message (i.e. "feet of clay") across with your remark - possibly rather the opposite. Plus, I do not see how his off-site hobbies link with the cleverness discussion. Of course, Feynman would never worry about the cleverness of other people, he knew he was far cleverer than most them (except perhaps Dirac, Fermi, Olum...).

"Clever" isn't enough in mathematics. — "Clever" is not merely insufficient; it's also unnecessary.  Moreover, in my experience, it's usually an impediment.

@JeffE I agree with "Clever is not enough". The "unnecessary" part I am not sure I agree with - being clever helps a lot; it can save orders of magnitude of hard work. It becomes an impediment if "being clever" translates into "does not see how they need to put the work in". But that's not "being clever" that is the problem, but "being lazy/complacent". In short, I disagree with the last point, from my experience.

Edit: after my answer was posted, the question was edited, changing the scenario from that of a student to the more general one of a “candidate” considering working for or with a professor. To clarify, my answer below addresses the original context of a student and may not be equally applicable to other more general situations.

My gut reaction on reading your question was to be taken aback by your perceived arrogance and naïveté and to want to criticize you for it, as the other (still excellent) answers are doing. However on further reflection I’ve come to believe that your question is actually more interesting than I realized, and I don’t think you’re necessarily either arrogant, foolish, or naive to be asking it.
In fact, what you’re asking is highlighting something interesting that doesn’t often get pointed out, which is that there is a big information asymmetry between professors and students. We professors are so used to this asymmetry that we take it for granted and don’t often stop to think about its consequences. We expect that students need to “respect” us and assume we are smart and competent because we have already proven our worth to lots of other people by publishing papers, applying for and securing a job in a prestigious university, and so on. But it’s interesting to be confronted with the reality that from the student’s point of view, none of this may matter: what if once in a while a student comes along who isn’t content with relying on other people’s opinions of us to form an impression? He (I’ll assume they’re a “he” because of OP’s user handle) wants to be convinced directly, by seeing it with his own eyes. In fact, Richard Feynman himself was very much just such a person who never gave much credit to “sociological” markers of prestige and would always seek to learn the truth, both about people and about scientific facts, “from first principles”. So I think your choice of user name is very apt, and, before I give my proposed answer to your dilemma, I’d like to acknowledge that I think your desire to become convinced through your own personal experience of a professor’s level of talent before you accord them the kind of respect most of them think they are automatically entitled to, is, in my humble opinion, very legitimate.
Now to address the question itself, which I’ll rephrase to avoid loaded words (that I think had a slightly triggering effect on some people reading this) like “test” and “interview”:

How can I become convinced, through my own direct experience, of a professor’s competence in mathematics?

The short answer is: you can’t; at least, not easily, and certainly not in a single conversation. This goes back to the information asymmetry I pointed out above. Imagine me taking Japanese lessons for two weeks and then meeting a new Japanese teacher and trying to decide if they do in fact speak correct Japanese as well as they claim to. There’s no chance for me to be able to say anything meaningful about the person’s Japanese, is there? I just don’t have the knowledge that’s needed to make that sort of determination. It’s similar with math - a math professor has had so many more years of training and experience than you that you are simply not in a position to decide directly if they are “clever” at math (even if we adopt the premise that you get to “test” them in a way that doesn’t immediately put their ego into defensive mode, leading them to kick you straight out the door). They will likely find any question you can ask them either very easy or very naive, or both.
Now, if you interact with someone over the course of a few months or a year and watch how they handle a variety of questions and problems, including things that are research-level problems or from areas of math outside their expertise, there is a good chance you’ll be able to develop a feel for their level of “cleverness”, or at least the very specific type of cleverness that involves “thinking on your feet” in a spontaneous setting in the presence of other people (something which some really good mathematicians nonetheless aren’t very good at doing). But as I said, that will take a much longer time than just a single meeting.
To summarize this long answer, I think it’s good that you’re a Feynman-type person who insists on reaching their own conclusions through direct experience. It’s an unusual trait, and one that could serve you well in your scientific journey. But there are situations when you’ll need to have a bit of humility to accept that there are facts about the world that you lack the knowledge to intuit yourself, and you’ll have to rely on those indirect sociological cues that you normally prefer not to rely on.
Anyway, good luck!

I think what's off-putting about the question is that it lays it a little too bare that interviewing is basically hazing and not much genuinely useful information can come of it. We don't question the usefulness of interviewing and other low-context assessment when the power dynamic flows down, but it becomes galling under the hypothesis that the power dynamic flows up.

A good point about interpreting "Feynman" not as clever (or otherwise streetwise/capable), but rather as prototypically inquisitive character - I like that better than the slant that Buffy takes. +1 for the alternative perspective; although I still think that @ElizabethHenning has a point in that in a student-teacher relation a student assuming from the outset them to be on equivalent standing carries the seed for significant misery in the relation ahead. I do not say anything about a student overtaking the teacher at some point.

@Elizabeth that’s a very telling remark. Why don’t we question it when the power dynamic flows down? I confess that over the years my view of the usefulness of job interviews (at any level) has evolved from “pretty useful” to “almost entirely useless except for detecting obvious red flags”. These days I believe interviews are a prime example of Kahneman’s illusion of validity. (Admittedly, a professor interviewing a student will likely learn a bit more than in the opposite direction, but still not much.)

@DanRomik Actually, I found interviews and direct interaction far more useful than CVs which can be quite misleading. However, for this, the interviewer needs to pay attention not to the big ostentatious things, but the small details of how the interview runs and how the candidate thinks and talks. This can be well masked in a written CV.

@Captain indeed, CV’s aren’t necessarily better. One can perhaps say (borrowing from Churchill) that “interviews are the worst way to assess candidates, except for all others.” My point is that they’re pretty bad, and worse than that, the illusion of validity leads us to think they tell us things they don’t. Some people are shy, introverted, or simply not good at “thinking on their feet”, especially in a high-stakes situation. They can nonetheless end up being brilliant when given time and mental space to work through a problem. This is true of students equally as it is true of professors.

@Dan Romik i just edited the question to clarify a bit

@feynman that’s interesting, but your edit doesn’t really “clarify” so much as change the question. The original question was about a student, and now you say it’s a “candidate” who “is not necessarily a student”. Also you say you (or “the candidate”) wants to “test a professor’s maths/theory ability”, but in your edit now talk about “hard skills” (whatever that means), and in a comment to @Spark’s answer also said it was to “test whether they r strong in research and supervision”, which is very different. So, I’d say your question is now too unclear and inconsistent to be answerable.

(@feynman at any rate, I don’t see what you’re trying to achieve by changing the context from a student to “not necessarily a student”. You’re either a student or not, and if you’re a student then the original question didn’t need to be “clarified”, and if you’re not then why were you asking about a student? Seems like you’re playing games here, which doesn’t exactly give people here any incentive to go out of their way to offer you useful advice.)

@Dan Romik not playing games. to include 'student' is to make the question more generic. after all this scenario works for all candidates hunting for jobs

@feynman well I don’t know what to say, perhaps it is like one of those tricks the real Feynman famously used to play on people. But here on this site, if you ask a question and then later start changing important details about what you’re asking after people already went to the trouble of writing detailed answers, it is considered bad form. Personally I don’t feel like rewriting my answer to address your edit. But good luck getting suggestions from other people.

The modified question would have been better placed in workplace.SE and would have received probably a different set of responses. The original question was specifically academic. I recommend changing back.

I agree with a lot of the answers so far, but I want to point out one other relevant point:

In academia, unlike in industry, interviews are generally not used as a way to evaluate a person's technical skills or abilities.  Instead, such evaluations are usually based on:

The person's documented achievements in the field; and
Recommendations from other people whose expertise in the field is recognized, and who are familiar with the person's work.

This applies at pretty much all levels of academia.  When departments hire professors, they do not ask them "clever" interview questions to evaluate their technical expertise; rather, they look at their papers and talk to other experts who know their work.  The same goes when professors hire postdocs, or when professors hire grad students (there may be a few exceptions to this last one).  The interview is meant more to evaluate the person's "soft skills", administrative and organizational abilities, and to discuss the person's achievements and goals in depth.
I won't really go into the reasons for this practice, or attempt to justify it, except to say that the qualifications for success in an academic position are typically much broader, and much less specific, than for, say, a programming position, where they really just want to know "Can you code in language X?"
So this explains why people are finding your question somewhat outlandish: professors don't ever get asked "clever" technical questions in any kind of an interview, because nobody finds that to be a useful method of evaluation.  Thus the notion of having a student ask such questions of a prospective advisor sounds particularly absurd.
Now, I think it's perfectly reasonable for you to want to have some idea of a professor's qualifications in a certain area.  If you want to learn about a particular area of math, then you'll want to try to identify an advisor who can help you in that regard (though, as a graduate student, you'll also be expected to develop the ability to learn independently).  But you can go about it in the same ways listed above.  Look for achievements: Does the professor write papers that use the sorts of techniques that you want to learn?  Do those papers seem to be influential?  And look for recommendations: talk to the professor's current and former students, and look at their records.  Did they learn the sort of things that you want to learn?
Of course, you can also ask the professor directly: "I am interested in learning about theoretical area X.  Is this something that your students typically learn?  What does that process look like?"

I think your prior is wrong. Lots of people want to become professors, but only a few succeed. Therefore instead of assuming that the professor is weak and should prove his/her strength, you should do it the other way: assume the professor is strong until proven otherwise.
If you want to test something else, like whether your personalities are compatible, whether the professor is not so busy that he'll never have time for you, etc, there're ways to do that. But if you want to test if the professor knows math ... try reading your OP again, suitably edited.

I'm an undergraduate who needs to find a PhD student mentor in an undergraduate research project.
Some PhD students might have many papers and a high reputation, but aren't necessarily good at theory/maths. In a face to face or video interview, what will be the best strategy to interview/test the PhD student's maths/theory ability? It's of course usually the other way around in that the PhD student wants to test a undergraduate's ability. But a strong undergraduate should also look for a strong PhD student through clever interviews.

No surprises if you're offended.


text:
what to do for one who starts a faculty job before semester starts
What will be expected to do on a newly hired faculty member to start before a semester starts? No course to teach. Of course one can do their own research.
1.But is there any departmental need for the new hire to do during summer for example?
2.Will the school be willing to have new hires start 2 months before a semester starts?

Are you an adjunct or is it a regular position? Are you hired just to teach or is research part of the requirement?

Also see https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/133303/72855

Poorly tagged. Even after the edit.

no better tag. only 2 tags with faculty

Perhaps, but it covers your question. Why have a duplicate?

not covered entirely. this question is also about whether schools are willing to have faculty start before semester starts

If that is your only concern, ask that university. Any general answer might not apply to the specific.

Which country or countries is this about?

At least for the US, the university generally has a specific date on which they expect new faculty to begin their employment - typically sometime in August for schools that are on semesters.  It's usually at least a week or two before the start of classes, to give time for various kinds of orientation / training / onboarding.  This start date is usually mentioned in the job posting, or during the interview process.
In principle you could negotiate an earlier date, but there'd probably have to be a good reason - something specific that you would be doing for the university during that time, beyond your usual research or course preparation.  The university has set their budget assuming that you will be paid starting on the designated start date, and is unlikely to be willing to start paying you sooner unless they are really getting something in exchange.  Indeed, most full-time faculty in the US are on 9-month contracts and don't receive salary during the summer months unless they are performing special services or have grant funding.
If you'll be arriving in the city earlier than your start date, it's reasonable to ask if you can start using your office, get a library card, etc, before your employment officially begins.  Your department will probably be happy to do little things like this as a courtesy to you.  And, of course, you can start meeting your colleagues and learning about the job.  You just won't be getting paid yet.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to withdraw/revise work published by students without advisor's knowing
Some students are so eager to publish something that they do so without their supervisor (advisor) knowing. They publish work that was supervised by the supervisor with the supervisor's name on but the supervisor didn't know it's published in journal xyz until later. In that case, what is the best course of action to get such work withdrawn or revised if it was already published in a journal or at a conference? If the editor/publisher doesn't agree to take any action, what should the supervisor do? Let's discuss about the solutions to the following different issues that might appear in the publication and that need to be revised/added:
1.part of the authorship, contact details and acknowledgement is wrong or lost
2.some published results are wrong

I've cleaned up some discussion here; sounds like the key point (now added into the post) is that the supervisor's name was added to the paper (as an author) without the supervisor's permission.

Can we assume a further issue is that the quality of the work is not what the supervisor would have approved, given their name was on it? We would normally want all authors to approve the final submission, and if that was not done, there might be quality issues (poor writing, missing citations, etc.) even if the results are technically correct.

It's possible that the student(s) thought they were being considerate and correct... since they did not know the standard procedures. So I'd not be toooo harsh with them.

@Dawn that's the part of the purpose of this question

Okay, well you say it is a matter of formality, which is not the same as quality.

thanks to all and I reedited it to clarify

@paulgarrett Yes, but elementary courtesy would be to at least ask; even if one grants them not to be aware that agreement of all authors is expected.

@CaptainEmacs, I can easily visualize scenarios in which the students thought "it went without saying" that they'd include their advisor as a co-author. That kind of thing...

@paulgarrett Sure, I got that one. In a way, one should communicate that authorship is similar to a signature. At least assent/power of attorney/etc. is required, in the same way as it documents a promise or committment. But I get your point.

@CaptainEmacs, and, oh yes, students need to learn that... but they're kids, don't "already know" soooo many things. :)

If your name was put on an article without your permission, then the other authors presumably lied to the editor since they presumably had to sign a declaration that they were authorized to act for all authors. Many journals will automatically inform all prospective authors about a submission, but that can be circumvented by giving a wrong / old email address.
If this happened to you, you can either accept the submission after giving the students a good talking-to and not do anything more, or you can go to the editor and ask for your name to be removed. It is up to the journal to decide how to react, either by publishing a retraction of the article or by providing an errata that disassociates you as an author from the article. If this is not a print journal, updates are of course easier.
If the editor does not do anything, then you can go to the publishing house because then the editor would be violating academic principles. Since your career might be damaged by a bad article, you could try to pursue civil damages if neither the editor nor the publishing house reacts, but for that, you need to look for competent legal advise.
Students are free to publish, but as long as they are students, they also fall under an academic discipline, which can restrict this right. They are never allowed to put someone else's name on it without permission and are engaging in serious misconduct if they do so. This goes way beyond a courtesy authorship.

thanks a lot. The purpose is not to remove the supervisor's name, but that the final submission wasn't approved by the supervisor.

I think it is worth considering the possible, unintended, negative effect of retraction. If the common gossip goes along the lines of "Hey, did you see that a paper by Supervisor XYZ got retracted!", people might not take the trouble to ask why. Instead, they're likely to conclude that Supervisor XYZ did something wrong, even though in the circumstances you describe, it is the students who did something wrong, and XYZ who did something right. It might be a close call about what course of action will do the least damage to the reputation of XYZ!

As the paper has already been published, it would probably be a retraction and not a withdrawal (which is for articles that are in press).
When your name was added to an article that you did not write, this is a valid ground for retraction.
For instance, Elsevier states that bogus authorship claims are grounds for article retraction. For Taylor & Francis, guidelines are similar.
It is important to note that even after retraction, papers will often still be online, but with a retraction notice. So it will still be findable.
If you would rather correct errors in the paper and keep the publication, that can also be an option. In that case, you would contact the editor and ask for a correction. A correction notice may be published alongside the paper. But, as Thomas Schwarz also wrote, it is possible that the editor and the publishing house do not react, or only very slowly.
Additionally, you may want to consider talking to the board of your institution, to see if the student should be reprimanded. A violation of scientific integrity like this, should maybe result in consequences for the student.
Edit: Journals may never respond or outright refuse to correct or retract an article (e.g., see this example, this article, and this one). I'm not sure what would be the best steps nor what rights you have. Perhaps the best advice would be to seek legal council.

thanks. I've heard that some publishers would just refuse to make any changes. In that case, what can we do?

@feynman The [help] states "You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face" - please don't expect answers to cover every possible contingency, particularly ones you are not actually facing. If you are actually facing this situation, then ask a question that makes it explicit.

@BryanKrause this (in the last comment) is the situation my colleagues and I are facing.

@feynman Then why wasn't that your original question? Why do you say "I've heard that" rather than "the publisher says they can not make any changes"? Why mislead us and make us guess what your situation is?

@BryanKrause  Sorry for my wrong wording.

@feynman It's not wrong wording, it's misleading and unhelpful.

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


text:
Publishing something in incremental way or as a single paper by waiting for more time?
I am currently a post-doc student in computer science. I have worked on one research problem and have got small results. I am doing this work independently so my current supervisor is not giving any feedback. I am worried should I wait for more results or just go with results that I have in my hand. My question is should I wait for more results or first submit a paper with small results and then keep working on the problem and then after that if I have a further results then I can also try to publish in the extended form.

Question : Publishing something in incremental way or as a single paper by waiting for more time?

@old - Can you expand that comment into an answer?

Publishing incrementally gives you more feedback from peers as you go. Publishing in a "big bang" way makes preemption more likely since it takes you more time. It would be awful to spend years on a magnum opus only to be beaten to publication by someone else.
However, your incremental results should be significant enough that they stand on their own. You don't want to get the reputation of publishing trivia.
The best of all worlds is that you publish a series of important, if small results, that build to the crescendo with the big bang.
You can also, perhaps, depending on your position, use small (but meaningful) results to introduce newer students to your research and to build a core of researchers in your topic.


text:
Does my Anthropology PhD topic have to be the same as my Masters topic?
I have a MSci in Social and Cultural Anthropology. While doing the masters, I chose a thesis topic that I ended up hating. I finished the thesis regardless and graduated with merit.
I want to now apply for a PhD, but I don't want to continue down the path of the masters thesis topic, instead choosing something I studied in a course in the program, but didn't write a thesis for (I did write some related essays on it, and took a related course on it).
Also the two topics would be in latin america, dealing with women (just different groups of women, one was urban women in brazil, the PhD topic would involve indigenous women in Guyana). I can certainly find some overlaps, though it might be a stretch of the imagination.
What do you think? How important is it that the masters topic overlap with the phd topic?

There is no such requirement unless imposed by some advisor that you might carry through with from the masters to the doctorate. But even then it is not essential in concept.
You are free to explore new directions, and it is probably a good idea to do so. Assuming the common case in which you have a different advisor, or even if you are at a different university, take some (maybe a lot) direction from your new advisor. If you have your own ideas, explore them with the advisor. If you are more tentative, the typical case, look for suggestions from them about directions you might pursue. Perhaps the ideas will be in line with the general research trajectory of the advisor in such situations.
And this isn't true just in anthropology.
It is also important that if you are going to do serious research in some topic, that you have some affinity for that - it needn't be love exactly, but it is better if you are driven internally by the questions, rather than just following a script.

Danger. Danger. Don't over stress my words just above. Be in love with the topic. But don't be driven to preconceived notions that you want to be true. Research is a search for truth. Be in love with the search, whatever emerges as the truth.

Thank you so much - that's really good feedback.


text:
When should I send the so-called “inquiry email”?
I’ve heard that, prior to applying, undergraduates sometimes express interest to faculty members of graduate schools via email. I know that this is most often done (fairly?) close to the time of application, however, I still have a year before applying (graduating June 2021).
Is it unheard of for students to contact faculty a year before applying so they can establish some sort of research relationship? By “research relationship”, I mean something akin to typical undergraduate mathematics research (though with a professor at another institution), however diluted it may become due to distance. I’m interested in hearing how feasible this is!

Preferably away from final exam weeks (May and December). This kind of contact only works well if it is organic and stems from genuine interest; doing it too close to application season is only counterproductive.

Which country? The answer might depend on this.

Ah -- good point. The university I am attending as an undergraduate is in the US, but I'm not ruling out the possibility of applying somewhere foreign.


text:
Poor grades in courses related to my PhD thesis. Is that an indication to my research and future academic career potential?
My PhD research will be in numerical modeling of Selective laser melting (SLM) process. I will be using finite element method, Fortran and python programming and a bit of machine learning in my research. My research is going to be completely computational based. I will be using Abaqus finite element analysis software for my research.
I took three courses (Finite Element Analysis, Mechanical behavior of materials and Numerical methods in scientific research) as part of my grad school requirements. I have a background in metallurgical engineering.
Now, I have got B-, A-, B+ grades in the three courses respectively. And I had worked hard for these courses, probably should have worked harder. My advisor says the grades and courses are a formality and I should focus on my research as I will learn more by doing than through any coursework.
It's true that I won't be developing any finite element code for my research and I will learn programming and fundamentals of material behavior as I go about my research, I am concerned that the abysmal grades in the courses is an indication to my research and future academic career inability. Is it? Any advice?

My advisor says the grades and courses are a formality and I should focus on my research as I will learn more by doing than through any coursework.

Your advisor is right.  Listen to him.  Class in an engineering Ph. D. program mean very little.  Research is more important by an order of magnitude.

It is true that research matters much more than coursework in graduate studies (if you get a paper in Science then no one will care if you got a B- in some random course). I half-jokingly tell my students that they should get the minimal grades needed to keep their scholarship.
That said, bad grades in your own field of study are not a positive indication of your research and future academic career potential. I would not ignore this. Go over the class materials again, see what might be relevant to your own research and make sure you become an expert in these things. If you didn't do well because you were focused on research and didn't work hard, then that would be another matter. You yourself mention you worked very hard on the coursework and still didn't manage to get it right. This could be a number of things, but still - take this as an opportunity for self-improvement.

I agree with everybody about the low importance of grades, but offer one suggestion.  Maintain good enough grades to not be kicked out of your program.  At my institution, two C's on your transcript will get you the boot.


text:
Is there no liberal arts "school" that is also a research "school"?
Note: Using "school" as an alternative word, because "college" and "university" have different implications for degree level awarded, at least in the US. Edit: apparently I made the last part up — that’s my mistake.
Everywhere I see people talking about / posting about the differences, the tone of writing makes it seem like these are mutually exclusive sets of "schools". Is there something about the operations of a research "school" that makes it incompatible with the values of a liberal arts "school", or vice versa? Or is it just a coincidence that there isn't any such institution?
I also see people mention that Europe doesn't have this distinction, but I'm not sure how to use that information for answering my question.

P.S. - while I have some idea what these terms mean (from an undergrad at a liberal arts college and a Ph.D. from a large research university), don't be afraid to elaborate on / clarify terms in your responses.

""college" and "university" have different implications for degree level awarded" - What are you basing this on? I don't think that's true in the US at all. The words sometimes provide information about the type of institution but not necessarily and there are certainly both colleges and universities offering the exact same level of degree.

There are definitely "liberal arts" schools that are also (very serious) research institutions. For instance, Princeton is a self-described liberal arts institution, and definitely also a research institution.

@BryanKrause I think you’re right — it’s just the trend I had seen, but I guess I was wrong in thinking it was a rule :) some other people provided examples like Dartmouth College.

@JakobStreipel thank you for the link!

@AidanW.Murphy The difference can be more meaningful outside of the US. E.g. I have found people in Canada confused when I referred to my university as "college". I don't think anyone in the US would even appreciate a difference.

I think you're confusing the US and UK there. In the UK "college" is usually 16-18 but there are some colleges that issue "diplomas" to post-18 level. These are below degree level qualifications.

The basic difference between a college and a university is that a university is a group of colleges. But there is no like legal definition that prevents a place from calling itself one or the other.

No, what you are saying simply is not true. Some "liberal arts colleges" have PhD programs, like Bryn Mawr College, Wesleyan University, and Tufts University. Some have nursing colleges like Adelphi University. Some "research universities" are called "college" like Dartmouth College. In the USA, the words university and college are used interchangeably, without firm rules regarding the types of degrees that they can offer. The word "school" is overloaded because it also refers to pre-college education.

Everywhere I see people talking about / posting about the differences, the tone of writing makes it seem like these are mutually exclusive sets of "schools". Is there something about the operations of a research "school" that makes it incompatible with the values of a liberal arts "school", or vice versa? Or is it just a coincidence that there isn't any such institution?

They are not mutually exclusive. Some liberal arts colleges weight research equally important as teaching. Examples include Bowdoin College, Wesleyan University, and most of the NESCAC (Williams, Amherst, etc.). Meanwhile, some "research schools" weight teaching as roughly equally important to research, especially R2 universities. Furthermore, some research universities have a designated teaching track, where professors can get tenure based solely on teaching and not at all on research. A great early example is Uri Treisman at UT Austin. Harvard University has the preceptors. I've also got a friend who is a teaching professor at UC Irvine. These kinds of jobs are becoming increasingly common because even big research universities recognize the importance of good teaching. Lastly, this classification of "research only" vs "teaching only" seems to leave out regional universities, which make up a huge percentage of tenure track jobs in the USA. I don't know much about them, but I know that success at such a place requires both teaching and research (not sure how they are weighted).
What is true is that there's a correlation between "liberal arts college" and weighting teaching the same or greater than research, and between "research university" and weighting research the same or greater than teaching. However, the values at these types of institutions are not "incompatible." Even at a big research university, the faculty and administration do not want students to fail. Even at a small liberal arts college, the faculty and administration do want faculty to publish, become respected scholars, win grants, etc. Some extremely strong researchers work at liberal arts colleges because they prefer small classes, incentives to develop deep relationships with undergraduate students, a well-resourced environment where funding does not depend on the (often crazy) state legislature, the ability to teach a wide variety of courses, summers that are truly "off" because there is no expectation to remain on campus, etc.

This answer is very good. As a data point, I am a professor at Amherst college, and indeed we definitively value research more than teaching at the hiring stage, and equally if not slightly more than teaching at the tenure stage. I regularly publish with undergrad students in top venues in my field, and have won NSF grants.

Thank you very much for the put-together answer, I really appreciate it :) especially for the number of examples you’ve provided!

I would not say "college" and "university" are completely interchangeable. There definitely is at least a little bit of implication as to type of school, level, and academic focus. There are definitely exceptions, especially in names, but for instance I have never once heard someone describe graduate school as "college" in the US.

@tox123 They don't call it "university", either, though. They call it "grad school". And for undergrads it's called "college" whether the name of the institution has the words University or College in the name. Yes, there are some different implications of the two words but not enough to assume the type of institution without more information.

I'd like to correct one minor thing: Tufts University used to be a liberal arts college maybe 50 years ago back when it was still Tufts College, but nowadays it is an R1 research university with multiple graduate and professional schools. The undergraduate cohort is somewhat still smaller than most R1 universities, but that's about it. Source: I'm an alumunus.

Current answers are good, but I'll add a little more context about 1. how this works outside the US (my experience is in Australia, your local mileage may vary) and 2. the very long tail of US universities that don't fit simply into the framework. (This is my first answer, hope it's okay!)

Yes, this is a very American distinction. The concept of the "[selective] liberal arts college", an undergrad-focused institution with high expectations for students, a focus on "letters and sciences" subjects, and relatively less focus on research output, doesn't exist in much of the world. Partially this is because the "liberal arts education" itself is very American -- the number of "gen eds" and unrelated electives an American student takes is much, much higher than their counterparts in the outer-Anglosphere or the EU generally will. I've been in both systems and like the US one more for its flexibility and scope, but they both have advantages. (Note: I know Australia and continental Europe here, but other countries may be very different again.)

But beyond that, the [S]LAC itself is American in that it possesses a few traits rarely seen elsewhere in the world. Private universities are very rare in a lot of countries, and often have worse reputations than their publicly-funded counterparts, not better. In Australia, the best universities are all public; there's one major private university, and a lot of people seem pretty skeptical its existence possesses any value. The stereotype I notice Brits having of private universities is "ways to suck money from rich kids who couldn't get in anywhere good and international students who have been sold ideas of London". The US has exceptionally many universities in general, and exceptionally many private four-year institutions in particular (private non-bachelor's-degree tertiary institutions are more common in the rest of the Anglosphere).

There are also just exceptionally many universities in America, which combined with a large population allows for a long tail of tiny universities. LACs are definitionally small. "Respectable small university focused on non-technical/non-vocational degrees" isn't something with a good carved-out category in most of the world. Here, again, the private tertiary education institutes that exist are more vocational on average than the big public ones (even the private universities, rather than TAFEs/community college equivalents).
In an academic framework, people talk a lot about "R1 vs SLAC", because these are the most desirable jobs for most academics. (R1 is kind of a fake category -- North Dakota State is R1, South Dakota State is R2 -- but that's a different problem.) This is far from representative of the degree-granting institutions Americans attend. Most four-year colleges and universities in America can't be simply fit into this framework.

While ~all American four-year universities are liberal-arts-focused by an international standard, many (and growing) have a very vocational focus, independently of whether they offer graduate degrees or not. (In Carnegie terms, these slot into all of Doctoral/Professional, the Master's categories, and the Bachelor categories.) An increasingly big market is "vocationally-focused universities that are available largely online and where it's possible to accelerate a degree". These are very off the radar of most academics -- they tend to be wholly adjunct-staffed and don't send many students to big research programs -- but they are reshaping the American educational landscape. (In practice, a large share of academia's adjunctification is about schools like this that straight up didn't exist in a recognizable form 30 years ago.)

Many "regional" or "directional" colleges exist that are large, offer grad programs, skew vocational, and don't produce tons of research. The CSUs are often good examples of this. "Directional" comes from an impression that these often have a "direction" in their names (Eastern Southern Northwestern State U), as opposed to the "flagship" that gets the state name without caveats.

There is also an extremely long tail -- far longer than you think, if you are not a member of this world -- of private religious institutions. A small number of larger schools of this kind (Liberty, Bob Jones, noncentrally Brigham Young) are well-known, but the tail of private evangelical Christian (and, less commonly but still noticeably, Orthodox Jewish) schools is incredibly long. These don't fit neatly into categories developed for more secular schools.

(Note: I've used "LAC" and especially the ambiguous acronym "SLAC" here to describe the "selective" end, given the question's framework. This isn't a universally-agreed-upon distinction, but it's tricky to describe the whole range of American universities otherwise, and in particular the things that make [S]LACs very unlike private universities elsewhere.)

+1 this is a great answer (and, welcome to academia.SE). In my answer, I tried to gesture to the fact that an "R1 vs SLAC" dichotomy misses regional colleges. You are spot on about online vocational programs, religious universities, etc. I might add that for-profit universities are some sector of the US landscape that I personally don't know much about. Another type not mentioned yet is community colleges.

There is very little that distinguishes the curriculum of a bachelor's degree from a "liberal arts school" from any other 4-year institution in the US. All^ US bachelors degrees have a strong emphasis on a liberal arts education. We call out the alternatives by other names: they are technical schools, or professional schools: degree programs focused on a profession rather than a broad base of education.
The main identifying features of a "liberal arts college" that contrasts them with all these other liberal arts schools that aren't named as such are size in terms of number of students, and scope.
Unlike larger universities, they are less likely to have attached professional programs (usually post-graduate programs, like medical or law schools). They are also less likely to have a large graduate program and may have no graduate students at all, or may only have graduate programs in a couple specific fields. In some fields this puts an immediate damper on research output because research in those fields is performed mostly by graduate students; no students, no researchers. It also relates to what I see as the biggest curriculum difference between liberal arts colleges and larger schools, which is that undergraduates at a school with a graduate program can often take graduate courses as upper-level electives, and these are usually much more specialized, advanced courses than are available at a smaller liberal arts school.
Of course size or branding do not exclude research as a function; David White's answer correctly identifies some institutions that bill themselves as liberal arts schools but have a strong research reputation as well. However, I think this is mostly tautology; institutions labeled "liberal arts colleges" are small and not focused on research, and if they were to grow and focus on research more we'd be far less likely to name them "liberal arts colleges". It's not so much that these things must be different from their creation but rather that the label itself is dependent on those differences; it's not that a liberal arts college is unable to also be a research university, but that the more research an institution takes on the more likely it is to get the "research university" label. It's not that they can't be research-focused schools but that they aren't. Borrowing one of the examples from that answer, Dartmouth has branded themselves as a liberal arts college and might occasionally end up on someone's list of liberal arts schools, but anyone looking closely should notice they're an Ivy-league research school.
In summary: all US 4-year colleges/universities are liberal arts schools. Those that also do a lot of research are known as "research universities", leaving the label "liberal arts school" to mostly mean "schools that are not research universities".
^ Saying "all" here ensures someone will comment with some exceptions which saves me the time of looking for them myself.

I believe that MIT, CalTech, and the service academies all fall under the (quite broad) ‘liberal arts’ banner. If they do, pretty much every 4 year institution does.

@JonCuster I think I would agree with that. Still waiting for someone to argue an exception, though.


text:
Reasons for differences in the Ph.D. admission process in India vs U.S. and Europe
While searching for universities to do my Ph.D. in mathematics, I noticed that most top universities in India use incredibly competitive entrance exams (much more difficult and time constrained than the GRE/TOEFL/Subject GRE) and only after you've cleared those and based on your ranking in those do they ask you to provide them the transcripts, recommendation letters, Statement of Purpose etc. indicating that the results of those (mostly objective) entrance exams are considered more important than the other three components of your application, mentioned above. The exam is usually followed by an in person interview which is equally rigorous. Even if they don't conduct the exam themselves, they rely on some other national level entrance exam as a screening tool and/or as a way to create a merit list to offer admissions.
However, in the US and most of Europe (I suppose) universities only require you to have done well in some (comparatively) easy exams like the GRE/TOEFL/Subject GRE and many even waive that requirement off. A university there using their own entrance exams and interviews as a screening process is unheard of and the admission decisions are made based on transcripts, recommendation letters, Statement of Purpose etc. The qualifying exams before one is allowed to officially begin their Ph.D. allow a couple of years of preparation thorough coursework in the university and though tough, I think they allow some flexibility in terms of when the student wants to take the exam and what electives he's opted for. Even if one fails to clear these exams some universities allow the student to terminate the program early after the coursework with just a master's degree. (I'm not 100% sure about the last few sentences.)
My question is that what are the possible reasons for such a drastic difference in the admission process?

See this canonical question, which, unfortunately, doesn't yet include India: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/176908/75368. In particular, admission in the US isn't by exam.

If you have a lot of knowledge about doctoral admissions in India, I suggest you supply an answer to that question with the process (processes?) used in India.

I don't know if the situation now is much changed from when I applied to graduate programs (several times in the 1980s), but the GRE and GRE subject tests were mainly hurdles that anyone reasonably competent would clear and they were primarily used for the awarding of university department (not national, such as NSF grants) merit scholarships, especially in lower ranked universities. I also don't recall anyone paying attention to them (such as actually preparing/studying for the tests) other than showing up at the appropriate time, at least among the (possibly atypical) students I knew.

As far as I can tell, it's a cultural difference.  India seems incredibly scared of processes that allow individual decision making because of a fear of corruption.

Putnam Competition scores (as self-reported by applicants or reported by recommendation letter writers) do play a role in graduate admissions in math - at most top departments they're definitely more important than GREs.  Of course, they're voluntary and only available for US and Canada undergrads.

@Buffy That's a very helpful post. I'll try to add to it once I have a more thorough understanding of the admission process.

The question seems to assume that PhD admissions work quite similarly in the US and Europe, but that's far from true. On the one hand, it doesn't make much sense to talk about "academia in Europe", since the systems differ considerably between various countries. On the other hand, for some countries in Europe there is no such thing as "PhD admission". (Example: In Germany, you essentially need two things to do a PhD: a Master's degree in a related subject (with some caveats), and a professor who is willing to supervise you. The main problem is to find funding to make for a living.)

In general there are strict admission requirements when a certain funding body restricts the available fundings. It does not matter if you have 10'000 skilled applicants, you want to scream out the best 10, because you have money for 10.
I think it is non-sense, because there should be a criteria on the minimum requirements, rather than this  scientific darwinism, but I still wonder if it is the case  that India is investing a lot in highly epxensive program (i.e. bringing the man to the Moon) preferring 2 PhDs position there instead of 200 PhDs position in other fields?

The main reason is the number of applicants. I know PhD applicants and Phd students from both India and Europe. I have also been part of interviews to select students from both.
European countries are struggling with a declining (young) population and offer other jobs that pay much better than doing a PhD with long term prospects. This is kind of the opposite for India (only in some limited sense).  If you post an open PhD position in Europe, not a lot will show up. That is in contrast to India. There is a need in India to filter more aggressively and that is the reason for what you elaborate on.

Addendum to the answer (opinion):
My answer is for the Physics community. The point you are missing is what happens once you are selected. In Europe, you are asked to bring a lot of independence. The supervisor will not see you every or every other day. Maybe once a week at most. In fact, your regular (or 'daily') supervision will be from a postdoc. In contrast, from what I know, Indian PhD students are not (but are expected) to  be that independent. I have seen PhD students asking their supervisor (time and again) to solve a rather trivial problem they are facing.

Also the national exam route makes it at least seem ‘fair’ across all social classes.

'Daily'?  First, they're your advisor, not your supervisor, and, second, you meet with your advisor once a week, maybe even less.

@AlexanderWoo This varies significantly from culture to culture (field of research and/or location).


text:
Is it common that professors let their PhD students transfer to universities in other countries?
I'm an international student. Last year, I got into a research programme and started working with a supervisor. I had a great relationship with this supervisor, and he encouraged me to pursue PhD studies in his lab. He helped a lot with my application and I got accepted with funding despite some personal challenges. I do like the university, the group, and the supervisor, so from this perspective, everything is great.
The problem is that I now realize I don't want to stay in this country for five more years. I've been here for several years already, have not managed to learn the language very well, and I'm always the "foreigner" in any situation. I wish I had thought about this last year, but I didn't.
I told the supervisor that I plan to decline the offer, but he is encouraging me to accept it. He has promised that I can master out after two years, or he'll support me transferring to another PhD program if I want to do that.
Is this a good plan? I am concerned that entering a PhD program and then leaving without a PhD will look bad. On the other hand, I don't have any other offers right now. And I'm worried about alienating my supervisor, who is well-known and whose recommendation later is important for me.

Please don't vandalize your post; now that people have taken the time to write answers, it is not fair to do this. On the other hand, if you are concerned about privacy, you are welcome to edit the post and remove some of the super-specific details; those are not necessary here. I've taken a stab at this for you.

The expectation will be different for different countries. I am studying at an European university, and my supervisor has no problem with me applying to other universities after graduation. I always told him about my future plan.
There are also some places where supervisors will "force" students to do M.Sc and PhD at the same university under their supervision. I am strongly against this idea, but for this aspect, I think you know better than anyone else here as it is culturally-dependent, or if you don't know, you should specify the country here.
I cannot imagine myself doing Bachelor, Master, PhD at the same university for many years, but that is just my personal opinion. I know many excellent professors who studied at the same university for 10 years, and later became faculty there. Clearly, there is no right or wrong answer. For some places, students are encouraged to go to other universities for graduate study for a different perspective, and I think it is a good idea.
However, I also believe we can not always get what we want. Sometimes, we are given a good opportunity, and we should take it. Your life, my life will not stop after getting PhD, but there will be other opportunities as well. PhD is a great challenge. It will not get easier if you transfer to other places. You have to do the risk-benefit calculation yourself carefully. Either you choose to stay or you choose to move, you will somehow regret that.
But, no matter what anyone else tells you, your mental health, your happiness are important things that no academic achievement or grade can compensate. If you still think this place is not for you (mentally), you really should leave. You should spend some time for yourself to rest after making the decision. It will refresh your mind, helping you have a better perspective for the next application.

As cliché as this sounds, you need to do what is best for you and out of respect for S and their funding, research group and university you need to make this decision soon and final.
The worst thing you could do is go there half-hearted and not live up to the funding and universities expectations from a funded PhD project. They would desire, although maybe not expect, a return on their investment in you. If you do not think you can give them that through genuine and legitimate reasons about the culture, language and city then the best thing you could do is give them (and you) certainty.
Accepting and doing a masters over two years would just lead to, "well you've invested two years, why not another two?" and that argument is really persuasive, it sinks many a gambler!.
Do what you think is the best for you, let the correct people know this as soon as possible so they can advertise the position, reallocate places or funding etc. and set in motion what they need to do.

Given all the informations you gave, you are a very important pawn in the dynamics of the group, probably it has to do also with the fundings for your professor (there must be some blockage of the fundings for the project to starts only when PhD position is filled, therefore your professor is pressuring you) and your contribution in the groups (you are probably downplaying your contributions), too.
First: your mental health is of uttermost importance.
Second: is not unheard of people working fully remote, even in the academia, even before Covid.
As a recent graduate, I assume money is an issue and you cannot stay out of work for more than 3 months. Therefore, I see the choice between being unemployed, broken and depressed, or employed, less broken and depressed (but I may be wrong).
I suggest you to accept the position, you already made very clear to your professor you want to leave, or better, that you want to live somewhere else, you are accepting their terms, but they are also accepting your terms.
You have a lot of bartering power on your side, you may find an agreement in moving to another institution (anywhere in the world, as a visiting researcher) while at the same time being formally affiliated at the current university.
It may not be that the professor is willing to do that, but if you come up with a reasonable plan (i.e. finding a supervisor at the foreign uni, scheduling in-person meeting 7 to 8 times per year with your current group) you may have green light.
If, on the other hand, you can stay without work for 3-6 months, take the opportunity, it is a great opportunity to "take a break" and the older you get the more difficult it will be.

Your topline question is very general. But the answer to that is actually irrelevant to your case. What is common isn't universal and the only situation that matters is yours.
But, my best guess is that you are overthinking it. Yes, you can probably transfer, but it seems to me like jumping into the abyss. You say you are the "foreigner" always and haven't mastered the language, but you seem to have done well enough to have impressed your advisor to the point that they are strongly advocating for your continuation. I don't think that is rare, but I do think that it is a very important consideration. Many questions here on this site are about conflicts with advisors. I don't guess that you will find a more supportive advisor if you move.
If you do stay, your language skills will likely improve and you will probably "fit" better into the local culture than you feel you do now.
I wouldn't suggest throwing away what you have unless you can first find a better situation elsewhere. I don't think that will be easy.
However, I also think that it is likely that the supervisor would actually give you a strong recommendation. Their opinion of you sounds, from what you write, as very positive.


text:
How can I cite an accepted conference paper but it hasn't been presented?
My paper was accepted by a conference which is going to take place in November. However, before I go to present it, I need to cite it in another paper. Does anyone know how to cite an accepted but yet not presented conference paper in APA?

Just cite it as a normal conference paper (with month and year as the time stamp). I assume that you are writing another paper that will undergo the review process. By the time you are done, the conference will have been given. Usually, conference papers are available immediately after and sometimes even before the conference. You want to check on this. If you are submitting you might want to include the old paper as additional material for the referees. The only problem would be if for some reason your conference paper is removed by the conference, e.g. because no author attended the conference.
If you are citing for something being published right now, then just say: "in Proceedings on the International Symposium on Biological Computing, November 2022 (to appear)". As always, you want to make finding the cited article as easy as possible, but with scholar.google.com, this is easy.

Thank you for your explanation!


text:
Seeking approval from coauthors for poster after they have approved the abstract
I submitted an abstract to a conference about a month ago, with a clear idea that it will be presented either in the form of an oral presentation or as a poster presentation should it be accepted. Prior to submitting, I sent all coauthors an email seeking for approval for the abstract submission.
Now that the abstract has been accepted, I need to further submit a poster which I will present at the conference. Do I need to email all the coauthors again to seek approval for the poster? Or is the approval implied when they responded favourably to my abstract submission?

Do I need to email all the coauthors again to seek approval for the poster? Or is the approval implied when they responded favourably to my abstract submission?

Yes, of course. Their names will be on it, so they need to see it. I think the importance of getting feedback on visual materials is easily double that of written material, given all the degrees of freedom.
Just a side note, I find your usage of "approval" a bit odd. You should be asking your co-authors for feedback and suggestions for improvement, and collaboratively building your abstract/poster/paper. Of course, I don't know the role they had, but if someone sent me "an abstract for my approval," I would feel a bit off-put and uncomfortable saying "no" and sending my suggestions.


text:
I uploaded my paper first on arXiv, but it can not be indexed by google scholar after the paper is officially published in conference
My paper has been accepted by a conference. Due to the page limit, I uploaded a more extended version of my article on arXiv. My article had been officially published and can be found on acm.org. It was put online by the conference managers before the conference was held 5 months ago (in May 2022). The conference itself had been held a month ago (in September 2022). However, google scholar only shows the arXiv version. No result related to the conference can be found even in "all versions" of my article. How can I make the conference version be indexed?
My situation is different from the previous questions:

Here the paper may not be published officially at the conference, yet my paper has already been publically available on the conference website for several months.
It is certain that my arXiv version and the conference version are different since the arXiv version has more pages. I tried this solution, but I can not find my conference version after I click "Add Articles".

"The conference had been held a month ago. My article had been officially published and can be found on acm.org" When exactly was your paper officially published? A month ago? Or more recent?

Did you contact google about your problem?

@Nobody I have updated the post and added a more detailed description of publication time.

@EarlGrey No, I didn't. It seems no contact methods are provided on google scholar. Do you know which email address should I send to?

have a look here:
https://support.google.com/accounts/thread/94931002/how-to-contact-google-scholar-how-to-report-errors-is-there-a-phone-number-or-email-address?hl=en
and then ask yourself: "is these company really the one I am taking as objective and reliable? a company that is treating so poorly their content creators (science is just a content for the biggest advertising company in the world, Alphabet, when not just a tool to achieve their goals, simply said=EBIT) ?"
Enjoy the science ride and please care less about your google scholar profile / h-index and all that crap :D

Are other papers from that conference indexed?

@GoodDeeds Yes.

Congratulations on getting your paper published!
Have you tried updating your arXiv article with a new title, perhaps appending "(extended version)" so that it's clear which one is the short-version for the page-limited conference proceedings and which is the long version for archival reference?
Another thing you might do is to upload both your (extended) arXiv version and your (short) conference version to your university's research repository.  That'll make it easy for future researchers to find both versions -- since I'm pretty sure GS is pretty thorough about trawling research repositories, and that it does this trawl reasonably often.  If your academic institution doesn't yet have a research repository, you might consider taking the time required to push for one to be created. See https://qcc.libguides.com/c.php?g=301716&p=2019401.
I'm basing these recommendations by inferring Google Scholar's behaviour from three datapoints in my convenience sample 1,2,3.  My inference may be invalid, of course, because of the tiny size of the sample and because Google Scholar's indexing behaviour (as well as the scanty bits of information it reveals about its crawlspace) is subject to change without notice, in any way, at any time.
My sample space:

Google Scholar's cluster for "Large coverage fluctuations in Google Scholar: a case study"  (Reading this article would, I suspect, give you further clues as to how GS has behaved in the past.)

Google Scholar's cluster for one of my more obscure conference pubs

Google Scholar's cluster for a working paper I had uploaded to arXiv in 2015.  I didn't bother to upload this working paper to my university's research repository but I see that it was picked up by SAO/NASA ADS.  I'd be a bit surprised if ADS indexes everything in arXiv, but maybe it indexed my working paper only after a GS crawler had found a citation to it?

(I have the impression that GS is biased against paywalled sources, so if there are two differing versions of an article with the same title & author list, it might be treating your arXiv version as authoritative and not index the short version where you're expecting to find it... have you looked at GS's "related articles" list for your arXiv version?)


text:
I like learning new things but hate to do revision
This problem has been troubling me for some years. The fact that I'm actually very curious in person about everything, I naturally become a learner who likes studying a lot.
However, I also get so-so memory at the same time. I still can remember things if I do at least 1 revision. However, I find myself hate revision. And whenever I find myself forgetting things, I become demotivated. Even I took detailed notes, I just don't motivated to read again my notes for some reason. Revision seems like a daunting task to me.
I can devote hours and hours sitting in front of my desk reading up new things and studying. However, I hate to come back to the materials/same things I read before. This creates a dillema: if I don't go back to it, I forget about it next time.
As we all know, revision needs to be done in a timely manner. It usually takes me 10-14 days before I eventually convinced myself to do the revision. But that's not how study works, I guess.
Thus, what should I do to motivate myself to do the revision I should have done? Or actually it's not about motivation, but something goes wrong that I don't notice? What are the possible causes for the phenomenon?
p.s. at school it's still better as there're exams to push me reviewing the materials. However, now I'm already a working adult, thus I need to identify ways to help me overcome this bad habit as what I have now is just self-study.

Welcome to Academia.SE. I think this question is probably out of the scope of the community.

@Pikachu피카츄, then so is this too? https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/27581/improve-learning-skills

That post was posted a really long time ago. Many types of posts that used to be appropriate on the site are now considered off-topic.

The linked question should have been closed years ago: "How do I learn?" is far too broad, and far too individualized, for anyone to give a definitive answer to. That's the main thing about this site -- we don't want Reddit-style discussions or anecdotes; we want authoritative answers. So, I have hammered the linked question closed. I suspect this question has a similar problem, but I'll leave it for the community to decide.

I you forget about it, you haven't learned it. If you like learning new things, then that might be a motivating factor - you need to not forget about it in order to learn it.

update the question in more details to solicit more feedbacks.

Motivation comes from need. If you need to know something in the future then make a note of that fact and, just perhaps, your motivation for properly learning it will increase. That need could be internal or externally driven. When very young your teachers force you to learn the multiplication tables, perhaps. Or you want to excel at something in life, so your need is internal.
But humans don't learn from brief exposure to an idea unless it is extremely dramatic (a bear coming through the door). You need reinforcement to get the brain to rewire itself and retain what you study.
See this post about the Hipster PDA on another site here for one way to drive reinforcement in a mostly painless way.
If you want to know the background of brain science and learning see The Art of Changing the Brain by James E Zull.

I'm glad eventually there's a helping hand. Thank you professor!


text:
what does means Paper status: Finished?
I submitted my paper to a journal. After 6 mounth with status: under review, yesterday the status changed to "paper status: Finished". I don't understand what does means by this?

I would assume that "finished" means the reviews are complete and ready for the editor to make an accept/reject decision.  So you should be receiving that decision fairly soon.  The status "finished" does not suggest that a decision has been made, or say anything about what it is likely to be.


text:
Possible retraction for using data from a M.S. thesis given to me by the student
I recently published a paper that used data that was given to me (willingly) by a recently graduated M.S. student. This student already published their thesis and had decided to leave academia. I re-did the analysis, cited the thesis, and included the student in the acknowledgements. The work was done internationally, and the student obtained external funding (granted to them) to collect the data and obtained a research permit to do the work.
I have recently been made aware that the students former supervisors have requested a retraction of the paper on the grounds that the student did not own the data and was not entitled to share with me. It is my understanding that the former supervisors are requesting retraction of the paper so that they can publish on the same topic. To make things even more complicated, the student should have shared the data with their international collaborator and they did not, and this is the angle they are pushing with the journal. Although it has been made clear that nothing can be done about this, a big part of the reason the student left academia was due to bullying by one of the previous supervisors. I have a few questions that I would love input on:

Was the student entitled to share the data, considering they obtained the funding, the research permit is in their name and they already published their thesis?

Is a thesis considered a published work in the sense that we could use the data given to us and cite the thesis?

In the case our paper is retracted, will the ex-supervisors be able to publish without the consent of the student?

I am a ECR and the idea of having to retract a paper is highly troubling, especially considering there was no intentional wrong-doing on the part of myself or the student.
EDIT: I didn't want to share too many specific details, but the grant was from the Fulbright to the student.

Is all the data gettable from published work?

Summary statistics (e.g. mean and standard deviations) are but not raw values.

To clarify they are available in the thesis, and it is unclear to me whether this is considered published work or not.

Is your understanding that the student was the PI on the external grant that funded the data collection, not the co-PI with their supervisor? In addition, what do you mean when you say that the student "should have shared the data with their international collaborator and they did not"?

(1) can only be answered if we were to know the exact nature of the agreement that the student entered with the grant givers. Usually, there is no explicit assignment of ownership, but only an informal understanding of future collaboration.
(2) However, a thesis is usually public, so (unless there was a temporary embargo as allowed by some institutions on request by the submitter,) the thesis and the data has already been published before you took up your work. Therefore, the "breach of confidentiality" constituted by the publication of the data had already happened before you published the paper. You might want to ensure that your institution (the one where the thesis was done) agrees with me on the public nature of a thesis.
However, the journal might still want to retract the paper because they might be afraid of a lawsuit, which in turn might open them up to a lawsuit by you.
(3) If the ex-supervisors then publish the "same" paper, they open themselves up to accusations of plagiarism as their analysis needs to be sufficiently different from yours. If however their analysis is sufficiently different from yours, they are fine, as we have to consider the data to be in the public domain.
From your narrative, it is a bit unclear what the student did (maliciously or unintentionally setting you up to publish the student's data that the student was not free to publish or acting in complete innocence doing what the original grant asked the student to do) and to what extent the student is the victim. However, legally, it seems that you have to "throw the student to the wolves" as the right of the student to publish the data in the student's thesis is at issue here.
Now, if the data was not public, and you relied on the permission of the student to give you what was not the student's to give, you might definitely enter lawyer territory.
Under all circumstances, go and talk to your supervisor / dean in order to get access to the legal resources of your institution. From your narrative, it is clear that you acted in good faith and with sufficient prudence. As your affiliated institution on the paper, they are interested in protecting their name. As your employer, they might want to know about possible legal exposure.

I am confused who the grant givers were in this situation. I can't tell if it was a foundation, or some entity related to the "international collaborators"... If the former, you might want to refine the first point here.

I agree that getting your institution's lawyers involved will generally help protect your rights.

I made a small edit to the original question. Thanks!


text:
Can I reuse data that was previously published in a thesis?
Am I allowed to extract data published in a thesis and reanalyze it? I would combine with my own data and the analyses would be much different than the original thesis.
If you have relevant links please share!
Please note this is different from: Can I use published data by other authors in my study? as it is specifically referring to a thesis.

Does this answer your question? Can I use published data by other authors in my study?

Related https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/80002/is-it-ok-to-re-use-data-from-a-previously-publication-in-a-new-publication

Yes
There're lots of papers that iterate on publicly-available data. For example, the MNIST dataset is a dataset of labelled handwritten digits which different machine learning researchers have attempted to optimize their algorithms on. Similarly, telescopes like the Planck probe produces data which other astronomers use to do their analyses.
There is no prohibition against using data.


text:
Should I apply for a thesis based MS (after graduating from a course-based one) before doing a PhD (Physics)?
I graduated with my M.S. in physics, with a focus in Quantum Computing, (course-based M.S.) last December and aim on doing a career in research. Thus I'm very attracted to doing a PhD (within the US), the experience that I had in that program really cemented my interest. However my unimpressive GPA of 3.39 along with my absence in publishing my research in doing my M.S. I think puts me behind as red flag at many schools.
(Side-note: My undergrad institution had a notably poor physics department (most underfunded department, chairmen absent-mindedly cancelled courses, poor advisement (advised to take E&M while taking Calc 2. Not a joke.), courses randomly cancelled by Chairman, very small faculty pool that were very disconnected from global physics community, etc.), and so doing my course-based MS was sort of way of me redoing my bachelors as well as "really learning physics". In so doing though, I was very ill-prepared in taking graduate coursework at a good school)
However, I noticed University of Waterloo offers two research based Quantum Information-related M.S. programs (fully funded) that I thought about applying for:

MSc Physics (Quantum Information): https://uwaterloo.ca/physics-astronomy/graduate-studies/msc-programs
Perimeter Institute MS program: https://perimeterinstitute.ca/psi-masters-program

I hoped that these could serve as an opportunity to improve upon my "most recent education" GPA but also work as a means for producing a professional research thesis at a reputable institution, before doing my PhD. My thinking was that this could give me great preparation.
If I could explain my motivations well in my PhD personal statement for this, would admissions committees find it less suspect?
I appreciate any advice that anyone is willing to share. Thank you!

Is this specific to Canada? If not, where do you intend to do a PhD (country)?

Hi @Buffy, I preferred to do my PhD in the U.S. Most of the institutions that I’m interested in are US-based (e.g. UMD, Stonybrook, UW-Madison, UC Berkeley, U-Washington as a few) but Waterloo and University of New South Wales I’m considering too.

Why not just apply to PhDs and see if you get in? Don't second-guess yourself before you've even tried. Just make sure you apply to a spread of departments, not just the famous/competitive ones.

Hi @astronat, thanks for the reply. I applied to PhD programs for the past 2 years and found my lack of publications along with my lower GPA to be part of the issue. I intended on applying to both, for the chance that I’m not accepted into a PhD but am accepted into the less competitive MSc programs @ Waterloo’s, allowing me to improve upon my latest GPA and publication/research list. \
But How valuable is a MS GPA on your PhD application? Is it a better use of my time to focus on finding other research opportunities & publishing rather than completing an additional MSc degree? Thoughts?

I doubt that this plan is the best for US doctoral programs. Most applicants only hold a bachelors degree and have little if any actual research experience. Therefore prior such experience is not expected.
Most places the first objective in the program is to pass qualifying exams and the program will provide necessary advanced courses to enable that. Thesis based research might not start until that is done, though that isn't true everywhere.
With a course based masters you likely have much, if not all, of the knowledge for qualifiers. An additional masters would probably just slow you down overall, as you would still need to find an advisor and a topic that is mutually acceptable.
This might be quite different in other countries and even in a few US programs. See How does the admissions process work for Ph.D. programs in Country X? for additional guidance.


text:
More formal way to write "canned algorithm"
This question pertains to English writing; although a English Language and Usage SE Community exists, I thought I would post here as I am writing academic literature, and most academics are on this community.
So here's my question. I'd like to say the following:
"A canned algorithm is used to find the closest distance between two locations on Earth given their latitude and longitude coordinates."
However, "canned" sounds rather informal. What are the established ways in literature to refer to a method such as this - an unoriginal, well-known procedure (although there may be several equally good algorithms out there).
A "standard algorithm"? Perhaps a "well-known algorithm"?

If there are several appropriate algorithms, why not name the algorithm and reference the paper establishing it as a standard?

What @Luigi said -- especially since there are approximations involved: do you assume the Earth is a sphere or a geoid, for instance?

@NajibIdrissi Sorry, not my field. s/geoid/ellipsoid

I would recommend naming the algorithm and then saying what library or software you obtained the implementation from. That way, the reader has enough information to adequately understand what you have done and compare it. As for an adjective: "frequently used" is sufficient, I think.

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