text:
Is it common to feel CS lectures useless as a CS major student?
I'm a computer science student who doesn't find lectures useful. I think self-studying is more useful and I should quit my degree in favour of a distant-learning degree. I've tried to convince my parents that lectures are useless for me and that I'd be better served on a distant-learning degree, but they disagree. They think all students feel the same way as me. Do all computer science students really feel this way?

I tried to clarify your question with my edit. Please edit further if I've missed the point.

Are you mostly asking about common emotions, or are you more interested in objective arguments about how to best pursue your goals?  And if the latter, what're your goals?

I work in computer science (doing PhD), and I feel that I am capable of doing so because of the classroom learning that I had in my undergrad studies. I am surprised you feel the opposite. May be you are too much overloaded with information from internet. As a matter of fact, I got my bachelor degree in 2012.

You could try not attending a few lectures, study based on the slides and google, and see how the exams turn out. That would be less drastic. I did that for most classes and it worked out well and I was way happier with studying this way

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it appears to be about undergraduate education. If I'm misinterpreting the question, please clarify. // May I suggest that you visit several other universities, and also dip your toe in the water by taking one or two online classes?  It's much easier to switch programs if you are not launching yourself into a total unknown.

@aparente001 Please don't combine general comments with close-vote reasons. With the way you've done it, agreeing with your close reason makes it look like somebody is agreeing with your whole comment.

Does moving home come into your proposal for a "distant-learning degree"?  If so, I can think of another reason you parents may be pushing back.

@DavidRicherby - Thank you.  I was wondering about that.  Will separate in future.

@aparente001 Are academia not covering undergrad education as well? Didn't know about that.

This is not just a problem for CS majors; it's an issue in literally every major.  It's obviously not true that literally all students in any major will feel that way, but it is common.
The reason is that different people have different learning styles, and different lecturers have different lecture styles.  For example, I majored (quite successfully) in math and physics at a top-10 university but attended almost no lectures after the first one or two in each course, and literally no office hours ever.*  The only exceptions were lectures by two professors who routinely gave such brilliant lectures that even I found them interesting and informative.  Otherwise, I learned almost entirely on my own by reading books (often not the assigned books), studying for the exams, and sometimes even from doing homework.
Many of my classmates were exactly the opposite; they would learn nothing from books, and would only learn during lectures and office hours.  Even when doing homework, they mostly needed to work through problems with other people, which was utterly foreign to me.  But they were just as successful as I was in college — and frankly many of them have been more successful since then in large part due to their natural social tendencies, which are beneficial in every profession, including such stereotypical lone-wolf fields as theoretical physics.
The point is: we just had different learning styles.  There's nothing wrong with that, and it's good that our university allowed for these different styles.  I assume yours is similar: you might be required to attend lectures, but you're not required to learn from them and only them.  And even if you are required to attend, is it really that bad?  Can't you sit in the back and read the book or something?  (I know that's how I made it through high school.)  You should also recognize that it gets better: As you move to higher-level courses, you are less likely to be required to attend, and the lectures typically become more interesting and useful anyway.  That's where I found my two brilliant lecturers, for example.
As for whether or not you should switch to a distance-learning option, I'm skeptical.  Without knowing more about your situation, your goals, and the type of places you're considering switching from and to, no one here can tell you what your best option is.  For example, if you're thinking of switching from Berkeley to the University of Phoenix, and want to go into academia, I would say that is nearly impossible.  If you're switching from NoOneEverHeardOfUsU to UF Online, and want a corporate job, then that's entirely reasonable.
Try thinking of this from a problem-solving perspective.  You have (or should have) certain goals like

Enjoying your life
Enjoying your major
Learning the material
Growing as a person
Coming out of it without crushing debt
Using your degree afterwards

The problem is achieving these goals with the tools at your disposal — which might include changing your situation.  Is your current situation making any of them impossible?  Could you really achieve all of these goals any better by switching to distance-learning?  Think especially about the future.  I remember very well the constant urgency of youth, but I also know that I shot my future self in the foot many times because of my impetuousness.  Parental advice should always be taken with a grain of salt, especially since so many paradigms have changed since they were in college (and especially in tech-related fields), but remember that they are looking out for you and that they have a more objective and long-term perspective.

 * Looking back I really regret this, especially for subjects that were outside of my major in which I had the most to learn.  I chose to spend much of my time on — let's just say — other pursuits, and didn't fully engage intellectually with the extraordinary minds I was paying so much to be around.  I could have cut down on the playtime, while having
 approximately as much fun, and also learning much more.

Great point with the list of goals. I'll add: the most valuable part of my CS degree was meeting up with my peers to do the homework and labs. Pair-programming is actually part of the on-site interview at many tech companies. Even as a remote software developer, the role of "lone wolf" who works alone on a codebase is very uncommon. Take advantage of this opportunity to collaborate in meatspace!

Do all computer science students really feel this way?

I don't think that the answer of "do all x students really feel this way" would be yes. It's always a no. It's a feeling and each one of the students will have his own feeling/opinion.
I've been a CS student myself few years ago, and I actually found it really interesting to have lectures from time to time.
In my opinion, the difference between reading a book to learn and hearing a lecture is the attention you may give for particular section of the book where you think you need to give it more than the others, while being in a lecture will let the proffessor attire you to the most important sections.
Should you drop the lectures and be served by distant-learning degree? To me, it's a no again. Having the tutor in front of you giving a lecture and you have the ability to contact him at any time you need (of course not after midnight) is much better than not being able to interact with your professor on daily basis or as much as you do.
At the end, and just as an advice, what I really think is that in this major you will need everything you can to actually improve. Keep going to lectures and alongside lectures make sure to study your book carefully. Practice all what you can and search for all the problems that you might encounter and try to solve them.

I would not quit for a distant-learning degree. In most universities, attending the lectures is optional. So you could basically choose how often you want to go there, but this differs from place to place. In germany, if you are doing a "distand-learning degree" you also have to go there to write your exams, keep that in mind.
I studied CS and got my masters in 2015. I could choose topics which are very interesting to me and the lectures where a good starting point to the topics. People are actually making a decent amount of effort how to present you a certain topic. You should also not underestimate what service you enjoy as a student: you can ask professors during lectures, go to the office hours etc.

No, not all students feel that way. For me, attending lectures was by far the easiest way to learn something.
As for other people's feelings, an instructive case study was a class from my third year: the lecturer was pretty terrible, and spent the lecture reading out loud from the lecture notes that we had been given at the beginning of the year. He didn't even bother changing the format, just projected the A4 pages and scrolled through them - and it was pretty clear that the text had been last updated sometime in 1995. (Memorable quotes include "Nowadays, computers have multiple megabytes of RAM.") Fairly quickly, attendance to this class decreased until only 3-5 hardy souls remained. (Despite my preference for lectures, I was not among them.)
Given that this did not happen to any other class I attended during, before, or after this semester, I can only assume that most of the time, most people felt they derived at least some benefit from attending the lectures. (But there are always one or two who feel like you do and only bother showing up for exams - either they learn just fine on their own and graduate that way, or they overestimate themselves and fail out.)

CS Student. I dislike lectures, I don't go to lectures. I would probably do better if I did go, but I don't enjoy them. However there's no universal rule as to whether lectures are good or bad for any one person, and there's no universal dislike.

Welcome to Academia SE! Your post answers the question nicely, but unfortunately the question seems to be a little too broad--usually this forum does not accept "polling" questions or opinion questions where the answer is to tally up each responder's experience. Anyway, welcome and good luck with your studies!

This is probably quite common for CS students, or at least it was the case for me. CS still has a reputation for being an academic or theoretic subject when a large chunk of the skills are in the practical application of your computing/programming knowledge.
Lectures aren't suited for learning practical skills like programming and in my opinion the way CS is currently taught in universities is outdated and really doesn't teach the knowledge required for most jobs in the field. The majority of useful learning you will do will be in your own time solving computing problems through doing rather than studying.
I think you have to spend the time at college learning in a way that suits you to get the most out of the course, even if it's not the 'recommended' way.

I myself was a Comp Sci student who hated the way my college course was taught and felt I was getting nothing out of it. Six months in I took the plunge to drop out and try to get into the industry on a apprenticeship scheme. Now almost 2 years later I am a confident Junior Developer on a decent salary with good future prospects.
The above paragraph is not there to influence your opinion but rather to say it is possible to get into work without a degree and still have a great career to look forward to, if you have an alternative plan of action and it's the right choice for you.

CS doesn't just "have the reputation of" being an academic subject. It is a branch of math. "Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes", as EJD is supposed to have said. Computer science is useful for programmers because it tells you about the raw material you're working with, but it's not supposed to tell you about how to be a software developer.

@JonKiparsky Except that in real astrophysics, people spend their careers developing telescopes and exotic detectors and algorithms since those limit the progress of the field. It's acknowledged that the vast majority of astrophysics majors will not get a job in the field (<20%), thus academia specifically develop skills that are useful otherwise, e.g. a theorist goes to finance with big data, a instrumentalist goes and designs cell phone chips, etc. Fancy name-brand CS needs to acknowledge there's no demand for mathematicians, and all demand for software engineers.

@user71659 I think you mean to say that real astrophysicists often go on to develop telescopes and exotic detectors and algorithms using their knowledge of astrophysics. The science of astrophysics is about objects outside of our solar system and what we can know about them, not about the tools we use to gain that knowledge. Likewise, computer science is about computations, not about the particular lines of code you type to execute those computations. Algorithms are not implementations.

@JonKiparsky Nope. Theoreticians come up with demands for instrumentalists, who go and build telescopes to meet those demands. The process of gas clouds in stellar formation has nothing to do with P-N junctions needed to make a detector to observe those clouds. While everybody has a general idea of what's going on, an exoplanet "observer" has little knowledge of the He cryocoolers on the JWST and vice versa. You take a obsolete view of science now that "big science" is the name of the game: nobody can hope to be an expert in anything but a tiny part of the whole project.

@user71659 I suspect you're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. If you want to get contentious about the Dijkstra quote, probably this is not the right thread for you.

@JonKiparsky I'm not. I'm pointing out that the Dijkstra quote is wildly uniformed, even within academia, and is perfectly representative of the ivory tower CS that the OP is complaining about.

If you want to get contentious about the Dijkstra quote, probably this is not the right thread for you.

The answer to the explicit question is, obviously, no. It is not the case that all CS students find lectures boring.
The implicit question is more interesting: it seems that you're asking whether your feeling of boredom in lectures is in some way justified or justifiable. I would say, no, in general it is not. A course is not just a way to cram some set of facts into your head, it's a way to get you accustomed to a certain set of tools for reasoning about problems in a certain domain. Lectures serve a couple of purposes in this regard: they are a device for exposing you to the sort of reasoning you need in the subject matter, they are an opportunity for you to rehearse this sort of reasoning, and they're a way for you to test your reasoning against the professor's and your classmates'. If you're not actively engaged in the lecture, following the line of thought that the prof is developing, asking questions where appropriate, then you're not getting much out of the course. Anyone can read a book and pass a test. The point of taking a college-level course is to learn the subject.
If you have one professor whose lectures bore you, the problem may be with their presentation of the material. Talk to your students and other profs in the department to find out what you may be missing, or talk to that professor. If you feel that all of your lectures are boring, the problem is probably with you, and until you change something you'll be wasting your time in that course.

Lectures (or reading the text, if you're not an aural learner) are good for learning the theory of Computer Science, which is very important. Exercises and problem statements are great for learning the execution side of it. You need a firm handle on both to be a truly good engineer, analyst, etc.
Now, if you're in like... CSC101 and you're bored listening to the professor explain how printf works... yeah, that lecture/class is probably better spent just doing exercises. If you're taking Discrete Math or Data Structures and Algorithms then you need to sit down and learn the theory behind it. For a lot of people, lectures are a good way to have this information presented to you. For other people, you can learn from a book just as well.
Also, for me, I've found that the structure of the course is just as important as the course itself. If I self-study I tend to bounce all over the place and get bored with a topic and leave it half done. If I have a course laying out the requirements for me and grading me on my progress, I take it way more seriously and focus way better. Just another angle to keep in mind.

No, lectures and reading are terrible for learning the theoretical stuff. Lectures are great for building intuition, but the only way to actually learn the theoretical stuff is to actually do the theoretical stuff.  Math is not a spectator sport. (I teach the theoretical stuff.)

So if I wanted you to explain to me the math and reasoning behind being able to construct any logical circuit using just NAND gates, you'd just throw a bunch of gates at me and tell me to go hog wild until I stumbled upon the reasoning on my own?

No, of course not. But my explanation would not teach you how to build circuits out of NAND gates unless you also built logic circuits out of NAND gates, nor would it teach you to prove things about circuits unless you also proved things about circuits.

Well, yes. I'm not saying lectures are the be all, end all. I'm saying that they serve as a good theoretical compliment to the practical implementation.

@Adonasium  And I am strongly disagreeing with you. Lectures do not provide a good theoretical complement to practical implementation.  The only way to acquire a good theoretical background is to actually practice the theory. Lectures tell you where to find the bear; you still have hunt it down and kill it yourself.

Lectures tell you where to find the bear; you still have hunt it down and kill it yourself. Thanks, @JeffE, this is my new favorite way to explain the place of lectures in the learning process.


text:
How to get ready for a visit to a lab where I would like to do undergrad research?
I am a senior physics major and I recently applied to a national lab that is associated with my university. I applied for a student research position through their website (uploaded my resume and wrote a cover letter etc.) I was contacted by the PI of the research team to come for a 'visit' for an hour with him and his team. He went through the hassle of giving out the visitor pass for me.
More about me, I am a senior but I have no research experience. I don't have a strong GPA and I admit I am not that 'smart' like other students. Should I have to explain about my GPA?
So my question is what should I prepare myself prior to my visit? Do you think it would be some sort of an interview? What sort of questions (academical/personal) should I prepare? Also, should I take an updated resume (I don't think it has really changed since I applied)?

Have you been accepted? If so, you are really overthinking it.

I don't think the PI would expect too much from an undergrad. However, you need to prepare to answer some questions like: Why are you interested in the field you study (physics)? Are you willing to devote yourself to it? What do you already know? What's your research interest? When are you available? That kind of questions. Your GPA is what you already have. He can tell that from your CV. You may need to explain some weak grades. It's just your past. Try to move his attention to the future during the interview, that is, what your future goal is.

He hasn't mentioned about acceptance, he just wants me to visit him first. I guess he will decide during our meeting

I feel like a broken record saying this, but I guess it has to be said: Undergraduate research is firmly on-topic here.

You should treat it as an interview unless you get information telling you otherwise.  Yes you should bring a resume, but you may not need it.  You should read about the PI's research, lab, and team.  Usually there is some information on the national lab's website.  Typically undergraduate researchers are not expected to know how to do research, so you might be questioned about your motivations for learning to do research.  If your grades are not good you should be prepared to say what you are doing to improve them.

So my question is what should I prepare myself prior to my visit?

Learn as much as you can about the work that is done in this lab, by reading the material on their website and any recent work your potential supervisor has published. Look up terms you don't understand. You want to be able to understand as much as you can about what you're shown during your visit.

Do you think it would be some sort of an interview?

Yes, in the sense that he will be evaluating whether you're someone he can see himself working with, and you should be evaluating whether this lab is a place that you can see yourself working. (It may or may not be an interview in the "formal" sense.)

What sort of questions (academical/personal) should I prepare?

Any academic questions you might have while learning about their work (from the preparation phase).
"If I do undergraduate research here, what kind of work would I be doing?"
"What level of supervision/independence should I expect while working here?"
"Do your undergraduate research students usually publish the results of their work?"
"What material should I read/review to prepare for doing research here?"

Also, should I take an updated resume (I dont think it has really changed since I applied)?

Yes, it's always nice to have a hard copy of your resume on you. When I meet potential research students, I print a copy of their resume to write my notes on. Sometimes I forget or don't have a chance to print it before the meeting, and when that happens I always appreciate if the student has a copy on hand.

Should I have to explain about my gpa?

I would suggest that you not bring it up unless he does. Concentrate on making a good impression on your visit.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it correct protocol to thank your committee members in a PhD dissertation?
My question is: I would like to thank the committee members of my PhD dissertation explicitly thanking them for their time and effort and writing down their names Prof. Name1, Prof. Name2, etc...
This is of course before the formal defence after they found the dissertation worthy of being defended.
I am a bit concerned about whether it is correct, or impolite or not, or protocol wrong... if you know what I mean.
Any advice, opinion, suggestion that could help me?
P.S. The thesis is about mathematics, if it may help.

explicitly thanking them for their time and effort How? In the Ackonwledgement section of your dissertation or an e-mail or other means? Please clarify.

Yes. In the acknowledgements section of the thesis, explicitly written.

"bureaucratically correct"?

Yes. Some may argue that thanking opponents before the defence creates a conflict of objectivity. If a rule of objectivity or independence of the committee may be considered to be broken then it may be impossible to bureaucratically approve the thesis... In short, I mean if it may be seen as a problem...

I haven't defended my thesis yet (so take it for what it is worth), but I'm not sure that I would consider my committee to be "my opponents." It seems appropriate to thank them for their time and efforts in helping you develop your thesis.

In the American style, at least, your acknowledgements are yours to do with what you like.  Other answers on this site include thanking the makers of Dr. Pepper or dieties and pets.  Thus, if you feel thankful to the members of your committee, you should feel free to thank them in your acknowledgements section.

My policy - in my thesis as well as on papers - is to not include the acknowledgments when I send the draft to anyone. As others have mentioned the thesis acknowledgments are yours alone and should not have any bearing (or relationship) to the actual content of the thesis. After all the comments and corrections were received and dealt with, I added the acknowledgments to the document - my committee saw them in the final copy I gave them on the day of my defense.

!Please note: This answer may only reflect the German cultural intellectual style. But maybe the points (or some of them) are applicable in other cultures too. Germans often reduce to factual questions, leaving emotional connections unannotated. (Compare with Galtungs teutonic style)

The general suggestion I read and heard a lot about acknowledgements and persons, that should be named there (or avoided to be named) is:

name people contributing content, ideas, algorithms etc. to your thesis. This is a must (or someone could blame you of plagiarism).
name people or institutions that fund(ed) your research
to be polite you can thank other people supporting you mentally or spiritually etc. anonymously
thanking persons for general help without specific connection to the thesis' content is sometimes judged to be kitsch or smarmily. don't name them.

in case of the committee:

did they (in particular) contribute? (if yes: name them)
did they (in particular) fund your research? (if yes: name them)
being part of the commitee can be a paid job (why thanking one doing his/her job?)
being part can be personal engagement of a person (nice thing, but not connected to you, giving a reason to thank for it)

Don't thank your Mom for having you born...You receive a degree no Oscar.

In my acknowledgement section, I wrote: "Further I would like to acknowledge the jury members of this thesis. You provided very useful hints for improving this thesis manuscript, which I have gladly embraced"
So I did thank them for the contribution they did deliver, but did not mention their individual names (which, of course, can be found elsewhere in my thesis).
Of course, everybody is free to do it differently.

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


text:
I've been working for one year. Can I apply for grad school in CS in Canada?
I planned that I could make myself money to continue education (by obtaining a master's degree), but what am I supposed to do to continue my education? It would be nice if it's going to be a part-time education and I don't have to attend to school all the time.
My candidate would be University of Toronto or McGill.
I looked at their homepage, and the application information describes undergrad for high school applicants, or application directly from undergrad students.
On top of that I am not Canadian citizen (but a resident). Is there any chance for me to restart my education?

or application directly from undergrad students - what part of the application, specifically, applies only to students direct from undergrad? It's not clear what the problem is, exactly.

@ff524 in short, i want to know how to apply grad school in Canada after working for 1 year. i have this concern because i have graduated from school so it's not quite typical.

... and I want to know why you can't apply in the usual way.

@ff524 i am not sure. because i am not... typical? and that's full time isn't it?

Are you asking how to apply to a part time program (in which case, it's not clear why you couldn't apply in the usual way?)? Whether you can do a "normal" program part time? Whether these institutions have a part time program? Your question is very unclear.

@ff524 can i apply a normal program as part time? if not, how to apply for a part time program in these universities, if any?

Did you read e.g. http://www.sgs.utoronto.ca/Documents/AdmissionsGuide2016.pdf for graduate program admissions, or just the undergraduate admissions that is linked directly from the home page?

It is fine to apply as a returning student.  You will be an asset to the program because of your work experience.  Make sure you read the application instructions carefully.
You can probably also take a class here and there as an unmatriculated student.  Alternatively you may be able to audit a class.

wow. that's a fantastically encouraging piece of information!

And make sure to contact the university with any specific questions that come up.  Happy studying!


text:
Should I agree to my supervisor's request to place him as first author of my paper?
I published 3 papers as first author. Now, my supervisor requested me to place him as first author in my 4th paper. Should I agree to my supervisor's request to place him as first author of my paper? Is this ethically fair and legitimate? Is this only in my country?
He has the contribution of proofreading the paper, advising me how to organize the paper and results, suggesting co-authors for the paper. He does not know the paper technically, however.

There are really two questions here:
(1) Is the request ethical/fair?
(2) Should you agree to the request?
Unfortunately, these two can be quite independent, and we can only honestly answer the first. It is neither ethical nor fair, going by the information you've provided. Its safe to say that this would be a form of exploitation, even if it doesn't add to much in the long run.
Having said this, you need to decide what to do, based on the possible repercussions of either choice. If you agree, could this become a regular request? Or do you have reason to believe that its a one-time thing that you are doing to help him out of a tough spot? Ethically, you should not agree, because even if its harmless, these things create a culture of gift authorship. Practically, you need to decide based on your individual context.

This is hard to give good advice about without a lot of context. What is ethical and what is done (in some fields) don't necessarily match up well. In some fields, an advisor is often a co-author - even first author.
If the other person has made no contribution to the paper then, ethically, the request is wrong. But you may need to accede to it just out of personal protection. If the advisor has some influence or control over your future then you may be stuck, no matter the ethics. And you may have no effective way to counter it while preserving your future career.
It isn't really a question of which country, though this sort of thing does vary by field. In situations in which the advisor funds a lab in which work is done it is pretty common.
But, think about why he is asking. Think about whether it is really valid. But think most about how your long term career will be affected if you go along and if you resist.
And note that having another paper on your CV is still a good thing, even if he is first author. And even if it isn't right.

Indeed, you are correct. It varies by research field. In physics it is often alphabetical by last name. It meant I was first author on all the papers I published before I went to industry, even though my contribution to the last one was quite minor. But even that varies somewhat by journal. And some very large labs with enormous numbers of collaborators on a series of research projects will have their own rules.

He is asking because he wants to get promotion from government. The promotion requires faculty members to have one paper published as first author per annum. If I resist then he cannot harm me much legally except that my relations with him will always be strained. It is because his other students have been keeping him as primary author in one of their multiple papers. So, he requires me too to do so.

Is this ethically fair and legitimate?
Impossible to say from the information you provide, but it is a distinct possibility that no, it is neither.
Sadly, academic vampiricism is not uncommon, and it always turns my stomach when I see someone senior do it do someone junior. (It is an abuse of power and, soi-disant big shot scholars should not feel they have to act this way.)
Putting up a fight may however not be worth it.

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


text:
Should I finish my current not so good PhD research or start a new PhD in a much better university with a much better PhD adviser?
I'm in the third year of my PhD in the US. I defended my PhD proposal successfully at November 2018. My research is related to computational science but the problem is that I did not and I don't have any funding for this PhD research, where you can read about it more comprehensively here.
Honestly, my relationship with my current PhD adviser is not that good (even I could say it's bad...), for no apparent reason... Long story short, I don't think this PhD will go anywhere or at least will end up in a good publication record for me due to: 1. Lack of research funding and very limited resources available to us, 2. My PhD adviser opinion that this research has nothing to do with the objectives of our department as general, 3. Not so good relationship of me and my PhD adviser.
Due to that, I don't have funding for my PhD research, I work as a graduate research assistant in a completely different department. Despite my bad relationship with my PhD adviser, I have a really good relationship with my current boss for my graduate research assistant position. My boss has PhD but here he works as a staff, where basically he doesn't do active research. Recently, he got a faculty position in another university, and really wants me to be his PhD student. I really like him and we have really good relationship. I mean during past 2 years that I worked for him, we were always friendly and understand each other very well.
My question: Here in my current position, I have a really bad feeling... No matter how good or bad I work, my current PhD adviser is never satisfied with me. More importantly, in my current PhD adviser eyes, I'm the one that always is wrong. I mean obviously nobody can be right always, but it's that improbable that somebody is always wrong. I prefer to be judged as a someone that sometimes is right and sometimes is wrong like a normal guy. Long story short: Should I leave my current PhD based on my current experience and start a new one with my current boss in a different university? I'm really close to finish this PhD but everyday my relationship with my current PhD adviser becomes worst and worst...

In the title you say the new university would be much better, but you say nothing about that in the text. Would you have (full) funding? Other research support? Better ranking of department? Better name recognition? Could you carry over classes and quickly defend a similar proposal there?

@Dawn The ranking of the university is much better. I would have full funding. Name recognition is also much better than my current university. I have no idea about classes over there and what is the procedure to defend a proposal there. Both of these universities (current and potentially the new one) are in the US.

I think this is too personal for this site. Only you can weigh the options. Is giving up three years of "progress" worth it? What time constraints do you have? How long to finish with your current supervisor and then move on? How important is funding? Too many variables for someone else to weigh. Make a list of plus and minus factors for each option and then choose the one that seems best to you.

The way this question is written makes the choice obvious. It sounds like you want to move and are seeking validation.

Sounds like you should find out what you can carry with you to the new university. If your RA supervisor really wants you to transfer they can likely negotiate a bit on your behalf as well. Once you have this information you will likely have enough data to make a more informed decision, but it seems likely you won’t lose too much and should move.

@Dawn Negotiate for what? For my current progress? It should be negotiated with my current university or my current PhD adviser?

Negotiate with the new university regarding the classes you will be able to transfer and any additional hoops you will need to jump through to regain your position as a prospectus-approved candidate. If all goes well you might not lose much of your progress and might be able to finish on a similar schedule.

Related questions: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/70892/advisor-moving-to-a-different-school-should-i-move-with-him  and https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/108368/my-adviser-is-leaving-what-should-i-do-as-a-third-year-phd-student?rq=1

Possible duplicate of Advisor moving to a different school, should I move with him?

I see this as a question about whether you should choose to attend a fully funded PhD program with an advisor you like, or to continue on a more expensive, less supportive path. If it's legitimately true that you would be taken on at the new university, that's a great opportunity.

Thanks for your answer. But everybody say that I should stay and maybe find somebody else in my current university instead of switching to a completely new one. The thing is that, even if my RA supervisor will leave my current university, still I would be funded for the next year anyway and there is a high chance that even I could get my RA supervisor job after he left and switching from student to being a staff in the current university. So, I'm really confused...

Sorry you're going through this.

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


text:
What are the pros and cons of keeping a casual contract with an old university?
I'm moving cities, as I have accepted a job offer at a new university. My old research group is asking me to keep a casual contract with them, so that if they need my assistance with any of the technical aspects of their projects (which was my role), I can help out.
I've heard that many academics keep a small portion of casual FTE with multiple universities. What are the pros and cons of this approach versus making a clean break and starting afresh elsewhere?
Here's my list so far. Pros of keeping casual contract:

I'll be involved in more publications from the old university, which could improve my academic standing
I'll keep ties with that university in case I ever want to go back

Cons:

I'll have less time to focus on projects and teaching at the new university if I keep up work for the old university
If I want to preserve energy, I'll have to keep saying 'no' to old projects, which is hard

Any other thoughts?
Thanks a lot

I think the pros and cons will depend strongly on the terms of the contract. What are they offering and what do they expect in return?

I think the biggest issues will be non-academic in nature. E.g. regulations about side jobs, minimum/maximum percentages, sick and holiday leave, tax-issues, having to do bureaucracy in a place you no longer live in, funding/affiliation/acknowledgement issues, etc.

Can you define "casual contract"? Does it involve money? Are there "contractual obligations"? Or is it just a form of interpersonal relationship and research process?

https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/187082/63475 may also be related.

Check your new university's rules about outside consulting. I've seen rules like "Consulting jobs outside the university are allowed for up to 8 hours per week, as long as they don't detract from your university work." I imagine these rules vary widely between universities.


text:
Perception of shared authorship in pure mathematics
Suppose that a paper published on a very good journal has two authors, A and B, and that A is the supervisor of the PhD student B. The paper concerns a research that is not strictly related to the PhD thesis of the student.
What is the "default assumption" of a mathematician about the contribution of the two authors? From what I see, there are two extreme cases:

According to a certain view, many experienced mathematicians will tend to believe that all the main ideas were produced by A, while B basically did the homework that A told them to do.
According to others, many will believe that B made most of the effort while A just gave some suggestions and signed the work.

Which one is closer to the average "default assumption"? If that matters, I'm thinking to a paper in pure math, say algebraic geometry, set theory, number theory...

Unless things have changed, supervisors in pure math aren't normally co-authors of the student's work, especially that of the dissertation research.

Also, in pure math papers, authors are usually listed alphabetically by last name. So the default assumption is A was listed first because their last name is alphabetically before B's last name.

While the question is certainly answerable, I have a hard time seeing what benefit getting an answer will have. Whatever the answer is should not change who the authors end up being on a given paper (since that is based on who contributed sufficiently to be an author).

I just wanted to know how an already existing paper will be percieved.

I hope this isn't too dated as I've been out of the game for a while. People will correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure. But...
In my experience in pure math, which I carried over to CS, supervisors aren't co-authors of a student's dissertation work, but are acknowledged in resulting papers. This is true even when the advisor supplies the problem to the student and offers guidance along the way. I've found it true, also, when the supervisor could have done the research and come up with satisfying conclusions, but left it to the student.
Second, unlike other fields, pure math usually lists authors alphabetically, so one can't conclude from author "order" anything about contributions. A paper might have a contributions paragraph to make that clear, however.
I would, myself, conclude that such a paper, listing supervisor and student as authors was from a separate collaboration, treating the two (more?) as colleagues.
One issue with pure math is that a five minute conversation over coffee between someone working on a problem and another can provide insight given by that colleague that leads to a solution of a nasty problem. That alone, in math, can be grounds for authorship, even if the first person does essentially everything else. That would probably be unusual in other fields. But progress in pure math, especially, is driven by "insight", not by following some process, though that process is necessary.
So, in my view and experience, though it is dated, the assumption by working mathematicians is that each of the authors contributed some essential insight to the problem and its solution. It would have nothing to do with hierarchical positioning of the authors.
I hope that is still true, and that most mathematicians find gift authorship abhorrent. There will be exceptions, of course, as there are to most things.

Note that the above might not apply to undergraduate research, which is of a different kind, also with a few exceptions. This is mostly due to time constraints on such things.

yeah, that is the view I'd have assumed myself. (Apparetly, that's not shared by many among the people I talk to). Since I see around two conflicting positions, I was wondering which one is more popular.

I'd remark via some anecdata that the trend of leaving advisers off of thesis work papers is declining at least somewhat in math and CS. It's now mixed enough that I personally can't make heads nor tails of any inclusion/exclusion of an adviser without further information.

As a pure mathematician very much still in the game (I'm taking a pause from reading job applications at this very moment), I agree that everything Buffy says is still up to date.  But I would add what @user1149748 says in another answer as a caveat.

I don't think people jump to conclusions about this, when it comes to a single paper. It is understood that sometimes the situation will be closer to one of your extremes, and sometimes closer to the other.
Where it matters more is when looking at someone's body of work, for example when the PhD student applies for postdoctoral positions. People definitely notice if all or most of someone's work is co-authored with a senior mentor, and the assumption will be that the student is not yet able to work independently.
This is also partly what recommendation letters are for. The advisor can give more detail in the letter about the student's contribution toward joint projects.

I agree with this answer. You simply can't tell from just looking at the paper, and everyone will know that. Wo it's pointless to try to decipher who may have done what and how much: You'd have to talk to the authors about it, or at least know their style of work.

So you think there's no particular assumption that the typical mathematician would have about individual contributions?


text:
If the dissertation defense is completed and passed prior to the completion of the program classes, is the student considered a Doctor?
Courses not passed or taken but dissertation and defense completed with approval/passing.

That depends on the local rules. All requirements need to be met, however.

In my experience, in the US, it's common for the committee to congratulate the PhD candidate and call them "Doctor" after a successful defense even if there are additional corrections to the dissertation required or the student has coursework to complete.  That doesn't mean that the degree has been awarded, and it would be unwise for the new PhD to claim that the degree had been completed until the degree is officially confirmed.

I have never heard of completing a defense before required classes.  Usually defense occurs after candidacy, which occurs after classes.

@Buffy You claim it depends on local rules, and then you said the title is awarded when all requirements are met.  This seems contradictory.  I greatly doubt there are any places where titles are awarded before the requirements for the title are met, so local rules do not vary.

@AnonymousPhysicist, yes of course the local rules vary. I had two requirements for the doctorate: pass comps and write an acceptable dissertation. I could still take courses but they were irrelevant to whether I earned the degree or not. OTOH, some places may require passing specific courses.

@Buffy I think it's 100% clear from context that the question is about required courses.

Furthermore, even if the courses are optional, the answer to the question is the same:  You get the title when the degree is awarded, and no sooner.

Considered by whom for what purpose?

Formally, only use the title when the degree is awarded.  Coursework and defenses do not determine titles.  Degrees do.
Informally, it does not matter.


text:
Chance to get a PhD offer in UK? Taught master with distinction (last year) but third class honour bachelor degree (over 15 years ago)
I am looking at doing a PhD in UK with a recent taught master degree (just graduated last year with distinction, all courses with A grades). However, my first bachelor degree was only in third class (which was over 15 years ago). Will it be possible for me to get a PhD offer in UK? Since normally I think they ask for 2:1 for undergraduate degree minimum. Both my bachelor and master degrees were in relevant subject (media studies) and both schools are top universities (top 50 in QS). Is it safer to look at those not-so-top schools? Or it's simply impossible anyway? Thanks!

Do you have funding to cover the tuition fees?

@DmitrySavostyanov Since it's the very initial stage of considering a PhD, I am yet to look into funding options available yet. Bottom line is if I fail to get any funding/scholarship, I am capable to pay my own tuition fees.

Some people say there are strong reasons why you shouldn't do a PhD without funding, even if you can afford to pay the fees, I think. See other questions on this site.

In the UK universities are not called schools, so it is better not to use that word.

All I can say is that no, it is not impossible. Its not impossible even at a top 50 university, it will mostly come down to the supervisor in question. Admissions offices can usually be persuaded to waive the requirement for 2:1 at undergrad if there is a particularly convincing performance at masters. But it will be harder and if you had a 2:1 at undergrad.

Thanks Ian! Looks like it's more important for me to have some good talk with potential supervisors and brush up my research proposal nicely with some efforts then.

@Ian I'm sure you're right about the admission question; but are funding bodies as easily persuaded? (At one time they had very strict 2:1 rules.)

@erstwhileeditor Right that's one concern too so I'm thinking maybe doing it self-funded could be a way-out?

@Eva Its always important to have a good talk with potential supervisors!

@erstwhileeditor I don't know about all funders, but I'm pretty sure we've take 2:2 students with very good master's degrees on our BBSRC DTP.

@IanSudbery Yea thanks for reminding! I will start working really hard on that! Hope my straight-A MA with distinction (GPA 4.0) will give me luck. Heartfelt thanks indeed :)

I work at a UK university as a lecturer (though different discipline), while we have minimum entry requirements, it is usually down to the person advertising the position who interviews the candidates if they want to go ahead with them. I am not aware of any case where the admin team has blocked an application. What I find more important than your marks / distinctions / cv formatting is if you are fit for the position. That's what the interview is for. If you can demonstrate to me that you have the skills I'm looking for in a phd candidate and more importantly that you have a track record of showing how you can cope with challenging situations (learn new concepts quickly, finish work before deadlines, etc.), that would stand out much more to me than someone fresh out of university, top of the class but no experience that is relevant for the position. My point is, a transcript only tells you so much about a person and you can swing things around in your favour with a strong cv / cover letter / impression at an interview. Furthermore, if you can self-fund your studies, you will find people more willing to take you on board, especially young and new academics who don't have multi million pound grants to manage (any income they generate will be viewed favourable by the university and that is a quick thing they can do).
My suggestion is to approach a selected group of people by email with your cv and see if they are interest but do make sure to make each email relevant to each person. Whenever I am getting an email starting with "Dear Sir" or "Dear Professor", I don't even bother to reply anymore (I used to in the past). I'm neither a sir nor professor and the lack of research into me and no name does indicate a spamming approach. Think about it this way, a phd will be full of small little problems and attention to detail, if you can't even look up my name and title then how will you be a student with attention to detail?
It's better to select perhaps 2-3 academics you would want to work with and send them a relevant email (I.e. State why you want to work with them (maybe one of their paper is relevant to your work, or you share common interest that they state on their university profile)). It's surprising how few people do actually make an effort when applying so if you follow this you will already stand out.

I think it is possible. You just have to persuade them that your recent master's degree grade supersedes your bachelor's degree grade. This should be possible as it is more recent and it is a higher level.
I don't think you need to rule out "top" universities. But getting in to the very top three or four is hard, so you should also consider ones that are not at the very top.


text:
Why does graduate application ask for "Faculty consulted regarding admission"?
I'm applying for PhD programs and a lot of applications ask for a list of faculty that I've contacted/consulted for admissions. What's the point of this question? Seems like a waste of time to answer. I have emailed several professors. Does that count?
Location: USA, Field: Computer Science.
There is a separate field to input faculty that you'd like to work with

If those faculty are not on the admissions committee, how would the committee know? They are not mind readers. So, if you want the committee to ask those faculty about their interest in you, you need to put down their names.

What country is this? In the US it would, I think, be an unusual question in most (not all) fields. Other places such contact is essential.

@JonCuster this is specifically different from potential research advisors that i'd be interested in working with, so idk what they're going to contact them for

@Buffy Yeah usa, cs. I updated details

At my university, this serves the same purpose as mentioning a specific professor in your personal statement.  Namely, if your application passes an initial screening, then it will be sent to that professor to see if they are interested in supervising you.  So (although it is redundant) I would treat this as if it said "who would you like to work with if you are admitted?"  Of course, you should indeed contact that person when you are applying.

Most of the faculty reply with a short "I look forward to reading your application." which seems like quite a generic reply. This makes me wonder whether there is really any purpose in contacting the faculty beforehand. Some reply that they don't accept new PhD students the next cycle but quite a lot of them have a memo on their website stating: "Due to the large number of emails I can't process individual inquiries from prospective PhD students. Please contact me after you've been admitted."

Is this answer based on US experience or Saudi Arabia? Or elsewhere?

@Buffy This has been the same exp for me in usa

@Buffy Both.  The university I work at now is in Saudi Arabia but functions like a typical US university (at least the ones I have direct experience with) in most respects, including admissions.  I can't say anything about how things work at typical Saudi universities, though.

@Vilda There are several questions on this site with answers addressing your comment.  See e.g. https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/169639/when-sending-email-to-potential-phd-supervisors-is-it-recommendable-to-attach-a

@Vilda The two programs I admitted two were from the two profs I got on the phone with (didn't get accepted after one other on-site interview) so if they say don't email them, don't email them but it does serve a purpose


text:
Why is discrimination based on citizenship allowed in PhD funding in the UK?
This question is specifically aiming at the UK PhD admission system.
Having spent roughly 6 years in the UK - 2 years A-Level and 4 years undergraduate, I am now moving forward into applying for PhD programs. To my surprise, I discovered that I would have to face a lot of difficulties regarding my eligibility for funding.
Most of the funding I applied for were strictly 'UK/EU citizens only', and it is rare to have full funding for international students. I have applied to a lot of places, and received a lot of responses in the form of "... you are a good match, but I don't have funding for overseas students...".
Having chosen the UK to study with the belief that 'as long as I am competent I should be qualified for the job', the reality has really slapped back at me.
Why such discriminations are allowed in a developed country like the UK? I made this claim knowing little to nothing about the US or other countries' systems, but lots of my friends having applied to EU PhDs received their offers without being asked whether they are 'caucasians' or not.

Related: What are interests of a country to fund international PhD students?

Were the funding declined because you said you were not "caucasian"? If the reason was citizenship and not race, that last comment is superfluous.

I got declined because I was not qualified for 'UK/EU citizenship'... the caucasian there was just a childish use of words, I admit.

This question is pretty much a rant, but as you have received a useful answer (and I think there is indeed an important question for international students in the UK here), I decided against voting to close.

A very simplified explanation: because the money for that funding is provided by the taxpayers of that country. The citizens of that country have to pay taxes, part of which goes to education. Some percentage of the taxes are used to fund international students, but not all. Calling that discrimination looks like someone who was barred from entering a movie theater without buying a ticket, and called discrimination when other people, who have bought tickers, are let in.

This is not 'discrimination' in the eyes of UK law, because citizenship is not a protected characteristic. Also, being in the UK purely for education is explicitly excluded from measures of time spent living in the UK, so how long you have been here is irrelevant. Also, the US is no different - there were jobs I couldn't get because I'm not a US citizen, and some where I suspect it had an indirect effect even if it wasn't an explicit requirement.

A precise statement @vsz. I suggest you rather post it as an answer than a comment.

@vsz: but international students have to pay twice as much compared to UK students already. Adding the extra restriction onto limited funding creates an extra disadvantage...

-1. For the accusation of "discrimination". If there was no distinction between "citizen" and "non-citizen", then citizenship would not exist. That's not, for better or worse, how human society works.

@MartinArgerami Why -1? It is a discrimination. It's a fact. You even contradict yourself in the next sentence, clearly calling it a "distinction", and explaining one of the reasons. I don't think discrimination is necessarily unjust. Reference discriminate.

@Quang Thinh Ha: If a Briton were to go to your native country for education, what chance would that person have to get PhD funding?

@luk32: the OP is using "discrimination" in the sentence "Why such discriminations are allowed in a developed country like the UK?". He is using it as something negative, that according to him shouldn't happen in an advanced society.

@MartinArgerami Personally I don't see any bias or negativity. Even if there was. So what? Does that makes question invalid, or the word? I don't see how this would justify a downvote. This isn't a loaded question, or a lot less than "Why beating a wife is bad?" - This one assumes the point, that it's not proper. OP doesn't even suggest the policy is wrong... There is an obvious discrimination, how would you rephrase "Why such discriminations are allowed in a developed country like the UK?" with out losing the point?

@luk32: from my point of view, I feel the question as a rant. Because on its bare bones, the question is "why do citizens have benefits that non-citizens don't have?". Note also that my downvote is not the only one.

It is a discrimination, based on citizenship. That's clear. 2. It is justified to a certain extent, as the PhD grants come from the government (tax payers). 3 Who said the UK is "a developed" country. It is a country with pros and cons, like any other country.

In many countries, discriminating by nation of origin (ie. what country you came from before you became a citizen) is forbidden. Discriminating by citizenship status (ie. whether you became a citizen at all) is not, due to obvious legal and financial implications (student visa, you leaving to use your training for another country's benefit). Perhaps you are confusing the two?

"Why such discriminations are allowed in a developed country like the UK?" Because Britain puts its own people first, like most other countries. I expect you'd find similar results if you were applying to PHD programmes in other countries. Britain is not special in that respect.

Possible duplicate of Why are many funded PhD programmes in the UK not open for non-EU applicants?

@vsz, I agree with the analogy, but we can also look at it as an investment from the UK government if they allow the movie watchers to pay their tickets once they finish the movie. This is what I see is the case with Norway, for instance. Many non-EU students end up living there, contributing to the economy, even becoming citizens. These students from poor countries, many of them do not think of returning to their countries.

If you were a UK citizen of non-caucasian heritage, you'd get in. It's not your ethnicity that is an issue, it is your citizenship. (It's not racism, it's... "citizen-ism"?)

@vsz, also if you take into account that the ratio of non-EU nationals residing in the UK---who pay the same taxes as the UK citizens but don't get the same benefits---is probably the same as that of non-EU students studying in the UK, then it is not true that these non-EU students haven't got their tickets. The UK government receive taxes not from their citizens only, but also from citizens of other countries who reside on their land.

@QuangThinhHa: UK students are expected to pay lots of taxes to the UK through their life as a result of their education. You might try to get money from your own government. If you succeed, do you think it would be discrimination if your own government didn't pay the same for British students studying in the UK>

Please take extended discussion to [chat].

This isn't an answer to your question but possibly another side to it. Most PhD students I know at my own UK university are funded by STFC or EPSRC, both of which are tied to UK/EU. However, don't give up hope! There are at least 2 non-EU students in my group, and I (a UK citizen) am funded directly by the Department so don't have to be a UK/EU citizen. The point is, there are other sources out there, and larger groups will often have a couple of studentships available to people they really want to are not EU. So if you find a supervisor who really wants you, they will find the money!

@adipro: However, I was told by a colleague in Norway that they had a scholarship which explicitly required them to either return to their home country or pay back (not sure whether some or all of) the scholarship if they stay in Norway. I believe we have a similar system here in Germany. The reasoning I'm aware of is that such scholarships are paid for by money that is allocated explicitly to help poor countries by giving good education to students so they can help improving the situation in their home country.

@cbeleites, that is for Masters as I far as I am aware. Still, if they return to their countries, they do not need to pay anything. PhD students are paid a salary and they pay tax.

There are also other opportunities than a fully funded programme, for instance in Netherlands it is common for a PhD to be structured on similar basis as an employment contract. Many Universities offer fees reduction for their own employees (i.e. you could get a job as a Research Assistant and then do your PhD part-time).

I wrote a pretty extensive response on this a little while ago: here and also this may be slightly relevant.
The short version is: Because they can be, and because they have to be. UK universities make money off international students; their funding is limited, and it is designed to go to domestic or European students. The funding bodies will only fund domestics because a) they're probably not allowed to fund anyone else; b) it's in their best interests to fund domestics; c) one international PhD scholarship would be equal to 2 or 3 domestic ones.
There is also the over-arching idea in the UK governmental system that students are supposed to bring in money, not take it. This idea has spiked in magnitude in the past few years.
The UK government limits the funding given to universities, and universities make up for that with international fees. We are essentially cash cows, outside the rare scholarships that are extremely competitive (Rhodes, Fullbright - the second of which neither of us is eligible for).
You also can't go for the option of naturalisation based on the time you've been in the country because -- you guessed it -- time as a student doesn't count.
Source: Same situation as you, left friends, home, and partner to do PhD in France after 5 years in Britain. I had many PhD acceptances, but none of the universities could fund me and we spent months looking at every option. Unless you're rich and you can self-fund (or you're happy to take out loans), it's unfortunately not very doable right now.
You should also keep in mind that, as a student at the end of your education, you are unfortunately likely to be targeted by the immigration police. I would advise you to not do anything like overstay, but also to not leave the UK once you have graduated until you're ready to move away before the expiry of your tier 4 visa -- because you will not be allowed back in even if your visa has months of validity on it. It happened to me. This is unrelated to your question, but it's a warning I think not enough people in our situation get.

Very interesting answer.  Does this phenomenon apply to American PhD programs, i.e., do American applicants have an easier time gaining admission with funding than do international applicants?  I suspect that this is not the case, but this is just an observation of the Dept that I am currently in, which consists of probably 90% international Chinese PhD students.

I really want to upvote your answer for now, but the bloody 15 reputations is holding me back from doing so... :( I think chinese students have their government funding (CSC) which many other governments don't have. It is more like "if you accidentally come from a poor country, we are sorry for you but that'st it"...

@User001 do you mean PhD programmes in the US? Or do you mean Americans in the UK? If the former, I've no idea, hopefully somebody can answer. If the latter, no, Americans are treated exactly the same as everyone else, including PhD graduates being imprisoned and deported after applying for LTR.

@QuangThinhHa Are you on a tier 4 visa right now?

@lafemmecosmique yes...

@QuangThinhHa OK, then I'm sorry but between your graduation ceremony and your visa expiry (should be 3 mos later) you can't leave if you need to be able to get back. This isn't explicitly stated in the rules anywhere, but it is the case as told to me by the border patrol agents when I was detained. You won't be let in again. You are expected to pack up and leave at the first opportunity, essentially, and by leaving you are waiving the remaining days of your visa, as long as the date of your graduation ceremony has already passed.
So you could go to Rio, but you'd have to go elsewhere after.

I highly recommend PhD programmes in Europe for your situation.

Ultimately, many PhD programmes in the UK are funded by the UK government through the research councils.  The UK government has no particular interest in funding foreign students who will be expected to leave the country at the end of their studies.  They would rather be educating British citizens, but they aren't allowed to discriminate against EU citizens (who would be allowed to stay in the UK afterwards, anyway).

You really need to explain what you mean by one international PhD scholarship would be equal to 2 or 3 domestic ones. WRT cost (why!?), WRT expected outcome (WHY?!).

@Ghanima cost, because PhD funding covers tuition fees and the host University would look to levy the international fees for a non-EU student

@User001: At the Ph.D. level, there is, by and large, no distinction between international students and U.S. citizens when it comes to scholarships and such. However, if you plan to or have to augment your disposable income from loans, then only in rare cases (students at business and law schools in the old days) this will be possible. So I would definitely add the U.S. as a target country as long as your scholarship offered is large enough,

@User001 University tuition in the USA is a state, not federal, matter. Often residents of the state get a favorable rate compared to non-residents. Funding sources may be restricted. For example, "Those who do not hold United States citizenship, national, or permanent resident status by the application deadline." are not eligible for the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program.

@User001 I think you'll find most (all?) American universities will be happy to take you in, so long as they get paid one way or another. If you apply to a publicly funded school like UC or CSU you may even have an advantage, as they expect international and out-of-state students to pay more.
Keep in mind, US universities always expect $$$, usually on the order of $20k-40k per year. So you won't exactly have a free ride like in EU/UK :)

Hi @gnometorule, when you say "no distinction..." do you mean that an American PhD program would not considerably favor an American PhD applicant over, say, a European or Chinese Phd application -- and that the admission and funding offers are strictly based on merit?  As I commented to lafemmecosmique, I think this might be the case, just from my observations of the department that I am currently in.  Thanks,

However, if there is some favorable consideration for American applicants, @gnometorule, then I wonder whether I am underestimating myself regarding Phd applications.  For example, one of my American classmates who has moved on from our school is currently doing her PhD at Princeton.  When her advisor gave her a list of suggested schools to apply to, she was genuinely shocked.  I know that she is incredibly well-prepared and very bright, but I do wonder whether American PhD programs, say, in the STEM fields, would like to have more American applicants.  What are your thoughts?  Thanks,

Hi @PatriciaShanahan, yes, I am aware of the NSF grants that are available only to Americans.  Interestingly, some of my PhD-level American friends, who work their butts off to apply and win those grants, found out later that their overall PhD funding does not increase - i.e., the students bringing in the NSF grants did not get an increase in stipend.  All the money goes to the school, and they were definitely pissed off about it -- it was a top "anonymous" complaint to faculty members in our Department.

Hi @nick, "...get paid one way or another"...meaning...the funding (if offered) is earned by lots of teaching, grading and office hours - and that its nothing even close to "free money"?  Thanks,

In the fields and schools I'm somewhat familiar with (stem or near stem, and at the better-ranked private universities, although it's probably similar at state schools), it's almost exclusively merit-based. Yes, all things equal, an American candidate might be chosen (in particular if minority). But my program was almost exactly 50/50, and the terms of scholarships, etc, identical. It was the same for my wife - actually, probably more international there -, and other friends. The schools are in the ballpark of Princeton - I was accepted there, say, with full scholarship, being European@User001

@User001: As others have commented on out-of-state tuition being higher at state schools if you're no California, say, resident, this may or may not make a difference. Twin Cities, say, offered me a full scholarship, but I also wasn't accepted by two (or was it just 1? I forgot) California state schools that were ranked (in the field I applied to) much below the private schools offering me admission. However, don't be dissuaded from applying there either: it can work, as I noticed first hand.

@User001 By that I meant American universities doesn't necessarily care so much where you're from and how you're able to fund your studies. There are scholarships available but I think international students will have a harder time acquiring funding. I have no experience with work programs so not sure if I can answer your question properly- all I can say is merit is the primary consideration, and how you cover the costs is up to you. It's not really a big factor in admissions- they publish the costs and they assume you will pay it if admitted

Ah, very interesting, @gnometorule.  Thanks so much for your help -- and congratulations to you and your wife :-)

all my advisors finished Phds in UK, @QuangThinhHa They are all asians, I am shocked that UK dont provide scholarships, that is not true. pelase contact me if you need contacts.

@Ghanima because international students, even PhD students, have to pay international tuition. they already need a living stipend like domestic students, but their scholarship would also have to cover their tuition. At my undergrad institution the domestic tuition price was £9k, and the international student price for PhD was £20k. per year. that is why

In addition to the other answer, I think a big problem you are facing is that you and the UK government do not having matching expectations of what a PhD student position is. You say:

Having chosen the UK to study with the belief that 'as long as I am competent I should be qualified for the job', the reality has really slapped back at me.

In terms of UK education policy, and as I understand it, a position as a PhD student is not a "job" like being a lawyer or gardener. It's a funded educational program, where the country partially or wholly pays for your training. As the UK is spending this money, they want this benefit to go primarily or exclusively to UK citizens (and EU citizens, arguably mostly because they have to). Whether this is a good policy or a bad one is really not a question that is easy to answer, but this is fundamentally the reason for the hardship you are facing.
That being said, you are not out of options. You can:

Find a position in the UK that is funded via European money (e.g., H2020 or ERC) or industry funding, rather than UK funds. Those should pretty much always be freely assignable even to PhD students.
Move to any other country in the European Union. No other major country that I am aware of (including Germany, Switzerland, France, and Sweden) has similar restrictions, and a master from a good UK university should open up this possibility for you.

Unfortunately a EU funded project in the UK will probably not work, as the PhD funding is a fixed amount and only covers domestic University fees and not international ones.

@Avelina I am not sure whether that is right. Universities / departments can set their own cost rate in H2020  projects, and I see no reason why a rational department would set a rate that limits them in what students they can put onto the position (also I know a few international students in UK universities that work on European projects).

Here's an alternative way of looking at it:
Education is one of the UK's main exports.
The aim is to sell education to those from other countries, not to give them money and education. You might not agree with that, but it's the current situation.

UK research councils cannot and indeed do not discriminate only by nationality. Eligibility mostly depends instead on residence. See for example ESRC's summary .
In general, people who have been ordinarily resident in the UK for 3 years are eligible for research council studentships, regardless of their nationality/citizenship. Note, the caveat that for non-EU citizens, time spent in the UK for the purpose of full-time education does not count towards this.
As a result, not only are a large number of non-EU citizens eligible for studentships. But also, there are some Brits, who, having live abroad, are not eligible.
As others have said, the reason for restricting funding in this way is that the Government view PhD studentships as an investment in the UK and so limit their availability. Various pieces of UK and European law shape the restrictions into the (somewhat complicated) form you see.
Applying limits to tax-payer funded studentships in this way is not unique to the UK, here is a similar example from Chile , that requires the applicant 'Ser chileno/a o extranjero/a con permanencia definitiva en Chile' -> 'To be Chilean or a foreigner with permanent residency in Chile'. While, in the USA, the NSF Graduate Research fellowship program requires applicants to 'be a US citizen, US national, or permanent resident'.

Some answers already point in this direction, but I think this will bring more clarity.
Residence in a country entails having a series of rights and obligations. For example the payment of VAT that non-residents can recover when they leave the country. Access to public health or social benefits .. and the same with education.
Citizens of European Union have mutually recognized rights, so that citizens of an European country have certain rights as if they were residents. In other cases you just have to comply some small formalities to obtain these rights (eg request European health card when they are in transit).
They don't need special permits to work or fix residence, etc.
Overseas citizens do not have the same rights, maybe they need to fix residence before applying for a job, a travel visa, vaccination or whatever. And same applies to UK or European citizens when travelling abroad.

Edit: someone mentioned Spain.
Prerequisites for obtaining fundings in universities in Spain are:
Being Spanish, or possessing the nationality of a Member state of the European Union. In the case of Union citizens or their families, beneficiaries of the rights of free movement and residence will be required to have the status of permanent residents or proving to be employed or self-employed. These requirements shall not apply for obtaining scholarship tuition. In the event of non-EU foreigners, the provisions shall apply the rules on rights and freedoms of foreigners in Spain and their social integration.
Source

Is there any country whose tax-funded universities do not differentiate between foreign and domestic residents (and others defined as equivalent to domestic for educational purposes, under specific international treaties such as EU membership, or student exchange agreements)?  The UK is hardly alone in this practice.

France. Source: I got the same funding as any French or EEA person would get, and I'm American. And this is for a government stipend.
I think Germany and most of Europe is like this.
And I know that Australia is not like this.

Do they treat internationals, applying from abroad, the same as domestic students for purposes of admission (if the program is selective)?  Admitting a limited number of foreigners and giving them the same level of funding as domestic residents is done at some schools in the US and UK, but this is not the same as treating everyone equally.

In my experience, yes, the same. I interviewed in the same place and on the same day as everyone else did, drawn from the same funding pot. Also in France AFAIK they actually have to interview every single candidate, so there isn't shortlisting/selection as such.

That's consistent with the internationals competing for a more limited number of places.  By selection I mean admission selection; is the probability of admission the same for identically qualified foreign and domestic applicants.  It could be that there is an absolutely level playing field where if the program accepts 50 applicants per year, and 80 percent of the most qualified applicants are from outside France (or EU, French former colonies, etc), then 40/50 accepted will be foreigners.  But that would be a very unusual arrangement, if it really exists anywhere on a large scale.

I was told that the nationality was not taken into account at all, but I don't have a specific source about that. Just that "The way the grants are awarded is transparent and is based essentially on the academic merit. After a pre-selection based on the evaluation of the electronic or paper document, an oral presentation is done by the candidate." http://bit.ly/1N9WfUc i'll keep looking, maybe i can find something else

Spain also... I have to say that I am agree with op that this practice is racist or discriminatory by definition. Citizenship is extremely hard to get in some countries it is plain discrimination treat residents without it like second class people. You must pay all the taxes but enjoy only a limited amount of benefits.

This does not answer the question.


text:
Any particular date when Postdoc decisions are announced in European universities?
I am applying for postdoc jobs, in particular, I am interested in jobs out of the U.S.
I have a few questions:

Is there any particular date when Postdoc decisions are announced in European universities?
I heard that many universities will make offers after the AMS deadline (on Feb. 3rd), and suggest we email universities asking about the status.
Do the European Universities also follow the AMS coordinated deadline?
Do you suggest we email Universities right now, or is it better to wait until after the deadline?
What do you say when you email universities? Just asking about status, or saying that we are still interested in their jobs? Or what?

What field? Also, this depends on when the jobs were advertised... there were a lot of postdocs in my field with closing dates before Christmas, so I expect all those have been filled by now. However, there are some that have only just been advertised, so the decisions on those won't come for another month at least.

Mathematics(ODEs, PDEs, etc.)! I heard various things about typical dates, and now just got more confused and worried as well! I have not heard anything from universities; and I do not know if I should email them or not!

It might help if you narrow it down by country as well. I don't think there is anything coming close to a unified approach in Europe as a whole, but some particular countries might be a bit more organized. I would guess though that the main reason for a lot of offers after Feb 3rd is that they move on to the next candidate on the list, after the first accepted a job in the US...

Western European countries @mlk

You are right @MorganRodgers. I thought maybe somebody has some information about some countries that would be helpful. I think it is really hard to understand what is going on in most European universities. There is no special rule it seems and it makes it hard.

Let me start with UK, as this country I know best. Unlike US, in the UK research grants are awarded by several large funding bodies and there is no particular date when all the decisions are simultaneously announced.  Hence, it is not possible to syncronise postdoc hiring process across the UK, and AFAIK, most professors do not see any need for it. Still, many Universities will advertise new positions for staff two times per year, with the anticipated starting date on 01 Oct (start of term) and 01 Apr (mid-term). There are two "waves" of recruitment, but they are not completely in sync.
In the rest of EU, customs differ but still I never came across anyone following AMS deadlines in the EU. It seems that people advertise as soon as they have funding confirmed, but different funding streams announce at different times.

The situation in Germany is quite similar with hiring throughout the year, but especially for positions associated with some teaching duty the intended start date usually coincides with the start of the semester i.e. April & October. Positions are also often directly associated to individual professors who do the hiring themselves, so practices may vary even inside the same department.


text:
Mention religion in CV
I have a muslim sounding name. But I was born to a christian family and I consider myself an atheist. I have been trying to get fellowship in Canada. Will mentioning my religion in the CV help?

It's an irrelevant information from an employer's perspective, unless you are applying for a religious job. It might cause discriminations. Don't put it on your CV.

Some people do anglicize their name on their resumes for this very reason. This is only for the resume stage mind you, once they go to an interview and fill out forms for HR, they'll use their real full name.  Think of it as an experiment, send out half your resumes with your native full name and the other half of your resumes with an anglicized version of your name, and then see what happens.

Mentioning religion on your CV is not standard practice. I can't see how it can be beneficial to you're employer unless there are specific requirements for your desired position which relates to religious beliefs. Unfortunately, in some cases, mentioning your religion can hurt your chances as these issues are sensitive and can get very personal for some potential employers. (from what I understand this is a rare occurrence especially in academia)
With that said, If the topic comes up in an interview, I would suggest giving an honest answer.

I'd advise against including your religion on your CV. Unless religion is directly relevant to the job, it's illegal for an employer to take your religion into account, anyway.
And, look at it this way. Suppose you were offered a job at some institution where telling them that you're not a Muslim meant you got a job that a Muslim with your qualifications wouldn't have got.  Would you be happy in that environment?  Most of the people you meet there won't have read your CV.


text:
Computer Science degree Vs. Software Development degree
Why are schools offering software development degrees as opposed to computer science? Are computer science degrees not as good for software development jobs as the software development degrees? I see companies advertise jobs that say they want a computer science degree or related. Also, some companies won't accept any less than a computer science or computer engineering degree. I've never seen one company say that they want to hire someone with a software development degree. I know that "software development" is related, but what I think these companies mean by "or related" is math, physics, engineering, etc...

My favorite description of computer science comes from Hal Abelson:

"[Computer science] is not really about computers -- and it's not about computers in the same sense that physics is not really about particle accelerators, and biology is not about microscopes and Petri dishes...and geometry isn't really about using surveying instruments. Now the reason that we think computer science is about computers is pretty much the same reason that the Egyptians thought geometry was about surveying instruments: when some field is just getting started and you don't really understand it very well, it's very easy to confuse the essence of what you're doing with the tools that you use."

In other words, computer science is about computation, procedural knowledge about how we can methodically calculate and operate on information.
Software development is the application of computer science concepts and resultant technologies to build software systems.
Another analogy that I like is this:

Chemistry => computer science
Chemical engineering => software development

Somewhat relevant to this answer, in many languages "computer science" is called "informatics", due to considering that the discipline is about "the transformation of information".

There is widespread confusion and lack of clarity in education when it comes to "computer science".
Formally, computer science is the rigourous study of information theory and other abstract notions; it would be better called "computing science". You're not likely to do any computer science in a real job unless you're doing computing research, though an understanding of some of the fundamentals is useful: in particular, some of the less rigourous parts of computer science may be seen to include algorithms and data structures, an understanding of which is almost always a job requirement.
However, the "computer science" course offered in many universities is often in fact a software development/engineering/programming course, with very little theory and instead a focus on actually creating computer software. I posit that these courses are misnamed but it's so widespread as to be unavoidable.
In a University that offers both Computer Science and Software Engineering courses, I recommend taking the latter if you want to become a professional software developer. That being said, it's impossible to predict what some arbitrary company is really asking for on their job description. You'd really have to ask them, or just wing it.
In a University that offers only a Computer Science course, read its syllabus as you will probably find that it's really a Software Engineering course anyway, or is a mix of both disciplines and will still be useful to you in all likelihood.

Some universities offer courses for software development as a specialization to computer science, while others offer it as a separate degree. There is not really much of a difference concerning the final result. Even when it is a separate degree, it would certainly count as "computer science or related", and most probably even as "not (...) any less than computer science or computer engineering" - after all, that is what it is, just with a different name. Even when a job ad says they only want computer science graduates, that doesn't mean people whose major was called cybernetics, games engineering, information technologies, or any of the other imaginative names universities introduce for one reason or another are excluded.
Coming back to whether software development is a specialization of the main CS degree or a separate degree, the main differences are:

from the university's point of view: Specializations are often more modular in that students may choose only a subset of the classes in the specialization offered, and also take classes from other specializations. Professors from the respective topics might feel certain specializations deserve some more focused attention, in the form of a compulsory set of classes for anyone who chooses that specialization, or also by requiring specialized projects that couldn't be embedded into the normal CS major, and thus make it a separate degree.
from the students' point of view: While studying, chances are classes for a separate degree concerning a subtopic like software development are more efficiently connected to each other, as prerequisites can be expected more reliably. A single CS degree with specialization classes, on the other hand, gives students more flexibility to mix topics. After studying, a dedicated major for a specific subtopic might sound a bit more convincing when conveying in an interview that the student is knowledgeable about the subtopic than just saying "I was in a generic CS major and also attended some classes on subtopic X".

There is no right or wrong answer in a way if you are asking with concerns about financial viability.
Software development and computer science are extremely broad subjects.
Try to upscale the resolution of what you intend to do. Do you want to develop videogames?
Do you want to work on AI or research into new ways of machine learning?
Do you want to develop video-editing software?
I could go on.
However I think it will be useful if you base the decision you want to make off of what you actually want to do first, and once you know the answer to that, you can research both fields, talk to people who study it, or professionals in the field, and from a well-rounded and properly informed position make your choice.
Good luck!