text:
Should teachers be entertainers?
I keep coming across general wisdom of the type, "A teacher has to be a clown". This attitude is gaining traction, e.g. as in this TED talk.
This leaves me quite baffled. Thinking back to my own teachers, the ones I admire most and feel I learnt the most from were all serious and single-mindedly focused. Maybe it is for that reason that I have become a similar teacher, though not by a conscious decision on my part. My students find me a tough teacher but I receive emails several semesters later thanking me.
I have discussed this with colleagues around me and while they agree with me, they argue that the current iPhone generation has so many resources available to them, working hard to grab their attention should also be the teacher's task. Afterall, the argument goes, they may just receive better instruction online through a world leader in the subject.
I am just wondering what others feel about this.

Richard Feynman, David Attenborough, and Carl Sagan were not clowns. The best teachers I have ever listened to were passionate. Humour might jolt an audience awake and make them like the speaker as a person, but it will rarely teach anything or incite passion for a subject. Appropriate humour in the classroom can provide a welcome reprieve, but it is no substitute for enthusiasm and good teaching skills.

the current iPhone generation — "Kids these days just can't concentrate" arguments are just as stupid now as they were in ancient Greece.  People who use this argument assume that their own behavior as students was typical, and then blame some exogenous distracting factor (iPads, video games, television, popular music, radio, newspapers, books, writing, fire, etc.) when reality doesn't match their assumptions.

@Moriarty I don't want to drive this offtrack, but there's literature to suggest that Feynman was quite a clown. Did he take a very serious approach to teaching, but clown around in other areas?

@kojiro In the context of this question, I would call a "clown" someone who was (or tried to be) funny but whose teaching was ineffectual. Feynman was entertaining, but I wouldn't call him a clown. Taking your teaching seriously doesn't mean you always have to be serious.

@kojiro It is true that Feynman tended to behave weirdly in his non-academic life (it is a different question whether you want to call him a clown because of that). On the other hand, his lectures (and there are many of them on youtube for you to watch) are anything but clownish.

Where does this "clown" thing come from? You can entertain without being a clown. That ted talk mentions "enthrall", a thing that Feynman certainly does. We are 'fighting' a strawman here: suddenly we are looking at a statement about being a clown that come from nowhere. You need to entertain is / can be   something else then being a clown, and therefore arguing the latter is incorrect doesn't really impact the thing that is getting 'traction'

I really like this question, the discussion it sparks, and the answers it has/will generate, however it is VERY subjective as it stands (e.g. "I am just wondering what others feel about this") and thus not a very good fit for a StackExchange site, according to the general guidelines. Do mods have any opinion on this either way?

That reminds me of Tech Conferences now -- Should speakers be entertainers :) ?

@Moriarty, that said, humor can teach, sometimes. Tom Lehrer is a good example. :)

Entertainment can mean different things for different people. Listening to interesting things  is entertaining for me. Referencing soccer championships and banging on my desk to make me engaged is not entertaining for me (I changed the voluntary lecture after that).

It seems that most people here disagree profoundly with the op, but there is actually evidence that students falsely perceive learning as more successful when professors are more fluent. Thus, there is reason to be sceptical about the current teaching style which lays so much emphasis on entertainment.

The best teachers I had were funny, but they knew so much about their subject that they were able to make it humorous without losing the concepts.

I just watched the video and I see nothing about humor in his TED talk. It's all about how teachers aren't being taught how to engage students. And I agree with him 100%.

Note that the need to present the information in an engaging manner applies to ALL kinds of presentations, not just teaching. Presenting is a skill; it can be learned, it can be improved... and if you don't make the effort to learn it, odds are greater than 50% that you're going to do it badly.

Teachers and professors don't need to be clowns. However, they do need to engage their students.
The old mode of a teacher standing at the front of the lecture hall talking "at" students for an hour or ninety minutes at a time is a cultural relic, rather than necessarily the best way to educate students, as learning in a lecture is usually at best passive.
There are many ways to get around this problem—including engaging in class discussions, demonstrations, group learning, and, yes, sometimes humor can be used to make the point. But just as teaching should not be a stale recitation of facts, neither is it open mic night at your local comedy club. Learning is serious business, but it doesn't have to be boring, either.

its important to note which culture this is a relic of.  in the case of korea, its not a relic but the current situation

It's still common practice in many countries, including much of Europe—but the idea itself is clearly no longer advisable.

@user1938107: I think the argument goes that if the lecture is in no way interactive, then there's no point nowadays giving it in person. The same thing could be conveyed better by a video or even just in text. That assumes any variation between different lecturers, or the same lecturer on different occasions of giving the course, is for unessential reasons. I had some courses where the syllabus was defined by what was covered in lecturers, and so actually a verbal lecture might have been the most efficient way for the lecturer to deliver the material -- but that's relatively rare I think.

... so it's not the case that "talk at students" lectures are never engaging, nor that all teaching must be interactive. However, "talk at students" lectures no longer, strictly speaking, need to be held in a giant room at a fixed time with all students listening at once. The lecturer could post a video. Of course in real life in much of Europe even "talk at students" lectures have at least a minimal scope for interaction, so you'd need more sophisticated arguments to rule out current practice entirely.

@SteveJessop i think there are two different points, one being the teachers role in engaging students, and the other is the teacher being available for students to ask a question, with no responsibility in engaging them.  The latter is pretty common and I usually dont hear arguments against it

I think it's really easy to underestimate a student's ability to sense passion and dedication and respond to it. While cheap gimmicks might work, passion always shows if it exists, and students respect that.
Passion is a form of authenticity that can't be easily faked. Similarly, a natural comic can teach well with jokes, but someone who's forcing humor to be "entertaining" and comes off as inauthentic.
So while I don't know where you got this idea that "a teacher should be a clown", it is nevertheless true that a teacher should show that they care about their subject, their students and teaching, and this can be done in many ways.

Give me reasons to listen to your lesson, and I will be entertained. There is a reason for what I signed up for the class, anyway. Also note that, if I want a clown, I can go in the evening to a performance; way easier than getting up 7 am to go to a lesson.
As Moriarty said, you need passionate, engaging educators. You raise an interesting point with the online courses: why would I follow a local lesson, when I could be listening to a top-class eminence? Again, you need to give me a reason: interactivity, quick doubt solving, a syllabus tailored to what I specifically need in my field... or plainly better explanations (world geniuses can still be improved).

Reiterating a part of other good answers: the "real" version of the question is about "added value". Is there any reason to come to class as opposed to just reading the book/notes, or looking at things on-line? If the instructor does not, or cannot, add value beyond reading the book... etc... why in the world would a student want to show up? This is not at all about the misguided over-specific "will it be on the final?" information, but about the content.
I have had the good fortune to attend lectures from some very good mathematicians, and/but a certain number gave amazingly bad talks. Painstakingly copied onto a blackboard their notes... often without saying a word. Even with wonderful notes, there was no evident reason for a group of people to show up at a particular time, sit quietly in a cramped space, and copy (presumably fallibly) into their own notes what could have been photocopied...
Yes, such scenarios are a slightly extreme failure, but do highlight the issue of "adding value". The model of your copying notes (which may have been copied from some other source) onto the board, to be copied by students, ... is just silly, all the more so in modern times.
But to "be a clown"? Depends. By itself, probably this is dumb. To be witty about the narrative, to be facile, to be aware, surely helps keep the class alive, and these affect-oriented things are not replicated in text. Next: how to be better than videos? First, make it clear, by function, that you are reading the facial expressions and body language of the students, whether or not they overtly ask questions. Make it clear that you are _paying_attention_to_them_. Videos don't do that (quite yet...)
Just joking around can have a nice ice-breaking effect, but is just killing time unless highly integrated into the programme.
I think a good general criterion is "added value"... some of which could be "entertainment", but then there's the question of movement toward your goals for the course.

It's largely a question of balance. In a single-teacher, tens/hundreds-of-students classroom, "one size fits all" is a necessary evil* to some extent. Practicing versatility of style and introducing variety (e.g., by having some serious, nose-to-the-grindstone days mixed with some days of light edutainment – and telling students which it's going to be at the start of class) can help ensure that your "size" fits most students at some point. If you don't mix things up haphazardly, you can at least create the impression that you're a balanced educator and not stuck in any one style. Sometimes all it takes to get students on-board with your education plan is to cater to their expectations just enough to get through to them once. Afterward, they may follow you out of their comfort zones more willingly, even if it doesn't come as naturally as they'd like.
There's an opportunity cost every time you serve one kind of student preferences that others don't share. The "evil" of a one-size-fits-all educational system is that by failing to present curricula in modes that suit several major learning styles, some nontrivial subpopulation is always served poorly. In certain manners, one can try to suit several styles all at once (e.g., by mixing audiovisual presentation with individual and group exercises), but this makes it difficult to focus attention on any one element, and costs time both in preparation and in class. You can't  literally attend to all elements at once – multitasking is somewhat misconceived.
Humor and entertainment value in education are similar issues. As is the case with humor and entertainment outside of an academic context, you can't please every audience without considerable talent, and you can't please every audience member no matter how funny you are. Within an academic context, you face an even greater challenge as a comedian: contextual expectation violation. Some students may expect clowning, but probably just as many won't, and will consider you unprofessional if you cater too much to those who do.
Thus it's a question of balance and how you want to strike it in your classes. As I see it, it's a question of whether to try to (dis)please the same people throughout the academic term, or whether to give every student a more equal mixture of (dis)service.

Do you want to choose a particular (set of) style(s) and stick to it (or them)?

This is somewhat necessary, because no one can cover the full range of teaching styles in any one class. It is also wise to play to your strengths and not force unnatural styles.
A somewhat necessary consequence is that certain students will not approve of your chosen approach, and their educational outcomes may suffer. However, those whose preferences you do serve will approve of you and thrive more for every additional moment in which your approach matches their preferences.

Do you want to try to mix up your delivery and serve every preference some of the time?

Some amount of variety is inevitable, as you're human and bring a slightly different energy to every day's class. Certain topics may deserve different styles of presentation, and coverage of most will benefit from taking multiple perspectives. Arguably the fair approach is to try to give equal time to all students' preferred modalities.
This can be a strain, both for you and the students who recognize that you could teach the class their way more often than you do. Most people will have some weaknesses, and class time might not be the best time to work on those as a teacher. Part of the necessary evil of a one-teacher-per-class system is that students have less choice over whether a teacher suits their preferences.  You can only do so much about it by playing the part of several different teachers over the course of the course.

Either way, someone will be pleased and someone else will be displeased with any given element of your class. Clowning around is no more universally acceptable than any other style.
*A fairer way of describing the one-size-fits-all approach would be as a conventional compromise with efficiency concerns regarding budgetary and labor limitations. It might not be necessary to teach individual students in a several-students-per-teacher environment – home-schooling and one-on-one tutoring are counterexamples – but as a society with scarce resources for serving boundless educational demand, this status quo is at least necessary de facto. Maybe this is for lack of a better idea, but I haven't got one myself, and most would be difficult to implement at best.

I think it depends on the topic.  Teachers should first and foremost be a great teacher.  That person has to be ready, present material in an understandable manner, answer questions, all that fun stuff.
Some more dry topics require extra showmanship on teacher's behalf. That is the only time when you have to go out of your way to "entertain" students. Other times, communicate with students like you always would.
I find that professors that talk to students like equals get more of my attention.

For me a teacher shouldn't need to be a entertainers. A better teacher should understand and know how to make his topic more interesting and friendly to it's listener. To make a lesson to be more interesting is to show the relevance and its application. To make a lesson to be lively is to use some visual aids to be easily understood and to help picture the purpose of the topic in that way listeners are not bored and help there imagination guided.

Ivan, Good point about visual tools. We capture their attention long enough for them to listen to us. Then, if the teacher isn't knowledgeable & they don't engage them in lively conversation, students will quickly "tune them out."

Yap exactly.. We hope the next generation of educators will apply the this concept and make use of the visual representation.

Teachers are teachers and clowns are clowns, should not be confused. Even so, humour, multimedia, vivid talks, are important elements to facilitate communication. Everybody loves to be taken seriously and students are not exceptions.


text:
How to number courses in an undergraduate Computer Science curriculum?
I am looking to assign numbers to courses in an undergraduate Computer Science curriculum. Are there any formal guidelines?
The "3 vs. 4 numbers" debate has been institutionally settled - we are using 3. I know the convention of numbering the absolute beginner courses as 101.
And that the left-most number indicates the relative difficulty of the course. I would like the other 2 numbers to be meaningful as well.
At the moment, we have courses as follows:

100 level - 3 courses
200 level - 1 group of 3 courses and 2 groups of 2 courses each
300 level - 5 courses
400 level - 4 courses

For the higher level courses, the decision is somewhat easy as the courses belong to distinct areas (parallel computing, artificial intelligence etc.) and can be numbered accordingly. But the lower level courses intentionally span multiple areas and cannot be numbered so.
So, what guides or suggestions can I follow?

How about binary?

Not a bad idea - very fitting! But with 3 bits, I will not be able to encode more than 8 courses.

The general rules that I've seen (but have not been written down) typically work as follows:

Sequences of related courses should have, as much as possible, consecutive course numbers.
Courses that are prerequisites of other courses should have lower numbers than the courses that depend upon them.
Courses that are closely related to one another should have closely spaced numbers.
Within a century, introductory, general, and required courses should have lower numbers than the elective courses.

Since you have a three digit number to work with, you can use the middle digit to relate courses according to thematic areas (x0y and x1y numbers could correspond to basic or interdisciplinary subjects; x2y could be algorithms, and so on).

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How does one teach problem solving?
In teaching university level Computer Science, I find many students struggling because they lack basic problem solving skills. Having them do more practice problems does not help as they get stuck at those or somehow hack together a solution to some problems but cannot generalize to other problems. Walking them through some solutions does not help as they might understand that solution but are again unable to transfer that to another problem.
I thought math competence would ensure logical thinking and hence problem solving but I have seen enough counterexamples by now.
The conclusion I seem to be getting to is one that I do not like: problem solving is an innate skill - it cannot be taught.
How have others dealt with this problem?

I think that it is too simplistic to categorize people as "good" or "bad" at topics as rich as "math" and "problem solving."  There are many different aspects to math and problem solving, and one can be good at some aspects while being poor at others.  This of course makes teaching problem solving difficult.  A large amount of math education research is about how to teach "problem solving."

Your real problem is that "problem solving skills" is too vague.  You need to be more specific about what you want students to learn.  For example, in computer science, you might teach students how to find the right tool by reading the documentation.  Or how to interpret a compiler error message.  These are skills that do generalize to a wide range of problems.

@AnonymousPhysicist The examples you give only require application of existing knowledge. What should students do when they need to solve a problem and no existing tool does it?

@PatriciaShanahan There is usually a similar tool.  Problem solving is usually incremental, not revolutionary.

@BenCrowell Maybe you could give an overview of those papers in an answer?

George Polya wrote several very instructive and widely read books (e.g. How to Solve It and Mathematics of Plausible Reasoning) about mathematical problem solving and how to teach it.

For example, in computer science, you might teach students how to find the right tool by reading the documentation. Or how to interpret a compiler error message. — * eye roll * These two examples sound like zero of the typical problems one would be expected to solve in the good CS programs I'm aware of.

I thought math competence would ensure logical thinking — Heh. If only that were true. — and hence problem solving — What do you mean "hence"?  Logical thinking is necessary for problem solving, but it is far from sufficient!

Specifically for CS: ask them to write pseudocode on paper. They'll (probably) hate it, you'll (likely) hate it, but I've found that it eliminates the "code --> compile --> test --> code --> compile --> ..." loop, since you have to think about your algorithm.

@MadJack That probably has more to do with the fact that most good compsci programs only teach theory, but neither the programming nor software development skills actually demanded by industry or people engaging in computational research.

About "mathematical competence would ensure logical thinking": If people can't or won't think logically, I wouldn't consider them mathematically competent, no matter how well they can compute integrals, recite proofs, or do whatever other mathematics they're using to claim competence.

Interesting question and answers. I once had a first year (at university) chemistry student who could not multiply 6 times 7. Another student, back when I was a TA long ago, could not solve 2x = 4. I explained how to solve for x by dividing both sides by 2 and they said they understood. But then they could not solve the next problem I gave them: solve 3x = 6. They tried to take first year chemistry a total of 11 times and claimed to be a chemistry major. This kind of futile course enrollment is not allowed any more.

I speak from experience teaching (and doing) mathematics, and supervising research students for some decades. First, as with nearly anything, of course there can be some degree of innate interest+capacity...
What I have observed is that ... seemingly inevitably... academic environments inadvertently train most students to worry as much about conformity to the teacher's expectations as they do about the subject itself. This tends to cause critical thinking to wither, and the whole thing spirals downward.
Also, by this point it is really not clear to me that mathematical competence is strongly related to logical thinking, and, further, I don't think problem-solving facility is much related to logical thinking (of the highly linearized sort that mathematics is often caricaturized into). If anything, the standard mathematics style seems to me to not only squelch the kind of experimental, no-rules thinking that (genuine/serious) problem-solving requires, but to strongly disavow that experimentation is a legitimate methodology.
And, indeed, in many contexts, exams and such are structured with time limitations so that experimentation is infeasible. Other traits can be rewarded in timed exams, but not experimentation, and, I think, therefore, not problem-solving (unless of a fairly stylized sort).
To draw students into a better problem-solving attitude I think requires more iteration than most courses have time for. That is, a substantially dialected/Socratic process, in which weak solutions' weaknesses are illustrated by just-slightly-hard problems that thwart the weak approach. Repeat and repeat. But this takes a lot of time, since the psychological processing of such meta-issues is not "logical", but something subtler, from what I have seen. Changing one's viewpoint apparently cannot happen overnight.

I am not sure mathematics is that linear. To me, trying to construct a proof and trying to write an algorithm are very similar types of thinking.

@PatriciaShanahan, indeed, I do not at all view mathematics as "linear", but I mention that as a common fallacy or mythology... which I suspect often enters discussions as an implicit hypothesis, etc. E.g., traditional textbooks mostly have pretended that "logical linearization" is a sacred thing in math, and I have witnessed many teachers playing along with that, specifically announcing that "(linear) logical order/correctness" is foundational... No, I do not at all promote this myself, nor do I function "linearly", although I once thought this was an ideal to aspire to. :)

Maybe high school mathematics is over-emphasizing using existing techniques and reading proofs, compared to writing your own proofs.

@PatriciaShanahan, indeed, as far as I can tell, high-school math in the U.S. is intellectually quite degenerate... although students at that age don't necessarily help resist such degeneration. There is also the problem of "every student gets through", ... apparently despite their own non-cooperation and self-destructive behaviors? High school teachers are busy with lots of social issues. Also, upon considerable observation, statistically (my apologies to individuals!!!) high school math teachers are singularly ignorant of their own subject, especially anything that has happened within ...

... the last 250 years. This is not a result of malice, but of misunderstanding and the bad traditional conception of what mathematics is. E.g., "rules and formulas". And the general intellectual [sic] tradition in the U.S. makes it entirely o.k. to take pride in not being able to "do math" (referring to a degenerate notion of it) as though this were a certification of sensibility (and maybe rebellion against mindless conformity is not so bad!) And there's the "so-called experts" dismissal, which is very popular. One aspect of all this is that "math" has become a "straw man" ...

@paulgarrett "Quite degenerate" - pure balderdash. You could make virtually the exact same speech if you were a high school math teacher about middle school math teachers, or middle school about grammar school. And, of course, engineering firms complain about the quality of undergrads coming from the universities where professors don't understand even the least bit about meaningful challenges... the whole class of argument is merely passing the buck because you can't figure out how to get students to understand what you want them to understand.

@BenI., although it is obviously easy to caricature my remarks as being the stereotypical buck-passing, I do not intend it as such. In the U.S., it is literally the case (in several states I've lived) that to teach math in k-12 one is not required to know much about it, and textbooks are not chosen by teachers. The bachelor's degree and master's degree officially relevant to teaching math do not contain many math courses. They wouldn't help meet certification, in any case. I'm not insulting any individuals to observe this.

Fair enough. I may have reacted strongly because you were using rather harsh language. I believe that 9-12 math and k-8 are typically separate licenses, with 9-12 requiring passing the Math PRAXIS exam (and usually some amount of university level math credit), while k-8 only requires a general teaching certificate.

@BenI., yes, in all the states I've observed (Indiana, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, Minnesota, and some others nearby) teaching math 9-12 or 10-12 requires more. Yes, various bits of college-level math, but (in all cases) considerably less than a bachelor's degree in math. For that matter, a typical, minimalist B.S. in math is intellectually very, very thin, driven in part by administrative pressure to produce as many majors as possible, and such. The pervasive idea that "math is about learning rules" (enforced by many faculty!) is unfortunate, too.

I'm probably spoiled at the HS where I teach - fully half of our math faculty have PhDs, all have at least a masters, and we teach BC Calculus as the end point of our lowest track math.  (Two years ago, we had a HS student pass the first level actuarial exam)

@BenI., ... and, my admitted harshness is about the curriculum and ground rules in which math is (typically) taught in schools, including undergrad. And the rules in which k-12 teachers are ensnared.

@BenI., aha! Yes, your situation is not typical! :)

@Insulin69 If indeed that is what you are supposed to prove, then you're teacher is right and you're wrong. Your example has no relationship to what Professor Garrett is talking about. Even "non-linear" thinkers don't approve of circular reasoning.

Your conjecture, that problem solving is innate and cannot be taught, does not hold water.  It does come more easily to some people than to others, but problem solving skills can be developed in all students.  Here are some things the instructor can and should do to help this happen:

The instructor should structure things very clearly, and train students to go through a sequence of steps despite the anxiety they may feel.
Allow sufficient time.  If you pose a warm-up problem at the beginning of class that you think will take three minutes, and at the three-minute point 20%, or even 50%, of the class is finished, you didn't give it enough time.
Show worked examples, explaining how you got from Point A to Point B.
Show the students how to recognize certain patterns.  (So as to reduce the problem down to one they've already solved.)
Be clear about what, if anything, needs to be memorized.
Check each student's mastery of the basic procedures and understanding of the material that has been taught.  Any vagueness in the student on the basics will create stumbling blocks that will interfere with problem solving.
Assign regular practice problems for doing at home.
Model positive self-talk.

Exactly what the sequence of steps will look like depends on the type of problem to be solved.
Example 1.  Factoring a quadratic expression.  Your sequence could be:
(a) Check if every term in the expression is a multiple of the same thing (consider both letters and numbers).
(b) Check if it's one of the special cases (perfect square, difference of two squares).  (You have to get students very comfortable recognizing these special cases by introducing them early in the course, and coming back to them plenty of times, in different guises, and you need to make sure students are seeing the pattern.)
(c) Analyze the signs to decide if you need two factors with a positive sign or two different signs.
(d) Write down the various possible factorizations of the first and third coefficients.
(e) Try out some combinations.  When you have something that you think will work, put in the signs (positive?  negative?) and then multiply to see if it's working.
(f) If you get stuck, write a table of values (x, y) and draw a rough graph.  See if you can discover, by looking at the graph you drew, where the curve crosses the x-axis.  If necessary, fall back on polynomial division to see if your guess works, and to find the other factor.
Example 2.  Coding or developing an algorithm.
(a) Sometimes it's helpful to draw a rough diagram showing input and output.  Starting out with a drawing can be quite freeing.
(b) Try out a particular input and make sure you know what needs to happen to it in order to yield the desired result.
(c) Write down some processing steps.  It's okay if it's in English initially.
(d) Try out your algorithm or code on some input data.  If that seems to work, try some slightly odder input data.  Adjust the procedure if necessary.
(e) Reread the problem to make sure you didn't misunderstand something.
Example 3.  Word problem.
This has some similarities with the other examples; rough sketches can be particularly helpful here.
In addition to ideas from above: At the end, check the units, comparing the problem statement against your solution.
Example 4. Writing a proof.
Break up the problem into smaller parts if possible.  Write down what the general goals are, i.e. what you need to prove.
The beginning proof writer would do well to write down, at each step, what needs to be shown.  In the beginning, verbosity can sometimes help maintain focus.  If appropriate, draw pictures, try cranking out the results for some simple input values, and then with more complex input values.
If the student gets stuck, s/he should be trained to write down all the facts given in the problem, and any possibly relevant theorems that have been learned so far.
Don't be afraid to jump temporarily to an intermediate step and, for the time being, assume we can show a certain result that will help us get to the end goal.
Beginning proof writers can benefit greatly from using a two-column format, where for each and every assertion listed in the left-hand column, some justification must be written down in the right-hand column.
At the end, reread the problem.
General comment: In the U.S., the key places where students are typically expected to make a quantum leap in problem solving:

two-step word problems (usually first assigned in 4th grade of elementary school -- example: "The area of a rectangular doghouse floor is 15 square feet; the length of the floor is five feet; find the perimeter of the floor of the doghouse" found at https://www.engageny.org/resource/released-2016-3-8-ela-and-mathematics-state-test-questions)
geometry (usually taken in 8th, 9th or 10th grade of secondary school)
linear algebra (STEM students usually take this in approximately the sophomore year of college)

For sociological concerns about students' general difficulties with problem solving, it can be helpful to identify at what points in the educational system the quantum leaps are expected to occur.  When working with a particular student, it can be helpful to identify at what point his or her difficulties began.

In addition to content knowledge students need exposure to a process for problem solving such as the following.

Define the problem-it's amazing how often students cannot articulate what the issue is.
Develop a criteria for the solution-this is not about creating an answer but for developing a set of  characteristics the answer should possess. Often the teacher provides this in the assignment requirements
Generate potential solutions-don't judge them just make them. This is brainstorming.
Judge each solution according to the criteria in step 2-if a solution does not meet the standard it's removed.
Select the most appropriate response.

This process works in most disciplines and is particular useful for situations that have multiple approaches.

I too have some experience teaching problem solving both at the university level and to military officers. Here are just a few of my thoughts...
Problem solving can be viewed as formal i.e. using a specific process in a bounded reality scenario, using only a specified number of factors and seeking to find the optimal solution.   Contrasted against the formal approach, is the naturalistic approach such as recognition primed decision making that seeks a workable but not necessarily optimal solution. The formal approach is cumbersome and often times to slow for practical application in real world environments.
I generally teach a naturalistic approach using the following guiding steps:

Define the problem, what are you trying to decide or solve?
Define your terms, people from different field do not use terms in the same way e.g. “attitude” means one thing to psychologist and something different to an aeronautical engineer.
Consider all your facts. Do you have any constraints = things you must do, and any limitations = things you cannot do.
Consider any assumptions, assumptions must be valid, that is they are based on a fact, and necessary, that is you must make the assumption to complete a line of reasoning.
Determine any screening criteria; is there anything that automatically eliminates a particular solution or type of solution?
Brainstorm initial solutions. If students get stuck coming up with solutions I have them consider an alternative viewpoint i.e. what would you NOT do... this can assist in jump starting their thought process. I also remind them to avoid “assuming” a problem away. I have found that students often make an assumption(s) without being aware they made one. Finally, consider second and third order effects.
Select best usable solution.

Although this is presented as a stepwise process it is fairly easy to remember. I focus on the first four steps because students typically want to just get to the answer and fail to really define the issue/problem and associated fact and assumptions. Note that this approach does not attempt any mathematical pair-wise comparisons among competing solutions.

I have struggled with teaching problem solving too, and gave a top-down approach a chance. That's the technique that has best worked for me, so I started teaching it about 15 years ago to my engineering students, and I honestly feel they have improved at it.
I made an online course about it on udemy in 2016, and recently wrote a book about it (The Top-Down Approach to Problem Solving).
The technique is suitable for any type of problem. It's a generic algorithm:

Understand the problem.
Decompose the problem into a few subproblems.
Solve each subproblem the same way.
Return each solution to its parent problem.
Yeap, it's a depth-first search algorithm.

In the book, we go through a bootcamp of problems solved with this method for the reader to get a hang of it. It has problems in many areas: Electric circuits, mechanics, time and speed, probability, calculus, programming, and so on.

This was once known as Structured Programming. Both Pascal and Modula/Modula-2 were based on this idea. Algol similarly. The concept of nested functions supports the ideas.

I though it was called modular programming.

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

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


text:
In ABET accreditation criteria, what is the meaning of "one year of X"?
The ABET accreditation criteria document for Computer Science lists some course requirements as

One year of Science and Mathematics
At least one half year of Mathematics
One and one-third years of Computer Science
At least one year of up-to-date coverage of fundamental and advanced topics

How many courses is one year equivalent to? It may mean 10, going by 5 courses per semester. "One year of X" may mean a year where there is at least one course on X every semester. In either case, "one and one-third years" of courses does not make sense.

A "year" of a subject almost certainly means one course per term for a year's worth of terms.  That is, "one year of science" at a semester school would mean two courses in science.  (At least, this is how I've seen similar terminology used in discussing mathematics requirements---when people say something requires "2 years of math" they mean taking in total at least four semester long courses, not necessarily consecutively.)
The "one and one-third" years is presumably for schools which use trimesters, where that means 4 courses.  (I assume that at a semester school that means three courses---a year and a half---since these are minimal requirements, though I wonder if they really expect schools which use trimesters to include two courses on discrete math.)

Even the CS requirements seem bizarre,
"a. Computer science: One and one-third years that must include:

Coverage of the fundamentals of algorithms, data structures, software design, concepts of programming languages and computer organization and  architecture.

An exposure to a variety of programming languages and systems.

Proficiency in at least one higher-level language.

Advanced course work that builds on the fundamental course work to provide depth."

They require no more than 3 courses of CS for a CS program, which have to cover all of the above.

The other answer is correct and appropriately quotes the relevant ABET definition. At a semester school where 120 credits are required for graduation, the CAC requirement would correspond to 10, not 2, required courses in science and math.

ABET formally defines a "year" as

The lesser of 32 semester-hours (or equivalent) or one-fourth of the credits required for graduation [1].

The wiggle room in the definition is almost certainly because of the wide variety of credit systems used by various schools. "One and a third years" would then equate either to 42 semester hours, or four full trimesters or quarters of study for those on alternate study schedules.
[1] http://www.abet.org/eac-criteria-2014-2015/


text:
How to submit a talk to a conference – Starting with replying to a Call for Presentations
I have received a Call for Presentations for a conference and I have a topic that could be interesting to present.
The Call for Presentations describe the various forms of presentations that one can submit, and then links to a form asking for a title, presenter name(s) and an abstract. This has a deadline around two months before the conference.
Now, to my questions: As I mentioned, I have a topic in mind, but unless my presentation is accepted, I would prefer not spending a lot of time preparing a good presentation of this (technical) subject. Will the decision about whether to accept the presentation be done solely on the grounds of the submitted abstract or will they be in touch before accepting the presentation?
(This is a computer science conference, in case that's germane.)

Maybe you could link to the CFP? From your description it sounds like only the abstracts will be used to evaluate presentations for the conference. This is reasonably common, but it means that there will probably be no peer-reviewed papers nor proceeding as part of this conference. On the other hand, that means the work you do to create the talk could easily lead to an independent journal article.

If this is a periodic conference, you can look at lists of past presenters and ask one of them what the gauntlet is.  Also, the conference should have a person who can address the question directly.  You should be able to ask about the process before deciding to participate.  Note: the difference between deadline for submission and date of acceptance/rejection can be substantial.  You may want to plan your questions to optimize your use of time.

It's a slight tangent, but submitting an abstract by only 2 months before the conference seems a little late for sensible peer review. Be sure before participating that it isn't a predatory conference - http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/09/12/conference-attendee-to-omics-i-want-out/#more-2225.

It depends on how close you research topic/presentation is to the conference topic. I've never had an abstract turned down, but I present in sessions with topics relevant to my research. Most conferences wan't people to come and present, in general. Worst case scenario, it get's turned down. You will have a head start on the next abstract submission.

Usually decisions on accepting a presentation are made solely on the basis of content. This is actually somewhat unfortunate, because there's no way to eliminate researchers who give horrible talks :).

Make sure it is not one of 1000s SPAM mails from not-known-to-anyone or thinking-only-about-how-to-get-your-money societies or fake conference organizers. Vast majority of conference in Computer Science review full papers, not abstracts, and review of presentations is not common at all.


text:
publishing papers vs. receiving Masters/PhD
I'm a software engineer with several years of industry experience.
If I got involved part-time in a research team and collaborate with them to publish several papers. Practically speaking what's the difference between that and actually receiving Masters/PhD ?
Mainly, What is the difference between somebody who got a PhD by publishing several papers and somebody who published several papers without even pursuing PhD ?
( Excuse my ignorance about these matters )

I would say that in that case the biggest difference is that the former has a PhD and the latter doesn't. A PhD is basically a statement of the hosting university that a graduate is deemed capable of performing independent research. Someone without a PhD can also be capable of this, even if there is no formal statement as such.

The big difference is the lack of credential. However, if you're interested in staying in industry, the lack of a degree will likely not make much difference, unless you're looking to head a research group at a large software company.

What's the point of any qualification? Well, ideally, it's a standard: a quick, easy and reliable way to assess a candidate's ability.
A PhD is, ideally, a standard that indicates a student is capable of independent research that results in a novel contribution to knowledge, at significant depth.
The publishing of papers can also indicate that someone is capable of independent research that results in a novel contribution to knowledge, at significant depth. Though - at least in the sciences - sole-author papers are relatively rare.
Not all papers are of equal standard: the quality can vary hugely. Not all PhDs are of equal standard, but once we exclude degrees-for-cash and other disreputable institutions, there is broadly (but not perfectly reliably) a certain standard required.
And for most people, the work and talent required to do the research to produce several quality papers, is broadly about the same as that required to attain a PhD. So the PhD provides a better route for many, because it will be more portable, and more easily recognised as a qualification of ability. The PhD course also (typically) comes with institutional support to learn the required research skills.
Additionally, some research grants require a PhD or equivalent degree, in order to be eligible to apply.
The academic posts that I've seen typically require a PhD or equivalent research background: but it's harder to make the case through the latter route. Nevertheless, there are many researchers, quite a few professors, and some heads of department without doctorates, at heavyweight institutions. And there's one department head that I know of who doesn't have any degree - and he really is exceptional.


text:
How to organize email recipients in professional group email?
Situation is work related matter about clients in the following group.
Assume the group of people consists of

Prof.
Assistant Prof.
Doctor 1
Doctor 2
Doctor 3 (only been 6 months in the house so so-called resource worker)
Assistant 1
Assistant 2
Personal assistant

Doctor 1 puts email recipients in the given order, which is correct by the status.
Personal assistant changes the order to the similar but with one exception where he puts Doctor 3 at the bottom of the list although is mainly responsible of the work during the time period:

Prof, Assistant Prof, Doctor 1, Doctor 2, Assistant 1, Assistant 2, Personal assistant and Doctor 3.

Culture: Sweden where little hierarchy.
Problem: manipulating the common way of the workplace to have email discussions.
I am interested in how you would deal with such email senders.

I have never heard of anyone who cared about the order of recipients in an e-mail. Is that a thing?

I do not expect the order to be preserved by e-mail clients, so I would never bother about that.

It doesn't matter.
Certainly, in Sweden it doesn't matter.
Nor does it matter anywhere else.
The only things you might want to consider:

To: or Cc: header: some e-mail clients show e-mail differently if the recipient is in the To:-header as opposed to the Cc:-header.  Gmail is one such client.  I tend to prioritise e-mails where I'm in the To:-header over those where I'm in the Cc:-header.  If you expect the professor to answer your question, make sure he or she is in the To:-header.  If you just wish to “keep him/her in the loop” (perhaps for future reference), Cc: is fine.
Avoid bcc, as most e-mail clients and servers ignore the rule that the recipient in the bcc should still see their own name there (but no-one else should), and therefore it will look like an e-mail not addressed to them at all.  That makes it downprioritised at best, or marked as spam at worst.

But really.  Within that, nobody cares about the order of the recipients.


text:
How to Refer to Enumerated Subsections and Subsubsections?
Body
There is Subsection 1.2.
There is Subsubsection 1.4.1.

Referring in the body now
See Subsection 1.2.
See Subsubsection 1.4.1.

I would like to replace all sub parts simply by section etc the following but not sure if correct
See Section 1.2.
See Section 1.4.1.

You should eliminate "sub" from the labels.  It is easier to understand and easier to update when the sections change.

Can you please give an example what you mean? Do you mean to refer Section 1.4.2 or Subsubsection 1 or just Section 1?

"See Section 3.1.4.1.5.9"


text:
Should I use my university's letterhead for a cover letter for a job application?
I currently teach at University X and am applying for a job at University Y.  Should I write my cover letter on University X's letterhead, or use a blank page?

No. It is you as a person who is applying, not you as a representative for your university. Univ. Y would probably look very negatively on an application on such lerterhead, as would Univ. X. Letterheads are intended for your official business of your position at X as teacher, researcher etc. Applying for a job or for example writing somewhere for your private business is just that, private. You can, however, create your own private letterhead to use for such instances but this should reflect your private standing and show only private address, phone and e-mail.
So keep the official business separate from your private. As alluded to this also applies to e-mail, something most people forget about. It is good to have your own private e-mail for instances such as this.

BAM.  That's precisely the dilemma I was trying to resolve.  Thanks.

I find this attitude really different from anything I've encountered.  I have access to some job files right now, and while usage of letterhead was maybe 50/50 (I think mostly because it's a pain to get electronic letterhead that works with LaTeX from most schools), but everyone uses their professional address, email, etc.  and I think it would set off a red flag if someone didn't.  I don't especially care and am not sure I've encountered anyone who does before, but I think this answer may emphasize what should be done over what people actually do.

Quite. As an employer, I would not be terribly impressed that a member of staff was using my resources, whether stationery, printers or anything else, to negotiate a voluntary move to a different employer. (Had I just had to lay them off or something, that would be a different story.)

@scottishwildcat: But academia is not always like other employers.  For instance, we have fixed-term jobs (such as postdocs) which are understood to be stepping stones to more permanent positions at other institutions.  In my experience, looking for a permanent position is more or less accepted as part of a postdoc's job.

At least in the dim past of my youth, in academic math people always used letterhead.

Fully agree with this answer. But like another user commented, it may be dependent upon the job.  If you are a postdoc and looking for a tenure track position, by all means, use the letterhead.  If you are already a tenure track and want to jump the ship to greener pastures, it's highly unethical for you to use your current letterhead. Same thing with email. Email communications at state universities and govt constitute public records and can be requested by anyone using the provisions of FOIA.

I personally side with Peter Jansson on this one (do not use an institutional letterhead if you're not conducting business on behalf of your institution), but you will have to note that this position is not universally shared. I cite only one example, of somewhat high-profile blogger/consultant, who says:

Your letter must be on letterhead if you have a current academic affiliation of any kind. This is not negotiable.

I think it may be a field-specific and/or generation issue: some people, and some fields (humanities/law/medicine) have more attachement to older traditions and think a letterhead is a crucial part of correspondence etiquette.

I actually joined academia@stackexchange to be able to upvote this answer. Of course you should use letterhead! If you don't, University Y thinks there is some reason why University X does not want you to be affiliated with them.

@don.joey well, welcome here! I hope you stay around, it's a very nice community…

A separate post by the same blogger indicates that there is regional and disciplinal variation in this convention. (Apparently, it is universal in the US and not used in the UK, Australia and NZ?)

@my.back Keep in mind that blogger you linked specifically provides this advice for graduate students, where it's perfectly acceptable/encouraged to use the letterhead. This is clearly not the case with other jobs where for example people may be looking to change jobs (from one tt position to another).

I would ask a senior person in your field.  In my experience in mathematics in the US, no one gives a flying flip how you format your cover letter; in all likelihood, no one will read it.  Using department stationary is common, though far from universal and I don't think affects anyone's thinking one way or the other.
I don't think this advice is universally applicable;  I know in many other disciplines, cover letters are read carefully, and thus their professionalism will have some salutary effect.  My personal feeling is that using your current institution's letterhead, your office address, etc. looks more professional, but obviously this isn't a universal feeling, so all the more reason to check about your field specifically.

To be honest, regardless of what you use, just make sure that it is a damn good letter. Departments might have practices. Now, here is a question for others - can Bennie just call and ask?

In academia, if you are applying for an academic position (e.g., assistant adjunct prof applying for assistant prof), regardless of whether it is at the same of different institution, it is absolutely essential that you use the letterhead for the institution with which you are currently affiliated. I realize that this is different for private companies, where "company" letterhead implies official communication on behalf of the "company."  But in academia, the letterhead is an indicator that you are recognized as a member of a scholarly community and you have the rights, privileges, and responsibilities associated with your academic appointment. In academia, it does NOT mean you are conducting official institutional business.  Official institutional business will have "Office of the Chancelor" in the letterhead or "Office of XYZ Department Chair." If the chancellor or department chair were to apply for jobs, they would probably still use institutional letterhead but not have this "Office of the __" line in the letterhead.
Using your institutional letterhead is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL when applying for academic jobs. Even (especially) if you are a grad student. Everyone knows that you are not speaking on behalf of the institute, the letterhead is an indication of your membership in that scholarly community.

This answer is probably useful within the culture from which it was written, but academia varies more than you think it does. As such, this answer should be taken with a large grain of salt unless you know for a fact that it applies to your region (cf. e.g. this link), or unless the answer gets edited to provide suitable confines in both geography and discipline.

Unless the author of this post can provide clear evidence, I think this advice is misguided and just plainly wrong on more than one level. Not using the current letterhead is not a disqualification for a new job. And using one institutions email to apply to another institution is definitely uncalled for.

One point that I'm missing so far, but which IMHO makes quite some difference is the position which you are in:

My "default" opionon on this question is not to use your employer's letterhead, nor your email at your employer's.
The reason is that unless your relationship with your current employer is really bad (in which case you don't want to use their letterhead),  (ab)using your employer's letterhead demonstrates illoyality: not only are you not acting in as an official of your employer, but as @scottishwildcat already pointed out, you are presumably acting against your employer's interests.
But in academia, there are certain situations where your old university is anywhere between quite happy with over positively encouraging you to expecting you to apply for another job.
You may be in a stage of your career where a change of university is expected or at least reasonable and you and your employer agree on this (close to finishing your degree, did a postdoc abroad but want to move home again, want to move for family reasons, want to become a professor which in some countries you cannot at your "home" university, ...), or you are on a project position and for external reasons they cannot keep you.
In this case, IMHO you may use the university letterhead (although I'd probably still not do it). But if you do so, you should make sure the university where you apply knows unambiguously that your university is happy with your application for their position, e.g. by naming your current supervisor as reference.

As for the email, free emails are available also with sober username and sober providers, so that shouldn't be a problem, neither.

Do whatever you want.
There are strong and conflicting opinions on this ("it would set off a red flag" to not use institutional letterhead, etc. vs "I put those letters at the bottom of the pile.")
We should ask ourselves, as academics: if we are evaluating people's job applications using such incredibly fine distinctions in academic etiquette, either:
1) we are prioritizing completely useless information and probably introducing a good deal of bias against folks like international students and first-gen college students along with it!
-OR-
2) academia is so irredeemably petty that getting this right is actually an important sign of success in an academic position.
Either answer doesn't make academia sound like a place you'd want to work. I have faith that people are not actually making such important decisions using trivia. I therefore suggest that the original poster should choose whichever option allows them to make the content of their letter clearer, i.e., if you need the space for more information, don't use the letterhead!

I completely agree with everything you've written, but it's not an answer to the question.

This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review

@Flyto: While it may be debatable whether this post is an answer, it is certainly not a valid comment. It does not do any of the things comments are for.

Probably not - it's too long for a start. Unfortunately my comment above is that which is automatically posted when one votes to delete with the "not answer" reason.

I agree the only part that is an answer is the first line ("do whatever you want"), but I think this is a necessary corrective. The question rests on an important assumption (that there is a good answer, and people care about it), which isn't necessarily supported.

I also added an extra couple of sentences of the implications of the rest.

I fully understand the notion of not writing on letterhead except in an official capacity, but consider the tradition of using a hotel's letterhead when staying with them as a guest. I appreciate this is perhaps almost akin to sending a picture postcard (and an advertising opportunity for the hotel), yet this clearly is not a matter of the hotel's business activity.
This practice extended to the English with houses large enough to have guest rooms, where the etiquette is to provide headed notepaper of your own for your guests to use.

Welcome to Academia SE. While your post provides a new and valid outlook on OPs question, I would still like to see how it relates to OPs specific case.

Completely agree that you should not use letterhead from the academic institution you are trying to leave.  I put those letters at the bottom of the pile when reviewing job applications for teaching positions.  Only caveat is when you hold a postdoc, but if you are tenure track or more, then no, use your own.

Exactly what part of the criteria listed in the job advertisement makes it reasonable for you to disregard letters written on letterhead? Does it indicate an inability to do research? To teach? Does the advertisement clearly state that applications on letterhead will be disregarded?

I didn't say they would be disregarded, just put at the bottom of the pile, like those with bad writing or less than wonderful vitae.  If the rest is amazing it may rise up again but the choice to use letterhead shows poor judgement. If you don't want to be at an institution that is currently paying your salary and expecting you to stay, don't use their letterhead.

I think inferring poor judgement from the use of a letterhead shows poor judgement. I would not expect a good working environment from an academic institution that uses such practices, and they would be put at the bottom of the pile.


text:
Do I need to attach the letter of acceptance of an accepted paper along with the paper itself to my CV for applications to phd programs?
In an application to a phd program, if I claim that some paper of mine is accepted and the paper has not yet been published, then should I attach the letter of acceptance along with the manuscript itself to my CV?
I assume logically the stuff should be done, but I am not sure if attaching a copyright-transferred manuscript is legal or ethical. So what is the best strategy with respect to a situation like this one?

The typical way to list such a paper is

'author, author, and author. "Title", Journal of XYZ, to appear'

That should be enough with regards to your C.V.  Anyone in academia will be familiar with this notion, and is unlikely to be think that you might be lying.  After all, the truth will become obvious one way or another shortly.
If they want to see copies of your papers, it's OK to attach a preprint as well, as long as you clearly label it: "Preprint, do not distribute." Many journals will in preproduction have sent you a proof copy with exactly this as a watermark.
Sharing in this way clearly falls under fair use protection, even if you have transferred copyright, just as if you were showing it to them in person.


text:
Better to give a poor/unfinished talk at a conference or cancel it?
Here's my dilemma. I met a post-doc at a conference a while back, and told him about the project I was working on at the time, and he subsequently invited me to give a talk in a session at an upcoming (next week) conference.  I accepted, since it was my first invitation to speak at a conference, and overall I was/am excited at this prospect, and at the prospect of collaborating with him in the future. However for various reasons (mostly time commitment on my part), this particular project - which is really a side-project to my main dissertation work - hasn't panned out like I hoped it would when I accepted the talk.  Needless to say, I don't feel confident that my talk will make a good contribution to the session, since my results are very lack-luster and my expertise in other aspects isn't enough to make up for this.  Since I'm a PhD student and this is a side project, I don't have old work to "fall back on" and my advisor is impartial.
So which is better: cancel the talk and apologize to the organizer profusely, perhaps suggesting a future collaboration, or suck it up and give a woefully under prepared talk, risking embarrassment to myself?  I'm leaning towards cancelling, because I feel like a poor talk makes me look bad to everyone who listens, while cancelling only makes me look bad to the session organizer.

I suggest you distinguish between "preparing the talk" (that implies building presentation slides, and is something which can be done as late as while traveling to the conference) and "having content/findings to present" (this may or may not be critical, also depending on the conference and goal of the session).

For what it's worth, if your talk has been scheduled and this schedule makes it way on the internet (where everything lives forever, except for links), you might have people asking about it in upcoming years. I had to cancel an August 2008 talk in late June 2008 (I wound up being in the middle of the 2008 Iowa floods and lost my apartment . . .), but even though this was nearly two months before the talk, the title is on the internet in some places and I've probably gotten at least 3 requests in the years since then for copies of slides or an associated manuscript (has not yet been written).

I'm not familiar with your topic, but can't you discuss something like "possible findings?", "what triggered you to start looking into your idea?", "background to the problem" and since the results did not come as you would liked them to be, how about you present your problem, results and ask for "advice, suggestions"? or things that you might have overlooked! I'm presenting these options in case if a week is not long enough for the organizer to get a new presenter (maybe too late?).

There is a huge difference between a poor or unfinished talk, and a well-prepared talk about poor(?) or unfinished research. You should strive to never give the former -- the latter on the other hand can make for a great talk. Negative results are an important part of research.

You've never seen talks that start by saying "more questions than answers"?

When this happens to me, I just describe it as "work in progress" or a "research attempt" and present what I can with what I've got.  What's wrong with that?  That's how research works.
"...hasn't panned out like I hoped it would when I accepted the talk."  You can say this during your talk, and explain why it didn't pan out, and ask the audience if they can help.  Maybe someone in the audience (your next co-author perhaps?) knows how to proceed, and has the expertise you're lacking.  If nobody can help, maybe that's an indication that there is an obstacle (which is important to know).
You've said you're a PhD student, without expertise in the side-topic.  Feel free to mention it in your talk "I'm a PhD student in [some subject] at [some university] under [someone]."
You said a post-doc invited you to give a talk (which I expect is not in the sense of an "invited speaker"), who presumably knows you're an early PhD student, and presumably knows what early PhD student talks are sometimes like.  My suspicion is that this question is more about inexperience and lack of confidence than an inability to give a reasonable talk due to the work being unfinished.

Also, negative results are also results.

This is a great answer. We're increasingly getting to the point where everything (including science) needs some kind of positive, groundbreaking result in order to be considered worthwhile. This is a very, very bad path.

This is pretty much exactly what I ended up doing.  The talk went well enough - I was able to discuss the problem and show a few "preliminary" results.  Overall, it was definitely worth the experience to figure out how to deal with my confidence and uncertainty issues!  Always a learning experience, this PhD thing.

Also, depending on the conference: if you cancel your slot might be just vacant, meaning the stage will be empty for 15 minutes (to not jeopardize session hopping)

Perhaps you could try option 3: send your colleague the slide deck of your presentation, or a detailed summary, and ask him whether he thinks it would be "good enough."
Obviously, you wouldn't just drop this on your colleagues lap; you would explain your situation, much like what you have explained here, and see what he thinks. I have no idea whether this is a good idea in your neck of the woods or not; however, I certainly wouldn't hesitate to ask for an opinion before canceling outright or not holding up my end of a perceived bargain.

I would encourage you to reconsider your premise. In many cases it is possible to give an excellent, polished talk on unfinished research. This would be appropriate and welcomed by the audiences at many (not all) conferences.
As others have suggested, I think it is worth contacting the session organizer. If you do proceed, I would spend most of your time talking about the problem you're working on, why it's interesting, and give an example or two. You could then spend a limited amount of time discussing the progress you've made.
Circumstances may vary, but when I've gone to conferences I've often enjoyed talks like this, and gotten a positive impression of the speaker.

This is exactly what I'm planning to do - I'm glad someone else thinks it's a good idea!  After speaking with the session organizer, he thinks my problem and approach are interesting enough to talk about even in the pre-results stage.

I agree that you should cancel the talk, for pretty much the reasoning that you explained, except that I think you are overestimating the extent to which canceling the talk will make you look bad to the session organizer. And I don't think you need to apologize "profusely" (although an ordinary apology is certainly in order).
As you said, things simply didn't pan out the way you had anticipated - this is quite normal and understandable in cutting-edge research, and I'm sure the session organizer will not find this very unusual, will appreciate your setting high standards for yourself, and in any case would consider a canceled talk (which at least leaves him with a small chance to fill the slot with another last minute speaker) much preferable to a lousy talk by an unprepared speaker, which may also reflect poorly on his credibility as a session organizer.
Overall, a canceled talk is a fairly minor snafu of the sort that conference and session organizers have to deal with pretty frequently, so don't worry about it too much.

I'm going to talk with the session organizer tomorrow.  If he thinks I have enough to proceed, I'll go ahead, otherwise I'll cancel it.  Thanks for the response!

-1. I see no reason to cancel the talk. This is a first talk by a Ph.D. student! He could talk about pretty much anything as long as the talk itself is decent. I rather have a Ph.D. student give a good talk about unfinished research than---what is more common---an awful talk about his important results.

+1 for pointing out canceling is usually minor, but -1 for agreeing with the OP's premise that weak results will mean a bad talk.

My opinion is that you should give the talk.
1. You've made a commitment to the organizer. Keep it.
2. It will be great experience for you.
3. As others have pointed out, it's ok to let the audience know the research isn't finished or as you envisioned. Share that. They understand.
4. Be open to finding help and/or connections among the extraordinary resources that will be your audience.
5. It's normal to be scared before your first (or fiftieth) presentation. See 2.
6. You can do it.

While it is not impossible to give a beautiful talk on unfinished research, I personally feel acquiring such qualities is NOT a natures' gift. You need to have a lot of experience and in-depth understanding to give such a talk.  If you DO have all such qualities, you should GO AHEAD. Otherwise, ending up with a sloppy presentation will let your audience under-estimate your potential.


text:
How to identify future directions in a saturated field without getting discouraged
I am close to finishing a PhD in applied mathematics and I'm looking to develop future projects that go beyond my dissertation topic into other domains.  One of the major subjects my advisor has suggested that I look into is an extremely saturated - but still largely "unresolved" - field.  While I find the subject incredibly fascinating and challenging, I am also intimidated by the amount of work that has already been done, and I worry that I might loose the niche I've dug out for my dissertation by trying to play in someone else's big pool.  I feel like I might have something to contribute, if nothing else from a "translational/interdisciplinary" perspective (applying the expertise gained during my PhD to a different field), but is there a good way to feel out where exactly I fit in?  I suppose a logical answer to my own question would be to identify a post-doc position with a leading group in the field, but I am interested in hearing other opinions.

I'm not in math, but in engineering. If you browse through top 10 schools (or researchers') websites, you might get a "feeling" on where (or what) their research is heading towards! For example, you can check what their newest post docs are working on, PhD students' thesis titles etc. You can also do the same thing by checking NSF newly funded proposals. This may not give you a definite answer, but it might help you establish a "directional sense".

@TheFireGuy I think your comment is answer-worthy (I'd upvote it).

If you browse through top 10 schools (or researchers') websites, you might get a "feeling" on where (or what) their research is heading towards! For example, you can check what their newest post docs are working on, PhD students' thesis titles etc. You can also do the same thing by checking NSF newly funded proposals. This may not give you a definite answer, but it might help you establish a "directional sense"
PS.
I'm in engineering not math.

I've come to rely heavily on NSF and NIH grant search tools over the past year.  Good advice!

This is a mathematics specific answer.
I have the vague feeling that what your advisor means by "look into a subject" is different from what you think he or she means.
Most mathematicians have many failed projects in their file cabinets; in fact most probably have at least three and maybe ten failed projects for every successful one.
So, when your advisor suggests looking into this new subject, perhaps all they are suggesting is spending a couple weeks looking at some of the problems in this subject, looking at all the approaches that have been tried, and thinking about whether, from your different perspective, you have any different ideas that have some chance of being successful.  If you think you have an idea, you can spend another couple weeks on it to try to see if it helps.  If you don't have any ideas, or if your ideas turn out to not go anywhere, then you move on to a different set of questions.
All this costs you is a few weeks of time, and even if you don't have any ideas right away, you learn more about an important subject that you didn't know so well before.  Maybe you don't have any ideas for this subject, but maybe you'll learn enough about it so that you can apply some ideas for this subject to a third subject.
Edited to add: In the context of your research career, this means you don't have to leave the niche you've dug out with your dissertation.  You can continue working on questions related to your dissertation, and in addition, you can spend some of your time thinking about how what you know might contribute to this other subject.  Where you fit in in this new (to you) community will naturally be determined by the actual contributions you manage to make (noting that not all contributions come in the form of a paper).

This is a good point.  I think in my case this is partly true, but to a certain extent my advisor is already heading in this new direction himself - grants are applied for, preliminary papers published - so its more that if I want to work with him in the future, I should think about getting on board.

@icurays1 - But he can afford to take this risk more than you can.  Your gut instinct says not to put all your eggs in that basket.  Perhaps you could ask one or two other trusted people.


text:
How to cultivate relationships/recommendors as an introvert
I'm getting close to finishing a PhD in applied mathematics (next May), and I'm starting to think about next fall's job application season.  I'm realizing that one of the things I'm missing is a strong recommendation from a senior academic that isn't on my committee or a professor I've taken courses from.  I realize that it takes time to cultivate these relationships, but I'm now also realizing that I've been a fairly introverted student in the sense that I haven't really pushed myself to build any collaborative relationships that would make asking for a recommendation more natural.  I've had lots of conversations with senior people at conferences or who have visited my department, but I never seem to follow up because I doubt their level of interest in me or my projects (this is flawed, introversion-driven reasoning, I realize).  I have a few loose collaborations going with other junior academics but again, I've been a little shy and flaky on pushing those projects forward for some reason or another. I also wouldn't consider these collaborators senior leaders in my field, which isn't an issue for collaborating, but the value of their recommendation is perhaps less so than someone higher up the proverbial ladder.
The question is the following: since I still have a little bit of time before the next application season (6 months or so), should I focus on nurturing the collaborations I already have going, or should I start trying to get a little more bold with more senior people?  I realize that I should probably do both, but I welcome any input.

It is natural that during your PhD studies you have occupied your cocoon.  That is necessary, to maintain the focus on the thesis.  Now, you are starting to look around you.  I would advise testing out the relationship with several potential collaborators, and focusing on the people and the quality of the collaboration rather than the individual's seniority or name value.  Also, ask not what your collaborators can do for you, but what you can do for your collaborators.  No, seriously, focus on the substance and the satisfaction of the collaboration.

Why do you think you oughtn't get letters from your committee? Those are the prime candidates... especially if you are somewhat introverted!

@paulgarrett the thinking that a hiring committee would be swayed by a prestigious recommendor.  In hindsight, this question was very naive.

This question seems to be incorrectly premised; this is particularly evident in the following sentence:

I'm realizing that one of the things I'm missing is a strong recommendation from a senior academic that isn't on my committee or a professor I've taken courses from.

Why do you feel that is missing? A good reference is one that assesses your suitability for the post you're applying for. As such, it will need to be written by someone with knowledge of (most of) the following:

Candidate's technical skills/expertise
Candidate's professional experience and achievements

Able to verify key claims the candidate has made on their cover letter/CV about what they did in the relevant role

Candidate's transferable skills (communication skills, teamwork etc)
Candidate's general work ethic and behaviour
Able to verify any extenuating circumstances that may affect the candidate's application (if relevant)

This means that the best formal references are from people the candidate has worked closely and consistently with over an extended period of time, and generally from those in supervisory roles. Your committee are precisely the people best placed to provide act as your referees. In terms of other good referees, if you've been, say, particularly involved with the teaching of a particular course, the lecturer you worked under may also be a suitable referee. Again, it's a similar sort of supervisory relationship, where they'll be able to make judgements of interest to a potential employer.
While it is sometimes the case in academia that referees with a looser connection are used (e.g. viva examiners), particularly to testify to the candidates academic knowledge, I'm not aware that this is hugely common. Most potential employers would expect to see references from supervisors; if those are absent, it's a huge red flag.
The real benefits you want to unlock from wider collaboration stem from the networking opportunities (although your primary purpose in seeking the collaboration should always be the overlap in research interests and potential for a strong shared project). Perhaps they'll be impressed enough to employ you, or they'll point you in the direction of open positions that they know of. They may well be willing to provide you with introductions to other PIs, that might grease the wheels of a job application.

Thanks for the response.  In hindsight, this question was very naive - at the early career stage, I should be focusing on building collaborations and a base of effective research, not worrying about who I know.  I was assuming (out of paranoia) that my job applications would be thrown out because I didn't have a letter from XYZ Nobel laureate/Fields medalist/etc.


text:
Should I include high school details in Grad School Resume?
I was wondering if I should include my high school details in the resume of my graduate school application ? It's unclear about this bit since we are not actually submitting any proof of high school records during grad school application( they only ask for undergraduate details).
But my high school final examination details are particularly good (better than my undergraduate credentials infact!)

I don't know where you live, but probably comparing one high school with another is like comparing apples with oranges. Who reads your resume will probably not know about the quality of that high school, it will mean nothing to them, therefore, unless there is some normalized thing that is equal for everybody (a test, exam, whatever) I'd say no.

@Trylks I thought so too. Thanks for confirming.

I still list the name of my high school (and location and dates attended) on most versions of my CV. I feel like it potentially tells people a little bit about who I am.

I had differential equations, abstract algebra and introduction to topology on my high school transcript. I am kinda proud of As in these... although I have to admit I got a B in stereometry.

what if I won the 3rd, 6th, and 10th place of mathematics and physics national contests?

I have to disagree slightly with the stark "No" answers.
Only when those details provide evidence of your potential for research.
Some information about your high-school experience may shed light on your research potential.  Certainly you would want to mention winning the Intel Science Talent Search or the International Olympiad in Informatics, or describe the peer-reviewed research papers you published as a high school student.
But your high school grades?  No, leave them off.

Thanks! That more or less summed up the rest of the answers too.

I agree to the exceptions - prestigious awards and research papers. I'd like to ask some question for the applicants. Should they list the awards under 'Awards' category or high school? If the applicant has published peer-review papers while in high school, should he list them under 'Papers' category or high school?

@JeffE That's an interesting question scaaahu raised. I have another related question. Instead of putting my research stuff I did at high school in my CV,  wouldn't it look better in a research statement or Statement of Purpose. Otherwise, wouldn't specifying it under awards in CV confuse the AdComs as there is no mention of my high school credential here?

@scaaahu I'm not sure what "listing the awards under high school" would mean.  If you have an Awards section, that's obviously where you should list your awards; who should indicate their date, which will make it clear that they are from when you were in high school.  Similarly, all your peer-reviewed papers should be listed together; the date will make things clear.

Academia, like sports and show business, is really a "what have you done lately?" business. You're only as good as your last show, season, year of school. Listen to all the advice given by the responders. Above all, don't do anything that establishes a negative trend line (as Scaachu) has warned.

the comments are great. Can you answer those, @JeffE?

@Ooker — As Ben Webster says, all awards should be listed under "Awards", and all publications should be listed under "Publications".  Nobody will be confused, but if you want to be sure, you could list your high school under "Education".  I disagree with Chris Leary: Your CV is supposed to be a complete list of your academic accomplishments, not just what you've done lately.

No
You already explain why: they only ask for undergraduate details. The graduate school admission committees already have too many applications to look at. Don’t over-load them
Your idea is actually counter-productive. If your high school record is better than your undergrad credentials, they would wonder why your academic achievement is regressing instead of progressing.

I would think if someone was valedictorian of a large high school class, that would give good insight into the type of person they are.

@James I wouldn't recommend it.  Probably not a big deal either way, but I don't think committees will see the skills of being valedictorian as having much to with success as a grad student.  Besides, if your work at university is of comparable quality that will be sufficient on its own, and if it isn't then knowing you were a success in high school will not help much.

No.
It's actually a bad idea to include documents which are not actually required. Some universities even specifically mention not to send documents which are not required.
And also as @scaahu explained, it will give an negative impact as you did poorly in undergraduate compared to high school.

Ordinarily the answer is no, because it is no longer relevant to your aptitude for college, let alone graduate studies.
But if you won some national (or even local) science fair award for research in your current (or a related field), that would be relevant.

I won't do that.
it is a waste of time. for a master's degree and pHD, I would use only my university achievement.
Completing graduate studies gives an employer a positive signal.
However, social conditions (different in each country) may oblige you to write your previous education.

I think that someone should include an accomplishment such as "valedictorian" on a resume, if nothing else from high school.  I would especially do this if the high school was quite large.  I was the valedictorian at a large high school and I put it on my resume even though I have completed graduate school.  I have received negative feedback from a few people about it, but when I looked up their backgrounds, they didn't have any accomplishments even similar to those that I have at all... I mean, these people didn't even have a 3.0 GPA in college.  Therefore, I chalked the "stark NO" responses to jealousy.  People with similar accomplishments to mine seem to have no problem with me putting that one accomplishment from high school on my resume.

If someone put on their professional resume that they received gold stars during art time in kindergarten, other people telling them not to include it on their resume are not doing so out of jealousy, no matter whether you can find evidence of similar accomplishments.


text:
Which recommender should I go for getting a LOR for graduate school admission?
Before I state my query, you should know two things about me:

I'm an EE graduate
I'm working in field of VLSI for past one year.

I'm applying for Masters in VLSI for fall-2014 and I'm in a dilemma here.
I've approached my head of department and a lecturer from my department for getting  letter of recommendation. I only need one though. These are the reasons as to why I'm conflicted in deciding between the two.

My head of department has a PhD in VLSI while my lecturer is just a postgraduate.
My lecturer has guided me for my thesis project in my final year of my undergraduate course. My final year thesis project is NOT on VLSI.It is on power systems.
My lecturer has taken classes for me while my Head of department has not taken any class for me . So she doesn't have any benchmark to judge my academic capability. She knows me as a student body member who has organised technical events though.(Which is why she agreed to give me recommendation, that and the fact that I had a discussion with her on my current job responsibilities)
My other two recommenders are my technical manager from my workplace and a teacher who took Integrated circuits during undergrad level- (again not a PhD)

Whom should I choose? I am confused because My head of department has that PhD tag( none of my other recommenders are PhDs) . So I'm in doubt as to whether I should go for her credentials or take one from my senior lecturer( in which case none of my recommenders will have that PhD tag)

In general, if you are applying for a research degree, then you are better off getting letters of recommendation from people who can comment on your ability as a researcher. Even if the person is a well-known expert in the field, that won't do them a whole lot of good if they can't comment on your abilities in the field.
Your department head has neither observed your work in classes nor supervised research for you. How much detail she can provide on your capabilities is therefore greatly in doubt. You have taken classes and performed research with the lecturer. Therefore, your lecturer can evaluate you more thoroughly and provide evidence supporting those claims.
So, unless you have some additional absolutely compelling reason to obtain the letter from the department head, I would go with the instructor who actually knows your work.

One possibility is to get letters from both.  Some application web sites will not accept more than the standard number of letters, but others will, so you should check first.  It's considered obnoxious to assemble an unreasonably large number of letters, since it wastes the time of your recommenders.  However, one extra letter could be reasonable in your case.
Another is for them to write a joint letter.  I've seen this occasionally, with a graduate student and faculty member co-writing a letter of recommendation for an undergraduate (where the grad student knows more about the undergraduate's work, but the faculty member has more perspective and credibility).  You should treat this carefully, so you don't inadvertently offend the lecturer by suggesting that their recommendation is not valuable by itself.  However, it could be one way to handle a strict limitation of three letters.
If you have to choose one, I'd probably go with the lecturer, since the head of department has neither taught nor supervised you, so her letter is unlikely to be as informative as the lecturer's.  However, you would have to decide based on the specifics of your situation.
I'm assuming you can't replace either of the other two letters, since the course on integrated circuits is obviously relevant and I imagine your technical manager can say a lot about your background, experience, and abilities in VLSI (since that's what you are doing).

You nailed it.. I cannot replace two of my recommenders. And I'm  sure that neither my HOD nor my lecturer will take kindly to the "joint letter" idea.  But I'm still undecided between the other two. I hope your answer will help me sort it out.

Another is for them to write a joint letter. — This is a really bad idea, in my opinion.

@JeffE: How come?  It's certainly awkward, and not appropriate for most circumstances, but on occasion I think it can work OK.  Do you think it is always a bad idea, or specifically in this case?  (I've never seen it in any case that didn't involve a grad student.  I was envisioning a lecturer with a master's degree as being somewhat like a grad student in status, but maybe that's not a good analogy.)


text:
Are academic questions (used in textbooks etc.) owned by the publisher, or is anyone able to use them in their own content?
I am wondering whether mathematical and scientific questions (or any type of question to be honest) is considered to be owned by the publisher? For example, if I see a math question in a textbook, am I allowed to use that question on my website, or is that legally considered an infringement?

I'm referring to the questions of a homework exercise, textbook or exam paper.

The entirety of the book is owned by the copyright holder. Unless stated otherwise, questions inside the book are no exception.

Related: http://academia.stackexchange.com/q/1744/64

Jurisdiction is important here, as is the purpose and mode of use.

To write this in more detail, the text of the questions is clearly owned by the copyright holder. The ideas embodied in the questions are not protected by copyright. It's usually considered plagiarism to completely rephrase and rewrite a question without citing the original source, but plagiarism generally isn't illegal.
As noted in the downvoted answer, in some communities there is a broad acceptance of some kinds of copying when it comes to exercises, but I wouldn't want to endorse wholesale copying of homework exercises from one book to another. There are likely to be canonical problems that should be worked by every student in a particular discipline, and those would probably have the least claim to protection and the least interest in protection from the publisher. The more creativity going into the question, the more protection it has and the more enforcement you are likely to see.
Writing good exercises is challenging, but you should endeavor to do so for your website. You should cite to sources when you adapt an exercise from somewhere, and you should mention that an exercise is a classical example that all students should be able to do when you draw on something that Gauss or Euler proved as an exercise centuries ago.

Thank you very much Bill! That is the answer I was looking for

The first paragraph is perfect, spot on.  I'm less enthusiastic about the second paragraph.  I'm not convinced there is broad acceptance of copying of exercises without permission, and it makes me a little uncomfortable to read something that might be taken as a suggestion that this is considered acceptable behavior.  Even for canonical problems, I expect that most would take a dim view of unauthorized word-for-word copying of any non-trivial amount of text.  (Use the ideas in the canonical problem?  Sure, if you use your own phrasing.  Copy the text word for word?  I dunno.)

@D.W., the admonition is right there in the second clause of the first sentence of the second paragraph. Copyright is weird, and I wouldn't recommend word-for-word copying of anything that's legitimately in copyright, but lot's of old stuff isn't, so I try not to make absolute statements. An exercise copied directly, word-for-word from an 19th century text is almost certainly in the clear legally, for example. Much like computer code, there are probably only so many ways to express some canonical problems in English, so you might run out of ways to re-express some ancient exercises.

@D.W. Using excerpts of textbooks for teaching purposes is generally fine. (I know it's legal in Germany, as long as you don't publish the material in total or with access for anybody but your students.) I remember seeing some textbooks which explicitly state this. So taking exercises from these should be fine; credits would be grated but I don't recall any exercise sheet or exam having such (which hints towards accepted practice).

Like all other creative material in the text, the exercises belong to the copyright holder.
For some exercises, which have a fairly complicated statement (e.g., a word problem), this should be quite clear.  For simpler exercises, e.g., a simple set of integrals, the individual exercises (e.g., "Integrate x^2") may not be significant enough to be meaningfully covered by copyright, but the choice of what goes in the set for pedagogical purposes most certainly is.
For a simpler way to think about it: if you are finding it useful to use their exercises rather than generate your own, then that probably means there is enough creative work involved the construction to be covered by copyright.

I do not think that "all" exercises, or theorems, or proofs, "belong" to the copyright holder. The precise wording of more elaborate questions, yes. Archetypical questions about theorems due to Euler and Gauss and Noether do not belong to corporations. Perhaps a non-expert would have trouble knowing what is archetypical and what is not, of course...

I think that jakebeal wasn't referring to questions such as "1+1," or also not to showing common facts such as that the order of a group element divides the order of a group. There are extremely elaborate questions in some text books that are specific to the author. I don't know about legality in that case, but 1+1 is not a helpful example. @CharlesW

You seem to believe that creativity is the only decider. It's little different from a cookbook. The paragraph of text that describes a recipe can be copyrighted no matter how mundane. On the other hand the recipe itself, the actual information: what you add to what, what steps you are to follow, etc no matter how creative, no matter how unique is not copyrightable. The choice of what steps go in the recipe even if it's a training cookbook and the choice is for pedagogical reasons may be creative but that alone doesn't make it copyrightable.

Copying questions from textbooks etc. and pasting them with a little or no change in something (homework sheet, exam, etc.) without citation is technically illegal, as the questions of another person are still his creative property.
But, it is still a common practice (at least where I live) for professors to “steal” exercises from textbooks or previous exams (maybe with a tiny change) and use them for homework sheets or even exams. In both cases (especially in the homework case) giving a citation is impossible. This practice is considered acceptable here as homework sheets and etc. don’t really count as a creative material the professor claims as his own.

The expression of the question is intellectual property; the basic underlying problem cannot be protected under a copyright claim.