text:
Physics PhD Student -- Is a 7 year PhD going to hurt my career prospects in academia?
I'm a physics PhD student at a top-tier university in the US and am about to start my 4th year. The norm in my group is to finish your PhD in 6 years. However, I'm not sure if I can meet that target for my own PhD for the following reasons:

I carried over a large amount of residual burnout from undergrad, which resulted in a not-so-productive couple of years. I lacked motivation and discipline and really underperformed compared to those around me. I do feel much better now and feel much more motivated and disciplined, but I'm afraid I wasted the first half of my PhD. In hindsight, I would have taken a break between undergrad and my PhD, but it is what it is now.
My advisor is extremely hands-off and my research does not align with their area of expertise. So, it's taken me much longer to become acquainted with my field and understand what research directions I need to pursue. I do feel quite independent now, but the first 3 years have really been tough given the lack of guidance.
As a result of the two items above, I've only published one paper, which is honestly not even great and is something I'm not proud of.

I understand the PhD trajectory is not linear and most of the progress is usually made towards the end, but I'm really unsure if I can finish in 6 years given the circumstances above. I don't want to bring up the possibility of a 7 year trajectory with my advisor yet as I don't want to give a wrong impression, but I want to know if taking a year longer to finish my PhD will hurt my chances of finding good postdocs and, eventually, a tenure-track position?
Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

6 vs 7 - almost nobody will notice. 14 or 15 years? Folks may notice.

would be helpful to note what country you're doing the PhD in.

@realkevlar I'm in the US. Edited the post to include that.

Suppose you plan to work x more years.  Currently you are paid y per year and at the end of your career you will be paid z per year, adjusted for inflation.  If you spend an extra year earning y because you are a PhD student for an extra year, then it will hurt you z-y dollars.
No future employer cares how long your PhD takes.
In physics, most PhD students do not get a tenure track job at any point.  If they do, it is based on their performance as a postdoc - usually the PhD is already in the distant past.
Your PhD supervisor cares how long your PhD takes because they want to have a reputation for rapid degree completion.

It is common enough and has many possible reasons in the US, at least. In fact, both burnout and extremely ambitious research projects can explain such a length.
The important thing is what you accomplish, not how long it might take, for this and for later research.
Einstein took ten years to come up with Special Relativity, but it was worth the time and effort.
Your story sounds familiar to me. There are places, however, that do restrict the time you may spend in one way or another.

Also, the pandemic...

@paulgarrett, yes, of course, lots of other things. Family issues, Illness. I was lucky enough to be retired before COVID. I'd have had trouble with online classes and with continuing collaborations - very deaf.

No-one will care (or even notice)
Taking an extra year to complete your PhD (beyond the usual expectations for your peers) is such a small difference that no-one will care, or even notice.  Moreover, the fact that you have gone straight into your PhD program after your undergraduate degree means that you will probably still be relatively young when you graduate.  Selection panels for academic positions (or other professional positions) are primarily interested in your present level of skills and knowledge rather than how long these took you to acquire.


text:
Master Thesis within Data Science with restricted knowledge and time
We are two double-degree students within the fields of business and data science. Our goal was to write a master thesis within the department of business & management and change it accordingly so it would be accepted at the department of data science. However, we have realized that it is not possible and that we probably will have to write an additional thesis specifically within the field of data science. As both I and my colleague have accepted job offerings after the summer we would like to complete this thesis during the summer which implies several limitations. Secondly, it should be noted, that we dont know what subject area we could write about. Thereby I would like to leverage the help from this community to provide us with some guidance regarding what I and my colleague could write a thesis about. Out limitations are as follows:

Time: In total, we can work on the thesis for 3 months 40-50h/w

Skillset: As grad students within the field of business & management we are well versed in reading and writing reports.

Knowledge: Basic knowledge within the field of AI. We are well aware of the basic learning algorithms for NLP, image recognition, large-scale data, and recommendation systems. We have worked with neural networks, but have quite a basic understanding of deep neural networks and their associated architecture.

Supervisors: As this will be performed during the summer, the availability of a supervisor will most likely be limited to some extent.

Content: The requirement from the department is that the thesis has to be "within the field of data science", but not more specific than that.

Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to gracefully leave a lab due to poor infrastructure and aiming to move into a new field of research?
I am an early career postdoc in a prestigious high-ranking university in US. I did my PhD in from a good state university in US and published a decent number of papers. My current PI has no expertise in my field but wanted to delve into a completely different area and hired me to start a brand-new project. I have obtained some preliminary data that can be used in grant application but nothing publication worthy. I believe I could have obtained better results if I were working in a more suited environment.
I joined this lab just before the pandemic and had to go for a long hiatus. Due to covid related restrictions, I was only able to start working regularly from November. During this 5 months, I have realized that the infrastructure of this lab is very poor which is surprising because the lab is well funded and have good number of postdocs and students. We do not have basic supplies like ethanol, bleach, chemicals like glucose, Tris etc. We do not have enough pipettes for everyone, tube holders, even no boxes in -20 or -80 to store samples. All of us keep our samples (eppendorfs) in 50ml tubes. The grad students share pipettes. We do not even have centrifuges.
We share the lab space with two other labs, and it is a normal custom that we always ask chemicals or using their instruments on a regular basis (bacterial shakers, centrifuges just to name a few). These instruments are not shared, it is their lab property. They are generous enough to share things with us, but you can sense that they are not happy. I feel that my PI is just using them to survive. I understand that I can always order chemicals, but I cannot ask him to improve the infrastructures suddenly. In addition, the lab environment is weird, there is no communication between lab members. The lab is super quiet, and nobody talks with each other except when they need something.
In my PhD, I never had to worry about infrastructure, and had all the necessary instruments required in a regular lab. After my PhD, I was super excited to start my postdoc and working on this challenging project, but I am appalled to see the lack of infrastructure in my current lab and want to leave this lab asap. Moreover, during this pandemic, my research interest has changed. I want to diversify my experimental biology background and move into virology. I am frustrated and worried about my career progression and feel I cannot achieve anything from this lab. I love this project, but I can not work in this environment and start working on my area of interest.
My plan is to find a better lab to do another postdoc in virology, but I am worried that if I cannot publish from this postdoctoral stint, people are not going to hire me. I feel I have already wasted one year in this lab and without a publication, finding a decent postdoc will be tough. My contract ends in next February, and if I want to leave early that might result in a strained professional relationship. I also need reference letter from him for my next postdoc application. Is it possible to leave the lab without burning bridges? How can I tell him that I want to move to a different direction of research and leave as soon as possible?

Is there no money or just no supplies? Sharing some things among labs is normal, mooching consumables is not. Combining both issues in one post makes it pretty unclear where this lab actually stands, who is at fault, and what can be done about it.

The lab is well funded and have good number of people. It is just that the lab has always functioned in this way. You can order the reagents you need. It just baffles me that a functional lab will not have basic  chemicals or a centrifuge or bacterial shaker. I guess my PI doesn’t really care as long as you are producing results. At the end of the day if you are providing him with data that can get more funding and papers, he is happy. My problem is I come from a decent sized lab where everything was organized and had exceptional infrastructure. May be I am expecting too much.

As someone working in the lab, isn't it your job to order those things? Yeah I suppose in some labs there are lab managers that do the ordering; for me, a lab manager does about 75% of it, but it's 100% on everyone else to at least tell them what to order and when some things are running low. Not necessarily saying you should stay there, just a bit confused about this being your specific complaint.

As I mentioned, I can always order the reagents as needed. There is no lab manager system. Big instruments are generally ordered by the PI. That’s why I can not order a centrifuge, or a bacterial shaker or enough pipettes. Isn’t it a professor’s responsibility to make sure that there are enough pipettes for everyone before hiring new trainees? Or buying a table top centrifuge? Using instruments from other labs, borrowing chemicals can not be a long term solution and I am unhappy about it. Yes, I have politely asked him to improve some of the infrastructures, and it never happened.

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


text:
How to organize lots of assumptions/equations in a math paper? (I need to refer to them in my main theorem)
I'm writing a paper. It has a lot of lemmas that are used to prove a theorem. I put those lemmas first and then my put theorem at the end.
In the lemmas, I introduce assumptions (they're displayed equations that I label so I can recall them later) that are needed to prove the lemma.
Then at the end of the paper, when I get to my theorem, I say "Let equations (1), (5), (21), (24) and (45) be true. Then this wonderful result is true: blah blah blah".
Now a referee for my paper said that it's not nice to do this because he/she has to go back to find (1) and then (5) and then (21) etc.
What's a good practice or the best practice for this? I could collect all of the assumptions right at the start and then refer to them separately later in the lemmas, which doesn't look nice, but then the theorem would look nice because I could say "Let equations (1)-(5) be true..." Another reason against doing this is that the assumptions are different in nature so it doesn't seem natural to put them together, especially if there are like 10 of them.
Does anyone have any advice or examples?

"In the proof of this theorem, we use equations 1 (see page 2), 4 (page 8), and 45 (page 12)".

Our main theorem requires the following assumptions:

A1:
A2:
...

(and here comments about what they mean and are they necessary etc. if such comments are appropriate.

In the main theorem itself: If the assumptions A1-A5 hold, we have results.
(Please have the main theorem in the introduction so that it can be quickly found when scanning the paper, if this is at all feasible.)

In the lemmata:
Suppose A4 and let us define some entities. Then we have a result.

The benefits

All the assumptions are written in one place. This makes it easy for someone using your result as a black box or just wanting to see if it can be used as such, and makes it much easier to compare assumptions of different results. A reader knows where to find all the assumptions.
The main theorem follows the assumptions. No or little page-flipping required.
You have an obvious place for discussing if a given assumption is actually required, good or inconvenient for modelling or computational purposes, sharp, could maybe be avoided, has a restatement, has or has not been used before, etc.

However, this might not always be possible. Maybe one of the assumptions is very technical or requires notation developed later in the paper. You can still have it in the introduction or together with the other assumptions, but as a reference:
A4 is a technical assumption that we state at the beginning of section 3.

Possibly you could lessen the problem by also mentioning this in your introductory paragraphs, such as saying something along the lines of "Our main result, Theorem 6, will follow from (1), (5), (21), (24), and (45)." If the following applies, even better would be "... and (45), which have independent interest" (or "which are of", or "which we believe have", etc.).

On one hand, if you can explain all the assumptions fairly directly, you might do so at the outset, and state the theorem there, too.
On another hand, if explanation of the equations and assumptions is very complicated, you might "recall" all those equations just before the statement and proof of your theorem, "for the convenience of the reader".
I do also generally like catch-phrases naming assumptions, both because they're at worst far more meaningful and explanatory than artifactual equation numbers, and therefore more memorable.

If there aren't too many of them, you might consider naming the assumptions, rather than just numbering them. If the names reveal the intention of the assumption it might read better. It might also lead to better insights overall.
Even if you could only name the majority of them then the paper might read better. Some assumptions have common names, such as the Axiom of Choice, of course, which is sometimes specifically mentioned.

I thought about this but I think it would be worse. The assumptions are technical so I can't give them nice names like "axiom of choice". Then I'd be in the situation where someone would say "Assumption (H1)? Where the hell is that defined?"

It could be that the editor will accept the paper as is, of course. I don't actually find your original description of the paper so bad. OTOH, names that reveal the intention are very helpful both to the writer and the reader. Insight, again. But, no, "Assumption (H1)" is definitely worse.


text:
Is it necessary to apply spaced repetition when reading research papers?
I'm an undergraduate who is going to be a Ph.D candidate this fall. After reading papers extensively for writing the literature review, I realize details in some papers, though I totally understand them at the moment I read them, are almost forgotten when I try to cite these papers.
I wonder what's your habit to keep track of the papers you've read (for long-term retrieval).

If you want to remember something long term, spaced repetition is a good way to remember it.
I interact with hundreds of papers per year.  Trying to remember them all is futile.  You should prioritize.

There are various methods to keep track of your readings; a spaced repetition is not necessarily indispensable.
My preferred approach is: to annotate, to collect excerpts, and to tag these excerpts so that one can find them again when one searches by keywords.
Citation managers such as Zotero offer these functions.
I personally use a digital 'Zettelkasten' (TiddlyWiki) for this purpose.
Both Zotero and TiddlyWiki are open-source and free.

Statements that are not excessively technical can be written in the appropriate Wikipedia article, while citing the article as a source. To some extent, Wikipedia can thus be used as a shared guide to the literature.
Of course, you need another solution for the technical details and personal annotations: see the other answers.


text:
Should I take a summer class at my university or a community college?
I am an economics major in my second year looking to pursue a master's in statistics after graduation. This semester I am taking calculus 2 and will be taking calculus 3 this coming summer. I am weighing the pros and cons of taking the class at a community college in my hometown. Obviously the class will be more rigorous at my university, but it would be far cheaper to take the class at a CC. Would taking the class at CC have an effect on applying to master's programs?

One thing to consider is that Calculus III at a community college is possibly the most advanced math class that they offer.  At a University, it's still pretty much introductory calculus.  You may end up with a better teacher because of that.

I am assuming this is the USA.
Before you take a course away from the university where you are enrolled, find out if the course credit will transfer.  Probably a minimum grade is required for transfer.  Courses that do not transfer will not help you complete your degree.  Rules vary.
Also, beware that courses can fill up.

Obviously the class will be more rigorous at my university

Well, maybe.  This would vary a lot.  The individual teaching it matters more than the institution.
Summer courses are often taught by different faculty from regular-semester courses.  This is true at both elite universities and community colleges.  Either way you are probably getting a surprise.

but it would be far cheaper to take the class at a CC.

This should be a very important consideration.

Would taking the class at CC have an effect on applying to master's programs?

No, but you will have to order a second transcript, which will be inconvenient.  It might have an effect if you took an advanced class from a community college.  That would cause confusion because community colleges normally have not got advanced classes.

"No, but you will have to order a second transcript [when applying for a masters]" In my experience this has not been the case.  I switched universities for my graduate degree, I did not have to send my community college transcripts to do so, I dual enrolled in highschool, and took classes at a community college in my undergrad.  I only needed to send my undergraduate institutions official transcripts.

Actually, some community colleges do a fine job with courses at that level, since it is their reason for existence and the faculty is more focused on teaching. It isn't obvious that a university course would be better, especially if it has a lot of students in one class or is more "online"/remote. A class with 25 is probably better than one with 125, for example, when it comes time to ask questions and get help.
But taking it at the U will have the advantage that you will have only one transcript to deal with and there won't be any issues about the equivalence of the classes, as sometimes happens. That effect would be short term, however, if it exists at all

First step: ask your major advisor. When you consult them, be prepared to compare the syllabi for topics covered.
Further thoughts:
For a Master's degree in statistics you will need the best math you can master. Lots of linear algebra will be even more important than more calculus.
Since you are only in your second year, you will be able to take more advanced mathematics at the university along with your economics. That means a summer class at a community college after your second year won't weigh heavily in your application. But if this Calculus 3 class is the last math in your major I would recommend taking it at the university.

Hmmm. don't underestimate the importance of calculus, and analysis generally, for an understanding of statistics. Not everything is discrete.

The university's advisor is probably not allowed to tell students they should take courses somewhere else.

@AnonymousPhysicist When I was advising students who asked this question I sometimes agreed that taking an  equivalent course elsewhere for a good reason was OK. I always saw myself as working for the student, not the university.


text:
Preparing for undergraduate research but feeling unprepared
I'm trying to prepare for undergraduate research by reading papers that are similar to what I will be working on, but I am having trouble understanding much of what I am reading. I have taken one econometrics course and next semester will be aiding a professor in a project applying econometrics. I want to be more well versed in the subject so I can be of bigger help but the papers I'm reading I really don't understand. Some of them I understand partly and others not at all, does this mean I'm unprepared or is this normal for undergraduate researchers? I haven't participated in research before this and I'm getting some feelings of imposter syndrome before I even begin.

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11765/how-to-effectively-deal-with-imposter-syndrome-and-feelings-of-inadequacy-ive

You are not supposed to be prepared for undergraduate research.  The purpose of participating is to help you become prepared.  Allow a few years for it to work.

For an undergraduate there is nothing unusual about what you are experiencing. You are at the beginning of a long climb that you haven't attempted before. Things are likely to get easier in the doing of it and you will have the advice of the advisor to work with.
Relax and do your best when the time comes. Every new researcher starts out in the same place.


text:
How can I include an invitation to an Isaac Newton Institute program to my CV?
I would like to know how to include invitations to highly-regarded research programmes in a CV such as the ones being held in the Isaac Newton Institute. These invitations are commonly paid. That is, accommodation, travel and per diem funding is provided. During these programmes different workshops are held in the Institute and the idea is to connect with different people around the world that work on different disciplines and that solve an specific problem.
PS: I have gone to Cambridge and already participated of the programme.

You should put it in the part of your CV where it fits. Put it with your courses if it is like a course, put it with your workshop participation if it is a workshop.
I've seen some CVs contain a section for grants and awards, which perhaps this could fit into, but only make a new section on your CV if you have several items to put into it.

Actually, a section with a single item should be fine for something prestigious.

I have separate sections for peer reviewed conference participation versus invited participation. I wouldn't call travel and per deim 'paid', I don't consider it a real invitation without travel being paid. But I do have a category for industrial and governmental invited talks, and where those have a big honorarium I put "(paid)" after the talk title. I explain this immediately under the section header, that most of these talks are not paid unless otherwise indicated.
Since you are a new researcher, you might not want to have a separate category in your CV (yet), so instead say under the workshop participation header "peer reviewed unless otherwise indicated" and then next to this entry, maybe put in bold face invited.


text:
Importance of Internships and Research Experience for Admission to Master's or Ph.D. Programs in Pure Mathematics
I am a first-year undergraduate student majoring in mathematics and plan to pursue a master's degree in pure mathematics, with aspirations toward a career in academia. However, I am curious about the relative importance of internships or low-level research experience compared to academic achievements (good grades) when it comes to graduate applications. Are such experiences considered more significant than a strong transcript and recommendation letters? Additionally, I would appreciate any advice on undergraduate research opportunities. For instance, is it advisable to approach professors in the Mathematics department to offer assistance with their projects, especially during the summer? Also, would involvement in a project outside of mathematics be considered relevant?
Edit: I should mention that I am attending a university in Europe

Few undergraduates in mathematics have the opportunity or the time to do serious research. This is especially true in the US. Any contact with it is valuable both personally and in application. The two difficult issues for undergraduates are the nature of the program itself (in the US) which seldom reaches the research frontier in any field as well as the time constraint of the typical program.
And many students in the US go on to doctoral programs from small liberal arts colleges where there are few opportunities for research in any case as the faculty is more focused on teaching. So, beginning graduate, even doctoral, study with no research experience is common, perhaps the standard.
But any contact with mathematical research will be considered a plus though it would be in addition to the rest, such as decent grades in important courses and good letters of recommendation.
I suggest that if you have the opportunity, then take it, but don't sacrifice other important things to do so. Yes, summers are good. But "assisting a professor in their research" would be IMO a very rare sort of thing in pure math. The courses you take are (rare exceptions) not at a level that would enable it.
But even something small and simple might give insights into the mathematical way of thinking that will pay you back later.
The situation isn't quite the same in applied math. And the answer is quite US focused. It might be different in, say, Germany where an undergraduate program is more focused.

Thank you. (I forgot to mention that I study in Europe). I personally like to use holidays to read up and prepare course material that I will take in the following semester. However, if I get an opportunity to do some research, I shall use it.


text:
How to reject a postdoc offer from ex-co-author?
I have been on the postdoc treadmill for 5 years now. My current employer has been clear from the start that unless I meet certain metrics with publications, I would not be able to stay past my current contract, which expires this year.
An ex-co-author of mine, who works at another institution, recently won a grant for a five year research project that is right on my field of expertise. She has struggled to recruit a candidate that meets the job requirements and on the second round of advertisement for a postdoc position, she encouraged me to apply for the job. My current employer strongly supported my application for this position. When I received an offer to join as a postdoc on the 5 year project of my colleague, my current employer made a surprise offer, for a 5 year contract extension and with an immediate 24% salary increase (despite still not meeting the publication requirements mentioned by my employer).
I have known my co-author for ten years. She was my undergraduate and graduate teacher and advised me heavily during my PhD. We have worked together in other research projects. I brought up the surprise offer from my current employer and she said that I should pick the offer that is best for my career and family. However, she also said that if she failed to hire a postdoc, that she would run into problems with the organization funding the project.
I am torn. I dont know how to tell my colleague that I will be declining the postdoc offer. I dont even know if I should decline it. The project I am currently working on is great and I have a good relationship with my research team. The PI is relatively younger and less well known than my colleague offering me a postdoc. The project that my colleague will be working on is also right on my field of expertise. So both projects are interesting, last about the same time but have a very large difference in terms of salary. The postdoc at my colleague's institution would also require me to move to another state.
What should I do? Do you have any advice?

Your current employer sounds, well, flakey at best. And in your field how are 10-year postdocs looked upon? Can you get one or the other to be upgraded to a (soft money) research position? What is your desired permanent job, and will this arrangement actually help?

My current employer is indeed flakey. We get along well, but it is not the first time that they come out with surprises like this. I would have not applied to the other postdoc if I had a guarantee of extending my contract. In my field, 5 year postdocs are already quite common. 10 years in postdoc does not look good in my field, but the peculiarity of the projects I have worked on mitigate this. My desired job is a tenure track position, which is a posibility at my current job if I meet some publication metrics.

In any of the cases, remember that a postdoc is a job, its not like a PhD. You can leave it before the 5 year mark, anytime, if you get a better position or offer. You are not bound to the end of any contract.

Side note: What is an ex-co-author?

@leonos I would still call such a person a co-author.

It's your life and your decision, and it also seems that you already made your choice with the title asking how to reject the offer, not if you should accept the offer or not. There's no subtle way to throw a grenade, so if that's your decision, just say that.
HOWEVER. If you have not yet made a decision, let me offer a suggestion. Your ex-co-author saying that you should choose the best for your career does not mean that the other option is better. Three reasons: (1) Your ex-co-author is an upfront person, told you about the opportunity and selected you without any BS. Your current employer only removed conditions and gave you an offer after they saw you had another offer. I prefer people who don't need to have their arms twisted to do the right thing. (2) Instead of using manipulating language, give you false promises, or guilt you into accepting, your ex-co-author asked you to do what's best for you. Your current employer is only offering more money, not showing any other concern for you. (3) You have known her for 10 years, and she needs you to keep her grant. She seems the type of person who will have your back when you need it, and by accepting her offer, you will have shown that you had her back when she needed you. Your current employer seems transactional.
I always prefer a bigger salary to a smaller salary, but an honest, straight-forward, known quantity is in my book, worth the 25% salary difference.

I'm a software engineer, and not academia -- In my field it's a common knowledge that it's never a good idea to accept a counter-offer after you have resigned.

@GrannyAching / that's interesting.  Could you elaborate on why?

@Diagon The prevailing wisdom is often stated as, "they know you're looking to leave so will show you no loyalty in the future" or "it shouldn't have taken you leaving to get a basic offer that matches your worth". Ultimata rarely enhance a relationship or its trust

This is excellent advice. It's something I consider a lot in my career. Ultimately, you can't buy friends, a good working environment or a good relationship with your employer. Some intangibles are worth more than money and should be considered.

@ConnieMnemonic It also bears from my experience. The best career move I've made in my life involved taking a 25% pay cut to move to a position with a good working environment.

Fully agree with @GrannyAching, never accept an counter-offer. Will only be suffering for you. Like, more teaching load.

@Diagon imagine your girlfriend/boyfriend tells you they are leaving you for someone who will take them to the movies once a week.
You say: "Please, stay with me. I'll take you to the movies twice a week!"
If they take your counteroffer, will the relationship last?
I'd wonder - why didn't you take them to the movies before that ultimatum? You probably had a reason. You'll probably resent them in the future.

To be clear, I do have a good relationship with my current employer. I do not like how things have been handled on their side, but overall we have had a productive and cordial relationship. Thank you for the advice though, it puts things in perspective.

I would take my ex-coauthor’s offer with closed eyes and absolutely no second thought. For me, it would never be money. As mentioned in this excellent answer. @JChase1990

She has already indicated that it is your choice and you should choose to your own benefit. She has other options for a postdoc and it is her responsibility, not yours, to fill the slot.
Just say that your other offer is better and that you will accept it. She may be disappointed, but it would be no reason to cut you off for future contact/collaboration.
Some things just need to be said. Better in person if you can manage it and don't make it sound like you are fishing for a better offer, though that is a possibility, perhaps. Talk to her before you finalize anything.

More salary is usually an excellent reason to accept a job, or leave on job for another, etc.  It sounds materialistic, but it is well accepted, at least in the U.S.

she said that I should pick the offer that is best for my career and family

This advice is as good as any other you'll get. There is more to "career" than just salary, of course, but you shouldn't ignore it, either.
Do consider that you'll need a new job in 5 years that may or may not be in academia. But, there's no real way for an outsider to make the decision for you: you'll have to weigh all aspects of the decision and make a choice based on your own values.

A post doc is a financial transaction: your time for their money. Treat it as such.
No one is doing anyone a favor here. Pick the best salary/most advantageous position for YOU. The rest is the problem of the PI. I am sure that if they really needed someone, they will offer more money and find it.

I agree with the sentiment that this is a transaction of time for money. But it's not as simple as just salary. A postdoc offer in NYC has to be at least double the salary than anywhere in Maine to be comparable. And "pick the most advantageous" also includes having a good working environment. How much that's worth is different for every person, but it's worth something, and that needs to be entered into the calculation. For you, it might be $1, for me it's worth a few thousand.

Yes. But the point is that this is a job. There is no "loyalty" involved. In fact, being "loyal" will only hort you on the long run. In this profession or any other.

A post-doc is not a way of life.  A string of 5-yr postdocs is not a career.  If this were your last post-doc, which would you choose?  I would look at it that way.
The post-doc is a low-paying holding pattern for people reluctant to leave academia but not successful enough to get a faculty position.  Consider this to be your last post-doc.  Then which one would you take?  Even if it's not your last post-doc, two 5-year post-docs is no way to live, and it probably SHOULD be your last post-doc.
Academia is a pyramid scheme.  Some people finish their PhDs in an area that suddenly becomes stone-cold.  Some people finish their PhDs during a recession when big lights in the field are clamoring to go back to academic positions.  Just because your timing was not good, is not necessarily your fault.  I finished my PhD and got an immediate faculty offer at a highly rated school, but it was the lowest paying institution in north america (relative to the cost of living).  I stayed as a faculty member for only 2 years.
That light at the end of the tunnel - even if it appears - may be exceedingly dim.  Life is that way.  Not every dream comes true.


text:
Expressing Interest for Waitlists on more than 1 program (Ph.D Admissions in STEM)
This is for Ph.D admissions in STEM area.
I was put on the waitlist for >5 schools where I have applied to, some of which have emailed me asking if I am still interested for consideration of their "second round of offers."
The dilemma is, what if I expressed interest to (say) >3 schools that I am still interested, but at the end I ended up with >1 offer from them? Doesn't that make me a liar since I have to (due to pigeonhole's) decline at least 1 offer?
Don't get me wrong. I'm more than willing to attend any of the schools where I'm currently on the waitlist, I'm just worried it will put me in an awkward position.
Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks.
(posting anonymously, since some of the contributors here are graduate directors of programs I applied to)

They are using this question to find out if you have already accepted another offer.
If you say you are interested, what you would be implying is that if this is the only additional offer you get, you would seriously consider attending. There is nothing wrong with being interested in more than one program.

Thanks for the advice!

what if I expressed interest to (say) >3 schools that I am still interested, but at the end I ended up with >1 offer from them? Doesn't that make me a liar

No it does not.  Say you are interested if that is true.  If you are so lucky as to get multiple offers, accept one and politely decline the others.

Thanks for your advice! I feel better now.


text:
If a person stops contributing to a project do they deserve authorship?
I'm involved in a long collaborative software development project. The project required continuous effort because the goal is very ambitious and the project started from scratch.
However, some early collaborators contributed to the projects very little, one was an undergraduate who didn't have the skills to contribute significantly to the project and the other was a post-doc who caused more harm before ultimately leaving the group.
My question is do these early collaborators deserve authorship on any publication that may arise from this project? If no, at what point would someones contribution constitute authorship?
Here are some thoughts:
Pro: They did technically contribute to an early prototype, and I wouldn't want to be left out of a paper that I contributed to, but couldn't ultimately see the end of because of other circumstances.
Con: The project has substantially changed since they contributed to the point and it's debatable it's even the same project anymore, as practically all the software has changed. More importantly to me, it dilutes the effort of the authors who contributed significantly more, and this can be discouraging.

Personally, I would offer authorship to anyone who contributed. (They may choose to decline.) In my field, mathematics, the general assumption is that every author contributes equally to a project but naturally this is not completely true in practice, and possibly someone or the other is ‘coasting’. But over time this sort of thing should even out.

Especially in the case of the undergraduate you should consider naming him/her in the acknowledgements instead of listing him/her as an author. This is quite common in my peer-group, as the undergrads commonly only did "part of the dirty work" without contributing significantly to the manuscript. In my opinion, this is an elegant solution which leaves everyone satisfied.

That's always an awkward situation. The bar to "deserve" authorship is generally considered to be pretty low: If you intellectually contributed to the project, you should be a co-author. At the same time, people generally have the expectations that all co-authors continue to contribute to the paper in some form or other till the end, for example through the writing and proof-reading process.
So if someone helped develop an algorithm or worked on produce the data for the paper, they probably should be a co-author. But it is not unheard of to write an email to them and say

As an author, there is also an expectation that you continue to work with us on writing the paper; I recognize that you have moved on in your career, and if you feel like you don't want to be on the paper because you don't have the time to work on it, that's ok with us as well."

That's an awkward email to write, but sometimes it's necessary to either get a person to contribute more, or remove themselves from the paper.

Thanks I would upvote but I don't enough reputation yet

What if a person materially helps in experiments that suggest something interesting, but has no expertise with regard to subsequent experiments which are done to explore that.  Is it possible for someone to be a co-author for parts of a paper, but disclaim any association with other parts?

@supercat No. Authorship is for the whole paper. You cannot be an author for only part of it. It is, however, not uncommon to write a sequence of papers on different aspects of a problem, and the authors for parts 1, 2, ... being different.

@WolfgangBangerth: If a co-author worked with the main author of a paper in doing experiments, data collection, and analysis, but then reached conclusions that contradict those of the main author, what options would the co-author have if the main author doesn't want to be contradicted in his own paper?  Could the co-author insist that the paper be split?

@supercat Nobody can force a co-author to do anything. If you can't convince a co-author, you're out of options. Your only choice at that time is to say that you can't be an author on the paper.


text:
Plagiarism in undergraduate thesis
A friend recently confessed to me that she plagiarised a part of her thesis which was submitted to graduate with honors from her undergraduate university. She graduated a few years ago. Her thesis was in biology, and the part of the thesis in question is the materials and methods section. She told me that her group had used the same non-human primate model for many projects, so she decided to use the same wording that her group had used previously. She says that is was classic copy/paste plagiarism, but she thought is was okay since it was "just methods which are the same in every project." Her thesis was about 50 pages, and about three pages were plagiarized. The rest of the thesis is her own work (introduction, results, discussion, etc.). While any plagiarism is bad, is this cause for worry? I want to reassure her since methods seem, at least to me, to be so routine. Also, her thesis was not published. What advice should I give her? Do I have a responsibility to "turn her in"?

For some parts, the original source was cited, but for others it was not. For example, the text says that “x” method was first described in “y” paper, but then it is still verbatim what was in “y” paper. I think it was clearly not best practice...

First, the use of the earlier material may have been plagiarism or not. If the methodology was "common knowledge" then it need not be cited.
Second, if sections were copied, verbatim, without citation, then it is still an error but one of copyright violation, not plagiarism. Copyright is about words (actually "creative expression"). Plagiarism is about ideas. Not the same thing. But both need to be avoided.
But, you don't really need to take any action unless you are somehow responsible for academic integrity at the institution. Even then, it may be too late to impose any penalty. Vigilanteism isn't called for. The responsibility for evaluating the thesis was with the university at the time and while they may have failed, it isn't your responsibility to raise a now-dead issue.
If you need to give her advice, talk about the dangers to her career from repeating such things in the future. But I think you can, with a clear conscience, let the past be the past. And be sure that you understand and communicate the difference between plagiarism (mis attribution of ideas, even if paraphrased) and copyright infringement.

Plagiarism isn't just about ideas. Submitting a piece of work like a thesis is an implicit declaration that the words were written by the author unless stated otherwise. (Sometimes this is even started explicitly as part of the thesis.). Copying and pasting is plagiarism because those words were not written by the author and thus violate the implicit or explicit declaration. Unless of course the section is a proper quote and highlighted as such.

@user2705196, copying and pasting with quotation and citation is allowable. It isn't the copying that makes it plagiarism. It is the lack of proper attribution. Whether copied or paraphrased, plagiarism is about the ideas, not the specific expression. I can plagiarize you while using exactly none of your words.

Yes, it's the missing attribution that's the problem. That's the case both for copying and pasting and paraphrasing.


text:
Can I find a PhD in Germany without external funding/scholarship?
The following question is asked by an international non-EU person:
Is it possible to apply for a PhD at a German university/institute without having an external funding/scholarship? In other words, can PhD students finance their own costs while doing their PhD in Germany? For example, you can finance your own master studies in Germany (by proving that you have enough yearly money in your bank account etc.).
It seems like there is no tuition fee to do a PhD at a public university/institute in Germany. However, I cannot find information on the internet that show PhD programs that can be applied for without a funding/scholarship. It is usually PhD programs that are funded and posted on job portals.
If it is possible to be our own sponsors while pursuing a PhD in Germany, what is the requirements and how can I find/apply for a PhD topic that I am interested in? I have applied for many funded/advertised positions and I find it very competitive and I have failed to be accepted so far. I want to try applying with my own funding this time.
Also, what are the odds of acceptance in this case (given that I have enough money to support my life during my studies)?

Do you want to enrol in a PhD or master’s programme? There are crucial differences between the two.

@Wrzlprmft PhD.

Keep in mind that PhDs in Germany are usually not "programs" (with a few rare exceptions). You work with an advisor on your thesis project from day 1. This often happens in the context of an employment - in STEM fields, most PhD students are employed, based on funds from the advisor.

It is perfectly possible to do an unfunded PhD in Germany. You basically only need a supervisor and a university department willing to accept you as a PhD student. Once you found a supervisor that is generally not a problem if you fullfill the general requirements (those will vary slightly from place to place). Those requirements include a (good enough) diploma/masters degree (in some cases bachelor will work, too), sometimes also proof of language proficiency.
If you are fine with doing a non-funded PhD, I would suggest directly contacting potential supervisors (while telling them that you are OK with non-funded positions, because they will know straight away that they don't have to find funding for you and are thus probably more inclined to take you on) with an idea of a potential topic. Some might be sceptical if you want to do it unfunded (as you are more likely to drop out), so you should have some kind of plan to present to them on how you will be supporting yourself.
I am not sure if there are visa issues if you don't have an income as a PhD student, but this can be inquired at the immigration office.
EDIT: here is a website in German with more info on doing a non-funded PhD in Germany.

Depending on the field of expertise, you don't need to have external fundings. Many PHD positions in germany are "normal" research positions which get paid correspondingly according to the "Tarifvertrag" TVöD E13. Again depending on the field, this position is often not a full positon in the contract, meaning you get e.g. 50% of the ascribed salary.
Also not all positions are always posted on jobsites, so you could still find a paid position by just cold-mailing institutes professors.
Also have a look at smaller universities, as for the big ones to have a much higher amount of competition per position.
Note that this is highly dependent on the field of expertise. I for example research in informatics, and having 100% paid positions is common. However from studying Physics I know that it is much harder getting even the 50% paid positions, which becomes worse for social sciences and arts.

It's possible to finance your own PhD, but a lot of supervisors will not prefer to take a student without funding. My PhD supervisor was very clear to me very early in my application process, that he would not take me as a student if I did not have a scholarship. He specifically said "we don't want your funding to come from your parents or from your personal savings, we want you to be on a scholarship". In many ways, I agree with their attitude towards the funding of my PhD. In fact in all my years of experience, I can only think of one student who was completely "self-funded", and he was sent home after 1 year because he did not pass his transfer viva (the presentation where the student explains their proposed research in front of a committee, in order to "transfer" from probationary PhD student to full-fledged PhD student). He was also one of only very few people I can think of (across many universities around the world), that did not pass their transfer viva.
Regarding this statement of yours:

"I have applied for many funded/advertised positions and I find it very competitive and I have failed to be accepted so far. I want to try applying with my own funding this time."

That is part of the reason (but not the only reason) why the most successful supervisors will be hesitant to take students that are not on a scholarship. If you are struggling to get into a PhD program, you might struggle even more to finish the program, which in your case means you're at risk of losing a lot of your own personal money and you could potentially fall years behind in your eventual career.
You might also be interested in some of the answers to: How to give advice when asked "Should I do a PhD program?"

In which country did this story (the self-funded PhD) happen?


text:
PhD interview with a very general topic (no specific topic mentioned in the job portal)
I have been invited to a PhD job interview at a German institute. In the job position description, there was not a specific topic mentioned. It was mainly general sentences about the research. Most general thing you would find in the application was something like this (this is slightly modified for the sake of confidentiality):
You will be analyzing our geological and biological data using advanced Machine Learning techniques in Python and blah-blah...
They had a few requirements and I was very well fit to the requirements. And I applied for the position because I am interested in using those techniques they mentioned, although they did not give any specific field area.
They ask me to prepare 15 minutes presentation talk about my master thesis and motivation about this specific PhD. As there was no anything special mentioned in the job post, do they expect me to come up with an idea and how and in which specific area I will be applying those techniques they require? In other words, do they want me to have a specific research question in my mind using those techniques? Honestly, I have no a specific idea what research question I want to takcle with for my PhD yet, as I am still a MSc student.
Also, I am a little surprised that they shortlisted me, as I am still a student and I mentioned in my application that I can only start when I finish my masters. Although they know this, they still want me to talk about my master thesis, which is still ongoing and I have only done 10% of it. Is it OK to give them a presentation explaining "I will be doing this and that" instead of "I have done this and that"  ?
As I am already less likely to get the position offered (due to ongoing MSc studies) compared to a similar candidate with a degree done, I want to increase my chances as much as possible.

It's very common to apply for the next degree while still working on the previous one, so don't worry about that aspect.


text:
Why am I not getting the result of a PhD interview after 2 months
This is a follow up question of my previous post.
In short: I had an interview for a PhD position almost 2 months ago. I only heard from them a month later and they said they have not made their final decision yet.
As I am still a master student, they asked when I will finish my degree and whether I can send them my thesis. I finally sent them my thesis a few weeks ago and asked whether they can tell me the final result. They said they will get back to me in a week. But there was no any update.
A week after that, I emailed them again and asked if the final decision is ready. They said they have not come to a conclusion yet, but I am one of their preferred candidates. They asked for an extra week, and after a week, unfortunately there is no response.
It's been about 2 months now that I have been waiting a response from them. I feel like I sent them the same email too many times asking whether they have made their final decision and every time I got a response that they have not.
Since it is a long time to decide, I have a feeling that they are in contact with the most preferred candidate and they are not telling me a decision because perhaps they want to make sure the other candidates are still in line in case the best candidate reject the offer. But this would mean that they are not telling me the truth, which I don't believe (and hope) is a common thing in academia.
What would be the reason that they cannot give me an answer? Why would 2 months not be enough to make a decision? And is it possible that they are not being honest with me (and have chosen their favorite candidate)? Should I just forget about this position?
It is very important for me to know the result because I have other things (which are affected by this) to do. But I also do not want to send them the same email over and over again.
P.S: There is not any underlying funding and other problems that could cause delays.

"I am one of their preferred candidates" is not the same as "I am the most preferred candidate". So they can say that your are one of the preferred candidates and start negotiating with their most preferred candidate without lying.

If they keep you hanging (rather than say "no"), they likely have not made up their mind yet. (I think if they know that they don't have a position for you, a "no" would be common courtesy). Nonetheless, you are most likely not the primary candidate, so better to look somewhere else.

What country? .

Either they have a more preferred candidate than you or they are uncertain about funding (despite what you say about it) and are still unsure whether the position actually exists.
In either case, it's fine to keep contact with them and find out what happens if you are interested in the spot, but you should not count on it.
You should be making other plans and pursuing other opportunities while you wait. You are not beholden to this position. They have not given you an offer which you have accepted, so you can take an offer anywhere else.
I don't think they are lying to you, but they haven't told you or signalled anything more positive than (paraphrasing) "it is possible but unlikely we will offer you a position". I see no reason to be more optimistic than this.
If you have other offers but are waiting for this one, you could tell them this and give a deadline. Maybe this will make them simply say "sorry, we can't offer you the position by then" but then you will know where you stand.


text:
Co-first author dilemma?
My PI wants to put me as co-first author, listed second, on a paper where I've done about 5-10% of the work. I didn't come up with any of the project, or do any of the writing or analysis, just helped make certain things the first author asked me to.
I believe the other student (first author) who did the majority of the work on the project isn't necessarily happy about this, but hasn't said anything to me about it personally. However, even if they did oppose it to my PI, the PI would probably just disregard what they say. PI is very senior here and has a lot of power.
I feel kind of bad about the situation. The paper will soon be submitted to a very high impact factor journal. Should I say anything to the PI about this, or just accept being placed as co-first author listed second?
Are there pros and cons to declining the co-author status if I feel I don't deserve it, vs accepting it and going along with my PI? Will me being listed as co-first author listed second, hurt the true first author in any way?

did the PI give any reason why you should be the co-first author?

Perhaps you are underestimating your own contribution.

Thanks for the quick replies! My PI said that it's the best case scenario for me and will help my career, and that it's the first listed author that matters most anyway.
I did think a lot about my contribution, and I honestly know that I did not contribute as much as the first author.

Will me being listed as co-first author listed second, hurt the true first author in any way?

It's unlikely that this will truly hurt the other first author in a direct way. At the end of the day, authorship, even first-authorship, is not a pie that gets smaller the more people share it.
That said, as you can see from the many, many questions around authorship and authorship order on this site, this is an emotional topic for many academics, and it's certainly possible that the first author feels like something has been "stolen" from him. If you want to ensure good future collaborations with this person I would make sure that they are truly on board with your author order, and not just going along with it because the famous professor said so (and if that's the case I would decline and just be a regular second author). Overall, I have found that being gracious about these things is a good long-term strategy.

Thanks, that makes sense. I'll have to talk with the first author somehow. We've never talked about it and I just felt like it could be awkward. When you say "unlikely that this will truly hurt" - could you talk about some ways, however unlikely, it could potentially affect them? Other than the possible emotional aspect you mention.
I guess my PI made it sound like, the co-first author thing won't affect the listed first author at all which is "the position that really matters", but will only serve to help the second listed author.

@AJ445 idk ... Maybe he applies somewhere where they have a "weighting scheme" for publication output that takes co-first-authors into account? I have never heard of something like this, but I have learned the hard way that academia is way too varied for anything to ever be truly certain.

"At the end of the day, authorship, even first-authorship, is not a pie that gets smaller the more people share it." I'm somewhat surprised by this, because I can't remember even a single paper where it was clear to me as reader that the second author is "co-first author", so I'm not sure this is visible, and if it's not (or only with difficulty) visible, any benefits from first authorship may indeed not be distributed equally among co-first authors but rather favour the author actually listed first. (It may depend on the field, region etc.)

@AJ445 "I guess my PI made it sound like, the co-first author thing won't affect the listed first author at all which is "the position that really matters"" - I'd think that it's likely the PI is right about this.


text:
What response is reasonable to expect of a school child in the event that they have seen an exam question prior to the exam?
It is in the news that a child was stripped of their exam result after it emerged that while reviewing for the exam, they had found the same question online.  It seems that they were not aware it was going to be on the exam, and that after encountering the question they had asked a teacher for help with it.  It appears the exam expected the pupil to alert them to the issue, and in the absence of this considered it cheating.
I am surprised by this.  It has been a long time since I was at school doing exams, but in pre-internet days I remember going through many past papers and frequently coming across questions that were functionally identical to ones I had tackled previously.  I would never have considered such an event noteworthy, let alone putting a reporting responsibility on me. I certainly cannot remember any instruction to do so.
What is reasonable to expect of a school child in a situation like this?  Are all exam questions unique enough that such reporting makes sense?  Is there a standard practice these days that is provided to children for these situations?  Is there something that I am missing that makes this make more sense?

Pre-university/college/higher education is not on-topic here.

Maybe, this question can be answered on "Stack Exchange Parenting".

I think that this would be considered on-topic if it were rephrased to be about how a university lecturer should handle encountering a similar situation with one of their students, however.


text:
I feel guilty about past behavior in my college
My relationships with professors is not exactly nice, like the following for example:

Nearly a year ago, I asked to collaborate on a project with a prof A over the summer. He suggested we meet after my final exams, which were about three weeks away. However, after finishing my exams, I didn't follow up with him, for reasons I regret. At the very least, I should have written back later on saying I'm turning down his opportunity, but I.. didn't.

I once got told I was better off skipping a prof B's classes because I unintentionally disturbed his class. I respect him a lot, so I apologized to him right away after that lecture. It's been almost two years since this happened, however, and I still have difficulty facing him.

Around 6 months ago, I once accepted and immediately rejected a credited project opportunity from a prof C, who was clearly very upset about it, but politely told me that what I did was very unprofessional. I apologized, of course, but I still feel terrible about it even now.

Recently, my attention span has been poor. I'm unable to focus on lectures for more than 5 minutes, and this leaves me feeling very guilty as I really respect my professors both as individuals and professionals, and not paying attention to them feels like I'm disrespecting them. When I tried bringing this issue up with my family (I trust them the most) they brushed it off saying I was finding excuses to slack off.

The concerned professors may or may not remember these, but I have a guilty conscience when I think of how terrible my behavior has been in the last 3 years I've spent in my college. As someone who was raised with self discipline all my life, the blow I take from losing my edge feels more painful. This is also affecting how I interact with professors in general (both normally and professionally) because if it's:

A professor I already know: I simply feel terrible about facing them again.
A professor I haven't met before: I'm scared of bringing a wrong impression about myself.

I want to make amends in the last 1-2 years I spend in my college simply because I want to correct my past mistakes and let the profs know I really respect them and I'm not an "irresponsible" student. I don't want to graduate with regrets.
Is there really a way to even slightly change what has happened? Or am I done for because their first impression of me has not been a very good one almost all the time?

This seems to be more of an Interpersonal SE question than an Academia one. Yes, the actions took place in academia, but are by no means limited to academia.

I wanted it to come off as a "fixing professional ties" kind of question, and to know the PoV of any professor who comes across a student like me. I could change the question to sound less emotional than it does right now if required, though.

Also I was concerned about how my profile (as it stands right now) might affect my relationships with the professionals in the future if I decide to take up academia.

A lot of this is communication skills and interpersonal relationship stuff. 1. Try not to push people away or flake on them due to whatever is going through your own head - assume they want to hear back from you and don't keep them waiting long. 2. Apologize and try to mend the situation to the best of your ability when something does go wrong (it sounds like you mostly do already). 3. If things can't be patched up, let it go. It doesn't serve you to carry it forever. Learn and move on. 4. This could be ADHD, although I haven't heard of it just cropping up after childhood. Look into it though.

"I feel guilty about past behavior in my college" -  we all do ... Get over it. (No offense, I mean every word exactly as said.) // Possible medical issues aside, obviously. But I think suggesting it might be medical is a stretch from just the question ..

I agree with Captain Emacs.  Reading through your examples, I'm just left with questions: (1) What were your reasons? (2) How do you unintentionally disturb a class? (3) Why did you flip flop your accept/reject? (4) Why are you not able to focus on lectures?  You don't need to share those answers here if you don't feel comfortable (and you may not even know #4), but I feel like those answers relate greatly to what you should do.  And if you're not sure what those answers are, then a specialist will help you figure that out.

"a way to even slightly change what has happened?" -- You cannot change the pasts. Focus on the future. If you don't like your past behaviour, don't repeat that behaviour.

@Teepeemm (1) I.. thought that a project opportunity for a period of just over 2 months wouldn't be really useful both for the professor and for myself, but I later realized that any project experience is valuable, and as someone who later on struggled to get another project opportunity in my area of interest, I really regretted not pursuing the lead. (2) is a little embarrassing on my part, please allow me to skip that. (3) I was indecisive and I was put on a spot by another professor to choose between two projects, so I had to end up rejecting what I was offered.

This sounds like one of the rare cases where I suggest to actually go to a specialist to find out what's going on and how to fix it. Especially your loss of attention indicates that something is going on that shouldn't. Our mind, like our body, may not always perform as desired, and before you start regretting, find out if there is an underlying problem first and fix it. This may be an extended process.
It's good to show remorse on a mistake made. People make mistakes. The problem is if it's the same or similar mistakes over and over. Since it appears that similar occurrences keep repeating, it's better to fix things first.
An apology on a mistake or misbehaviour is good. An apology on a repeated mistake or misbehaviour is unconvincing and loses its value. In the worst case it looks perfunctory or indicates lack of seriousness (not that I am claiming it's the case for OP, but that's how it can come across).
Therefore I suggest: Fix things going forward, then, if you still feel it is necessary, apologize, if you are still around these people and it's not already forgotten. More importantly, search a way to stop repeating the same mistakes. Make new mistakes, not old.

Thank you! I was considering apologizing properly once more before I go back to taking up their courses or working on projects with the mentioned professors, as it might be a first step towards fixing things. But if that's a secondary step, I really will look for someone who can help me first, even if broadly.

Well said (and upvoted), except I would make one important change: I would remove the word "rare" in the first sentence.

@EndAntisemiticHate The "rare" refers to my own recommendation style, as I am making an exception with this suggestion. I do not usually recommend this route. That being said, I am from Europe.

Ah, I now understand.  Thank you for the details.  I differ in opinion (I think qualified specialists can help in many situations), but I respect your opinion as well.

Is there really a way to even slightly change what has happened?

Obviously not, but given your higher-ups are professionals they will not overreact over what I read as juvenile behavior.

am I done for because their first impression of me has not been a very good one [...]?

No, people who are able to self-reflect are usually met with respect and goodwill (not only in academia).

What stands out in your narrative is your confusion and anxiety around relationships and your own behavior and the recent change in your focus. Not everyone questions their own behavior. Some people are just offensive and either unaware of that fact or don't care about it. Your self-reflection is a positive sign that these problems could be solved by trying to get more understanding of how you interact with people and how they react to you, as well as your recent lack of focus. Have you had similar relationship problems before? Are there stressors in your life that could explain your focus problem? How would you feel about consulting a counselor or therapist? I don't mean to pathologize you, but one thing that comes to mind is autism. High-functioning people with autism are often confused by relationships and have difficulty with focus and task completion.

I do have some kind of anxiety in general, but I’m usually able to overcome that on my own. It’s especially high whenever I try interacting with academia professionals though. Or maybe I’ve been just accumulating these small issues since the start of my college and it’s grown into a significant issue now.

Your point 4 is the one you should be concerned with and seek professional help to overcome it. Perhaps your university has an office that can provide help. What you experience isn't uncommon at all.
As for the others, you apologized in two cases, which was appropriate and should be enough to put it behind you. I can't analyze point 1, but you might still be able to smooth things over. But you can discuss these with a professional as well, as you are probably over reacting.
I once had a stern conversation with my chief undergraduate mentor who was concerned that I was becoming unfocused. It was uncomfortable for me and I had to agree that he was correct. He later personally got me into a doctoral program. I didn't even need to apply. Undergrads aren't perfect and the faculty usually understands and makes allowances for this.

Point 1 was: I (essentially) ghosted a professor three weeks after he offered me a chance to discuss with him about any possible summer projects for me, which I realised later was pathetic of me. Somehow after that I never had any kind of interaction with him (through courses or any other situations) so I never got a chance to apologise. And it’s already over a year now.

My thought process at that time was very influenced by my seniors who told me it was “okay” to leave it like that, because profs on an average receive a lot of similar emails so he won’t really remember that I had written to him that long ago, however I still feel it was inappropriate of me to leave it like that.

and not paying attention to them feels like I'm disrespecting them.

You are not. If you do not disturb the class (which includes things like your "silent" attitude, e.g. sleeping in class) then they do no tknow and ultimately do not care.
This is a problem you should address quickly, though, because it will pull you down.
Points 1 to 3 are indeed things you should be ashamed of but it seems you are so you are learning (everyone does). They are however already handled so I would really concentrate on point 4.

I suggest writing your professors an email. They might not remember any of the incidents you mentioned, but if it bothers you, then for yourself write an email to each and apologize and tell them how you feel. I suggest you end your email letting them know there is nothing you need from them but the point was to tell them you are sorry for your behavior and letting them know you respect them and how maybe the interaction with them helped you reflect. Please note professors are bombarded with hundreds of emails about research teaching, service, communities engagement and a bunch of other stuff. There is a chance you might not hear from one of them and that has nothing to do with you.
I also suggest looking into the cause of the attention span decline and anxiety.


text:
I feel so overwhelmed by my professors' work. When and how to approach them for undergraduate project?
I am a 3rd year Undergraduate Student looking to work on mini-Projects/Projects under professors in my department. I am interested in Signal Processing and Communication Systems, and while I have done multiple courses in SigPro, I haven't had any formal background in CommSys. I have few apprehensions before I write to any professor about my interests:

I know 3rd year isn't too early to be asking to work on a project but I still feel that I might not be able to deliver what might be required for the work. I remember some of my professors mentioning that the undergraduates in my college do not have enough experience to actually help them with their research and that they prefer those pursuing Masters. I feel that was a pretty logical statement, so I am really hesitant to write to professors.

I have reservations about my moral conduct at times. While I might sound irresponsible as I say this, I also want to mention that things like failure to pay attention to the courses sometimes might be bad when I talk to that professor for projects. In my college, the professors do not really mind that these days but I still feel very bad. The problem sometimes is the course itself which I do not find engaging enough, but it does affect my integrity in their point of view. But apart from the lack of focus I am pretty disciplined in general.

My seniors have mentioned that it is okay to mention 110 - 120% of your knowledge and skills while writing about yourself. But I do not want to sound very all-knowing or bratty in a formal email, given that my professors seem to have very good reputation in general (like owning multiple patents or heading government funded projects). I want to keep it modest but that will undermine the efforts I have put in to learn more about their research areas. How should I go about handling this?

Just a few weeks ago, I mailed few professors expressing my interest to work on projects under their guidance while also mentioning my coursework and other areas that I am interested in. I did not receive a reply at all, even after a follow-up email. I think that might be an issue with me, for example my mailing style or less information or not attaching my resume (it was meant for corporate internships, so I didn't want to send that). After how long is a good period to mail them again properly, while also making sure I don't come out as nagging or annoying?

Any help is greatly appreciated! I saw other related questions but I have more basic issues to which I need a broad view on (my friends aren't willing to help much), but still if there are possible duplicates please mention!
Edit: I understand how to ask professors without sounding rude, and I even plan to visit their office sometime after my exams are done (hopefully it doesn't appear as 'rudely barging in'). I also understand they might be busy, and they might also have other students already working with them. What is a good alternative to doing projects during my break? I have really nothing else to do apart from reading papers or picking up some skills.

Is it possible to speak with the professors in person? You only mention email.

"I want to keep it modest but that will undermine the efforts I have put in to learn more about their research areas." Why? It rarely happens that modesty will leave a bad impression. Modesty does not mean diminishing your achievements or knowledge.

@Buffy I was told that my professors are usually very busy so it is advisable to mail them first before asking for an in-person meeting.

What country are you in? In the US many departments have institutional REU programs. Talking to an REU coordinator would be another option.

@MoisheKohan I am from India.

I suggest you send an email requesting a face to face meeting to discuss possibilities for research. Keep it short, which will increase your likelihood of a reply. Say a few things about your background if the professor doesn't already know that. Say you have an idea for a topic, but keep that somewhat vague.
The reason for keeping it vague is to not give the impression that you are interested in this-and-only-this. The professor might have their own ideas and you might find them interesting.
In particular, I suggest you stay flexible about the topic. Any research experience as an undergraduate is good. And it is better to have something of interest to the professor than otherwise. You will get more help and guidance that way. But mentioning that you have an idea for a topic is a plus, I think.
But a face to face meeting is much better for exploring possibilities. Otherwise it takes a series of emails with, usually, some days (or worse) between replies if they are busy. For me, as a professor, it actually saves time as I only need to switch gears to think about it once, rather than several times. Many (I hope most) professors hold regular office hours where it might even be possible to drop in.

Thank you for your inputs! So is it okay to write to them freshly again to talk with them after a month or two? I'm almost sure my name or batch is out of their mind by now (which is good for me) but I just cannot make assumptions.


text:
Getting into grad school after online undergraduate
I am currently doing Bsc computer science from an university which has offline, hybrid and online modes. I have done 3 semesters through online and have the chance to do the remaining offline. However, due to personal reasons I have to finish my bachelor's full online. How will this affect an application for grad school? The three modes provide the same degree (no writings like online degree, offline degree etc).
Further, due to this, it kind of limited my chance of getting good recommendation letters from professors because I couldn't directly interact with them directly like the offline people. Is it okay to get a decent recommendation letter from 1 professor and the rest from a previous internship manager, junior research associate at another university (at my home) with whom I did a research internship? What approaches do I have to strengthen my application for graduate school?

This might depend on the country in which you want to apply. Which is it?

UK graduate school.

While I don't think this is a duplicate, see the answer for UK here:https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/176908/75368

same goes for: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/38237/how-are-ph-d-applications-evaluated-in-the-us-particularly-for-weak-or-borderl

Ask.
Pick a graduate school you might want to apply to and ask the admissions office precisely this question. They will know what they think of all-online degrees and will be delighted to explain. They might for instance say that they have found online degrees equivalent in some ways and lacking in others - so that you can think about how to plug those gaps.
I have known this to work in various sets of “non-standard” circumstances. The key is that you are doing this at the right time. You are not (yet) applying, so you are not in any way bypassing the standard procedures — nor are you asking for special consideration, since you are not being considered at all.


text:
Unsure whether to begin a PhD program
A bit of background:
I'm in my late 20s and got my Master's degree about six months ago in Italy. I'm currently working as a research assistant at the same university, building on my thesis work. During my studies, I found out that I like doing research. Professors have been telling me I'm doing a good job, both during my studies (I graduated with maximum marks) and during my period as an RA.
The opportunity to pursue a PhD in Computer Science has come up. Still, I'm unsure which topic to focus on, whether to keep focusing on the current one or explore different options. The problem is I'm still trying to figure out which specific topics I truly love: it takes me much more time than others to figure out what I hate and even longer to find what I like or love doing.
In the end, it's not a question of whether I want to pursue a PhD, but rather which topic to choose.
I know it is possible to switch advisors, but I would like to avoid it as:

It can be difficult to start again in another field
For CS, my university has two PhD programs in two departments. As far as I know, having an advisor outside your PhD course or even changing PhD courses is impossible (at least for my university).

My mind is filled with questions like: "What if, in the end, I do not like my current topic?"; "What if I'm not able to research it?"; "What if I get stuck?"; "What if I simply lack the necessary creativity in this topic but possess it for another one?".
Even now, there's another topic that I'm considering in a very different field from the one I'm working on. I'm not sure how to explore this option (both are sub-fields of CS, though). The questions remain the same, although I think this could be easier to work on than my current research topic. However, this topic is very specific and there might be limited alternatives if I fail.

Perhaps relevant: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/203847/extending-the-phd-project-into-post-doc/203858#203858

@PustamRaut I'm appreciative of your enthusiasm for grammar updates, but there's been a consistent pattern in your suggested edits of also making changes in word choice that seem to me to change the intent of the question. I've improved your edit with rollbacks to the changes that I think went too far in this case as an example. I'm not trying to discourage you from suggesting edits, but perhaps try to stick to changes that you're very sure won't change the meaning of the question.

Unfortunately there is no way to be certain that you will like the topic, but a PhD will open opportunities for you that skipping it won't. Yes, people get stuck. But most get over being stuck, especially if they have a supportive advisor.
Ultimately you have to make a decision. Any way you make it could be sub-optimal and certainty is not on the table.
Once you have a doctorate you can re-focus your research. You aren't required to follow the same path then that you will during your studies.
Take a chance. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, especially when the perfect is unknowable.

Building on what Buffy said, I'd also like to posit that passion is sometimes overstated in graduate school. While it is important to care about your overarching goal and topic, in my opinion, it's at least equally important to enjoy the day to day of research in your field. You will also probably pursue several smaller projects within your topic (papers) which gives you the chance to shift focus. Think of it more like moving into your first apartment vs trying to pick a place to live for the rest of your life.
tl;dr Don't worry if you can't seem to find your "one true passion". Pick a topic you like, with a day to day research process that you enjoy and could see yourself doing for years. If you don't feel as passionate later on, there are still opportunities to shift focus.

Indeed, it is quite unlikely (and I would find it very boring) to only work on one thing your entire professional life. Lots of cool things out there that you have never heard of (yet).