text:
Is there a publication or citation based indicator of the pace of change in a field?
Impact factors exist to quantify the "impact of a paper."
Does a similar metric exist for quantifying the pace of change (obviously determined by quantity of high-impact factor papers) in a particular field (physics, in particular)?

The words following "as we all know" and "obviously" are not things we all know or agree are obvious.

I am pretty sure impact factor was designed to quantify journals and NOT individual papers.

For that matter, "impact factor" is a commercial concept designed to assist in the money-making ventures of a few for-profit publishers. These exist primarily to help generate revenue for those publishers. Whether or not they really accomplish things that help anyone else is a secondary issue.

@everyone I am asking about field-level impact factors. Do they exist or not? Google Search returned very little.

Impact factors I know can only compare within a field.

Although far from perfect,
Citation half life is one citation-based indicator often used to quantify how quickly a field or journal is moving. It basically looks at how long a paper takes to get half of all its citations. So for example, a fast moving field might have a citation half-life of 4 years, whereas a slower moving field might have a citation half-life of over 10 years.
In the Journal Citation Reports you can see these values for each journal.
Of course, there is the question of what exactly this means. For example, I believe fields like statistics and mathematics have much longer citation half lives, perhaps because seminal articles remain important.
Understanding citation half-life is also important when you want to compare impact factors for journals across fields, or compare citation counts and h-indexes across scholars.

I always looked at citation half-life the other way: it gives you some indication of how long a journal's articles are relevant/influential.  (Though I'm in math, where yes, most good journals have half-lives of over 10 years.)

I don't think that is any meaningful metric.
Take medicine, for example. It is a very conservative, slow moving field, and yet, one of the fields that publishes the most. On the other end we have things like computer vision and machine learning research, that publish a relatively small share, but are advancing at an astonishing rate (for example, in deep learning, almost everything older than 5 years is completely outdated now).
If you want a more useful metric of pace of change one could look at the number of research level books relative to the normal volume of journal publications. Writing a book takes a long time, and only makes sense in fields that are going to remain stable for a few years; but I am not aware of anyone keeping track of this.
Source

While not global and not generally used, if at all, the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) divided research into 36 fields and assessed the "excellence" of "every" university in the UK. From this, the "research power" can be calculated. While there is no agreed upon standard, it is something like the ‘grade point average’ [GPA]) multiplied by the full-time equivalent (FTE) number of researchers submitted. While this is usually used to create league tables of departments or universities, there is no reason one could not create a league table of fields that ignores the university.
That said, it is important to note that most academics, I believe, would argue there is no reason to create such a meaningless number.


text:
Should I leave out bad undergraduate research experiences?
I am a mathematics and physics double major student entering my third year. Over this summer and the previous semester I have been working with a research group in physics writing simulation code. But I have been taking an incredibly long time to finish writing this objectively simple code that I have become very dissatisfied and pessimistic about my future in physics. I have been thinking about applying to graduate school in mathematics instead but I wonder: Would it even help to list this in my graduate school applications? I've spent a lot of time on this project yet I have near nothing to show for it. No publications or even interesting results. My code isn't done yet! Should I bother asking for a letter of recommendation from my PI knowing I did a terrible job at it? I have good grades but I do not know anyone who I believe will give me a strong letter of recommendation, which I know is crucial to admissions.

No I wouldn't if I were in your position.

You mean you wouldn't leave that out?

Assuming you can get reasonably strong letters of recommendation for mathematics, you might be able to use this in your application letter as one of the reasons you want to pursue math. But you'll want to be careful to make sure it doesn't seem like you're going the math route because you figure it will be easy, at least not unless you have very strong letters and other supporting evidence that suggest you are likely to do very well in math. Even then, I would still suggest being careful how you use this as a reason, but I still think it could be marginally useful to do so.

Make sure you have some good talking points about the experience and then keep it on your resume. (My opinion as someone who has reviewed resumes for the company I work for, granted graduate school apps may be different.)
What did you learn about the subject matter or about yourself? What struggles did you overcome or how would you do certain things differently? Is there anything that went well, or that you could spin positively?
I would see it as a bigger red flag if I saw your resume and thought you did nothing over the summer/semester than if I saw you worked and didn't have publications (that isn't an uncommon experience).
As for the letter, you're going to have to make that call based on your relationship with your PI.  If you're really struggling with the decision, just ask your PI about your performance and what they thought you did well/could improve on - that could be telling as to what they would write.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
3 follow-up emails over 2 weeks, and the potential supervisor still wont respond to me?
so i have this pool of potential supervisors who I am super interested in their research.
I have formulated the best introductory email - short, concise and relevant to their research- . No response! I sent back a follow-up email which had my old email in addition to my CV, still no response! I even called , but no one picks up the phone, and whoever picks up the phone is a clueless assistant who tells me to email the supervisor and ask him/her myself.
I even visited one the labs and spoke to one of the researcher's post-doc students who volunteered to edit my emails and told me it was a good one. But then again, no response.
how is that even possible ? I dont live in the university's city (Toronto) so I cant even stalk them in their offices.
any idea why is this happening ?
N.B
The time period is 2 weeks. I sent an introductory email, next week I followed up with another email.
EDIT- For those of you who tell me not to "harass" professors, it is not harassment so please use another word. It is the applicant's responsibility to secure a supervisor for Biomedical engineering program by emailing/calling potential PI . To prove my point on following up , one supervisor who works in a hospital told me that the hospital email service filtered out my email. If I hadn't called him to inquire about my original email, I wouldn't have moved on in my research knowing that his lab is indeed "full". Applicants are not expected to simply sit and wait for supervisors to "notice them" and hope for the best , I must put myself on the map. I don't see why professors don't get much heat -like I am getting in this post" from harassing sponsors for grants !

Over what period of time? People are busy, and may not get to your emails for some time. You are not owed a rapid reply.

You're not owed a reply at all.

How long is this going on and for how many people? But beware that there's no law which makes it mandatory for someone to answer emails: it's courtesy, but some simply ignore requests which they have no interest in.

Please aggressively merge all these; here's another How to remind a professor in a school I applied to about an introduction email I sent two weeks ago?

" have formulated the best introductory email - short, concise and relevant to their research- . No response! I sent back a follow-up email which had my old email in addition to my CV, still no response! I even called , but no one picks up the phone, and whoever picks up the phone is a clueless assistant who tells me to email the supervisor and ask him/her myself."  This is something that bothers me.    You show contempt for staff, whom are just doing their jobs, and are obviously frustrated that people aren't siding with you.  If you are finding this task difficult, wait until the workplace.

@NZKshatriya Some staff members are actually helpful. For example, today the administrative assistant of a professor - who is also a physician and affiliated with the department - actually got a hold of him and he replied to my follow-up email 3 hours later. Some staff members go out of their way to help students - and I really appreciate that- and some just tell us to email the PI.

@Emma  Yes, some will as you stated "go out of their way" to help, but that is not a to be expected thing.  Ranting about things leads nowhere, believe me, I rant....usually about people being clueless about PC/IT security.  Main thing is to realize that there are lots of people in the same situation you are, all trying to get a piece of a finite resource.

I do not think your attitude is inappropriate. Professors are not obliged to reply to your e-mails. It's not unusual for people to be busy and save an e-mail for "later", and then completely forget about it. I myself try to answer every e-mail as soon as I read it (with whatever response I have, either positive or negative, etc.), but some people do not do that. Now, in a small group of people, usually at least ONE should be among the people that DO answer e-mails quickly and efficiently. It's really strange that you didn't have have any replies at all. How many people did you contact?

Sometimes "your e-mail was filtered by the service" is just a nice way of saying "I read your e-mail, didn't find your CV appealing and didn't bother replying".... About your question: sometimes we are extremely busy and it takes few days/ couple weeks to answer non-urgent e-mails, especially around the beginning of the term. If in this time the e-mailer would message me 3 times, call my office and show up at my office at a random time I would definitely see this as harassment, and not pick this student, no matter what is in his CV.

In your comments I see two important pieces of information. 1) "Applicants must secure a faculty supervisor before applying." 2) You have a supervisor for a 4th year thesis. I believe the first piece of information should be added to the question, because it changes the answer. This is a requirement for admission, so the school should be a bit more understanding of your persistence. Second, you should discuss the problem with your past supervisor. He or she may be able to send an email on your behalf introducing you or supporting your interest in a new supervisor.

People view the world differently. That's all.

I ignore such emails all the time. And I'd feel threatened/harassed if the email writer kept emailing me, contacted my students or postdocs, or showed up to my university.
The reason I ignore them is because there isn't much to say. I don't want to give you false hope because I can't guarantee your admission (even if you're the best one out of everyone who contacted me, there are plenty of strong applicants who don't contact anyone) and so, what could I possibly tell you? It might be nice to acknowledge the receipts of emails such as yours but I get hundreds of (mostly junk) emails and your email, being from an unknown sender, gets buried in the pile, and I usually just forget to reply.
So, stop stalking professors and focus on writing a good application and getting good grades. If you've emailed them once and if the email was good, they've read it and you've done your best. Any further communication will only lower their opinion of you.
EDIT: now that I re-read your post, I'm also noticing that your style of writing is quite familiar. This style comes across as immature at best, and entitled at its worst. For example, your spelling, grammar and punctuations are not quite correct. You're also narrating in a quite dramatic way, which is not how most academics write. If your email reflects the tone in which you wrote the above post and the subsequent comments, that may have had a hand in why your professor did not respond.

I don't know how to respond to your answer to be honest. I did not stalk any professor. It was the department's advisor who told applicants to SECURE a supervisor before writing the "so-called good application" and applying for the program. I am only doing what the department has advised me , which is to contact the supervisor, express my interest and if they don't have a spot for me, they would simply write me back with rejection.

+1 for "Any further communication will only lower their opinion of you." I think two emails are entirely reasonable, though.
@Emma - I'm afraid your department has an overly optimistic image of people in the academia. People often will just be too busy to reply, which is sad and sometimes impolite, but true.

Unfortunately, I did express my concerns to the department regarding unresponsive faculty members and they told me nothing they can do. It is always this way in Engineering and medical science graduate programs. Applicants must secure a faculty supervisor before applying. And there is no way I can check if the lab is full or not through their unupdated website, only through emailing them.

-1, "stop stalking professors", This is not stalking. @Emma is using the same method that many other students are using.  I am sorry that you do not know how to send rejections and that getting two emails from a student that is interested in your work makes you feel harassed.

@Emma I do not know your field well, it seems, so I cannot be sure whether your claim of having to secure an advisor before applying is true or not. But if it's true and the professor hasn't responded, I would assume rejection and move onto the next professor on your list. In fact, it should be completely acceptable if you email multiple professors at once; at least you have begun a conversation with them and it allows you to choose the lab that is compatible with you.

@Hobbes emailing multiple times, emailing the postdocs and paying a surprise visit to the lab, as well as calling the department secretary when you're not even owed a response is not normal in academia.

No one is owed a response, I'm not saying that.  I am saying that @Emma is doing what many of us have done.  Finding a supervisor is a cutthroat battle.  Perhaps it has been a long time since you were applying to grad school.

@Emma see the edits in my answer.

@Hobbes in my field, we do not need to secure an advisor before applying. Some people try anyway, but that almost always doesn't make a difference. In any case, for whatever reason, I'd say that Emma and this proposed professor are not really compatible with one another; this kind of dynamic for the next 5-7 years of grad school would be nightmarish for both parties, and she should move on.

@Hobbes Thanks for understanding, It is a struggle indeed! and I know that by being persistent, I am doing the right thing. This is how I got my 4th year thesis project, I was interested in my professor's work so i emailed him, visited him and he commended me for being persistent (too bad he cant accept me in his lab now for grad school because of funding issues).

I am sorry but I am going to have to say what I am feeling on this matter.  From this post, and a question you posted on Sept 9th Non of the supervisors i contacted responded to me! you come across as entitled and quite overly dramatic.
All that you can expect from any reasonable human being, is for them to read your email, and if they have an interest in you they will reply.  If not, you cannot force them to take notice.  Sending out multiple salvos of emails will end up alienating you from the people you are trying to impress yourself upon.

Nothing you have done so far has been inappropriate.  You are taking an approach that many of us have done in the past and often times it works.  I would hold off on sending any more emails for the time being however.  Two weeks is not a very long time to wait for a return email.  The supervisors you are interested are probably very busy people and it may take a few weeks to make contact.
From my experience, persistence has always paid off, both in academia and industry.  For example, I was interested in a summer internship with a lab while I was in undergrad.  I emailed several of the faculty several times as well as left some voice mails.  It took about 4 weeks before I was contacted.  They appreciated my interest and I was invited to the lab.
There are always going to be those who do not respond.  Many times these are good reasons, but sometimes not.  In the end, it reflects poorly on the supervisor.

I have not downvoted this answer, but I think it would be improved if it stuck to the conrete recomendations rather than these generalizations ("You are taking an approach that many of us have done in the past and often times it works" and "In the end, it reflects poorly on the supervisor.")

Busy people are busy ; as other answers have stated, it probably means that they are not interested. Maybe they're not looking for more students, or maybe they only recruit among the students who already are registered at their university, or any other reason.
If you really think they didn't notice you rather than not being interested, I suggest emailing that post-doc who reviewed your emails, asking them to introduce you to their supervisor, optionally with the supervisor in copy.

I have had responses from various supervisors who thanked me for my interest in their labs, but they cant take me as a student. Much respect for taking 1 minute out of their busy day to reply to an aspiring graduate student. Those "busy" supervisors were once an eager, aspiring undergraduate student. Why is it always "OKAY" to justify everything professors do because they are "busy" ?

I'm not saying it's okay, but I do have an idea why it is happening, which was your question. Also, it is happening an incre-dible lot, it is not very surprising. You sound a little bit like a rant.

How did you secure your graduate school supervisor - if you have one- ? i am curious to know.

My advisor was the teacher of the graduate class I liked most in the first year of my graduate studies (during which I had no supervisor). That is to say, we met in person and I returned him work to grade before he supervised me.

@Emma As others have noted, you sound a tad arrogant. No one is required to answer an email. Furthermore, the general style and effort with which you write these posts do not reflect either friendliness or formality, both of which are pretty important for  in Academia.

If you are entitled to a supervisor, e.g. you have made a tuition payment for a program that guarantees a supervisor or regulations for the program entitle you to a supervisor, then contact university administration and ask them for assistance.
If you are not entitled to a supervisor, then it looks like that particular professor doesn't want to be your supervisor and you need to move on. Usually there are many applicants for supervisors to choose from so it may be quite difficult find one.

Surely being entitled to "a" supervisor doesn't necessarily mean that you are entitled to have that particular individual as a supervisor?

Normally no, but some of those for-profit universities have their own rules. Chances are the person asking the question has a false sense of entitlement. I put it out there just in case, who knows.

I'd just say that 2 weeks is too early to say whether or not the advisor is interested in the applicant.  Good point though, if you are paying for the program then you should be getting responses.

@ArthurTarasov In order to get admitted to the program( Master of engineering), applicants must state in their Graduate School application the name of the supervisor who pre-approved to supervise the applicant. That's why when I asked the program admission advisor if I can simply apply to the program and hope that some PI might need a student -in case other student dropped out of their lab- , then the PI can take me. However, the advisor told me that the odds of this happening are VERY low.

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:
Is it taboo to disclose info to 3rd parties about the review status of a paper of other authors?
I was under the following situation and I'm not sure which would have been the right way to handle it.
I was refereeing a paper. I suggested that the authors could cite a very recent paper which was uploaded on a repository (so, not official publication but publicly available nevertheless) that could have solved one of the conjectures they mentioned.
They respond that they do not want to cite unofficial publications that have not been fully verified yet (as indicated in their opinion by acceptance on one of the venues). This respond is somewhat understandable.
But they went an extra step and they said that the mentioned pre-print probably has mistakes (no reference) since it was submitted to XX venue and was rejected thus they do not want to cite it.

Is it normal that they disclosed to me some private information about a submission of a paper and its status?

I felt uncomfortable about this disclosure of private information. How could they know that it was indeed submitted? How could they know why it was rejected? Even if they know (for example by communication with the authors) what gives them the right to announce this to me (an anonymous referee-maybe I'm one of the authors of that preprint). Note that the two papers have disjoint sets of authors.

Question: What would be the most appropriate way to handle this situation? I let it be, but I feel that the authors have crossed many lines with their responses and I still feel somewhat uncomfortable for this.

Maybe they knew about the preprint, contacted the authors with additional questions or a status if it might be published soon and were given the information they gave you?

@skymningen Still, can they share this info with me? I can think of many scenarios where they could get this info, but the question is are they allowed to share it?

If it was volunteered to them, say by the author(s), I feel like it's fair game to repeat. Especially if it were online somewhere else already. It seems hard to tell if some particular tidbit is within their rights.

That is fine and understandable. -- [citation needed]

@JeffE I am not sure I understand your comment. I mean that I understand their logic (not sure I fully agree though). What do I need to cite? The questions still are: (1) are they right that they insist on not citing it? (2) Is it fine that they disclose to me info about the status of the mentioned paper, especially when this info is not public?

I am questioning your statement that not wanting to cite unofficial publications ("That" in your sentence) is "fine and understandable". I don't think it's fine, and I don't understand it.

To me, their response was very unprofessional. I'm assuming that the review is still blinded and further communication with the authors directly may not be possible or even useful.
As a peer reviewer, you are a volunteer for the journal. If the lack of professionalism of the authors made you uncomfortable, you could communicate this with the editor. Although the editor might not do anything about it, he or she might reconsider publishing future papers from authors who do not respect blind peer review. Publishing our work is a privilege, not a right. I am not an editor, so I'm not sure how editors may handle such a situation. Although this case involved the reviewer and not the authors, PLOS ONE received attention a few years ago for removing a reviewer who made a sexist remark in their review: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/05/plos-one-ousts-reviewer-editor-after-sexist-peer-review-storm

The information that the pre-print "probably has mistakes" usually is not private. Such information can arise e.g. when a random reader spots a mistake. (Lots of people have been debating the recent Babai preprint on the graph isomorphism problem in early 2017.)
The information about the pre-print being rejected is a somewhat different story (it is certainly less relevant to the referee!), but even that could have been shared bona fide by the authors if the authors of the pre-print openly told them. It is probably not the best option the authors could have taken, but I don't think it is a good reason to declare breach-of-trust over.

Thanks. I did not imply breach-of-trust, just it was something that made me feel uncomfortable, and I explain why (because in my opinion this is a private info+in the absence of a particular mistake does not justify the excuse "we don't want to cite potentially bogus papers). BTW people were citing Babai's paper as potential breakthrough, and to my opinion there is nothing wrong to do so (something along this lines: this conjecture might have been settles by the work of such-and-such).

@PsySp - But you asked for people's opinions.  So really, there's no reason to get defensive.

@aparente001 Thanks. I am trying to explain my point of view. Maybe I am over-reacting, thus this seemingly "defensive" stance.

@PsySp - Thanks for raising a pair of interesting ethical questions.

The right way of dealing with that - in my opinion - would have been to pinpoint an/the error in the publicly visible, though unofficial repository. "Because arXiv ... contained this-and-that error, we do not feel comfortable to cite this paper, as we do not know whether the error is recoverable."
Thus, no reference to submission, review status, etc.
A paper under review should be treated as not written, except by the authors (who can obviously act as they please) as well as the reviewers/program committee and editors in the service of the submission/publication process.

Sure, What happens when their claim is based on some "rumor". I understand that they might feel uncomfortable citing a paper that might or might not contains errors, but I do not see how they feel comfortable sharing private information with an anonymous referee! To put it another way, is this info private?

The statement about the error in the arXiv paper should be fully transparent and trackable. Everyone should be able to check. They cannot be expected to try to do the job of recovering the error (that's why I added the disclaimer about recoverability). It's nice if they do, but it's not a requirement, strictly spoken. The other thing, rumour or not, is taboo - no divulging of review-relevant information should happen (of course, the authors may have told the story themselves around, but telling an embarrassing story yourself or having it told further by 3rd parties is still a difference).


text:
Another way to say probability
In a paper I want to state that a certain course of action increases the "chances of success" - with success defined earlier in the work.
In my field, words like "probability", "odds", and "likelihood" (and the associated variants) have certain connotations, and are likely to elicit semantic arguments, so I'd like to avoid those words.
The word "chances" seems colloquial.
Are there any other phrases that connote the idea that a certain course of action is more likely to lead to optimal outcomes, while avoiding any words that have mathematical or statistical connotations?

This question may receive more useful answers at SE English Language and Usage, especially if you provide an example sentence.

I think for a sentence that's supposed to be easily understood, "chance" is not a bad choice. There are also "success rate"...? And in fact, if the meaning is really "chance" chance, why can't it have "statistical" connotation?

"Probability" and "odds" are two entirely different things. Please do not use those two interchangeably.

you seem to have answered this in the question: "more likely to lead to optimal outcomes."  However, I agree with @Penguin_Knight that maybe you should just choose the best statistical word -- precise language is a virtue!

@SeanRoberson: And yet, is it not the case that "the probability of event X has increased" if and only if "the odds of event X have increased"?

I don't understand the question. The definition "more likely to lead to optimal outcomes" already has statistical and mathematical connotations!

I find it a little strange that you are asking for advice about a choice of words motivated by connotations specific to your academic field...and you have not told us your academic field.

My guess is that "optimal outcomes" may have the same problem as "likelihood" etc.
One possibility would be to restructure the sentence a bit, for example

Such-and-so procedures promote ... (perhaps "success").

It's much easier to help with a question like this if you give us some of the actual language you're going to use.

When I am drafting a paper I always keep a tab open in my web browser with wordreference.com English thesaurus. You can find synonyms, antonyms, etc fairly easily just by entering a word which you know to roughly express the idea you have in mind. This is particularly helpful to me as a non-native speaker but I can see how everyone could benefit from a similar strategy.
For your particular case, I suggest that you start by looking up "probability" and "success" until you end up with the noun or combination of adjective+noun that works best for you.

"Propensity" is a useful term, similarly you can reference an increase/decrease in the "tendency" of an event or success.


text:
Emailing professors in the physics and mathematics departments
I'm an Economics and Mathematics major in college, but I have been studying both mathematics and physics in college. Since I wish to go on and specialize in mathematical physics, I'll be looking to apply for a PhD position under the supervision of a mathematical physicist. The problem is quite a lot people working in this field come from the mathematics department, while some also sit in the physics departments. At the end of the day, though, the content of their research matters, but it seems as if the majority of the people from this field sit in the mathematics departments.
Therefore, I'm confused as to which department should I apply to. I am thinking of apply to mathematics, wherewas my physics teachers etc. want me to apply to physics department, as they say you can do such work over there as well, though most people (as I said) sit in the mathematics departments.
Therefore, I'm looking forward to email quite a lot of such professors sitting in the mathematics/physics departments, with the hope of asking the following major question:

Given I'd like to attend their college to specialize in the said field, should I apply to either the physics or the mathematics departments.

Withinin this question, I'd like to ask a couple of multiple sub-questions: the opportunities available in one department over the other in the said field, the difference in training that I'll get under the different departments etc.
Basically, I'm as of now in the stage of procuring advice, and it'd be great if I could get some from the relevant people working at the relevant departments in universities. In the long run, I'd also like to establish a contact with the said professors, before hopefully some day (in a year or two) heading off to graduate school.

My question is: what is the best way I should structure and write the first email, listing my concerns/queries with the hope that the professors will reply? I suspect I'll mostly be bugging the professors with my confusing questions (math or physics departments etc.), but I find this to be a genuine concern for me as of yet. It'd be great if someone could advise on this issue, so I can initiate a channel of communication with some professors via email.

You should apply to the department the professor is associated with. Don't bring that up in an initial email: it's a very minor detail compared to building a relationship with a professor.

I agree with @Johanna; as a cosmologist, I'm in a similar situation- some cosmologists are in maths departments and some in physics departments. In the end, I applied to a few maths and a few physics departments, based on the specific people I wanted to work with.

@NatalieHogg Unforunately, applying to both maths and physics programs doesn't seem to be an option for me (unless I wait for 2 years) as the subject test GREs are offered only ONCE in my country. Very, very sad state of affairs. Given this is the case, should I bring this issue up and try and solicit the professors advice?

@Johanna See above.

@JunaidAftab are you only wanting to apply to universities in the US? Because the GRE is not a requirement for most (or even any) UK and European universities.

@NatalieHogg Yes, I have posted this question under the implicit assumption that I'll be applying to US universities. I will, of course, be looking for studying and funding opportunities in the UK, Europe etc. They seem to have more designated mathematical physics programs than in the US.

For what it's worth, I applied to 2 math graduate programs and 2 physics graduate programs in Fall 1980 (accepted at all 4 with assistantship $), and I only took the math GRE. Of course, I had recommendation letters from a couple of physics faculty (and even one in chemistry, whose quantum chemistry class I did well in as an undergraduate), and I believe I had also written the departments in advance about my situation (regarding whether I absolutely had to take the physics GRE test).

@DaveLRenfro How did you make the departments waive the physics GRE requirement?

@DaveLRenfro The physics department, that is.

I don't remember now, only that I know I did not take the GRE physics test and I know I wrote the departments in advance about this. My background in physics was weak (2-semester upper level classical mechanics sequence with Symon's text, undergraduate quantum mechanics with Saxon's text, 1 semester of graduate quantum mechanics with Merzbacher's text, and 1 semester graduate relativity that was mostly special relativity with no text). I was pretty specific about my plans (mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics), however, and continues

I didn't aim very high for the physics schools (Virigina Tech and Washington State). Another reason for contacting them was about whether I could do T.A. work for the math department, something I felt much more qualified at than with physics. I remember exchanging several letters with someone at Washington State Univ., and at one point in the following spring he sent me a copy of Robert Shaw's Ph.D. thesis, saying that this might be a topic worth pursuing. I'm not sure to what extent any of this might work for you, in 2017, however.

@DaveLRenfro That's my plan as well. I'd like to work on the mathematical foundations of QM, QFTs etc. This is on a slight tangent, but I feel as if I am a long way in understanding the work that is being done in the field, especially the work by various professors. For instance, I picked up a book on non relativistic QM for mathematicians, and the first line it mentioned was on smooth manifolds (in order to first describe the theory of classical mechanics)! No wonder the text claims it is written for math graduate students. Do you think this will be an impediment in my contacting...

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

@DaveLRenfro the professors etc. I would very much like to have a discussion on this issue with you. Would you mind if we move this discussion to an email thread?

@DaveLRenfro In case you missed my comments since we posted them at the same time.

First, your question would be easier to read if you went a little easier on the italics.  Also, it's good to get in the habit of using a neutral tone, even when you're feeling confused or frustrated.
It's fine to send some queries by email, but try to select the most likely people to send your queries to.  You could start with one per program that you're interested in, but be ready with a second name in each department.  Wait at least three business days for a reply before trying name #2.  Keep your email fairly succinct and neutral in tone.  Skip the part about the confusion.  (It's fine to be confused, and they're used to that.)  Make a spreadsheet so you can be organized about this.
I think you should also ask them what to do about the GRE.  My gut feeling is that regardless of which program you apply to, you should take the Physics GRE, but this is something you could ask at Physics SE if you don't get a response from a mathematical physicist here about that particular issue (which you should add to your question with an edit, by the way, since it's an important point).  For example, in an email to someone in a physics department, you could say, "I'm also applying to some math programs, which require the math GRE, but the subject test GREs are offered only once per (year?  two years?  I didn't understand this point) in my country; so I would like to ask whether your department would accept the math GRE in lieu of the physics GRE."  And vice versa.
A tricky part of this is that you may get some answers back that go against what your physics professors have advised you.  If none of them are very close to you, and won't be bothered by that, fine.  But if you think someone might be bothered, then I would suggest you share a sample draft email with this person, and most importantly, confer with him or her about the choice of specific departments and individuals you'll be emailing.  That way, once the answer comes back, you'll be able to share it with this person comfortably.
A word about the choice of individuals to send your queries to.  The ideal person to write to would be someone who is strong in your area of interest, but who seems to have some interest in student advising as well, for example, with a current or former position in department administration, such as "dean of graduate studies," or "graduate program director," or someone involved with department admissions.
If you are talking about applying next winter for a fall, 2018, start, mention that in your email, so the reader doesn't feel alarmed that you might be talking about applying now for fall, 2017.
(If you are talking about applying now for a fall, 2017, start, then just throw some darts at the dart board as quickly as you can, and don't waste any time thinking, since this is March already.)
And by the way, Johanna is absolutely right ("You should apply to the department the professor is associated with"). In trying to figure this out, you'll have to look at the faculty bios rather carefully.
Note that sometimes you can have, for example, a physics department as your home department, but work with an advisor whose primary appointment is in, for example, a math department.  This is easiest to swing when the professor has some affiliation with your department.  If s/he doesn't, then you can still check the program's policies, and also it might be possible to get special permission.
You may want to consider:
- What coursework is required in each department?  Which program of studies fits better with your interests and needs?
- What about the basic exams?  You wouldn't want to get stuck in a math department that requires you to show mastery of number theory, for example.  (That's not a realistic example -- hopefully you get my idea.)
Some departments will provide specific advice on their websites for people like you, whose area straddles two departments to some extent.
It could be overwhelming to delve into a lot of departments' websites in depth.  If I were you I would start with one that has very clear materials, and in which you are definitely interested.  Understand that one as well as you can, and then prepare your first email.  If you are able to cite a specific webpage and a quote or two from their site, as the beginning of your question, so much the better.  (I.e. show that you've done your homework.)
Last comment.  Just as people like me enjoy understanding a question and attempting to say something useful -- there are people in every department who do too.  If the first person you try writing turns out not to be responsive or helpful, that's okay, just try again with a different member of the department.  You can add at the end of your email something like "If there is someone else in your department I should address these questions to, please let me know."


text:
How do you compare US and UK PhD programs?
I have an equal opportunity to pursue my PhD in chemistry in the United States or United Kingdom. As I investigated, the educations systems are different (correct me if I'm wrong):
US

BSc: 4-year coursework
MSc: 1-year coursework + 1-year research
PhD: 2-year coursework + 2-year research

UK

BSc: 3-year coursework
MSc: (it can be) 2-year research
PhD: 4-year research

In all programs I checked, a master degree is required for the PhD admission (I think it is the standard for chemistry).
My ultimate goal is to continue in academia and I anticipate that I need 3-4 years of postdoc before applying for a faculty position. Since the UK system is more research active, I thought a research degree can be more helpful to get a postdoc position (I anticipate I can publish more papers during 4 years as opposed to two years of research in the US).
In general, I am fascinated by the research-oriented system in UK and I prefer it to coursework, but it can be my misconception only. This is the reason that I ask this question to avoid any illusion.
Disclaimer: I know that a PhD program may take longer and each university may have different programs to offer. These numbers are just standard averages for the sake of comparison.

The number of people who have taken PhDs both in the US and in the UK might be very small.


text:
how to get accepted back into a phd program in the US?
I was accepted into a US PhD program and then switched to the MSc due to personal reasons. After I got the MSc I wanted to continue to the PhD but then I was told that I have already graduated and was no longer a student there and I should reapply for the following term (spring 2018). So, I could no longer mantain my F1 visa status and had to leave the US.
I have written some emails to the new graduate studies director but they do not repply to me.
I want to reapply but only if I have a good chance to go back. For me it is very expensive and difficult to do so from abroad, especially for the currency exchange rate.
And as far as I know, there are top applicants from Russia and Germany. And I do not know if I will be even considered.
What should I do? How should I approach to the graduate committe?
By the way, I already passed my three PhD qualifying exams. But I stil have no replies to my emails.

Have you tried calling? Furthermore, did you have an advisor or committee chair who would support your readmission?

The graduate studies director may be reluctant to spend time on a request for admission without a formal application and fees paid. I agree with @Dawn. Recommendations from faculty you worked with before are likely to carry significant weight.

You've already been told exactly what to do... You can add any recommendations and the fact you've passed the qualifying exams to your application.

And as far as I know, there are top applicants from Russia and Germany. And I do not know if I will be even considered. -- What is the significance of this information for your problem?

The graduate studies director may also feel that they don't know your case as well as the old graduate studies director (the one who told you to reapply). What probably happens is that this person thinks "I have to follow-up with the old director" and then forgets.

"I already passed my three PhD qualifying exams." You don't say anything about the ranking of the program you're applying to, but for what it's worth, I think many programs below the top 50 would be very interested in you. I mention this in case the program you want to return to   doesn't work out.

The best way to find out if you stand a strong chance of being reaccepted is to get into direct communication with the director of graduate studies or admissions.  (E-mail communication is okay, but talking on the phone would be better.)  That is the person who is best informed about what your chances are.
You may have just gotten a boilerplate answer from a departmental administrator that, since you are no longer a student, you automatically need to re-apply.  While that is undoubtedly true, strictly speaking, it may not be particularly useful information.  The faculty member(s) dealing directly with graduate admissions may be able to tell you a lot more.  Depending on the department, readmission might be a mere formality; or you might be competing on even footing with all the new students who are applying at the same time; or it could be somewhere in between.
If you are intending to continue working under the same advisor you had for your masters thesis, you should contact the advisor as well.  In many departments, if your advisor really wants you, admission can be pretty much guaranteed.  This is especially true if the advisor knows you, has worked with you, and wants you back.


text:
suitable omiyage
I graduated from Japan three years ago. I am now going in a visit, and will meet my professor and previous colleagues at one gathering. What is an appropriate protocol for omiyage in similar situation?

Welcome to AC.SE. How specific is this to academia? Would it be a better fit (i.e., more likely for you to get a good answer) at workplace.se?

I'd suggest: i) ask this at https://www.reddit.com/r/japan/ or https://www.reddit.com/r/japanlife/. Chance is you'll get more attention from someone familiar with the culture, ii) ask a few of your Japanese friends (you did make some, right?) for pointers.

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is not specific to academia.

@Fomite are you familiar enough with Japanese culture to know that there are not specific aspects of omiyage unique to academia?

@StrongBad I did a more through search to see if there was any evidence of academia-specific norms than I would for most questions, and found none. Absent that, and with no articulation of why it should be in either the question or comments, I voted to close. If this turns out to be incorrect, we have the reopen mechanism to address such issues.

@StrongBad Beyond that in the general case, if "Are you enough of an expert to prove a negative" is going to be a threshold for voting to close a question, that's going to go interesting places...after all, there could always be regional, school, departmental or individual lab norms...

@Fomite wasn't really trying to go anywhere, I just don't know anything about omiyage and wanted to make sure people were not just running with my comment. I think we are good to migrate to workplace.se


text:
Is it okay for me to show some other publication's data for data comparison reasons without prior permission if I properly reference/cite their work?
Suppose publication Smith (2016) had a study that investigated whether professors liked apples, and found that they did.
Now suppose that I wish to have my own study that investigated whether students also liked apples, and to what degree would this be compared to professors.
Would it be necessary for me to ask Smith for permission to show their numbers when I am making the statistical comparison between my data and Smith (2016) data?
If I reference Smith (2016) when presenting my work, do not claim the data on professors to be my own, and use the same inventory of questions (which Smith (2016) themselves used from another source), I would assume that this would not be considered plagiarism and I would not have to receive permission, but I wasn't entirely sure.
In other words, is it okay for me to show some other publication's data for data comparison reasons without prior permission if I properly reference/cite their work?
*This project, as it stands, only has intentions for conference presentations and not publication if that changes anything.

The data that I will be comparing to are all provided in the publication I am referencing. My own data is something I will be collecting myself. Would the data from a publication be considered public?

As long as you're not reproducing their figures or tables, it is perfectly acceptable to use the data and properly cite it without permission.  If you are "adapting" a figure or table, you may need to solicit permission (for the copyright holder, which is often the publisher), or follow the mandate for whatever open-access license the document was published under (depending on how close the new work is to the old work, and your publishers level of comfort).

Be aware: the legal answer may be different for just citing data from a table, as opposed to reproducing a figure or image, even though there is little ethical difference (in my opinion).
Figures, unfortunately, are often under copyright by the journal, and journals will have stated figure re-use policies. (Look for "request permissions" or something like this on the article's website.) Often this re-use will be free, but you will still need that permission.
Because of this copyright situation, I have had to request permission from a journal in order to include figures I created within a review article. This is silly, but necessary in many cases.

For my case specifically, I was more concerned with the empirical data. For instance, if 50% of professors liked apples, then could I simply get this 50% empirical value and compare it with my data on students which only shows 25% like apples if I properly cite where the data on professors came from?

If it is something as simple as that, there should be no issue. Saying something like "Sci. et al. find that 50% of professors like apples [Ref]" is standard, and I have never heard of permission being required. Just be a bit more careful when reprinting whole tables or figures.

Sorry, I meant that I would get their table of data and compare it with my table of data (direct comparison would be possible due to the same inventory of questions being asked). So basically I would get their data from 15-20 questions and compare it with mine. Although this is more than simply referencing a portion of their data, it shouldn't make much difference, correct?

Why is it silly?  You transferred your rights to a publisher.  When you sell a car, it's not yours to drive anymore.


text:
How do new faculty members in the UK start their career without startup grants?
I'm starting a lecturer position in Computer Science in the UK, which is roughly equivalent to a tenure-track assistant professor position. However, the department head told me that, while they do provide some support for conference travel, they do not offer any kind of startup package and we are expected to acquire our own grant funding to hire postdocs etc.

Is it the norm that new faculty members do not receive any kind of startup support in the UK?
If yes, how do new faculty members start building up their career? (I would love to continue devoting all of my time to research, but I will have some teaching obligations which will certainly lower my individual research output.)

I'm still a PostDoc in Canada for a few months and my supervisor is as puzzled as I am about this information.
Background: The UK university is part of the Russell Group, which is a self-selected collection of UK universities that are (supposedly) the most research-active.
Edit (Regarding Teaching Load): I have a 1+1 teaching load (reduced to 1+0 in the first year) but I was told that, in the UK workload model, one also has other obligations such as tutorial classes, taking on several project students, and master thesis supervisions. These students are being assigned to me and their projects are not necessarily related to my research.

Minor point: some of the infrastructure costs that one might normally pay out of a start-up grant are, in several UK places, covered by the Department. The same goes for PhD studentships: although they might not be guaranteed for a new faculty member, there is often a "tradition" that when it comes to allocating the small number of studentships, one tries to help out junior faculty where this is deemed reasonable/appropriate

That said, I know of some cases where the answer to your second question is simply "with difficulty".

On a less frivolous note: my impression is that many places, and especially the RG institutions, will have some standard rule whereby new faculty get a reduced teaching load, or "more workload points allocated towards research", for the first year or two. So one doesn't necessarily need a research buyout of one's time

One thing that you can do is to find a research project that you can do without post-docs or PhD students and do the research yourself.  It is the expectation of U.K. researchers that a significant proportion of their time is spent on research (the three halves of the job being teaching, admin and research ;o), so if you are not writing grant proposals or supervising post-grad/docs then use the time doing research and publishing papers.  This is what I did, and it involved a change in my research direction after my PhD.

Regarding your edit: welcome to the UK. If it helps at all, think of it as a trade-off against being able to walk around outside in January without a coat :) I would add that, having experienced tenure-track life in Canada before I moved back to the UK, it's not all roses in that system. (You're welcome to email me privately if you want me to elaborate or want a more detailed discussion.)

Research grants for new academic staff are offered competitively by the various research councils, depending on your subject area.
You can learn about the various research councils and what grants they operate through the web site for Research Councils UK.
For Computer Science you should be eligible for an EPSRC New Investigator Award, however the competition is fierce, so you should be sure to seek the advice and support of the research office of your University who can assist you in writing a successful grant proposal.
Some Universities, as noted, do offer their own support for new academics, but irrespective of funding available locally there is national funding, and also perhaps one might also look at European Funding for new researchers whilsts the window of opportunity remains open.
For an ambitious and promising researcher the position is not necessarily as pessimistic as you might feel.

How much money can one expect from an EPSRC new investigator grant (formerly known as EPSRC first grant)?

@MohamedKhamis URL and text fixed. Thanks for heads up.

Are you sure about the 100k cap? At my own institution (in Maths) the word seemed to be that one could go higher, indeed this was one reason those of us who were on the old 1st Grant scheme felt we missed out

@YemonChoi I was just quoting the web site.

Perhaps I'm looking at the wrong part of the page, but the reference I see is to eligibility, saying "you shouldn't have received a grant of 100k+ FEC". See e.g. http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/NGBOViewPanelROL.aspx?PanelId=1-56MRQF&RankingListId=1-56MRUH for a NI Grant exceeding 100k

In my experience, startup packages for Lecturers in the UK are much smaller than for Assistant Professors in the US. That said, I have never heard of a Science/Engineering School in the Russell Group offering no startup funds.
My School would typically:

Guarantee £30,000 contingent upon the Lecturer applicant applying for a £15,000 Royal Society Research grant (if the application was not successful the school would provide £30,000, but if the application was successful the school only provided £15,000) These grants have a very high success rate.
Guarantee funding for a 3 year Phd studentship
Guarantee "research" computers for the Lecturer and PhD student

The school also had a small amount of internal money for running pilot experiments (applications up to £5,000) conditioned on a large grant proposal at the end and conference travel (applications up to £1,000) conditioned on presenting work. These could be applied for every other year. New lecturers were given a boost to their application scores for their first 3 years.
The school also could recommend new Lecturers for money from the University (up to £25,000). They could only recommend only person per year and the money was somewhat competitive.
If the new Lecturer was successful everywhere (which is not too difficult), they could expect £67,000 and a PhD student. The school would also make sure there was suitable lab space with furniture. In the UK, you are also paid on a 12 month contract so there is no need for summer salary.

I think start-up grants might be more common in lab-based, or equipment-intensive areas? I don't work at a Russell Group institution so I'm not contradicting what you say, but in mathematics or TCS a start-up grant would be seen in many places as a luxury

" they could expect £67,000 and a PhD student." This is on top of salary right?

@PVAL: There are fixed salaries scales to which all universities in the UK abide to and the lecturer scale is around 38-42k £ :-/


text:
Why could an accelerated education be seen as negative?
I've had discussions with professors in conjunction with my postgraduate application. Many were very skeptical at the fact that I completed one BSc and two MSc within 4 years. This would normally take at least 5-6 years in my country. I explained that I did it because I was very interested in my subjects. However, they thought it was strange and concerning since I had a small portion of "bad grades". This can be explained by a combination of heavy workload, bad family situation, and poor mental health during one or two semesters. I did not mention the latter parts due to social stigma. As a result, professors said I may have "learned more", i.e. gotten straight A's, if I'd have studied a year or two longer like most people. Other than this I have a very good record, which made this seem strange to them.
I live in a small country that has a lot of ex-Soviet professors, many of which believe that a student must have straight A's and a standard educational history to succeed. However, in my country universities are very diverse in terms of expectations and grading. Every university has their own grading scale and level of education. My university, for instance, likes to fail 50% every module to weed out bad students. Sometimes, up to 85% fail, because they give undergraduate students graduate modules because "life's tough, just learn it".
So, depending on where you study, your grades will be wildly different, and it can be hard to convert between places. There's even massive variation within my department alone, where they have the same module but different formats depending on who takes it. This means that an architect taking linear algebra who gets an A may be counted as a C for someone who studies physics, for instance.
Given this knowledge of the educational system, what could be the reason that professors dislike accelerated education? If asked at my university, where it is common, they'd just say good job. When asked at the universities I applied to, it's almost unheard of. How can one highlight the advantages of having taken a fast educational route?

"My university, for instance, likes to fail 50% every module to weed out bad students." Sounds like a terrible place.  Don't they realize that failures can be caused by bad teaching as well as bad students?

@AnonymousPhysicist I think they realize it, but from what I've learnt (having spoken personally to the head of education) they want to keep a certain standard and reputation. Also, the university gets paid per student at the start of their education, so it doesn't really affect them if people give up and drop out. I've also experienced courses with 10-20% fail rate that they made harder because only 10% failing means "it's too easy".

@AnonymousPhysicist I believe this is the result of trying to stand out and earn a reputation rather than accommodating students and help them. For instance, it took several years to get rid a module I had to take which had a semester worth of prerequisites in another subject that we never got. Some professors also have the attitude "if you think this is hard, you're not good and should drop out", instead of trying to help students.

What I hope is that you didn't miss out on other oppurtunities while studying. Did you work in lower jobs? Did you spend time with friends? Did you learn other things (eg taking courses from humanities subjects, going to theatre). Did you do enough for your mental health? Through these things you develop skills (eg social skills) which make you a well-rounded person and more pleasent to work with. When I had an appliciant who did study very fast I was slightly worried that they might not have developed those skills.

@user111388 I certainly had time for friends, as well as extracurricular activities and hobbies. Also, I've had teaching assignments that also boosted my communication skills. My mental health isn't that serious, and only manifests itself in some aspects of my life. I have it under control, but I still have some minor issues that aren't noticeable to anyone from the outside.

@Seal: I am happy to hear that. However, this may some prejudice against fast study people - that they are completely not in touch with the rest of the world or with people from "poorer backgrounds".

I'm not totally clear whether the professors that dislike your fast pace are at the same university or sufficiently closeby [culturally] so they can accurately judge how hard it is to earn these grades?

@cbeleitesunhappywithSX They are at another university in the same country, but that university has a different grading system and academic structure. Furthermore, they are not originally from my country, so there's a cultural difference added on top of that.

From the point of view of a professor who does not really know you and who only sees that you finished exceptionally fast, the crucial question is how that result came to be.
From the cultural differences between the two universities in Germany where I studied 20 years ago (one "Western", the other "Eastern"), I can easily believe that two universities may be so different that the professors feel uncertain in their judgment (or feel certain but are way off).
Here are possible reasons for your record:

You are one of the very few really exceptional students. => they want to (prospectively) hire/get into their group
You are an exceptionally clever student wrt. to optimizing their grades very well by reducing the workload per grade to a minimum. The  implicit concern is: get good grades with low overall knowledge, and that is someone whom they may rather not have in their group.
In case the professors are not sufficiently close [culturally] to the courses and university you attended so that they can accurately judge, there may also be the concern that your achievements have been due to your courses/grades being "softer" than what they are used to.
I'm in Germany, and whenever there is such a concern (i.e. a student showing up with grades that are not in the list of equivalent grades that are automatically accepted), the procedure here is to ask the student to take an exam locally to prove their knowledge/performance.
For the sake of completeness, there may also be professors out who do not want to have the exceptional student in their group since they feel endangered by such a student.
Whether such professors exist or not, if they exist it is better for the student to not end up in their group.

Here's my take on what you write about your achievements

1 BSc + 2 MSc in 4 years

IMHO hard to judge without further details. Relevant details may be

how different the fields of your two MScs are?
I'm chemist. Had I found out during my Hauptstudium (≈ MSc) that I'd like to actually become a chemical engineer instead, that would have been feasible without that much additional workload.
OTOH, I'm acutally analytical chemist and in fact do statistical data analysis. I don't think I'd have been able to study maths with specialization statistics  alongside my chemistry studies without that taking substantial amounts of additional time - here the overlap between the curricula is already too low.
OTOH, there exist exceptional students that can do much more than is considered usual. I met a biologist who while doing her PhD as a side-line studied law. She explained to me: knowing what you want (she knew which specialization she wanted to take when she started), already having the general experience of another university degree plus also more experience with life in general/being more mature than a student fresh from school in her experience made a whole lot of a difference. In addition you may decide for which courses you want good marks and which just to pass and focus correspondingly.
how feasible it was to assemble your choice of courses yourself?
One of my universities had their students basically assemble the coursework themselves. The other handed out fixed schedules.
whether it was possible to take exams without attending the course?
Again, the university with the fixed schedules would have administrative heart attacks if someone enrolled somewhere else wanted to take some exams. At the other university that was maybe not super frequent, but it was not unknown, neither.

I think you can see that what is hard work but doable at one university may be not possible at all at another. And that would mean that a professor from a university culture where such things aren't even considered may conclude that your record was obtained via reasons 2 and/or 3, so not favorable.

As a result, professors said I may have "learned more", i.e. gotten straight A's, if I'd have studied a year or two longer like most people.

... IMHO hints at the professors considering 2 and or 3 rather than 1 the likely reason (or considering that even the exceoptional student 1 could and should have learned more)

Very interesting points. I think that they it could be 3, mostly since they have a 7-tier grading system, while we have a 4-tier, and they are not really comparable for these courses. Even more since we have very different local grading routines, so top percentage doesn't correspond to a specific grade. For instance, in some cases the top 40% can get a pass or higher, or the top 40% get top grade.

Furthermore, my degrees are BSc and MSc in math, and a MSc in general engineering sciences (general physics, computer science and data science). It came off as strange that I wanted to do math when I had put down the effort to get a degree in something that wasn't math.

Chemical engineering is nothing like chemistry. I think the transition would be quite the workload.

@Ceil: I didn't write that in order to keep the answer from getting too long, but that university was a technical university offering specialization in industrial/technical chemistry for chemists. Anyone considering to switch to chemical engineering would have taken that track. Maybe more importantly, I found the workload at that university much less than at the other where I came from. I used that to go working, but had I used that time (and some free time, holidays and the time I spent in philosophy lectures) for engineering instead that would have amounted to quite some additional courses.

... I don't deny it would have been a substantial workload, but it is not something that would be plain impossible for a very dedicated and good student.

Given this knowledge of the educational system, what could be the reason that professors dislike accelerated education?

There is not a good reason, and most professors do not hold that view.

How can one highlight the advantages of having taken a fast educational route?

I have not have much success with that, and I am not sure you should try.
The advantage of accelerated education goes to you personally, not your supervisor.  If you complete you degree at a younger age, then you work for more years between that degree and your retirement.  As a result, you achieve more and earn more.  Graduate school supervisors will not care much.  It's true that students who have successfully accelerated their education are hard workers, but they are not the only hard workers.

Could this be more of a culture clash then? I've seen this in general in my modules too, and especially on exams. Russian faculty tend to work by the books, while local faculty are very open in their approach as long as it works. A few times I took the more advanced modules before the easy ones, and the Russian examiner said you must take his course first and then advance to the next one. Meanwhile, in the advanced course the examiner (a local) didn't care as long as we could follow him.

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


text:
Why do potential supervisors not reply to my emails?
I have contacted so far 5 supervisors for my master program that I want to enroll in ( applications open late September and admission January 2017) .
I emailed various faculty in the most polite way possible. Introduced myself, showed that I am interested in pursuing a research career in their field, talked briefly about my achievements  but only one supervisor replied. I am not sure why is this happening ? I have attached my transcript ( I am not a high GPA student but I received excellent grades for my thesis and seminar courses).

I emailed them this week ( and one hardcore researcher last Friday)

what could be the reason ?
note : I am intending to apply for the biomedical engineering program (one I really want to pursue) , most students have engineering undergrad however , I have a biotechnology degree. Could that be the reason? the department said my biotechnology degree is acceptable for that admission purposes.

Questions about slow faculty responses come up a lot; there are tons of discussions about it if you look around.  Here's one recent one I posted in, for example: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/75998/what-can-i-do-when-my-e-mails-to-professors-go-unanswered/75999#75999

I suspect 1 out of 5 might actually be a pretty good average given the medium (email). At least, in the US this is certainly true - I'd consider 1 out of 5 to be really good, as it's effectively an informal "cold call". I wouldn't give up hope, but I'll leave it to people more deeply familiar with Canadian norms in this area to respond.

I will be waiting for a week or so before following up. Also, I feel that 5 potential supervisors is rather a small number, I guess i should email at least 10 to increase my chances!

I only reply to sincere emails as opposed to those that are just fishing.  In other words, once I know you are spamming people, I don't waste my time replying.  Also, if you deliberately conceal your GPA, then I won't reply.  Lastly, your low GPA may be the main reason.  I tend to look at project mark and mark for relevant subjects as well.  However, most staff members tend to use GPA as a filter.  If you are serious, write a sincere email and tell them how your strengths make you a good research student on topic X.

I don't know if this applies to you, but it might help: I receive quite a few e-mails from prospective graduate students. I am looking for new students, but I delete most of the e-mails that I receive without reply. My reason is that most of the e-mails are obviously form letters that are sent to multiple professors with no indication that the student knows or cares about my own research interests. If they didn't spend the time to assure that I might be a personal match with their interests, then why should I waste my time replying?
I don't know if this is your case, but I do recommend that you spend the time (up to 30 minutes per professor) to get to know their research interests based on their websites and their publications on Google Scholar. Only e-mail people whose topics seem similar to yours. (This might eliminate several professors.) When you do e-mail, one paragraph is all you need: you just need to explain directly to the point how the professor's research interest match your own.
Of course, I can't guarantee that anyone will reply you if you do this, but when students do, I always reply them and enter into a serious e-mail exchange. Actually, even if the student's interest doesn't actually match mine (or they pointed out an old research area that I no longer pursue), as long as I see that they made a sincere effort to know my research (again it takes up to 30 minutes per professor), I always at least give them the courtesy of a reply (though I can't guarantee that anyone else might).

Supervisors and researchers get flooded with emails during this time of the year due to prospective graduate students. That's why it's often recommended that you contact them 4-6 months in advance,
It's more often than not that your email gets lost in their inbox than them reading it and deciding that it's not worth replying to (especially if your experiences are related to the field in question). Some useful tips will be to wait it out for a week or so and if they still do not respond, then send them another email politely asking if they got your first message, and include the first message in that follow-up.
If they still do not respond, then they might be REALLY busy or it could potentially mean that they won't make the best supervisor...
Don't send them too many emails or it'll just irk them more should that be the case.
Be sure to also include "Prospective Graduate Student" or something similar in the subject line so that they know it's not some random email.
Hope this helps in some way or another!

For an overwhelmed professor at the beginning of a semester, one week is not an extraordinarily long period of time.


text:
I was rejected twice from two MSc programs, should I quit trying?
I received my rejection letter today and I was devastated. I was shocked because I have finally found a supervisor who saw my passion in the field and didn't care about my low GPA and lab members who were welcoming and offered to help me through my project. The committee believes that my GPA and academic record is below their standards (its one of the top 10 universities in Canada). The department does not even have that many faculty members and is fairly dead ( a friend of mine with a similar GPA got accepted, so I am even more surprised why I was rejected).
Although I aced my undergraduate thesis research project (A+), I am still considered that candidate with the lowest GPA. This GPA will never change and it will haunt me forever until I get a higher one in MSc degree, so should I just give up? to be honest, I am only pursuing graduate school because it will increase my employment chances in the pharmaceutical and healthcare industry.  I have been unemployed for a year after graduating from BSc and unless I have an MSc or PhD, employers will see me underqualified.
I am in a bad place, I volunteered in labs and hospitals, but that will never offset my GPA. Should I just throw in the towel?
P.S. I could continue applying to other schools, but I'm sure my referees will not be willing to write me reference letters for the third time.

Can you ask other referees for letters? Apply for other schools in Canada (top 30 or something) or outside Canada? Try to improve your application (i.e. GRE, MCAT scores etc.)?

I thought of the U.S. and I took the GRE (didn't do exceptionally well). The other referees are people who I volunteered for, I'm sure they are not considered as strong as my previous referees who taught me in university. Not to mention that I tried asking my other professors but they refused because I didn't take their upper-year courses with them (seminar course). I tried attending office hours before but I guess it wasn't enough for them to write me a reference letter.

Two applications is not many - your referees should certainly be willing to pass on letters for other applications. It's part of the job. And it's doubtful that they'd have to rewrite the letter entirely.

I took the GRE (didn't do exceptionally well) -- So take it again and do better. -- I'm sure my referees will not be willing to write me reference letters for the third time -- They don't have to write them again; they're already written. They just have to send them again. Unless they've actually told you that they're unwilling, don't assume they are.

Also, don't apply to two MSc programs; apply to ten. Your GPA unfortunately means that your chances at any single program are small, but the process is random. The more times you roll the dice, the more likely you are to win.

Have you tried applying for any certificate programs? You might be able to apply for some sort of graduate certificate program that will you allow you to demonstrate that you can handle graduate coursework and get good grades. That second transcript could perhaps offset the negative effects of the first.
As for your P.S., don't count yourself out! If I believed in a candidate enough to write two letters of recommendation, I don't think I'd mind writing a third or fourth letter as well. (In fact, I might even write that third letter a little bit more strongly, just out of admiration for your tenacity and persistence – two helpful traits in graduate school.)

If this is necessary for your career, certainly don't quit trying yet. But realize a few things:

Being at a top school doesn't always matter much for graduate studies, especially in Canada where Masters programsv tend to be more like mini PhDs. So you may find you have more success applying to smaller schools where there is a supervisor whose interests match your own. The supervisor likely matters more than the school.
Strengthen your application in any ways you can. Take some time to get experience in your field outside of academia. Do some extracurricular activities that show leadership potential. If you can upgrade your marks, do so. See if you can turn your bachelor's thesis into a published paper.
Put lots of effort into the other aspects of your application. Make sure you have excellent references. If there's a place to explain extenuating circumstantial, use it to explain your GPA

in terms of point 3, my supervisor did explain to the committee the extenuating circumstances that caused my GPA to drop. But it wasn't good enough for them to change their minds.

@Emma So it didn't  convince that particular committee. They may have had an exceptional number of applications, or a policy of inflexibility with GPA.

Take some upper level undergraduate course(s) as a non-matriculated student.  Make sure it's something you're truly interested in.  If you are very engaged in the course, you will likely get a strong grade, and a strong letter of recommendation.


text:
I want to participate in a summer research program, but my GPA is not high enough. Should I still apply?
I am an undergraduate chemical engineering student who has been participating in research for a little less than a year now. I was able to get a paper published on one of my previous projects. Since I do not feel that the automotive industry is for me, and since I really like doing research, I have realized that the biomedical engineering path is more suitable for me.
I started looking for summer research programs at different universities throughout the US, and also found one in Switzerland, but some of them require a very high GPA. The reason why I want to participate in these types of programs, is because I truly want to make my research skills more versatile - I also believe that being exposed to different research projects, will help me on my own, current, research project.
I do not have the high GPA, but I have the stamina, ambition, and research experience that I believe it takes to complete such an intensive summer program. Should I still bother applying to them, is there any chance they will consider me?
I do not want to ask my research professor for letter of recommendation, when I know there is no possibility of me being accepted. For anyone who has participated in said summer research programs, what was your experience like? Do they really place such a strong emphasis on GPA, or do they take into consideration the work you did/have been doing in your lab? I was thinking of emailing the department head of these programs, introducing myself, "bothering" them, but I am not sure whether starting off with "my GPA is not high enough" is the best idea.

It's hard to be 100% certain, but usually if a program lists a minimum GPA they mean it.  If your GPA is lower than that number, you will not be considered.

I think you should. If you don't meet the requirement which you get the same result with "not applying". It wouldn't hurt to try, so I think you should totally give it a try. Good luck.

This is exactly the kind of question you should ask your research professor. Because
1. Asking this question is a lot less time-consuming for your professor than you asking for a recommendation letter straight out (if he thinks that you have no chance, he'll just say so, and you don't apply).
2. If he thinks that you really deserve to be in a research program, he may be able to contact his friends (who might have connections in the research programs) and get you in, regardless of the GPA requirement. However, this is assuming that you are amazingly brilliant; in general, when they post the GPA requirement, they do mean it.
Also, as an advice, if you have the stamina and ambition, I suggest that you get your GPA up first. If you want to stay in an academic path, your undergraduate GPA will help you a lot more than you realize (graduating from a big-name school with a PhD has amazing advantages later on, when you're applying to be a postdoc or a professor).

The rule of thumb in applying to September to May programs is to apply to a "safe" school (one you are certain of getting into), a medium-competitive school (in which you feel acceptance is likely), and a dream school (which is a bit of a long shot).
You can apply this general principle when selecting summer programs to apply to.
There should be a trusted professor in your department who is functioning as a mentor to you.  If no one has settled into that role for you in a natural way, then you should reach out to someone you feel would be an appropriate choice.  In your situation right now, a natural way to reach out would be to ask the person for guidance in choosing summer programs to apply to.

I do not want to ask my research professor for letter of recommendation, when I know there is no possibility of me being accepted.

Your reticence is understandable but you should take a deep breath and ask anyway.  There is no one to be your manager and promoter -- other than you yourself.
Here's a trick that could help you perform that function more easily: imagine yourself ten years in the future mentoring, managing, promoting and recommending a student with your academic record and interests.
When you look at things that way, I think you will realize that it is part of being a professor to write letters of recommendation for some long-shot applications, and that professors (who are worthy of the name) find it rewarding to do so.


text:
What is a good length for the statement of purpose in a U.S. PhD application?
Certain schools give you specific details about their statement of purpose. For example a maximum of a certain number of words, double spaced, two pages maximum, etc. If a school does not provide any of the above-mentioned details, what would be a good lenght in terms of number of words to engage the admission committee? Is a single space statement of purpose too compressed, or is it acceptable?
I know that brevity and conciseness are important, but I find it hard to fit all the information they want in a one page. And I have to list relevant experiences, future goals, research interests, and which people I would like to work with in the department.

You could ask around for some examples of PhD applications of other people and see what they did.

There's really no right answer to this. They explicitly tell you how long it should be. Write as much as you think you should, and then stop before you're writing stuff you shouldn't.

In addition, let someone you trust, e.g. a former supervisor, read the application and ask for feedback.

If you've achieved so much that it does not fit two pages, you are plainly overqualified even for a Ph.D.

Depending on the program I would keep it between 1.5 to 2 pages.  I framed mine to answer the following questions:

Why am I applying to this school.
What are my research interests.
Previous academic accomplishments.
Previous professional accomplishments.
Personal story of triumph (optional, I talk about having to drop out of high school to support my family)
What is your goal after graduation.

Addition:
I would also target schools that are pumping out the research that matches with your interests... this will help when you are stating why you are applying like:

A major factor in helping me choose Awesome University was Professor Awesome's research on being awesome.  I feel that this aligns well with my research interests, and would make for a great fit between me and the department.

Also, if you talk about any abstract ideas be sure to elaborate on them to give a level of specificity.  They want to see you be able to translate abstract ideas into specific thoughts.

If you have a statement of purpose written for one school, you should be able to adapt it to other schools, too. Writing a fully customized SoP is a waste of time, unless you are applying to just three places (and then you are either overconfident, or just don't know what you are doing). If you've done a 1.5-2 page SoP, as JohnB suggested, just change a couple of paragraphs, and that should do it.
First paragraph: define yourself professionally ("I am a professional golf player who likes to deal with computers. I assembled my first PC at the age of 7, and hacked the school district network at the age of 12. Since then, I have been receiving straight As throughout the school")
Second paragraph: define where you want to be after Ph.D. ("I want to become a physicist to understand the nuances of friction between the golf ball and the air, and the ball and the grass. I also want to get involved with biology on the side, so that I could understand the ecology of the golf courses better.")
Two-three paragraphs: describe why this department is a particularly good fit. It's here where you describe the work you've done, and how it relates to the work other people in the department have been doing. ("I have found the work that Prof. Feynman has performed on the stability of beer foam as a function of ambient temperature and concentration of fine particulate matter  (cigarette smoke) in pubs of Ireland to be very intriguing, and cited his papers on the topic in my own research on flotation of potato chips on beer surface, see Appl. Phys. Letters forthcoming in 2013").
Conclude with re-stating that you think this is a great program, and you think you are a great fit for it.

Just some clarifications that the other answers seem to have missed. No school needs you to tell them how awesome you think they are (I believe you are better than Harvard) or how much you love their location (I love being by the ocean / I've always dreamt living in Manhattan). Explain why they will not regret accepting you. Show them what you're good at and why you will be a good fit for their department. Describe your plans and ambitions for after you've graduated. Overall keep it short but well-written. Don't waste their time with long formal introductions and greetings. Don't be repetitive.


text:
Should I talk to my advisor regarding undergrad advising workload?
Recently one of my profs (other than my advisor) told me that I am not doing well in his subject. Should I tell this to my advisor? Actually the reason of me not doing well is  doing other jobs assigned by my advisor to me like advising undergraduates. Undergraduates don't let me do my work. And whenever I am busy doing my own research and due to this when I politely refuse them, they say that they will go and complain about me to my advisor. Please help I am really stuck as to how to deal with the situation?

Yes.  Talk to your advisor.
It is really important you learn to, in a good way, think of yourself. Right now, the undergraduates are happy (they get help) but your work is suffering. I can imagine that helping undergraduates is part of your job description, but not to the point you cannot work anymore yourself. You need to sit down with your professor and your supervisor and discuss that your undergraduate workload is too much. Best is to have a proposal ready yourself, e.g. that you want to spend a day a week helping undergraduates and that that is the limit. Once you get both your professor and your supervisor to agree, no undergraduate can manipulate you into helping him/her. In addition, everyone is clear on their expectations, this is the professional way of dealing with this in my opinion.
If you do not set boundaries, you will be the only one suffering. The professor and supervisor will feel somewhat bad, but the undergraduates will find a new person to stalk, while you are left without a PhD.

You need to talk to your advisor about this, and ask his expectations. If he wants you to spend all your time on helping undergraduates there is no time for research. He can ask this for some time, say one course, but then you need to get time for research. He also needs to clear this with the professor so he knows you will make little progress on research for some time.

Actually Paul my advisor has asked me to drop a mail to her to tell a reason for delaying my work, so should i post the line which the undergraduates keep troubling me with (The line is there in my first comment).

It could also be that the undergraduates are just milking you for help because you give it. It is easier to let you do the thinking instead of doing it themselves. Try to judge when they just need to spend more time by themselves, and when you need to drop them some hints to help them. And if they get nasty, let them go to your supervisor and let her back you up.

And ask your supervisor to help you deal with pesky students, she will probably also have had her fair share of milking students

Also Paul my advisor said I got to advise undergraduates throughout my PhD as my funds are supported by her.

Advising undergraduates being part of your job is different than spending all your time on it. You could create times during the day (e.g. in the afternoon) that you have a few hours that you answer questions. Outside those hours you ask students to come back later. This prevents you being drawn out of research every time.

And communicate clearly with your supervisor..


text:
Does university location affect job prospects?
My university is in Oklahoma and most companies are in east coast and west coast in the US. I am a bit worried if a PhD will be worthy from an average university with poor location. Should I apply to a college where there is a bunch of industries around?

The location of a school is far less important than its reputation in the field. In particular, a school may have a top-10 department in some fields, but have only an average reputation in general.
A good employer who knows his field will know which schools are good and which are not. Location close to industry will not matter as much, so long as you can get on the radar screen of potential employers. This is where your contact network and mentors will be able to help you negate any potential disadvantage of being far away from the traditional job centers in your field.

Funny how similar our answers are. Must have been writing at the same time.

Far more important than location is the quality of the program. You can get some measure of the program's quality by looking at the job placement of recent graduates. If they are making it out to the companies you are interested in, then you should be fine. If all the graduates are staying in-state, you will probably want to look to a different program.


text:
How should a PhD student approach a collaboration?
I'm a PhD student at a top-ten university in the UK. I'm just starting the second year of my social science doctorate. I'm way 'ahead' of where I should be at the moment in terms of words written, research done etc, so I've got some time to build my CV and that kind of thing. In the past few months I've come to recognize the critical importance of getting published during the PhD to getting a postdoc at a good University, so I want to get something published. I'm working on two papers on my own - one a full length, one more of an opinion piece (the journal in question calls it a 'viewpoint'), but I recently met at a conference someone I'd be very interested in doing a collaboration with.
So, my basic question is - should I just email him and suggest my idea? Or should I begin by just chatting about the conference? He's a lecturer in another university, one higher up the league tables than we are (not Oxbridge). We got on really well at the conference and had a lot of academic work to talk about. I also considered getting some of his papers/books and getting a much better feel for the details of his work and then starting a conversation based on some questions/comments on his work. This therefore feeds into a wider "mechanics of academia" question - is this how collaborations start in general? Person A just finds a suitable Person B and emails them with an idea for a paper they both have appropriate expertise to write? Thanks in advance!

Quite similar: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/271/how-to-achieve-successful-collaborations

The best way to start a collaboration is to engage in a face-to-face brainstorming/working session so that you 1) formulate a problem of a mutual interest, 2) jointly sketch a scaffolding of a joint paper, and 3) come up with a plan to proceed, or at least agree on how to arrive to such a plan. Before the meeting consider the topic semi-open (unless you are dead-sure you know what you want to work on with the person), you never know what new/interesting/unexpected will come out of your discussions.
Now to get to a meeting/a few days stay, you need to arrange for a visit at the (future) collaborator's place and it seems that what you are asking is about a particular way to do that. From my personal experience, there is no right, nor a wrong way to do it. I understand these things in terms of signalling. That is, the form is less important that the signal you are sending. In my opinion/experience it does not matter whether you write a short notice like

Hello Joe, we met there and there and I got intrigued by the topic we discussed. Would it be possible for me to visit your lab/group and expand on those ideas? Fred.

or expand in a two-page argument about why it is beneficial for both of you to meet. In both cases the signal is the same: would you be willing to speak to me? and that is the only thing which matters.
And you should read the reply in exactly the same manner. Whatever is written there, the only thing which matters is whether the answer is yes, let's see what comes out, or no, blah, blah. All the rest can be discussed during the meeting, given the reply is positive. If it's negative, most probably the collaboration wouldn't work out anyway. Being open-minded is a state of mind, a personality trait.
Now to your concern about the collaborator's higher rank/position at a prominent university: I do not know about the culture and social interactions in communities concerned with humanities, but my general observation is that the better a scientist (whatever better means), the more humble and modest the person is with respect to the corporate structure and seniority ladder. That is, the majority of really good/respectable researchers in my experience do not care for your rank, they care for what you say.
The point I wanted to convey above is the following:

if the person you want to collaborate with is open minded and thus a potentially a good collaborator, it does not really matter how you approach him/her, just do it. In the case you have something important/significant/novel to say, he/she will engage you and the collaboration will start. Just remember, it's you who approached the other party, hence you want something from her/him, therefore it is important that you understand that you will be the driver of the collaboration, at least at the beginning - the ball is initially on your side - unless you touch a topic the other party is working on and has some solutions for anyway.

This is tremendously helpful and detailed, particularly the importance of the message above the medium; just better to get in touch with people per se, since if nothing works out, there's nothing works. Many thanks!

There's no sense beating around the bush. Just ask. If they are interested they will show a sign. If not, then at least you havn't wasted weeks writing up documents that may never get used. It's flattering to have someone approach you out of the blue.

That makes a lot of sense; I shall do just this.