text:
Usage of a web application that I sold for an academic project: Copyright issues?
I am currently a master's student and really glad that I learned almost everything about plagiarism prior to my master's thesis, I really want it to be perfect.
Anyway, I have an issue that has been lurking around my mind for a while, it wasn't a big deal before but I am currently making a huge moral deal out of it to the point of not deserving my BBA!
It is regarding my senior (or BBA graduation) project, I used to be a web developer well before taking any university courses, so when the time came for the senior projects, I was like: "Hey, I have that excellent web application (I worked on its codes for a month!)  which I developed and sold 2 years before to a local organization, why not use it for the senior project?". I earned "very good" (a grade between 14 and 16 over 20) on it.
Did I infringe any copyright here since I already sold the web application to another party? Back then, I thought of this and since I wasn't a perfectionist, it was okay for me since I am ONLY using it for an academic (and not a financial) purpose. To clarify, it went like this: I developed the web application for the other party, they paid for it, I taught them how to use the web application and that's it, I never gave them the source code as I remember (this was 6 years ago). I discovered a few months later that they aren't using it anymore and went for another web application by another developer. One of the answers makes sense, I made the source code available for public (other students) when I submitted it for my graduation project, I feel guilty now that I did not think of this in this sense back then. What can I do to for making up? Does this affect, in any way, my credibility of holding this BBA?

It really depends on the specific parameters of the assignment (project): whether the instructor allows previously created work to be used to satisfy the requirements or whether "new" work is required. For example, when I did my senior project, I asked the instructor about this and he told me he doesn't allow me to use a project I developed for work. Other instructors might be fine with this. The only way to know is to ask the instructor (or other person responsible for overseeing the senior project.)

(For the questions on copyright and ownership, it's not clear what you submitted, under what terms you transferred the copyright, and what you mean by "own" the project. If you [edit] the post to clarify those issues and remove the first question, which isn't answerable, I'll gladly reopen.)

Also see: Is it considered plagiarism if I use my OWN answers twice, Ethics of “recycling” assignments

One issue I see is whether you submitted the source code of the project to the university. In all the universities I've been, it was a requirement to submit your code and make it available to other students or anyone that would like to access it in the university. The company that paid for the app wouldn't be very happy to find out that thousands of people have access to their app's source code.

I've edited my post.

It's still not clear what the terms of the sale were, and that's what determines whether you infringed on their copyright by using it for your academic project. Did you grant them all rights to the work, including the source code? If so, you've infringed on their copyright by using the work after that. Did you grant them the right to sell the application, but retained all other rights? Then you haven't infringed. (You also didn't tell us under what license you released the code.)

Forgive my ignorance but I am not aware of most of the details you're mentioning. I don't live in the US and the issues of copyrighting and intellectual properties aren't as strict here (in practice). All what I can say is that I was asked to develop a web application, say for $ 300, once I was done, that was it! Got paid and everyone continued his life. No one mentioned anything related to copyrighting because it isn't a common talking here.
I did not handle them the source codes but of course they could be downloaded from the web hosting space of which they own the .com name.

After your clarifications, I don't see that from the point of view of the company, you did anything wrong. Since you sold them the application and not the source code and since you didn't transfer your copyrights to them, or signed any contract saying you will not resell/reuse the app, there is no issue.
From the point of view of your university, it really depends. You reused previous work for your project and you will find people arguing on both sides of whether that's ethical (check Is reusing old code for a new assignment considered self plagiarism? How to protect yourself if you consider it to be, and a group partner does not?). In my opinion, it is not the best thing you can do because you are supposed to learn something new in your master thesis, but personally I don't find it unethical.
Moreover, your supervisor(s) must have realized it when you showed up with a finished/polished product, with a designer on the acknowledgments and without asking him/her any questions on how to get there. If he/she didn't realize, then he/she didn't really care.
If this is really eating you up, you can have someone else (maybe a current student at the same institute) send an email to your past supervisor and asking if it's OK to use material from previous work in ones master thesis. In any case, don't beat up yourself.

Thanks for the reply. Yes, nothing was official or written. But, since they own the .com hosting site, they could easily download the uploaded pages/source codes and view them, but I sold them the end-application and not exactly the code, it's just a religious organization.
Allow me to clarify that it was for one of my 2 bachelors graduation projects and NOT the master thesis which I am working hard right now and out of scratch for it. (And this master thesis is based on my marketing degree and not the MIS (where I have the problem with the web app.) degree).


text:
Parents attending thesis defense?
My wife is defending her thesis soon, and in her department, defenses are open to the public. I will be there along with several of her friends/colleagues. Her mom also wants to come to the defense. In terms of her committee's perception, I could see this being viewed as weird or maybe unprofessional. Then again, it could be harmless, and her mom really wants to come. I also happen to be in the business of trying to keep my mother-in-law happy :)
How would this look from the perspective of her committee? Do parents ever come to defenses? I haven't really heard of this before. I want my wife to have the best chance at passing her defense, but I also don't want to come across as a grouchy husband that appears to be saying, "Your mom can't be here."
This is a Nutritional Sciences department in the United States. It is a somewhat unique situation in that students typically start a dietetic internship a week or so after defending the thesis. The internship takes months to plan for the student since it involves organization with preceptors at multiple locations.
At our university, there are three possible results from a defense: passing, passing with modifications, or failing. Passing with heavy modifications could result in a delay (of a month or more) in starting the internship. This recently happened to another student.
My wife asked me to ask this question here as she wants to focus on getting prepared for the defense. She initially asked for my gut feeling on her mother attending, and I had never heard of this before, nor had she. The defense is coming up very soon ;) and she did not feel comfortable asking her advisor a question like this so late. Also her advisor is not the most responsive to email so she might not even hear in time (I know that this will probably invoke statements that she should get over it or that she should not have picked this advisor, but this is not the point of the question). For the record, I would never tell my wife who she could or could not have at her defense. I'm just trying to be helpful :) It's encouraging to hear from the comments that parent attendance at a defense is fairly common place, so it will probably be no big deal.

I recognize that there may be significant differences university-to-university, department-to-department, person-to-person, etc., so I'm looking for general principles/gut-feelings here.

Regardless of social protocol, this should have absolutely no effect on her chances of passing her defense.  In any reasonable situation, if she's having a defense, her chances of passing it are effectively 100%.

In the one institution I have been in that has open defenses, it was almost standard for the family to attend.

@NateEldredge I think that her chances of passing are good given that the defense is scheduled, but several people in her department have failed to pass a defense this year. I looked at your profile and it's obvious you are well versed in academia and well-respected on this site, so I truly mean no disrespect here, but have you really not seen anyone fail a defense?

several people in her department have failed to pass a defense this year. That's a rather startling situation. Maybe the department needs to rethink it's defense scheduling practices.

@haff: I never have.  In my experience, the general practice has been that the defense is not scheduled until the advisor is confident that the student is ready and that the rest of the committee will agree.  If that is not the case in this department, then either it's an outlier (not to say "possibly dysfunctional") or practices in this field are vastly different from any other that I know of.  In which case, the general advice you'll get here may or may not be applicable.

A defense is like a wedding. The parents ought to be there :-)

The part that really rubs me the wrong way in this question is why this apparently a decision that the husband needs to take (I don't want to be the grouchy husband that says, "Your mom can't be here.").

As for "failing the defense" - I have seen PhD studies (e.g., in political sciences) where the student worked on her own for 3 years on her dissertation, and met her advisor a total of 5 times. The advisor really only saw the entire dissertation project end-to-end during the defense. It was actually quite up in the air whether the advisor (who really was only an examiner) would judge the project adequate. As usual, standards in academia vary :)

@xLeitix I updated my question to clarify this statement. This is in absolutely no way meant to be taken literally. For the sake of keeping the question concise, I included a short quote that has a lot implied. I would never say those words, nor would I demand that my mother-in-law not come, but it would definitely be implied by my mother-in-law (and/or the rest of the family) if I suggested that she not come, due to the response from the Stack Exchange Community, or her department's customs, etc. I love both my wife and mother-in-law greatly. Also, I am the feminist in our marriage :)

Perhaps your wife should discuss this with her advisor, but you should butt out.

@JeffE My wife asked me to pursue this by asking what I thought and to see what others thought.

Is your mother-in-law capable of hearing people criticize her daughter without an uncontrollable urge to defend her? If yes, she'll be fine.

Pardon the stupid question, but how would anyone even know that the parents are there and watching? It's not like they are required to carry huge signs "We're her parents!".

@mafu This is a good point, and there is decent chance in most defenses that the committee would not even know who the parents are. But at both my proposal defense and thesis defense, one of my committee members introduced himself to several of my guests because they were all there early. For some reason, my wife's defense will take place at a circular table, so everyone will be more noticeable.

I've been on several thesis defense committees where the candidate's parents were present.  Their presence made absolutely no difference to the conduct or the result of the defense.

@mafu: indeed, but then (for example) in my university family is not allowed to attend, so if they would sneak in the candidate would be breaching regulations.

@MartinArgerami That sounds really strange to me (why at all? and why should someone else's actions we have no control over affect the candidate?), but yeah, that is certainly a case that prevents it. I did not consider this possibility.

Your wife should ask this question to people in her department.
The style and expectations of defenses vary hugely from one place to another.  As other answerers mention, it’s pretty normal in the US to have family and friends at the defense.  But it’s not absolutely ubiquitous, and I’ve known the expectations to vary even between different departments at a single university.  So the best way to be sure is to ask around in the department — ideally, ask some faculty members who’ve been around long enough to see a few defenses — and confirm with them whether it’s usual to have family members there.
(In any case, it certainly shouldn’t affect the committee’s academic assessment of her; at worst, it would be seen as a bit of a social faux pas.  But nobody wants to be worrying about social issues during their defense, and it can’t hurt to ask.)

I would find insulting the very idea, that I have to ask special permission for family at a public defense.

@LLlAMnYP: I don't think it's a question of asking permission. It's a question of asking about local customs. The defense being open to the public, of course the mother will be allowed to attend, but whether it's "normal" in this department is a different question. (I assume that it is, but asking is certainly the best way of finding out. I +1'ed this answer, because it's the only one that recommends simply asking the people who know best.)

@StephanKolassa But one does not need to ask if it goes against local customs for, say, colleagues and fellow students to attend. Why should the closest people you have be singled out in this way?

Since this is basically the advice to ask about local customs, it is a very good answer. I'll add that in parts of Europe (Vienna, Austria, and Leipzig, Germany; comp.sci), family and friend attendance, and a social gathering with food and drink afterwards are normal.

@LLlAMnYP: I don’t mean to single the parents out at all.  I’d give this same advice for any uncertainty a candidate has about the expectations of how their defense should go.

@LLlAMnYP: One issue is what the department considers to be the goals of making the defense public.  If the goal is to allow the audience to provide moral support and join in the celebration, then it's obviously reasonable for relatives to attend.  If instead the goal is to ensure quality control through transparency (by allowing the academic community the chance to watch and ensure standards are met), then inviting non-academic relatives doesn't help meet this goal, and it might make the committee feel uncomfortable if it comes across as "don't humiliate me in front of my proud grandparents".

I believe that this is the best answer though all of the other answers and comments here were helpful (even the patronizing ones). It is about local customs, although as many, many comments indicate, it seems normal to have parents at a defense. You are right in saying that 'nobody wants to be worrying about social during their defense', and this is a core issue here. Thanks for your answer.

@AnonymousMathematician This is also a great point.

Open to the public means ... open to the public (presuming they can sit quietly in a room for 2 hours or however long your wife's defense is).
Moreover, (edit though I thought I was clear), it's very common in the US for family including parents and spouses to attend PhD defenses.
My wife and parents came to my defense (philosophy PhD USA). As did a friend of ours who was a foreigner living in America with no connection to philosophy. A philosophy PhD defense at least at my institution is them drilling you with every objection and reason that they think you're wrong for two solid hours.
While I assume a nutrition science PhD has a different format, I hope that neither the committee nor the person defending the dissertation has much time to look around and see who came and to think odd thoughts about the professionalism of the candidate based on who came to their defense.

I've seen quite a few family members at thesis defenses- it's not unusual in my expreience.

Just because it's legal for a person to attend a defense does not mean that it's appropriate. You would never invite your committee's academic enemies though you would have every right to do so at a public defense. Your other points are well-taken though. I now see that it is very common to have family at the defense. You are right in saying that the committee probably won't have time to look around and see who's there, but this defense will occur at a round table, and I have on several occasions seen the committee members introduce themselves to guests, so this doesn't universally apply.

+1 for "them drilling you with every objection and reason that they think you're wrong for two solid hours".

In many parts of Europe and in Turkey (where I'm from), it is very common and normal - expected, even - for one's parents to attend their thesis defense.
The thesis defense is an important life event akin to one's graduation, marriage, etc. Especially when the event is designated as "open the to public," I think it would be weird if the parents did not attend.
My own parents attended my master's thesis defense (in Turkey), and they will surely attend my PhD defense as well. Practically all of my friends with PhDs have had their parents attend their defenses (in Turkey, Europe, and the US). The ones that defended without their parents being present did so because they were studying overseas, and their families could not make the trip.
In many cases the families not only attended, but brough cookies, pastries, etc. as well; as treats for the other guests and the committee. This in particular could be a bit unusual in the US, but it is common in Turkey and (I'm told) in Europe as well.
So, there are cultural differences in how this is handled, but there is definitely no universal norm that says to keep the family out of the thesis defense completely. In some cultures, the norm is for parents to attend.

As a portuguese (therefore european), I never saw or heard of parents coming to a thesis defense, and I have seen some.

@Edu thank you for the contribution, I've done some minor  wording edits to my answer, based on this.

I feel like I should add that I've also never heard of anyone bringing treats to the committee. We are talking about big cultural differences between Turkey (Eastern Europe) and Portugal (Western Europe).
Maybe this comment could be improved and more helpful to others with sources for those practices?

In the US, students/family bringing massive treats etc before the defense started to be a very unwelcome tradition in our dept that we finally stopped. The students did not realize how uncomfortable it made the majority of committee members feel  (it felt like some unsuccessful  or desperate 'bribe' or offering)  - I realize that sounds like overkill, but nevertheless, it was very awkward.  It would have been totally positive vibe if they kept it 'after' the defense.   Related, family members in audience are very welcome - but the best time for chatting and introductions is afterwards.

I have witnessed parents (up to cousins) attending masters of science, PhD defences and even habilitation theses. I think my mother is still a little angry I did not formally invite her to mine, while my brother did.
What is nice though, is to warn attendees about the protocol, the duration and the formal aspects (avoid pictures and loud jokes).
So if the PhD does not contains confidential parts, I see no issue. A PhD can be full of emotion, it is quite an achievement, and I have never seen  jury members complain against a family audience. Moreover, it is sometimes an occasion for them to talk with people of the  same age at the celebration:)

"avoid pictures" - if this refers to taking pictures, it is again very dependant on the location or university.

Edit: The question has now been edited to clarify that your wife did specifically ask you for advice on this, so the concerns I expressed in this answer aren't operative in your case. I'm glad to hear it!
I'll leave the answer up since the underlying issues will apply to other situations.

This is none of your business.
Your wife is a professional and she is responsible for her own career. There is no reason that you should try to interpose yourself, even to encourage her towards a path that you feel will help her chances.
One of you has spent many years in this department and seen other students graduate, and one of you has not; your question makes clear that you do not have personal knowledge about this situation. She is an expert in this situation compared to you. So you are proposing to interfere with a situation that you do not understand from a position of ignorance, just because you have an uninformed feeling that this "could be viewed as weird". (At least you had the sense to ask here first, I suppose.)
Even if you did have extensive experience with the conventions of her specific field and knew that this could be an issue, it's not your place to butt in unasked and try to control her professional life. (Your comment that you don't want to be the grouchy husband that appears to be saying 'Your mom can't be here' makes clear that your involvement was not asked for.)
It's admirable that you want to support your wife. You should do so by providing in her private life the support she needs to excel in her professional life; not by inviting yourself to concern yourself with the details of her career development.

Though if your wife welcomes your opinions and thoughts (which will probably come in the form of her asking for them), it's good to be open. If you have doubts or questions (in this case something like, "Do many people have family at their thesis defense?"), and your SO welcomes your input, ask them. That's part of a healthy relationship. But unless you know facts, don't express your opinions as such.

My wife asked me what I thought and then did indeed ask me to ask the question here so that she could focus on preparing for her presentation. The comment about being a grouchy husband was an exaggerative joke (that has been edited to be more clear) that was written with her laughing while looking over my shoulder. I can understand how it could have been taken in an offensive way, so I apologize if anyone was offended.

Tom, I appreciate your edit. I agree that spouses/significant others can be controlling of their counterpart's future career path, so I agree that it would be good to leave this response up.

@Tom, I see this as a quite inappropriate response. This is not a professional problem - it is a professional and a personal problem. The wife should focus on preparing for the thesis defense, while the husband can take care of other things. And depending on the outcome, there are many situations where the husband making the decision will cause fewer personal problems. haff: As long as you didn't offend your wife, there is no reason to worry that trying to help your wife you might have offended someone else.

'None of your problem'??Seriously? This is a very inappropriate and offensive comment. I have come across a quote saying, 'If you don't have anything good to say, then don't say it'

source: Stack Exchange

license: 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/

sort: votes


text:
Dealing with adversarial grant committee members in interviews
I'm applying for a grant to research topic foo using bar as my working hypothesis (and it's not really something controversial: a lot of things are easier to deal with if you assume that bar is true). Now, one of the people sitting in the grant committee has published a couple of articles arguing that bar is horribly, irredeemably wrong, and we all should assume quz instead. This person is likely to raise this issue at the interview stage.
This doesn't worry me from a purely academic perspective: there are many ways of showing that this person's arguments don't hold water, and I can literally spend the rest of the day talking about them. However, it does worry me from a "I want that grant money" perspective: if I get that question, I'm going to have just a couple of minutes to state my case and get the rest of the committee (experts in my general field, but not in this particular narrow topic) to side with me. What would be an appropriate way of framing my reply?
Update --- The interview happened, the committee member in question raised this issue (just as I anticipated), and I replied along the lines that Sydney E. Everhart suggests below. The rest of the committee looked satisfied with this answer (as did some colleagues I had rehearsed the interview with a few days in advance), so in that sense, thank you, Sydney. Unfortunately, the committee member in question wasn't so impressed and gave a very negative evaluation of my proposal. I guess you can't convince someone that doesn't want to be convinced.

I am looking forward to this question. This problem, which I think boils down to differing schools within a community, comes up frequently in various forms, not only for grants (also: job interviews, PC meetings, etc.).

In my experience, most single-investigator sized grant programs don't do in-person interviews of the applicants in the US. What kind of grant (country, broad programs) are you applying for?

@BillBarth: you are right that this is not a US-based grant. For privacy reasons, I'd rather not say anything specific about these grants, other than the fact that shortlisted applicants are invited to a short interview with the committee.

Humanities, social science, engineering, physical science, mathematics? The more science-y the field, the more you can use evidence for bar rather than pure argument or opinion. There's no magic bullet to sway the other review panelists, but actual evidence is much harder to dispute. Either way, the fact that there is a bar/quz split is evidence that they should fund research on both sides until the issue is settled.

Let's just say that the use of LaTeX is widespread :) Again, it's not a matter of having data to show that bar is superior to quz; I could teach a semester-long course just about that. The issue here is to say something meaningful and memorable about the superiority of bar in just two minutes, such that non-experts can understand it. All the watertight arguments in the world are useless if I can't communicate them effectively.

I am not in your field of work, however, as one of the comments to your question pointed out, this type of scenario can happen in other fields and situations.  The best first step is to acknowledge the debate and the limitations of your own study.  However, frame your response such that regardless of the debate, you will still learn something new.  For example, my response might be something like:
"Clearly there are two schools of thought as to whether quz or bar is the correct assumption, however, that question cannot be answered in a single study alone. By funding this proposal to do work under the assumption of bar, we can answer questions X, Y, and Z.  An additional outcome is that we will be providing more information about phenomena surrounding bar, thus providing more information that may ultimately help to answer the question of quz versus bar."

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


text:
With regards to undergraduate theses, what level of knowledge should one assume the reader to have?
This question is piggybacking on this old post because there doesn't seem to be a question for the undergraduate level.
Should the aim of the undergraduate thesis be different than the PhD thesis? Specifically, should it be more accessible to the average reader? At the end of the day, I share the same concerns as the PhD student from the other question:

I don't want to look lazy by not including material, but at the same time I don't want to waffle on.

"there doesn't seem to be a question for the undergraduate level" - that may be related to, as per the help center, "Undergraduate-specific issues that could not apply to graduate or post-graduate academicians" are off-topic for this site. With that said, I will not vote to close this question for now, as (1) it is somewhat relevant for post-undergrads in that Bachelor theses are often closely supervised by said post-undergrads, who might thus benefit from the answer, and (2), because depending on the university/system, Master theses ...

... are similar enough to Bachelor theses so this question would apply, as well, while Master students may be counted as graduate students.

Assume you are writing for the average graduate from the same major as you.

Don't be afraid to write an appendix where you explain some basic things that might get in the way of your main exposition.

My rule of thumb -- whether for Bachelor, Master, or PhD theses -- is to assume precisely the level of knowledge the student had when starting to work on this topic. (I.e., "How would you like to have had this explained to you?")

This is the right answer! It would apply equally well to writing nearly all form of written work.


text:
Grading: students give correct answers, but in the wrong places
In the last assignment I've given my students, one of the questions has two subquestions that go as follows.

Explain how Theory X, as developed in Smith (2010) accounts for dataset A.
Briefly summarize the additional data that, according to Smith (2010), fall under the scope of Theory X.

A number of students have submitted something along these lines.

Something that is technically correct, but doesn't actually answer Question 1.
Something that is technically correct and answers both Question 2 and Question 1.

What is the proper grade for this students? The three possibilities that I have in mind are:

Full credit: they have provided correct answers to both questions, even though the answer to Question 1 is embedded within the answer to Question 2.
Full credit only for Answer 2, no credit for Answer 1: they not only have to provide the correct answers, they also have to provide them in the right place.
Half credit for Answer 2, no credit for Answer 1: half credit because the Answer 2 contains more information than I asked for.

I'm inclined towards the second option (full credit only for Answer 2). Would this be appropriate?
Update: in response to some of the answers below, the problem is not that my questions are unclear, as a majority of the students have managed to answer them properly.

I'm sorry but frankly the third option looks a bit silly to me. To say the least.

You can also consider option 1.5, which is half-credit for answer 1 and full credit for answer 2. Inform students in the future to answer questions where they belong and then adopt Option 2.

Option 3 may be required if your facility uses negative marking (to prevent exactly this kind of "hedge your bets" answer)

Whatever you do, don't lean on the idea that "if the question wasn't clear you should have asked about it".  It's a capricious argument.  Students will ask if they have no idea what the question means.  They will not ask (and why should they?) if they read the question differently than you intended.

Remember that the purpose of any summative assessment is to grade what the students know, not how good they are at navigating exam papers.

@DavidWallace: the problem seems about phrasing correct arguments, and that seems exam-relevant. If we were talking about proofs, it'd certainly be. Of course, this all depends on the learning goals.

actually the problem is that your questions are unclear, as a significant number of the students have managed to be confused by them. If they mention the knowledge you are looking for in answer to the other question this is a clear indicator that what they were asked was not clear!

At my former institution it was part of the system that coursework and exams were moderated by colleagues to ensure that the questions and answers were reasonable. If you discuss with your colleagues these cases (that may have been overlooked)  and they agree that the questions are still unambiguous, then it is reasonable to follow the marking scheme of your model answers.

From the level of detail you provide it is not entirely clear to me which option is the most fair one:

Possibility 1 seems fair if the questions were not entirely clear, i.e., it is reasonable to assume that a student really just misunderstood. If a large fragment of your course actually answered as you said, this may be a reasonable assumption.
Possibility 2 is my default policy for exams. It is not ok to answer "something" factually correct at some point, the answer also needs to fit the question. That is, if I hypothetically ask "What is A?" and "Also describe the alternative approach B", and the student brings up the right answers but mixes up A and B, she will get (fairly, as I think) a grand total of 0 zero points, or close to it. Of course this is only fair if it was obvious what was being asked. For example, if I had asked instead "Name and describe a really cool standard idea to do foo" (thinking about A), and the second question is then "Name and describe a more uncommon alternative way to do foo" (thinking about B), then purely mixing them up is not worth 0 points anymore.
Possibility 3 seems somewhat iffy. Detracting points for "too much information" opens a can of worms, and easily brings students into a "doomed if they do, doomed if they don't" situation where they lose points for too much as well as too little info. However, this is again something that can be fixed by having sufficiently clear questions. If I ask "Define C according to McFoo", and the student offers 3 alternative definitions (one being the one of McFoo), the two other definitions are not just additional information, but objectively wrong. The main point here is to prevent students from gaining points by just blurping out a braindump of "every piece of info on topic C", without actually understanding the question.

As said, from your question I am not entirely sure which case your situation actually falls into, however, it kind of sounds like Possibility 1 is fair in your specific case. If you are adamant that the question was clearly phrased and the students just misunderstood based on their lacking understanding of "Theory X", then Possibility 2 can also easily be justified. I would steer away from Possibility 3 in your case.

+1 another possibility if the questions itself were not clear, is to give full credit for question 2 and half credit for question 1

@Davor No, that's not the reason (at least for me, can't speak for xLeitix). The reason is that students quickly learn that throwing in some keywords here and there makes them pass the exam. Mixing answers to different questions always smells like "I only know some bits, and I don't have the wider context". So it's completely reasonable to grade 0 points if someone answers the wrong question.

@yo' Yes, that's the idea, but I am pretty sure Davor was just trolling, anyway. This is one of the unfortunate side effects of having more external people visit our site, I am afraid.

@yo' - Do I need to quote that again? OK, here we go: the student brings up the right answers but mixes up A and B. Your strawman seems hardly related.

What is your purpose of a grade? If it is a numerical certification of their knowledge, full credit is the right choice, as they indeed have shown to know the answer to both questions. If the assignment didn't have time pressure, you may consider applying a small penalty for the not so good organisation, but be prepared to have it challenged.
Don't penalise adding extra, factually correct, information. Other professors welcome it, and even, the expect you to understand that the question has unwritten sub questions that should be answered too for the full credit (I had one of these in high school, and "give three examples of mammals" meant also "explain what they are and why are they mammals, or I will only give you half").
Lastly, if several students have made the same mistake, consider that maybe the questions are not clear. I must say I don't quite understand the difference from your excerpt.

Full credit is clearly not justified: the student has not demonstrated understanding of the first question -- rather the reverse, in fact. I might well take off at least some credit on the second question as well, as the student seems not to have completely understood it.

+1 to @BrianM.Scott's comments. Knowledge involves not only knowing a load of facts, but also understanding how to organize them. When you are asked a specific question, you should answer that specific question, not answer question 1 indirectly in your answer to question 2.

@BrianM.Scott Seems to me you're directly contradicting and/or not following David's point here. In your class, you can choose to teach and/or grade the skill of literally following test instructions. Not all teachers need to grade for that. Perhaps you just meant to state the approach you use in your own classes?

@Dronz: I am disagreeing vehemently with David: I do not consider his approach acceptable. (Of course he is still free to adopt it in his own classes.) And I am not advocating teaching or grading the skill of literally following test instructions. I am pointing out that if a student offers a non-answer to one question and then incorporates the answer to that question in the answer to one that asks for something quite different, there is good reason to think that the student did not in fact fully understand what was being tested.

@BrianM.Scott Thanks for the clarification. I see how putting the answer to question 1 as the answer to question 2 could make it seem like the student fails to get something fundamental about the subject. Koldito's original question sounds to me like a case where the students are demonstrating complete understanding of the subject (covering both questions and more) but just not labelling which questions they're answering with each answer accurately. (So also imperfect in composing answers to fit questions during test time, but the knowledge/understanding was demonstrated.)

@BrianM.Scott if many students misunderstand the same question I would suspect maybe the question itself is not clear, and penalising them for that would be unfair. It seems the differences in the questions are subtle, and I don't think understanding the differences is that important. In real situations you can usually use feedback to confirm what you are being asked for.

@David: Apparently it’s not the case that many students misunderstood this question, which, at least as sketched here, seems very clear. The difference between the two parts is not in the least subtle.

@BrianM.Scott Are they being graded on their understanding of the question, or their understanding of the subject matter?

@Random832: The latter, of course. I just said very clearly that the answers briefly described by the OP give good reason to think that the student in question did not fully understand the subject matter.

Possibility 1 would not be fair as the students didn't manage to understand the questions correctly.
Possibility 2 could be applied but is very rigorous.
Possibility 3 is unfair as the students answered the question correctly and haven't written anything wrong.

I think you are missing a fourth option, full credit for answer 2 but only partial credit for answer 1. While I understand that one could argue that the students answered both questions correctly I also think that understanding a question is part of the correct/perfect solution and should therefor influence the credits. But it should also be acknowledged that the students have shown that they have the knowledge to answer both questions correctly.
If some students then want to argue with you regarding their answer you can always tell them that if they think a question is unclear they should always ask.

Possibility 3 is unfair — [citation needed]  Giving more information than necessary arguably demonstrates weaker mastery of the material—and therefore arguably deserves a less credit—than only answering the stated question.  It's overly harsh, in my opinion, but as long the policy is applied consistently, it's fair.

@JeffE arguably demonstrates weaker mastery of the material[citation needed]

@JeffE some graders do require answering more material than what they ask. The student may just be being cautious about it. Unless it is stated that "answer only what you are asked", it would be unfair to take credit for that.

The purpose of an exam is to establish the students' mastery of your subject, and absolutely not to test their mastery of taking exams.
If we give anything other than full marks for a correct answer, we have fallen into the trap of trying to mark their mastery of exam technique, a non-skill of no use in the real world, as opposed to marking their mastery of our teachings and our subject.
Oh, maybe if we're trying to train FAQ authors? Yeah, then it matters that they give the exact right info at the exact right point in a document I guess. But... I'm pretty sure you aren't.

the problem is not that my questions are unclear, as a majority of the students have managed to answer them properly.

Consider the following sentence: "This road junction is not unsafe because a majority of drivers pass through it safely." What percentage of drivers would have to have accidents at a junction, before you would call a junction unsafe? Did fewer than this percentage of your students make this error?
Of course not. You wouldn't be here asking that question of such a low error rate. Your question was unsafe, and in fact, I'm willing to bet that I can predict exactly how they interpreted it:

A) Explain Theory X, as developed in Smith (2010).
B) Briefly summarize the additional data that, according to Smith (2010), fall under the scope of Theory X, and say whether/how this applies to Dataset A.

That's how they interpreted it, isn't it?
To claim that your question was perfectly crystal clear, based on the fact that fewer than 100% misinterpreted it, is to disingenuously ignore the fact that several intelligent and hardworking students who have fully mastered the question's subject, all made the exact same error when faced with this question, and someone who didn't know the subject or even have the full question (me) was able to predict the specific misinterpretation that they made.
Either:

Full marks; or
Be prepared to justify 1) why you are marking exam skills rather than
course knowledge, and 2) why you had a consistent error of interpretation from the completely-correct responses, which you disclaim any responsibility for and instead put down to... what, exactly? It's not ignorance, it's not stupidity, so what trait are you ascribing it to, and marking it down for? Failure to re-read a question enough?

I wouldn't create a policy for this.  I would go on a case by case basis and judge how much it feels like the student understands it given their answers.
When the student writes too much, there are two options: 1) It shows a lack of understanding, or 2) It shows good understanding.  I would penalize #1 and, if I was going to penalize #1, it would only be fair to not penalize or even to give a bonus for #2.
I would also keep in mind that tests are indeed high pressure environments and therefore have pressure induced errors therefore not adequately demonstrating the student's true understanding.

I suppose the real answer is whether you consider these questions to be concatenate or discrete to one another. If you treat them as concatenate, then it makes sense to look at their answers holistically to tease out whether they understand the material. In such a case, they might earn full points, simply because they have demonstrated that they understand the material
If you treat them discretely, then you should simply be as systematic about it as possible.
I would suggest the following logic:
IF student response to Question 1:
    Fulfills the requirements of Question 1, assign full points;
    Partially fulfills the requirement of Question 1, assign 1/2 points;
    Does not fulfill the requirement of Question 1, assign 0 points;

IF student response to Question 2:
    Fulfills the requirements of Question 2, assign full points;
    Partially fulfills the requirement of Question 2, assign 1/2 points;
    Does not fulfill the requirement of Question 2, assign 0 points;

This is an easily-defended manner of grading. If a student challenges you and states that they answered Question 1 in their response to Question 2, you can concede that they did, and inform them that they would have gotten full points had they done so in response to Question 1.
I would suggest, however, that your third option is not only unnecessary, but arbitrary. Have you stated, clearly, that students should add absolutely no extra content in their responses? It seems cruel to reduce points for such an easy mistake, particularly when, ex ante, student's are uncertain of what constitutes 'too much'.

Grading must be completely objective.
If I give a lesson:
 Balls are spherical and the primary color red has a shade called crimson.
and ask 2 questions of you, such as:
 1. What is the shape of a ball?
 2. What primary color is closest to the color Crimson?
and you were to answer with:
 1. Violets are blue.
 2. Rubies are red and almost spherical in nature.
I'd have to grade both with no credit as #1 is technically correct but it doesn't answer the corresponding question, and the second has the answer to both in it, but is not used in proper context of the lesson.
Sadly, when students play with their answers, it's difficult to tell if they learned the lesson. But, what I know from first hand experience is when a student plays with answers like this, they're bored and are likely to do well given a chance in an honors or otherwise advanced course.
Happy teachings!

I would probably handle it the same way as if question 1 was not in the exam and got that answer for question 2.


text:
Changing PhD group: Yes or Not?
I would be very happy if you can help me, I really need help!
One year ago I started my PhD, I was the only PhD student (still am) who was (and still) not paid by the supervisor, and I have to work elsewhere as the personal assistant of another professor!
For the first 3 months, my supervisor gave me no topic, I was just sitting in the office and reading on my own! In the end, as he had no new ideas, I went with my own idea, which he pretends to like! The topic that I suggested (I provided a lot of literature background and methods) is really cool, published in very good journal. I started my job with no help from my supervisor! And till now I was successful with good results and I got a lot of knowledge and learned a lot of techniques. I spoke last week with my supervisor, he said he does not have any grant money to pay me (I know he has, he is going to get one postdoc and one PhD student very soon) and he spoke with me in a way that suggests he will never pay me! He also mentioned a lot in his speech about "failure of my experiments in the future", also that is impossible that I got very nice results, and it seems he likes it that I fail! He also told me I am a free person and I can change my group whenever I like!
I am very much afraid I will not be able to finish my PhD with him, and I thought of changing my group as he said "I am free to do that". I do not know what is the problem with him? I only attempted to get a good result and make him happy!  What will you do in my case? What should I do?
Need to say he is just a normal professor not a HUGE face!
Please help me and let me know about your ideas.

What country is this?

a) Please use paragraphs b) If he did not offer funding when you started, why did you expect you would get funding later c) You have not any good results, unless those results are already published in a peer-reviewed journal or conference (if you are in CS) and accepted by the community d) Go work with someone else, if you both hate each other

@BillBarth: The OP is in Austria.

I am concerned that you say the purpose of your research was to make your professor happy.
Your research, ultimately, is not for your advisor's benefit, but for yours.  You are in graduate school for some reason and making your advisor happy is only part of serving that reason, whatever it is.  From what you have written, it sounds like there is no reason, either financial or emotional or ethical, for you to stay with this advisor.
So: why haven't you left already?

When I started, he told me that he will finance me, actually last week before appointment i thaugh everything is fine but i was schocked by our conversation! Actually i wanted to change already but i was afraid that he will make problems for me!

@alexandors: all my in vitro tests are ready, we just need to do in vivo test which will be done after getting etical approvment and then publishing!

Congratulations on the exciting work you have been doing.  With the in vivo test you're planning, perhaps this would not be a good time to have it out with this guy.  However, there is nothing to keep you from starting to look around for a possible new advisor.
Once you have a person in mind, then you can start to think about how to approach that person.  You can use the standard graceful "not a good fit" description, of course, but in your case you can also talk about your hope of getting financial support.
If you find someone who would be interested in taking you on as a student, that person will probably want to guide you in how to handle the switch.
Another thing you might want to do is to talk with the head of the deparment, or the dean of graduate students.
Just make sure that you don't sound like a whiner or complainer.  Just outline the facts, leaving feelings out of it.

Thank you very much for your help! This would be very nice if other people can tell me about their experiences in this regard.

@Yasmin, my personal experience was that I was doing a research assistantship for a department chair, who didn't approve of the line of research I was pursuing.  My advisor recommended to me that I resign from the R.A. position in order to achieve greater independence of inquiry.  So I went to see the assistant chair and asked him to move me to a teaching assistantship, which he did. - - Perhaps it would be worthwhile to write a question in which you ask people to describe a variety of personal experiences with changing advisors.


text:
Am I obligated to work on a project unrelated to my thesis because PI asked me to?
My principal investigator (PI) got a grant from a company and wants me to work on this. However, this is not related to my thesis at all and we might not be able to publish anything on this.
My question is: am I obligated to work on this just because I'm part of the lab?
This is in no way related to my thesis and I'm not interested in the work simply because I'm the one who is going to have to stay late working on it and not get anything in return.

You are never obligated to work on anything - at the very worst, you could just resign. But my answer, and the others, give some reasons why you should give it careful consideration even if it is unrelated to your thesis.

@ApplePI "PI" stands for "principal investigator."

@MadJack: That should go in the question so that everybody can understand it. This website is for the whole world, not just the USA.

@LightnessRacesinOrbit Fair point. Edited. Though, after poking around a bit on Google, I'm not so sure I accept the claim that "PI" is a US-only acronym.

@MadJack: I didn't make any such claim, but from this comment thread alone it's obviously not a common term, and from its Wikipedia article it seems to be heavily US-leaning at the very least. I infer that it's more commonplace in the US than elsewhere because so far only the non-US contributors to this question have not understood it or even realised that it could be not-understood. Doesn't hurt to write it out in full, no matter where it comes from, so that the uninitiated can look up the term if they need to!

Tone down a little. PI is a pretty well known term outside of US if you are active in academia. Also, someone from US may not realize what lingo people use in other countries.

Just a point to consider: what you are obliged to do and not, is one thing. What you can use for leverage to help your career is another thing. If you want to be at least moderately successful in any career, you should consider doing more than obligated.
Does this side job gives you a broader network? Does is make you more important in the group? ==  Can you use it to ask more support, money etc from your supervisor? Will it help you to land a job or a similar grant later?

Dave's answer is great. To add a different perspective, you should definitely put more thought into what you want to get out of graduate school. Grades don't matter once you leave graduate school. However, your publication count definitely does, as does the people with whom you've collaborated, the technical and research skills you've gained, the understanding of how a research lab works, presentation skills, networking skills, and your ability to subsist on ramen noodles.
It's very easy for a graduate student to lose sight of what's important, particularly when it just looks like "work on this". At the very least, I would talk with your graduate advisor or another professor in the department to get their perspective on the task you're being asked to do. It may very well be something very useful for your career, even though at first blush it seems like busywork.
To bring this back to your immediate question, the only research you need to do is the research upon which your funding is based. If this does not fall into that category, you are under no obligation to do the requested project. However, I strongly recommend you consider the benefit that performing this research may provide in the long run; most likely, it's something that will in some way or other make you a more skilled (and marketable) researcher when you're done.

+1. I got way too distracted during my PhD. Mainly because writing papers was a difficult thing I had to learn and there was always an easier side project to finish. One of the most important things you can learn, not just as a PhD, but as a scientist is to say no to distractions. Sometimes even if they are technically obligations.

But he said "and we might not be able to publish anything on this"… (then he accepted this answer anyway, so wtf nevermind)

I don't know the details of your situation, but you should keep in mind my personal rule #1 of academic research:

Rule #1. You should always have a publication in mind for research you work on, unless there is some other very tangible benefit that makes it worth the time.

This rule is motivated by the fact that your vita showcases the publications you produce (and the grants you receive), but not the projects you work on. You want to make sure that you get due recognition for your efforts, which means turning them into publications. The more often you can employ rule #1, the better.
Are you certain that you cannot find a way to get a publication out of this project, perhaps by broadening it slightly?
The second thing to keep in mind is that, in a group research lab, it is very reasonable to do some work that is not related to your thesis. Of course, you must also work on your thesis, but it does not need to be the only thing you do. Having a more broad vita when you graduate is a real benefit if you are applying to postdocs and other positions.
Finally, are you getting paid out of the PIs grants? If so, that is perhaps a more tangible reason to work on the projects that fund those grants.

Actually my advisor is rather new and so the university is the one paying. Whether it is because i'm paid through my advisor, part of my question is if  in case I refuse to work on this,  can he just fire me or something like that? as I outline in one comment below i'm already doing quite some progress with my own work and beyond.

@JDoe: Of course anything could happen, but it would be a very low probability travesty if a student in good standing in an academic program "got fired" for wanting to prioritize his own academic work over his advisor's non-academic external project.  If your advisor is rather new, he may not understand how things work very clearly either.  You should not hesitate to talk to him about this.

I think it is not too common for an advisor to "fire" someone in the middle of the academic year. But if your interests are too different, the advisor may not want to fund the the next year (the same would be true if a student just wasn't getting anything done, etc.).  Especially in grant-dependent labs, the PIs will want to have personnel who contribute towards the work of the lab.

It's sad that this is rule #1. Arguably, the goal of research should be to create new knowledge, no matter whether there's a 10 page article on the horizon or not.

@Raphael: I can sympathize with that. I want to state the rule very bluntly, though, because sometimes there are new faculty who don't realize that even if they work really hard, if they don't produce any products they will not get ahead in academia. Of course, once someone is productive (and/or tenured), they can spend some time on higher risk projects. But one common characteristic of successful researchers is that they choose most of their projects where they are able to produce products in the end (to the extent that this is possible).

The literal answer to your question is certainly no.  In fact academics are surprisingly rarely obligated to do anything -- one might call this one of the perks of the profession.  Or one might call it one of the pitfalls: failure to do things that other people strongly expect you to do may have negative consequences.  These consequences can come with enough of a time delay so that some academics acquire the illusion of complete autonomy and freedom to do absolutely whatever they want...until they get a rude (sometimes fatal to their career) awakening.
Since you use the term PI, may we assume that you are a graduate student and that your advisor is the PI on a grant which is at least partially funding your schooling?  In that case, if you give a "hard no" then depending on the circumstances you might be viewed as simply not doing the work upon which your funding was made conditional, and it is possible that you could lose your funding and/or your standing in the program.
So you almost certainly shouldn't "just say no".  You sound unclear on your obligations, and that sounds very stressful.  You should have a lengthy, non-confrontational conversation with your PI clarifying the nature of your funding, what he expects in return, and so forth.  In fact it would be even better to do some research about this in advance, including talking to at least one other faculty member in your department (e.g. the director of graduate studies), as one faculty member's understanding of a student's responsiblities is not necessarily the standard one or even guaranteed to be correct.  But if you have some kind of research assistantship, you should have a total number of hours per week that you are working in the lab.  Asking you to work at night in addition to what you're already doing sounds so unreasonable that it is probably not even what your PI has in mind.  If you find out that you have, say, 20 hours a week of work in the lab and are already filling that with preassigned projects including your own thesis work, then of course the PI is going to have to clarify how you are going to take on a new project: what is going to get dropped instead?  I find it unlikely that your PI will look you in the eye and tell you to stop working on your thesis in order to do this new project.
Finally, from someone who obviously has no idea of the particulars of your situation, let me say that you sound perhaps overly negative about this.  You say that "we might not be able to publish anything on this".  To me at least that's an almost vacuous statement: publications are rarely guaranteed, and guaranteed publications are among the least valuable.  If your PI is working on this and inviting you to work on it, then I find it more reasonable that this is a promising academic project from which you can benefit.  Being involved in more than one academic project as a graduate student can be very valuable.  So unless there is more to the story (which could certainly be the case), maybe this is actually an opportunity rather than a problem for you.  Maybe.

I do understand you last paragraph, but the work seems to be very specific for the company and they wouldn't want to give this away. of course i'm putting the worst case scenario to really understand what is it that i'm in control of. There has been this kind of work in the lab before where the postdoc did some non-chanllenging work (plating, counting colonies for an antibiotic resistance study) The lab did not get anything from it in my perspective. My PI might keep whatever funding he got and the postdoc didn't get any sort of tangible recognition in exchange. While the postdoc kept his job.

I don't think I should submit myself to things that are not in my priority, when my interest is research and not just use my time for the sake of the lab. I understand I sound negative but i'm the only grad student in the lab, and i'm the only one getting publications plus working computationally and wet lab.

@JDoe: If the work is with a private company and is not affiliated with your prior funding and/or your own studies in any way, then "your PI" is not your PI on this project, and the direct negative consequences of not doing it become much lessened.  But in any case you should talk to your PI about it, carefully and non-confrontationally.  If your PI/advisor feels very strongly that you should be working on an esentially non-academic project, then to my mind s/he is not being a good advisor, and you may want to find another.  (This is a common enough occurrence.)

@JDoe: the key is to balance your own interests with the interests of the lab. Remember that you will ask the PI to write a letter of recommendation from you - that does not mean passively agreeing to every demand, but it does mean making a reasonable effort to be a team player, if you want the PI to write a letter that says you are a team player.  So saying "yes" to everything isn't good, but saying "no" to everything isn't better. To get ahead in academia, you have to find ways to advance your own interests while also helping others advance theirs.

I have a different perspective from the other answers on this. For what follows, I'm assuming that you are in the US and are employed as a graduate research assistant (GRA) with your professor as a your direct employment supervisor. Additionally, if the only money available to your professor to pay your salary is money from this grant, then they may ask you to work on this project since it is paying the bills. This is true regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with your interests, thesis, or anything else. It would be unethical for you to be paid by with this money and to not work on the funder's project.
Now your funding may be funneled through the department and university so that your checks have the university's name on them, but if your professor has designated this account to pay for part of your time, you should spend that part of your time working on this project. It might not be in your best interest to do so, since it might not lead to your thesis or any other publication, but if this is the source of the funds your professor has to pay your salary, you need to do that work. Otherwise he could fire you, and he could get into trouble with the funder if he pays you with their money but you don't do the work.
Now, your professor may have several other sources of money and may choose to pay you using this money rather than some other money. That's his right. They may have picked you to do this work because they think you will be better at it than other members of the lab. But that's pretty irrelevant. If this money is used to cover your salary, then you need to do the work, ask to be moved to other funding, quit, or be fired.
If you have your own funding, say a departmental, university, or government fellowship, then you wouldn't be obligated to do the work. But, in my experience, a professor who knew you had your own funding wouldn't ask you to work on an unrelated project and would hire someone else to work on the project instead.
It's not your status as a member of the lab that obligates you to work on particular things, but the source of the funds for your salary.

The scenario in the first paragraph seems quite specific and extreme (and sounds like it may be contradicted by further information provided by the OP in comments, although his situation is not very clear).  The grant is something that the PI got after the OP started working for him, so it is probably not part of the terms he agreed to when he accepted the position.  In my opinion, switching a student's funding and thus his required activities is quite unethical unless he came knowing that his funding status was in jeopardy.

For that, matter, you write: "It would be unethical for you to be paid by with this money and to not work on the funder's project." That is not clear to me.  I have funded students in the summer off of my NSF grant.  They did not work for me in any reasonable sense and at no point did I report what they did (or didn't do...) during the summer to the NSF.  The point is that I got permission to use part of the grant for student summer support.  Many grants fund students to do their own work in this way: that's pretty much what "student funding" means to me.

In the scenario that you sketch: at the very least, shouldn't the OP's advisor have informed him of this in advance and given him the opportunity to apply for a more desirable source of funding?  There are both internal and external scholarship opportunities for students, the OP could ask for (more) teaching, and forth.

@PeteL.Clark, depending on the terms of the grant, I would guess you are wrong. It's summer student support for work on the grant, not summer student support for whatever. My institution requires that I certify that myself and all people paid on my grants worked the fraction of the time we paid them on the grant, and this is required, more or less, by the government. On the first point, I agree that it would be unethical, but if the prof is new, has few to no grants, and the project the student was hired on had recently ended, the prof may not have much choice.

Yes, but if part of the project is to fund summer students....which is routinely written into the budget of the grant application.

@PeteL.Clark, I agree, but since we don't have enough info to know, the question is best answered by saying that OP is obligated to do the work if that is what he is being paid to do. If the professor ruined OP's life by not finding the right funding, that's bad, but it may be the best way to stay employed.

@PeteL.Clark unless it's an REU, it's a project to fund summer student to WORK ON THE PROJECT, no? Not just to work on whatever Pete say, right?

What I'm saying is "no".  Most NSF grant applications in my field do not include a section saying what students will do...because students are doing their own work, not helping the PI.  In many parts of mathematics, many students could not help the PI in any meaningful way.  Also "to work on whatever I say" is not right either, because you make it sound like they are doing my work.  They're not.  They're doing what they want to and what they can, and I'm helping them with it.

(Also REUs are for undergraduates.  The US government has many sources of summer funding for graduate students which are not connected to any one faculty member's research: VRG, RTG, GAANN....In fact I have never met a PhD student in pure mathematics who had funding tied to working in a lab or doing any specific work for their advisor.)

I think I see what you're talking about now. I think, in this case, that you have a special kind of grant (an RTG) that really only applies to theoretical mathematics. These are actually kind of unusual in my experience, and making them sound normal isn't helping OP. My apologies for the flippant comment about doing what Pete says, as well. All that being said, NSF usually cares that the students work on the grant. If the purpose of the grant is training students, then that is the purpose and what they do is on point. If it's more topical, they're going to want progress by the student.

No, what I said first applied to an individual NSF grant.  But I agree that this is probably not the situation the OP is in.  Also, I must admit that it is harder to get summer funding for students on individual NSF grants than it used to be.  Sometimes this funding is cut from funded grants and sometimes it isn't, and the reasons for this are quite opaque.  Finally: I certainly agree that if it is part of the OP's funding contract to work on this particular project, then he is obligated to work on it or forego at least some portion of his funding.  He should find out...

Still, theoretical mathematics is different. I've had and have tons of grants with students on them from NSF. Grants often just come to and end after years or longer after maximal no-cost extensions. Frankly, when I was in school, I rarely knew what grants I was being paid on, and it didn't matter to anyone what I was working on too much as long as I made progress. But it is very common to have grants in other fields that require students to make progress on the subject of the grant. And if OP's prof is thinly funded, some flexibility in subject might be required.

Short answer: no.  Longer answer: Might this benefit you in some way?  If the answer to that is no then you absolutely should politely decline with the excuse being that you want to work on your thesis and that's your priority.  But consider whether you might somehow benefit in the long run from participation.  You should not expect a better grade, nor should your grade be contingent on your accepting this project.  It might, however, put you in a better spot in the lab, lead to employment, lead to compensation, help with a letter of recommendation, etc.
tl;dr: Don't do it if you think you can't get anything out of it.  But first consider very carefully whether or not you really can't get anything out of it.

Some good (IMO) reasons to take on the work:

Does it require a new technique (or a modification to one you already use)?  If so it builds your skills, and your next recruitment will be based on skills rather than grades.
Does it get you contacts outside your institution?  This is more likely than you think if your data isn't as clear as they were expecting, and recruiters (postdoc or otherwise) will want to hear about external collaborations.
Are you sure you won't get any thesis material out of it?  Even a couple of pages about a more general use of something you're doing can be useful in some cases.
You say "might not be able to publish".  Alternatively that could be put as "I might get a paper out of this".  That would be a good thing, especially if it's not in your core area, as it demonstrates flexibility and opens up more roles to apply for in the future.

However it might need some managing:

Maybe along the lines of "yes, but I need to get [some data on your core project] first".
If this is a piece of commercial work, it may bring some non-grant funding with it.  Some of that may be available for you (I've seen this happen, extra cash is a good way to get a volunteer to work a Saturday).  Of course this may be ruled out in your system.
Find out about whether you would be allowed to publish worthwhile results.  Often engineering/technology companies want to publish so long as they don't have to put too much effort in to writing the paper.  If you get the data and write the paper, you should probably be first author (not always, e.g. your supewrvisor developed a clever technique which hasn't yet been published, you're just applying it).

I got a paper and a results chapter from a measurement that started like this.  The sample arrived when I was bogged down in an experiment that wasn't going anywhere, and what I needed turned out to be a break from the core work to work on a problem that could be solved in a reasonable timescale.

All of the above responses offer good advice.  If any of your funding is coming from the project, then you should certainly feel some obligation to work on it.  If not, then you are right to have reservations about it taking time away from your thesis work, though it still might be valuable experience.
However, if you are in the sciences there is something else to be considered - the politics of grad school.  If your advisor is a reasonable and mature person, you should be able to talk to them about your concerns, and decide together whether it is something you should do.  The trouble is that a very large percentage of academic scientists are NOT reasonable or mature people, even if they at first appear to be.  Getting a PhD is often more about stroking the correct egos and being a good little minion than it is about your skills, abilities, or grades.  With far too many advisors, if you don't follow orders or do everything they expect you to do FOR THEM, then there's a good chance that they will decide you don't deserve a PhD, and you will get unexpectedly screwed somewhere down the line.  I've seen it happen time and time again over stupid stuff.
They may not do anything as obvious as firing you, but they can make sure you don't pass your comprehensives, don't get the funding to continue, or they can suddenly drop the project and you with it.  They can also just make your life miserable until you quit.  University rules are meaningless when it comes to grad students - professors can pretty much do whatever they want with you and change the rules at will, and there's nothing you can do about it.  In one of my programs, a single professor with political clout changed the format, content, and committee of examiners for the comprehensive exams THE DAY BEFORE IT WAS GIVEN, to insure that only the people he personally felt were "worthy" would pass.  The entire grad student population of the department complained to the department head and the university as a group, but were ignored.  Unfortunately, this sort of thing is not uncommon.  I've never been associated with a grad program that actually treated all students fairly and evaluated them strictly on ability or the quality of their work.
I'm not trying to make you paranoid - I don't know your advisor or program - I'm just saying that you should be aware that in most programs the biggest part of getting a PhD is making your advisor happy and satisfying their personal whims.  And I can tell you from experience, that many of these people are immature and arrogant, do not take any kind of questioning or constructive criticism well, and have very specific ideas in their minds about what it means to "pay your dues" to get a PhD, which may be everything from extra academic work to sleeping in the lab to picking up their dry cleaning for them.  Some will even nearly write you off on day one if you didn't go to the right undergrad institution.  Most view your RA position as them doing you a favor, and expect you to do a sufficient amount of foot kissing in gratitude for it.  Your advisor's main interest is advancing their own career, and they see you as a tool to get there.  I know grad students who completed thesis work but were essentially held hostage by their advisors for additional years in order to work on projects that only helped the advisor.  Unfortunately, they had no choice.  Not only did they need to satisfy the advisor to get the degree, but they had no hope of landing a decent job without a glowing letter of recommendation.  Hopefully, your advisor is not one of these people.
My advice is that if you want to get through grad school, the work that is the highest priority for you is whatever your advisor says it is - and that may not necessarily be what you or anyone else thinks it should be, or what you are technically "obligated" to do.  I guarantee you that your department does not feel obligated to give you a degree, even if you do great work.  That isn't fair, but it's the way things are in the academic world.  If you want a PhD, you usually just have to suck it up, play whatever games your advisor says you have to, and then get the hell out.
So, by all means look out for your own interests, but just be very careful.

This is written in a slightly gloomier fashion than necessary, but contains some good points. E.g. "Your advisor's main interest is advancing their own career, and they see you as a tool to get there." This is certainly true most of the time. There are certainly exceptions to this rule (e,g, some people on this site), but look for clear signs your adviser is the exception before assuming he is. Also "just be very careful.". Always a good idea. Also " even if they at first appear to be." Yes, things are not always what they appear to be. And a little paranoia is not such a bad thing.

Having said that, some of these factor are heavily field dependent. E.g. a PhD is a subject like math and a PhD in a experimental science can be somewhat different experiences. And abuse is much more common in the latter case.

I've been out of academia for thirty years.  So I'm sure it's completely different.  But one thing I've learned in the office environment is to happily accept any opportunity to serve that's presented.  It builds my resume and my visibility.

In academia, there are many opportunities to serve, and someone who doesn't know how to say "no" is likely to get endlessly bogged down in work that does not further his/her career.

The key is balance. Someone who says "yes" to everything will end up overwhelmed and unable to be productive. Someone who says "no" to everything will end up off the main track, and their career will not progress. There is not so much difference between business and academia, really: in both, you have to wisely decide when to help someone with projects they are interested in, to promote a team environment and to build good will.


text:
Does being a poorly-performing undergraduate researcher mean that I have little chance of being successful in graduate school?
I am an undergraduate student in mathematics, and I will be starting my third year of university in the fall. I recently attended an NSF "Research Experiences for Undergraduates" (REU) program.
Unfortunately, the program did not go well for me. I can't engage with the material at the proper level, and I've accomplished very little while I've been here. For reference, the others here are writing multipage papers about things they've done or at the very least, learned, and some plan to submit theirs journals or present their findings at undergraduate-friendly conferences. I could probably write a paragraph of what I "learned" but in my opinion, I don't have enough background to even coherently think about what I was supposed to accomplish.
Here's a rundown of other possible reasons that I performed poorly:

As I said before I don't have much background. I've taken all of the pure math courses my school offers, but the others here came in knowing things like category theory, algebraic geometry, etc. that I simply haven't been able to learn well in my short time here. Notably, the program website never indicated that I would expected to know that stuff. I certainly exceeded the "minimum" requirements to apply.
My research advisor is advising three students and we're sharing projects. Since the others knew so much more than me, I feel like he was unwilling to help me with things that was probably trivial to others. (I know that in graduate school that attitude from professors might be common, but the other students had semester long classes on things I was trying to pick up in a few days.) This was also his first experience involving undergraduates with research.
While my program is considered competitive in the sense that they apparently get 300+ applications only accept 9 - 12 students each summer, I'm pretty certain that I only got in because I'm a member of an "under represented group" in mathematics and the program tries to favor such individuals. I was clearly not accepted on merit based on the caliber of the other students.

I am concerned about my performance because these programs are "designed to expose undergraduate math students to research to the extent that they are encouraged to attend graduate school in the mathematical sciences". Considering this experience makes me want to do anything but graduate school in math, I'm worried. Should I let this experience be a wake up call?

There are more qualified people here to give you feedback, but I can't help but feel that things aren't as bad as they might appear to you. 1) The "caliber" of students is not determined by which classes they have taken that you haven't. 2) Your program targets particularly the groups you say you are from (I checked 3 descriptions) in order to teach you; failure to do so is not yours as you disclosed your background beforehand. 3) Program targets junior/senior level. You are a sophomore. 4) Old testimonials included "...rewarding but frustrating." Best of luck!

Wait and answer this question at the final year at MSc. Some students need time to understand the theory, others treat it superficially. You need to build a solid background and this is not achieved easily. However, with proper guidance, you can publish a solid paper even undergraduate. The best actions would be to contact a professor at your home institution(or not) that you like and start collaborating. Then you will know what are your strength/weaknesses. Good luck!

I'd have to disagree with @MikeyMike's advice, insofar as "collaboration" between undergrads in math and faculty in math is at best contrived, and normally does not genuinely exist. To believe or insist otherwise usually merely reinforces a sensible (!) student's feeling that they're inadequate. I gather that mathematics differs from other subjects in this regard... Anyway, "expose to research" is one thing, "actively participate" or even "comprehend" is another. See Kimball's answer below.

@ paul garrett I know some undergrads in theoretical physics who actively participated in research projects with professors and published papers in somehow good journals(not the best impact factors, but respectable).

To address the titular question, no, being a "poor undergraduate researcher" does not mean you are not cut out for graduate school.  First, many people who go to grad school in math have no research experience in advance.  Second, having one bad research experience does not mean you are a poor researcher--you're not even in your third year yet.
Having bad research experiences is pretty common, and I know several professional mathematicians who've had bad experiences.  I was part of a summer program and a workshop where I felt I was in over my head and everyone else seemed to know the topic much more than me.  Fortunately they weren't my first research experiences, and they didn't last as long as an REU, so they weren't too discouraging as a result.  These experiences also provided no gauge as to whether or not I could be a successful researcher.
Research takes a lot of time, usually more than you expect (even when you expect it's more than you expect), as well as adequate preparation.  It's also hard to find good problems that are suitable for undergraduates to do in 6-10 weeks.  Part of the problem is, before you work on a project, you don't know how hard it will be or exactly what it will involve.  Therefore lots of REU projects don't amount what was hoped for.  It sounds a least like this project wasn't appropriate for you at that time.  Whether that was due to the supervisor being too ambitious or you not having the expected background, I can't say.  (There could be other reasons for your admission besides your "minority status.")  What I can say is that is easy to get the impression that everyone around you understands or knows more than you just because they're more vocal or they know different things from you.
To address what seems to be your principal concern now, the primary reason to go to grad school in math should be because you want to learn and do more math.  Getting a master's or a PhD in math does not mean you will be a math researcher, and you often don't even need to do any research to get a master's.  It's unfortunate if this experience turned you off from math, but I suggest you wait a little while to see how you feel about math.  Maybe after this experience fades from your memory, you'll get more excited about math again.  Or maybe you'll find something else that excites you, which is good too.
By the way, if you've already taken all the math classes offered at your school by your second year, then possibly your school doesn't have an environment as conducive to developing mathematical maturity as other schools.  If you do want to pursue math further, you might look into transferring, a semester abroad, or taking classes at other nearby schools.

No. In mathematics all undergraduates are poor researchers.
You might object that if an undergrad did research that was strong enough, it really would serve as evidence that they will succeed in graduate school. However this simply does not happen: I am a math professor in pure math who has served on graduate admissions committees, and in the past 5 years I know of 2 undergraduates in the US who I'd say did research at this level. Others might argue the number is higher, perhaps on the order of 1 or 2 per year; but in any case it is extremely rare.
Along the same lines, Andy Putman said in this answer:

I am the director of graduate admissions in the pure math department of my university.
In my experience, we basically ignore "research" conducted by
  undergraduate and masters students ... It just isn't a good predictor
  of whether or not you will be successful in a PhD program.

Seconding this: indeed, by some (unreasonable but popular) standards, essentially all math undergrads are "bad researchers", in the sense that they don't have much idea what's going on, in the first place. The nearly universal "timetable" for "getting up to the starting line for (meaningful) research" is apparently much different from other subjects (... or, perhaps, those are misrepresented, too, by people who don't know any better...). REUs in math are at best encouraging about social interactions, inspirational about active math rather than compliance-oriented classroom-math, etc.

In mathematics all undergraduates are poor researchers — Well, almost all.  There are rare exceptions like Daniel Kane.

@JeffE: When I read Tom Church's first sentence, my first thought was Jacob Lurie. My second thought was that his sentence is still true almost everywhere.

"Should I let this experience be a wake up call?" Absolutely.
"Does being a poor undergraduate researcher mean that I have a poor chance of being successful in graduate school?"  Not necessarily.
Everyone starts out as a poor researcher.  Becoming a good researcher requires hard work, preparation, and some chance.  It is pretty clear you do not have the preparation yet.  If you have taken all the pure math classes at your home institution, this suggests that your home institution may not be able to prepare you for math research.
It's a personal decision to pursue research.  If you decide to do that, you should talk to your advisors at both the REU and your home institution about what you need to change to be better prepared.

It is pretty clear you do not have the preparation yet. I wouldn't go that far.  How much preparation you need depends almost entirely on your project.

You'd think it might - but a counter example.
I was an appalling undergraduate researcher. I had a project I chose - but it turned out I wasn't that interested in it. I scraped a pass.
I got back into research about 15 years later - 5 years ago. In those 5 years I've obtained around £10m of funding, about half of that as lead applicant. I've published in multiple high impact journals and impacted national policy. People from across the country seek me out as a collaborator.
The difference - The first project was wet lab immunology, and I learned I detest lab work. The last 5 years has all been near patient pragmatic research.
If you can find an interest and a passion, you'll find the background you need will be little effort to acquire.


text:
Value of (multiple) master's on the path to the PhD?
I'm a PhD student in computer science. At the end of the year I will finish my coursework and be awarded a master's degree. Due to the nature of my research (machine learning) I'm considering taking additional classes to get a master's in statistics. The obvious pro is that I will gain a deeper understanding of topics that I will otherwise be generally self studying. The obvious drawback is that coursework takes time away from research. How do I weigh these pros and cons appropriately? Thanks.

You've defined the components of the decision correctly. but everyone has their own weight function based on their ability to study independently, the state of their research, and so on.

You seem (at least in your question) to have skipped over a middle option: as a PHD student in computer science at an American university, it is likely that with no additional paperwork you can enroll in graduate courses in the statistics department.
(As with all things academic, it would be good to run this past your supervisor, but as long as you can explain (i) why you think it will be useful to you and (ii) why it will not significantly impede the progress on whatever else you are supposed to be doing, s/he ought to be supportive of it.  If the statistics coursework is directly relevant to your thesis research, s/he ought to be enthusiastic, even.)
You can then take exactly the courses to develop the knowledge and skills you need.  I don't know your situation, but it seems very unlikely that what you want to learn will coincide precisely with the set of requirements for a master's degree in statistics.  And in terms of your credentials: unless you are looking for a post-PhD position specifically in statistics, given that you already have one master's degree and are going for a PhD, I don't see a second master's degree in statistics as having much value to you.  (Even then, unless your career goal is to be some kind of adjunct lecturer in a statistics department, a second master's degree is not guaranteed to be directly helpful: if you have specific career goals then you should ask around as to what credentials best help you achieve these goals.)
As to the value of the coursework itself versus the time for your CS research: Suresh's comment is the best answer that I can think of to that.  You're right; there are pros and cons to be weighed against each other.  We can't do that for you nearly as well as you can do it for yourself.  Your supervisor is the natural person to go to for some additional insight, but in my opinion the final decision is really yours.


text:
How important is a rebuttal for a top conference (CS)?
After the first review process, could the rebuttal totally change the reviewers' minds, i.e. from accept to reject or the other way around?

After the first review process, could the rebuttal totally change the reviewers' minds

Very likely no. The rebuttal letter is usually very short (a few hundred words, typically) in comparison to the actual paper, so it is unlikely that the few extra explanations will turn the reviewer around entirely. Also, what is true for most humans is also true for academics - once people have formed their opinion about something, it is hard to fundamentally change their mind. That is, if a reviewer hates a paper enough to vote for full reject in the first round, a few good explanations will not be enough to turn her/him around to accept.

from accept to reject

Not unless you write something really idiotic ("I don't understand the criticism that this paper is drawing. I am sure, Prof. Bigshot did not have to listen to such criticism when he originally published the same contribution."). Also, if your paper is accepted, what is there to rebute?

or the other way around?

As jakebeal writes, the most likely case is that the rebuttal letters are used to differentiate between a number of borderline papers for a few remaining conference slots. In my (limited) experience in the matter, nobody will even really look at rebuttal letters for papers that are already clearly accepted or rejected.

as from accept to reject, I mean some are accepts some are borderlines or even reject.

"Also, if your paper is accepted, what is there to rebute?" - I have been told various times by more experienced colleagues about their firm stance that foregoing the opportunity of a rebuttal even for an accepted paper shows a lack of interest, and, in their opinion, might even be exactly the reason why a reviewer's mind could change from a slight accept to a slight reject.

First, it's worth noting that very few computer science conferences actually allow a rebuttal: mostly, the decision you get is the final decision.  In those rare cases that I have encountered that have a rebuttal period, it mainly serves to help disambiguate papers that are near the borderline.  Thus, it can certainly shift the status of a paper between accept and reject (e.g., by showing that reviewer #3 really was nuts and should be discounted or by eliminating the doubt that the authors were benefiting from), but is unlikely to do so unless the paper was already quite close to the boundary.