text:
Holding positions in industry while being a professor
I have seen many professors also hold positions in industry, say Data Scientist at Uber or Machine Learning Manager at Google. How does this work? Do professors apply for these positions or do the companies reach out to them? Also, I know some of these professors take a break from being at the university and go work full time for a while before coming back, while others split their time between both. I am just curious if anyone knows/experienced how this process works.

Many possibilities:
Sabbaticals,
leaves of absence,
some Universities have "close" contacts with industry and some faculty have combined teaching / research roles...
Some engineering Universities really value faculty who have actually done real work and students appreciate that as well. Nothing like having someone talk about sensors and issues with sensors like getting temperature readings from a brake disc that is glowing red while spinning at 10K rpm... Compared to those "academics" that only ever push paper...
Some Universities even "use" final year engineering students to do funded research (their final year project) for particular issues using University machines as they have helped purchase said machines etc

Let me guess, downvoted by an academic paper pusher... without the courage to leave a comment...

Well, just upvoted by one, anyway.

OOPS, I guess I did leave a comment. My bad.

Anyway, there are probably about as many variations as there are people. But note that some places make it hard/impossible to do this, again for a variety of reasons.

@Buffy Thanks, and yes, some places are better placed for industry links than others, we used to have courses that ran from 7pm to 9pm for workers to get there... Full time students did not like their pub time taken :)

Many professors work on 'project-basis' anyway
My experience is that many professors work on a 'project-basis' in any case. If you're a "research professor" then you often do some teaching, but that takes up the minority of your time. For everything else, you don't often have "hard employment" as in a full-time commitment to pay for arbitrary research, many universities don't really do that, but you have specific grants, specific projects that fund you (or some part-time of you - there often are multiple grant projects running at the same time) and a team to do some research.
In that context, there's little practical difference between a professor obtaining a grant that'll pay for half of their time for the next three years, a post-doc and two grad student research assistants, versus an industry contract that takes half of their time and allows them to lead a bunch of research assistants employed in that company (and some of them might defend a PhD thesis based on that work).


text:
PhD in Statistics working in Physics
I will be applying to PhD statistics programs this upcoming fall and really enjoy statistics. But, I also love physics (started as a physics major) and am wondering if there is opportunity post-PhD to work in a physics (or astronomy) department. I am aware of some programs (such as CMU) that do research in astrostatistics and some of those professors got PhD's in physics or astronomy, but did not know if it was possible to do the opposite.
I honestly cannot give a good reason why I ended up switching from physics to math, but do not take this as regretting it, I love math and especially statistics.

What sort of physics? In HEP-ex, there were a few very well-regarded physicists who were statistics experts -- big need to know if "we saw 0 events and expected 1 event" is significant or not, and most physicists just plug it into black-box software and extract the sigmas....

Statistics is pretty widely applicable, of course. Some parts of physics deal with large sets of data handled with statistics, I'm sure. It isn't my field, but one of the ways to discover things in large data sets (star maps, etc) is to look for statistical anomalies. I'm sure that, along the way, you would learn a lot of physics in some domain.
I once worked in math and computing with a geologist who was interested in wave action at the shore. We never went very far (and I was pretty unsophisticated then), but I realized I'd need to learn quite a bit about his domain to help with what he needed to study.
This sort of career could be carried on at a large university with a number of different disciplines represented or at a research institute focused on an area of physics that interests you. You might need to be able to make a case about how you would fit in, but everyone needs to do that anyway.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What does my colleagues' question really mean?
I have been a tenured faculty member at a math department in the US for a few years. Recently two colleagues of mine asked (apparently independently) why I do not have PhD students. I honestly explained my reasons to each of them. Also I added that despite that, if it is necessary I CAN take students. Neither of them commented my answer.
Should I take these two questions at face value? Or did the colleagues try to let me know in an indirect way that I am expected to have students? Is there a way to make sure whether my department is unhappy that I have no PhD students?

Does this refer to not having PhD students, when it is normal for your department for everyone to be acting as an advisor for some students? You might want to check with your department on tenure expectations, as in some departments having students who are progressing towards graduation and possibly publishing can be part of the criteria.

@BrianH: This does refer to PhD students. Corrected. And I am tenured.

The most effective way to find out what your colleagues meant by the question is to ask them about it.

I am curious as to the reasons you gave your colleagues... not so much out of my own curiosity, but to estimate your actual situation as well as their (at least semi-predictable) reactions... which may be as helpful to you as an answer to your literal question. That is, as I think you guess, "why don't you...?" is often a polite form of "you really should...", in the first place. And there are many "reasons" that can be given that will antagonize and alienate your colleagues. Can you add these details?

@eykanal you have deleted the best answer (by @GrotesqueSI) to the question "Is there a way to make sure whether my department is unhappy that I have no PhD students?"

You're tenured, so I assume you've been at the university for a while.  Do you have a more senior colleague who you can go to to see if the question is likely to have had undertones you've missed? Perhaps over a beverage of choice (be that alcoholic, caffeinated, or other) as an excuse to have a casual conversation?

Title is vague. Rewrite to summarize your specific issue.

@paulgarrett: The reason I mentioned was the lack of jobs in my field. I am working in a small area far from the mainstream.

This could also be the result of both of them casually talking about it during lunch. As a PhD student sometimes I wonder what makes some people not take any graduate students.

Does this ever come up in your annual evaluation?

@Randall: No, it does not.

It is impossible to read their minds, of course, but I think that they are at least expressing surprise that you don't have doctoral students. There may be a (very) mild rebuke in it, especially if it is thought to be a necessary element of the work.
But, there may be an implied warning, that, although they can't sanction you for not having students, there might be long term negative consequences for your career if you get by without accepting students. You don't say whether you have been asked to be an advisor and you don't say whether you have turned people down. If either is true then the warning, as well as the rebuke, might be a bit stronger.
But whether there are consequences or not depends on local custom at your place of employment as well as your other contributions to the profession.

Yes, in PhD-granting departments (in math, in the U.S.) the expectation is that faculty supervise at least a few PhD's. At the same time, yes, doing other things instead may be viewed as doing one's share.

By and large, mathematicians have a tendency to express themselves logically and literally, much more so than the general population. If your colleagues asked you why you don’t have PhD students, it is reasonable to assume by default that their intent was to find out why you don’t have PhD students. That explanation is not the only conceivable one, but is at least as likely as any other.
As for any underlying subtext, hidden motives, subtle hints, passive aggressive behavior, a twisted sense of humor, or any number of other reasons why people (even mathematicians) sometimes say X when they mean Y: you’ll just have to ask them.

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


text:
How important are extracurricular activities as a Mathematics Major?
So I'm about halfway through my Sophomore year of college at LSU and on my way to a major in Mathematics with about a 4.05 GPA so far. My main objective is to be a desirable candidate for a good grad program. It doesn't really have to be a super top-tier school, but I wouldn't like to do a grad program in Mathematics at a school like LSU; I would like it to be a higher tier than that. I understand that my GPA and internships/work experience in my field are the two most important things for my major. So far, I haven't done any extracurriculars at all during the semester and worked at a summer camp the summer after my Freshman year. I plan on doing a math-related internship this summer. So, how important are extracurriculars during the semester? I find myself not having as much free time as I'd like when school is in session, so I held off on them. Is it important that I do something such as a community service group (which would be my main extracurricular interest) in order to make myself more desirable as a grad candidate? Thanks

You might want to edit in paragraph breaks for readability and a USA country tag, if that is the correct country.

In the US, and I suspect elsewhere, such things have little bearing on admissions to graduate school. People will look at your academic achievements, mostly, but not entirely, in your major subject. They are looking for evidence of academic success and want to be able to make an easy prediction about your fit into their program. It is a much more important thing for admission to an undergraduate program in the US, but not a graduate program.
However, evidence of hard work and dedication to a goal can also be evidence of academic success. But the more important thing is the courses you took, your grades, and any writing you have done.

May I ask if you would think that doing 1 single extracurricular would make much of a difference? I get that doing many would be pointless, but if they see that I have literally zero extracurriculars, does that reflect negatively on me as a candidate? Thanks

Zero extracurricular activities won't affect grad school admission. No one will think of it.

Not much.  They are looking for capabilities versus accomplishments.
I would also add that GREs are useful.


text:
avoid auto-plagiarism in publishing results from PhD thesis
I'm currently writting my thesis, where are exposed unpublished results that I would like to publish (may be after my PhD defense). Can I directly re-use text from my thesis ?

A finished thesis is a publication so any studies it includes will technically be published when you have successfully submitted your thesis. Finished theses are typically placed in university libraries and digital institutional archives and indexed in scholarly research search engines like ProQuest.
That said, there is broad recognition that theses are special kinds of publications and work is often included in a thesis despite having been published elsewhere or may be published after the thesis.
There are two major concerns:

The first is about copyright. At many universities, a thesis reflecting work does as a funded research assistant will be owned by the university. This may prevent signing a copyright agreement with a journal or publisher.
The second issue is around what you call "auto-plagiarism" and which is often called "self-plagiarism" which is a complex and controversial term used to describe attempts to inappropriately get credit for publishing the same material multiple times.

The two issues are related by distinct. Although both must be negotiated, neither will necessarily prevent you from publishing material in your thesis as an article after the thesis is done. They likely will constrain how you go about doing so.
In terms of copyright, this page by the MIT libraries about theses and copyright will give you a sense of how to negotiate the situation. It's complicated and may involve asking your university or a journal publisher for special permission.
In terms of self-plagiarism, your best bet is to be completely forthcoming at all stages. Explain in the text of your articles that the work in the article was adapted from material in your thesis. Provide a citation! Mention this fact in your coverletter to any journal.
Do research first into publishers policies in this regard before you submit. Although the large majority of publishers will publish material previously included in a thesis, there are a small number that will not. This page by the MIT libraries documents the arrangements with a couple dozen big publishers in science and engineering. Many publishers include this information on their websites and in their Frequent Asked Questions documents. Contact a librarian at your university or send an inquiry to a publisher if you have any questions.

It would be better to cite your thesis as you would another work. You can list it in the bibliography as you would any other work, but mark it (unpublished). This is similar to citing the unpublished work of other people, and marking it as (private communication) just to make it clear.
Of course, if your thesis is in (will be in) some publicly visible repository, then clearly you should cite it there.
On the other hand, if you don't intend to publish your thesis, then the work you derive from it are original/first works and  you could, in theory, treat the thesis as a draft, in which case citation isn't really needed. But it could give the wrong impression if someone finds the thesis somewhere, such as a library repository.
Note that the reason for avoiding self plagiarism is to let a future reader visit the complete context of a work. Simply reusing, rather than citing, your own words short circuits this.

Like Buffy said.  It is fine and normal but just cite it.  It is not treated as publishing same work in two journal articles (and even that has some flexibility if you look at how some people treat conference proceedings).  In addition, same is true in reverse, you can/should publish ahead of your thesis and then cite/reuse it.


text:
Can someone explain European graduate programs in STEM fields?
I'm a US undergraduate in math and physics and I'm looking to ultimately do a PhD in either physics or math. It seems that a lot of the research I connect with the most is happening in Europe. I also like the focus on research rather than coursework in European PhD programs. However, I've found most of the process confusing for an outsider like me.
I would like to know the ins and outs of how graduate programs work over there. There's different lingo there, for example: Taught vs Research MSc. Which is better ultimately for a PhD program? I also get the feeling that Master's and PhD in Europe mean something totally different than what we mean in the US. Are there funded Master's programs in Europe (in math/physics) as there are in the US? How does funding compare?
For reference, I've been looking at schools in UK, Germany, and Switzerland (although not so much Switzerland due to the high cost of living).
Thanks!
Edit: I'm now aware of how broad my question is. Nevertheless, I found much of your advice helpful in gaining a general knowledge of how to pursue postgraduate degrees abroad and some additional considerations, so thanks! If/when I have more specific questions about this process I will ask them in a different thread.

This is incredibly broad. A proper answer might take a book. Consider revising to lower the scope?

Note that together with the higher living costs in Switzerland comes also a higher salary.

@chessofnerd This is a result of my ignorance haha. I don't actually know enough to scale the scope. Perhaps the reason for such an open ended question. What suggestions do you have for lowering the scope?

The UK, Germany and Switzerland are three completely different countries. For instance, one is in the EU, one isn't, and the other is about to leave. They have different educational systems (albeit somewhat aligned after Bologna), speak different languages, have different cultures etc. Some programs are funded, others you need to pay for. This can vary even within the same country, let alone the continent! You really need to make this a good deal more specific. Your question is like asking about "North America" and expecting the answer to cover Mexico, the US and Canda.

@terdon offers a good place to start. "Taught vs Research Msc" is an entire question in and of itself in my opinion. Somebody else may have already asked it! At this point, I personally don't think you should modify this question anymore. I think the boat to narrow the question has sailed as you've already got some insightful answers, but consider the scope issue for future questions.

Don't overthink the high cost of living in Switzerland. Virtually every PhD position is coupled to either a stipend or salary, and those in Switzerland more than compensate for the higher cost of living, compared to the rest of Europe.

@KonradRudolph From the question, I'd say that the OP would like to start from an MSc programme, for which scholarships may not be enough to compensate for the higher cost of living in Switzerland.

I can give you some insight in Germany/Austria (phd in physics in Austria), not so much on the UK. Many countries in Europe now use the Bologna system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_Process#Qualifications_framework
It is normally a three step process for a phd: Bachelor programs is more or less equivalent to US undergrad, takes 3 years normally (all numbers with some variation depending on country and field) and ends with a bachelor degree BSc. Step two is a Master program, duration normally two years and mostly course orientated. Normally ends with a master's thesis, which involves independent research in a group under the supervision of a professor. This is a requirement for entering stage three, the phd. In general there is no funding for the master's years (maybe some for the half year during your thesis or if you TA), you are considered a student. Tuition fees depend on country/university and can be waived with stipends if you qualify (no fees in Austria though)
PhD is almost exclusively research in a specific research group and normally fully funded. Minimum duration is three years.
You see, that what you call graduate studies/phd in the US is separated into Masters and PhD in Europe, you obtain a Masters degree in the middle.
This also means that the application process is very different depending on stage. Let's say you want to start your masters in STEM in Europe. Setting visa considerations aside, for some universities you can just sign up for a Masters in Physics for instance, no entry exams. Some might require exams and charge you tuition fees.
One your done with you Masters, you can look for phd positions at either the same University or wherever you like. The availability of positions is tied to funding, which is normally under control of the leading professor of the group. So you apply to her/him and if they like you they can hire you. In most cases you don't have to get accepted by the university, you just enroll. A professor has to accept you. (Very different to the US). Often, you end up doing your phd within the group you wrote your master's thesis in.
On top of that there are graduate schools with extra funding where you apply to the program and the will assign you a supervisor.
So overall: Bacc-Master-Phd; 3-2-3 years

+1 nothing to add, only that imho the european system gives the student more choice, I wouldn't have liked the idea at all in a very broad scientific branch like physics to outline my future career/phd topic after bachelor degree. After 3 years you understand the basics of the physical theories, how research in physics works you get an idea during your master work, then you should have still choices imo

It's slightly overstating things to call the Bologna process a system, since in many cases institutions essentially carried on doing what they did anyway, just handing out the extra tokens as necessary to fit the rather elastic Bologna model and notional "comparability".

that's how my university called it, but yes the simply split the former 5 yrs degree into two degrees without any changes. Some other universities adapted though not always made things better

@MichaelSchmidt This is why I am very interested in the European PhD system. This much I was able to glean from my own research.

Excellent answer (+1), one thing to note is that the "independence" and novelty" of Master theses varies wildly form place to place (even within the same university). You have places where the Masters is a strong preparation to a PhD, and other where the Masters is slightly more than a longer homework.

PhD as "apprentice researcher" job
Many institutions here seem treat their PhD process as something close to "apprentice researcher" job positions. When they have a vacancy for such an "apprentice researcher" (e.g. some funded project needs extra junior researchers and has funding for them), they'll put an advertisement for a potential student and this will be treated essentially as generic hiring process - the ad stating what skills they want, what will be the expected duties, and what salary they offer (Here's an example); and the candidates submitting their CVs to apply for the job, followed by some interviews and the institution picking the most relevant candidate and hiring them.
During that project you'd be expected to get hands-on research experience and prove that you're "not an apprentice" anymore by defending a thesis based on the research results you obtained in that role.

Thanks! I was curious, how often do students stay in the same place as their masters for their PhD? Is it expected to stay in the same program for both masters and PhD?

One thing I haven't seen mentioned and is the case in most of Europe compared to the US is a much narrower focus during undergrad and corresponding assumption at the master/phd level. The usual amount of credits in math courses during a BSC in the Czech Republic is roughly 100-120 over the three years. We take almost no breadth courses with the exception of Phys. Ed. a Foreign language course and maybe one or two physics/programming courses.
This generally means you are expected to have a rather broad and deep understanding of the core subject (math, physics, CS, biology etc.). At the same time the breadth type courses are taken at the high school level.
It's also worth pointing out that as a general rule (there are exceptions obviously) up to roughly MS. level you will get a much better education in Europe, but it is very hard to beat US PHD. programs anywhere except at a very small number of extremely prestigious European Universities.


text:
What advantages do professors have over equivalent industry and government researchers?
Tenure track professors at USA R1s, ideally in STEM, help me understand: in 2021 what advantages do professors have over equivalent industry and government researchers?
I am tenure track at a top 5 university in my area. I have been building a lab with another pre-tenure professor.  She is leaving, I recently learned, for a large company research scientist position. I want her to stay, but now I'm thinking of leaving, too.
I spend more than half my time simply navigating complex bureaucracy. After calling friends, I now think the red tape worse than industry or most government is typical of what other professors experience. I also learned I make less than half of what my industry  friends make, and less than my government friends. I didn't see any significant 'freedom' or autonomy advantage for the professors in the group, after talking, including my tenured friends.  My industry friends are controlling roughly twice the budgets of those I know in my universities. I do get to teach, which I am reasonably happy doing, and some wish they could do that. For me, I have realized, this alone is not enough.
I am now planning, I think, to look for an industry position with 2x my pay and research budget. I am going to take until after Christmas to let the decision sit, and challenge my present assumptions. I'm going to talk to more people I know on both sides of the career path, and also post this.
EDIT: As argued successfully below, Faculty have significantly more latitude in how they spend funds. I am exploring how others use this advantage in this thread:
What are discretionary spending options that improve wellbeing for a PI?

Comments in this thread are good reading for my question:  https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/147940/leaving-academia-at-39

Have you also compared things like number of leave days a year and other benifits (funded research visits to whereever)? Academia where I am has secondary benifits that can be hard to find elsewhere, even if salary is not always competitive.

I wonder if researchers in industry spend time "simply navigating complex bureaucracy"

@GEdgar Yes, yes we do.

Related (and maybe duplicate?): https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/124084/19607

"simply navigating complex bureaucracy" -- bean counters everywhere want you to translate your work into a pre-made "Mad Libs" sheet (and, in industry, add "how much money it's going to make them"), it's not just academia. I am not sure if it's always been like that or not. I feel like STEM people have to now be their own product managers and project managers, I never had a job (academia or otherwise) where I didn't not only have to make the thing, but also decide what to make and make sure I had the resources to do it.

Also, I can't give a good explanation for why the bureaucracy exists, it's certainly not for any of the reasons they list like accountability, traceability, efficiency, etc... from my experience nobody is reading the paperwork and using it as intended. You are still paid for real "success" (making meaningful work), the bureaucracy that tries to "measure it" is just another task for you to do. If you fail on paper you are out. If you succeed on paper and fail in real life you are still out, so why is the paperwork there?

Trivial advise: the only thing that is fully under your control to be better in industry is your salary: you can decide to only accept an industry job if the salary is high enough. Academic, government research and industry jobs can all have time wasting meetings, administrative burdens and job insecurity. Looking at the careers of others, I would keep in mind that "the grass might always seem greener on the other side". One could set oneself up for disappointment, if a high salary was the only plus. While there'll be periods of frustration in any job, one shouldn't feel miserable though.

Salaries are higher in industry, but the expectations are different, both for staying employed and for promotion. Researchers in industry that I know are not typically picking and following interesting research areas as they see fit, but rather working at the intersection of their own talents and the company’s strategic investments. Another difference is that it’s much rarer for an entire group in academia to be shut down.

@GEdgar One of the real killers is having to discuss complex technical issues with people with no ability in the field and explain it to them in a manner that they can believe you are not BS them. At least in academia you have a common shared level of education that makes it clear when there is some baloney being sold.

You have to make sure the problems you are trying to solve are unique to academia and is actually solved by transitioning. I suspect it isn't and you're being distracted by the promise of 2x salary.

@Nelson, I lack your conviction, but also 2x the salary matters. Someone later in the list suggests I'm a crazy rich person for leaving tenure to do this. Actually, a better statement is that I'm a little too poor to stay. But also, I just don't see much downside to leaving.

This thread is great: some really useful stuff:  https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/124084/why-do-so-many-phds-choose-to-join-academia-instead-of-industry-given-the-pay-in?noredirect=1&lq=1

@user53923 I’ve now looked into this. While faculty have equivalent time off in most cases, they use far less of it, in my limited sample. Among the assistant professors none had taken more than one week in the past three years. That is also true for me, and may be a COVID effect, but it is striking. From industry I hear that ‘infinite time off is a trend, and widely considered to be a lie. Possibly this is true for academics as well.

@NeilMeyer that's not necessarily something that's any better or worse in academia. A lack of trust can kill any team, anywhere, once any group devolves into "they are trying to trick me" / "the people I pay don't have my best interest at heart" that's the beginning of the end, and it can happen in industry or academia.

@user104495 "unlimited vacation" is not so much a lie as it is an accounting trick. Its whole purpose in life is to make it so that companies do not have to pay out unused vacation when an employee quits. If you read "unlimited vacation" substitute it with "you have no contractual guarantee to vacation at all", whether or not it's a nightmare is 100% determined on your boss and their management, and you won't know for sure until you work there. Your results will vary depending on how willing the company is willing to squeeze employees for extra cash.

You get to be your own boss and you get to choose what you work on.  Not a bad racket… not bad at all.
To expand a bit, I am tenured.  I could do nothing or not much but I would find this depressing.
I mostly select the topics I want to work on (there are exceptions).  Perhaps more importantly I am now in a position to select the people I work with. I now work with friends, and I can select the students who work with me (undergraduate interns or graduate students): these are very enriching collaborations. As a result I am largely in control of my work environment, which I find almost universally constructive: I only rarely have to put up with the idiot a few doors down…
I actually broadly enjoy the teaching side of things.  One can do a bad job of it, but I have found over the years that preparing lectures and assignments have helped me master (or at least improve my mind on) topics that were less clear in my mind.  Of course, I don’t foam at the mouth when it comes to teaching 1st year physics, but even that has its fun challenges, like finding novel every day examples.
In fact, I have more fun interacting with students than with most other faculty members (there are exceptions of course).  I can’t imagine myself in an environment where I would mostly see the same people for 15 or more years: I find the energy and enthusiasm of bright young students communicative.
I don’t think you can so easily find all these upsides (for me at least) in industry.  On the downside yes the money is not what it is in industry, I occasionally have to put up with people with completely different goals than mine, and academics can be pompous and fight about petty things.  Truly obnoxious people can survive in academia, but rarely in industry.  There are terrible meetings, but that’s not unique to academia.  I do not mind some of the bureaucracy because I have autonomy, and nobody needs to approve the draft of my papers or my conference presentations.
On balance, I maintain that it’s a very good job.  It’s not for everyone and you need to develop a thick skin pretty fast, but industry is not all devoid of professional rivalries either.

Possibly this is a difference of area, or talent, but in actuality I work on what I can get funded to do. Very often this is what my program officer is interested in, not what I am interested in. I have never gotten to choose what I work on.

Um, committees? Faculty meetings? It is not all gravy! ;-)

Also, my conversations with my friends in industry especially, but also government, suggest to me that they also get to choose what they work on. The caveats are very similar to my 'program manager' one, and so they do get significant freedom. I did not find the strong difference your comment refers to in my conversations.  Also, it's pretty good for everyone. Those who want autonomy seem to have it, largely.

@user104495 Your program manager stops you from writing up your own grant proposals and sending them in to funding organisations? That's not really an option in industry, from what I understand.

@nick012000, of course not. See above: possibly you, too, are simply more talented or luckier than I am, and so have had grants funded that more closely reflect you interests. I do think that my industry and government job friends have similar ability to start projects or move to groups that fit their interests, and varying but similar levels of success.

@user104495 it is possibly because I am not necessarily chasing funding, but I still have considerable freedom in choosing my research direction.

@EdV I hope you don’t believe that unpleasant meetings are unique to academia…

Note for the government / national lab research perspective: there are often tight restrictions which funding organisations one can apply to grants for (sometimes only 1 major one). So the program manager dependence is here a very strong one.

@EdV, help me understand how that is helpful Possibly in my present position all I see is the lost time.

@user104495 any organization has pointless meetings.  The difference between industry and academic are the topic of the useless meetings.

@user104495 I really wish I could. There were many things I enjoyed about being a professor, and tenure is great. But then came periodic multi-year reviews, with the possibility of tenure being effectively rescinded. Our strong faculty union prevented any of that stuff by heading it off at the pass. Teaching large enrollment classes properly takes real time and effort. Sabbaticals were great: extended time to think and do what Faraday said, i.e., “Work. Finish. Publish.” But right now your department should be actively helping you: no onerous teaching or service duties. After T & P, maybe not.

@Ed V, reviews, tenure uncertainty, and and work-life balance erosion are all I or any academic in tenure process right now know.  And yes, I see how depressed many of my tenured colleagues are right now; it gets worse after the promotion, some tell me.

Me too!  That's why I worked to be here!  We'll see, and thank you.

@EdV expanded as suggested.

@user104495 I only just finished my Masters this past semester, with plans to start my PhD next year is I can't find a job in industry over the next couple of months. I've never applied for a grant myself.

Thank you @ZeroTheHero. A lot of food for thought here. I have not been able to select the topics I wanted, nor have I had much control of my work environment. A conversation with senior mentor suggests this is largely about the timing of my career: 2016-2021. Things have been, in her words "crazy".

I have mostly interacted with my students over zoom for two years, and immigration and covid have led many of them resign (4 out of 7 to date).  I, notwithstanding, very much agree: I like having graduate students around. I also enjoy teaching, but at present teach two 150+ student online classes. It is not, to me, a fulfilling teaching situation, and post-covid it promises to be the new normal.

My senior mentor says similar things to me. She also is not certain these things will be true again, and if so certainly they will return slowly. I really wonder if the present generation of professors is nor receiving a very different 'deal' than previous ones. I apparently did, and it may be a reason for my lack of enthusiasm.

The number one advantage for tenure track only is tenure, assuming you get it.  There's no such thing in industry as a job from which you can't be fired for any reason or even for no reason.
Number two for people like you and me who enjoy it is teaching.  I find that very satisfying and purposeful.
Number three is you get a lot more autonomy to decide what your job is and how to do it than in industry.
But if money's important, you can probably get a lot more than twice the money in industry.  Three or four times as much is totally possible in STEM.  But fwiw, in my experience, money is overrated.  It definitely does not equal happiness.  I think you should do what you love, regardless of the money.

I was a Technical Fellow at a large aerospace company. One of the rules of the “Fellow” position was that you could not be fired. The company wanted to have a group of smart people who had nothing to fear. Don’t know if this is a common situation, but it refutes your claim that it’s non-existent.

@bubba One can still be re-organized out of existence, particularly during mergers and divestments, but it sure does add a lot of stability.

@bubba  Did you have a contract that stated you could not be fired or was this merely the current company policy?

I almost have tenure but I'm thinking of doing something else. - man, y'all rich people are crazy. +1

@Mazura  Not me.  I was a lecturer.  I've never in my life enjoyed the luxury of a job I couldn't be fired or laid off from.

FWIW in Russia pretty much all state-backed jobs have a property of requiring due process to get someone fired, so it's near impossible to do so. Doesn't work great, obviously. And working in both public and private sector has made me suspicious about the tenure thing: the only thing about job security in tenure seems to be that university departments are lot more stable than companies and their departments, although that's also topic-dependent I suppose... Some programs do close, after all.

Most scientists I speak to in industry are plenty happy. I see plenty of professors with tenure leaving, in and around my department. A number are clearly not doing so 'willingly', but are not willing to put up with the changes that have made the job less desirable. I hear them.

@Mazura, as I wrote above, a better statement might be that I'm too poor to pass up  2x the salary, all else equal. I make around $90k annually, and I help support some family members. Doubling this number matters to me. I would not do it if I were certain I was giving something precious up...  I'm just not sure that I am.

@NicoleHamilton. Can’t remember. It was a long time ago, and I never read the fine print of contracts, anyway.

"you can't be fired for any reason"  That is outright false.  Tenured professors are routinely fired when they commit major crimes.

@AnonymousPhysicist I was pointing out the unusual job security afforded by tenure. In at-will employment in industry, you can be fired for any reason or even no reason, so long as it's not a protected reason, like race, age or gender.  The reasons don't even have to be true or make any sense. You could be fired because they don't like your red tie, even though you don't even own a red tie.  If you have tenure, they can't do that; they have to have a super good reason to fire you, like, yes, a major crime.

@AnonymousPhysicist Might add, it's not even enough to be facing trial for a major crime. It takes a conviction. Consider the case at Umich of Peter Chen, facing jury trial (as of this writing, after several reschedulings) on June 13, 2022. Professor Chen has tenure.  He is on leave with full salary.

You should edit your answer to match your comments about "good reason."

@AnonymousPhysicist  I think it's fine as is.  I think you misread it and apparently continue to do do even after it's been explained.

They have the advantage of being able to do research (or analogous creative activity) that has no purpose beyond exploring the possibilities of human imagination, as long as that research does not require significant amounts of funding.

That last piece is possibly worth adding to my post: in my field even a minor study runs around $40-80k. There is no good 'theoretical' alternative.  This does not minimize the truth of your post. That said, I do have a grad school classmate who works on pure math for IBM. They pay him to sit and work and publish, but they patent before/as he does. While society surely loses free knowledge, he does get full freedom. Or so he claims. I still like you answer.

If patenting his ideas is worth the lawyers' time, his research is surely a lot more directly useful than mine.

@user104495 those industry positions are very rare…. IBM is not a typical company in this way.

@ZeroTheHero, I think they are more typical than you think. Most top companies seem to have similar positions.  I realize many more don't, but I do think that such a position is in reach for most people capable of landing an R1 tenure track position.

If I'm wrong I'll post back here in a year, lol.

@ZeroTheHero and at IBM itself, there were days (decades ago) when many famous STEM researchers worked there. Such "intellectual freedom" positions, if any, will be extremely rare nowadays, even at IBM.

@user104495 hmmm…  For better or worse, a lot of postdocs dream of R1 positions.  Maybe they all drank the cool-aid and my experience is not representative, but it remains that industry jobs are certainly perceived as having more constraints.  YMMV of course.

I am challenging my own perception on this point, @ZeroTheHero. A month ago I might have written this sentence.

Also, possibly it is good that I leave my position to another person who is dreaming about it.  The teaching, and possibly other things, might matter more to others.

Honestly it’s a good gig.  Not perfect - there are frustrating meetings, petty colleagues, and plain idiots - but at least for me I can navigate to mostly avoid them and do my own stuff.

@ZeroTheHero, I think my colleagues are by far the most pleasant part of my job after students. I actually love the folks I work with, and one of my great hesitations is missing the chance to remain engaged with them.  I'm thinking of looking into funding then, to stay connected, which seems like it may be an option.

@ZeroTheHero not rarer than tenure track positions, I guess.

Some of the things I missed most about academia:

Flexible working hours. In academia, unless you have teaching duties or similar, you are free to come at whatever time suits you. If you prefer to work from 12pm-8pm, you can do that (in my case this was very helpful when I wanted to accommodate someone else's timezone).
Similar to the above, if you receive a visitor, you can actually take them around as an academic because you have flexible working hours. In industry, you'll have to take leave.
University environment provides you with the likes of library access, cheap food, and professional-level talks by visiting academics. Being able to go to conferences (read: fully-funded vacations in beautiful foreign cities) is another nice perk.
It's prestigious, especially if you are at an R1 university.

I am downvoting this answer because all of these exist for many industry positions as well.

+1 for pointing out the prestige.  Exactly.  Telling someone you're a senior whatever at Microsoft or Google is not the same as telling them you're a professor at any university, never mind an R1.

@NicoleHamilton Why would prestige matter to anyone when PHD candidates working at Facebook have a baseline salary of 260K USD p/y. Seems worth the sacrifice in prestige to me.

@NeilMeyer Money is not as important as you think,.  Most people are far more impressed by what you do than by how much money you have.

@NicoleHamilton in my experience most people are more impressed by "I work at Google" than "I am a professor".

@fqq Google is one of the most highly-reputed tech companies however. I think a fair comparison would be "I am a professor at MIT", for which it is not obvious to me that more people are impressed by the former.

I'm a professor vs I work at a company you have never or barely heard of is a fairer comparison than Google. Very few people work at Google.

@Marianne Google employs about 27.000 engineers in research and development. And that is only one famous or recognizable company. It is definitely a great deal easier to get a job at google than tenure at a R1 university, although how much prestige you get for either seems hard to quantify.

@Voo My other half is a professor at a university that a lot of people who aren't in academia in the UK don't know exists. Yet the prestige he gets from this (literally every time it comes up) is by far greater than people who had a similar education but now "work for a bank" -- something that is quite common around here where I live. My whole point was about 'professors' not R1 (which no-one outside the US knows what that is) professors.

To be fair what other people think is impressive should never be a consideration when choosing employment. You should be doing what YOU think is impressive.

@Allure, prestige matters very little to me, personally. That said, I think Senior Scientist at Fortune 50 Company sounds at least as cool as Assistant Professor at R1 University. My mother agrees, and it matters more to her.

@NeilMeyer it might affect how others perceive you, however. See this which is not an exact comparison, but does make it seem more plausible that a more prestigious job is also more attractive to others.

@user104495 you might be interested in the above too.

@user104495 if you are of sufficient stature to be a senior scientist at a Fortune 500 company, it is unlikely you are “only” Assistant professor anywhere…

Let's talk about money, and how money relates to choice in research.
In order to execute a research project, you need to pay for:

Your time
Your staff's time
Materials / subjects / equipment

If you are a professor at a US R1 university, you typically get a 9-month salary paid by the university due to your teaching. The summer salary should be bundled into your grants but isn't really strictly necessary: it's nice to have the money, though, and funders typically want you to pay yourself.
If an average professor makes about $100K, and you assume an overhead multiplier of 1.6, then that means you need between $0 and $40K per year to support yourself.
"Staff" typically means graduate student or postdoc, which, depending on your institution and circumstances will typically run you something between $30K and $100K for a graduate student or postdoc for a year. If you can use undergrads, then it's down at the lower end of that range or even lower. Of course, some graduate students can be supported by TAships, some undergrads will work for credits instead of money, and both grad students and postdocs sometimes come with their own fellowships, meaning that your staff may be free. So total of $0K to $100K per staff member.
In one of your comments, you state that a typically small study in your field will cost you $40-$80k to run: let's take the top of that range and consider $80K of materials / subjects / equipment cost for the year, and assume it requires one full-time person.  Total project cost, then, is between $80K - $220K per year.
If you're doing the same project in industry, let's assume your salary will be doubled. But you no longer have the 75% teaching support and you don't have the option to not pay yourself. The overhead will typically be significantly higher as well: let's assume 2.5x, though the actual numbers in industry tend to vary quite a lot.  Put those together and you need $200K * 2.5 = $500K/year just to support yourself, though we'll assume you need only half your time at $250K.
Likewise, your staff will be much more expensive too, since they're getting a similar salary to you. They'll also likely be much more efficient than a graduate student, though, so you can get the same efficacy with a smaller fraction of their time. Thus, if they're somewhat junior to you, the staff cost might only be about $200K/year. The materials / subjects / equipment cost stays the same, which leaves you with a project that costs $530K/year.
Look at those ratios: The same project costs 2.5x to 6.5x as much in industry!  Government labs are similar, though they tend to pay their people a bit less and are correspondingly a bit cheaper.
These numbers are highly imperfect rough estimates, but they illustrate the major difference in cost scales between academia and industry. As a professor, every research action you take is heavily subsidized by the educational environment in which you are operating. This subsidy makes it far easier to explore novel high-risk ideas, just because it's way, way cheaper. On the flip side, you also pick up a lot of project risk because postdocs and graduate students are less well-known quantities than long-term research staff.
This tradeoff of risk vs. cost is a major component of the "research freedom" available at universities.  Even if we hold all else equal, it's a lot easier to get hold of $100K for trying out an idea than it is to get hold of $500K.

This is a very relevant aspect that doesn't mentioned enough.

Being in a somewhat "academia-like" industry position myself, these sorts of numbers and tradeoffs are central to my professional life. I find the tradeoff worth it, but overall I see the landscape as a Pareto front of risk/reward/freedom tradeoffs for the different types of research positions.

Also industry is governed by the profit motive. You are not going to get any funding in the industry if there is not a clear indication of how the research is going to be monetized.

@NeilMeyer Industry encompasses a broad range of business models, including a number for which "profit motive" is not so straightforward, such as contract research organizations, consultancies of various sorts, and various categories of government contractors. And that's before you consider the rainbow of models for nonprofit companies...

I think an issue with this is that many academic projects end up massively underfunded. From experience in life sciences, mouse studies are expensive and spread thin across all the PhD students in a group. Each project only gets, say, 10 mice to work with which results in the conclusions not being statistically reliable. This is part of the reason why translation of these "amazing results" into clinical relevance is so rare.

I'm also not sure where your 2.5X overhead figure comes from? :)

@awjlogan It's not just academic projects, it's fundamental research in general, at universities or otherwise. As for the 2.5x, that's a reasonable value within the wide range of actual values that I've seen over time.

My observation of the grant process was that it was hugely over bureaucratic for the relatively small amounts of money on offer. After all the slicing and dicing, there was little left to support the front end of the work. The amount of competition/work for even small sums was not a good use of peoples' time and effort. On the 2.5X, I'm not sure I agree, but fine :)

@jakebeal, this is really interesting.  I chatted with a friend at Google, where your math did not hold up (the situation is better) and one at GE where your math is spot on. I'll need to keep a close eye on that as I interview. Thank you.

An additional thought: I believe this balance favors scientists why can operate on smaller budgets. It also favors scientists that do not need large proprietary data. Google has data Academe cannot have, and could never afford to generate. Period. For some of us this is a significant factor in cost calculation.

@user104495 Absolutely. And that's a significant driver for why some types of research is done mostly in academia, some mostly in industry, and some in both.

If government researcher means researcher at a national lab in the US, the advantage of the university professor will be tenure (once / if obtained). Researchers at national labs typically have so-called "soft-money" positions and need to regularly (with few-year cycles) bring in research money to secure their own salaries (and that of their research teams) besides any expenses for equipment, etc.

That's an interesting one. I think the positions I think of in government are likely this, or military research labs, or similar things. It never occurred to me that many might need to be self-funded!

@user104495 Funding in these positions is... complicated. Even if a position is internally funded, in practice that typically still means research proposals, review committees, and competition for funding, since there are many different potential choices and priorities for how to utilize those research funds. External funding can often preferable to internal funding for that reason, because the funding is more dependable once captured.

Industry researcher here.

My industry friends are controlling roughly twice the budgets of those I know in my universities.

This sounds intriguing. What is this "budget" thing I hear about?
I have precisely zero budget, if this is "money I can broadly spend as I - as an expert in the field - think most useful".

I try to attend one conference per year. Every single time, this involves walking around with a hat in my hand and trying to scrounge up the money. Yes, it has worked out fine so far, but I find the experience humiliating, and I am using that word for a reason.

A few years ago, I tried to find out whether my employer, who is always very keen on showing off what a great expert they have working for them, would pay for a membership in an academic organization. It was on the order of 300 USD for a three year membership, peanuts. My manager approved, but couldn't release budget for this. His manager approved, but couldn't release budget. His manager... you get the idea. Budget was finally released by someone no less than four or five hierarchy levels above me, with 15,000 people under him. All this for 300 USD.

Yes, I understand that academic researchers have to apply for funding, and that not everything they would like to do will be funded. However, my understanding is that once they have their grant, they are reasonably free to spend it as they see fit (and, of course, as they applied for). You could argue that writing one giant proposal to get a multi-year grant is little different from applying for budget for every single trip, textbook, or webinar. Per above, I find the second approach infuriating - it really communicates that we, grown ups all, cannot be trusted to handle more than pocket money. YMMV.
Perhaps I am not doing a great job in haggling with my employer. Perhaps I should have changed employers more often, which gives you leverage. True.
Why am I still here? The take-home pay is much better than my full professor wife's. Same for the work-life balance - my manager has not once called me on the weekend, and I work much less than people elsewhere, in academia or outside.
Yes, there are places where things are different. I see Amazon sponsoring conferences and sending multiple people there (but also being a meatgrinder kind of place to work). Essentially, it boils down to knowing what is most important to you, and finding out whether you are likely to get it at the place you are looking at - whether it's budget, work-life balance, stability, or stock options. I suspect that places where you have both a lot of budget and a lot of take-home pay are the ones that also work you the hardest, but then again, that may reflect a tradeoff you are comfortable with.

Yes, I agree all of this question boils down to a trade-off. It is not which one is better than the other it is which one best reflects what you want in a job.

Taken where you work and looking at your experience I think that you ended up in a place which is not very well managed - from the perspective of money (not budget, money). The things you mention (conferences, membership, ...) should be a given. You are right that the science part of the industry has low budgets, but this is in comparison to,  say, IT or Marketing. It is still plenty enough to spend money on travel, conferences, etc.

@WoJ: the problem is that my employer has very little tradition of research (I arrived there through an acquisition of a smaller startup). My peers and immediate superiors trust me, so I usually do get what I need - the problem is that there is no institutionalized process for managing positions like mine, so I have to regularly do one-off efforts for stuff that should be formalized.

@StephanKolassa: I completely understand and know these situations very well. IWhat I am just trying to say (but that you know already) I that in organizations such as yours, there is a difference between "available money" and "budget". You may have zero budget, but still easily spend money through other organizations (training, IT, ...). The whole internal bookkeeping (blue dollars) is usually a complete mess.

Not in the US, but I'm dealing with haggling for peanuts all the time in academia but not in the industry. I would reckon at least the industry situation might differ dramatically from employer to employer.

@StephanKolassa, this is really interesting. Indeed, some of my industry friends echo what you are saying. That said, I make about 90k right now, and my lab partner is leaving for a $250k position.  That pays for a lot of $300 discretionary stuff. I could pay for myself to go to that conference...  At the same time, federal grants have very strict reporting requirements, and universities further restrict how funding can be spent. It's not nearly as free as you might think. It does seem to be better than industry, and much better than government.

I have set up a thread to explore better ways I might leverage this advantage. https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/177975/what-are-discretionary-spending-options-that-improve-wellbeing-for-a-pi/178017#178017

I agree that I could simply pay my own way for memberships, materials (did I mention I have no access to journals at work, so I would need to pay for every single article if I didn't also have an honorary university affiliation?) and conferences myself (and take time off for the conferences, to boot) - especially once I compare my pay to my professor wife's. I am not keen on paying for stuff I need to do my job. I do not get presents from my employer; why should I give presents to them? Yes, this may simply be pig-headedness on my part - YMMV.

I’m sure I will hate it too: I often must/choose to do the same in my present position to the time of 5-10% of my salary after taxes. I hate it, and I do it.  That said, in absolute terms of dollars into my life, a change to industry would be a win.  Also, I expect to keep an affiliation as long as I have friends here, which removes the library consideration. Temporarily.

The main difference between tech position in academia and the real world is that in academia you don't have to bring anything to market. You don't have to think about how economically viable anything you work on is. The academy also does not really think about any of the real world applications of anything really.
There is no high-pie-in-the-sky work outside the academy. Your STEM work can be revolutionary but if it has no application that solves some problem or meets some need then it is worthless. Your work must conform to this paradigm if you want it to succeed.
Can you think like a business person that is the question? Do you think you have it in you to use your tech skills to design and produce something you can sell for a profit? Do you think you can make meaningful contributions to established tech companies? Do you think you can establish the next big tech company?
Ultimately these are questions only you can answer but if you cannot work with an entrepreneurial spirit then it is probably better to accept your salary and keep your current job.

One more thing to add: Are you willing to accept that success will depend more on the marketing of your product than the quality (above a certain baseline threshold) of your product, because your customers will not be able to judge the quality (and might not care even if they can)?  I left tech for grad school (long time ago) mostly because I realized the market demanded that 'good' be sacrificed in favor of 'fast' and 'cheap'.

The pie-in-the-sky people are behind virtually every technology. Without them, the "entrepreneurs" would be still liquidating stocks of sea shells. I'm rather putting this comment here, instead of placing a well deserved -1.

"if it has no application that solves some problem or meets some need then it is worthless" - this part is negotiable at least. Environments this sheltered are rare in the industry but... Not THAT common in academia, either. After all, "great but why" moments happen all the time in STEM research, and doing something highly impractical invites a great deal of negotiation as well.

Another answer, with a topic that is IMO different enough from my previous answer:
Intellectual Property (IP) issues
I was recently approached by researchers from academic institution A for input on their research topic. The major problem was that they were collaborating with industry startup S. There was not one, but two problems my employer E saw:

IP could flow from E to S
IP could flow from S to E.

My employer E was fine enough with my being competent to decide what was our IP I could not divulge. The larger problem was with the second bullet point: suppose we (E) decided in a year to build something that is related or similar to what S is doing? S would face a strong temptation to sue us, especially since E is a large corporation with (allegedly) deep pockets. (Nobody will sue a small startup.) This could become even more problematical if S is later acquired by a competitor of ours, who could see such a hook to sue E over as an asset in the acquisition. Yes, there would be ways to make the collaboration work, but they would entail a lot of very enthusiastic lawyers and contracts.
(The discussion about whether I can even read a publication authored by S is ongoing. Similarly whether I can continue to review for journals, where in a double-blind review I would not even know whether the submission was from a business or an academic.)
I don't think this kind of dynamics plays out quite like this if you are an academic. Of course, if you (the academic) decide to monetize knowledge acquired from an outside party during a collaboration, whether by founding your own startup or by getting hired by someone else, IP conflicts can crop up. But as long as you are "only" doing academic research with input from an outside business, you will likely need to jump much smaller hurdles.


text:
Do I need to report that the professor I have been assigned to TA hasn't assigned any work for me to do?
The professor I have been assigned to TA hasn't assigned any work and has stonewalled me. I have sent three emails to check in and he hasn't responded. How should I respond? Should I bother reporting this to my graduate advisor?
UPDATE!! - He finally responded. He did have some issues, but is doing much better and is going to be more responsive moving forward. Thank you for all the great advice on this forum!

Have you tried talking to the instructor in person?

I once TA'd a course with an instructor I never met until the grading of the final exam. He did ask me to write quizzes, grade quizzes, and indicated what he wanted done in problem sessions, but we communicated only by email. He had some sort of adjunct appointment, teaching also somewhere else, and found it inconvenient to meet in person. I and the other TA found the situation strange, but it was not worse than TAing for some very hands on professors. Universities create contexts for such situations by inadequately supervising the relation of TAs to faculty (leaving too much to the faculty).

The first week I was assigned to him, I went to all his lectures, but wasn't assigned to any sort of task. He didn't even have me collect the paper assignments from students. The following week, still nothing, so I scheduled a quick meeting with him and he barely had anything to say. He had me teach a 15 minute grammar review to the classes the following week.  Although I am totally unqualified to teach grammar, I did a pretty good job. After that . . . Radio silence.

Can you talk to him in person immediately after his class?

First try some other methods of getting in touch with him.  Call him on the phone, go to his office (during scheduled office hours if possible).  It's possible that for some reason your emails are not reaching him, or he's just overwhelmed with other stuff and forgot to reply.  Don't throw around words like "stonewall" unless you have proof that he received your emails and is willfully refusing to reply.
If you can't, then yes, you ought to report it.  Your advisor may not be the right person; I would look to whichever faculty member supervises the TA program in your department.  It could be the chair, or graduate vice chair, or some similar person.
It could be that this is a sign of bigger problems, and if so, it will reflect poorly on you when it is found out that you knew something was wrong and took no action.

As long as you are getting paid, this is a desirable state of affairs.
Send him an email or two to CYA ("please contact me with any instructions", "let me know if you need any help as the course goes on").
Go do your research and work on YOUR degree.

P.s.  Please do not also complain about being bumped up to first class and forced to drink champagne and eat filet mignon.  Act nonchalant and move ahead pleasantly.

I'm brand new here - I didn't realize the check mark means I've accepted the answer - thank you!

Can anybody tell what the last para (P.s.) means? I do not understand it. Is it supposed to be a campus joke that I did not catch?

@scaahu - First-class flights, champagne, and filet mignon are very expensive ways to travel, alcoholic beverages, and food, respectively. Guest is suggesting that OP should be glad to be in the situation of getting paid without having to work. Another way to say it would be "don't look a gift horse in the mouth."

Unfortunately, airlines that discover that you accidentally sat in first class sometimes sue you for the price difference. This needs to be reported to someone in authority (and not by email, because email is apparently not working) if only to make sure that the TA isn’t punished later for failing to do their job.

Your job is to help out with the class.  Not to be the teacher.  If there's no help out tasks, no big deal.

If you can confirm with the professor that there is nothing to do right now, then that's fine.  If you can't reach him at all, then it's a sign that either he's not doing his job (supervising his TA) or that something else is wrong, which may be impacting the class he's supposed to teach.  As an employee of the university and as a member of the teaching profession, you have a duty to follow up on this and report it.

His previous TA alerted me that he was disorganized with her and she was barely assigned to anything as well. She added that his behavior last semester became somewhat bizarre after he suffered a loss in his family. Nate, Although I would rather take Guest's advice and drink champagne, I will take yours and ambush him on Monday morning before his class. If it's not helpful, I will mention to the graduate coordinator.

When you ambush him, make sure it just gives you a CYA so you can continue doing nothing.  Don't talk your way into work.  Leave the guy be.  The college needs to deal with him, not you.  And your friend sounds smart...she drank the champagne.

(Reading from comments to OP...you've already had an in person discussion!  Just leave the sleeping dogs lie.  Don't get the man in trouble.  Don't mess up your champagne.  You have adequately CYAed.  Anything else is between the prof and the uni.  Concentrate on YOUR DEGREE.

@guest may I suggest that you reveal your identity so that OP can look up how much more professionally successful and respected of a person you are compared to the writers of the other answers? Including that information would make your argument about adopting a CYA, “drink the champagne” attitude a lot more convincing.

I think revealing my personal failings would detract from  my sooper seekret disinformation campaign.  Better to leave it as an alternate viewpoint. Even it it's wrong, it's different.  You can learn from that.


text:
Fields of computer science with good academic outlook
I gather that the academic job market is very tough for theoretical computer science PhDs with a low chance of obtaining a professorship.
Some things I have read with regards to this:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-academic-job-market-going-to-be-like-for-computational-complexity-theory-after-5-6-years
https://www.reddit.com/r/compsci/comments/njdyq/so_you_want_a_phd_in_theoretical_computer_science/
https://www.quora.com/I-want-to-pursue-PhD-in-Theoretical-Computer-Science-but-I-am-concerned-with-the-job-options-What-should-I-do
If this truly is the case, I would hope it is completely reasonable to ask what fields in computer science are looking a lot better in terms of their academic job market?
My background: I am an undergraduate and have been exploring my research interests since I aspire to become a researcher in academia. I am reading a joint degree in mathematics and computer science in the UK. Naturally, TCS was one of the first fields I started looking at.

I'd say that AI is unlikely to disappear in the near future

@Erwan It may not disappear, but it may stop growing and become saturated because there will be lots of people graduating with AI PhDs and expecting jobs.

What is hot right now doesn't actually concern you and the job market is volatile enough that in six or seven years when you enter the market it will probably be completely different. It isn't a great life choice to make decisions based on such changeable factors.
You are better advised to study something that deeply interests you so that you are more likely to become hugely successful at it and (a) hope that the market isn't terrible when you graduate and (b) be assured that it will improve in time in any case.
You also need to keep a bit of flexibility in mind as you study so that you can change with the times if necessary without losing your interest in things.
So, do what you like to do and do it well. Doing what you think will give you some 'advantage' may turn out to disappoint you in too many ways to count.

+1 this is the answer I would write. I would add that there is a risk that lots of people do PhDs in area X because it is hot when they start, but, when they graduate, the area is saturated with other people that had the same idea and it is no longer as hot.

Feel free to edit the question such that it is not looking for individual fields, matches this answer, and can be reopened.


text:
Applying for a postdoctoral fellowship in the UK, how can I find a host institution
It's been hard to find postdoc and I found a postdoctoral fellowship (in the UK) that I want to apply to. Since I do not live in the UK, it is required to find a host intuition within the UK that should agree by sending a formal approval.
Research Fellowships must be held at a UK higher education institution/university in a department that can show it is capable of fully supporting the research project and researcher. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the host institution and gain the formal approval from the relevant head of department or school before submitting an application.
I am not sure where to go from here, should I reach out to professors (as potential PIs)? or I should email the HR of universities and get more information?
If I get the fellowship, will I be the PI of the project or I will have supervisor?

Field-dependent, but in my field many departments put a note on their website explicitly stating they are looking to host a fellowship and welcome expressions of interest.

Please come back and let us know how you figured it out!? @U. User

@AlFagera I just applied to advertised positions and got a job as a postdoc!!

In general, you should reach out to the person you'd like to collaborate with and go from there. Email professors you're interested in - they can help deal with the bureaucracy of their institution (approval to host etc). Bear in mind that some universities set stringent internal deadlines on applying to certain fellowship schemes.
Whether you'll be PI depends on the individual grant scheme. You'll have a line manager (most likely the professor you apply with) but not necessarily a supervisor-supervisee relationship.


text:
Include rejected paper in Masters application?
Is including the manuscript of a rejected paper (without claiming that it has been published or mentioning any rejections) as a supporting document in my application ethical / would it in any way increase my chances of admission?

Why was your manuscript rejected?

I was volunteering with a professor (in a different department at the same school) so I'm not the primary author. The manuscript was rejected for methodology concerns. My point of including it is to show my aptitude for research.

@WantsToLearn The reason for rejection matters. If it was rejected for being fatally flawed, then probably it's best not to mention it. If it was rejected due to lack of enthusiasm or something more subjective like that, then I would include it.

I would recommend putting it in your cv as a Manuscript in Preparation section where you list authors, title only. If you don’t do that, it’s something to bring up very briefly as either a bullet point of writing a resume, or in the cover letter. You may wish to spin this as “motivated to disseminate research” rather than to prove your aptitude for research, since publishing and doing research aren’t synonymous. Good luck

Make the manuscript publicly available (e.g., in a technical report repository or on your personal website) and list it on your CV. There's no need to includ[e] the manuscript...as a supporting document, since it'll be publicly available.

No.  Don't include copies of papers (published, in press, or rejected).  That's TMI.
Just list research done as a bullet point on your CV or discuss in your cover letter or essay.
And I would be a little more positive.  Say publication TBD.*
*Maybe they figure out how to clean it up and get something published.  [And don't get into a discussion of "it was rejected, but I done good".  Don't meander into details like that.]

“I done good” please use English like what she should be spoke....

What are TMI and TBD?

TMI: Too much information (informal language). TBD: to be done (common abbreviation).

If this is an application for an MS in the US, it's probably not expected that you will have published papers.
Depending on circumstances, it might be worth mentioning that you participated in research. (For example, if you did computer coding or statistical analysis for a project in biology and your application is for a CS or statistics MS. In that case, maybe briefly mention computer language/methods or statistical methods--without going into details about the work not being finished.)

My issue is that my UG GPA is rather embarrassing, so I'm trying anything that would improve my chances of admission.

Always best to ask your 'real' question first. Overall GPA may not be as important as GPA in major and other courses directly relevant to MS program. (But some MS programs have absolute minimums for overall GPA, which you might be able to discover in advance, saving useless applications.) Can you get an enthusiastic letter of recommendation from the prof with whom you collaborated on the unfinished research? And maybe someone in your field who believes you show promise for MS work?


text:
Is is appropriate to specify what a general studies degree was in?
I graduated with a B.S. in Electrical Engineering back in May. However, due to some extra credits I also have a general studies degree, the diploma for which simply states "Bachelor of Science" and nothing else.
For resumes and general discussion is it appropriate to say what subjects contributed to the general studies degree? And how would should I describe it on my resume (right now it just says "Bachelor of Science").
For example, I took psychology and math courses that contributed to the general studies degree, so is it accurate to say that the degree is "a general studies degree focused on mathematics and psychology".

The fact that your diploma doesn't list a concentration doesn't matter.  Bachelor of Arts diplomas (in the US) typically read only "Bachelor of Arts", leaving the major unstated.  Nevertheless, it is entirely appropriate for a BA holder to list their major in their resume.

My advice:
*B.S. Electrical engineering
*B.S. General studies (math, psychology concentrations)
List them both, with the EE first--it is the one you would list if you could only list one, right?

Thank you for your answer! I usually tell people only about the EE degree, but wanted to be more descriptive about the B.S. General studies. But yes, I would list the EE if I could only list one.
I like your answer, it gives me a good way to put it on resume. I'll wait 24 hours before accepting.

If you are applying somewhere where mathematics or psychology is relevant, and you have a substantial amount of credits therein, then I recommend listing:

B.S. in electric engineering
B.S. in general studies (with m credits mathematics, p credits psychology)

I would presume that studies in mathematics would be favourable in most engineering contexts, but psychology might not be particularly interesting, so you might want to include math most of the time but consider omitting psychology. But sometimes it might be the other way around, or both or neither might be relevant.
Indicating the amount of credits is more specific and takes no more space than the alternatives, which is why I would prefer it.

Yes, you could do that, especially if there was a "named" concentration. I doubt that it is necessary, but wouldn't be unusual to list it. But somewhere in your CV you should probably indicate that you have studied specific things.
But don't make it seem like you have a math degree (or even a "minor") unless you actually do. the descriptive phrasing you suggest seems appropriate.
There are a lot of ways to include such information in your CV, but it is best to include it somewhere.

Thanks for your answer! The thing with the math classes I took is that I have more than enough credits for a math minor, but instead of listing it as minor the advisor and I decided to move it within the general studies degree.


text:
Interaction with peer- reviewer
I received a peer review of my research paper. I answered the question arises there in comments. I didn't find such details of the reviewer to give information about some question arises in peer review.

Is there a way to communicate with peer reviewer?

Through the editor/journal.

Yes, normally via the editor.
This is part of the point of blind reviews: to control the exchange and the editor is the "referee" to decide when the purpose is achieved.

how we get an editor?

You have one, when you submitted your paper to the journal, it went to an editor or equivalent. Contact the journal you submitted to.


text:
Ethics of Using Victim's Name in Research?
What are the ethical considerations of using a victim of a violent crime's name in my research?
I understand confidentiality is not an issue as the individual is deceased. Moreover, their death was a high-profile legal case, so it's already a public issue. So while I may be "allowed" to use their name - I am more concerned about what is most respectful of their family/friends. (I think contacting them to ask would be inappropriate).
Would it be better to simply say "the deceased" or "the victim"? What if the details of the case study make it abundantly clear to whom I am referring?
EDIT 1:
To clarify, the case is high profile enough to have a Wikipedia page and have been reported in all major news outlets. None of my data is not already in the public domain.

What does the ethics committee in your University say?

Why is it necessary?

Also, to point out, I've seen many papers authored at a single university that say things like "subjects were undergraduates at a large Midwestern university" even though it's blindingly obvious which school it is. (I write the name of my university ...)

@AzorAhai That might be under IRB regulation, silly as it might seem, so take care.

@BryanKrause I mean,  yeah, we follow IRB rules haha. I'm sure it's just that the IRBs are different in different universities (or maybe the journal requires it).

I'm still selecting my case study so I haven't actually gone to the IRB yet. Just wanted to get some thoughts on if this would be a big deal for IRB before making my decision on the case study.

This is based on the nature of the exact study of course, but this doesn't sound like a matter for the IRB. http://www.irb.emory.edu/forms/review/casestudy.html  They might be good to talk to for advice, but they're not a permitting body for this type of work.

Actually, confidentially is still an issue, in general, for someone who is deceased. Their family needs consideration as does their general reputation. I would guess that your IRB won't permit you to name names.  Different rules apply for public figures generally, however. You can name John Kennedy, for example. The rules might also be a bit more relaxed for victims of extremely public crimes (your example), such as the victims of the unabomber, since some of those names are already clearly part of the public record. In other cases, it might actually be necessary to obscure some details in the service of confidentiality. But just because the crime is known widely, don't assume that the names of victims are.
But you would not be wise to do this without explicit permission from your IRB or equivalent research ethics office.
If you conclude from this answer that the situation can be murky, I think it is. Check before you jump and be a bit more conservative than you think is absolutely required. Make sure that the name is, in some way, essential to include.

Journalists I have spoken to have emphasized the importance of communicating in private, with ample lead time prior to publication, with multiple people with relevant personal and professional experience. For instance, if it was a suicide, you might want to run a question like this by both professionals in areas related to suicide, and families of people who have committed suicide.
Maybe this is an approach your IRB is already taking, but I see no harm in doing some investigation of your own. If nothing else, it might inform your communication with your IRB.
No "rule of thumb" will cover all situations, and the number of overlapping considerations can make it pretty complex. Communicate with people who have experience and expertise that will make them likely to think of things you might miss.


text:
How do you interpret the feedbacks of my boss
I have a PhD in biological sciences but working (for two years by now) as a data analyst (I can say something like a bioinformatician) in a university analysing cancer omics
My boss says that I am an excellent bioinformatician but I must learn how to structure my data when presenting or even before any analysis
He says I would not get any credit unless I learn this
Every morning we have online lab meeting, when seeing my colleagues presentation I feel too bad about myself
I see how they are deep and accurate in their statement
But me only see frigid feedbacks, even PhD students in our lab don't take me serious never ask me to help them in their data
I feel too isolated.. I am getting to the end of my career but everyday I feel the current position would be my last job opportunity in my life
How would you approach such an annoying situation in your academic life?
Thank you for any word

@Buffy Why assume the very worst? It seems that OP needs to learn how to present data in a way that is useful to her "customers". At least that's what I read into it. What data to analyse, what to show, in which form, etc. For instance, some people present just all data they have, flat (I am not saying this is the case here, just as example), without highlighting what it means, what the consequences are, what recommendations to make etc. OP should explain better what she recognises in her colleague's presentations to be better than in hers. Presentation skills are learnable.

@CaptainEmacs, I make no assumptions, but it is a euphemism. It was a question only.

It sounds like you might be experiencing depression.  You should seek help from a licensed mental health professional.

Sorry @CaptainEmacs, by euphemism, you says that my boss is unsatisfied with my work and just expresses that in an indirect way?

@Angel I do not know, as there are not enough details in your question but, yes, this may be. Have they explained at some point in more detail what they expect?

@CaptainEmacs no just saying my plots are not self explanatory ... but I can say frustration on my boss's face when facing me. The worst Phd student in our lab never asks help from me. Once my boss told I have imposter syndrome

@Angel I think identifying precisely why they are dissatisfied is essential here. We cannot guess, you will have to tell us. You did a PhD, so you know how to write a thesis. So, what's missing?

You right @CaptainEmacs because of my weird educational system (I have been studied in my country) which is 100% different with the way people here obtain PhD (I see how a PhD student in our lab progress which is earth to sky differs with where I have obtained my PhD).

There are certain conventions on how to structure thoughts, write texts, present information, and give talks. Find out and learn them. A first step is to ask your supervisor for specific advise, so you can improve these skills.
For example, is is common to finish sentences with a period and to group sentences together to form paragraphs. Note that practically everybody does this. It is a convention to efficiently convey ideas by giving the reader some expected structure she can hold on to. If you don't do this, this already sticks out as part of a "bad presentation". So, learn what conventions exist and use them.
This may help to address presentation and writing part:
http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~oded/R2/re-writing.pdf
http://www.math.wisc.edu/~ellenber/mntcg/TalkTipSheet.pdf
PS: This should have been a comment rather than an answer as it only addresses one aspect. I don't have enough reputation to comment.


text:
can a poster paper and poster presentation have different title?
I have submitted a poster paper for publication. Now its time to present the poster presentation at the conference.
I am presenting my key idea and results after my work rather than the actual results of what paper intended to explain. I thought this will be fruitful to me.
To present an idea, the paper title which is used in poster paper is not the best.

Can I use another title which fits for my presentation?

For example :
Paper title  - Node simulator: Analytics platform for p2p system.
Best fit  title for poster presentation - Behavior measurement for p2p system

It is not uncommon in my field that the title of the conference paper diverges some from the poster title. Or that the actual poster title is different than the submitted abstract. Things change over the months between abstract submittal, the poster for the conference, and the final paper.

@JonCuster you suggest me to change the title if it helps to present the poster?

If the title and the abstract originally submitted are not the best description of the work right now, then, yes, change the title. It should still be recognizable as being the original submission, after several months of evolution though.

The best person to answer is perhaps the meeting organizer.
From someone in biomedical field, I'd recommend against it. If some people read the conference abstracts and decided to see your poster, they would just end up confused. In worse cases they may feel bait and switch, or sloppiness.
Could you use a two-tier title like this?

Node simulator: Analytics platform for p2p system
Application on behavior measurement

This is also a good choice for me.
Thank you.


text:
How important is to include an acknowledgment in the poster presentation?
The organization where I work provided me funding for a poster presentation. My opinion is to acknowledge the funding organization due to the research team of an organization is the authors of the paper.

How important is to acknowledge the funding agency?

I am using Logo of organization in the poster.

Using the Only logo will be good without acknowledgement in the
  poster in Acknowledgement heading?

You work there, so naturally you use the logo. To acknowledge your employer for funding your work (and presenting a poster on your work is exactly that, work) seems a bit weird though. ;-)

It is acceptable to use one or both ways unless there is a restriction policy from your organization or the committee of the event, at which the poster is going to be presented.
However, a poster is very short to present your work and ideas and you want to properly invest in the space. In my opinion, a logo is enough to acknowledge the funding agency. The assumption is that there are no other reasons to put a logo of any organization in your poster if it does not support the work in one way or another.


text:
Invited to a meeting where I will receive a postdoc offer, what should I discuss/prepare the meeting?
I had a postdoc (field is computer science) interview 2 weeks ago. The HR team told me that the panel is willing to offer me the position and want to discuss the details in a 30mins Zoom meeting. This is a first one for me, I really don't know what can I expect during this meeting and what can I bring into the discussion. I am also a coming from outside the UK (need a visa).

Salary negotiation
Benefits
other elements?

Since I need a visa sponsorship

Visa procedure
Will the university cover immigration fees?

Basically, what are the key elements that form the typical start-up package for a postdoc job offer?
PS: I am having the meeting with one HR member and not the PIs.

I would imagine the discussion will be about the visa process. Be aware that salaries in UK universities follow a set scale so you may not have much room to negotiate for more. Similarly, healthcare is free in the UK (apart from dentistry [though NHS dentists do exist and charge minimal fees] and opticians) and it is mandatory to offer 28 days paid leave. What other benefits would you be looking for?

Thank you for your answer. Like I mentioned, it's a first one for me, so I don't know much. But as a researcher I can only think of - Moving expenses, -Conference and travel
funds and -Teaching load (it's a research only position but they said I might teach as well)

HR probably won't be able to tell you about teaching (that would be down to your immediate line manager/department). But I imagine all the financial questions that you mention would be appropriate.

Read the agreement between your university and the union (presumably UCU) if applicable.  It's boring.  This defines what you can request.
Read benefits information on the HR website.
Read visa rules on the government website.
Figure out your preferred start date.
Estimate your relocation costs.
Find out what local taxes are.
Find out local housing costs from a regional housing website.  (In the UK they are often unreasonably high.)
Make a list of questions to ask.  Questions should demonstrate that you are genuinely interested in the position. They are not negotiation.
Reread the job ad.  Some places will try to offer you a job you didn't apply for.

For a postdoc, it is not called a startup package.  If you ask for "startup", people will think you don't understand what a postdoc is.
Unless you are an experienced negotiator, do not try to negotiate during a meeting.  Negotiate by email.  Get everything in writing.

Congrats! On top of what you already mentioned, my list contained:

Is there an assistant who can help with settling down? Like, helping with housing, taxes, reading payslips. etc.
Healthcare. How does it work? When will be available? And everything related.
Are there any links to the international community of the university members?

Don't over plan, everything always can be handled at the place, the main focus is the research.

Employers have nothing to do with healthcare in the UK. The NHS is immediately available to anyone in the country, citizen/resident/employed or not.


text:
Applying for postdocs and for Postdoctoral fellowships at the same time
On my hunt for a postdoc position, I have applied for some postdocs at many universities, but also I am applying for a postdoctoral fellowship (result date in July 2021) with a professor X at University A.
I can't help but think of a scenario where the two events will clash. Suppose I found a postdoc (university B) and started working on it, then a few months later I got the research fellowship with professor X. What's the right and "responsible" thing to do?
I can't do both because the fellowship doesn't allow it.
The applicant must not hold a permanent academic position before the start of the postdoctoral research fellowship

I know there a lot of assumptions going on here. But I'd like to know the answer for that particular scenario, should I quit the postdoc or let go of the fellowship?

How is a postdoc different from a postdoctoral fellowship? I've always looked at those as being essentially the same thing.

I really don't think they're similar. A postdoc I will be "supervised" by a PI, but with a research fellowship I think I might "be" the PI of the project. During the application of the fellowship, they're asking me for a clear research plan. I actually asked a question about this, and it's a very interesting topic.
https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/159602/whats-the-real-difference-between-a-postdoc-and-a-research-fellow-which-one-i

Essentially every postdoc I have ever seen (this is in the U.S. mind you) is constructed as follows: You PI a research project while supervised by a mentor of some sort. Whether it is a "fellowship" or a "research assistant" or whatever, the basic construction is you being PI on a project of your own while being overseen by a mentor. This might be different in the U.K. However, I have never seen a postdoc ever referred to as a "permanent academic position." This is straining at the semantics at this point in my opinion.

@Vladhagen Independent postdoctoral fellowships are well-known outside the US, and do exist in the US.

Closely related question: Importance of individual postdoctoral fellowship I put my experience in the comments

Permanent position: a Postdoc is not a permanent position.

A postdoc is not usually considered a permanent academic position. It is the most temporary of temp academia positions. The rule on not holding a "permanent" position likely means that you cannot be working as a (tenure-track) professor and then take the fellowship. This would be a question you would need to ask directly to the sponsors of the fellowship.
I also am not clear on how a postdoc and a Postdoctoral fellowship are different. These usually would be the same type of position in my mind. If so, the position at U of B versus the position with Prof X are really the same sort of thing. It would just come down to interests and pay at that point.

The fellowship pays for the postdoc, not the PI’s funds. That really is the difference.

One more technical difference: a fellowship in many cases does not lead to a position (work contract), but is paid as a stipend. That is usually an important difference in terms of rights, social security benefits etc.

If you receive a fellowship with a salary from a funding agency, it is normal to resign your current job to take the fellowship.
In a few cases you might keep your current job but have your duties changed to the fellowship research.