text:
Ph.D. rejection from German University due to citizenship and gotten degree from my previous institute by BAFA
This spring I ran away from Russia due to increasing repressions and other risks. Long story short, I got a Ph.D. position in quantum computing at Stuttgart University in the state of Baden-Württemberg. I was told to be in Germany at the 1st of June to sign my contract and start my Ph.D., but after my arrival university staff notified me that I am under check up by BAFA (an organisation dealing with export). After 3 months I was rejected from the promising position. Arguments were that I could be a spy and also could steal important knowledge from the university.
I also recently was told that even the fact that I studied in Russia is a problem. As far as I know I am the first such case, I've asked people that got a degree from my university (Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology) and all of them are doing fine in Germany.
I've heard people from China and India sometimes face such problems. I would like to know if anyone is familiar with  my case and if there is some solution to it or what organization I could ask for help.
Because the decision was made after 3 months in September. I don't have enough time to get an employment contract in another Ph.D. program. I spend almost all my money only to get to Germany and now I really don't know what to do.
UPD1: Thanks everyone who sent their support and gave me advice.
UPD2: If you would like to blame me for the war, because I am russian and I deserve everything what is happening to me, please, do not do it here, do it there lonelyhorse04@gmail.com, it is my email.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

I vote to close this question because it depends too much on personal details, as you state "all other people are doing fine in Germany".

@EarlGrey I wrote " I've asked people that got a degree from my university (Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology) and all of them are doing fine in Germany", not all other people. The meaning of this sentence that people that I know did not face any legal problems with employment. It is just my observation.

@Evgenii Are you elegible for Ukrainian citizenship? Because that would make things  much easier in terms of migration, you would not need a visa to move inside the Schengen area and find a job (still security suspicions would be there) but you could work on other areas to support yourself, or have time to find another PhD position.

@Dr.Snoopy I need to ask an Ukrainian lawyer, but I think I could. Problem is this procedure takes more than 1 year. Not only my citizenship is a problem but also the fact that I study in russian university. Also, I was told that people from post soviet space will have problems with employment in cutting edge research if they have degree from russian education facility.

@Evgenii I only comment about citizenship due to easing of migration rules, Ukrainians have visa-free access to the Schengen area, and more chances to get work permits. I do not comment on rumors or "I was told" because these could be not true and it all depends on where (institute/uni) and what (topic, environment), this is something key, it is still possibly for you to find PhD positions or a job to support yourself, apply, do not assume the blanket ban that some of the answers are implying. Know the local system and you will have no trouble finding a job. Just try to be flexible.

Please check this meta-question
https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/383800/what-about-sensitive-details-being-retained-in-the-chat-and-related-things
for a serious issue about (poor) SE handling of personal informations. The issue is of big concern in relationship to this question.

@EarlGrey OP is clearly forgoing the safest route here, and it might seem unwise, but it is a valid choice still. Arguably, a retaliation resulting from an over-exposure of personal information on SE is overall unlikely, and the best practices are in place to prevent the "it would be really dumb if a reckless post on the internet ends one's career". OSINT does not seem like a serious threat model here, and if you are concerned about a targeted, state-based action taken (also seems unlikely), OP is probably more vulnerable to it because of other sources of information.

@Lodinn "The Department of Homeland Security says it's necessary to combat crimes like terrorism and child pornography." (from https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/usa-border-phones-search-1.4494371 yes, sure, against terrorists, which on average are the people with political opinion differing from the ruling elite).
I am a pessimist and I prefer to err on the safe side.  Much of my understanding of surveillance in the modern era comes from Eugeny Morozov, "the political dissenter that sold out to the US" (citation of someone, I do not know whom, but I am sure it has been and it will be said) .

@EarlGrey And that is a valid choice, too. People in Russia and Belarus are getting jail time for social media posts, phone searches are basically a given; it is not even that much of surrendering privacy anymore if some other state decides to do the same. If we are talking DHS, right there is the Gmail account one must assume DHS has access to should they want it. But all that said, it is not entirely unreasonable to expect to win some battles by being consistent and at least a little bit open about your stance. Picking these battles is important, however.

There is a lengthy discussion in the comments already, and I hope people more familiar with the German side of things have sufficiently elaborated on that.
I would instead try to offer you an analysis from the perspective of someone still planning the move.
You have a pool of resources available to you and a bunch of liabilities. Your biggest liabilities are:

Money. You need money to survive, at the end of the day, and will need to sort it out somehow. From your post, you do not have much left and spending an year or two on tropical island vacation arranging your next position is understandably not on the list.
Legal status/background. Goes without saying.
Poor social capital. You do not seem to have a strong network, especially outside of Russia. Your research profile is okay, but not stellar.
Doing anything outside of continuing research is clearly not optimal in the long run, but you might need to make concessions as you go.

Your main recourse lies in whatever reputable contacts you do have and in what skills you demonstrably have. In this case, it seems like the professor has jumped the gun and decided to avoid any potential complications - after all, they have not that much to gain and a lot to lose. That you have not managed to make a convincing case in over 4 months since the date your contract was supposed to start is hugely problematic. I am afraid convincing the university to reverse the decision within a week is, essentially, an impossible task.
Given the visa expiration date, your immediate next step would be either moving somewhere else for the time being (this may prove impossible due to money issues), applying for the asylum or getting stuck in the legal limbo. Like @Dr.Snoopy points out, you could, in theory, live in Germany without having the paperwork and try to find employment, but this is also problematic for obvious reasons. I would advice at least consider applying for the asylum: that way your stay will be legal while your application is being considered (of course, it is not of much help if you get a desk reject the very next day).
Another immediate action is contacting whoever you believe could support you one way or another - your advisor and colleagues are probably your first option here when it comes to job seeking, but pursue as many leads as you possibly can at once.
Finally, have a plan of action for when things go wrong and do not put all eggs in one basket (I guess you have learned that lesson the hard way). Your current situation is fairly bad, so adjust your expectations accordingly - it will give you a different perspective on your options.
It is soul crushing to have a bright future taken away from you by something you did not really have influence over, but, IMHO, it is better to view your circumstances pessimistically and be ready to work hard and build your career from the ground up. On the plus side, you do not have to leave behind some 20+ years of your work.
I sincerely hope you will be able to turn it around.
UPD: Things seem to get increasingly complicated with respect to being able to move outside of Russia once you are here. Treat the returning option as your very last resort, and maybe not even that.

I think this answer misses the point a little: The problem is the field of study, especially after this became public, German universities have probably become more cautious. I guess the primary decision OP has to make is if it is more important to get out (stay out) of Russia or to do a PhD in that specific area.

@erc You sum it up pretty well - IMHO, they have several options: either find some country more willing to go ahead with them pursuing it (China would be the most obvious option here but given the context, they might get a measure of personal comfort but there are obvious problems with this decision; oddly, USA might be more receptive also), be willing to sacrifice their field of study (likely the least contentious), or go back to Russia (the worst option for OP).

But the reason I'm "missing the point" here is that assuming for a moment OP is willing to not pursue their chosen academic track for a while or even at all - and I'd argue they should be definitely considering this - it still leaves them with a logistical nightmare right now. They thought they had a job lined up for them and now are in a foreign country without money, documents or job prospects. They don't have the luxury of mulling over decades-spanning decisions and must focus on making ends meet first.

I'm sorry to hear about the situation you are in. I have been hesitant to post an answer as it's not really a clear-cut solution to your question. However, since I realized that in the current situation there is probably nobody who can give you a definite solution I'll give it a shot and hope that it helps you and others in your situation.
I can imagine a few options to explore, I'll try to outline what I know about them and where you can get more information. I'll assume that you are located in our near Stuttgart- if not, you can find similar organisations in all major German cities.
1. Immediate help:
I don't know how much money or time on your visa/residence permit you have left. If your situation is desperate and a return to Russia is impossible you really might want to think about whether you will apply for refugee status or not (as already mentioned by other posters). From your description I got the feeling that this is not what you are aiming for, but if your only alternative is living under a bridge, this might be an option. If you go this route I suggest to open another topic in a different stack to get more information.

If you are not yet sure what to do this contact might be helpful (in German): https://www.elk-wue.de/helfen/fluechtlinge-und-migranten/asylpfarramt
Short summary: It's an offer by the Protestant church aimed at everybody who seeks advice for (im)migration topics. They explicitly mention that they also offer guidance to illegal immigrants who have no other place to go; I therefore assume that you will be able to have an "unofficial" chat exploring options for immediate help.

Side-note: How Germany will behave with respect to Russian refugees is not yet clear. Information in German and English (by Pro Asyl, a well-known association fighting for rights of refugees; I have not managed to find a more "official" source): https://www.proasyl.de/news/flucht-aus-russland-was-wir-aktuell-sagen-koennen/
They also offer advice (in English): https://www.proasyl.de/en/pro-asyl-advice-in-individual-cases/

I was hesitant to post this, as not everybody is religious and I cannot offer any experience on their political stance, but then I thought it's up to you to decide whether it's interesting for you. The Russian parish in Stuttgart (contact details in German) consists of Ukrainians and Russians who, according to this interview (in German) try to master the crisis together.

If you have a bit more time and money left, you might find the following information interesting:
2. Official German job portal aimed at Russian immigrants:
Not specifically aimed at academia, but there exists a special program by the German federal government for recruiting qualified Russian immigrants who are leaving their homeland due to the current situation. Information in German and Russian, website aimed at Russians: https://www.make-it-in-germany.ru/
As you were planning to start a PhD you have presumably a master degree and therefore might be considered "qualified". Perhaps you can find some useful information there that allows you to find a job that pays the bill and gives you a residence permit until you can sort out PhD positions.
3. Stuttgart University/ PhD supervisor

Make sure to collect as much information about your situation in writing as possible. Who made the decision not to hire you? The professor, the university or was it a blanket decision by BAFA (which I do not believe)? On which grounds? It's important to know whether you will face the same challenges at every other position you could apply for. I strongly suspect that it's the field that triggered the problems as I know several Russian scientists which are employed without problems in Germany.
If it was the professor's decision and not that of the university: Are there any other free PhD positions in related but not security-relevant fields? Have you checked with the student advisors of the university? Might be a long shot, but who knows... Information for doctoral students doctoral students (in English) and generally for international students.
Whether your degree itself is a problem, can be checked via the anabin database. This database allows users to check whether a given institute/university is considered an accredited university and whether a given degree has a German equivalent. The website is in German and as I don't know the official name of your degree I cannot check whether it's listed. If you want me/us to check you might want to post the name of your degree. Please note: the universities are the ones which in the end can decide whether to employ you or not; rules for universities vary from one German state to another.

4. other German universities/ research institutes

Check other universities whether they have international offices which offer fast help for people stuck in Germany because of the current situation. Many universities started programs/stipends for helping Ukrainian students and researchers in a fast and unbureaucratic way. Some of them expand the help beyond Ukrainians to "everybody affected by the war". Again, it's a long shot, but perhaps you can find some help there.
Another long shot, but perhaps the DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service) can advice you: https://www.daad.de/en/the-daad/information-for-russian-students-and-researchers/

Final note:
As you can see there is quite some information aimed directly at Russians, therefore I conclude that your nationality is not principally a problem and there is hope that with some adjustments to your original plan you might be able to make it work at a different university.

If you went to Germany, I assume you have at least a minimum knowledge of German.
Then just move to Austria. They always had a more neutral attitude, plus it is much cheaper to live there.
Given the boundary political condition, you will probably have to deal with low-paying, low-qualified jobs, for a short or long spell of time. But Austria has a much more balanced salary-cost of life ratio. And Austira is a overlooked destination, so you will be able to find a technical job much quick there. Not ideal, but you have the knowledge to boot yourself up and become a programmer. And after a couple of years you will be able to get into a Ph.D. program.
The bottom line is: now you have to fight for your political ideas, do not expect you will always find someone supportive. You are unfortunately fighting for a repressed idea, which is "russian are humans, russian deserves some right, russian politician invaded a foreign country" and it is a very unpopular idea in the West, because the West is now thinking "Putin is a psycopathic, invading for no meaningful reason a foreign country, therefore Russia is a country of psycopathic", which has been very recently summed up by the vice-president of the European Union "we are a garden, outside there is a jungle" (Borrell, 2022 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7f_XLuiNa4).
Good luck, and enjoy the ride, your voice in the West is not censored, but unfortunately it will be voluntarily not heard.
P.s.: because of the war, you are facing these temporary issues that are preventing you from getting into your dream path. Whenever one of these temporary issues is death, the prevention from getting the dream path becomes permanently. I feel a bit for you (let's say a bit more for you than the average yemeniti and somali, because I am an horrible person), but I feel much more for all the Ukranians and the Russian being slaughtered in this proxy conflict.

If I'm correct that the field of study (quantum computing) is the real issue, not Germany, then this will help little. It is a potentially sensitive subject due to its relationship to encryption (a munition in most places, including the US).

If my social circle is any indication at all, language is not high on the list of considerations for most people who left, be it before or after the war started. It is just a "nice to have", the priorities are generally 1) Not dying 2) Not ending up in prison 3) After 1 and 2 are fulfilled for the immediate closest circle, making ends meet 4) Not being thrown too far off the chosen life path (one could become a janitor in theory, sure) 5) Other nice-to-haves. Thank you for your sympathy and yes, there are still people who have it much, much worse...

@Buffy the subject itself also a problem. Some of top scientist in quantum computing are russians (Harvard,Caltech) and there more in Europe too. I don't think anyone will close this subject to them, right? I think I could only hope that different export organizations will be more selective, why throw away good brains if you could use them+they could support Ukraine with money or help to develop quantum technologies in Ukraine. I would like to do this (I am ethnic Ukrainian) instead of dying in russian prison.

They may well have more trouble getting their research funded. You don't have to be a fanatic Putinist to spy for Russia. If someone still has family members in Russia, and got a visit with the message that it would be a shame if something where to happen to them, then few could blame her/him if (s)he would than collaborate...

@Lodinn exactly. OP is facing Point 3). Given that OP was in Germany for 3 months, so hopefully got a minimum of german classes (and german bureaucracy), but almost ended his money, it is easier to fulfill point 3) by moving to Austria. It is relatively close by and even Vienna is cheaper than Stuttgart, providing plenty of opportunities to survive without losing completely one's dream path.

I hear you. German prices are offset by their wages, but only if you have good job prospects. Germany just happens to be a very popular destination among Russians, all things considered (another one of my friends have moved there just this month and I can't be happier for them), so possibly hearing the stories about those who have successfully emigrated and hoping to find support among fellow expatriates and Austria gets overlooked as a result.

Quantum Computing is not practically related to any security considerations. The connection to Shor's algorithms and other "crypto breaking algorithms" is still a theoretical curiosity. And there is no real risk in the next decade or so for "stealing information", apart perhaps for people in Quantum experimental physics, if at all. I'd cast this treatment of the candidate as a slightly political motivated action, more than an objective cautionary measure. I would suggest the OP to search for other more welcoming country.

@Dilworth You do not actually know if Quantum Computing is the problem, the OP does not know anything except that the Professor canceled the contract, and from what was said, I suspect that a background check is needed (which makes sense) and it would take too long to complete or be too expensive (I know cases like this much before this war started). Germany already issued a visa, the OP already lives in Germany, not sure what you would mean as more welcoming country. Other countries would try to deport him to Rwanda.

@Dr.Snoopy, no country I know of deported Russians who are in the same situation as the OP to Rwanda. And I know for a fact that many countries are welcoming to Russians scientists in related areas to those of the OP (i.e., do not invoke espionage accusations or investigations against them; here I assume OP is not a spy). Re Quantum: I was answering others who claimed this is the OP area.

@Dilworth This is exactly my point, your claims are too generic, which countries? Do these countries issue visas inside Russia? For example the US does not issue visas inside Russia since they do not have working Embassy/Consulates, only in Warsaw. And there is always the issue of survivor bias, you only hear of the successful cases and not about the unsuccessful ones (for whatever reason). And in all cases they would go through a background check. My comment about Rwanda is to show how not welcoming some countries are to refugees. And OP was not accused of being a spy, only a background check

If I were you, I would do everything to prove that I am neither a spy nor dangerous in some other way.
They told you that there is an investigation against you. You did not say anything about the results. If you know them, try to prove them wrong. If they have not told you the results, this might be illegal - I am pretty sure that you have a right to know what they are holding against you. Try to find out who is responsible for this and get the details of the investigation. What do they hold against you? Can you prove them wrong?
I would also try to find other scientists from Russia who work at Stuttgart university, ideally in your field of research. Get in touch with them and tell them your story. Can you prove that you are not a part of the Putin system? Did you take part in demonstrations, do you have friends that fight for democracy? If you can convince them that you are not a spy, they can help you to find a way to solve this problem.
Even if there is no chance to get the job at Stuttgart university again, you should do everything to get rid of this accusation.

I'm afraid that's what OP should have done as soon as they heard of the investigation in the first place (which seems to be shortly after their arrival around the 1st of June or even before, "this spring"), not almost half an year later.

I see your point, but I somehwat doubt that this will solve OP's problem. As others have pointed out in other comments, when it comes to security relevant technology, it's not the only issue that someone might start a position with the intention to spy - as long a the applicant has close friends or relatives in Russia, they might just be coerced to spy, no matter whether they want to support the current Russian government. (For the record, I am completely sympathetic with OP's frustration -  I just have doubts that he currently has real chances to be allowed to work on this project.)

Besides, it is incredibly hard to actually prove. Surely, if I were to send a spy, providing them with a "proof" of persecution at home would be a non-issue? A slip of a paper about detention, a photo in the police department... Having some sort of evidence in a western-controlled medium (e.g. Facebook) might be somewhat feasible, but most Russians are not as reckless as to face jailtime for posting something in opposition on social media. And unless you have really close friends there, it is hard to expect someone sticking their neck out for a near-stranger.

Sorry but your answer is either naive or misguided, you cannot prove something that has not happened. The OP has not been accused of being a spy, there are background checks needed and maybe they did not want to perform them, the only thing that is a fact is that the contract was cancelled, you might want to fight that in courts, but it would take a lot of time/money and have very little chance of success.

Sorry everyone, investigation may be a wrong word. I believe BAFA looked at my diplomas, transcripts, previous places of study, I don't think they looked at my social media accounts or something like that.

I've thought about my answer for a few days, it will probably be unpopular, but here goes:
What did you do while in Russia to try and keep the peace? What did you do when your country just annexed a piece of another country (the Crimean peninsula) in 2014? I assume you were "just" a student. But the country you are apparently from is an aggressor that is waging war on the civilians of the Ukraine. Germany has given many Ukranians refugee status. You left, because the sanctions are making life in Russia uncomfortable, and you were perhaps (rightly) worried that you could be conscripted into the army.
You were probably promised the position by a professor who had not checked with the university administration that new hires of Russian nationals are no longer permitted. There will be nothing much you can do about that. Russians who are already here and have jobs can, naturally, keep those jobs.
Your visa was probably contingent on you getting a job here. Since the job has disappeared, that may mean that you need to apply for refugee status, and you should have done that as soon as it was clear that you were not getting the job. As a refugee applicant, you will not be permitted to work until your status is approved. If you are found not to be a refugee, you will be sent back to Russia, or given the status of 'Duldung', being tolerated, because there is currently no air traffic between Germany and Russia. You should contact a lawyer.
The nice world that we used to have with exchange of researchers and free movement pretty much everywhere has been drastically changed by the Russian invasion of the Ukraine.
Here are some links that might help you. If you don't read German, DeepL is your friend.

https://www.nds-fluerat.org/54499/aktuelles/flucht-aus-russland-was-wir-aktuell-sagen-koennen-23-09-2022/
https://www.uno-fluechtlingshilfe.de/hilfe-weltweit/fluechtlingsschutz/asyl-in-deutschland
https://eriwan.diplo.de/am-de/service/05-visa-einreise/-/2521580
https://www.vorwaerts.de/artikel/deutschland-russischen-gefluechteten-asyl-gewaehren (from March, may be too old)

I’ve had many of the same thoughts, actually, but as an American, hesitated to express them.

You incorrectly assume that "new hires of Russian nationals are no longer permitted", this is is not correct. At some institutions a background check must be performed and it is very likely the institute did not want to do it. It is a matter of time/resources, not a blanket ban as you imply.

In 2014 OP were just starting their high school, yes. Keep in mind 2014 was much less crystal-clear domestically than internationally, too: it was still shocking for many, but they then got firsthand reports from their friends and relatives from Crimea suggesting not insignificant popular support, leaving many genuinely conflicted about the matter. Media is not to be trusted, but that were reports from people they knew personally. And as for 2022, our German colleagues were much better informed than anyone domestically, even those whose news sources were not limited to the state media.

"You left, because the sanctions are making life in Russia uncomfortable" is a little loaded, too - spring is about as early as it gets for fleeing. With the Russian government dispensing their pots of gold (which would be way better spent on developing the economy instead of waging wars, but alas), sanctions are hardly what makes the life in Russia uncomfortable even now: it is domestic policies. OP would likely have better life prospects in Russia if we are talking wealth and goods strictly and ignore the issue of personal freedoms.

People often draw parallels with German scientists fleeing in WWII - they had to make concessions, but they were able to put their skills towards what they believed to be a just cause and, eventually, live decent lives. It makes sense to not welcome them with the open arms and present with offers as good as if nothing happened, but you also certainly want to avoid not providing any viable alternative at all and make them go home disappointed and thinking "I guess my government was right all along after all, I should go work for them instead".

People from west countries that enjoying democracy and good quality of life don't understand what is it to live under tyranny and constant paranoia. I tried my best to show my negative attitude toward my government action, but resistance in the country where is government could throw you in jail just for minimal resistance, where all social networks are monitored, where even your parents hate you for your position, where country are mostly populated by people who in support of government is not really possible.

You trying to tie me with my government actions, where it is not really a government but just a mod of thieves and murderers. Actually, what are you doing right now, when your  government keep buying gas and oil from the aggressor? Please, your are not the judge and I am not in the court.

"You left, because the sanctions are making life in Russia uncomfortable, and you were perhaps (rightly) worried that you could be conscripted into the army."
You don't know why I left. Staying in the country where police stopping young people and checking their phone on the matter of antiwar information and only for repost of oppositional views you could be in jail. Also I am ethnic Ukrainian and I don't want to know if putin will start a with hunt, like hitler did with Israelites.

What about people working in the US and having research/industrial connection with Saudi Arabia? Do you have some nice words for them, too?

I deleted a snarky comment of mine since @Evgenii's comments explain much better what I consider wrong with this answer.

Evgenii, I realize it is difficult when you are personally affected by this. But you cannot expect things to remain as they were before Putin invaded. Be glad that you are out, sort out your visa (I put in some links) and find other work for now. Dr. Snoopy, we have been told that we are not allowed to hire Russian citizens. German universities are governed at state level, not federal. @Lodinn, that is an excellent point with German scientists fleeing WWII. And that was my point: he should apply for asylum, so that he has a place to stay and food until things get sorted out.

@DeboraWeber-Wulff Thank you a lot for the information, by the way - this is all very helpful. I must admit I am very conflicted about your answer: while I disagree with many of the points raised (and there's a very significant bias in my own outlook on the situation kicking in, of course), I think it is a good thing you have decided to post it. Seeing the other side of the argument is much needed, and so is learning to tackle it gracefully. The presentation seems to be the most contentious part here. (1/2)

(2/2) For a person in this kind of situation, there's a world of difference between opening with "you should do X, Y and Z, it would put you in a disadvantaged position for a number of years, but opens a way forward, and there is no such thing as an easy option for you now" and "you should've done something differently in your life earlier". Even if the end result is the same, the second reads like "screw you, go figure it out". With some work on the receiving side, this advice could be used, but the kneejerk reaction for someone constantly fighting is to give up and go bang on another door.

I believe this answer is on the verge of racism or illegal discrimination (accusing someone based on their nationality without any information about them). PS, the same question could be directed to Debora: "what exactly did you do to stop the war in Ukraine? Why didn't you join US Secret Service to infiltrate Putin's Russia, for example??"

@Dilworth, um, don't you see? If he had done something and BECAUSE of that fled, it would be easier for him to obtain asylum. But even if he didn't, he can still obtain asylum, it is just more difficult. As I am no longer a US citizen, your suggestion won't work :) There are many things that can be done to help Ukranians, and what I have done or not done is not the question here. I am not accusing him of anything, I think you are mis-reading something into what I wrote. It is tragic when big plans fall through, but one needs to finde a Plan B and perhaps C.


text:
Who should I ask for a letter of recommendation?
I am from Spain and I recently graduated from a masters degree here and now I'm applying for a PhD in the US. I'm having a hard time finding people who will write me a letter of recommendation for my PhD application. I already have two (one from my thesis supervisor and another from a counselor) but I need at least one more and I'm running out of options. I did a couple of internships a long time ago (both in 2019) and I asked my supervisors but none of them replied to my email, they weren't very involved in the research so there's a great chance that they don't even remember me or the work I did, and I don't want to insist too much. Is it alright to ask coworkers or postdocs that supervised my work? I think I have these options:
Person A: Professor with whom I took two classes last year and was on my master's thesis' evaluation committee, so she knows me from class even though I didn't participate much but I got good grades, and she has read and evaluated my research work, but she doesn't know much about me in a lab context.
Person B: Lab technician with whom I worked recently during my master's thesis and can say good things about me and my work but will definitely be weaker than a professor's.
Person C: A coworker of one of the internships (long time ago) that supervised my work (she has a PhD). She remembers me and will say positive things but the field is not very related to my current field.
Who would better support my application? Any other suggestions?
Thank you so much.

Don't overestimate the importance of rank or academic status. A good recommendation letter (besides being positive) is one that says things about you that are relevant and useful to the person evaluating your application.
Whether the letter writer is a professor or not doesn't count much. So based on what you say in your post, it sounds like person B would be your best option.

For a doctoral studies application you want letters from people who can make a positive prediction about your likely success in research in your field. And research is more than lab practice.
I'd recommend the professor for that reason, but also because the readers will more easily relate to their perspective. The professor is more familiar with the entirety of your research and how it worked out.  Also, the professor is the one that knows about what doctoral education is about, though it is likely different in Spain than the US.

Also see the answer for the US to the canonical question: How does the admissions process work for Ph.D. programs in Country X?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How common is in the US to have publications, posters, etc. before PhD?
A potential advisor asked me for abstracts, manuscripts, posters, presentations, etc. but I just graduated from a Master's Degree in the field of biomedicine/biological sciences in Spain and here most Masters are very coursework-oriented so I don't have any of that, and as far as I know it's not very common for Master students here to have many publications or poster presentations. I just produced two Theses, one for my Bachelor's final project and other for my Master's final project, which will be published as an article but it hasn't even been submitted yet. I was a bit surprised because I don't know if it's very common in the US to have papers published and have presented at conferences before even starting a PhD.

@Buffy Biomedicine/Biological Sciences

I would expect applicants for a PhD program in biomedical/biological sciences in the US to have research experience as an undergraduate (it's less common to have a master's degree but some will).
That research experience is likely to come with at least poster presentations, and preferably published or at least submitted manuscripts (hopefully available as preprints, which has become more common in biology and medicine than just a few years ago). I would not necessarily expect these posters/publications to be first-authored, but the applicant should have enough understanding of the projects that they could present on them in their entirety by themselves.
A thesis based on research will count for a bit, too, but theses based on coursework or literature review not as much: the point is to show preparation and aptitude for a research career.
There might be a lot of otherwise good applications from people without those qualifications, but too many other good applicants will have them, and since there's little else to truly differentiate candidates that will matter a lot.
I've worked with undergrads and recent graduates applying for graduate school, and in multiple cases the applicants without a publication record applied unsuccessfully for PhDs whereas a year later with a publication the same students had multiple offers to choose from. That doesn't mean I wouldn't suggest applying without publications, though, just that it counts for a lot. You necessarily only have what you have, so if asked that's what you'll have to provide. As far as I can tell there has been a big shift from when I was applying for graduate school only ~15 years ago towards more extensive CVs from graduate school applicants.

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


text:
Section heading sytle
I am writing my thesis right now and I vaguely remember that I was once told that in an English paper/manuscript nearly all words of a section title start with an uppercase letter.
For instance:
The Influence of the 19th Century on some Important Stuff
(just something I came up with)
Is this right? Currently I am doing it a little bit inconsequently which is in my opinion even worse. Is there a certain style recommended?

You can find a pretty good summary at: Scribbr
But note that some universities will have a required "style guide" as do many journals. Your advisor can probably point you in the right direction, as could any of the office staff in the department.
But doing it inconsistently is a problem. Stop doing that.

I've attended four different schools during my 2 undergrad degrees ( I was pretty nomadic in my twenties) and my go-to method was either reference the school's writing guides that were usually laid out in the course documents, or default to the Chicago Manual of Style for everything. Kind of like the United States 10th Amendment, anything not explicitly federal, defaults to the states.


text:
What to choose for a writing sample?
I am applying to a PhD program in the US (nutritional sciences), and they require me to submit a writing sample, but as I'm from Spain all of my previous work is in Spanish. I have thought about translating and submitting my Master's Thesis , but there is a 10 page limit. I don't know if you recommend submitting one section and which one should I choose (abstract, introduction, results and discussion, more than one section...) or summarize the thesis in 10 pages. I feel like the results and discussion would be the best option but it uses a lot of terminology that it's impossible to understand without Materials and Methods section.
Also, should I include the bibliography if there are references in the text and do they count for the page limit (the program's webpage doesn't specify this)?

Since they likely want an English language text, a translation probably isn't appropriate. But they don't need a complete work.
One option is to write a summary of your masters thesis in English. Perhaps something you might prepare if you had to give a lecture on the subject to an English speaking audience.


text:
PhD supervisor doesn't care about what I can bring from my field
I'm finishing my first year as a PhD in a STEM field (say field A), although my main field is B. I have two supervisors (say S1 and S2, both very well-known). I usually work with S2 (younger, less famous), and report to S1 (older, extremely famous).
Much of the work in field A can be applied in field B. Indeed, coupling the research lines is highly beneficial and much appreciated.
My supervisors have been trying to do this coupling in the past without experts from B. I noticed it very much since day 0 because most of their solutions were poorly implemented or didn't make sense.
So, I expressed my discontent and willingness to fix these issues by adequately implementing the solutions.
However, I received a strong "NO" from S2. He literally told me: "I don't care about field B; I don't care if the method from B is well applied or not; I just want you to work with my models, using these methods (his), and obtain results". Nonetheless, S1 is always very interested in what I have to bring, although I don't have many meetings with him.
I even re-implemented in two weeks what a student from S2 did in the past (again, not an expert in field B) in a proper manner, obtaining realistic and accurate results. However, S2 told me: "why did you spend time on this? The models were right. Just focus on the method." Indeed, I focused on the method as well...
It is painful for me to hear that. It is like an engineer telling a doctor that using gloves during surgery is not necessary, and if the doctor argues about it, the engineer replies: "I don't care."
After a year, I decided to implement in parallel my own improvements. I don't even bother about telling S2 about them anymore, although I do tell S1.
Is this normal? Is this an ego problem? I would like to hear some opinions :)
EDIT
WOW, I was not expecting so many useful answers! Thank you.
I will mention some aspects to consider:

I could work directly with S1, but there are two issues. First, the relationship between S1 and S2 is close (essentially, S2 works for S1), and I want to avoid raising drama between them (although I am not afraid of raising concerns, I'm quite straightforward). Second, S1 is extremely busy, which may affect my supervision.

Indeed, I now realize my project is following a direction based on S2's authority, which actually detours from the original description of the PhD (which was extremely interesting to me).

Based on your advice, I now want to raise my concerns to both S1 and S2. Any advice on how to do this without creating too much drama?
Thank you!

It might depend on what you mean by models and methods. Can you make your own improvements and still keep S2 happy?

What are the reasons to work with S2 instead of working only with S1? If S1 is interested in what you bring, and S2 is not, I wonder why you work with S2. I, of course, can imagine some possible reasons, but the question is whether they are in fact important.

You write "... solutions were poorly implemented." This sounds like the sort of issue where there is room for disagreement on how much it matters. For example, when pure mathematicians write computer programs they typically don't care a hoot whether the program is "well-written" as long as it works, and are totally mystified if someone with a more software-engineering background wants to spend masses of time rewriting existing code to make it more clear, robust, elegant, etc -- to the mathematicians this is a total waste of time.

... So, is it possible that S2 might have a point when they think that spending 2 weeks reimplementing existing stuff "in a proper manner" is just time wasted that could have been spent doing really new work? At least it might be worth starting a discussion (possibly with both S1 and S2 involved) about how much this sort of work is valued.

It sounds like an ego problem, or a dominance problem. But worse, it sounds like S2 is prioritizing their own career at the expense of yours. That is something that a supervisor shouldn't do.
Maybe a talk with S1 would help. But if S1 has sufficient authority to get you finished in spite of S2's behavior, then you may already be doing the right thing in disengaging from S2.
S2 also sounds like they have decided what the outcome should be and wants to impose that in spite of evidence. Not a nice trait. But note that "results" from any given method can be negative and still have research/intellectual value. Knowing that something doesn't work can be just as valuable as knowing that it does.
So, if it is a test of the method itself, rather than a claim that it must (absolutely must) succeed, then it might be a valid line of research. The other behaviors remain problematic, of course.
But your supervisors individually and collectively need to work to assure your success. Anything else is an ethical lapse.

@Trunk, my reading is that S1 is the superior here, not S2. S2 reports to S1 as per the OP.

It sounds like your relationship with S2 is pretty much busted. You do not respect S2 and S2 does not respect you. That is not a good foundation for an advisor relationship.
What to do about this depends on the culture and the system. Sometimes it is better to give in, sometimes it is better to get out of a bad relationship.

I think @Buffy's answer is quite useful. I also think the second superviser wants to make you use their own methods to further their career at your expense.
You have something that works better, and they don't want it, because it's proving their models and methods are suboptimal.
Whether you like it or not, you and your second supervisor are fundamentally at odds, regardless of the ego issues. Unless you cave and do things their way, you won't be working well together.
I cannot advise what you should do, because I don't know how much can S2 hurt your career if you keep disengaging from him. But, if they don't have any leverage on you, it's not worth doing what they tell you.
Also, telling S1 you're going your way, may backfire if the two supervisors are on very good terms. In my case, I remember my postdoc supervisor had a situation like this and he simply decided the two people involved (a postdoc and a graduate student) should stop working on the same projects together. I would assume S1 could find a solution if you bring up this problem as a conflict between methods, rather than people.


text:
I want to cite a theorem from a book written by influential scientists. However the theorem is not proven in the book. Should I add a proof of my own?
I want to cite a theorem from a book written by two computer scientist that I consider to be influential and renowned. If you want the specifics, I want to cite Theorem 11.8 from the book Computational Complexity: A Modern Approach, by Sanjeev Arora & Boaz Barak. If it affects in any way, I am planning to submit this paper for a conference.
This theorem is stated on the book, however the proof is omitted since it is similar to another proof that is presented in the book. I keep wondering: should I include my own proof of this theorem or is it unnecessary? I could write the proof but I feel that it could be distracting and take space in a paper that will already have many short proofs (at least at this point in my research it seems that way). Additionally, I don't think someone would contest the validity of the theorem. On the other side, the result is vital to the content of the paper I am writing.
UPDATE: I should have mentioned before that in the book, three sources are cited for the theorem. However, when I read those sources, none of them state directly the theorem, even if they give the "building blocks" for proving it. I also tried searching for the same theorem in other sources and I found one in which it is proved, but it is stated in a way that could be confusing to read.

The theorem "Theorem 11.8 (Scaled-up PCP, [BFLS91, ALM+ 92, AS92]) PCP(poly(n), 1) = NEXP"? Have you checked if the proof was in one of the listed reference?

Someone else asked about this. My response was "Based on those papers, the proof for the stronger result (which I need) can be derived, but neither the result or the proof are mentioned. I also looked for other papers in which the result could have been mentioned, but I did not find any". But yes, I agree the best thing to do in these scenarios is to look for the sources that are cited in the source one was reviewing. However, in my specific case, this did not work as expected.

Ok, thanks. You could have included this discussion in your original question. I'm sorry tracking down this result turns out too be so difficult. There is sometimes a lot to learn in those "folkloric" theorems that are without proofs by simply writing a careful proof for the first time. Sometimes, the result is indeed derivable from other papers, but you have to fight with multiples notations.

You are right about that: I should have updated my original question. I have just done that.

You do not have an obligation to include a proof, and it might actually be to your detriment to do so, unless perhaps you believe that the textbook authors are severely mistaken when they claim the proof is similar to another proof that they did include and therefore is not necessary to explain in detail.
The point is that if the textbook authors’ assessment is correct, then you would be creating no meaningful new scientific knowledge by writing the proof in detail. Now, if you were writing an expository work and felt that writing out the proof would be of pedagogical value to students or researchers working in the field, then I would say it would be fine to write the proof. But in a conference paper, where the focus is on creation of new knowledge, including the proof of an already known result might actually make your paper seem less novel and draw criticism from the reviewers for rehashing standard ideas.
The one scenario where it would make sense to include the proof is if the textbook authors actually made the wrong call. If you work out the proof yourself and find that it requires substantially new or different ideas from what the textbook claimed, then it would make sense to write the proof in you conference paper. In that case, you should also point out that you are proving a result claimed in the textbook but explain that you are including the proof since it was in fact not as similar to the other proof as the textbook authors claimed. That implies that you are presenting new knowledge that you created, which actually should enhance the value of your paper as a research work.

I agree with this answer.  Just one comment: because by writing out the proof the OP would be claiming that it is not what the authors thought it was, he should take extra care to make sure that this claim is correct.  This seems like a good thing to run by his advisor or other research mentor.

Would it be wrong for a paper to have links to proofs not considered the main idea of the paper (in say the references section).

If we're looking at the same theorem, the theorem cites 3 papers where it is presumably proved. Why don't you cite those papers instead of citing the textbook?
This is in fact what you should do regardless of whether it is proved in a textbook or not. You presumably want to cite the textbook because it happens to be where you read about the theorem. But the reader doesn't care in the slightest about where you read about the theorem. They care about (i) who proved it and (ii) where they can find an accessible proof. If the textbook does not provide an accessible proof, then there is no reason to cite it instead of citing the original papers.
Edit: the OP has clarified in the comments that they "looked for the proof in those three sources but did not find it. Instead [they] found the proof for a weaker result. Based on those papers, the proof for the stronger result [...] can be derived, but neither the result or the proof are mentioned." Therefore this answer does not apply to the OP's situation and is superseded by the other answers.

(+1) When I read the question I didn't try looking at the book (not my field or a book I have, probably not freely available to me), but I was going to suggest the OP put a little effort into seeing if a proof appears elsewhere, as I assumed the book did not cite anything relevant to the result (since if otherwise, I assumed the OP would not be asking here). That said, additionally citing the textbook also makes sense if the result itself and related matters are more completely discussed and/or more simply explained in the textbook than in the papers, something I would expect to be the case.

Perhaps we could take a page from our friends in law and say some thing "[textbook] citing [Papers 1,2,3]"? https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/85592/why-do-court-opinions-list-multiple-layers-of-citations

I should have commented this when I posted the question: I looked for the proof in those three sources but did not find it. Instead I found the proof for a weaker result: I was looking for PCP(poly(n), O(1)) = NEXP, and I found PCP(poly(n), poly(n)) = NEXP. Based on those papers, the proof for the stronger result (which I need) can be derived, but neither the result or the proof are mentioned. I also looked for other papers in which the result could have been mentioned, but I did not find any. However, I agree that, on the scenario I mentioned, this is the best answer.

@JohnMadden I haven't seen anyone doing that in maths or CS papers, unless Wikipedia counts. I'd love it, as it makes it easier by far to build up a mental model of which things are worth reading, though it might not be the best idea to try to innovate citation styles. Most journals I know of have requirements.

" If the textbook does not provide an accessible proof, then there is no reason to cite it instead of citing the original papers." --there could be a lot of reasons to cite the book anyway.  If OP found the book useful, many will find it useful too. We often write: "See [1] and references therein"

In this case I believe the book is the source in which the theorem is stated in the most comprehensible way. Since I posted this question, I have found a paper in which the proof is given, but the way in which the statement is phrased makes it harder to understand: "For every L ∈ NEXP, there exists a probabilistic polynomial time verifier that verifies claims of the form x ∈ L by reading only a constant
number of bits from a proof of length exp (poly (|x|))".

@AlonsoMontero Then of course my answer does not apply to your situation and the way the book refers to the papers is highly misleading.

I would often cite a textbook over the original papers for standard results that are very widely used. They are usually more useful as a reference to learn about the result, everything that built on it, and contain all the relevant references. If the original result is just one or two papers I would cite those as well, but in some cases these standard techniques are the culmination of many papers, and it doesn't serve much purpose to cite them all individually.

If the theorem is central to your paper, I suggest you to put a proof in an appendix. In this way:

Even though the proof is a straightforward adaptation of a book's proof, and no one would likely contest the theorem, it remains anyway documented for those who want to read it.
It does not distract the reader from the main discourse.

Massimo's suggestion is good, but in any case citing the theorem without proof is perfectly fine, too.

CS conferences have pretty strict page limits, so it may be impractical to include the proof as an appendix.

@DanRomik Indeed, but from the OP it seems to me that there is room for the proof.

In any case write down the proof! If the referees say that they would want to see the proof, you can easily add it if it is already written. Similarly, if you keep it as an appendix, and the referees want it removed, that will be also easy.

@DanRomik He can remove the appendix in the published version and put up an extended version on arXiv (maybe with a short remark in the conference version). I have seen this practise multiple times.  Of course, first check if the conference allows informal publication on arXiv/preprint serves, but according to my experience in CS they almost always do and it is actually a common practise to have an arXiv version as well.

Some CS conferences don't include appendices in the page limit, so you could have arbitrarily long appendices. But (in my experience) these conferences emphasize that referees are not required to read appendices.


text:
Any easy STEM research articles/papers that high school students can understand?
I'm helping to hold a workshop sort of thing to help students learn how to read/write research papers, but as I am a sophomore and haven't read too many papers myself, I can't find anything that is easily comprehensible for the students. Anything that is not too long and does not have too much jargon will probably work well. I already looked at this paper on mathematically modelling spaghetti curling, which I think is doable, so anything like that, or written simply would be good!
Please help out, I am sort of on a deadline and we need to finalize the papers very soon.
Thank you in advance!!

The whole setup of having high school students read research papers seems flawed. See Matt Might's Illustrated guide to a Ph.D.: You're basically trying to skip two entire levels of required background knowledge.

In general, I agree with the answer of UJM. Another good paper is the original DNA paper "Molecular structure of nucleic acids" (https://www.nature.com/articles/171737a0.pdf). It's extremely significant and is (in my opinion) very well written.

Thanks. I'm new to SE and appreciate the pointer!

Most recent papers are fairly hard to understand. After all, if they are published, it is because they present something that is not obvious.
You could however use older articles that describe phenomena that have gone on the high school curriculum since. For instance, here is a paper from 1800 generally viewed as the discovery of infrared radiation, which somewhat follows today's standard presentation of methods/results/analyses.


text:
Sending an official transcript for a M.Sc program that I will not be able to complete to a PhD program in the US
I have been admitted recently to a Ph.D. program in the US. I am currently completing a Masters degree. I am required to submit an official transcript for my Masters and my Bachelor's degree. The problem is that I can not find a suitable advisor for my Masters thesis. I did have a thesis advisor but I left him some months ago for several reasons. I am considering the possibility of not continuing with my Masters given that I have been admitted to a Ph.D. program (this is not my fault; I really can not find anyone who is actively working in my field at my university). I registered for Masters thesis course for Fall 2019 and then, for various reasons, I left my advisor. I am worried however about the fact that I will be submitting a Masters transcript that does not show any Masters thesis work. I have to register a thesis course for Spring 2020 but I can not because I do not have any advisor. The official transcript that I will be sending to the PhD program contains courses up to Spring 2019 (the Fall 2019 Masters thesis course does not have any grade next to it).
Will  this affect my admissions to the PhD program? The offer of admissions is not conditional upon me completing my Masters. However, I am worried that it might affect my admission.

If you've been admitted already then I doubt that you have any problem. Just have the university send it. Caveat: I don't get to make the decision, but expect the decisions, having been made, are final.

Was the acceptance based on having finished the degree?

I received an admissions offer. No. It was not based on having to finish the Masters degree. However, I am still waiting the final decision which, I think, will be made after they review my official transcript. I used unofficial transcripts in my application.

In your PhD application did you indicate you expect to get the master's degree?

Yes. I think so. All application forms have this question.

Based on the comments it is no longer so clear that you are safe. But it is what it is. Have it sent and hope for the best.

Thank you. Can you please clarify? The admissions offer did not say that I have to finish my Masters.


text:
Must a Masters thesis involve original research? Can it be merely a review of some recent research direction?
I am currently completing an Masters degree in physics. My M.Sc requires a thesis. Now I applied to Ph.D. programs in the United States and got admitted to one of them. I finished all my M.Sc course requirements. I am still to complete the thesis. Now, I can not find a thesis supervisor currently. Can I just drop the Masters's? Will my admission be affected?
Another question: I am currently doing some independent studies myself. My area of specialization is theoretical physics. Now I think it might be possible to convert what I am independently studying into a Masters's thesis. However, I am not sure if this thesis must involve original research ideas. What I am currently doing is to study some advanced topics in theoretical physics. Can I do a Masters thesis which consists in review of a modern topic of research?
My last question: Can I do a Masters thesis without a supervisor?

I'm afraid the answer to all of your questions can only be given by your university.

So should I send the school that admitted me that I do not find an advisor so I can not finish my Masters? By the way, Ph.D. students in the US take all these Masters's courses again and complete a Masters's as a component of their Ph.D. program. They take students right out of the Bachelor's degree. My admission offer did not say any thing related to my Masters. I just want to make sure that dropping out of my Masters will not affect my admission negatively. I am reluctant to tell the PhD program that I can not find an advisor so I would like to know if dropping out will affect my admission.

Yes, all of these questions can only be answered by your school. The people in the school you applied to are the ones who know if they consider a Masters necessary, those in your current school are the ones who can answer whether they'd accept a thesis without original research and what the rules for Masters degrees are.

I do not know whether you can do a thesis formally without a supervisor. However, even if it were possible (which I doubt), this is a "Really Bad Idea" (TM). There are very few students who have such a powerful grasp of the topic that they might be able to do an MSc level work without a supervisor, and even they may profit from learning from a more experienced person (Feynman comes to mind who had to learn how to write papers to avoid them getting rejected).
A review of work may be sufficient if it creates a synthetic view of the field, but, again, this is something that only your supervisor can help you decide.
Ultimately, I think the department is responsible to find you a supervisor. They accepted you for the programme. If you have acquired the qualifications entitling you to go forward with the thesis, they have to solve this problem. That being said, the question is why you cannot find a supervisor. Do you have the wrong interests for that department? Or is your profile not strong? If the latter, supervisors may not be enthusiastic to take you on, but then this would not be good starting point to aim for a PhD, though, and definitely discouraged.
Since you do go for the PhD, I therefore assume you have a strong profile and your department should be able to help you.

Thank you very much for your answer. It is helpful but it did not answer one of my concerns. My main goal is going for the PhD. I have already received an admission offer. However, I just want to know if dropping out of my Masters will affect my admission. Regarding the supervisor issue, my research interests are not compatible with those of the department. I did have a supervisor in the past. However, for many reasons, I had to leave him. (not compatible interests and abusive behaviour)

I forgot to mention that my studies have been disrupted by this coronavirus outbreak. This added more pressure on me. I had to focus more on my job (healthcare).I still have some time to do research though.

Only the institution that made the offer can answer whether dropping out will affect it. It deepens on whether the offer was contingent on finishing the degree. But the advice given in this answer is all valid. Ask someone local who can give definitive answers.

Can I know if the offer is contingent on finishing my degree before asking them directly? I have opened my offer letter again and I did not find any such statement. I might be paranoid but I am reluctant to tell the PhD program I am thinking about dropping out of my Masters. Thank you

No one can say but them. Probably (not certainly) they would have mentioned any such requirements. But who can say but them? This isn't something you want to guess about and hope for and then show up and it all falls apart. In the US, a masters isn't normally required to begin a doctorate.

The program I was admitted to does not require a Masters degree.  They only require an undergraduate degree. I know many people there who did not do any Masters. However, as you say, things might be different for me because I submitted an unofficial copy of my transcript. So they expect me to finish the Masters. I do not know. Is this a possibility?

@knowledgeseeker1234 This is an unfortunate situation. You do not want to ask them (for understandable reasons), but only they can tell you. So, I see only two choices, unless you can identify a supervisor: you drop out and hope they don't check (dangerous!). You ask them, and face the danger that they will retract their offer ("why didn't he find a supervisor?"). Not a good choice to make and we cannot predict what is going to happen. Do you have already an envisaged PhD supervisor? If you trust them, you might ask them in confidence.


text:
Is it worth/okay to write an email to a grad school I'm waiting on in an attempt to strengthen my position as an applicant?
hope everyone's well.
To explain my situation, I'm waiting to hear back from Columbia University's MSOR program. It was my #1 choice when I applied, and I'm considering sending an email to restate my strong interest in the program and to strengthen my position as an applicant.
Briefly put, I was a Chemical Engineering major and so wasn't initially intending to apply to an Operations Research program. Thus I had basically zero work experience in the field. However, I've gotten an internship in a consulting firm after applying, and I've been doing data analysis, database management, and web crawler development. I've done a lot more than was initially expected of me as an intern, and I've had a lot of fun in the process.
Would it make sense to send an email about this? The program isn't research-focused, which I think makes this a tad more sketchy, since the only option I can think of is to send an email directly to the admissions office. (i.e. since I have no prospective research advisor)
I'd be grateful for any advice. Thanks for reading, and be safe.

I'd guess emailing has no effect.

Emailing the admissions office will almost certainly do nothing.  Emailing a professor you'd like to work with could be useful; there are already several questions about that that have been answered on this site.

I think David's comment sums it up well:

Emailing the admissions office will almost certainly do nothing. Emailing a professor you'd like to work with could be useful[.]

Regardless, emailing is a complete shot in the dark -- the more likely possibility is your email is ignored. But it depends on how you write the email, and how impressive the additional internship is.
For best results, I would not phrase it as a way to boost your application, but rather just an email to say "hi" and introduce yourself, and ask about the status of your application. But then you can find a way to throw in the additional qualification somewhere.

Even in the best of times, which these are not, anything that attempts to go around the established admissions system is pretty much assured to be ignored. In particular, if ranking has been going on, based on normal application materials, nothing you say in an email is going to convince them to rank you over someone else. It would probably be considered improper to do so.
If the system permits you to supplement your materials through some normal process then it would be a different matter and you could do that if your older materials have become obsolete in some way.
The procedures have been established to make it easier to fairly judge all applicants. They almost certainly will respect that.


text:
Is "because it's fun" an acceptable justification for choosing a certain research path (when communicating to peers/colleagues)?
When asking a peer or colleague why they are pursuing a certain research direction, I have often heard the answer "because it's fun". This bothers me: Shouldn't we all be capable of providing an honest narrative explaining why our chosen research direction is of value (other than personal pleasure)?
To clarify my question: I think it's fine if "fun" is an intrinsic motivation for choosing academia as a career, I also think this is necessary to success. I also don't think we should be forced into a certain definition of “useful research”. The concept of usefulness or value can differ per individuals. But shouldn't one have a strong explanation for the value of one's research other than one’s own enjoyment?
Note: I am working on fundamental research in quantum physics.

Hmmm. If it isn't fun, why would you want to spend your life at it. Unless you are searching for a vaccine for coronavirus and are just intent on saving the world. That one works too.

Why did I answer this question? Because it seemed fun :)

@Buffy: I think the problem is not that it isn't fun but if there is no other explanation. In the sense of "why is something funded which is fun for Mr. X" instead of "why is something funded which is fun for Mr. X and is of use (not necessarily monetary) to the world?" Or "why are crackpots who are having fun not paid"?

Yes, that is indeed my point @user111388 !

“Acceptable” in what context? For a grant proposal it wouldn’t be acceptable, but for a friend confiding in you what motivates them, why wouldn’t it be acceptable? And for, say, a newspaper interview, it may or may not be a reasonable thing to say depending on what is being discussed and the tone of the interview. Etc etc. You need to clarify the question to make it answerable.

Also, can you clarify what we’re supposed to make of you including the “ethics” tag? Are you implying that it may be unethical to be motivated by fun or to confess to such a motivation?

This isn't an answer, but I'd guess that "Because I couldn't imagine doing anything else" would be a similarly common response. My response, anyway.

@Buffy: While this seems to be nice to.hear from a professor, it seems sad to me if a young researcher who may not have a chance in acadmeia due to the randomness and few positions couldn't imagine doing anything else..

@user111388, many of us had career setbacks. Don't imagine you are unique in that. I once had to consider becoming an actuary because there were, quite literally, no academic jobs for mathematicians. There is no magic carpet that will fly you into academia. But oldsters like us should make it a point to ease the way for the next generations.

@Dan Romik --  About your question of context: I'm talking about "acceptable" when talking over lunch, or when motivating a new research direction at the beginning of a conference or department talk for example. (That's what I meant by "when communicating to peers/colleagues").

@Dan Romik and Buffy -- Note that I am not talking about intrinsic motivation here, I completely agree that having fun is a good reason to make a career choice, but I would like to debate whether it can be the dominant reason to choose a given research direction, given your wider field of expertise for example.

@mario well, in talk I’d expect a bit more than “because it’s fun”. But if that’s all the speaker will say, I find it acceptable (in the same sense that bad talks are also acceptable). If you think it’s not acceptable, I’d suggest your expectations of your colleagues are unrealistically high. Also, as I said in my answer, you’re conflating two questions. If you want someone to motivate a research question, make it clear to them that that’s what you’re after. If you just ask “why are you doing this?” and they say “because it’s fun”, my view is you didn’t explain clearly what you want to know.

@Dan Romik Ethics is not the only topic at play here (I couldn't find any other relevant tags), but I definitely think it has its place in this discussion. Not able to justify why one is being paid by society, beyond one's own enjoyment, seems unethical to me. But there are probably counter-arguments in scientific history. I can't imagine why Riemann was exploring advanced geometry in 1850 beyond having fun, but that turned out to be pretty useful some decades later.

@mario I don’t have time for an extended discussion about this, but read what Feynman had to say about this. He grappled with the same dilemmas that you are thinking about and eventually adopted what o think is a very healthy take on the issue.

Another 15 pages of answers "because it's fun" would be well deserved. cmon guys post up.

@mario Many researchers (I think even most) pursue their field because it is fun - with the meaning of fun "bringing one joy and a sense of fulfillment". You seem to imply that a vocation with a clear purpose is somehow in a universal sense of higher value than a vocation pursued only because of joy and fulfillment. I think if you ask artists, many of them do not choose their form of expression based on the value (e.g. should I paint expressionistic, because it provides more value to society?) - would you also say an artist has to have a better reason for his work than fulfillment ?

There is a difference between the personal motivation of a person to work on a subject, and motivating why a subject is worth working on. We should always be able justify the later, both from an ethical and practical point of view ("because it is fun" will not convince anybody to pay you to do it).
In practice most researchers (certainly the successful ones), can provide a detailed motivation of why their work is relevant to the furtherment of their field and humanity as a whole.
However, this motivation might differ quite significantly from their personal reason(s) for wanting to work on the subject. In particular, they typically will have reasons for working on this specific thing, rather the long list of other things that are also worth doing. (In this category "because it's fun" is probably preferable over  the much more cynical "because we can".)

I think this is a simple and highly effective answer.

And there is value to enjoying the research that you are doing, as a researcher who enjoys their work will invest more time and care into it than one who would rather be doing something else.

Researchers' personal motivations can also change over time. Often students get into a field because they find it exciting or have some naïve science-fiction ideas about what the field can accomplish. Later, they stay in the field because they've developed expertise and a small social network in the field and starting over would take too long. They would like to get funding and tenure and make a stable life for their family. In science, prestige is driven by reputation, so changing fields means a researcher has to give up the reputation that they've spent years building in the field.

@WaterMolecule while you describe probably accurately what some people end up doing, it seems to me to be a very sad state of affairs. They should have the courage to start over doing something they find fun enough to motivate them rather than capitalise on their past. Otherwise they likely make poor colleagues/mentors.

My personal experience goes very much against your second statement. Most  very successful researchers I have met were quite content with telling me that you should only do research because it's fun (as in challenging to the brain), and did not bother explaining why it should also be useful. In fact some of them strongly argued that what they were doing had no utility other than the pursuit of knowledge.

Because it is fun for a large number of people would work as a general motivation, assuming you could show that. And may even be the primary goal of some research areas.

@chris, it's not necessarily so sad. Many early career PI and middle-career researchers still get excitement from their fields, but some maybe only once in a while. It's just that priorities typically change as people move into middle age. Is it so sad that it becomes more important to have a stable income for your family, to not have to move every few years, to have health insurance, to save for your kids' college etc? It probably depends on the discipline, but I don't see many grant proposals where the authors argue that it should be funded because it challenges their brain.

@WaterMolecule RE: "but I don't see many grant proposals" yes and its a real pity!  I would much prefer to read/write such proposal ;-)

When asking a peer or colleague why they are pursuing a certain research direction, I have often heard the answer "because it's fun". This bothers me: Shouldn't we all be capable of providing an honest narrative explaining why our chosen research direction is of value

What makes you think this is not an honest narrative? Why should I come up with some (possibly fabricated, ex post facto) justification for why I am doing my work, in a casual conversation, if the real answer is that I enjoy it? If I were asking this question I would appreciate an honest answer, and if "because it's fun" is honest, then that is helpful. You could proceed by prodding more into what aspects of this research in particular are enjoyable.
On the other hand, the last part of your statement, explaining why our chosen research direction is of value, is a totally different question. There is still some ambiguity about what this means (of value to the researcher? of value to society?), but I think this is more likely to lead to a discussion of the technical merits of the research, and what are the promising motivating applications.

But shouldn't one have a strong explanation for the value of one's research other than one’s own enjoyment?

It seems unlikely that you can be a successful researcher without having such an explanation; you are, indeed, forced to flesh out such arguments in detail in the introductions to papers and grant proposals. On the other hand, it is possible to not have such a strong explanation, particularly for early researchers (starting PhD) or senior researchers (e.g. already won all the awards in the field, now just pursuing some fun idea for its own sake).
So with respect to the question in your title,

Is “because it's fun” an acceptable justification for choosing a certain research path?

I think it has strange moral overtones; why would it be unacceptable? But I can see that you might want to hear in more detail about why it is fun, and separately from that, why it has value, and I agree these are useful details.

The OP seems to imply some form of debt/duty which each person on this planet is born with, which compels him to do something "useful" with his time. - But this is not a universal truth, I also think it is fully ok to spend time on something because it is fun aka is fulfilling to your personal goals.

It seems to me that you are conflating between two separate questions here:

“Why are you [the colleague] pursuing this research direction?”
“Why is this a useful/important direction that will further scientific progress?”

If you ask question number 1, expect them to give an answer to question number 1 and not to question number 2. I don’t see why you should be bothered that they are giving an honest answer to your actual question. Of course, for some researchers the answer to question 2 might factor into question 1, and it’s completely valid to say you’re working on something because you feel it’s important. But fun is just as valid as an intrinsic motivator.
Now, if you ask question number 2 and they answer “because it’s fun”, it is reasonable to be concerned. Certainly a lot of things that are fun do not further scientific progress (playing video games, cooking, watching TV, ...). And certainly researchers need to be able to explain why what they’re working on is important if they want to be successful and for their research to make an impact. But it’s not reasonable to expect them to explain this without you making it clear that that’s what you want to know.

This is a question where it helps to broaden your perspective beyond the sciences, and, in particular, I think it helps to compare the situation with creative activities in the arts.
Why do people write novels and paint paintings?  Why do people write and produce operas and plays?  Why do governments fund these activities?  I don't think most people can say much more than that the activities are meaningful and enjoyable for both artist and audience.  Could we try to clarify what we mean by 'meaningful'?  Yes, but such clarifications don't seem to make anything more clear.  Yet, even though we might not be able to quantify or point to or explain specific benefits of a particular piece of art, we tend to all agree there are benefits.
To be sure, the intended audience and maybe the nature of appreciation are different, but isn't scholarship also a kind of art?

I like this answer a lot!

Shouldn't we all be capable of providing an honest narrative explaining why our chosen research direction is of value (other than personal pleasure)?

Perhaps, perhaps not. In any case, I'll bet they are capable of it. They don't seem to feel that you have earned it from them, though, and I'd be hard-pressed to disagree with them.
"Fun" is shorthand. I find Sudoku fun, but I would tear my skin off rather than pour the level of energy into Sudoku that I had to pour into my PhD. Other people find chess fun, enough to pour far more energy in it than that, yet colleges don't give people doctorates for their work playing chess.
Yet your peer is having enough fun to keep on with the program, and their supervisor -- who knows the field better than you do -- is willing to go along with it. So the value of the work, both intrinsic and extrinsic, has already been empirically validated. If you're looking for the details of either one, though, you're asking the wrong questions, demanding that they satisfy your doubts about the value of their efforts. "Why?" is a question for a funding committee, not for a cocktail party.
Some alternative suggestions: "What aspects of the field particularly appeal to you?" "What direction do you hope to move the field in?" "What other fields do you think might also benefit from your work?" Start with the assumption that they're not just wasting the world's oxygen, and work backwards from there.

"Because it's fun" can be interpreted as "because it's interesting". And if something is interesting, it is worth investigating.
However, it seems to me a bit of a stretch to conclude that those peers/colleagues of yours are driven solely by enjoyment to do research based only on their vague response to a vague question. I'm sure they could have justified their research directions more thoroughly if they wanted to; but how many times have you begun to explain some aspect of your research to someone that was not working in the same field, only to see their eyes quickly glaze over followed with nods, "uh huh"s, and some other generic statements? And by "different field", I really mean "different subfield which may look to be the same field at first glance"; for example, in "quantum physics" you have the particle physicists, lattice people, theoreticians, experimentalists, etc... (with lots of specialisations in each of these, too!)

As others pointed out, you are asking how to answer to two separate questions: why it matters to you, and why it matters. Just remember to always answer first the latter question: why it matters to the world, and only then why it matters to you. It will show you are a sensible person.
In more detail

Shouldn't we all be capable of providing an honest narrative explaining why our chosen research direction is of value (other than personal pleasure)?

Of course you are allowed to say you choose because it's fun. You would be crazy to get into a PhD - and especially quantum physics - if you don't find it "fun". If you want, knowing you choose quantum physics as it's fun for you is good, but not good enough. The person asking is likely to be interested not just if this is a topic that engages you, but also what specifically engages you as an indivudual. Is it the abstract thinking? Are they the quantum paradoxes and brain-twisters? Or the brilliant minds you are surrounded with in this field? Do you enjoy working on particuarly complex problems? Is it because you find mathematical abstractions captivating? I am sure you can elaborate "fun" along those directions, thus proving you can clearly define what fun is for you.

I also don't think we should be forced into a certain definition of “useful research”.

This is in my opinion a fundamental mistake, that is most pervasive in very abstract fields like yours. As you grow in your career, you will find yourself asking funding agencies thousands/hundreds of thousands/millions of  to fund your projects. Governments have limited budgets and need to choose carefully. Governments fund fundamental science because it proved in the past to turn useful for everybody (example: particle physics ->world wide web/cancer therapy/medical diagnostic etc). If you think any research field should be funded because research is interesting, then you should get out of your department and realise that governments eveyrday need to decide whether to invest into reducing crime/homelesseness/unemployment...or some nuthead with a curious idea. And if you know why your field matters but can't phrase why your field is useful to the world, at some point your career will hit a wall.
Your field - and consequently funding into it - exists because it matters to society. You choose your field because you find it engaging. This is all great - now go on and figure out why :)


text:
How to prevent my introvert nature from being a barrier to success in grad school and future academic life?
I don't ask questions during class/meetings/seminars out of the fear of embarrassing myself. I am also not able to intiate interactions with people I don't know beforehand e.g. Visiting professors/industry-experts or professors in my department other than my advisor.
I got away with not asking questions in class during my undergrad as I was able to resolve my doubts after reading the lecture notes/ textbook and thinking by myself and this still applies to the classes I am taking in grad school. But a few months into my PhD, I feel this nature of my personality could be a barrier in many ways during my PhD and also in future.
I am looking for any answers which can do one or both of the following :

Articulate the "many ways" in which this could be a problem for me during and after my PhD
Suggest some steps which can help me overcome these problems.

P.S. : I know I cannot change my personality overnight with a magic trick but I am looking for small steps I can take in order to gradually improve and not let my introversion come in the way of my research career.

This question confuses social anxiety with introvertedness.  Please remove the word "introvert."

I think you could probably benefit from seeing a therapist(psychologist?) to find ways to work towards developing those traits if you really wanted to invest time in overcoming your barriers. You have 4 years, a lot of incredible behavioural changes can happen in that time period with the right insight.

If you experience severe anxiety communicating with other people, then you should consult a licensed mental health professional.  If anxiety is preventing you from succeeding in your PhD, then it is severe.
Practice can help you overcome your feelings when communicating.  Practice in an environment where you feel comfortable, and gradually your way to more challenging skills.  Good academics practice communicating all the time.
There are organizations which will facilitate practice, such as Toastmasters.  Your supervisor should also do that.


text:
What do recruiters think of candidates who left their PhD midway?
Let us assume person X and person Y. Both entered grad school in the same year, X as a PhD student (without a prior masters degree) and Y as a masters student in the same field. Towards, the end of second year, X realized that a PhD was too much for him and decided to quit but was eligible for a masters degree ( he had enough credits to do so). Both X and Y graduate with a masters degree with good grades. Let's assume both of them were nearly equally matched in their profile ( w.r.t. projects, internships e.t.c). Who would a recruiter prefer for a technical position at their company : X or Y ?

Is this question about academia or is it about industry?

Depens on recruter! Some will think X failed, some not. You might want to ask in the Workplace Stack Exchange forum

is there practical problem you are trying to solve? Right now your Q is very hypothetical

For recruiter it is better that candidate would not have any scientific relation at all. Reason for this is that "working for salary" differs greatly from "work for passion". You can possibly become passionate in the future and leave your workplace company, which is considered a risk. Risks reduce your value for recruiter. It is in your best interests to hide out unless specifically asked any freelance/science/grants and other sources of money you have. Same is about your stake in companies and other similar things.
PS. You may possibly mention your scientific papers during interview with your real future boss to boost your value, but only if you generally know that the company is innovative or technology oriented. Sadly there is zero use for your scientific experience otherwise. Boss-type people do not understand science and never will. Expect nothing, generally this considered a very risky move during your interview. Not because people may become interested and ask you about your work, but because generally company people hate smarties. Remember it.

I assume the job does not require a PhD.
The recruiter will usually not know the difference between X and Y unless X tells them.
If X tells the recruiter that they quit their PhD and got a master's, the recruiter's main question would be: why is X telling me this unnecessary information?

The difference between X and Y is that X has a gap in their resume between receiving their Master's degree and looking for a job.

@Brian Not in the case of the question: X only gets a masters when he decides to quit his phd.

@FedericoPoloni: You're right.  I misread the OP's explanation.


text:
Faculty applications in Europe vs US
I'm a postdoc in the natural sciences planning to start applying to faculty positions. What are the main considerations to take into account when comparing Europe with the US? Are there any notable differences to take into account?
I am currently based in Europe (currently Germany) and received all my education and training here, so I'm not very familiar with the US system. The only notable difference I can think of is that the US typically has a regular schedule of openings in the fall, whereas in many European countries jobs are posted as they come.
One another note, I'm trying to get an idea of my chances in the US vs Europe, considering that I've only worked in Europe so far. As I'm not aware of any statistics on e.g. % of successful applications, I'm just looking for general impressions or thoughts on this.
The backstory to all of this is that when I told my advisor I was less keen on going to the US, they got upset and told me I had nothing to lose by applying. This was all rather puzzling and I'm trying to understand what my advisor is getting at by better understanding the differences between the US and Europe.

Would you be able to at least tell us which field? There is quite a difference. And Europe is not uniforma at all in the educational sector.

Without knowing your field or where you are in Europe, in many situations faculty in the US teach a lot more classes than in parts of Europe/UK. When I tell American colleagues my teaching vs research time balance, they tear up. Not for every field...

Also, don't forget to weigh the social implications of the move. If you plan on having children, know that you or your partner will be due almost no parental leave (honestly, look it up, it shocks eurpeans. You'll also be stuck with the US schools for the kids and the US health care system. They are...not to everyone's taste.

@DeboraWeber-Wulff I work in the natural sciences and do theoretical work (i.e. no lab space required) and currently work in Germany.

In Germany you have the tortuous path towards a permanent job. It is a lottery, in essence. There are postdocs to be had, but very few professorships. But while you have a job here, you are paying into a good retirement option and have excellent health care for very little premium. You can travel freely in the EU and can apply for EU funding. It's a bit of a jungle to get the applications right, but once you have that worked out, you can pretty much keep going on projects. If you have family, the family is insured for free.
In the US you will not have tenure right away, but will have to fight for it. Normal salaries are only paid for 9 months a year, so you need yearly grants to tide you over, or you are willing to live on 3/4 of a salary (9/12) each month.
Only you can make the decision what is right for you.

My two cents, you have time to lose when applying.
Unless your file is truly exceptional the chances of getting a job at a good place where you don't have any connections are very slim. But maybe your advisor does have good connections in the US?

Thanks! Yes, both my PhD and postdoc advisors have connections in the US indeed, and one of them even moved to the US.