text:
How can I politely tell a professor that I'm too busy to do research with him this term?
I'm an undergraduate. I sent two emails to professors regarding potential research work. Both responded positively, which I didn't expect, and I started work with one of the profs last term. As for the other, I think his work is incredibly interesting but I simply don't have the time for two research projects at once. However, I would really like to work with him eventually.
How can I tell the other professor that I'm too busy this quarter but would like to work with him at some point in the future? It seems a bit awkward to mention the other professor so I'm not sure how to explain it.

Maybe stop equalizing professors with gods. They are normal humans, with some specialized and certified knowledge, and in no way they are more special or important than any other guy. Just tell them.

@phresnel equating*

Just, tell him your situation directly . They are logical people and he will understand your decision.

It would help if you justified your answer a bit: "logical" is not a description that I find applies well to most people...

@jakebeal Agreed, sadly. The more I become involved in the details of running an academic department, the more I realize that "logical" or even "grown-up" is not a good description of a surprisingly large fraction of faculty.

@Thomas: You don't happen to be a guy nicked lycium? (ty for the correction, btw)

@phresnel Never heard of him.

@Corvus Logical or grown-up is not a good description of any larger body of people, including, but not limited to, academics. I think academia would do well to stop pretending that professors are somehow magically more ethical or more rational than other people in leadership positions. It would stop us from getting disappointed so often.

@phresnel They are not gods? I think I will rethink my career plans, then ;-)

Just say so directly! He will value your directness and honesty – 'beating around the bush' gets rather tiresome. There's enough of that from management...

I'm sorry that I don't have time to work with you this term, as I have now started on a research project with Prof A that I am committed to finishing. However, I would still really like to work with you in the future. Since I aim to finish my current project in a few months, around the end of June, would you mind if I contact you again then?

+1 for "would you mind if I contact you again then?"

Hm, thanks for this template but I honestly don't know when the other work will end and I don't want to list a date that I can't stick to. At the same time, asking to contact him at some vague point in the future doesn't seem right either - any thoughts?

@eagle34 then just say that you're honestly not sure when you will finish. There's nothing else you can say without either lying, or being vague. Be direct and forthcoming. Professors do understand that undergraduate students want to try their hand at more than one area of research!

+1 for directness. Many professors are very busy and like to know if they will not have some time commitments (like mentoring students).

Don't feel 'guilty' about declining, it isn't actually 'being nice' to the faculty member to promise to participate when it ends up overbooking your energies. @TK comment is appropriate. -Mentoring/helping a UG student can take a lot of the advisor's time and energy, too) many faculty would rather a student not agree/promise to participate unless the student is credibly giving as much extra effort as possible (under the assumption that classes and other extracurricular activities take up all the other available time).

I wanted to write a comment but I'm not allowed.  Here's a variant on the @Moriarty draft.

I wanted to write to you with an update.  I started a project on such-and-so with Prof A and it's going well.  I really appreciated your encouraging email.  I was surprised to get positive responses from two professors!  If I had it to do over again, maybe it would have been better to write to one first, and then the other.
As I can only do one project at a time, I will have to decline your kind invitation.  I'm still very interested in what you're doing with such-and-so.  I hope I may write to you again at some point, when my schedule frees up, to see if you have space in your lab at that time.
Anyway, I did want to let you know what I've been up to, and why I haven't been in touch.  Thanks again for your kind encouragement.

I think this is overly casual and chatty. Be direct, be clear, be concise.


text:
What is 'academic identity'?
I've heard the term 'academic identity' used a fair amount. Although initially it seemed like a simple concept, there are many papers on the subject and no-one seems to have a concrete definition.
Is there a concrete definition of 'academic identity'? If not, what are the key points of an 'academic identity' (if there are any)?
Links to some academic identity papers:

Academic Identity: A Modern Perspective
The imagined and the real: identifying the tensions for academic identity
Academic identity and autonomy in a changing policy environment
Younger academics’ constructions of ‘authenticity’, ‘success’ and professional identity

Could you point the way to some of these papers?

I've added some examples to the question.

academic identity is way you present your self to your academic community

Have you read those papers?
The first paper says in the intro:

The aim of this paper is to raise questions for discussion and debate
  on academic identity rather than to offer definitive answers or
  specific conclusions. In particular, the paper addresses the following
  three questions:
  1. What is academic identity?
  2. What is it to be an academic in modern times?
  3. What are the pressures that academics work under?

Then, at the beginning of the section on what is academic identity:

Academic identity is a phrase that is discussed in the Higher
  Education sector as if it is a fixed and known thing. Academic
  identity lacks precision in terms of description and cannot therefore
  be summed up in a few sentences.

This indicates that there is no (at least agreed-upon) definition.  I didn't read the paper, but it seems that this section indicates what are the key commonalities in various situations of "academic identity."  (I've never heard the term myself.)

I've read that too, but had hoped that there was now something more concrete. Being a scientist, if a man made principle fails to be properly defined, it's difficult to see why there is even a word for it!

Well, I don't know anything about this subject, but if you haven't been able to find anything that's a good indication there's not anything concrete in print (at least that's widely regarded).  But I think you underestimate the difficulty of definitions.  In research, a concept may be around for a long time before people are able to pin down a good definition, and definitions often go through many iterations until they are regarded as satisfactory.  You typically have to understand a concept very thoroughly before you can precisely define it.

Here's an exercise to help you see this: try to define chair.  "something you sit on?" but you also sit on cushions.  "something you sit on with four legs?"  is a sofa with 4 legs a chair?  can you not have chair with 3 or 5 legs?  etc etc

An object designed to be sat on by a single person, with a horizontal platform ("seat"), typically at the approximate height of its intended user's knees, and a vertical back, which may be supportive or merely decorative.

I can accept I have underestimated the difficulty of definitions.
That said, things that are difficult to define ('what is a sentence', 'what is sadness' etc.) have examples that everyone (or at least most people) can agree on. Naming the thing solves the problem of 'what do we call that thing that we can point to?'. In this case, it seems odd that no-one (or very few people) has (have) asked for the term, and no-one can agree on a definition for it. But if this is the case, that's a discussion best left for outside SE.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to approach PhD admissions after leaving previous PhD because my advisor tried to force me to manipulate data
I started my PhD in one of the very well renowned institutes in Germany.
Unfortunately, in the middle I was forced very much to manipulate the data. I was extremely upset and did not know what to do. My supervisor has enormous amount of grants and he was very ambitious to prove all his hypotheses correct and he had to show the data to the grant givers as well. He starts forcing the PhD students in the middle of their PhD so that they can't leave. And he also doesnot allow somebody to simply graduate without publishing the manipuated data. So even for degree one has to publish that and afterwards if that person gets caught then the phd degree is gone and then the people would say that he/she should have reported the case when he/she was forced. It is a circular process , once you enter it is hard to get out.
I went to the University Higher Authority and told them indirectly(not very bluntly but slightly) about this problem. They gave me the feelings that they were helping me but it was actually leaked to my supervisor. He made my life even more difficult and finally I had to leave my Phd at the end of third year. I had three path: 1) to continue with dishonesty 2) To give him a full fight 3) To simply leave him. I chose the last option.
Afterwards, I started applying again to different places and everywhere I was asked that why I left my position. Initially , I told to the places I was called for an interview that I was not motivated in the project (without talking anything negative about my prveious lab) but this answer was not very well- accepted. Then, in one of the places I tried to tell about the real problem what I faced and I was given the feeling of committing a' grave crime of 7 murder cases' by one of the members of the Graduate School Selection Committee. I seriously felt like that after talking to them that leaving a PhD in between is a CRIME.
I am still applying to different places , it is almost going to be a year and now I am in real conflict that what is wrong and right? I left my Phd  for not compromising with ethics of science and after leaving it people are giving me the feeling that not finishing my Phd is wrong.
1)I would like to ask you that what should I do and in what way I should approach other supervisors at this situation for a Phd position? Or I have to simple leave academics? Although I do not want to leave it because I have not done anything wrong or violated science ethics. Kindly help me and provide your suggestions.
P.S. My previous supervisor is not also giving any good recommendation so that is another big problem.

It seems your former supervisor is a well respected, established researcher in the field; and you are throwing very serious accusations at him without proof (although it is very difficult to get). I would most certainly expect a good degree of incredulity. On the other hand, leaving after so long because you are no longer interested sounds like you may do it again. I am looking forward for the answers here.

Do you have evidence to support your case?

I have to say, depressing that it is, it may well be that the best thing for you to do is find another career. The bad reference is bad and you'll struggle to explain your reasons for leaving and even if you did succeed in accessing a programme, say by moving to the UK, your unfortunate past would likely catch up with you, spun by someone else.

"...And he also does not allow somebody to simply graduate without publishing the manipulated data". So he forces all his students to publish manipulated data to graduate? This sounds extremely unusual (especially for a well renowned institute in Germany and a supervisor with enormous amounts of grants). Fabricating results on your own without anyone else knowing is one thing but forcing an entire team or lab to fabricate results sounds too much of a risk for anyone to undertake.

@Davidmh :Unfortunately my advisor is very young and I think he is moderately known in his field. His biggest power is his grants by which he got the position in the institute.
He knows that if he wants to secure his position in the institute he needs to draw more grants by himself. And moreover, he has very good terms with some of the people who has a strong hold in the institute.

@ Gerrit :Unfortunately , I do not have any proof(any email) where I can show that he forced me to change the data as I always had oral communication with him and that was obvious that he would not keep any proof. In fact, once I wrote to him about one experiment which did not fit to the hypothesis. His answer in the email was " Lets discuss".And he came to me in the lab after 18.00 p.m. when nobody was there and told me to "make" the data look according to the pre-defined hypothesis.

@Alexandros: I do not know about EVERY PhD students but what I can say is that I am not the only who left his lab in between their PhD. The age of the lab is 6 years and already more than two PhD students left without finishing.
Secondly, as far as I know about one other PhD student who also wanted to leave the lab but seeing the fate of the former people that student could not dare to leave and still continuing.

@hjbrl Two PHD students leaving the PHD is not a proof that they were told to manipulate data. PHD students quit all the time. So have you actually talked to the other students why they left? If not this "He starts forcing the PhD students in the middle of their PhD so that they can't leave" is a wild assumption on your part.

@Alexandros: Of course I talked and it was the same problem. And that is why I said that I do not know about EVERY one, I stated about the people whom I talked.
Secondly, "PHD students quit all the time. " Can you please tell me if PhD students leave all the time how they get the next position? Actually that is my original query and problem. In what way I should approach for future jobs?

I was forced very much to manipulate the data — [citation needed] You could have refused.

@JeffE  After reading the entire post, I get the impression that OP did refuse to manipulate the data.

@Alexandros People in positions of power often do things that sound like "too much of a risk for anyone to undertake."  Anyway, I don't understand the point of your skeptical comments; the supervisor hasn't been named here, so you don't need to defend him.

@TrevorWilson I do not defend the supervisor, I just ask questions to clarify the situation. The OP has no evidence on his hands (nor his previous colleagues) and what has presumably happened sounds a bit far-fetched. That is all.

@TrevorWilson Perhaps this is a language issue.  "I was forced to do X" normally suggests that the speaker actually did X.  Nowhere does OP actually say that he refused.  He also wrote "continue with dishonesty", again suggesting that he was actually dishonest.

@JeffE I agree that it is ambiguous, up until the point where the OP says "I have not done anything wrong or violated science ethics," which seems pretty clear to me.  Perhaps by "continue with dishonesty" the OP meant "continue in the PhD program, with dishonesty" rather than "continue my dishonest behavior."

If this is a common pattern on the part of your PI, it is very unlikely that he has been able to do this repeatedly without slipping up at last once. I realize you don't have any email evidence, but are there telltale signs of data fabrication or photo manipulation in his papers?

I must say that we all know that this sort of things do happen (some infamous case broke up even to newspapers), and are very detrimental to academia; I am very disappointed by the overall tone of the comments so far, which tend to turn the OP into the defendant while he apparently is one victim of one of the biggest misbehavior in science. So while the question of evidences are an important part of any answer, we should be very cautious about how we ask about them. Right know this thread makes academia look quite bad, in my opinion.

@Gerrit: Supervisors are well-enough aware of the outcome of being captured as scientific fraud and as some PI /Supervisors intentionally force their students they will never keep any evidence. I think students need to record their conversation with their PIs with a spy recorder then only you can capture them or bring proof against them which anybody would hardly do.Or how  or what type of evidence we can bring?

@lucas Not necessarily.  If you know someone is committing fraud, you might find evidence in their papers by scrutinising them sufficiently closely.  That's how some widely reported famous cases of fraud have been caught (after increasingly many people suspected something was wrong).

You can tell the committee that you and the PI were not a good fit. That you tried to make it work for a while, but, as you reached a stage where you were ready for more research independence, it became increasingly clear that your two research styles were incompatible. For example, you had differences in opinion on which data were trustworthy enough to merit a publication. After a number of attempts to reach a common ground, you concluded that the best course of action is to start another PhD elsewhere. You are sad that you have lost some time, but overall, you were doing research and that's what matters, and you don't mind putting in a few extra years if that means you can do what you love.

I think this might actually be the best answer. I was trying to write something similar to this in my answer but couldn't quite get the wording right. If the OP phrases it as well as Ana has, this is the most honest way to handle the situation. "Trustworthy data" is a great way of phrasing things here. It is vague, doesn't include any accusations and sounds reasonable enough that it would lead to an advisor fall out.  But note, if you do go this route do practice interviews with friends where they follow up with questions on this answer. If you aren't careful you could open a can of worms.

Incredibly on point.

Then, in one of the places I tried to tell about the real problem what I faced and I was given the feeling of committing a 'grave crime of 7 murder cases' by one of the members of the Graduate School Selection Committee. I seriously felt like that after talking to them that leaving a PhD in between is a CRIME.

Leaving your PhD position isn't a crime, but you've made a dreadful accusation in a terribly awkward way.  If what you say is true, then it should mean the end of your former advisor's career, and there is no reason why you shouldn't return to graduate school.  On the other hand, maybe it's not true.  There are any numbers of other explanations: maybe you're crazy, maybe you don't understand how research is supposed to work, maybe you're trying to cover up your own misconduct or incompetence, etc.  I don't mean to cast doubt on your story, since you have no motivation to lie to us anonymously, but the admissions committee has no way of knowing whether to believe you.  The only way to find out is by a careful investigation, which the committee is in no position to carry out.  (It's not their job, and they don't have the time or resources to do it even if they wanted to.)
As soon as you explained the accusation, they couldn't possibly admit you.  The difficulty is that admitting you would come across like an endorsement of your accusation, since nobody would dream of admitting a student with a history of false accusations of fraud.  But nobody is going to endorse a career-ending accusation without strong evidence, which you haven't provided.
I'm not surprised the committee members were upset, because you put them in an awkward, no-win situation.  How did you expect them to react?  Were you hoping they would simply believe the story without evidence?  Did you think it didn't matter to them whether it was really true?  It sounds like they were harder on you than you deserved, which is too bad, but it makes no sense to offer an explanation without having in mind a plausible way in which it could lead to being admitted.
You can't offer fraud as an explanation unless you are willing to make a formal complaint.  It sounds like you weren't direct enough last time:

I went to the University Higher Authority and told them indirectly (not very bluntly but slightly) about this problem.

If you believe you could help investigators find evidence of fraud, then I'd recommend making a detailed formal complaint to the university and funding agencies.  It won't be a pleasant experience, but you'll be doing the research community a valuable service.  If the investigators conclude that your accusations are true, then you'll have a great explanation of why you left graduate school.
If you don't think anything can be proved or you would rather not try, then you should avoid talking about fraud.
One option is to admit to the conflict without discussing the underlying issue of fraud.  For example, you could try something along the lines of "Unfortunately, my former advisor and I developed a serious personality conflict.  Our working styles turned out not to be compatible, and our interactions became difficult enough that I eventually withdrew from the Ph.D. program."
This will hurt your chances of admission, since it raises the possibility that you have a difficult personality and might run into conflicts with other people in the future.  However, it's a reasonable explanation, and it's close enough to the full truth that you could comfortably answer questions (which you should expect to get).  It also helps explain why a letter of recommendation from your previous advisor won't be useful.

Initially, I told to the places I was called for an interview that I was not motivated in the project (without talking anything negative about my previous lab) but this answer was not very well accepted.

One possibility is that your answer sounded evasive, like you were making an excuse to avoid talking about what happened.  But even aside from that, it raises the question of why next time will be different.  What makes you think you'll be better able to build/maintain motivation to work on a new project?  Not addressing this is worrisome.
Unfortunately, I don't think there's any great way to handle this if you can't back up a formal accusation of fraud against your former advisor.  The fact that you spent three unsuccessful years in graduate school is going to worry admissions committees, and they will often prefer candidates without this history.
Perhaps you'll have better luck if you lower your standards and apply to weaker Ph.D. programs?  An advisor who would normally find it difficult to attract a student at your level might be more willing to take a chance on you.  I am sorry to make this suggestion, but you might prefer this option to a career change or a formal accusation of fraud.

A hiring committee could also settle for accepting the doubt about the accusation, and ignore the leave from the former PhD. From their point of view, there is a possibility of problematic behavior of the applicant, but there is also the possibility that he or she has very strong ethics and force of will. It seems in this case the other aspects of the application should be considered to take the decision. Do we value ethics in research so little that a young scientist quitting PhD to avoid the worse possible misconduct is dead to us? We have to treat these situation better than that!

This answer, while providing good advice, in general, is filled with too many extreme statements for me to upvote it. E.g. "soon as you explained the accusation, they couldn't possibly admit you", "admitting you would come across like an endorsement of your accusation". Admission committees weigh pluses and minuses. Many might view this situation as too big of a minus, but if a program admitted you it simply means they think your pluses outweigh your minuses enough that they want you, so admission does not equal endorsement of the accusation necessarily.

You could say the following

"I left due to reasons in my personal life. This issue has now passed
  and I am excited to get back into research."

This is not a lie. Your ethical convictions and how you handled a difficult ethical situation is personal. Personal life as defined by the lead sentence in Wikipedia "the course of an individual's life, especially when viewed as the sum of personal choices contributing to one's personal identity." Your situation seems to be a quintessential example of that.
If they inquire further, you can say:

"It is personal and I am a private person. I wish not to discuss
  the details."

Try to get off the topic quickly. Don't lie but don't give them any real information either. Focus on the positive things you bring to the table. Basically you need to convince them you still have an enthusiasm for research. I know this is kind of dodging the question, but saying you weren't excited about the project or explaining the situation in detail will look worse. People have all sorts of personal problems in grad school and it is very reasonable to not want to discuss them. I think the University you are applying to will assume a far better excuse than the one you give them, so basically don't tell them anything. Of course this isn't ideal,; it would be better to have a well thought out answer that makes you look great. Unfortunately you cannot give them one with the information you supplied us. Your goal is to let your research and enthusiasm shine and hope they take a chance on you.
If they ask you, "why didn't you reenter at the school you left?" You could say

"The personal problem occurred in city X and I found if very
  traumatizing. While I have put it past me, I would like a fresh
  start in a new city, so I can focus on research without any
  distractions."

I think the bigger red flag is that I assume your former advisor will not be writing you a letter of reference. Don't bring it up, but if they ask you about it you can say

This personal problem affected my work. I wish I could go
  back and change the way I responded to the personal problem, but
  unfortunately that is in the past, all I can do now is focus on my research.

Unfortunately, all of what I have suggested will hurt your chances vs. a well crafted explanation as to why you left, and it may even sound evasive, but it might read better than opening a can of worms by talking about your past advisor relationship. Even if you talked about your relationship very carefully, as others have suggested (both Anna's and anonymous mathematician great answers) you could accidentally slip in the spontaneity of an interview (you seem strong in your ethical point of view and convictions - if you are upset slipping would be very easy). I believe my above answer is the "lowest risk" option, although the careful explanations possibly carry a higher reward, if executed perfectly.

+1 This is a very practical advice for the OP's situation.

I'm not sure it works. You need ideally an answer for why the previous advisor is not recommending you.

I think that your problems roots before your tentative to enter another PhD program: it seems that your institute authorities have not made their job. Your accusations are serious, but as you say in comments there are several previous PhD students that were willing to tell you, at least, about the same misbehavior by your advisor. The fact that several students quit this advisor in a relatively short amount of time is enough evidence to start an investigation: there should be a disciplinary committee investigating the data published by your advisor over the years (forged data can in many cases be proved so), hearing you and the other quitting students, and of course hearing your advisor.
If what you say is right, and I assume it is, then your advisor's career should be terminated, he should be prosecuted with fraud, and a public statement should be available to back up your tentative to reenter a PhD program. Unfortunately, I am not surprised by poor handling of such a case by academic authorities: they tend to think that it reflects poorly on their institution and have an interest in covering them up. If you have a way to file a more formal complaint about your former advisor, it might be a way out your situation -- but the timing is definitely against you. Short of that, I do not see a good solution, you might want to use the tangential one of WetLabStudent.
Oh, and something else: if the truth about your advisor comes out in a few year, and you managed to enter academia, you might prefer to be one of those that made it right, rather than one of those that covered it up. I am not promising that it would be a more comfortable position with respect to your colleagues, but since you obviously value ethics, it would be more comfortable with respect to yourself.

After seeing your post, I also think I should tell my story.
I also worked as a PhD for around 2.5 years in a very famous institute in Germany and I also faced the same problem. I do not mind revealing the name of the institute as I have no respect for it after my weird experience.
I worked earlier in memorial Slaon kettering cancer center , USA and also National University Singapore (NUS). Fortunately nowhere I was forced to manipulate the data and it is only in this German institute  where I was forced. If I tell my entire story it will take 4-5 pages. I also went to the people who are members of ' Scientific Ethics Committee'  gave  me the feeling of 'great ' help but actually did not help. They told me neither they can help me changing my supervisor nor getting a reference letter from him. But if I can bring the proof, they can take steps against my boss. Ofcourse being a foreighner I was not willing to fight a case(or take any trouble) rather I prefer to fight anonymously.
I left my position and started applying. Everywhere I faced the same question and I also did not have any answer. But finally after 9 months I talked to a group leader and he knew my previous boss.  I started the conversation without talking much about my previous boss but I had the feeling that  he also didnot have a very good impression about my previous boss.
And I told him about what has happened to me and he really did trust what I said. I joined his group after 2 months and now it has been already 2 years in this lab I have been working with him and everything seems good. May be in my case ,my current PI knew my previous boss and probably he heard something similar about him. So my case might be different but I still believe that there would be some people who genuinely understand your real problem and it will serve as a filter itself.
So do not loose your heart and try applying outside Germany as well .

This is interesting advice. Some professors do gain a "hush hush" reputation for being unethical. I am glad you were lucky enough to find a professor who was in the know, but wonder how unusual this case is.

@Lucas :Thank you very much for sharing your story. I can completely understand as I was also a victim. I also appreciate your approach as you started your new job without lying and I also believe it will serve as a filter. A person who would accept you knowing your entire story would be your best PI.

Here in the Czech Republic, it is customary to approach your future advisor in person before applying for PhD. At least in my faculty, if the future advisor wants to accept a student, the selection committee usually does not object.
Talk in person to whoever you think might become your advisor. Ask them if you could join their research group to work on (... enter your thesis proposal here...), or if they could recommend one of their colleagues to turn to. Be pretty concrete; if you think of using some specific lab equipment, ask if the department has it. Who would not like to take on a student that has a clear vision of his thesis?
It the faculty member you are talking with shows interest in accepting you, it's time to show hesitation and tell them about your previous study (along the lines suggested by Ana). Explain that you understand that taking in a drop-out is a risk that not everyone is willing to take. If your chosen advisor thinks that this would be an obstacle to accepting you, ask them if there would be any other way to become part of their research group so that you could prove yourself. You might work as a lab technician, do some (boring but necessary) data analysis, prepare a review of literature on a selected topic that your advisor would be interested in but does not have the time to read in detail. If that is so, indicate that you would not mind doing one of these things for free until the next application deadline.

My following opinion is all hindsight.
If I were in your initial situation of being forced to falsify data, and I had proof of that, then I would have taken all my proof and found a lawyer and asked him for his legal advice on how to proceed. I think this whole problem should have been confronted immediately at the beginning.
Falsification of data is one of the most serious offenses in academia. It doesn't surprise me at all that this is taking place per my own, different and past experiences in academia.
This is an extremely difficult situation. If you want to get into a new program, you have to answer their questions, but you can't make accusations without proof. You might just be forced to say that you had serious ethical conflicts in your prior program and that you are seeking an institution that in no way resembles your prior institution's appearance regarding ethics. Hopefully nobody has any proof that you may have participated in data falsification.
Perhaps you should think about obtaining legal advice.

Legal advice might be a good idea for other reasons, but I am not seeing how a laywer is going to help get the OP into another graduate program.

You have too much research integrity to stay in a bad lab, that is an important part of being a good academic. Stand up for it, and say it as it was.
But don't do it with a focus on saying bad things about others, or about personal issues, or anything that unfairly paints you as the problem. You want to do good research, and it was unfortunatly not possible at your lab so you quit rather than lowering your standards.
If you get questions about it, intended to make you talk badly about your previous lab, answer instead with things related to how you want to be able to do better work than there. Show that you are capable of handling integrity and are ready for a new place, instead of being hung up or broken by a previous place.
(And please ignore the above suggestions that you should say negative things about your self that arent even true! You have done nothing wrong and do not need to pretend you have.)

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

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


text:
Dutch Higher education degrees have a major or a minor?
The Dutch education system adds a major or minor to their Higher professional education or University education? I saw some examples as: HBO Management (would HBO be the degree and Management the major, or HBO Management is the degree). I am doing a comparison with the US education system.

MBO is vocational education, so that is not an appropriate question for this forum. Maybe your question can be saved when you tell us why you want to know that

I am not sure why this is put on hold, as the question pertains to how higher education (in a particular country) is organized. (Note that  HBO institutions are essentially non-research universities that only confer undergraduate degrees, somewhat like US teaching colleges.)

I thought the same thing @mmeent, I do believe my question is valid. So respecting to your comment about HBO institutions, in the US the bachelor and the major go together in the degree title, i.e. BBA in Finance, BBA is the Bachelors in Business Administration, Finance the major or subject of study. Dutch students/individuals would add the HBO and the major or subject of study as their Degree title? Or only the HBO is mentioned (diploma only).

(As mentioned in the comments) It is possible to do a minor while at university in the Netherlands - for example, on the Biology course of Radboud University, it is possible to do 15-30 ECTS on a minor subject.
This website gives more information about higher education in the Netherlands, but you can confirm for yourself by looking at the course descriptions at other universities.

The Netherlands do in fact have a minor in the bachelor, usually consisting of 30 ECTS.

Thanks, @BrtH! I'll edit the answer to include that, if you don't mind.

@BrtH so if I understood this correctly, to have a minor would depend on the course program but what about the major? (as we called major to the subject of study in the US). A CV would have the HBO and the major or subject of study? In the US we add the bachelor and the major, i.e. BBA in Finance, BBA is the Bachelors in Business Administration, Finance the major or subject of study.

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


text:
What is the solution of [citation] in Google scholar search results? Link is also not available to click on results
Our Google scholar was working properly but suddenly we are getting [citation] error by which all the articles are available on Google Scholar but we or anyone will not be able to visit as link is also not there. All our articles are facing the same issue so is there any problem from web server or hosting side? what should be the solution? Please help.
I have also attached screen shot where [citation] is mentioned and also there is no link.
Example:
[CITATION] Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. IV. Determination of plant cell-wall constituents PJ Van Soest, RH Wine - J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem, 1967

This message is telling you that someone published a paper (A) in which the authors of paper A cited
Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. IV. Determination of plant cell-wall constituents PJ Van Soest, RH Wine - J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem, 1967.
I'll call the Van Soest and Wine paper B.
Google has access to the citation in paper A.  However, Google Scholar can't find paper B in its data.  This could be because Google's data is limited, or it could be because the author of paper A made an error in the citation (e.g. by including the wrong year.)
You should not cite paper B based only on the citation of B in paper A.
When you encounter this situation, the best approach is to use Google Scholar and other databases such as the Web of Science to search for the original paper but not specifying all of the details in the citation.  You might for example find a paper with a similar title by the same authors that was published a year later.


text:
Still waiting for prospective PhD to reply to my email after sending the provisional research title!
I am still waiting to get an answer from my prospective Ph.D. supervisor.
On July 15, 2019, I have sent my master transcript and initial statement of research upon his request, and a week after I sent him another e-mail in a very polite manner to make sure that he could open my file without difficulty, but there was no reply. As the university located in New Zealand I am sure they are not in the mid-semester break, I told them that I am going to apply for July 2020, I do not know what to do now. Should I dismiss this case and go for another supervisor, or send him another email to see what is going on? or should wait a little bit longer? At first, he showed his eagerness and told me that he had to talked to his colleagues about my research proposal and interest and then let me know about the outcome. Thank you guys for your answer.

Welcome to the site!

What action are you looking for?  A statement that says "If you apply, and you get accepted, I can take you on as a student"?

Academics tend to get a ton of email, and their attention tends to be split lots of different ways. My guess is that the supervisor plans to read your email carefully and then reply, and hasn't done so yet. Alternatively, the outcome might depend on external factors (e.g. availability of funding), and the professor might be waiting on that.
If the application deadline is soon, or for some other reason you need a reply soon, then you could send an email asking about the status. Otherwise, I would recommend waiting a bit longer.

Thank you very much, yes, , yes, he asked me before if I need scholarship or not. Maybe he is looking for this.

Remember your prospective supervisor is only human, with their own personal life, obligations, and work load. Semester 2 started in New Zealand around 22 July and I imagine it is a very busy time for whoever you contacted. They likely have a very full inbox.
It's been long enough for a polite email asking if they saw your previous message and if they would like any further information from you.

Thank you for your answer.


text:
Getting into a US PhD programme for math after an Indian MS
I studied math as an undergrad in India, and after two years away from the field, have decided to come back to it. I am interested in learning more about pure mathematics, and am interested in the prospect of becoming a researcher. I have high grades in my undergraduate degree.
To this end, I aim to do an MS, but this may have to be in India, due to financial constraints, and then eventually a PhD, which I will prefer to do in the West, as those programmes are comparatively stronger. If I do well in the entrance exams and make it to one of the better IITs, what are the odds of being admitted to a good math doctoral programme?

I don't understand the downvotes and putting the question on hold. The question is perfectly pertinent to grad school admissions and is very general. Indian institutes don't give out PhD admission stats so I have to ask. And whatever happened to treating new guys with a softer touch?

please accept the answer if it's helpful.

I am a CS major at Courant at NYU. Whatever I say here is from my experience in the CS PhD program, and might be extrapolated to math as well.
My suggestion is that you could consider applying for PhD programs directly in the US, without a masters, since many PhD programs in the US, to my knowledge, do not require a masters degree. The PhD programs here are usually self-contained, with certain mandatory course requirements and freedom to take additional courses of your choice so that you learn many advanced concepts before conducting research. Plus, PhD students here at Courant are guaranteed funding for the first five years of your program, which is the typical time taken to complete the program or get close to completion. Many universities here also have combined and fully-funded MS+PhD programs.
I was in a similar situation as you are in now, when I was finishing up my B.Tech in CS in India. I was confused among three options - masters in India, masters in US, PhD in US. I ended up working in industry for couple of years in India to help make a decision more slowly, and this is what I learned. Masters in the US is useful mainly only in two situations - i) you are changing fields, and you wish to show strong coursework in your new field in a reputed college or university, ii) you are not interested in PhD and just want a high-paying job to settle. Masters in India is a very good option, especially in good universities such as the IITs, and there is no doubt that you will certainly increase your chances of securing admission in a good university in the US. A masters degree conveys the message of greater conviction and dedication to the field of your interest. With good recos and good grades, and maybe some publications (depending on your field), you are certain to secure a very good spot in the US.
But if you i) already have good grades, ii) aren't changing your fields, iii) already are clear in your areas of interest and the type of research problems you want to work on, then my advice is to apply for PhD or MS+PhD programs in the US, which are fully funded in most cases and also have coursework.


text:
Interviewing for another department within the same university
I recently enrolled in a university program, lets call it X. X is a relatively new department trying to grow and currently includes about 30 people. The title is Professional doctorate in engineering (PDEng) and it resembles being a PhD candidate (i have a salary but i do not teach or perform research, instead i work with industrial partners on various projects). As far as i know this kind of position only exists in the Netherlands.
After some months I started doubting whether I am a good fit for the program since the projects are not really interesting for me. At the same time I know about another PDEng program, lets say Y, offered by the same university with equal salary which might better fit my career prospects.
I am now thinking of applying for an interview, however this could be tricky. I do not want to talk with my current program director in advance, in case I get rejected by Y. For the same reason I would like the director of program Y not to contact my current employer.
I have the following 2 specific questions:
1) Should I ask Y's director for discretion by mentioning my reasons?
2) Is it possible/probable that i will automatically get rejected since im proven to be unreliable/unmotivated?
This question: Switching between different graduate departments within the same graduate school? refers to graduate programs, whereas I am a salaried employee, therefore i think my director will be quite unhappy since he has "invested" in me somewhat.

(1) got ... enrolled is a informal and generally passive construction. Just to confirm, you enrolled (as in it's not something that was done to you). (2) how large is your institution / how close are the two PDEng faculties? (graduate school of 500 vs 10000 really changes things).

I edited according to your comment. The institution is a very large one (multiple master's / bachelor / PDeng programs each of them including 20 ~ 150 people so definitely more than 2000 people in total)

Knowing Dutch people I would talk with your direct manager and expose your concerns and feelings. Depends on situation he should help you with second interviewing or think about plan how to better fit you in university.

Personally, I'd do the opposite, talk to both directors frankly and sort it out. Sometimes the cover up is worse than the crime. :)

While it certainly depends on culture, a good program should vastly prefer to place you in a good fit, even if it is outside their program. For a department head, placing a good student with another department head who is a better fit should be a positive - why have an unenthusiastic and bored student on your hands when you can "do a favor" for a colleague and give them a student who's a great fit? But again, that requires the people involved be professional adults who want you to succeed.

How long have you been in your current program?  How long to you have to go?  How the heck do you earn a PhD without doing original research?  Can you collaborate with the people with the interesting projects, and incorporate them into your present position?


text:
Ask supervisor *not* to come to viva?
My viva is coming up, and one of my supervisors is planning to attend. I know that he won't be able to say anything during the viva itself, but I'm a little worried what he might say afterward while the examiners are discussing my fate. He's a good supervisor, and thinks very highly of my work, but he does have a tendency to agree with whomever he's speaking to at the moment. For example, if the examiners were discussing a small potential change to my thesis, I'm afraid his enthusiasm might get the better of him, and he might "volunteer" me to make a bigger change than the examiners expected or even suggest additional experiments which are beyond the scope of my PhD.
Does that scenario seem plausible, or am I worried over nothing? If there is reason to be concerned, I might ask my supervisor not to come, explaining that his presence might "make me more nervous" to avoid hurting his feelings.
If it helps, I'm in a small country which has an academic system very similar to the U.K. I have read Benefits to supervisor presence at viva in the UK?, but my question is a little different since I have a specific concern, and the supervisor in question has already invited himself.

Has he done something before that was politically unwise?

@CaptainEmacs yes, a few times. Nothing too serious, but I have reason to be a little concerned.

Well, if you are worried then you can suggest that having an audience will make you nervous (which is, in a way, true). I have seen a PhD student getting flak from the commission chair (who was not from the field) who asked the student a very exotic question that he wasn't able to answer, but - it turned out - none of the present audience would have been able to answer either (this was a public defense in Germany). The student probably lost a grade for that (PhDs in Germany are graded), although it was pretty much a "loose-cannon" attack with no recourse. It is not your situation, of course.

Can you ask your advisor to keep you company while the committee is discussing, to ensure that he isn't present for the  committee's discussion?  (I mean, ask him in advance.)

Are you in Ireland? I got my PhD there and my supervisor did not say a word during the examination. He was there because of regulation, but the discussion is intended to take place solely between your internal, your external and yourself. Your supervisor will be filling forms etc but that's it.

In a UK viva, you are normally asked to leave the room when your examiners are deliberating your result. At this point your supervisor would also normally leave the room with you. As you said, they shouldn't say anything during the viva, and this should include any deliberation between your examiners. To be honest though, a supervisor does not want their student to fail, or have an unmanageable number of corrections, because that looks really bad on the supervisor as well. It's in their best interest for you to pass as easily as possible.
In the UK your supervisor is also never present without your permission. If your institution has these rules, then you can just ask them not to come. Just say that you feel it would add extra pressure that you could do without. It can be useful to have your supervisor there when you're read your corrections, as then they also know what you're asked to correct. In my viva I kind of got to argue potential changes during the viva, whilst we picked through my thesis. Since at this stage your supervisor definitely can't talk, you're in charge of your side of the negotiation.
Don't worry too much about changes. Your thesis only ever needs to be good enough to pass. It doesn't have to be brilliant, or better than anyone else's, it just has to demonstrate a significant contribution. You therefore shoudln't be asked to do more work for the sake of doing more. You should only have to change things if without them, your contribution isn't explained or supported well enough.
Remember that if your supervisor has supported your decision to submit your thesis, then there is little chance you'll fail. Try and enjoy yourself, you're unlikely ever to get to talk to two experienced researchers exclusively about your own work for such a long time ever again. Relish it!

+1 for "you're unlikely ever to get to talk to two experienced researchers exclusively about your own work for such a long time ever again" - I am really looking forward to that part of it.

You have no control over whether your supervisor proposes wide-reaching corrections to your thesis. Even if he does, you might not know about it. After the viva, maybe you'll be given really wild corrections to make, and maybe they were proposed by one of the examiners. You have no way of knowing.
So, you are powerless, and you are ignorant. You cannot affect the outcome, and you will not even know what the outcome is. Rather than losing heart, take this opportunity to embrace it. This is something wholly outside of your control, and you are therefore free to ignore it. Breathe. Take a walk. Re-read your thesis. Enjoy dinner.
You probably will still be wondering, though. "But what if...?" "How can I know...?" "Maybe he'll..." Rest assured that your examiners are sensible people, experts in their field, and that they will know what is over-promising or outside the scope of your thesis. Your supervisor may suggest something in earnest enthusiasm, and the examiners may reject it, or settle for a more modest correction request. Your supervisor may decide to channel his enthusiasm into post-PhD follow-up projects with you.
tl;dr: Don't worry, be happy.

I like the approach (+), but this doesn't take into account the question whether OP should ask the supervisor not to attend the viva.

Just to add to the other good answers.  You can always argue that a change is not needed or outside of the scope of your thesis.  Your examiners will also know what they are doing so trust them as well, if they don't feel something is needed they won't push for it.  The other thing is they will have a grade in mind when discussing it.  If one examiner has minor corrections in mind they will push against suggestions that major changes are needed as this drastically changes the outcome.  Finally they would also be less than ok with your supervisor interjecting as he should not be part of the decision making process, in fact he should be leaving when you are.
Finally while there may be nothing to worry about your own mentality is the most important thing.  I know that nerves are not the most logical.  If despite all reassurances you feel more comfortable with your supervisor out of the room then state this.  You need to be comfortable in there, you don't need to lay out your reasons logically even to yourself.  Just take the decision that makes you comfortable.
I feel there won't be an issue but you have to consider how you feel.


text:
Writing REU Recommendation: Should I mention the student is an underserved demographic?
I've not written an REU recommendation letter before, and I'm wondering what is or isn't appropriate to mention regarding demographics, and what might or might not be in the student's favor to mention.
1a) I know that NSF's broader impact criterion looks favorably on increasing the participation of under-represented groups at the graduate student and faculty level. Do REU sites get any kind of credit from the NSF for accepting underserved demographics? Is this credit meaningful?
1b) If it is meaningful, is it appropriate to point out that a student falls into an under-represented category? I know that there is a great amount of sensitivity to certain demographics questions, as well as a strong preference for self reporting. Also, if this is something that REUs tend to ask in their application process I don't want to reiterate something obvious.
2a) My current institution does some undergraduate research but does not have masters or PhD students. Thus, an REU experience is especially beneficial to our students who have not been exposed to the larger academic research enterprise (particularly if they're considering grad school). As previously, do REU sites get any credit for accepting this kind of student (possibly under the theory of promoting research infrastructure)?
2b) If this is meaningful, is it appropriate to mention? I'm concerned that doing so might raise a great big red flag pointing out that this applicant is a total novice.
3) Lastly, should I mention that this student has said they're seriously considering graduate school? I would think this would be a clear positive statement for the recommendation, since (if the student turns out good) the REU institution will have a good shot at recruiting them. But, I've never been on the admissions end of this process.
All these questions are in the context of a good student who I can write an otherwise strong recommendation for, and are certainly not the basis for a recommendation. If included, these would go in a miscellaneous paragraph that says things like "works well with others".

1a yes, 2a, yes, 3, yes.  1b and 2b ideally the student should mention.  Please make it one question per post.

Anonymous Physicist is right. I would be even stronger and say that 1b is not your business to divulge. The student will have a chance to disclose this information in their own application (and in particular, will have the choice not to disclose it if they choose).

I would include and expand upon 3b. I've helped mentor REU students and when we were reviewing applications, we wanted students who wanted to go to grad school. The school I helped with didn't want the students for their grad program (it is a MS only univeristy), but those students also tend to have a stronger research drive.

@TomChurch - I'd encourage you to convert your comment into an answer.

As has been said in the comments before,
1.a) Most REU specifically say they encourage underrepresented minority students to apply. I understand some of the grants the NSF gives out require that the research group be diverse.
1.b) However the REU application the student must fill out already contains a question regarding this subject, and as @Tom Church pointed out, the student is not obliged to disclose this information. So I would say you should not mention it in the letter
2.a) Again, most REU's specifically encourage this type of students to apply,
2.b) However it is something the student should mention in the personal statement, so again it would not be your place to mention.
3) Yes, you and the student should mention his/her interest in graduate school, as again this is something REU's look for.


text:
Is it cheating to get help with graded homework?
Suppose a person X asks person Y to explain some material from a course. Person X shows Y some homework that counts for a third of the grade and asks for help. They go through the homework, with Y first showing X how to solve each type of exercise, then they solve it together with X taking the lead (doing the calculations, with an occasional nudge or a piece of advice) and with Y checking that no mistakes are made.
Is this cheating? If so, is it a clear case of cheating, or would you say it is more of a gray area? On one hand, X did not do the homework on their own, but at the same time, X would not be able to do it on their own, and this way X learns how to do it (and homework is for learning, after all). The same material will appear on the final exam, counting for the rest of the grade so getting help with the homework will not make X pass the course on its own.
Is what Y is doing wrong?

This is not an issue of absolute ethics; rather, it is a question of what is permitted by a particular instructor of a particular course. Personally, as an instructor I not only accept but encourage exactly this kind of learning process from students. (Cue the shout-storm, if the current answers are any indication, but please shout about the specific process described by the OP and not about some variant of it.)

This is still an unclear question.  Is Y currently taking the class that X is taking?  Some of the answers seem to assume that.  In any case, why not ask the instructor?

School is basically indentured labor. Unless you extort someone for their answers, you are ethically in the clear. If you somehow did something wrong, it would be a lapse by the school.

If we assume you have no guidance from the instructor, and assume Y is not in your class (these are important!), I think the honest answer is that only you can genuinely know whether you're actually learning throughout this process, or just using this process as a crutch for your homework grade. As a litmus test, honestly ask yourself if your interaction with Y (the time you spend, the questions you ask, the amount of effort you put in, the nature of the help you get, etc.) would look the same even if the homework were ungraded. If so, you're probably fine; if not, probably not.

Can you define "graded homework" for me?

Isn't this how we teach kids to do homework through grade school? If kids can't figure it out from the course material, they ask their parents who then guide them through the work.

At least where I went to university, this practice was commonplace, even among students with high ethical standards and a desire to not cheat. If this practice is cheating (and the answers indicate that many people think it is), I don't think it's at all obvious to students

Closely related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/118576/is-it-fair-to-use-techniques-i-found-on-the-web-to-solve-my-assignment/118596#118596

This mechanism of study is a real thing and has a name. I would not call it "just a rationalisation". One would even claim that utilising shared attention processes is at very core of human ability for cultural learning. Of course one still has to determine where their different learning zones are and use help in appropriate places. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_of_proximal_development

X would not be able to do it on their own

This is precisely the rationalization that leads many students to seek an excessive amount of outside help with homework problems or look up answers online. These students rationalize this behavior by claiming that they are better off because in this way the work at least gets done (which presumably equates to “learning” taking place), whereas if they tried to do it all themselves some or all of the problems would remain unsolved. So this looks like a form of progress “on paper”.
What those students are failing to grasp is that by not doing the work themselves they are missing out on a major part of the educational benefit that doing homework is meant to provide in the first place. It is perhaps a counterintuitive fact, but actually it’s the case that trying and failing to solve a homework problem is still often a more instructive and more educational experience than getting the kind of help that “Y” is giving in your scenario. So this rationalization for why getting a lot of help makes sense is faulty. In fact, it’s doubly faulty, because I think even the original premise that “X” cannot do the work themselves is almost certainly usually incorrect. (Edit: yes, some lecturers assign homework that’s much too difficult, which would change the calculation and make what I wrote less valid.)
The upshot of this analysis is that professors will often prohibit the sort of behavior you are asking about, effectively defining it as cheating. And they do this precisely to protect students from their own self-defeating urges to take the easy way out and not follow the (more difficult) path that leads to true learning.
Of course, defining it as cheating involves a trade-off, and in some hypothetical scenarios might actually deprive a student from a genuine benefit they might gain by consulting with a friend, as well as making the learning environment appear a bit more adversarial and annoying to the student. It’s not an obvious choice if it should be considered as cheating or not. But considering it as cheating is certainly reasonable, and, needless to say, if your professor declares it to be cheating and you do it anyway, then what you are doing is a form of cheating.
Edit addressing the comments: in the comments people are raising several possible issues with what I wrote:

There’s sometimes not enough time to do all the homework yourself, because students take several classes but each lecturer assigns homework has unrealistic expectations that students will focus on their class (as pointed out by @infinitezero): true, this is sometimes a real problem and it’s absolutely true lecturers sometimes have an unreasonable tendency to want to monopolize their students’ study time.
Well, my verdict that it’s reasonable to forbid students from getting outside help on homework assumes a lecturer who assigns a reasonable amount of homework, in line with their university’s guidelines for the number of hours a student should be studying outside of class time given the course’s number of credit hours. If this assumption is not satisfied, then it’s certainly possible that no matter what rules the lecturer makes, the students would find themselves in a position where they may be required to “cheat” just to survive the course. In that case, from an ethical point of view the students cannot be considered as cheating for using such a survival strategy.

The adversarial environment is a serious issue (comment by @PasserBy): I agree. Making many rules about various things being forbidden or considered cheating can make students feel like they are walking on eggshells and in my opinion can really spoil the fun of learning. I believe in treating my students with respect and not making them feel like I am constantly suspecting them of bad intentions. Most of them truly want to learn. So yeah, definitely the anti-homework-help approach, while motivated by good intentions, and justified at some level, also has a cost that should be factored into the calculation of whether the approach makes sense.

If we take the answer’s logic that doing things on your own is good to an extreme, why do students need to go to the course in the first place? (comment of @ilkkachu): true; my logic only holds up to a point, which is why I was referring only to students getting an excessive amount of help as a problem (see also: this answer). Lecturers generally understand that a little bit of help to resolve confusion and mental obstacles can be a good thing, and will usually not make a fuss about such things.

Well, comparng this to my undergraduate years, I was somehow expected to do 4 demanding exercise sheets / week, and I needed 50% in each of them to qualify for the final exam. There's simply not enough time to do it. Partly, because lecturers like to believe I'm only taking their class and devote 100% of my time to them.

I think the adversarial environment part is quite serious. It will in effect change the mindset of the student from personal advancement to defeat the obstacle that is the lecture, which ironically justifies the very behaviour you want to stop.

though (perhaps depending on the details), isn't all education just about showing how things should be done correctly, then nudging the student forward if they get stuck, then checking the work they did on their own, and then finally letting them go to work independently? We could basically say that you could try and fail more on your own, and thus supposedly learn more, if you didn't go to the course in the first place!

Part of this answer is difficult to reconcile with the Zone of Proximal Development where “what the learner can do with the help of a more knowledgeable other today, he or she can do alone tomorrow”. (Over-simplifying Vygotsky, which is a piece of a much larger framework). Person Y is also operating under a gradual release of responsibility, which has some empirical support as beneficial for teaching/modeling new skills. However, none of this comment are relevant to whether somebody considers it cheating, which is an opinion.

@ilkkachu No. It's about teaching them how to understand things and learn how to think.

@Kimball Ah, an agreeable position - “…TEACHING them how to understand and think”. The part where it gets tricky is when there is no support or teaching. Failure is an important part of learning, but it does not entail learning. If the teacher is choosing developmentally inappropriate content or content that students lack prior knowledge to solve, then the failure is not productive. IMO this answer undersells the role of the more knowledgeable other (teacher or student Y) and would be better just jumping into the final two paragraphs.

@Kimball, and anyone else apart from the for designated teacher, e.g. person Y in the question just can't do that? (Note that I was talking about the methods, the explicit actions, ones mentioned in the question and ones I've seen used in schools too. The end-goal on the abstract level is related but a slightly different thing.)

@infinitezero great point, I addressed it in an edit to the answer.

@infinitezero note that if every single person in class completes 100% of homework on-time it means that homework is not challenging enough so it should be made harder in one way or another. Such high success rate of homework also indicates every single student understood material well so more complex material with less explanations should be provided for future lectures or maybe less teacher/TA time outside the class needed for this particular group of students.

@Alexei I guess we have different philosophies. I'm now a TA and the lecturer I work with strives to make the exercises 100% completable in a reasonable amount of time. This gives student the ability to practice relevant material but does not make them believe they are stupid.

The idea of not getting help with homework completely defeats the idea of study groups. It also reinforces the bad idea that people can never get help on any problems they have. There are so few instances in the real job world where an employee is not allowed to ask for help with a project. Asking a co-worker for help is an absolute must in many situations, even if it's to clarify what the requirements of the project are. In software development, pair/peer programming is becoming more popular because it encourages asking for help, rather than beating your head against a brick wall.

@computercarguy academia!=workplace; student!=employee; goals(academia)!=goals(workplace). In a workplace the goal is to get things done, in academia the goal is to get students to learn, and demonstrate that they've learned.

@computercarguy as for study groups, have you never seen a student who in a group study situation lets the others do all the work and doesn't end up learning anything? Study groups are useful for some things, but they can defeat the idea of learning just as much as forcing people to do work themselves defeats the idea of study groups.

@DanRomik, I've seen students in a team project do that, but not a study group. Isn't the idea of a study group to be that students still do their own homework while getting help from others, rather than all hand in the same work? Study groups can definitely be used incorrectly, but that's likely to be a minority of cases. Refusing to let students use study groups at all is just as wrong as using them incorrectly. And, I've been in plenty of classes where the goal seemed to me more about getting work complete than learning. Why else would 40+ hrs of study a week be required for a single class?

@computercarguy the question and my answer do not concern “refusing to let students use study groups”, so you’re attacking a straw man. And, to be clear, I support the idea of study groups in some contexts, and support students getting help with homework in some (most) situations that are relevant to me. It’s all very context dependent, and each professor makes the decisions that seem correct for their teaching methodology and subject. My answer simply tries to explain what considerations enter into those decisions, and why it’s reasonable to insist on students doing homework by themselves.

@DanRomik, if someone is "insist[ing] on students doing homework by themselves" then you are refusing to let students use study groups. This isn't a strawman. A study group implies that students help each other figure out how to complete homework and learn. Students in a group not talking or sharing anything isn't a study group.

I agree with the kernel of the answer but it does not seem to take into account that many (most) of the students want just to get over with the subject, they do not really care about the educational benefit of homework/assignments and do not plan to do a PhD. Especially of the assignments do not clearly stimulate such benefits (they rarely do).

If this is done without guidance and permission of the instructor, then most places would consider it to be cheating. General help is fine in most cases, but specific help on graded material needs a prior OK. In my personal view it is not a gray area at all.
The reason for this is that such homework is intended to bring skill and insight to the student. Reading answers is a very different thing than creating them. Watching someone else and following their insights is much less likely to result in the insight in the student given the task.
The purpose of homework is not to get answers, but to elicit a mental change in the student. Student Y isn't helping X learn, in fact, just helping them get answers. Not deep learning, anyway.
In your scenario the problem is that X is pretty much denied the opportunity to get insights from wrong turns and mistakes. If you are "nudged" to the correct path you won't learn "why" some things don't work. I'll note that some tutors do this sort of thing, but it should be with the knowledge of the professor. And doing it on graded assignments is especially problematic.
If you ask a professor for help, rather than another student, you are likely to get a very different response. They may give a (minimal) hint, they may try to clear up a misconception that is blocking you. But they won't just lead you through the solution.
I'm a big believer in working in pairs, actually, but that only works for certain kinds of things. If it blocks insight development in either partner then it is counterproductive.

It's a grey area, because it depends heavily on the specifics of what Y's doing.
I was a tutor in the computer science section at my university's tutoring center (so, mostly helping first- and second-semester programmers come to grips with C/C++). The center was provided by the university; presumably, all faculty knew about it, and I don't know of any who discouraged its use.
This is more-or-less how we were trained to help fellow students who came in for help, with two important caveats.
First: in step 1 ("showing X how to solve each type of exercise"), we tried hard to not use any of the actual questions from the homework (not least because there was often just the one exercise: "finish the program"). So, we'd talk about what the missing code needed to do or about the concepts that it involved. At this point, we would mostly work on a whiteboard to illustrate the concept rather than actually writing code in an editor - the person coming in for tutoring typically didn't understand some important concept, and neither the lecture nor textbook explained it in a way that made sense to them, so they "just" needed help understanding the core concept.
Second: in the last step ("Y checking that no mistakes are made"), we did not point out the specific problem, but may have called out that the final answer was wrong, possibly with a leading question. At this point, the student typically came in with code that didn't work and little idea why it didn't; we had the great advantage of being able to be their rubber duck (often, explaining what the code is supposed to be doing helps the programmer see where that differs from what it's actually doing; explaining to something with a face can be psychosocially easier than explaining to a brick wall, and rubber ducks are cheap). When rubber-ducking was insufficient, a leading question or two often got the person onto the right track.
That said, there's definitely a slippery slope here. It's really easy for Y to fall into just doing X's work for them. We were specifically trained to not do that, and warned of the slipperiness of the slope.
tl;dr: it's fine if X is actually learning the concepts and Y really is just helping X understand and pointing out that (but not where!) errors have been made. It's a problem if Y is functionally doing the work and X is just punching numbers into a calculator or something.

+1 but... It's a grey area, because it depends heavily on the specifics of what Y's doing. - It also depends on course policies

@Kimball: true enough, but I think that's got to be assumed in any "can I do  in " question.

Graded assignments come with expectations of how the work is to be done.  If the assignment doesn't state exceptions, e.g., that students may have partners, you should always assume the work must be done individually, with no help from another student. Violating that expectation would be cheating, an academic violation.  If you help someone cheat, that also is an academic violation at most schools.
It's fair game to help them understand the material, e.g., going over lecture slides together, but the moment you start helping them on a graded assignment they should do on their own, you've both crossed the line.  You should decline to look at or discuss the assignment. Instead, send them to the instructor or the course staff during office hours.  If they give away the answer, that's on them.

So wouldn't you agree that answering homework questions on SE is also academic violation? Yet many users (even claimed professors) do it and insist that they are here just to teach!

I think the word "graded" is important here. I think if a person posts graded homework online then that is wrong. If there is a question, it is then reasonable to answer it with the assumption that the OP is not breaking academic rules.

@user21820 Well, many SE members are not members of any academic community at all. They cannot really do any academic violations because they are not bound by any academic rules (and their oaths from the times of their uni immatriculation ceremony when they studied a long time ago are no longer binding). Explaining how to solve a mathematics or physics problem is a normal thing to do. The asker knows whether it is a homework or not and what kind of help they are allowed to seek.

@user21820  When obvious homework problems are posted to any of the SE communities, they are usually closed.

@user2316602: Your reasoning is contrary to Nicole's: Questions on SE come with expectations of its context. If a question looks like a homework question but does not state its context (e.g. that it is not graded), you should always assume that it is graded homework that must be done individually, with no help from others. If you help someone with what is expected to be graded homework, that is an academic violation. In short, why should we assume that SE question askers are not breaking academic rules when there is so much solid evidence against that?

@VladimirF: See above comment regarding leaving it to the asker. As for your other point that SE users are not members of an academic community, that is a really silly reason; you're effectively saying that we should not be disgusted with cheaters who manage to stay within the laws that apply to them.

@NicoleHamilton: What you say is not really true. A very big fraction do not get closed and instead get complete answers, and some of the authors of those answers keep answering such questions. Anyway, my comment was just a remark that your view about expectation of how graded assignments should be done is somehow not shared by many SE users. And the comments from user2316602 and VladimirF support this claim...

There's always a limit. Surrounding that limit is a grey area.
If I do 99% of the homework for you, and let you fill in the three obvious blanks, it's cheating.
If I explain the concepts and you apply them, it's not cheating.
If I help you through the first couple problems, then let you do the next five problems with minimal help, then by the end of the twenty-problem set you're doing them by yourself, it's "cheating", but not really.
Why? Because the point of homework is to learn.
If my helping you prevents you from learning, then it's not helpful, and I'm depriving you of the knowledge you're supposed to be gaining. If making you do it completely on your own prevents you from learning because you just stare at a blank page for an hour and give up, that's not helpful either.
Ideally, teachers would teach and that would be enough. But sometimes, students aren't quite there yet, or teachers have the wrong teaching style for that student, or teachers rush a bit too much, or some outside problem distracts from the teaching. At that point, outside help can be needed.
Now, I could take the time to create a lesson plan, invent my own homework problems, etc. That would be better, and is what I tend to do with my nephews. But they're in grade school and junior high, and I can do most of their homework in my sleep. And the homework tends to only have one or two problems of a given type.
When it comes to higher-level stuff, I'm not going to always know it as well, or have the time to invent new problems out of the blue. At that point, the goal is to get you to understand enough to get through the problem yourself, with the understanding that you'll probably get tested on this later. If you're struggling with the homework, there's a good chance you're going to struggle with the test, so you should probably get more help between now and then.
Note though, that there's a huge difference between "do these 20 nearly-identical math problems before doing 20 more tomorrow" and "conduct a semester-long, scientific study of bugs that takes dozens of hours for one report". Me doing three of your problems for you on the former is of little consequence if it helps you learn, while doing the only problem for you is half your grade on the latter.
There's also a big difference between the student who hasn't even bothered reading the text, and the student who's spent 20 hours on the first problem and gotten nowhere. Clearly, the first student needs to put reasonable effort in, while the second student either needs to go back and do the prerequisites, or get a teacher who does better with homework assignments (and that isn't hypothetical: I've had homework not even the teacher knew how to accomplish, and homework that had nothing to do with either the lecture or the book lesson).
A typical scenario falls somewhere in the middle of those extremes where reasonable help is reasonable. And in general, everyone gets help with graded homework in subjects they're less familiar with (and most homework is graded). I don't think I've ever seen a course where anyone would even blink at getting help as long as the student did most of the work themselves. Especially when there's a test that counts for far more points where the student doesn't get any help at all.

If the point of the homework is only to learn, then it should not be graded for correctness, but only a token few points for effort. This is what some teachers do, making it clear to students that the grade is for submitting reasonably complete attempts. Then there won't be cheating (by definition), and nobody has to figure out how much help to give to avoid cheating...

@user21820 true, and that’s a great point. It’s a real problem that lecturers use homework simultaneously as a formative assessment and a summative assessment. There are some good reasons why they do it and it’s not always possible to attain the ideal of “homework is only for learning” that you described, but it is definitely true that this results in perverse incentives for students to pursue a good grade in a way that doesn’t necessarily align with what’s best for them educationally.

Strongly seconding @DanRomik's comment... conflicting goals...

@user21820: Homework isn't only to learn, but that's almost always its primary purpose. If homework was all performed in class, it would cost a lot more to get an education. Grading that homework gives the student more of an incentive to actually do it, hopefully increasing their likelihood of success. In contrast, I did bring up the concept of things like semester-long dissertations, where students most certainly still get help, but the work more closely resembles an open-book exam in its expectations.

@paulgarrett: I think there will always be conflicting goals in any pursuit, which further muddies the waters of any discussion like this. I went to college to learn useful skills, while many of my professors were there to test my ability to do routine tasks of little consequence to learning. I had TAs grading homework tell me to keep performing a test until the data happened to fit the expected values (I guess they were "showing the process"?), instead of explaining how the measuring apparatus was simply not precise enough on the scales we were measuring (you know, actual science).

@MichaelS: I don't think you read my comment properly at all. I said homework can be graded for effort and worth only a few token points. So "all performed in class" and "incentive to actually do it" are completely irrelevant to my comment.

@DanRomik: That's right, there are some trade-offs. I think it's possible to have a balance. Some kinds of homework can be used for summative assessment, such as those that include an oral presentation, by which one can judge whether the student has at least learnt whatever appears in the work submitted. But exercise problems are not a good idea unless they are not recycled (seniors hand down past course materials) and there is a strong honour code.

@user21820 If the homework is ungraded and only for self improvement, and you help like this, you are by definition not cheating, but you also aren't actually helping, so you should probably avoid this style of work in either case.

@user3067860: Help like what? I certainly don't give free answers to anyone even for ungraded questions, so maybe you intended to direct your comment to someone else instead? In case you're curious, my philosophy is that I will put in exactly as much effort as the student puts in.

@user21820 You said "there won't be cheating (by definition), and nobody has to figure out how much help to give to avoid cheating"... I agree it (by definition, as you say) wouldn't be cheating if ungraded, but there are other reasons to avoid the style presented in the OP--because it's not actually helpful to the student in the long term (even if it is temporarily helpful in that they can hand in their homework). (I've also known some students who would put inordinate amounts of effort into avoiding actually learning, but they're fairly easy to recognize.)

@user3067860: Ah of course, I think we're in agreement then. My first comment's focus was merely on the issue of homework being graded that is in conflict with learning. You're of course right that learning includes much more than just the right incentive for doing homework.

I'm going to differ from the other answers thus far and say this is not cheating. The reason is because when students ask for help from TAs and lecturers, the kind of help they get is very similar to the one described.
Take, for example, this (artificially simple) problem:

Compute 5^5.

It's a very simple problem - just write out 5^5 as 5 x 5 x 5 x 5 x 5, put it into a calculator (or pen and paper), and you're there.
If a student working on this problem were to approach a TA or lecturer for help, what would the TA or lecturer say? Presumably they would say what I wrote above ("just write out 5^5 ..."). They therefore show X how to solve the exercise. They are then likely to suggest X attempt actually solving the exercise, and if X makes a mistake, they will probably point it out. Therefore they solve it together with X taking the lead (doing the calculations, with an occasional nudge or a piece of advice) and with Y checking that no mistakes are made.
So no, this is not cheating, and Y is not doing anything wrong. But I would hope X actually learns to solve similar problems without Y's help, or X is going to flunk the final exam.

The instructor and staff are free to decide on the assignments, the rules for completing them and how they're graded.  If they choose to give away the answers, that's their prerogative.  If you are not the instructor or staff, this is not your choice to make.

Discussion on pedagogy moved to chat. Please use the comments only for criticising the answer (with respect to the question, which is about ethics, not pedagogy) or suggesting improvements. Also see this FAQ.

Is it cheating to get help with graded homework?

Your whole premise is wrong here. Homework should be considered as a service to the student, allowing them to practice what they've learned and perhaps cover additional material / aspects of the same material. If you don't do your own homework, you're mostly cheating yourself out of the benefit of the homework.
(I could write a long tirade about who actually benefits from numerical grading  and aggregation-of-grades for students but this is not the right place for that.)

Suppose a person X ... etc. etc. ... and with Y checking that no mistakes are made.
Is this cheating?

Huh? Of course not.

Is what Y is doing wrong?

Generally no, but possibly in preventing X from developing their sense of self-reliance. Which is not teaching, but is often not the right thing to do pedagogically. Although often it is the right thing to do, if the alternative is X just giving up.

This is complicated, as all the responses have been showing.  Claiming credit for work that isn't your own is plagiarism -- period.  However, we all certainly want students to learn from other students.
Here's my approach.  First, I don't like using homework as an assessment.  I have other assessments.  I assign homework because I want my students to go home, think about material, and experience applications that are illustrative and promote understanding of the material.  Homeworks are thus part of the education, not the assessment.
Here comes the first problem with this:  if homeworks are not part of the grade, some students (often the students who need it the most) won't do them!  Thus, I need to make homeworks a small part of the overall grade.  Usually, a chunk just big enough to take an A down to an A- is good enough.
Now, for the copying part.  In my syllabus, I say copying will not be tolerated, but I encourage the students to work in groups, suggesting that they go have their discussions about the approach of the problem, WITHOUT WRITING IT DOWN, then at a later solo period, they should write up their homeworks.  I think this is an approach where students can learn from each other, and actually do enough work on their own homeworks that they can claim ownership of what they turn it.

Why should homework contribute a part of the grade for students who can get everything on the tests/exams correct? You're right, students who need it need motivation, but your approach doesn't actually do that well, but rather penalizes the good students who don't really like sitting through your tons of tiny exercises just to not be unceremoniously bumped down a half-grade. Instead, consider having something like homework = 10% and tests = 40% and exam = 70%, and anything above 100% truncated to 100%, so that poor students still want to do homework, but it won't help cheaters at all.

@user -- 10% is the number I use for HW, and I give out plenty of A's.

This is homework, not a test. Tests have to be taken strictly alone, and there are typically safeguards enforcing that — even in Covid times, when they are taken remotely.
Homework, by contrast, is not as strictly regulated, which is reflected by the missing enforcement. If a student does not know how to solve a task they can look at their notes, read the textbook, watch a YouTube video or ask a tutor, like in your example. All of those are legit and even encouraged because, as you say, the homework is an opportunity to learn. In the end nobody knows what happens at home.  Of course the idea is that the student is the actual homework author, but the exact conversation happening between the student and tutor cannot be controlled and regulated.
Plagiarism or outright copying from a fellow student is forbidden though. That rule is enforceable and will typically be enforced, after the fact.
What you describe is prototypical tutoring which is encouraged, common and helpful.

I'm only a layman, so consider this a layman's assessment.
The purpose of homework is to familiarize the student with the material; to increase understanding.  If the help given furthers that, then it's serving the purpose; if the help given hinders that, then it's subverting the purpose.  So to a large degree, it depends on just how "hand-holdy" the help is vs. how much the student struggles.
Having said that, this is why homework should not be a massive portion of the grade as in your example scenario, because that encourages point-gathering by any means necessary, and actual understanding can start to look like as a secondary consideration.

That answers a different question though. Grading it can either be a stick or a carrot to get them to actually do it.

I have taken math courses where the grade was 100% based on the homework, albeit at the graduate level.  I think you might want to narrow your assertion.  In any case, this does not answer the question.

@TerryLoring I'm not familiar with how graduate work is conducted, but I had kind of assumed by that stage one is beyond the point of grades being a consideration.  Guess not.  Today I learned.  However, that last paragraph is more of a side-note editorial on my part, not the actual answer, which I consider to be the sentence starting with "So to a large degree…".  Granted, it's a squishy answer, but then again it's a squishy question.

There are two separate issues here:

Has the student completed the assignment?
Has the student behaved unethically?

The first question is, as others have pointed out, instructor-dependent. If the instructor permits the students to work together, it's fine. Otherwise, it isn't. So you should ask for clarification in advance.
The second is much easier: the only potential ethical problem that could happen here is academic dishonesty, and it's trivial to guard against that: Acknowledge any help you received. The instructor may still not give credit for the assignment if they wanted you to work on it alone, but there's no potential for misconduct if you fully disclose all help you received.

This is an interesting and complex issue, and not one answered by "Yes" or "No".  It's also a very common one - what you describe above happens to some degree with nearly every class in every school.
The point of homework is to show that the student learned the material, and to reinforce the concepts.  The former is more true at the university level, while the latter is more true at the high school or earlier levels, but both are true to some degree at both.  Grading is intended to show how well the student understood the material.
Anything you do to help someone learn the material, without affecting the actual result of grading, then, should be acceptable.  That means, if a student asks for help understanding a homework question, there's no issue with showing them the concept - so long as you work a substantially different example.  In grammar school, if homework is solving 6x3, showing the student how to skip-count in 4s to solve 8x4 would be totally fine, for example.
Where it gets complicated, though, is when you're in university, and the concept is more of a way of thinking, or problem solving, rather than just a direct method of solving problems.  If you're doing a proof, it's pretty likely that any example you show will give away something - the point of the proof is to figure out what tool from your toolkit to use, and to identify what elements are in the proof.  Both of those are critical thinking, and require having those tools - but telling the student what tools are relevant is probably going over the line.
Ultimately, I always found this a very hard line to tend.  When I was in high school, in a college level chemistry class, I would do homework with my then-girlfriend, who was not as strong of a chemistry student.  I wouldn't give her answers, but would point out ways to solve things when she'd get stuck.  This led eventually to being told we had to stop, because it appeared like cheating - we'd always have the same answers, or at least close, and it was obvious from the tests that there was a difference between test and homework performance.  As a high school student, this felt unfair, but as an adult it makes sense; I wasn't a trained educator, and she was losing out on some of the self-learning that is normal for homework - and the teacher wasn't finding out accurately what her true level of understanding was, since she was missing some of the critical thinking steps.
What I'd do, if I were you, is instead of helping with homework, study independently of the homework, before doing the homework.  Go over the concepts together from class, make sure you understand all of the instructor's examples.  Then, do the homework separately.  That lets you get the most important part of the value of the homework: finding out how much you understand, before you have exams, and also learning through having to find the answers independently.

You seem to be assuming that Y is taking the class as well as X.  That is not state in the original posting.

For the most part, it doesn't really matter.  It's where my personal experience comes from, hence the wording, but whether the Y is in the class or not doesn't matter much.

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава