text:
UK Postdoc - Is salary negotiation even possible?
I have an interview later this week and the advertisement goes something like:

Grade 7: £31,604 - £38,833 p.a.

While talking to a postdoc at my own department, she told me that the scale wouldn't actually matter, that I'll always be placed on the lowest possible spine on that grade and it's just to show that every year I can move up a spine. She said even attempting to negotiate would be seen as a major red flag by the interviewers.
I wondered if anyone here can confirm this. It'd be amazing if you've been hiring postdocs in the UK so you definitely experienced this. Is there a way to be placed somewhere else on that scale, let's say on £35K?
Disclaimer: I'm not greedy or material-minded, but life is expensive especially with two kids and being a single parent. This position is also in a pretty expensive area.

In what sense did she mean not wanting to live in poverty is a "red flag"? It outs you as not being independently wealthy?

@ASimpleAlgorithm: It's usually a "red flag" when you don't know how things work in your discipline/area. There's an element of in-group cliquishness to it (you need to know people who can explain it to you, or to have worked in a similar place before), but it's also a legitimate indicator that your expectations might be out of sync with the work, which can lead to unpleasantness (will you also raise a fuss when you discover you won't get a personal secretary?).

See also https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/63386/postdoc-salary-negotiation-uk

I went into my negotiations with the demand that they exceed the pay of other offers that I had received (for a position in the UK). The point being that I see no reason why you would not be able to.

Just two comments about the accuracy of your friend’s statement (since my answer is already too long): she’s wrong on both counts. First off, no, an attempt to negotiate is not seen as a red flag. It may be off-putting because it’s unexpected but any reasonable person will support it. Secondly, you move up at least one point on the scale per year: it’s at your line manager’s discretion to move you up one, two or three points (at the University of Cambridge, but other institutes have similar rules). That said, 35k is pretty unrealistic. Expect an increase of one or two points at start.

@ASimpleAlgorithm a £32k salary is not "living in poverty", it corresponds to a post-tax take of £24k, only marginally below the median UK post-tax household (not individual) income of £27,300. It will go less far in Cambridge or London but let's not pretend this is a poverty wage.

@ASimmons I assume the comment was hyperbole. But for a bit of perspective, UK postdoc salaries are absolute not competitive. Neither internationally with academic positions, not nationally, compared with industry. Most people will say “that’s normal” but it’s really not. It’s only normal because we have been conditioned to expect it. UK postdoc salaries are p*ss poor.

@ASimmons We all know young researchers at the cutting edge of their field with a PhD deserve <90% of the median national wage. No wonder Veronica wants to negotiate

@KonradRudolph That's a brave position and you're right that collectively we need to overcome the unfairness to academics in the UK. However, I would not dare a single parent of two to walk away from an offer only because it is not competitive with another offer (s)he may never receive.

~36kEUR is indeed lousy. In Germany you'd start at no less than 44k, easily 50k if you, like most people, were employed at a German university during your doctoral studies. But forget about negotiating about it.

@Karl Most people were not employed at a German university during their doctoral studies. Non-Germans are people, too.

@DmitrySavostyanov Really?

@AzorAhai It's less than a PhD would make in industry sure. And by a lot, as well. But two people on that amount make in the 93rd percentile for household income (source https://www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/). While there are many places that offer higher postdoc salaries, plenty do not- I understand France pays similar amounts to the UK, for example.

@ASimmons. The indvidual median post-tax income in the UK is around £18,000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom#Taxable_income). A single, childless person earning £24k post-tax  would be in the 71st centile. Well above poverty. I earned £28k in my last postdoc, 5 years ago. In 3 years I built up £10k in savings living in Oxford.

@IanSudbery You say “childless person”. What about a single parent with two children (i.e. OP)? Childcare in Cambridge (like, presumably, Oxford) is expensive. OP’s salary won’t even cover two places in a nursery here, let alone rent and food. I’ve no idea how poverty is defined in this regard but OP will need to rely on an additional income, or government help. Sounds like poverty to me. :-(

Okay, I missed that part about being a single parent with two children.  The IFS income distribution site puts you in the 41st centile in this case (it accounts for children, single/married status etc). I think technically poverty is defined as being in the bottom 20%. So yes, a single parent with two kids is definitely going to struggle on any postdoc salary in the UK, particularly in the golden triangle.

@KonradRudolph I don't see how that is even part of the equation, you can't expect much success if you go into a normal industry negotiation if you start with "I deserve more because I'm a single parent with two kids".

@pipe That wasn’t my point. But since you mention it: yes, that is a valid (and compelling) argument in industry salary negotiations (“I’d love to work here. You’d love to have me. Here are my financial needs.”). See also https://workplace.stackexchange.com/a/114782/14546 — note that the answer is about the US (and mostly in the past) but in other countries this still happens to this day. I know several employers (including my previous employer) that pay a premium per child as a matter of policy.

@ASimmons On your "not a poverty wage" comment, I am in the 89th salary percentile (a fair bit more than the OP's current prospect) however am the sole worker in my household (my partner cannot work due to ill health). I have two young children to support. Whilst I am fortunate to earn a salary higher than most, it is a struggle to stretch it to the end of the month. The question makes reference to the OP's personal situation, therefore you cannot state that this is not a poverty wage when although I am not a single parent, it is easy, at least for me, to see the difficulties they may face.

There is no reason why a post doc cannot be appointed at a higher point on the spine if there is money there, that said, rarely is there money available. The number of people doing multiple post docs in the UK is smaller than in the US, and they usually stay at the same school. That means they often can be appointed to a higher grade. Therefore grants for post docs usually budget for the lowest salary and normal progression. A school or university funded postion would have more flexibility, but the head of school is not going to authorize more money from their budget.
I would not bring up the salary until after an offer is made. Once an offer is made, it cannot really hurt to say "hey, I deserve to be at the top of the scale since ...". They will then laugh and say you are right, but that is all they can offer.

Nice answer (+1), though I think there is a danger in waiting until after an offer is made.  In my personal opinion, it is better to put forward expectations up front.  There is also an "anchoring" effect in making it clear up front that you are worth more than the lowest offer.  I would think that once they make you an offer at the lowest level, it is probably hard to negotiate up.

@Ben the negotiations are not going to be successful. If you have minimum requirements for an offer, then state those up front and don't waste people's time. If you will take the lowest offer under the right circumstances, then don't shoot yourself in the foot,

The number of people doing multiple post docs in the UK is smaller than in the US, citation needed.  My anecdotal evidence says the opposite (UK group with 10 postdocs at a department with ~120 postdocs).

@gerrit I cannot give you a citation, but in my field in the US it is unheard of to go straight from a PhD to a faculty position while in the UK pepe often do. Someone with 5 years of post doc experience would almost be guaranteed a faculty position in the UK.

@StrongBad Maybe we're experienced with entirely different fields. I know plenty of people with >10 years of postdoc experience who are not competitive for lectureships / faculty positions.

I would love to see a citation for the claim that “grants for post docs usually budget for the lowest salary and normal progression” because this contradicts my experience 100%. This whole answer seems to effectively say that you shouldn’t bother negotiating since it won’t work. Again, this is completely contradicted by my experience, and seems like bad advice.

Yes, you can negotiate your salary …
I, and several of my friends, successfully negotiated an increased initial postdoc salary in the UK.
… but it’s hard
First off, the timing is awkward: It’s altogether common to start your postdoc work without a contract in hand. At this point your chance for negotiation is effectively over (or at least greatly diminished). Many postdocs even start without having formally defended their PhD, which makes negotiation even harder (because your previous salary is very low, and you don’t yet have the degree, which determines the salary).
In addition, there isn’t a good time during the interview to bring up the salary. This is also true in industry but it’s even harder in postdoc interviews: depending on the circumstances there might not even be a formal interview.1 My advice is to bring it up before you commit, even hypothetically, to starting the postdoc. This may seem obvious but it’s not.
Secondly, you are negotiating with two distinct parties: your prospective group leader, who will also be your line manager, as well as the University’s HR department.
In my experience, your future PI is probably happy to support your demands, if they’re at all interested in hiring you. In fact, if the PI is blocking the salary negotiation I’d count that as a major red flag.
The University HR department, on the other hand, aims to keep cost low. They want you to justify every single increase. I had it easy, I was able to provide a salary statement from my previous “bridging postdoc”, which happened to be outrageously high by UK standards.2 Prepare to provide an extensive record of your work experience prior to, during and after your PhD. This seems to be the single most relevant argument for an increased starting salary scale point.
The easiest way of increasing your starting salary would be to get hired as a senior postdoc. But this effectively requires either extensive previous postdoctoral experience (which you don’t seem to have), or the support of your former PI; and your future line manager will still need to provide compelling reasons to HR.
You should negotiate your salary
Universities don’t really expect postdocs to negotiate their salaries. They expect them to accept whatever offer lands on their table. Some institutes3 go to great lengths to avoid having to negotiate, for instance by billing the postdoc as a “postdoctoral trainee”, rather than a full fellowship or research position, or by refusing to acknowledge relevant work experience before the completion of the PhD.4
I find this unacceptable, and strongly recommend pushing back. Prepare to walk away from an offer that refuses to acknowledge your work experience in a salary negotiation, or which pretend that you’re still a “trainee” after ten years5 of University education. This isn’t being “materially minded”, it’s valuing your own worth. Postdoctoral salaries in the UK are low enough as it is, compared to cost of living. Other European countries pay a lot more.
In sum, I strongly advise everybody looking for a postdoc to negotiate their starting salary.

1 For the position that I ended up accepting, I didn’t have a formal interview: I met the PI pre-interview and then scheduled a separate day to present my research to his group, and talk to its members, without the PI present at any point. After that I got a formal offer by letter. Luckily I had already mentioned the salary to the PI beforehand. So when I received the offer which put me into the minimum salary point, I replied to HR (CC’ing the PI) with my demands.
2 I did the bridging postdoc in the UK but working for an international organisation so I was paid a salary that’s competitive internationally, which the UK postdoc salary is decidedly not (my bridging postdoc salary was ~ 38k GBP; for comparison, the starting postdoc salary at the University of Cambridge was ~ 29k GBP at the time).
3 E.g. the Francis Crick Institute in London. Shame on them.
4 Even if you have several years’ worth of relevant work experience pre-PhD, the Crick Institute’s internal rules ignore this for the purpose of salary calculations.
5 Assuming undergrad, master & PhD.

HR will often tell a PI that the appointment should be at spine point X+3 and ignore the fact that there is only enough grant money for an appointment at X.  I have never felt bad about blocking the salary demands. The grant is what it is and the offer is what it is. I feel bad that I can only ask for so much grant funding in my field, but that is a hard battle to fight.

@StrongBad Sure, there needs to be money for it but my experience somewhat contradicts yours (this is probably field specific): grants budget for bigger salaries, it’s HR which blocks this increase. This was explicitly the case for me.

@StrongBad makes a point that deserves emphasizing: if a position is paid out of grant funding, the total pot of money available for salary is often fixed. So, negotiating salary up may imply negotiating contract length down...

@avid As mentioned in my previous comment, in my experience the grant size is hardly ever the limiting factor. Furthermore, there’s other sources of money. If a PI wants to hire you, they may have ways of finding more money (that’s their job, after all). They may not be able to, of course. But this will be made clear during the negotiation. It never hurts to bring the question up.

@KonradRudolph The PI job is (a) to propose research, (b) to find funding and (c) to make research happen. At the interview stage, (a) and (b) are done. Finding extra money takes extra time and may delay the production of actual results.

I have not been on a hiring committee in academia, so take my answer with a grain-of-salt.  However, I see no particular reason that an applicant could not negotiate their starting-point in a salary scale if the applicant has appropriate qualifications/experience to justify being on the high end of the scale.  Universities hire new staff at all sorts of levels, and if they are willing to hire staff across different Grade levels, there is no reason to think that they would be unwilling to hire across different scale levels within a Grade level, particularly if it allows them to attract a good hire.  (Bear in mind that there may be budget constraints that constrain what the panel can offer, but if they advertise a particular salary range, they should be able to make offers in that range.)
If you have not previously worked as a postdoc or equivalent, then it is likely that you will not be able to make a strong case for a higher level on the scale.  In that case, it is probably not a good idea to seek a higher offer, and it may come off badly for you.  However, if you already have substantial experience at this level of appointment (e.g., having done a postdoc or equivalent at another university), and you are close to the requirements of a Grade 8 hire, then you could point out your additional experience and skills, and seek an offer at the higher end of the Grade 7 scale.  Basically, if you want to seek an offer at the high end of the scale, you need to be an applicant who is close to meeting the requirements of a hire at the next grade level.  Be clear about this, and make sure you have judged things correctly, and can back this up.
If this is a situation where you think you might be a good enough candidate to be given an offer at the higher end of that scale, you should obtain a copy of the university's position descriptions of what it expects from a Grade 7 academic and what it expects from a Grade 8 academic.  Check with the specific university you are applying for, but here is an example of grade descriptions from the University of Edinburgh.  Once you have this information, you now have a basis for determining whether you are near to meeting the requirements for a Grade 8 appointment .  If you are close to these requirements (by the university's own description) then that would make a reasonable case for seeking an offer at the high end of Grade 7.
One final piece of advice: if you are considering doing this, make sure you look at it from the University's point of view.  Don't think about it from the point of view of your needs (single parent, kids, expensive area); think about it from the point of view of the University's needs.  What is so great about you that you would be the exception here; the person who comes at the mid-level or high-level on the scale?  What sets you apart from the other applicants they will get, that shows that you are much closer to a Grade 8 hire?  If you can answer these questions soundly, then you have a reasonable case for seeking a higher offer.  If not, it is probably best not to do that.
My personal experience: In academia I came in at the bottom of the pay scale.  However, I have personally applied for a position (outside of academia) where I made it clear at the interview that I would consider an offer at the top of the available salary scale.  This was a case where I was applying for a position for which I had very high qualifications and experience, and I was already working in another job that paid more.  I had a nice interview with the hiring panel, and I explained to them that I was interested in their work, but that even at the top of the pay scale they were offering, it would be a small pay-cut for me relative to my existing position.  I told them I would be willing to consider an offer at the top of their pay scale, since I liked the sound of the work they were doing.  Two days later I got an offer at the top of the pay scale (a small pay cut, but a move I was happy with) and I was working there within a week.

In my experience (having had a couple of these positions) the bottom of the range is what you should expect if you're coming straight from a PhD, and then you would normally progress one point on the salary scale each year (the top salary listed is seven points higher than the low end, but some universities don't use all the points on the scale, in which case you can progress faster).
If you're coming from another postdoc, they may well start you at the point which matches the amount of experience you have, i.e. one point higher for every year of experience. I think this tends to happen (or not) as a matter of policy and so I wouldn't anticipate much room for negotiation, although I've never tried to negotiate so I can't be sure how it would be perceived.

I moved UK institutions with 5 years of postdoc experience and had my salary matched. I did ask for it and don't know if it would have happened without me asking, but there was no issue with that. The listed salary range is what they are willing to pay - I have seen some postdoc positions where the cap is lower due to funding restrictions.

During the selection process you interact with academics. The terms of your contract, including the starting salary, are prepared and signed by the HR department.
The relations between academic administration (e.g. Head of Department) and HR varies from place to place but I have not yet seen a University in the UK where this relation is described as ideal. It is quite usual that the HoD / selection panel is sympathetic to the arguments about the unique experience or particular life situation, but HRs would make a decision based on the specific rules they have.
The rules depend on where the funding is coming from. If the post is created by the Department, HoD / selection panel usually can suggest the salary that will be accepted. If the post is funded by the University, you will be likely offered a salary one spinal point above the final salary of your previous academic employment or the starting rate if it is your first postdoc. If the post is funded externally (e.g. via UKRI), the same rules apply within the additional restrictions imposed by limited grant budget.
To answer your question, salary negotiation in the UK is limited compared to e.g. US. In most cases, University matches or slightly increases the applicant's current salary.

You don't mention your discipline; my own is the physical sciences, and this may be somewhat subject-specific.
Regardless of how much experience you have and how much you deserve a salary higher than the base rate, the key question is where the money is coming from. Postdocs are almost invariably hired from grants that have already been awarded, hence from a pot of money whose size cannot be changed. (Many funders are strict about the categories in which money can be spent: that is, if I have been awarded £100k for personnel and £100k for consumables, it could be difficult or impossible for me instead to spend £150k on personnel and £50k on consumables.) So the only way to hire you on a higher salary may be to hire you for a shorter period of time.
If you want to go down that road, you might be able to argue that your greater experience is such that the project will benefit more from having you for 1.5 years than someone else for 2. (Perhaps you can complete the work faster, or help support more junior members of the group, or even apply for further funding as a named investigator to continue the work beyond the current grant.)
I disagree that trying to negotiate is necessarily a red flag, but you may look a little naive if you don't appear to appreciate budgetary constraints. But I think it would be perfectly acceptable to ask at interview how the post fits into the context of the grant; whether there is the budget to potentially renew it after X years or to hire at a higher grade; and so on.
Good luck!

Mostly correct, but it's normally equally difficult to pay someone more for a shorter period - if you received funding for a postdoc for 3 years, most funders expect to see you employing a postdoc for 3 years, not a senior postdoc for 2.5 or an RA for 4. This varies by funder, though.

I've seen ads with that explicitly said that the position was either senior postdoc for 18 months or junior postdoc for 24 months (or something along those lines).

Having said that, there is often a delay in hiring which can work in the postdocs advantage. For some grants, the university may only advertise the position after the contract has been signed, which might be after the project has already started officially. That means it may be 2–5 months after the  project official start, that a postdoc would start. That means the position will be shorter, which means there should be some spare money in the budget to pay a little extra, and you may or may not be able to negotiate this extra money arguing you're doing the same work in less time.

+1 on this. Here in Canada, only within the past decade have some institutions acknowledged that Post Docs are legally "employees"; they were previously held to be "trainees" along with grad students. Their pay is strictly pass-through grant funds and the institutions consider it a great risk that they may be held accountable for benefits or other payments to them, for which there is no budgeted money. It would be entirely appropriate for a prospective PostDoc to inquire about the source of funds from which their pay will come.

Discipline specific advice klaxon: applicable to Bio-molecular science type fields (Mol Biol, biochem, genetics, genomics etc)
All employees at the vast majority of UK universities are paid on a single, nationally negotiated pay spine (although I recently learned that imperial is an exception to this). Your pay will be at some point on that spine.
The vast majority of postdocs will be funded from a UKRI project grant. When you apply for a grant to have to say, up to a year in advance of actually hiring, what you will pay the postdoc. Most university finance departments will encourage PIs to put point 2 or 3 on the universities Postdoc pay grade and then hire at point 1. The extra points are to cover the fact that there will almost certainly be an uplift in salaries on the national spine between applying for the grant and appointing someone. The money you are given then accounts for the fact the postdoc is expected to advance one salary point per year of employment.
However, once the funding agency gives you the grant you are not allowed to spend money earmarked for other things on salary, although you are allowed to spend less.
Now there is no reason when you apply for a grant to only apply for the lowest point on the pay grade. In my last grant we asked for enough money to appoint at point 5 because we were looking for some particularly rare skills. However, if you ask for too much the granting body is liable to reduce what you've asked for, or worst deny you the grant on a value for money basis.
The salary range in the Ad will be referring to the whole of grade 7 (look about the same as grade 7 at my uni). It shows the range of salaries you could conceivably get at the uni if you stayed long enough.
So by all means try to negotiate your salary. But don't be surprised if you just get a flat out no. That may not be because the PI doesn't want to pay more, but simply that their grant won't allow it.

On occasions I and my PI managed to roll an extra point on the scale when moving to a new contract. The thing to watch is hitting the top of RA I (possibly called something else now) as unlike lecturer A/B there is no automatic promotion, so you need to start applying for grade II jobs to get a raise after that.
After 14 years I made it to grade III but HR refused to consider a grade IV appointment despite the grade existing.
So my advice is to ask for a raise with each and every reappointment (even if changing institutions) some one has to compensate for the short term nature of your employment.

I recently did this.
This was my first post doc after my phd and I have yet to do my viva.
I asked when I was offered the position where I could be in the scale and manged to get a position mid point on the band.

My experience is in the US and with a different sort of job, but it may help give you something to think about. First, if you are to get anything beyond the minimum, the institution has to really want you. But they have limitations in what is possible, even then.
However, there is more to life than salary. You might be more successful in negotiating other things that will amount to increased pay. You might, depending on your field, need lab space or an allowance for journals or publication fees and the like. In my case, I once asked for a quite high salary and mentioned that the reason for the request was that I have very high standards for cooperative work with colleagues around the world and so have high travel costs, beyond what most places normally pay. They suggested a lower salary but promised to cover a substantial part of my travel. My request was valid and the university followed through on their commitment, so it worked out well. It turned out that the additional travel funds weren't taxable to me also, so another win.
Think about the whole picture, not just salary, but office, etc., maybe even housing.


text:
Is it bad to copy and paste from your SoP to other questions on a grad school app?
There was one school that asked to explain any breaks in university enrollment. Well I took a year off and was really active in research so I talk about that in my SoP. The question asked to explain any breaks, which I did thoroughly in my SoP. I just copied and pasted the part from my SoP where I talk about it and add a line or two of context before it. I didn't even think about it. Looking back I should have thought about it.
Did I do a bad thing? Will this come off as lazy? The passage stands on its own, IMO.

Well, eventually this is an opinion poll but I would predict the odds is at your good side. I've been reading many application packages in a graduate school and situations like yours do not bother me for the following reasons:

The statement of purpose is supposed to be the best thought out piece of your application. For that reason I think it's sensible to reuse the materials.
You have slightly revised the passage by adding some contents to the beginning to make the whole answer stand alone fine. That shows thoughtfulness.
Some committee members may even advocate for you for being able to include some crucial information in the statement of purpose without being asked.

So, I don't think it's a deal breaker. If you want to tackle this kind of situations more confidently, provide a shorter synopsis in the short answer, and note that a detailed description of the leave is included in the statement of purpose. This would improve the coherence between the application components.
Good luck.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Academic life in China
I was offered a tenure track assistant professor position in China. However, I am not familiar with the admin culture and academic environment of China. Is it difficult to cope with the university admin in China? Does the acadmics 'interact' with peers and students differently in China? More importantly, is it going to be a very steep transition in migrating to a Chinese university?
Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks!

Of possible interest: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/104541/20058 https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/108041/20058 https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/27553/20058 https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/67163/20058

Look for posts in this forum from the user "Scientist". He is an expert.

This question seems far too broad to have a useful answer.

Why not take it as something challenging for personal growth. If you don't like you can always move back to where you are right now. You will be an expert to answer what you are asking, and there is nothing to loose.

I think you have a few important questions.  Foremost, I am assuming you know the language -- to what extent do you know Chinese culture?  The transition will be very steep if you do not understand the cultural nuances of all aspects of living and working in China.  Indeed, from a Western standpoint, the interactions between students and faculty are much different.  And, the interactions between faculty and staff are also different.  As you consider the options, I would find out what criteria are used for promotion, and whether you must publish in certain journals on certain lists.  I don't know where you have done your training.  If your training is in a Western university, you may experience a very steep transition if you are unfamiliar with Chinese culture, practices, and norms.

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


text:
Voting by faculty after a Search Committee recommends a candidate for a TT hire
How are candidates for tenure-track positions/hires voted on after interviews and the search committee recommendation? (I am especially interested in R1 procedures.)

It depends. Each department will do it differently. In my old department, each person got an acceptable or unacceptable vote by the full faculty. However the search committee ordered the acceptable candidates for offers. In my new department, there is a full vote on who should be number one.

I know there is not one answer to this, but I think we could answer it because there are only a few common scenarios.

Would assume R1 indicates US?

To the OP, I add "united states" tag based on "R1". If your question is not about US job search, please roll back my change. Thanks.

@Dawn Thanks for pointing it out. I made an edit to specify the country.

I'm sure it varies from one place to another. In my experience, our search committee (TT position at an R1) had to come to an agreed upon decision in terms of the order in which we were going to recommend candidates (#1, #2, #3). From there, our recommendation had to be approved by the dean of our college, and from there the offer was made.
If you're asking about what criteria a committee uses for recommending candidates, a lot of aspects are weighed: how the campus visit went - particularly the research presentation, publication record/plans, does this candidate's research align with and complement what the department already offers or is there too much overlap with other faculty, can we see this person fitting in our department, can they teach what we need them to teach, etc. Ultimately, however, the big question is always: who is most likely to stick around and manage to get tenure according to our standards? In other words, who's the safest investment?

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


text:
My paper was under awaiting reviewer assignment then awaiting ed final processing. What does this indicate?
I have submitted a research paper in Elsevier journal. After 18 days the status was "Awaiting Reviewer Assignment". And after 4 months the status changed to "awaiting EIC decision". And now statues is "awaiting ed final processing". Can anybody please tell me what does it indicate?

@scaaahu It seems that in the current case, the paper did not go under the normal review process.  I could not guess what this possibly means.

@PsySp There is a section "Editorial decision" in the answer of the linked question.

@scaaahu Yes. But this is a follow-up step of the review process. From the OP's comment, it is not obvious that reviewers assessed the paper. At least not all invited reviewers. Also notice that two different things: It is one things "awaiting Editor's decision" and another "EiC" decision.

@PsySp I think you're right. "Under Review" is missing before "awaiting EIC decision". I missed it when I read the question. Thanks. I retracted my close vote and deleted the dup message. Hopefully someone can come up with a reasonable explanation. Thanks again.

@scaaahu My only guess is that the Editor invited some reviewers, not all of which accepted. This caused the system to stuck in "Awaiting reviewer Assignment". Then, the other reviewers submitted their reviews and the Editor decided to go with these reviews only. So, now it's in the normal process of the Editor assessing the reviews. If this makes sense, Ic an post it as an answer.


text:
I submitted a bbsrc fellowship proposal. Does my institute own this material?
I have applied for a bbsrc fellowship. It was not funded. Now I am leaving this institute. In my contract it is written that all electronic material produced during the working time belongs to them
My question is whether also my fellowship proposal belongs to them and I need to leave copies of the content on their servers. Thank you

Your question is unclear. First, you said "It was not funded.", then you asked "whether also my fellowship belongs to them". Did you get the fellowship?

No. I mean does my institute needs to have a copy of the proposal?

I edited your question to include the word "proposal".

Perhaps you could explain what the word bbsrc means ... or is it an acronym (uppercase?) for something, and if so, what? Don't assume that most readers of academia will know the argot of your particular domain.

IANAL so I can't definitively answer this from a legal point of view.  But I can say that irrespective of whether the institute could legally demand a copy of the fellowship,  they won't do and no one will expect you to leave a copy. Indeed I can almost guarantee that any files you leave in any personal area of the institutional file server will be deleted shortly after you leave (unless special arrangements have been made). If you submitted the fellowship to the BBSRC, this will have been done through Je-S,  and they will have a copy through that process anyway,  if they really cared,  which I'm almost certain they don't.

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


text:
Not willing to pay for a course
Hi please tell me if i'm wrong here, I started a course a few years ago, may be 2.
It was an accountancy course, the ACCA. I left the course after 3 lessons out of 10 as the tutor who was supposed to do the course left on maternity leave and was replaced with a foreign (European) tutor who spoke broken English and all she did was try to make small talk jokes. Now I left the course and explained that this wasn't something that I signed up for and now they want £2300 of me. but I'm refusing to pay. Am I right or wrong and if someone can point me in the correct direction on how to proceed.

I presume you weren't told of the substitution in advance, nor of the lack of qualifications of the replacement. It really isn't fair to bait-and-switch like that.

I think you should pay because you signed up for it. However, you do have the right to file a complaint to the school and tell them you want the money back or re-take the course for free.

I'm not entirely clear on the context here; it might be helpful to know if this course is through a college or a tutoring company or some other entity. Also, is the option available (and acceptable to you) to pay and take the current version of the course?

This seems less like an academic question than a question of contract law.  Nevertheless, for what it's worth, if you are refusing to pay the amount claimed, then presumably the onus will be on the education-provider to sue you for the money, and establish in court that it is a valid debt.  You will have an opportunity to argue that they failed to provide you with the contracted service and that the substituted service was sub-standard.  Whether or not you have a good case will depend on the details of the matter, the specifics of your agreement with the provider, and the commercial laws of the jurisdiction in which this occurred.
If necessary and affordable, you should seek legal advice (from real commercial lawyers - not random guys on academia.SE).

UK common law may proceed differently than US law.

Absolutely - and even within these countries there is not a uniform commercial law (e.g., within the US there are different state laws).  These days most countries have extensive legislation that modifies the common law position, and this generally has some minor differences by jurisdiction.  We would need to know the exact jurisdiction to know what laws apply.


text:
"Upgrading" PhD
I have recently read many questions about doing a second PhD and (to my surprise) most people consider it a bad move. Also - it looks like some universities (for example Berkeley) even have formal policies against it.
I am now finishing two master degrees in Computer Science. My university is #1 in Poland, however in rankings such as QS or THE it's only around the 500-600 range (very low compared to my target).
I planned to apply for a PhD to a top 100 university in the world, and if I failed, then I would first do a PhD in my university and then - empowered with experience, a degree and papers - apply again for another PhD in a top 100 school. If I failed again, then I would do more papers and try again and again and again until success. This way I could "upgrade" my PhD.
This was before I found that there is formal policy against it (in USA, because in Poland no one seems to have any problem with it).
Now I am wondering what my options are. What can I do to maximize my chances of getting into a top 100 university from my position?
One may ask why I would even want to "upgrade" my PhD - I assume that getting a PhD from a widely recognized university will considerably improve my possibilities for working with the best people in the field.

Another option is to do a post-doc instead of a second PhD.

I would not recommend placing a lot of weight on rankings as to a large extent they are pretty much meaningless. The simplest issue being the focus on research while many European Universities exist to teach instead of researching. Research takes place at research institutes - which incidentally feature rather prominently in the Nature ranking based on institution. Then an institution that publishes a lot may be good for publishing and worse for teaching - and vice versa. A lack of publication/research output does not indicate bad teaching.

This would be similar to doing K-12 over again.  By the time you're in high school, you're a much better learner than you were in 1st grade.  You'd waste 13 years doing what could be done in 6 months.

You assumed that having a phd would improve your chances of getting into a phd program. I don't think that's true, personally, I'd find very weird, especially if they are in closely related fields...

By the time you get the first one you don't need the supervision for a second one.  Just get on with your career.

In your last sentence, a more realistic outlook would be had by changing "will considerably improve my possibilities" to "might slightly improve my possibilities".

Life is not MMORPG and PhD programs are not dungeons with loot. Scientists don't form guilds that require high level gear for you to join them in raids.

IMO rankings are among the last things to consider when choosing a place to study/work in, especially if you plan on staying in academia. Instead, make sure you have a good group, establish contacts with the right people (i.e. influential and relevant to your interests enough to write good recommendation letters/coauthor papers with you) and do good work.

If that's available, you can try to find a way to do some research after your masters without enrolling in a PhD program. Once you have a publication or two, your applications to top PhD programs are much more likely to be successful. At the same time you would not waste your time doing multiple PhDs.

Could you clarify: do you mean a second PhD in the same discipline? Or does Berkeley really have a policy against somebody with a PhD in meths getting another in music?

@cfr "University policy prohibits awarding of duplicate degrees. If you have an MBA or comparable degree from an institute of higher education, your application will be ineligible for consideration." Sounds like music is ok.

@spam Thanks. That makes sense. So it is not just 'another PhD' but 'a comparable PhD' which is rather different.

@cfr Yup, but I planned to do exactly same degree

To make a good PhD degree, you do not have to be in the top 100 universities in the world. The high tier journals accepts papers and acknowledges valuable research contributions from all over the world.
Develop the skills you have acquired in your masters, get a highly motivated and experienced supervisor who is interested in your area/you are interested in his, seek good opportunities and move on. You may be surprised to receive invitations for research collaboration from top academics when the quality of your work is unparalleled.
As regards having more than one PhD degree, how many professors with the highest h-index in their fields, have more than one PhD? And there are many 'scholars' who did not finish from the top 100. Besides, there would also be other aspects of life that would require your time after the PhD. So it is essential think and decide well.

Great answer.  It can also be helpful to round yourself out by doing outreach and working on your English and your teaching skills.

All of this is true in theory, but in practice the power of famous names and labels is hard to overemphasize. University name and supervisor name are one of the first filters people apply when considering whether to invite you for a job interview, accept your invitation to collaborate, etc. Coming from nowhere makes it hard to even get your door in the foot (though once you are there, your chances improve). Even at journals, inependent research shows that big names get you more favourable reviews. Moreover, the reseearch enbvironment tends to be richer and more up to date in top institutions.

A student's exceptional research can be judged and appreciated by experts from far and near. Even for the names and labels, in some cases, some of their papers do not get that much citation, since inclining the hearts of the people to cite their research is not in their hands. There are also several excellent academics who are outside the perimeter of the top 100. For anyone who can make it to the big names and labels, then that is fine, so as long as their experience, knowledge and training reflects in the output quality of the students research work.

I considered the second PhD after I graduated with one from Ukraine. Boy am I glad I didn't "upgrade" it!
The problem with the second PhD is that most of it will teach you the things you already know and, given its length, it is most certainly a waste of time. By the time you graduate with the first PhD, you will be about 30. By the time you get your second PhD, you will be about 35. Your employment prospects at 35 without work experience will be questionable no matter how many PhDs you have. Not to mention family considerations.
Another problem is that even top PhDs programs are highly bureaucratic and not very economically efficient compared to post-docs and other employment opportunities so your stipend, if you get any, will be shoe money in a top-100 university town.
By the time you are done even with your first PhD, the expectations of you will be much higher than now. "Getting into top..." will not be good enough anymore. More likely you will be expected to "create the top", or even tougher "create the only" to get a high salary, recognition, or profit.

"shoe money"? I can infer the meaning, but I've never heard this expression.

You shouldn't focus too much on university ranking, but focus more on the quality of your advisor.
In the end, your publications are what really matters. If you have great publications at A and A* conferences, nobody cares about the ranking of your university. Has the advisor published at high-quality conferences and can teach you how to write a paper that gets accepted there? Does he have the travel budget to send you there if you get a paper accepted? Will you have enough time to work on your research or will you be busy teaching all the time?
Even in the top 100, don't expect that all departments are great. Most universities have some professors, that are doing great work and are well respected within their community.
At the same time: If you have very good general computer science knowledge, even without any papers, I don't think you will have problems finding a PhD position at a Top100 in western Europe. (UK, Germany, Sweden, France, Norway, etc.)

My PhD is from a 600-700 school, and my postdoc and first research scientist positions were both in top-10 institutions. I work alongside many people from lesser-known schools, but alongside none with two PhDs.
My point here: another degree is not the only, or the most common, way to climb.
Buuuut... My time in these institutions has really tempered my belief the "the best work" is done here. The reward structure at "the top" encourages flashy work, and discourages both acknowledging mistakes and collaborating with the most qualified people. Some good work is done, certainly, but is it not as big a difference as I had hoped.
I am now considering a couple TT positions, and finding one with strong colleagues in a 500-600 school more appealing than one with a weaker group at a top 50 school.

I agree. My phd is from a 350-350th University. My first postdoc was at a top 3 university. It's important to see a PhD as the beginning of your journey, not the end. My advice: 1)  Take every opportunity that comes your way and do your best with it. 2) Learns the skills (not necessarily knowledge) that is sought after in your field. I agree also that the quality outside the top 100 can easily rival the big institutions.

If you want to get into a better PhD program, the usual thing to do is to do a masters or work in a research lab and try to publish some papers. Doing multiple PhDs is not a reasonable approach.
Ultimately, you need to figure out what aspect of your application needs improvement and then work on that. Do you need more coursework to build the right background? Do you need research experience? Do you need better recommendation letters?
I would also emphasize that university rankings should be viewed with healthy skepticism. It matters more what you do and who your advisor/supervisor is. You should be able to judge the quality of a PhD without resorting to crude measures like the University's ranking.

I don't know that the top 100 is that impenetrable first of all, at least to the point that you'd need publications to even get in even near the end of the list. Things like test scores and recommendations will counter your prior school ranking. Work on getting those in place.
A much better option (than a "first doctorate" which I'd also advise against) would be work experience. You can get a job as a research assistant at a university (doing essentially the same research as a grad student). Given that you have a Master's degree in the subject (er two of them) you would presumably be able to work fairly independently as well, if you found the right fit. And now you have star recommendation #1 when you move to the next step. I know multiple people who followed this path.
In computer science you can also go directly into industry. The lines of such applied fields are quite blurred these days between industry and research. You could find a job doing cutting-edge work in the area of your research interest, and even present at conferences. If it's a large company they may fund your studies.
Generally in technical areas, (a few years of) industry experience is viewed highly in grad school admissions. While a prior doctorate would look strange. Imagine a job where the requirement is only an undergraduate degree, yet you have a person with a PhD applying. It looks like the person is discounting all their additional training and skills.

I have 8 years of commercial experience as software engineer, but why would university even care about it? I thought that they care only about papers.

@spam papers are not generally expected of applicants to grad school. Though research experience is extremely valuable to have. Industry experience is valued for multiple reasons. The most obvious being that your adviser gets a highly skilled student that can help advance the adviser's research agenda greatly.

Your advisor and their contributions to your field of work is much more important than the ranking of your school. Having a good advisor and a good relationship with them is key to being successful at the graduate level (which you probably already know). When potential employers or future collaborators investigate you prior to hiring/collaborating, they will look for the quality of your work, quality of your advisor's work, and the advisor's standing in the field. A good/great researcher can work at a good/ok school.

I have done 2 PhDs, and had very good reasons for that. But lets say it was very intense, as I had spend about 3 years for each for very reasons listed in answers above - to still be young enough in the end to get good employment chances. The second time around was extremely hard in the end, when you have to deal with bureaucratic hell, exams, job hunting and finalizing thesis all over again... the second time.
So its possible and doable, but I personally recommend thinking very hard how necessary is it for your career. And also how would you answer question on why did you need two PhDs, as it will be the first one you would receive in every single job interview.

Honest answer is: I want two PhDs because I simply like to learn and also I perceive PhD as accomplishment and that's what I would say on interview. I am currently doing 2 master degrees while working full-time. I already have 8 years or commercial experience. I am sure that I could do two PhDs while still working full-time too.

Your reasoning is very valid, and of course its doable and everything. Just think it all over very hard. Also consider, that having 2 PhD might make you overqualified for some jobs. And good luck in any case!

@spam I don't think one can do a PhD on the side and work full time. As a PhD student you are absolutely expected to work full time on your PhD. Which in many cases that goes well above a 'normal' 40h work week... It's not like studying for a degree! You will be doing research. It's a very hard job.

@spam you don't need to accumulate PhDs just because you "like to learn". I've spent around 40 years learning continuously learning "new stuff" while working in industry, and I don't have even one PhD. The numerical methods that I now use in day-to-day work (writing software for engineering analysis applications) didn't even exist (and weren't considered worth researching, since "everybody" knew they were nice in theory but wouldn't work in practice) when I started my career. Typically I spend 5 - 10 hours a week reading papers in academic journals to keep up with the state of the art!


text:
My advisor escalated things after not getting a coauthorship he did not deserve
I am a 3rd year PhD Student (Computer Science, India). I have two advisors, one internal and one external.
The internal advisor has no knowledge of my area and he doesn’t care what I am doing. He has no contribution to my research so far, but he keeps forcing me to make him co-author (2nd author) of my papers. I am a part-time PhD student (full time faculty in my college) in my college and he is my colleague. He has contributed nothing, did not even know title of my paper.
The external advisor is the one who actually helps me with my research. He wants all authorship to be based on contribution. He is external to my college and lives in a different city.
Recently I refused to make my internal advisor second author of a paper. Due to this, he got upset and he wrote in my progress report that I have attitude problem and I don’t obey my advisor. Now I have to stand in front of the dean, head of department and the entire committee (my advisor will also be there in the meeting with me).
Should I tell the monitoring committee about how my internal advisor unethically tried to manipulate me? Can it worsen the situation in future?

For something like this - at least in the UK - there is a postgraduate research tutor who is meant to be an impartial external. And to be honest, sending you to the Dean because you don't name him as an author seems a bit extreme - have there been other issues in the past?

Would moving to your external advisor's university be an option?

Is your internal advisor funding your research and providing the equipment?  My understanding is that in some fields the head of the lab is expected to be listed as an author (often in a specific way, like being last author, that makes the role clear).

Related: What should I do if my advisor insists on being first author, in violation of my field's conventions?

I think the problem here is a cultural one.  Even if you pull up the co-authorship policy, it won't make any difference.  It's possible the committee will simply follow the norm cultural wise as opposed to what the policy says.  If you are in Australia, the co-authorship policy rules.

How are 'attitude problem' and not obeying your adviser a 'crime'?  In my university, there is a 'co-authorship policy', which clearly states that any co-authors must have made significant intellectual contributions.  If such a policy exists at your university, I would bring it to support your case.

If you're fronting the committee because of supposedly poor progress, then I would gather as much evidence as possible to support your case. For example, your communication with your external adviser, papers published, etc.

I suggest you change the supervisor. The situation will definitely get worst because it looks like the internal adviser is unethical.  He/she will 'burn you alive'.

In a lot of places/subjects it is also common for supervisors to be listed on the paper - in fact, that is the only style I have seen/encountered.
(Though supervisors tend to come last)

@DetlevCM: That does not necessarily make this ethical or acceptable. Also, in many fields, it is the norm that advisors actually do contribute to papers in a way that entitles them to authorship, but that does not mean that they are made coauthors because they were advisors.

As a sidenote: If your university/department honours authorship standards, you could amass proof that your interal advisor forced you to make you a coauthor despite having no contribution. The latter is usually difficult to prove but not so, if your internal advisor has no knowledge of your area and is not interested in your work (as you describe).

To survive on longer time spans, point 3 is a must..

First off, you need an ally.  Perhaps your external advisor?
Second, you can provide information without getting defensive, and without going on the offensive.  Your tack should be to be baffled as to why you are there.  But baffled in a calm way.
When you let them know about the strange behavior of the internal advisor in this calm way I'm suggesting, it will be almost like speaking to them in code.
It will help if you go in there assuming that at least one member of the monitoring committee is a smart, ethical person who will interpret your code language correctly, and help you in a well-thought-out way.
If things don't go as you hope -- you can always back down and include the internal advisor's name on the paper.

Many answers here focus on the issue of authorship, rather than what I expect your real dilemma is, what should you say when you meet the Dean.
You have two options really - stand up and fight for what you believe in, or back down and try to keep the peace.
The fact that you even have to contemplate the latter shows what an utter mess young PhDs find themselves in these days. You are three years in, and he holds all the cards whilst you hold none. ...right?
Wrong! If you think it looks bad not to get your name on student's paper, imagine how bad it looks when word gets out that you refused a PUBLISHING student a PhD after three years because they claim their supervisor didn't put enough effort in to be a named author. You are calling the shots here. Go with your gut, because sometimes crappy old wooden bridges need to get burned.

This advice might be just, but dangerous. An individual who plans to challenge someone with more power should have a plan beyond "Go with your gut" (unless they literally have nothing to lose, which is not the case here.)

Being cautious is a luxury of the powerful, not powerless. It feels very cliche to quote The Art Of War in academia.so, but if confronted with a more powerful adversary, try to avoid a fight. If you cannot avoid the fight, do not attack half-heartedly so that he may pity you at the end of battle.

This advice is very dangerous, especially considering the fact that the OP is studying in India.

Your refusal to make him co-author could be perceived as an escalation itself from his perspective. We don't know the way you expressed yourself when you told him you wouldn't do it (in social situations, often the way things are said matters much more than what was actually said).
His decision to escalate even more up might go in many different directions due to multiple circumstances (rules, people in position of power, clout, etc.), so it's a bit difficult to be completely sure of what is the best course of action for you.
He might be doing this to intimidate you into complying with his demands. Which, in turn has at least two possible ramifications:

He knows the organization well and believes he will get to frame the situation in a way that you are to be considered wrong (either his colleagues will support him regardless of him being right or what you did breaks an unwritten rule, so the dean will support him no matter what).
He doesn't realize or refuses to admit he is being unethical and the support of his peers is not guaranteed, so, in a way, he could be assuming he will be considered right by default or seniority or even that now that he involved big wigs you will get scared, ask forgiveness and comply.

Now for the proper advice:

Read them university policies and rules, if they don't say you have this obligation, then you don't. If they say you have to do it, then apologise and tell them you didn't know about the rules. But do read the other advices below.
If there is no policy forcing you to to do as the internal advisor says, make your case to the monitoring committee, that is: talk your external advisor into interceding in your favour either by telling them himself or exposing your discussions with him about the work and organize any other evidence you have that the internal advisor is not contributing to this particular work otherwise it's just your word versus his word, be as polite as you can possibly be.
Your external advisor is not a neutral party, after all he told you: 'authorship should be based on contribution'. He will be a co-author, so what does the external advisor means by authorship based on contribution? I have the impression he doesn't want the internal advisor to have his name in this work, maybe the two of them had a falling out? Take care to not be in the crossfire if this is a feud.
Whatever the outcome, to change internal advisor like @Prof. Santa Claus says is one of the safest things you can do to protect yourself after you talk to the committee. You have no guarantee that whatever the outcome, this advisor won't be out for blood and try to make your life miserable.

Imho, If someone is leading you (i.e. "supervising" you), then he should be a co-author of any your work by definition. In my university, I can not image a situation when student's supervisor would not be his co-author. In a worst case scenario, he is at least supporting your work financially and
organizationally, isn't he?
In general, I am agree that it is a common bad practice, when a supervisor, especially in a big group, is not involve in the particular project too much. But, I am more then sure, that he is at least checking the initial ideas or the selling packages to the journals. Could it be that you know your part very well, but you are misunderstand the complexity of the supervisor's "businesses"?

Which field do you work in? For many fields it would be the exact opposite?

curiousdannii, I am working in area of cognitive science, in one of West European universities. I am not sure about other fields, but no-one really knows what is happening somewhere beyond his area.

This is very field specific and location specific, and it is unfortunate that the answer is given as a generalized claim.  For example, in math, it is very rare for an adviser to be automatically on papers, and in fact often the opposite: frequently a point is made that papers in grad school connected to one's PhD in math will not have the adviser's name.


text:
Can UK PhD studentships legally effectively bar EU applicants by stating that "all eligible applicants must also have been resident in the UK"?
I am aware that many UK PhD studentships are only open to UK/EU applicants (question 1, question 2).  In my understanding, they cannot (pre-Brexit) legally discriminate between EU and UK applicants, but they can bar non-EU applicants.  But
my eyes fell upon eligibility requirements for this University of Newcastle PhD studentship, emphasis and link mine, which effectively bars EU applicants, too:

This studentship is available to UK applicants and EU applicants with settled status in the UK, meaning they have no restrictions on how long they can stay. All eligible applicants must also have been ‘ordinarily resident’ in the UK for 3 years prior to the start of the studentship, and not been residing in the UK wholly or mainly for the purpose of full-time education.

Such an additional requirement effectively discriminates between UK and EU applicants.  The vast majority of EU applicants will not have been also resident in the UK for 3 years prior to the start of the studentship, or if they have, have been so for the purposes of education.  Even some UK citizens will be ineligible if they spent any time studying abroad.
Is such discrimination between UK and EU applicants legal under EU law?  It would appear to effectively amount to the same as stating "Europeans need not apply" by different means.

Good question. I think this requirement dates least as far back as 1995. As far as I recall an EU national would qualify for a 'fees only' studentship but no maintenance grant unless they were ordinarily resident in the UK.

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a request for a legal opinion about the actual state of things.

Note that whether or not you consider it discrimination, it's the funding body and not the university that's to blame.  Your quote doesn't appear at the UCL link you give, but similar wording appears in the second paragraph under "UK/EU candidates".  The very next paragraph starts "If you are from the EU but do not meet residency requirements, your fees are still set at the EU/UK rate, but you do not qualify for full STFC support. We normally have a limited number of departmental (non-STFC) studentships that will pay both EU/UK fees and maintenance. "

Yes they can. They do. Before Brexit those grant existed. They dont discriminate the acceptance, its the funding that can get limited. In the same way that Marie Courie PhD fellowship (EU funded) do this, you can not have lived in the country in the last 3 years to get them.

@ChrisH I mixed up different pages I looked at.  I fixed the link now, it was a University of Newcastle ad, and the link matches the quote now.  Corrected.

@gerrit that one isn't so clear, but I think the same applies -- the funding body (a UK government agency) makes the rules.  And employment legislation doesn't apply to studentships, making everything very confusing. In this case (unlike the previous UCL link) the studentship is part of a funded project so departmental funding can't be used instead for non-eligible students.

@ChrisH It is confusing. Which is why I asked the question. I had not seen this before.

You have answered your own question in the question: states can (under EU law) put conditions on, e.g., funding, based on residence, but not based on citizenship. As UK citizens who are not ordinarily resident would not be eligible for this funding, this does not discriminate on citizenship, so this is legal (*).
Anecdotally, in my experience a low single-digit percentage of "UK" applicants fail the ordinarily resident test, and I have seen at my institution roughly 5 students over the past 10 years refused funding from similar sources for this reason.
(*) I am definitely not a lawyer: the case law around ordinarily resident status shows that this issue is not unique to universities.

Neither your answer nor (contrary to what you said) the question offer any evidence that discrimination based on place of residence is actually legal. I agree with OP that this certainly appears to be de facto discrimination against EU citizens. In fact, it’s eerily similar to Trump’s embarrassingly transparent disguise for his “Muslim ban”. I’d love to see some actual evidence for the legality.

Discrimination laws generally restrict policies that have a disparate impact on a protected class, even if they do not explicitly discriminate. A policy against headscarves, for instance, would generally be considered discrimination against Muslims, even if Christians were also prohibited from wearing them.

The problem in this case in determining if it's legal is that it's a UK government body which is discriminating, and it's backed up by UK legislation (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/779/regulation/6/made). Is this law compatible with EU law? To my non legally trained eye it seems pretty shaky, but as far as I can tell, it's not been challenged in the decade since it was introduced, and the UK government obviously believes it to be legal.

@Acccumulation Bad phrasing on my part: yes, this isn’t discrimination in that sense (“discrimination” legally only applies to certain characteristics). But it still seems to make illegal distinctions between EU and UK applicants in the sense of this question (at least in the spirit of the law, but potentially not in enforceably).


text:
What excellent university DSP programs exist and what makes them excellent?
In the same vein as this question, but making sure to abide by Good Subjective/Bad Subjective, what DSP programs are out there that are excellent and why?
Please give concrete examples or at least a cursory explanation for what makes them good/thorough, and stand out from other programs at different universities.

@CharlesMorisset Hi Charles. Honestly, not really... I want to know what good universities exist for Digital Signal Processing (DSP), and what makes them good. To be frank I am surprised it has been migrated to here to be honest, since dsp.SE has the requisite people who would actually know. I would not mind making it clearer vis-a-vis DSP, but that is honestly my question.

@CharlesMorisset Thank you. I believe that if everyone gave their own experiences we might have attained a good post. I know its hard for individuals to answer it, which is why I asked the hivemind! :-)

Firstly, lets assume you're talking about graduate programs. X being such a specialized program would only be available at that level of study.
In a nutshell:

Large list of cross listed (undegrad/grad) or only grad courses in all areas of study. You still need to have courses that can advance your overall knowledge of engineering.
Large variety of courses in your area of study. (If your studying DSP, its not enough to just take a DSP class, you may find it relevant to study data compression, machine learning, Free-space laser communications.) This also means you wouldn't have to complete a large number of independent study programs.
Large Number of Faculty in your research area. If you are interested in studying music signal processing, you would want to do research with a professor who has experience in that field. If there are 10 professors, you could be more selective about who to work with or who will be the best fit for your research area.

As for schools with decent program: Binghamton University, while it is not well known outside of New York, its master's programs is well structured, large number of faculty in EE at least 3-4 DSP professors, 10-20 graduate level courses offered a semester and large number of those are DSP related.


text:
What should I focus on when asking for conference travel support?
A conference I'm submitting to will be able to offer limited financial support to a small number of participants needing assistance to attend the conference..  The date of the conference is several months after my PhD finishes and I don't know where I will be at that time, if anywhere, so I am asking for financial support.  What should I focus on to maximise my chances?
So far I am mentioning:

The previous edition of the conference (for which I had other funding) was very useful for me.  I presented paper A there (title, reference, I'm 1st author), and got major input that significantly improved paper B (title, reference, highle reuptable journal, I'm second author).  Without my participation in the previous conference, paper B would not have been as good as it became.
The work I want to present now, which is paper C (almost ready for submission; probably published by the time of the conference; title, abstract; I'm 1st author) should be very relevant for the conference (should I send a copy of the full submitted manuscript?)
After the previous conference, I talked to a co-chair (name) and he encouraged me to ask for financial support should I be "between jobs" during the next edition (NB: he also encouraged me to explicitly mention his name, and I will)
My PhD is planned at <date>, and I currently don't know where I will be by then.

Does this roughly correspond to what they likely want to hear/know?  Am I missing something?  Am I saying too much?  Should I focus on one aspect more than another?
(NB: the conference is held every 2 years and is in the field of remote sensing, and it is customary, but not mandatory, to write a non-peer reviewed paper for the conference proceedings)

Why wouldn't you mention the co-chair's name? Like many things, academia runs on networking.

I do mention the co-chair's name, but I don't mention that he explicitly encouraged me to state his name.  I've edited for clarification, as I realise my formulation was confusing.

Do you have to mention the last point (PhD date, where you will be)? Please don't get me wrong. I am not asking you to lie. But, do you absolutely have to say it?

@scaaahu I don't know, should I?  I'm the one asking the question here ;-)

I would not say it if I were you. I would say I don't know if and when they specificly ask me.

@scaaahu The reason I mention it is because it motivates why the internal funding I had the previous time is not an option now.

Its better to be honest and upfront. If not for ethical reasons, then for logical reasons that networks collide and you don't want to be found guilty of a few hundreds/thousands of dollars - which in the long run would be not much.
I was in a similar situation. I sent something similar to what you wrote and the folks replied back and gave me the funding from my new location. The other way to do this would be showing your affiliation as that of the "/". This is a technical fix - since that should get you the benefits of both locations. I prefer this because I am honest about where the work was done, and where I am today.
Hope this helps!

Well, where the work was done was clear, but I won't be here anymore by then, so they can't fund me.  Actually, the latter is a supposition on my side.


text:
NSF postdoctoral fellowship eligibility requirements
I am about to receive my PhD and would like to apply for an NSF postdoctoral fellowship.
I have two questions about the eligibility requirements that I haven't been able to find the answers to online:

I have already secured a postdoctoral position with a mentor. I was offered a postdoctoral position and will start shortly after the fellowship application deadline. The NSF application materials seem designed for people who will start in the Summer or Fall in the year after the application. Does this affect my eligibility for the award?
I will technically receive my PhD after I begin my postdoc. Due to scheduling problems I've had to postpone my official thesis defense until after I begin my postdoc. However, I will have defended by Spring 2015, well before the award would be distributed. Does this affect my eligibility?

Can you link to the RFP of the fellowship you want to apply for?

For (2), a lot of people apply for the MSPRF the fall before they graduate. Most of these people defend their thesis around May or June, well after the announcement of the acceptance. For (1), do you intend to use the NSF grant with the mentor you've lined up, or are you applying for the NSF with a different institution in mind? (Obviously you cannot use the money before it is awarded.)

I intend to apply for the grant with the mentor I've lined up. I have some funding through my mentor, but the fellowship would give me much greater independence and flexibility.

Does this mean that I would have to propose research with someone else in order to be eligible for the award...?

possible duplicate of NSF grant proposals after earning Ph.D

I believe the question is different, as I will not technically have a PhD when I begin my postdoc. The eligibility rules for the fellowship explicitly state that the applicant should have a degree conferred prior to beginning the postdoc. The rule does not seem to apply in my case.

The eligibility requirements are stated in the solicitation.  It certainly sounds like you will be eligible.  If you defend in spring of 2015, then you can apply in falls of 2014,'15, or '16 to start the following summer (in fall 2017, it will be too late, since you will have had your Ph.D. for two years on Jan 1, 2018, and 2018 would the "year of the award). The only things that can make you ineligible are: losing your US citizenship (presumably easy to avoid), serving as PI on an NSF grant (again, not a huge danger), and being offered the fellowship and turning it down.  (I think there is also some general stuff about drugs convictions, etc.)
Taking any kind of job will not make you ineligible, though it's possible it could influence the way your application is looked at (for good or for ill, I can't really say).  You can apply with your current job as your site, or with a different one.  I don't know many examples of people getting the fellowship after they first graduated, though of course, 2015 will be when you first graduated, so maybe that's not an issue.
Just a general comment: if you have questions about NSF awards, ask the program director.  They'll be the ones who actually interpret the rules, so they know better than random people on the internet how they'll be interpreted.

Repeating my comment from the earlier question http://academia.stackexchange.com/q/12936, here are a few people who spent a year as a postdoc, then got the NSF postdoc to continue at the same place (details not guaranteed): Dean Baskin (Northwestern), Spencer Dowdall (UIUC), Ben Linowitz (Michigan), Keerthi Madapusi Pera (Harvard), Johanna Mangahas (Brown), Steven Sivek (Harvard), Brent Werness (U. Washington). These are all from the last two years [as of 2013; there must be more examples now].

@TomChurch I'd completely forgotten about that question (I've voted to close this one as a duplicate).  Good point.


text:
Why "ETH" in degrees awarded by ETH Zurich?
Why are graduates of ETH Zürich awarded with titles that include the "ETH"?
This list of degrees conferred by ETH also states conclusively that "[t]he Bachelor and Master titles may also be used in the form “BSc ETH” / “BA ETH” and “MSc ETH” / “MA ETH” without mention of the subject".
However, it doesn't explain the rationale behind the "ETH" appendix.
Is it because they think they are superior, and everyone should immediately recognize this from their title?

I am not posting as an answer as I am not 100% sure. I graduated with an MSc from ETHZ, and as far as I remember in my discipline the MSc degree required more credits and work than the equivalent from Uni Zurich. At the time, my MSc from ETHZ was equivalent to MSc+MPhil of UK, or MSc Research of many other countries. But this could be specific to the MSc program I attended!

This seems to be historical. ETH is a university. Switzerland also has institutes formerly called Höhere Technische Lehranstalten (HTL), which are now called Fachhochschule.
The preconditions to enter the ETH and a Fachhochschule differ significantly. Finishing a degree at ETH used to take significantly longer, and the curriculum at ETH involved far more advanced mathematics.
Formerly the titles attained at a Fachhochschule was Dipl. Ing., Dipl. Ing HTL or Dipl. Ing. FH and the title you got at ETH was Dipl. Ing. ETH. As you guessed correctly, Dipl. Ing. ETH was a clearly superior different and more extensive education. The title from a Fachhochschule was roughly equivalent with a BSc while the title from ETH was comparable to a MSc from a competitive international university. This changed only recently, with the introduction of Bachelor and Master degrees in Switzerland a few years after the year 2000.
Nowadays graduates of a Fachhochschule usually get the title BSc, and graduates of ETH usually get MSc degrees, and have the option to cut their studies short and end them with a BSc degree, although last I heard it was still very unusual to do so.

This is missing some things... There are plenty of regular ol' universities(TM) in Switzerland. Students there get BSc and MSc titles without the ETH suffix. The ETH Zurich and the EPF (Lausanne) are not universities, but Federal Institutes of Technology. The difference here is that ETHZ and EPFL are directy budgeted/lead by the federal government, while the universities are budgeted/lead by the single cantons they are located in.

Indeed, there are other universities in Switzerland. Philosophy and Law can be studied at University of Zurich but not at ETH Zurich, while fields like Mechanical Engineering were only taught at ETHZ/EPFL, so this was less of a concern than the Fachhochschulen back then. There is some overlap in the generic fields like Mathematics and Biology. The preconditions to enter University of Zurich are the same as those for entering the ETH Zurich, and the studies take the same amount of time. Still a math degree from ETH is often seen as slightly more valuable than one from university of Zurich.

While @Peters answer is correct on the historical aspect and the difference to the "Fachhochschule(n)", there is something missing:
The ETH Zurich and the EPF (Lausanne) are Federal Institutes of Technology. And while they technically are universities (as by the usage of the term outside Switzerland), the difference here is that ETHZ and EPFL are directy budgeted/lead by the federal government, while the other universities are budgeted/lead by the single cantons they are located in.
Both institutions are also the most prestigious Swiss institutes of higher learning in many of their technical degrees/educations.
Last but not least both EPFL and ETHZ are notorious for steep learning curves and filtering out many not-quite-talented-enough students (after first year generally 30% or so remain). I guess one of the reasons why the old ETH suffix is still around is also due to a fair bit of (not quite unfounded) elitism.

It was usually about 50% of students remaining after the first 2 years of filtering by way of Vordiplom Prüfungen, unless that changed significantly in recent years. Also the ETH most certainly is a university if we use the international meaning of the word. The rest of the post I agree with.

ETH and EPFL are in fact universities, they are members of the Swiss University Conference and their degrees are considered university degrees. That is the reason why they need to be differentiated from the FH engineering degrees.


text:
How important is it to show students an application of the topics seen in an undergraduate course?
I am currently designing a proof-based Math course for my University. I already designed and ordered all of the theoretical content in the course and included some ad hoc exercises for practicing each of the particular topics in the course. However, I have also designed a long final assignment that introduces a problem covering roughly all of the topics in the course.
My question is on how helpful is it for the student to work on these kind of general assignments. Assuming he already understood each of the topics individually, will it be beneficial spending some weeks analyzing an application involving almost all of the topics seen? Is there any research on the educational benefits of these type of exercises?
EDIT: I would be grateful if someone could cite a research paper that talks about the benefits of showing these kind of general applications involving many topics in undergraduate courses.

Although cross-posting is discouraged on Stack Exchange sites, this question might have been worth asking on Mathematics Educators Stack Exchange, especially given your specific situation.

I can't point to any specific research, but it is a common observation that (i) students have difficulty putting individual topics learned in class into a context that would allow them to see where they are used, (ii) students who don't understand why a topic is relevant tend to forget it rather quickly. This is as true in mathematics as in many other areas, and I think it is widely thought that this limits the ability of students to apply what they learned to new situations.
Consequently, at least to me, it is of great importance to provide students with the context in which each topic I cover in my classes lives. Why do we care about a particular statement? What implications does a particular theorem have on areas they are already familiar? I know that this approach is not universally shared in mathematics (or at least others may define the context and the applications to be rather narrowly as "related areas of mathematics"), but at least in my view, it is important to show students what the material they learn can be used for. Otherwise, mathematics is no more than an idle game of moving symbols from one side of an equation to another.

I'm pretty sure there's been a bunch of math ed research on (i).  I think the name it goes by is something like "transfer of knowledge."

I'm certain there is research on this. I'm just not familiar with this area, sorry :-(


text:
Transfer of credit (masters) in Germany?
Is it possible to transfer credit (masters) in Germany? I have completed half of my credits in a German university. Now I want to transfer to other university. Is it possible?

Thanks for ur reply.I wrote to some program coordinators of different universities(of course the same subject)  and they said I have to take admission from the beginning. Thats why I was not sure whether its possible in Germany or not.

Formally, they have to accept the credits you have already earned, But some universities haven't gotten the word yet, unfortunately.

Credits must¹ be transferred if you are changing universities, this includes courses you have failed. Any course with the appropriate amount of credits that is 80 % or more equivalent to a course in the program you are transferring to will be transferred. Be prepared to do the paperwork, documenting the “Modulhandbuch” for all of the courses you have attempted.
You can only transfer, however, if there is space available in the target program. This is not always the case.

¹ This is demanded by federal law (Hochschulrahmengesetz, § 15(3)):

Zum Nachweis von Studien- und Prüfungsleistungen soll ein Leistungspunktsystem geschaffen werden, das auch die Übertragung erbrachter Leistungen auf andere Studiengänge […] einer anderen Hochschule ermöglicht.
(For certifying studying or examination accomplishments, a point-based system system shall be created that allows to transfer accomplishments to other degree courses of other universities.)

Specific realisations depend on the state or even the university. For example, the Berliner Hochschulgesetz states (§ 22 (2)):

Die Hochschulen haben Studiengänge und Prüfungen so zu organisieren
  und einzurichten, dass insbesondere
[…]

bereits erbrachte Studien- und Prüfungsleistungen bei einem Wechsel der
  Hochschule weitestgehend anerkannt werden können,

[…]
(Universities have to organise courses and exams such that especially […] already achieved studying or examination accomplishments can be largely acknowledged when switching universities.)

I have looked in some universities.Most of the universities in Germany does not take students in higher semesters.May be I should search in other countries of Europe.

I don't think that "most" is true. See the legal language that Wrzlprmft kindly put into my answer. It depends on whether or not there is space available in the program. Transferring credit to other European countries is theoretically possible, but in general an exercise in frustration. Note that there are deadlines for application to Master's programs, some as early as April or May, to commence studies in the fall.

Yes u r right.I wrote to some coordinators now and some of them said its possible.they asked me to provide them my module to see how much my courses match to them. Now my question when i will write them,sholud i ask the main supervisor(the head person who is responsible for the programme) also to consider or just the coordinator?is it ok if i write the head a mail also? does it make any difference?as u r in the same profession so i think u know what professors like u think. @Debora Weber-Wulff

Write to the coordinator. It is their job, they answered you. As department head I detested getting CCed on every trivial matter. Even though this is important for you, it is NOT of interest to the department head. Only deal with the person in charge of such a thing. In Germany this would be the ''Prüfungsausschussvorsitzende''.


text:
International Student applying for a PhD in a university in Taiwan
I am a student doing my Masters in India, and was considering doing a PhD (in computer science, specifically ML) in a university in Taipei, Taiwan. I went to their website, but couldn't find some of the details I was looking for. These were the questions (in no particular order)

Will language be an issue? Are we expected to learn Chinese? The website said that there are courses in Chinese and English, but nothing more. I wanted to know in terms of doing courses, communicating with the advisor and his other students, as well as writing papers.
What about food? I am a vegetarian.
Can i get scholarship there? From the govt or TAship/RAship?
What about the coursework which I will have to do in my PhD? How long would it take(duration)? And how is the workload?

And there was I thinking the Chinese were pretty good with vegetarian cuisine...

I took the liberty to edit out the name of the university because we do not take questions for a specific university. (The question is probably going to be closed because it's too specific.)

I had asked a question related to master's coursework in the US previously, and that was closed because it was too broad, and the details vary from university to university. So I thought I would look at them individually and then ask doubts pertaining to that specific university (which I cannot find on the internet). But now I'm confused, what exactly should be the scope of the question?

I know there are many international PhD students there. I think you need not to worry about English use in the classrooms. However, you will need to learn Chinese to some extent in order to live in Taiwan. Not knowing the local language would cause you a lot trouble.
There are quite a few vegetarian food only restaurants available in Taipei. But, they are not cheap and may be some distance away from university campus.

Talk to the university about 3 & 4.
(I am local in Taipei)

For 2, Vegetarian is quite common in Taiwan since there are significant  Buddhism  population (around 10% ?) there. You should able to find a greater variety of budget choices with a little effort.