text:
Can I still apply for a masters degree if I was suspended during my first year in undergrad for plagiarism?
I plead guilty and was suspended for plagiarism (for a lab exercise) during my first year in undergrad. I felt extremely bad and apologized to my professor on the spot without even thinking of defending myself. I took the penalty suspension of 2 months which automatically forfeit my entire first semester for my sophomore year. Those two months were filled with anxiety and depression and I almost dropped out of college because of it. Safe to say I committed myself to continue pursuing my course because I was very passionate about it, I powered through, and I'm currently in my last year as an undergraduate.
The field I want to get into usually requires a graduate degree and I was thinking of pursuing a master's degree after I graduate, however when I was looking up some applications some of them required that I mention and explain if I've ever had academic delinquency.
I was wondering if anyone has had a similar experience who took up a master's degree or knows something about this situation. How would you suggest I go about this?

Only if the application explicitly asks, then it is best to be honest but brief. (If they do not explicitly ask about this, then you certainly should not say anything.)
If they do ask, then you could briefly explain the circumstances and--most important--express your deep regret for your behaviour without making any excuses for yourself. Then spend a bit of time explaining how you have worked hard and honestly after that difficult learning experience. One paragraph should be enough for all this.
I would hope that with an honest account with sincere regret where you take full responsibility for your past actions, many admissions committees would look favourably at the rest of your profile, assuming that you have had good grades after the incident. If, however, some reject you for being honest when they asked you to be honest, then, in my view, it is probably a good thing to not attend that kind of school, so I would not worry too much about that.
Again, if they do not ask you, then do not say anything. This suggestion is only for applications that ask.

Thanks for the insights, unfortunately, once I got back after my suspension, a few months in and the pandemic started so we shifted to the online setting. Honestly, my academic journey's been pretty rough. The pandemic on top of our universities adopting a new curriculum (with our batch being the first experimental one) hasn't made things any easier. I heard companies and universities are having second thoughts on looking towards graduates from the pandemic since the grades are so-called "skewed". In spite of this, I have been trying my best ever since.

@doyoulikemycar, on Academia SE, if you find someone's answer somewhat helpful, please upvote it. You do not have to accept any answer as the best unless you feel one answer best answers you question, but you can upvote as many answers as you find somewhat helpful.

I'll defer to Tripartio on actions to take (or not take), but to answer the question explicitly, yes, you can apply to grad school and most won't consider it an issue.
The problem was solved in the past and you took any punishment that was appropriate. That ended the matter and will settle it in the minds of most people. You got an education to learn something. You learned from a mistake. Fine. Done.
If asked, saying you learned from the mistake is plenty.
If someone tries to punish you again for a past transgression they are being unfair to you. For something like plagiarism, however, you might need to assure them that you understand better the issue and the need to avoid it.

Can you elaborate on someone punishing them again? I cant imagine that 100% of the cases in which the application being declined due to a past transgression is being punished again. I can think of scenarios in which the past transgression and the combination of selected program/institution wouldn't be a good fit. Its a fairly common worldview to believe if someone does something once, they are more likely to repeat it than someone who has never done it to do it. Also, some actions will have consequences that outlast acute punishment, those are not additional punishments.

@DavidS, actually you don't have evidence that someone didn't do it in any case. Most institutions don't make settled transgressions available. People can learn. People recognize that. Your mileage may vary, of course.


text:
Should I continue with mathematics after two-year break?
I would appreciate some advice on my situation if anyone has experienced something similar.
I started my undergraduate degree in mathematics, really doing well and having fun (graduated with distinction in 2020 and was teaching classes). Afterwards I decided to finish my economics degree, which I had taken up parallely. I was much more passionate about math, but thought finishing the degree would be a good idea. Somehow I totally oversaw that I would lose my mathematical ability by taking a break from math.
I finished the economics degree early this year and got admitted into a high-profile postgraduate course in mathematics. Since the start in October I have been struggling, because I am not used to doing problem sheets anymore and do not remember the basic material as well as I used to.
Looking back now I feel I was much better three years ago and have wasted this opportunity. I feel like I would have to go through my whole undergrad again to get back to the level I was at after my math degree… is there any advice on what I should do? Drop out of the degree or maths completely or go back to the basics and work through everything again?
This is really frustrating so I would appreciate some advice.

Seems like a decision only you can make (perhaps in consultation with your teachers); there is no general answer. How dire is your performance in your postgraduate course? What are your long-term goals?

Talk to your graduate advisor and see what they suggest. One option could be to retake some undergraduate classes (I know that this is done in some places).

Are you sure that the problem is "loss of mathematical ability"? There can be quite some gap between undergraduiate and postgraduate programs, regarding level and teaching style. When I did maths, long ago, we were told that learning frustration tolerance is part of it. We had very sophisticated problem sheets that were meant to challenge everyone, but I have seen much easier ones in some UG programs. One option is of course to take the challenge and fight your way through it...

Are you sure you have to "go back to the basics and work through everything again"? Maybe you can be more selective and lighten the revision task a bit? It is hard to imagine you have forgotten everything. Maybe if you start getting into it again, some more stuff comes back automatically.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to write a teaching assistantship statement for PhD application without teaching experience?
I am applying for PhD programs and some of them ask for a teaching statement for TA positions. However, as a graduate student, my only experience related to teaching is working as a grader of a graduate level class. I only worked closely with the professor and never communicated with any student.
I've read some teaching statement examples, but it seems nearly all of them are for people applying for faculty positions with or without teaching experience. My question is: should I follow this kind of examples talking about teaching philosophy/methods? Or is there another way for graduate students to write the statement? I think the department know that the possibility of graduate students having teaching experience is not high. So I am worrying that if I imitate the faculty way of writing may look very naive and doesn't work.
Thank you!

Does the TA involve actual teaching or only assisting in courses taught by others? Help sections and such.

If you mean the phd school asking for the statement, they don't mention it. But many other schools require actual teaching. So I guess typically the TA position for phd student is actual independent teaching.

In the US, actually, it isn't independent teaching until you've done the other for a few years. Mostly it is in "breakout" question/answer sessions and grading. No course prep or curriculum design. No lecturing.  In Europe it could be quite different.

You should learn about the requirements of the job before you write this.

I think you should just be honest in your statement. Don't copy a format. Explain the work you have done. And don't undersell yourself! Marking is hard, and your department might be very pleased to have someone with experience. But also explain that you are keen to develop a bigger teaching portfolio and are eager to learn. Many courses that take on PhD students as TAs know that the PhD students won't have tonnes of experience and are happy to train them up.
Good luck with it!

First, don't try to write it without knowing the requirements of the job. You should be able to find this online or by asking students, professors, or administrators.
Second, think about how you fit those requirements. You don't need to say more. In the US, you would probably need to say very little since most of the work is grading and responding to questions. The questions are mostly about hints on homework and about misunderstandings from the professor's lectures. Even the grading is (hopefully) guided by a rubric.
You need to be honest and the statement should cover the intersection of your skills and the job requirements.
I suspect that even in the case where you are expected to do independent teaching, the curriculum is set, the courses are introductory and you already know the material well - especially in the first couple of terms. They aren't hiring an experienced teacher and the system likely recognizes and accommodates that.

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


text:
Appropriate Timing for Follow-Up After Positive Initial Response from Prospective Postdoc Advisor (Math)
I am a final year Ph.D. student in a US math department and I am in the process of applying for Postdoc positions.
After applying for a Postdoc position at a top 40 school, I emailed a professor I am really interested in working with. He replied saying that he would be interested in having me in the department and that he is hopeful that I will receive an offer soon.
I haven't heard from the school or the professor for 3 weeks now. I know this is extremely early but I am really anxious and I was wondering if it would be okay to contact the professor again. While I'm anxious, I don't want to be disrespectful or pushy. This is a person I truly admire for his work in academia and I would love the opportunity to work with him.

@Sursula I think my situation is a bit different because I haven't had any formal interviews or anything like that, but it definitely helps. Thank you!

Three weeks is fine. Ask if there are any updates and ask if they would like any additional information from you. Re-express your interest.
The timing seems quite good to me.

Thank you so much! This has been a very nervous wait. Hopefully, I will get a positive response.


text:
Upon resubmission, can I oppose some previous reviewers if I stronly disagree with their comments?
I submitted a manuscript to an Elsevier journal. I was given a major revision after a two-month review period. The comments from the two reviewers are positive and constructive. It took me a month to carefully revise the manuscript, but yesterday, my manucript was given the final decision "reject and resubmit".
The editor told me that reviewer #1 declined to review this time, so they assigned a third reviewer. While Reviewer #2 was satisfied with our revision, Reviewer #3 addressed many weird readability problems and was against publication. Since the journal only allows one major revision, my manuscript was given the R&R decision.
I strongly disagree with ALL comments from reviewer #3 because if I follow their suggestions in "increasing" the readability, my paper will become lengthy, redundant and less understandable to me. However, if I decline to address their comments, my manuscript will remain almost unchanged, because Reviewer #2 only gives very minor comments. In this case, what should I do if I still want my manuscript to be published in the same journal?

Is is possible for me to contest the "reject and resubmission" decision, or request the editor to re-invite Reviewer #1 for another round of review? I just really do not understand why they were positive to my manuscript but refused to review after revision.

Is it possible for me to resubmit a minor-revised manuscript with a rebuttal letter which declines almost ALL comments from Reviewer #3?

If 2 is possible and the manuscript is sent to Reviewer #3, they will highly likely reject it again. Hence, is it possible to oppose reviewer #3 for reviewing upon resubmission? (The journal allows authors to oppose specific reviewers, but obviously I cannot identify reviewer #3 simply because the reviewing process is single-blinded).

If all above are impossible, I would like to resubmit my manuscript to another journal with lower level.

I think you are asking the wrong question; it's your paper and you can do whatever you want with it.  It seems like what you really want to know is what are the likely outcomes of the various approaches. But this is probably at least somewhat discipline specific.

Is is possible for me to contest the "reject and resubmission" decision, or request the editor to re-invite Reviewer #1 for another round of review? I just really do not understand why they were positive to my manuscript but refused to review after revision.

Many journals have an appeal process for decisions. You could follow that process. If there's no listed appeal process on the journal's website, replying to whoever sent you the decision should work.
"Request the editor to re-invite Reviewer #1" however would be overdoing it. It's kind of pointless - if they were already positive on your manuscript before revision, then they are probably still positive on your manuscript after revision, and one does not need to re-invite them to know that. The R&R decision is not based on Reviewer #1's review, and getting them to review the revision will not change that decision.
As for why they might not review the revision: the most probable reason is that they don't have time (grant application deadline coming up, end-of-year exams to grade, they are on holiday, etc.).

Is it possible for me to resubmit a minor-revised manuscript with a rebuttal letter which declines almost ALL comments from reviewer #3?

You could, but there's no need to take the trouble of filling out the EMS submission form again; you can/should just use the appeal process.

If 2 is possible and the manuscript is sent to reviewer #3, they will highly likely reject it again. Hence, is it possible to oppose reviewer #3 for reviewing upon resubmission? (The journal allows authors to oppose specific reviewers, but obviously I cannot identify reviewer #3 simply because the reviewing process is single-blinded).

I imagine most editors will want to know what reviewer #3 thinks of your rebuttal, so this is not a good idea. But you could certainly write "We address this in a confidential note to the editor" in the response-to-reviewer box, if there is one, and then write a confidential letter to the editor explaining why you think reviewer #3's review is bad.
By the way it's worth pointing out that authors can easily be biased into thinking that their paper is more readable/comprehensible than it actually is. You might want to get a second opinion (from a colleague/co-author) on the paper's readability. See also this question.


text:
PhD: alignment with a supervisor
I am contemplating a PhD degree where an industry partner connected me with a senior lecturer at University.
I have full confidence in the said partner as their contributions to the discipline are many and have substantial dollar value attached to them. Put simply: they work on real-world problems and have proven ability to deliver complex projects.
That being said, I don't have a sense of connection with PhD supervisor. There are two major concerns:

Their expertise is alarmingly non-technical given the directon of work. I have scrutinized their publications and was left wondering how much they can contribute to the subject matter. I was told there is no "research group" and supervisor expects PhD candidate to work in relative isolation.

It has proven to be rather hard to have an open conversation with them regarding the project. I do receive a rare cold letter referring to "other candidates" though, so at least they are reading my e-mails.

Now, the problem is that I actually want to do the research. Despite the fact that I will need to move to a different state. Notwithstanding that I will live on a stipend that is <50% of what I was earning while working in the industry.
I believe this problem is of high importance and have few ideas on how we can improve current state-of-art. What I would appreciate from this community is an advice and their own experience that might relate to my situation.
Positive:

I might be able to create a positive impact in an area that (literally) saves lifes.

Negative:

Might turn out as 3 years of misery with apathetic PhD supervisor.

I've voted to close as this is too personal for someone to give you good advice. Some people can do it and others would not be able to succeed. If you are self-directed enough and have the background to carry on without needing an advisor it could work. But not a lot of people are like that, I think. Risky, perhaps, but you know yourself better than we do. And, do you have alternatives? Good luck.

@Buffy, that's... Unexpected, but little I know. To answer your question - yes, I do.

@RJA seconding leonos: look into the larger department and/or doctoral school as well. What is the framework like- if you have a cohort, thesis committee and larger supportive department, the involvement of your supervisor is lesser.

Be careful going into an academic/industry collaboration where the two sides don't really understand each other... The project you describe sounds like an engineering project ("build a useful thing") rather than a research one ("contribute to human knowledge").

Why do you want to do a PhD rather than work with the industry person directly? (Is that impossible?) What's the contribution that you would like your advisor to make to your project, above and beyond what the industry person can do for you?

@leonos, rather expensive given the distance and their expectionally tight schedule. I can't get a Zoom call with them, not to mention in-person meeting.

@coffee_into_plots, AFAIK it's the supervisor (senior lecturer) and another Professor.

@BryanKrause, I'd say it's a mix. Research, writing and a fair bit of programming, engineering, R&D...

@AdamPřenosil, good point... Probably not much. I should certainly try to collaborate directly.

@RJA My point was basically that if you want to do a PhD and the industry guy cannot serve as a PhD supervisor, then it's fine to have a formal supervisor affiliated with a university who is willing to act as your supervisor for administrative purposes, but then it's not really fair to complain that they are not involved in your day-to-day research. An arrangement where you have you have a formal supervisor affiliated with a university and a real supervisor in the industry is fine imo, but all three parties (including yourself) need to be ok with it and not expect more than they bargained for.

To sumarize your problem, the industry partner is ready to fund a PhD position, but their academic reference person is not responsive.
You have a simple choice in front of you:

if you are motivated to pursue a PhD, ask the industrial partner if they are open to look for another supervisor with your inputs (i.e.: you look for a receptive and possibly technically involved supervisor);
you take the money and you prepare for looking for another supervisor (risky: the current non-responsive supervisor will still be official PI with the industry money, they may feel overridden by you ... you risk finding yourself after some time in having a good external supervisor, but no funds)

The advice I always give to those who are considering collaboration/supervision (especially to undergraduates and masters students) is that you can't just work well with the other person on a technical level. You need to be able to relate well to them as a human, as well, obvious as this might sound. Sometimes, both of these things are imbalanced, sometimes it's one more so than the other. So, I would look for another supervisor, in this case.


text:
High impact PhD thesis? Or just incremental improvement?
As a PhD candidate, I finally got my first conference paper published in a good reputation conference. My professor said that, even though the paper contained good theory and analysis, the results were only of incremental improvement over the state of the art techniques. He told me that I need to come up with another idea that is big (i.e., has substantial improvement over competing techniques) to be able to graduate. Even though I felt disappointed, I tried to accepted his comment as a challenge to make myself feel better.
Do you think my professor is right? Don't you think that a PhD should be centered around well defining/formulating your problem and proposing/evaluating feasible solution(s), regardless wether incremental or not, as long as originality is preserved. I tend to -respectfully- disagree with my supervisor, and hope that someone else can convince me otherwise. Any thoughts?

Your professor is correct.

@GEdgar thanks for your feedback, but can you explain why?

Are you misinterpreting what your advisor meant? In my field, one conference paper doesn't make a dissertation regardless.

@austin-henley no I'm not misinterpreting my professor. I already have at least two other "incremental" (but original) ideas which my advisor did not advise me to pursue. He wants me to find some other BIG idea with substantial improvement! Do you think this is a reasonable request?

He knows your work far better than any of us do so I would trust him. This is why you have him after all.

You and your professor are both saying the same thing: a Ph.D. needs to show a significant contribution to the state of human knowledge.  You don't agree about whether your particular work is significant yet, and we strangers on the internet are not in any position to judge.

What do you want the PhD for?  A dissertation with just incremental improvements using known techniques is never going to get you an academic job, or, indeed, any job that actually requires a PhD (though if you're after a job that wants a PhD simply because it looks good, it might work).

It is impossible for us to weigh in on this, with so little information to go on.  And it is absurd for GEdgar and Austin to judge.  I would recommend that you discreetly check in with another respected colleague.  Perhaps a more advanced grad student, or a postdoc, or another professor.  If you really do get the vibes that your advisor may be judging the situation unfairly, then you could make an appointment to speak with your department chair or the graduate advisor.

AFAIK, to have a PhD you must make a significant original contribution to the field. Therefore, I'm inclined to agree with your advisor. Incidentally, your advisor has considerably more experience at this, trust him.
And yes, @jakebeal is right, likely duplicate of What makes someone deserving of a Ph D?

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


text:
Talking to a professor about a potential research idea
I am a Master's student in the US. I am in a course and was discussing an idea with the professor and TA for the course. Both of them seemed pretty excited about the idea and said it can become a paper we submit rather than just a term paper for the course. I later fleshed out the ideas and asked for a meeting with the prof and the TA to talk it over in more detail.
A couple of days later, the TA pulled me aside and recommended I not tell the professor about the details, but rather submit the original idea as the term paper and go find some other professor and talk to them about the expanded idea. The TA claimed that the professor was struggling with his research and was likely to try something fishy if I talk to him.
Is this actually a concern or is the TA incorrect? Would you recommend against further discussion about this with the prof and/or the TA? Does me submitting the paper count as proof, if needed, for authorship? I'm not even sure if I can approach someone else in the department about this because it's pretty well known that this professor is the only expert in this subfield in the department. What would be the recommended course of action? I'm very confused - please advise.

And, can you trust the TA? Something might be fishy, but it is hard to tell from this.

@Buffy - I'm not entirely sure, but it seems like the TA has nothing to gain by saying this

Unless they want to take this and do something with it.

@Buffy - they're not asking me to stop/not write a paper. In any case, the problem still exists. What would you propose? The issue is the subfield is quite niche and this professor is he only one who specializes in this subfield.

I don't think we can tell you. If this is in the US, this is a pretty extreme move by the TA

@uucdh There may be a personal issue between TA and professor that has nothing to do with you, and the TA may have wrong ideas about the professor. Meaning that I wouldn't trust the TA blindly even if I knew that he has said this in good faith to you.

If the work is sufficiently novel, then the best course is to write it up for publication, not just a course paper. And, it is editors and reviewers who have the final say on novelty.
The question of authorship remains, however, and can't be judged from what is here. In some fields, authorship is listed alphabetically and all are generally assumed to be equal contributors to the ideas. In others, it is a really big deal who is listed first.
But the three of you are all potential candidates for authorship.
Since you are in a course under this professor, you might ask whether you can publish the work in lieu of a term paper. The situation is a bit unusual, so, perhaps the outcome can be also.

Sorry for the question (I'm relatively new to this), but why would the professor or TA have authorship claims? Most of the work was done by me and they simply taught the class (ie. the basics of the subfield) and pointed me to papers that I should cite in the "relevant work" section. I imagine I will need help writing the paper itself, but I don't fully understand why they have a substantial authorship claim

You described "discussions". I don't know what that entailed. It could be anything. Like I said, I can't judge.

Sure, but would you recommend against further discussion about this with the prof and/or the TA? Does me submitting the paper count as proof, if needed, for authorship? I'm not even sure if I can approach someone else in the department about this because it's pretty well known that this professor is the only expert in this subfield in the department.

@uucdh If you need help writing the paper itself, that suggests to me you need a coauthor. Knowing what work to cite and how to contextualize what you've done in what's been done before, and even just recognizing that what you're doing is of interest to others beyond a course are all intellectual contributions toward authorship. Whether that should actually result in authorship is a bit trickier. I get the impression that it's more common in math for advisors to provide a lot of authorship-style assistance without being credited as an author than in other areas.

@BryanKrause I see. Given this, should I talk with the prof and/or the TA about this in more detail? I'm not even sure if I can approach someone else in the department about this because it's pretty well known that this professor is the only expert in this subfield in the department

You can write up the idea and communicate it through email to the prof and the TA so that you have evidence that the idea is yours.


text:
Withdrawing a paper after acceptance modulo revisions?
I have seen the questions here and here, but my reasons for wishing to withdraw are utterly different than theirs, so I don't think they're especially relevant.
I work in mathematics, say in field A. In recent years, field A has found a number of interactions with another part of mathematics; call it field B. About 7 or 8 months ago I finished a project that was an application of some results from field A to a question in field B. Despite using some results from field A, the resulting paper (both in techniques and scope) was essentially purely a paper of field B, and so I submitted it for publication in a journal J from field B.
Last week, while working on a completely unrelated project in field A, I realized that the techniques I had used in the abovementioned paper can be translated, essentially word-for-word, to get some results in field A. Unfortunately these results are no longer at all in the scope of journal J, as they are really applications to field A rather than field B. Thus, I thought the right thing to do would be to withdraw the submission from journal J, merge the two results into a single paper, and then publish in a journal that lies more in the intersection of field A and field B. So a few days ago I emailed journal J to inform them of the situation and request withdrawal of my submission.
Unfortunately, I think that email has not yet arrived to the editor handling my submissions, because I have now received an email informing me that my paper has been accepted to J modulo minor revisions and enclosing two referee reports. The timing is really unfortunate; I wish I had realized the application to field A a few months ago rather than just last week.
I still think the right thing to do is to withdraw the paper. However, I feel terrible for wasting the time of the journal, and especially of the two referees, who have put a great deal of time into reviewing the paper! Is it unethical to withdraw? More generally, is it insulting to the referees? If so, what is the best way to handle this situation?

What do you mean "modulo revisions"?

Just out of curiosity, if you'd published the paper first and then realised it also had applications in field A, would you feel these new results deserved a new paper, separate from the one you already published? If so they might deserve a new paper anyway.

Your current paper was obviously good enough to publish on its own, why do you think adding new observations is necessary? Are the new observations not sufficient in scope for a paper of their own? What wold you have done with these observations if you had made them after the first paper was published?

@AzorAhai this is mathematics slang, see here.

@DanRomik To be honest, I have no idea how "In mathematics, the term modulo ("with respect to a modulus of", the Latin ablative of modulus which itself means "a small measure") is often used to assert that two distinct mathematical objects can be regarded as equivalent—if their difference is accounted for by an additional factor." really fits in here

@AzorAhai-him- https://english.stackexchange.com/q/70018/193515

@AzorAhai-him- The submitted and accepted versions of the paper can be regarded as equivalent, their difference being accounted for by revisions.

@Servaes Thanks for actually explaining. However, I don't really understand how that makes sense to state - either they are the same or not.

I agree with @AzorAhai-him- that the math jargon is a little opaque to people outside mathematics. I would recommend editing it out of the title because this Q and A might be valuable to people outside math that will be confused by the use of the term modulo

@AzorAhai-him- Two things can be the same on some level, but different on a more refined level. Two cars can be the same model, even if their colour is different. They are essentially the same thing, modulo paint. The same goes for the submitted and the accepted papers, in case of very minor corrections. They are essentially the same, the differences being (superficial?) revisions. I think that in this informal context, the use of 'modulo' suggests that the difference is small or negligable in some sense.

@Servaes It seems like it could just be replaced in both instances with "with minor". Am I wrong?

@Servaes I was asking about the question, not your example.

@AzorAhai-him- "My paper has been accepted with minor revisions" could be taken to mean that the revisions have been made and the paper has been accepted.  "My paper has been accepted modulo minor revisions" means that the revisions have not yet been made.

@Servaes Then I invite you to edit the post to be clear to someone whose training isn't in math :) (although I don't think I'd ever read "accepted with minor revisions" in that way but it doesn't matter)

The paper is yours until you release it to a publisher. But, I suggest that you consider what is best for the advancement of understanding, rather than the wishes of a particular publisher.
However, it might be best on all accounts if you let the current paper be published by this publisher and write a follow up paper, referencing the current one as needed.
The reason behind this suggestion is that the current paper is relevant, I hope, to those in field B, and they might benefit from seeing it and might not if it is published elsewhere.
You might have additional work to do, however, to achieve sufficient distinction between two papers to have them both published.
But, think of how best to advance scholarship, not the economics of a particular outlet.

thank you Buffy. this is a good point about field B, and in fact in many respects maybe I should prioritize the connection there. I think it is however definitely mutually exclusive to publish the current version in journal J and publish the new observations somewhere in a journal of field A; indeed this would essentially feel like "salami publishing" to me and I definitely wish to avoid that. what about the following compromise: publish the current version in journal J, and then just put the new version with the content on field A on arXiv? does that seem like a sensible idea?

That might be a good short term solution so that you don't get scooped on the ideas. But longer term, you might think about extending to a full paper for field A.

exactly my gut feeling after reading the post.

On a side note, for OP personally it might also be better to have two papers instead of just one. There are issues with salami-slicing results but this seems to be a case where having two distinct papers is justified.

@PaperWithdrawer If field A journals and field B journals don't overlap much, having separate publications saying "you can use technique X for A/B" seems justified, as the intended audience wouldn't be otherwise aware -- especially if it's not immediately obvious that the results generalize. (Which is likely the case if you, the expert, didn't realize it until after submission.) If it feels too much like salami slicing, you can always go more "in depth" in the field A publication, looking at corollaries and special cases which might be A-specific.

@PaperWithdrawer There's a huge difference between intentional "salami publishing" of several papers in a row and actually realizing there was more to this one paper after submission. Plus, you might want to check if there's a journal in field A that accepts short publications (sometimes called "letters" or "communications"), maybe that's an option?

"I used research already known/published in field B to show that it works really well/is useful in field A" is, on its own, a very important (albeit arguably not innovative) paper to publish, separate to "Look at this method/theorem in field B".


text:
PhD Application rejected
I have been applying for PhD and got rejected by eight schools so far in the US, the UK and Canada.
I just completed my MSc in the UK with distinction. My supervisor who is a professor write me a good reference based on my independent research in my thesis, but I keep getting rejected for a PhD.
Any suggestion on how I can submit an outstanding application to get accepted for PhD?

Is there any "low to middle" tier universities  among the eight schools? What's your GPA? Other test scores? Good recommendation letters?

Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking.

Apply to more than eight universities.

This might help: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/38237/how-are-ph-d-applications-evaluated-in-the-us-particularly-for-weak-or-borderl

There's a misconception that applying to PhD programs is like applying to undergrad, but harder. PhD programs are more like apprenticeships. There are programs that accept students based only on applications, and then try to match the applicant with an advisor. But the best programs have too many great applicants, and the advantage goes to those applicants that are already matched to a professor in the program. Actually, nothing in your application matters if a professor on there inside tells the admissions committee "I want this student". It's not just a good strategy to try gain admission, but I can't imagine wanting to attend a program where I don't know a good potential advisor to start with. Attend conference and speak with potential advisors. Ask your former advisor for introductions. Don't obsess about "top programs", obsess about "top advisors"

Firstly, PhDs are really competitive and it isn't out of the ordinary to get rejected. You have said your supervisor has written a good reference but have you asked them to look at you applications? It's a big ask now you have graduated but I've generally been okay with discussing applications with my students if they ask.
Some other points:

Is there a specific topic you want to study and are you applying for PhDs on that topic, or writing your own thesis topic outlines and trying to get funding for that. As a supervisor I want to know a student wants to work in my specific area and isn't just applying for any PhD topic going in my general field. You want enthusiasm and dedication from a student.
Did you get good grades in your masters/ is the supervisor likely to be writing you a good reference?
Have you considered getting a job that does not require a PhD but is in academia - you haven't mentioned you field, but lab assistants sometimes don't need PhD. This is a opportunity to gain more experience and possibly get to know a supervisor who will support an application.
Are you learning some skills that make you stand out over other candidates? Have you shown some autonomy outside your core masters work that suggests you are a good PhD candidate (i.e publishing masters work - which should be done with the masters supervisor).

without knowing more detail this is the most advice I can offer.

It is difficult to provide anything but a broad answer to this question as there are very few details.
It seems likely from the context of your question that you would be an international application to the US or Canada.  In this case the first issue is funding, or more precisely who will pay for your funding.
In the humanities scholarships or other means of supporting students (such as institutional or supervisor support) are very limited and tuition can be quite high, depending on the location of the school.  In Ontario, tuition fees for international students are around ~CAD$ 25k, and many state schools have comparable levels (tuition and related fees vary quite a bit by state or province).  As a result, schools accept only a very small number of international applicants because there’s no $$ to support them.
In the STEM, grants are more common but grants are not infinite and faculty prefer to fund in-state or domestic students simply because these students require less support.
If you applied to schools in Ontario, the situation is far from rosy at some of them and schools are looking to pause admission, and possibly close programs.  (Although this piece is about undergrante and MSc programs at one specific university, it should reflect an overall malaise in the funding of universities in this province.) Laurentian University in Ontario filed for bankrupcy a few years ago.  There are rumours circulating that some schools will offer no entrance scholarships to Canadian students this year.  So if you applied to schools in Ontario, you might be a casualty of the financial crunch of these institutions, irrespective of how good you are as a candidate.
Overall, applying “cold” to universities as an international student is now a much more difficult proposition since few departments and supervisors are now inclined to takes chances on unknown candidates.

Did you have the results of your MSc before applying to the PhD programmes? If not I would reapply next year with this in hand, and try your best to get a publication from your Master's thesis. This would strengthen your application. Also how strong were your letters of recommendation? They also go a long way in making you look like a desirable candidate, so in the next cycle ask people who you know will write very strong recommendations for you. Good luck!


text:
Adding bibliographic information on arXiv
ArXiv offers the option to add bibliographic information once a paper is published in a journal. To do so, it asks me to add a Journal Reference and the Journal version DOI. Does ArXiv gather the remaining required information just from this reference, or does it take this information from the preprint?
If it is the latter, what happens if, for example the title differs slightly or the order of the authors changed in the journal? Which version is taken?
My supervisor mentioned that he once merged two preprints into one journal paper with different title and somehow managed to add the bibliographic information without having to update both papers (which would be bad practise as then two identical papers would be uploaded - providing arXiv allows), but he couldn't figure out any more how exactly that worked.
Furthermore, how does arXiv determine the Bibtex identifyer? Can I fix something like Surname_YEAR manually, to avoid some weird abbreviations, or is this done automatically?

Based on my own most recent paper that was published under a slightly different title to the preprint (the journal just added a couple of hyphens), it appears that the bibTeX citation available on arXiv correctly reports the published title. It also includes information that is not contained in the journal reference, such as the publisher field. Below the bibTeX citation field, it says "Data provided by: Crossref Citation Formating Service", which I interpret as meaning that arXiv uses e.g. the DOI of the published article to ask Crossref for the full citation, rather than generating it themselves. This can be contrasted with preprints without journal reference, where it instead says "Data provided by: arXiv API" below the bibTeX field.

Furthermore, how does arXiv determine the Bibtex identifyer? Can I fix something like Surname_YEAR manually, to avoid some weird abbreviations, or is this done automatically?

arXiv sometimes adds some word from the title to the identifier to help distinguish different papers by the same author, but I don't think you have control over this on arxiv.org. Of course, you can rename them to your heart's content in your own .bib files.

Thanks, that already answered all my questions!


text:
Advisor gives me no choice on research topics - should I tell him my real feeling?
I am a 3rd year physics PhD doing high energy theory.
This field has two large communities -- phenomenology and formal theory. I am interested in formal theories.
Faculties hired with either background join the theory direction of the department. Not until I had already fixed my advisor, I found out he mainly does phenomenology, which requires simulation more than derivation and math.
My advisor asked me to join some projects, without asking me if I am interested. Most recently, even though he asked me if I am interested, he did not understand my tactful refusal.
We talk every several months about my career. He believes that doing simulation for phenomenology is the only path to success (that is being hired eventually). However, I am extremely not interested in this path, and would rather quit academia if I would have to do simulation.
As I said, my advisor mainly does phenomenology, but not completely. He is able to give me theory projects, but not willing to do so. When I tell him I wish to do a certain theory topic, he asks me to look for questions myself and eventually discourages me out of it.
I am extremely discouraged and spend most of my time arguing with him virtually in my head.
Should I explicitly tell him I don't like the future he plans for me? I tried several times with tactful wording. He couldn't get my point and ended up persuading me harder and harsher.

You should clearly and explicitly state to your supervisor what you want to work on, and realise that this may not be possible in their team.
Once your supervisor knows what you want, they may be able to help you find a different supervisor to collaborate with during the remainder of your PhD, if the proposed research is not possible in your current group.
Of course, there is the possibility that your supervisor is right: maybe the theoretical problems you are proposing to work on are not publishable, or too difficult to complete during the time you have. This is something you can talk about with them. Maybe it is possible to work on your topic of interest, if you can convince them that it can be completed in time, that it is publishable, and preferably related to the current research topics of the team.

Thank you for the suggestions!

I want to follow up with this old post and thank you for the suggestions again. Not long after the post, I decided to switch to a teaching career while working on my PhD on the side. I graduated 2 years earlier than our department norm. The relationship between my advisor and I improved a lot and nowadays we work on theory projects that we are both interested in. I didn’t build any work connection like a postdoc would but I can finally work (part-timely) on physics theory projects.

I think you have three options. Any of these might work for you as they have for others, though they aren't equal in effect.
The first is to go along with your advisor's advice. I can't judge it, but whether it is good or bad, it might get you to your degree quickly and you could then move in a more theoretical direction later, once you have established yourself.
The second is to tell him directly of your desires. Perhaps they will support you, but maybe not and, worst case, they might drop you. Bad, but not the end of the world if you can find a different advisor, even at a different institution. Loss of time, perhaps.
Third, you could just drop the advisor proactively and find someone else, perhaps at a different institution. Hard, but do-able.
But what should not be an option is to silently try to subvert them and just stumble between worlds. That will probably lead to no good result. You need to get to a stable position, whatever it is.

Thank you for the suggestions!

I want to follow up with this old post and thank you for the suggestions again. Not long after the post, I decided to switch to a teaching career while working on my PhD on the side. I graduated 2 years earlier than our department norm. The relationship between my advisor and I improved a lot and nowadays we work on theory projects that we are both interested in. I didn’t build any work connection like a postdoc would but I can finally work (part-timely) on physics theory projects.

Glad it's working out.


text:
THE ranking: citation score
The Times Higher Education university ranking seems to be a popular metric to rate universities (although rankings are kind of weird). I wanted to understand how they actually create the scores and read a bit about it. However, I couldn't find any detailed information about the citation component in their scoring system (which accounts for a whopping 30% of the total), and I'm wondering if anyone has information about how it is generated.

Here is their methodology section, but I don't think it really states how various trends of citations across many subjects are comprehensively reviewed, and especially how those numbers are transferred into a scoring system of a 100 total. There is an additional document at the end of that link with more information, but the citation score methodology is still a little shrouded in mystery. Let me quote them:

We examine research influence by capturing the average number of times a university’s published work is cited by scholars globally. This year, our bibliometric data supplier Elsevier examined more than 86 million citations to 13.6 million journal articles, article reviews, conference proceedings, books and book chapters published over five years. The data include more than 24,000 academic journals indexed by Elsevier’s Scopus database and all indexed publications between 2015 and 2019. Citations to these publications made in the six years from 2015 to 2020 are also collected.

But...how exactly? Taking a raw average of citations per publication would be possible, but across how many years and what are the normalization factors for the subjects? They are again vague about this:

The data are normalised to reflect variations in citation volume between different subject areas. This means that institutions with high levels of research activity in subjects with traditionally high citation counts do not gain an unfair advantage. We have blended equal measures of a country-adjusted and non-country-adjusted raw measure of citations scores.


text:
Resolving a dispute for first authorship where the value and demarcations of individual contributions are hard to identify
My co-author and I (both PhD students in a university) have been working on a large-scale simulation project for the last 1.5 years.  This is what we agree upon.

I came up with the idea.
We took an existing open-source code (under MIT license), forked it, modified it suitably according to our needs, fixed some bugs improving and enhancing it in many ways. The split of contribution to this aspect is fuzzy here. We gave our contributions back to that project which has been accepted and our names acknowledged as contributors in the readme.MD file in the project's github repository. My co-author is listed first among the 2 contributors and I did not have any objection to that.
Having made the existing code good enough for our purposes, we started the stage of adding new codes.  Set up of the simulation infrastructure was mostly done by me. Say 65% to 35% split with my co-author. I explored a lot of possibilites and techniques.
I came up with the idea of application of an existing method into this project to speed-up the code. This worked and was successful. 100% my contribution as both agreed. It provided the speed, but was not "strictly" necessary. But is a practical addition, otherwise results would not arrive in reasonable time.
I derived 80% of the equations in the paper, including a few critical ones.

At this stage, we had a written (email) agreement on the authorship, and I was agreed as the first author with my colleague as the second author.
Now, some problems happened.

Due to a set of official circumstances (pre-planned mobility for another project at another university), I had to temporarily leave the project for 40 days. I required visas for this country, whose paperwork set me back by another 15 days or so. It was not explicitly agreed with the co-author what that would mean to the authorship or the work split or any other aspects of the work. The mobility money would have expired if I did not take it and our common (and sole) supervisor knew this, and still approved my trip.
My colleague continued to work on the project,  which already had a definite framework in place prior to my temporary absence.
Hoewever, the colleague started facing several numerical issues and convergence failures. Although the code infrastructure and numerical methods remained the same, they had to tweak a lot of numerical parameters to obtain the result. This took a considerable time.
My colleague started writing the draft of the paper. I typed all the new equations in the main text of the paper (about 25). My colleague typed standard equations that go into the appendix.
Now, this is where it gets more confusing. My colleague typed 80% of the text of the paper.
They also interpreted the results.
For figures in the paper, I did 2 illustrations (artwork), one of them a full-page flow diagram of the entire methodology.  The other is the graphical abstract of the paper.

A dispute came about just before submission. However, we decided to retain the status quo of the authorship order as agreed originally.  The submission got rejected.
I put in the groundwork for an alternate journal suitable for the manuscript, which was reviewed by this co-author. I did a complete re-factoring of the manuscript over a period of two weeks. We submitted this refactored version to the second journal keeping authorship order intact.
The second submission underwent peer-review, and came back with "major revision requested", one of which involved simulation of the model with a major change in a critical parameter (that changes the results substantially).
Our supervisor allocated this task to me, which took exactly 2 weeks to complete. One of the comments by the peer-reviewers was to shorten the length of the paper drastically. This time, our supervisor did all the refactoring, and now we have the revised manuscript with updated results and rebuttal statement.
However, my co-author stepped in on Friday (8 days before re-submission deadline) and claimed that he should be the first author.
Our supervisor is caught in a dilemma, as there is no clear way to demarcate and judge this.  Our supervisor requested both of us to go through our university's arbiter who will interview us independently for 1 hour each.
It should also be mentioned that I gave up first authorship to the co-author to a couple of small conferences and poster presentation. Without my express verbal or written permission, my co-author presented two posters (which they created themselves) with their name as the first name and mine as second, and they had the travel money for the same. I was silently okay with this, as our work gets more publicity.
Clearly, I feel entitled to first authorship for this journal. I wonder if the community agrees and if so, how may I present the case?

I am so glad to be in a field where the concept of first authorship does not exist.  (Honestly, standards for this vary depending on fields, possibly on subfields, possibly on journals, and possibly on geographic location.)

I may have lost track along the way. Did you ever agree to the other person as a first author? Because if you did not and they ultimately end up with first authorship over you, haven't you been misled into putting in excess efforts on someone else's manuscript? If they did that, well they knew the deal, given your prior agreement and lack of a new agreement.

Simply, add a footnote above your names, or above the paper's title, and in the footnote write something like: the first two authors have equal contributions. Yes, it is something that I have seen before. It is also not really a big deal. People are judged by their skills and understanding in the interviews and thesis examinations.

If I do this, the issue with both of us is that in citations, the name will appear as firstauthor et al . I am looking for an academic career. If I am moved to second author position with the footnote claiming equal contribution as a result of the upcoming arbitration, will it be ethical for me to cite the paper in my CV as "my name etal" ?

@krishna No, but you can make it clear that you are an important author. I don't think this is a problem for a CV. I think there is a slight disadvantage in a more general sense, because if the paper becomes well-known it will tend to be known as "X et al".
(Yes, I'm in this situation, my most-cited publication by far is one that I'm 2nd author on with roughly equal contribution ;-))

This doesn't cut it for me. In my country where I intend to apply for faculty positions, unfortunately the perception is that if your name doesn't appear in citation , it doesn't count. It is rather unfortunate. Hence I shall be making a case for the arbitration committee based on contribution in the paper.

You realize that your real problem is the stupid hiring procedures in your country, right?  How would they deal with a field like mine where authors are always listed alphabetically?

@AlexanderWoo Absolutely realize that. I have tried to do my bit to change the system through networking with faculty who are already there.  Their response is unanimous "Be the change you want to see in this world". As an outsider, I do not have a voice. And getting in, requires the classical and flawed impact-factor metred first author publications.

@krishna most academics world-wide use Google scholar or similar and the citation count is counted despite the order. If you want academic career you can make first author in coming work. Also, you are the first author of your thesis which prove the parts you worked on. I really think you should not waste your time and energy thinking about such an issue as long as you mention equal authorship in the paper. Or, you can make a ballot, or order your names alphabetically, or ask your supervisors to say who should be first author.


text:
How do admission committees in US grad schools avoid a 'Native Speaker Bias' in evaluating recommendation letters?
For the first time (I am a relatively junior professor), a student has asked me to write a letter of recommendation for him for graduate school application in the US. I was glad to do so, as he is an excellent student who has performed research with me - we have authored a paper together.
On going through my letter now, it seems a bit ... unnatural. I have used the same adjective on multiple occasions - I only know so many ways to say that a student is 'good' at something. I am also sure that some of my word-choices will be noted as peculiar to the native speaker - most of my English writing experience is in academic contexts. While comparing to random examples that I have found on the internet, my letter seems boring and dull. I am also sure that my letter will have grammar errors of some form or another.
I wanted to know how admissions committees avoid having biases towards letters written by more talented writers, or by native speakers. If you were to put two letters having similar contents in front of me - one written by me and one written by a British or American or any other native  English speaking professor, I would say that theirs is definitely superior, and I would feel more positively to their student.

Recommendation letters for grad application should be detailed and let concrete examples speak to the student's ability. It is a little concerning that the biggest issue you have is running out of synonyms for "good".

For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t be able to tell from your question that you are not a native English speaker.

If this is one of your first recommendation letters, it might help to practice writing one in your native language, too.  This practice might help you to understand what difficulties are arising from the language issue vs. what difficulties are simply inherent to learning to write a good recommendation letter.

Ask your colleagues to see strong recommendation letters they wrote / look at recommendation letters for positions you advertise, and see what matters to you. I'm not sure there's a native speaker bias, but I've heard repeatedly that there is an issue with professors not understanding how to most effectively make their case.

I think as long as the letter is sincere and has a personal feel to it, then I wouldn't worry about it.  I hate letters that looked like a template with appropriate fields changed; i.e., a spam.

I think your question falsely equates being a "talented writer" with things like knowing correct English grammar and spelling and knowing many synonyms for "good", which native English speakers are better at than non-native ones. Those things may indeed be correlated, but they are far from the same, and there are many native English speakers who are crappy writers, and plenty of non-native ones who are "talented writers" who can write a very compelling letter of recommendation, whether grammatically correct or not.
To me, a talented writer is someone who has a good ability to communicate complex ideas effectively in writing. In the context of a letter of recommendation, the grammar and spelling may be poor and the choice of words can be clunky in certain places but the letter can still tell a good story about why the student is worth admitting and be more persuasive than a dry, boring but grammatically flawless letter written by a less talented writer. So, to the extent that students whose letters are written by talented writers enjoy an advantage in admissions decisions, that advantage is not what I would call an unfair advantage or a bias; at least, it's no more unfair than many other merit parameters that applications are judged upon, many of which are unfair to some extent. (In particular, with letters of recommendation there is certainly some unfairness that is intrinsic to the whole system of LORs that academia is built on, since how effective the letters are depends on many random factors, including how talented the writers happen to be).
To summarize, as a general rule I don't think there is any particular "native speaker bias" that needs to be avoided. Admissions committee should read the letters and be impressed by each letter precisely to the extent that it makes a compelling case for admission.*

*The only possible exception to this conclusion is in the case of letters coming from countries where many academics really can't speak or write English very well. Those letters in some cases can be extremely difficult to extract any useful information from, and an applicant with such letters is probably not going to fare too well, perhaps unfairly. However, I don't see what can be done about that -- that is essentially one of the flaws intrinsic to the entire LOR system, as I mentioned above. The system may be flawed, but as far as I know no one has yet found a system that works better.

I was in charge of graduate admissions in my department (mathematics) for several years, and my impression is that there can be a problem with letters of recommendation from certain foreign countries, but that the problem is a matter of culture, not language.  I can decipher quite badly written sentences, but I need to see relevant information after deciphering.  I don't need to know that the student comes from a highly respected family. I need to know that (s)he can learn and do mathematics and is enthusiastic about mathematics, and I want to see evidence for those things, not just assertions.  So go ahead and write your letter, with whatever useful information you have, and don't worry too much about grammar, spelling, and literary style.  (Although I've written a lot about myself here, I think the most admissions officers feel the same way.)

Frankly, if an LOR states that the student "comes from a highly respected family" it seems clear to me that "this was the best and strongest recommendation that the writer was comfortable giving". There are, sadly, still countries where this is a primary decision factor in such admission decisions; and perhaps the identical letter was drafted for several institutions in different countries.

I wanted to know how admissions committees avoid having biases towards letters written by more talented writers, or by native speakers.

They can't completely eliminate biases, though usually reviewers intend to focus on objective analysis.  They want to select the ideal applicants rather than to critique the writing style of the applicants' recommendation writers.
It's difficult to make broad statements about how your writing style might affect the outcome because it's very subjective.  The problem is that biases are fundamentally unavoidable in this context; so, while reviewers will tend to try to compensate for perceived personal biases, compensation is rarely perfect.
 Sometimes they'll over-correct, and others they'll under-correct.  Trying to game that is unlikely to be a particularly productive endeavor.
However, you can attempt to minimize the bias issue by focusing on objectivity and avoiding softer modes of communication.  You might want to:

Focus on providing objective information.

If a reviewer can pick out objective facts, then their mind is more likely to focus on those facts and not how they were conveyed.
Hard facts translate relatively well.

Avoid soft claims.

Many writers like to provide opinions about those that they recommend, but opinions are difficult for reviewers to interpret.  It's even harder when a language barrier further confuses things.

Avoid references, cliches, idioms, etc. that don't translate to the target culture well.
Consider the target culture's value system.

Cultures can have different values on issues like work ethic, creativity, particular evaluation metrics, etc..  It can help to learn about the target culture's value system and speak to it.
For example, between the US and China, I tend to perceive Americans as having a relatively high value on creativity with Chinese having a relatively high value on work ethic.  If writing a recommendation letter to the US/China, I'd try to ensure that I portion the focus correctly (but not over-correct, either).

Ask someone else who speaks the language well to review your letter and provide feedback.

For privacy reasons, you may want to redact the student's name or personal details before providing the letter to a reviewer.  However, I'd generally assume that a recommendation letter shouldn't contain too much sensitive information as it's meant to be furnished to third parties anyway.
It can help if you know a native member of the target culture.  They can help provide feedback on not just the language, but also the cultural aspects.

In the end, there's only so much that you can do, as there's a lot of noise in this particular mode of communication.  So I wouldn't recommend fretting about it too much.

OP didn't ask for advice on how to write better letters, so why are you offering it rather than answer the question?

@DanRomik The question was answered in the first part of the above.  I suppose that we may've read the question differently; I read your answer as mostly dodging the question by dismissing the OP's concern rather than addressing it.  Difference of interpretations, I'd guess?  To me, the question was wanting to ask about the bias, with implicit implication that intent was to work around it.  I opted to answer this by discussing correction and how to help avoid bias.  I disagree with your suggestion that it isn't an issue.

The question was very clear: "How do admission committees in US grad schools avoid a 'Native Speaker Bias' in evaluating recommendation letters?". Not "how can the letter-writer avoid the bias", which is what most of what you wrote addresses. To clarify, my concern is not that you disagree with my own answer (feel free to downvote it if that's the case) but that you offer OP a large amount of unsolicited and uncalled for advice about something they didn't ask about, which I find rude. I'm guessing your intentions are good, but a helpful answer will focus on what was actually asked.

@DanRomik Yes, I agree that your perspective is consistent with a strictly literal interpretation of the words in the title.  However, the bulk of their question relates their personal circumstance, which suggests that they're seeking insight into that circumstance.  I guess you see this as a strictly mechanical question about the nature of admission committees, rather than a letter-writer seeking insight into the nature of admission committees for the purpose of avoiding the bias that they fear will adversely affect them?

You are correct, I did not try to second-guess the deeper meaning or intent behind OP's question. Don't get me wrong, there are cases when I too think it's appropriate to answer a slightly different question than the literal question being asked (if you dig into my a.se answer history you'll find some examples of this), so I see where you're coming from. I guess I disagree with how far you've taken this approach in this particular case, but not with the general principle.

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


text:
Advice on transitioning from Electrical Engineering to Mathematics?
I'm at the tail end of a BSc in Electrical Engineering, and want to shift my academic focus more towards mathematics. I've enjoyed the engineering courses with a large mathematical foundation, and I want to further explore mathematics in a master's program.
My GPA is strong for the later years of my degree, average in my earlier years.
I've taken Calculus (I,II,III), Linear Algebra, ODEs, Stats, and Theory of Functions of a Complex Variable. I've continued to use all this math in signals analysis, control theory, and machine learning - but this is the extent of my scholastic math knowledge.
I would like to take some courses that would make me a more competitive applicant for an MSc in Mathematics. I'm assuming Linear Algebra II, PDE's, Analysis, Algebra 1, and Algebraic Structures are good choices. I have room in my schedule for 5 courses.
Any suggestions? Is this unusual? Would the Faculty consider a non-mathematics student for a graduate level math program?

What country do you plan to study in?

The culture shock will be in the focus on rigor over physical explanations. But both will serve you well. Good luck, and think about what you want for yourself post-PhD!

This is a US answer, as this likely depends on where you want to study.
In the US, this is entirely possible and even fairly common. The courses you suggest would all be good for the transition.
Note, however, that getting funding for a MS in the US is unlikely as most students are self funded and tuition can be high. If you have longer term goals for a doctorate in math, then it would be appropriate for you to apply directly to a doctoral program and there would be the possibility of funding, likely through a TA position, which covers tuition and modest living expenses. This, too, is the common path in the US. EE gives a fairly good background and the courses you have taken (and intend to take) will increase your chances. Get good letters of recommendation for any US study.
There are other places in the world, I suspect, where this would be less likely, but probably not impossible, especially if you take a bunch of those suggested courses and do well.

Raoul Bott made precisely the transition the OP plans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raoul_Bott

I'm Canadian, tuition isn't as large a concern as in the US. I'm assuming that the US and Canadian academic systems are similar, and your advice is likely applicable here as well.


text:
How to write research proposals for several PhD applications?
PhD hunting is not an easy task. I have to search a Phd position on several PhD portals and social media groups. For each application, they ask to write some sort of research proposal, motivation letter or statement of purposes.
Apart from research proposal, other essays can be easily managed because they need a little editing w.r.t. the university, country, research group etc.
However, I am not sure how to write so many research proposals for many PhD positions that are available. Each supervisor or a research group differ. How can I read papers in those fields and propose something new. Most often, during Phd, students don't really work on what they write in their PhD application proposal.
Is the system broken? I wonder if the high IQ students really want to do this boring (apologies) stuff? Best I can do is to prepare one proposal in 3-4 days in a research field. If a student takes help from ChatGPT or senior researchers in that field, is this a fair game?

The places that are keen on very group-specific research proposals tend to be places where PhD students are admitted by specific professors for specific projects (as opposed to the North American model where students get admitted to a PhD school and find their advisor afterwards).

Is the system broken? I wonder if the high IQ students really want to do this boring (apologies) stuff?

It absolutely makes sense to ask for personalised research statements in this context. Speaking as a PhD advisor, we generally are not looking for the abstractly "smartest" students, but the ones that do not find reading and thinking about our research boring.
We also generally do not consider it a problem if our model disincentives scattershot applications, where the same student applies to 25 different positions - we would much rather have everybody apply to the 3 - 5 positions that they actually are interested in and qualified for. Generally speaking, at least here in Sweden and in applied computer science, it is not extremely competitive to find a PhD position as long as you are actually qualified - I would say, for any of my positions I never had more than 3 candidates that I seriously considered. In that sense, I do not believe that the sometimes-read conventional wisdom that you need to apply to dozens or hundreds of posts to have a chance applies in our system.

If a student takes help from ChatGPT or senior researchers in that field, is this a fair game?

No, but (at least for the ChatGPT part) I doubt it would help. ChatGPT is great at producing nice-sounding but uninteresting "fluff", which is exactly the kind of thing we are generally not looking for.

While I can appreciate the advantages of tailoring a research proposal to the existing focus of a research group, you should consider taking the alternative approach of developing a few potential research proposals that are interesting to you and then using one or all of these for all your applications.  This would limit the volume of research ideas you need to conceive, which would allow you to put more time and effort into each one.  It would also mitigate against the risk that you will end up being accepted to a PhD candidature based on a topic that you find uninteresting.
For a PhD candidature, the supervisor is teaching a lot of basic research and writing skills, so it is usually the case that a panel can handle supervision effectively even if the topic is a bit out of their specialist area.  Thus, it is not necessarily a problem if your research proposal is outside the bounds of the existing research interests of the department.  (Others may chime in with dissent if they think I'm being naive.)
As a secondary matter, if you decide to be in academia/research in the long-term, you are not going to be harmed by having too many research ideas developed.  Even if only one of these gets used for your PhD topic, the rest can stay on the shelf for now but you can come back to them as future research topics when you have time.  At worst, even if you never get around to them, you will have some ideas that you can throw to your own PhD students later in your career.


text:
Getting a double major, with one subject's GPA being much higher than the other. How should I deal with it?
I'm double majoring in physics and computer science. Due to extremely high demand, the CS department at my university expects many unreasonable demands from the student body (not the tough but fair type of demands, the sloppy "we made a mistake and you take responsibly" type of demands). The physics department I find very fair and very compassionate.
My average in the physics courses is about 97 (out of 100), and will hopefully stay in the ~95 range throughout my studies. My CS average seems like it may go as low as 80-85.
My question is: applying for a master's degree specifically in physics, would the lower CS average be a disadvantage for me, or would they focus on my average in physics?

Isn't it very dependent on the situation? What if I want to get into a top school for my master's? Also, I think this should remain open for people with lower grades anyways. This isn't relevant merely to people with a high GPA.

Assuming that this is the US, you are probably ok, but admissions to graduate programs is done by individuals so no one can predict exactly.
Generally speaking, though, the upper level grades (especially) in the field in which you want to study are the most important consideration. The overall GPA has importance in the weeding operation, but if you survive the initial cut, it will most likely be your physics courses and grades that will carry higher weight.
And, I suggest that you don't complain in an interview about the unfairness of the CS department. Such things can reflect badly on you rather than the target. Good luck.

What do "upper level grades" mean? English is not my native language.
Also, your phrasing makes it seem like there is some weight to the problem at hand ("it will most likely", "carry a higher weight"..). Would that be correct?

Upper level means the advanced courses, usually taken in the later years. Not (in CS) fundamental programming and data-structures courses, for example. Higher weight means more important in the considerations.

So it will be somewhat of a disadvantage? Sorry for looking for a yes-or-no type answer, but in general, do you see it as a considerable disadvantage?

Don't try to parse it too finely. People are involved and they have their own standards. But probably not a big issue if your physics grades are good in advanced courses.

In OP's other question about fairness, they clarified it is Israel.

I did. I might not pursue my master's in Israel though, and I see no relevance in that.


text:
Phd supervisor enrolling new phd to further develop my material without telling me
I am doing a Ph.D. in chemistry/material science in Sweden and during my first two years I developed a novel material that has great potential for commicialization for medical applications.
My supervisor owns a company which is working on this and my material is based on their prototype material. But I managed to create my own material based on that, which will be a better candidate in the future. The idea of making this material is different from the ideas my supervisor gave me in the beginning.
Now my supervisor is SECRETLY applying for funding and recruiting a new PhD student who will work on my material in the future, without telling me anything. I just learned about this and I am actually graduating in 6 months. I tried to ask him to fund me for a postdoc position but he said that there is no funding available currently.
I wonder if is this normal? And is there anything I can do in this situation?

I'm puzzled here and elsewhere by the question "Is this normal?" Apart from the fact that it's not clear what the standards are for "normal" (the situation itself seems fairly special so there may not be much experience for telling apart what's "normal" from what's not), something that is fairly "normal" may still be problematic and things that are not normal can well be fine. (Apart from this, my sympathy to you as I can absolutely see that this is a bad situation for you, caused by your supervisor's behaviour that to me seems not OK, "normal" or not.)

Frame change-
I don't think your main issue is around starting a project, seeking funding, and bringing in a new student -- In fact, there's an argument to be made that this is not really your business (I wouldn't argue that, but there are those, some of whom know what they're talking about, that would)
What you're really concerned about, without really saying it, is your intellectual property rights.  If you're an inventor, you need to be listed on any patents as an inventor -- even if there are other people who also should be considered inventors.
It's a delicate issue to broach, and frankly, even bringing it up can have unforeseen ramifications and impact the relationship with your advisor.  The fact that your advisor has a company and financial interests complicates this further.
So, if I were in your situation, what would I do?  Once I decided that pursuing it was better that not pursuing it (and the latter is certainly a real choice, and the easiest choice), I would probably approach my advisor and say something like "I believe my contribution to Substance Zeta might be sufficient to make me one of the inventors of Substance Zeta, and I'd like to meet to discuss our intellectual property scenario".
The response to that would pretty much define your further response.  You might get a "you're completely right -- let's apply for a patent", in which case you'd go to whatever mechanism your university provides for these things, often some office in charge of technology transfer, and start the ball rolling.  Your prof may instead want to do this independently through his company, including you as an inventor.  This may or may not violate their employment terms.
If you get any real reticence, you may choose to drop it, or you may choose to pursue it further.  The latter may start a S--t show. (In fact, just bringing up the subject in the first place might also, but if you're dealing with a mature level-headed person, it shouldn't).
There are a variety of responses to reticence on your advisor's part.  Possibly the most effective one would be "Because of the financial interests involved, I feel there may be a conflict of interests on both our parts, and I'd like to use university mechanisms to establish a conflict of interest plan moving forward.  Perhaps we should schedule a meeting with the Chair".
I think a mature investigator may respond "you know, you're right -- let's do that", but there is a real possibility of starting up a s--t show, and the response could even be "get out of my lab".  Degrees have a tendency to go away in s--t shows.
Before starting any of this, you probably want to review the whole situation, and think about whether your contribution is actually provable.  If it's not, I'd lean toward dropping the matter.
As a disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, and even if I were, you're not my client.  The way to really make sure your legal interests are well-covered is to hire a lawyer.
UPDATE:  The reason why I say the IP is really what you're interested in is because if the IP is handled correctly, you really have no worries about what happens next.  At the very least, you'll get recognition as an inventor (based upon what you say in your question -- of course, your mentor may see things a whole different way) and presumably a portion of the financial fruits if something turns this material into a windfall, or even if it just gets licensed.  In fact, it's conceivable that your mentor's company may have to license the use of the material from the university.
To back up Dr. Krause's excellent answer, yes, people with the most money to either back up or tear down a patent often win patent cases.  One of the easiest ways to void a patent, though, is to prove that the inventorship listed on a patent is wrong.  If your contribution is as central as you say it is, and if the material has real commercial promise, then it is in everybody's interest to make sure that the patent goes in with the correct inventor list -- your interest, your boss's interest, his company's interest, and your school's interest.

Now my supervisor is, SECRETLY, applying for funding and recruiting a new phd who will work on my material in the future, without telling me anything.

It is part of a professor's job to constantly apply for funding and recruit new students. They do not need to ask their students' permission to recruit new students; it is expected that future students will build on past work in the lab, including your work. You did this, too! You did not start from scratch, you started with a prototype material already created for you. Everyone working in an academic setting is building on the work that came before them. It would be extremely unusual for a professor to stop a promising avenue of research when the student working on that research graduates.
PhD positions and post docs are temporary positions along an academic career. There is no expectation that PhD students will be hired by their advisor as post docs, even if money is available. You are not owed an offer of a post doc even if you've been a great PhD student. Most see the best-case scenario (from the student's perspective) as getting a post-doc in a different place, to build a resume independent of the PhD advisor.
For the "average" academic, research is about advancing human knowledge and publishing findings. There are certainly individual claims to stake and some self-serving activity because of the various zero-sum games involved (job search, funding/grants), but there is less of a concept of ownership of particular ideas and results: you do the work and then you publish, and then everyone is free to build on that.
In your slice of the world, though, with your supervisor operating a company and you seemingly having primary interest in this new material with commercial promise, things are a bit different and are governed not by academic ethics but by intellectual property law. It does not seem like you have a clear understanding of your legal rights (or lack of rights) involving your research. If you want to play the business side, rather than the academic one, this is going to really hurt you. You need to get up to speed, quickly, on what exactly your legal rights are. That might involve staff at your institution or it might involve lawyers you need to pay. If your supervisor and their company have lawyers, and you do not, you will lose.
I think it is extremely unlikely that you have any claim to sole ownership of any of your research product. Even if you've come up with some of your own ideas, you've worked with the support, guidance, and resources of your supervisor. The question is whether you have any ownership, and what that ownership is worth.


text:
Combining PhD and Work
I am starting my Ph.D. in Finance in November, This is not fully funded and I am considering taking a full-time job to enable me to fund my research work.
Is it possible to take a full-time or part-time non-academic job while doing PhD, considering the amount of time needed for research work and supervisor meetings?

Whether it is possible or not depends you you and on the system itself. If there are required courses, then you need to be free to take them and do well. You need, in some systems, such as the US, to have the time for intensive study, not just research.
Some systems don't have time limits, others do. If you have to study at a slower pace then you might come up against time boundaries. In some systems there is a (perhaps) seven year limit. In some the limit isn't quite that strict, but things done longer than seven years ago no longer "count" toward a degree.
If you have a family or family responsibilities, it can be even harder.
You will also need a "compatible" advisor, but that is true of everyone. But they might need to accommodate odd hours.
Look at all of your options before getting into a no-win environment. Yes, it can be done, but only with great difficulty and lots of other sacrifice. Good luck.

It is 100% possible, since I (and countless others) have been doing exactly that. However, whether it is possible in your case, is a different question. It is difficult to say without knowing what university/country you want to study at, though finance is very likely among the most suitable fields for that.

Do you have some actual knowledge of finance doctoral study on which to base the last statement? It sounds facile.

Yes. You don't require lab or sought after equipment and you (in most cases) don't do experiment. Also, finance background is great for finding a well enough paid while collar job with ease.

It really depends on what you're willing to do and how comfortable you want to be while doing it.
When I was in grad school, there was a fellow student who did her M.Sc. and Ph.D. - and excellent ones at that - while having two children along the way. She was very happy, if tired, and I admired - and still admire - her tenacity. She was a bit of a "fixture" in the department - I'm sure I wasn't the only one impressed by her determination. Sujatha, if you read this - you were my hero, for real, even if I didn't say anything at the time!
It is easier the younger you are. In my twenties I could pull off 4.5-hours-of-sleep nights for a week, while studying and working full time. Today? Nope, let someone else enjoy it :)

Is it possible to take a full-time or part-time non-academic job while doing PhD

Yes, it is possible. Whether it's enjoyable or fun - that's up to you, your state of mind, and your health.


text:
Being a reviewer for a top Computer Science conference means, as a general rule, to have the possibility of attending for free?
Just wondering if, as a general rule, there is any "benefit" (e.g. free attendance) associated to being a PC member in Computer Science conferences

Why don’t you just ask the conference organisers? Surely that’s better than some strangers guessing on the internet.

yes sure, I was just wondering what is the "general rule", if any

This question strongly depends on the specifics of the conference in consideration.

If you are a student, you can probably get a discounted attendance. You can also serve as a volunteer at some conferences and likely not need to pay.

@deltasun perhaps edit your question to reflect that then - ‘is there a general rule about whether it’s possible to get free entry … etc’ rather than a specific case

The benefit is that it demonstrates, in some small way, to potential hiring committees that your peers take you seriously as a scientist.

While any conference in CS can set its own rules and can have its own way of financing, the vast majority of good conferences barely breaks even and is financed exclusively from attendance fees. Usually, you work hard to make the conference affordable. So, PC members can count their service as service to the community but do not get free attendance.
In general, all PC members are expected to review. Sometimes only PC members review, sometimes PC members are responsible that the papers assigned to them are reviewed by either themselves or by others. PC members get to vote on the final selection. But you cannot equate PC members with reviewers.