text:
How common is it for US universities to ask a postdoc to bring their own laptop computer etc.?
I am from Europe, I have a PhD in biology and I'm doing my postdoc in a prestigious US university. I like the lab and I love my job. However, I noticed some important differences compared with EU standards. First and foremost, our boss doesn't want to buy computers or other electronic devices for us because, according to the lab rules, we should either bring our home computer to the lab or buy one with our own money. The lab is pretty wealthy and I'm sure that buying middle-range computers for everyone will not be an issue. I think it is more a matter of principle. You get your own lab space and this is it. How you organize your research is your problem. I know for certain that other labs in our department have the same policy.
I just wanted to ask this community how common this is in the US. I can tell you right away that in Europe this would never happen. It is not my intention to criticize this system. I am simply asking if it is common and if you find these conditions acceptable.

Not really an answer, but university IT management systems and processes are not always well-aligned with the practical realities of research. From a pragmatic perspective life may well be (or appear) easier if people use privately-owned devices that can be configured as they wish, and that they can keep when they move on to their next position. (Please ignore the anguished screams coming from your friendly neighbourhood cybersecurity professional...)

Are you officially employed to do work in the lab (as in an actual employer-employee relationship, rather than a contractor)? Is the work done in the lab owned by you or those who employ you? It sounds like you are employed, but there are just so many pitfalls from the employer's point of view with having people use their own devices that it seems necessary to verify one way or another.

There is always a budget allocated for employee equipment. In most staff positions it's a standard allocation. On the chance they allow personal machines you are giving up that additional allocation. The equipment usually purchased in advance will be a business model, but not bottom of the barrel. If the purchase is made afterward arrival you will often be asked about it. @avid, by "not aligned" it sounds like you have dealt with bas technical coordinators, I have heard of them skimming budget allocations for other projects, but that is a serious issue.

Another issue is that mixing lab-related content & communications on your own personal computer & phone & cloud means that in the event of a lawsuit, prosecution, or audit,  your computer & phone & cloud in its entirety could potentially be subpoenaed, without regard for your privacy.

In my experience, the rule at academic Biology US labs is that everybody brings their own laptop. Having said that, it is my opinion that there are two separate issues.
The first issue/question is if it's fair for an employer to ask an employee to purchase their own work-related equipment. The answer is more complicated that it might seem at first glance. For example, there are tax implications, and the tax rules are not easy to interpret and/or apply. If your employer requires you to use a specific tool as a condition of employment, the employer is usually required to pay for it, or to have you buy it and reimburse you. Some employers use this as a loophole to pay for tax-free perks for employees, for example, computers, cells phones, cars, etc. There have been several high-profile criminal cases in the US press lately that centered around the use of "work-related" equipment as a way to avoid taxes. A computer is hard to classify as either business or personal, since it can easily be used for both. But my point is not to argue one way or the other, but that it's not an easy line to draw and that the university policy might have less to do with principle than to avoid complicated tax situations. Another issue is keeping confidential data on employee-owned computers, but that issue is not simple either and universities deal with it in many ways, e.g., having data management rules that apply to both personal and university-owned computers, requiring whole-disk encryption, or that student data be kept at university-owner servers and not as local copies.
The second issue is if this a big deal a reasonable request, or a fight worth having. At least for the biologists I know, computer choice is very personal. People are either Mac or Windows, and a minority (myself included) are Linux-only diehards. Some people just use their machines for email, others are doing computationally-intensive tasks on them, the type of task that falls between what a mid-range computer can do and what you'd send to a cluster. And universities vary in their policies. In some places, every breathing person gets a computer on day 1 regardless of the actual job. For example, I once worked in a lab where a field technician, a person who never had to sit at a desk, got a computer assigned. She just set it up in the lab for everybody to use. But at that same place graduate students were never given a computer, even if the PI wanted to buy it with research money, the university objected citing tax issues, internal policies, NSF, etc. etc. At another place I worked, you could get a computer, but these were always the crappiest models available. At yet another place I worked, I was assigned a bare-bones laptop, which after 4 years of OS updates it became too slow to use. So I requested a replacement, and they gave me a used computer, identical to the one I had. So I went back and demanded a NEW computer, and they gave me a new (as in the box) 4-year old computer. Only at MIT did I get a brand new computer to my specs, but that was MIT.
So what I urge to do is look at the overall compensation. For example, what are really big issues in the USA are health care costs, childcare costs, the cost of rent in coastal cities, etc. Consider your overall pay package. If the health insurance is good, the salary is reasonable, the lab environment good, the local rents are affordable, etc., then spending $900 on a laptop every couple of years is not a big deal. BTW, I quit my job at MIT, because the overall compensation was too low, so I moved to a much better job, and just buy my own computers.
I used to get worked up about this being "unfair" of having to buy my own laptops for the benefit of my employer, but in light of the issues listed above, I have no problems spending my own money on the most important tool I use. This is also common in other workplaces, e.g., most car mechanics have to bring their own hand tools when getting hired at a shop, carpenters bring their own basic carpentry tools when joining a crew, hair stylists usually bring their own scissors, real estate agents buy their own cars, etc. This does not mean that these workers bring all of their equipment to work: mechanics don't have to bring lifts, carpenters don't have to bring Lulls, and stylists don't have to bring the chairs where clients sit, etc. In this same way, a biologist does not have to bring their own PCR cyclers, sequencing machines, or micropipettes, but they do bring their own computers.

Definitely agree: I always wanted/bought much better stuff for myself than any lab could afford, so it never was an issue (of course you need to care about that stuff in order to spend your money there and not elsewhere).
As a PI in Europe, while the expectancy of the lab to pay for a computer may be there, the budget is not (or at least nowhere near sufficient) even when purchasing the basics - so every computer that I buy for new PhD student/postdoc/staff eats into my reserve funds. I don't know how this is elsewhere - I hope better but fear the worst - so hand me downs it is sometimes.

My experience is more mixed - in my career it's been about 50/50 what the expectation is. For grad students it's a grey area, but in my (computation heavy) area I would expect an employer to provide me a laptop as a postdoct.

This is not good advice advice, ask your director about actual policy, not the lab, they can and do violate rules periodically. Depending on the field there are any number of reasons for policy requiring university computers. Is this process perfect? No, but the department will have options, for incoming staff and an incoming postdoc can usually weigh in with their preferences for the system and configuration.
Source: I handled technical management for both PhD and practicum work, both federal compliance and department interaction with Uni IT for any systems personnel or students used.

I feel like the last comment about owning one’s tools might be a bit out of place. In the commercial and federal government sectors in the US, it can range from rare to forbidden to use personal computers instead of company-issued ones, except for very small entities. Phones are more often personal except in the federal government space where generally all staff are forbidden from connecting any non-government owned device to any government system.

@ToddWilcox: I second this, in particular as car mechanic hand tools and carpentry tools are rarely used to store possibly confidential information about students, such as e-mail correspondence, grading information, or even certificates of sickness and disabilities, which a postdoc's computer might well do, depending on the exact range of tasks.

(With that said, and without denying that it actually works that way, I am indeed a bit surprised that e.g. a car repair shop is basically an empty building that hires employees with their tools, rather than a building with tools that hires employees.)

I realized as an addendum to my comment about my experience being more mixed: I deal with HIPAA data where I guess biologists do not.

Both Todd and Mapper are missing the point. The OP did not ask if they could bring their own computer. They asked if it's normal not to be given one, presumably because they want one.

At my U.S. R1 math dept, there are pressures to have a machine (desktop or laptop) that is controlled by the IT department... but you'd get the cheapest possible barely-viable version unless you can play some tricks. Most NSF grants do not include any money for computer hardware. Arguably, to require everyone to have access to email (apart from high-end computing), some sort of device "should be" (ahem) provided by the department.
So, right, especially for ("unsupervised") work at home, I just spend my own money (not NSF's nor departmental) to get the computer set-up I want. Fortunately, by this point in my life, that's feasible. :)
Likewise, while years ago paper, pencils, pens, chalk, erasers were provided,  the quality has greatly degraded (chalk is impossible to write with, and equally possible to erase), so that I buy my own fancy chalk (Hagoromo...) and large car-washing microfiber sponges to repurpose as "erasers".
So, on one hand, don't be surprised at such unreasonable requirements, ... but, yes, they are unreasonable, and you could try pushing back a little.

A friend of mine had a CS postdoc at a university where, in my understanding: - IT insisted that everyone have an IT-provided computer; - IT also insisted that only IT could install software on the computers; - Every desk had one such computer gathering dust under it, and another personally-owned computer on top for getting actual work done.

I'll note that in the US, it would be extremely unusual if a person starting a post-doc, or even doctoral studies, or maybe even secondary education, didn't have their own laptop already.
It would be different if the lab specified a system that a new employee were required to purchase on their own, but having a system of the user's choice (and at their expense) wouldn't seem unusual. In fact, the opposite would be unusual here.
For international students, especially those coming from a quite different economic system, it might be a strain and a lab would be wise to provide assistance for such students. But it would probably imply lack of choice in the characteristics of the system.
So, to be explicit about your headline question, it is probably unusual to ask a new postdoc to purchase a system because the assumption would be that they already have something suitable.

Having a private laptop and being okay with the IT department messing with it, as described in someone else's answer, are two different things, though.

The technological lifespan of a laptop is not that different from the length of a post-doc. So while, a new post-doc might arrive with a functional laptop, it is likely to need replacement within the course of the post-doc.

Finance person here in the US who has seen the finances for hundreds of PIs before and can shed some light on this "wealthy" comment.
First of all, no PI is required to fund anything, period. They can have $20M in discretionary funding and still not want to spend it on laptops. That is their choice. The reasons to do this can be numerous, and sometimes it can be about setting precedents.  It can also be because of someone like myself saying no. I personally refuse to issue postdocs a laptop because they are two-year appointments, and our IT policy depreciates laptops over 4 years. This means we get stuck with said laptop and no one wants to use it. The PI doesn't want to keep track of it. How do I know it won't walk away? Once we know it walks away, we would have to notify IT to remote wipe the PC.  How do you think that would go over?
How can I enforce these policies?  My personal solution has been to offer a one-time taxable bonus of $1,600 and they buy their own device. Our IT dept is required to lock the device down due to our data security policy. You have to know your own institution's rules to know what is possible. You could then try to approach your PI based on the computing policy, but again, the discretion is with the PI, and no means no. PIs need to plan carefully to spend money over decades to ensure they do not have funding cliffs and have to terminate all their staff. What looks like a lot of money today can dry up within only a few years. Even if your PI seems agreeable, there can be a research administrator telling them this is a bad idea for various reasons that do not directly impact you. Another answer here covered some examples of policies that make some institutions squeamish.
As for sponsored funding, many sponsors explicitly do not fund general use computers. These costs should be picked up by the institution as part of their "facilities and administration" or "indirect" costs. I have only written computers into a budget a few times because they are computation focused and require specific GPUs to accomplish the scope of work. When researchers try to push a computer purchase on me (particularly on sponsored funding), I ask things like, "so you can guarantee you will never check your email, be on social media...?" Suddenly this device is not only to benefit the grant, it is in fact a somewhat personal device. This is why I came up with my solution mentioned above for PIs who want to issue devices.

"It can also be because of someone like myself saying no. I personally refuse to [...]" Do I understand correctly that administrators at your institution can, at their own discretion, prevent PIs from spending money on a certain item - even if there are no rules or policies (from the institution or the funding body) that forbid spending the money on this item?

I am the approver for spending for a specific group of faculty, and I am responsible for enforcing university policies. I basically tell the PI that they have to enforce the Business Expense Reimbursement and IT policies on data security, and they are not interested in doing that work, ergo, we do not use university funds for property. Most institutions that receive federal funding in the US publish their policies to show compliance with Uniform Guidance. Here's an example:  https://adminguide.stanford.edu/chapters/financial-administration/expenditure-management/responsibility-university-funds

Thanks for the clarification!


text:
Do I still have a chance of funding with low english proficiency test scores?
I am from Georgia (the country) and I aim to apply for a mathematics Phd in the US. My application in general is good. I have Gpa of 3.96, strong letters of recommendations, two preprints etc.
But my IELTS test scores are not as good.
Listening : 6.5, Reading : 8.0, Writing : 6.0, Speaking: 6.0.
In many universities the minimal requirement for a teaching assistantship is 7.0 in speaking sub-score. I don’t have enough time to retake the test.
Do I still have any chances of funding with these scores?

Would you please explain what you mean by "I don’t have enough time to retake the test" ? Can you take TOEFL ?

@Nobody No i can not .

What if the university you apply to says they will consider your application if you re-take the English test (IELTS or TOEFL) ?

@Nobody Before the deadline I can not. Minimal requirement is 6.5 overall band score and i have it. Excellent score in reading.

Speaking score is critical for considering TA because students would complain if they cannot understand the TA's lecture. It's likely the school will ask you to re-take the test even if the score report time will be later than the deadline.

@Nobody what about research assistantship and other ways of funding?

At many universities, PhD students teach intro math courses. So language skills are important qualifications departments pay attention to.
If you don't get admitted this year, make it your goal over the next year to learn better English. Get a job that ensures you have enough to live but are not overworked, and spend the rest of the time getting better at English -- watch English language movies, read English language books and journal articles, etc. With some practice, you will find that your English can improve significantly over the course of a year, and that you will be in a much better position next year around. Dedicating yourself to such a task is also a positive thing to write about in a Statement of Purpose in your application next year.

One of my chosen universities is Colorado State University. If i had good application would i get reject because of IELTS? As I know if you don’t become TA immediately, you are given a job of grader and then if you undergo University’s trainings in english you could reach the position of Lecturing TA.

@JohnNash Interesting. I'm not on the selection committee, and so cannot speak for what my colleagues will look for. You could write to the graduate director to inquire about the situation.

That said, I believe that most of our graduate students have student-facing jobs right from the start, including as tutors in the Calculus Center. You really do have to interact with others. And once you have to take 3-4 graduate classes plus work, you will not likely have much time left to take formal English language training outside of learning-by-doing.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What to share in a research grant/fellowship application
My question - Is it safe to add the phd  dissertations topic including problem statement and objectives in research proposal in a research grant .Or do we need to add only a portion of it.

I'm not clear what it is you're asking: "safe" for whom? what is the danger/concern?

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.

The two concerns, requiring balance, are that you need to convince reviewers that you are the right person for the grant but that you also probably have a length limit (even if informal) to the application.
The bulk of the application should be on the work to be done, not past work, but if saying more than the minimum about your qualifications is helpful then you can do that.
If the analysis of your likely success in the application requires you to go into some detail about your insights in the problem area, then that would be appropriate. But keep the focus on the future.
As in most things, don't bore your reader.

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


text:
Caltech: Chemistry vs. Chemical Engineering Ph.D.—What's the Real Difference?
I'm exploring Ph.D. programs at Caltech in both Chemistry and Chemical Engineering. I have a few questions to better understand the implications of choosing one over the other:

Besides coursework, what sets these programs apart?
How does department choice affect career prospects, if my research focus is
specific?
Is Chemistry generally more competitive to get into than Chemical Engineering?

I'd appreciate any insights.

How many professors are in both? But probably not much difference. It is a small school, so small number statistics will prevail

What is your undergraduate preparation, and how much do you know about the general differences between chemistry and chemical engineering?

As a professor in Chemical Engineering in North America, I might be able to provide some guidance here.
At the undergraduate level, chemical engineering and chemistry are very different (in a North American perspective). In chemical engineering, the emphasis is more put on the chemical process itself than on the chemistry occurring within this process. This is why chemical engineers often take advanced courses in fluid mechanics, heat transfer, mass transfer to be able to design unit operations. I do not have a formal education in chemistry, but I would believe that more emphasis would be put into the mechanisms that occur during chemical reactions (e.g. organic chemistry) and also more hands-on lab work.
At the graduate level, however, the difference between the two fields is more hazy. Some professors in chemical engineering will work on reaction catalysis, which is something you would also find in a chemistry department. Experimental work at the graduate level will take place in a lab, as in a chemistry department. Consequently, the difference from a research perspective is more shallow.
As for careers prospects, a PhD in either field should allow you to have access to interesting and challenging positions. I know for a fact that a PhD in chemical engineering is a degree that has significant value in the industry. However, chemical engineers will often be asked to think more about the chemical process itself, than the chemical reaction. So, maybe this could be the difference to look into.
So, to directly answer your questions.

Chemists focus more on the chemical reaction, Chemical engineers focus on the process as a whole, including the design of unit operations outside of the reactors

Research topic will have a greater impact on the career prospects. However, I would presume that chemical engineers would have more flexibility in finding a career in the industry afterwards, especially if you can become P. Eng.

I do not know.


text:
How Impactful is the Particular Subject of Undergraduate Research to Graduate Admissions
Okay so I am in the final year of my math undergrad, and I am an undergraduate research assistant in what you might consider Mathematical Physics, specifically in Black Hole Quasi-Normal Modes.
I have really enjoyed working in this research area, and I will be applying to grad school in the next month. So my question is, now that I know which universities out there in the world have published in this field, If I apply to a Math PhD at one of these universities, with the intent of continuing to research black Hole QNMs does this at all increase my chances of getting accepted?
Or in general how much does the match between undergraduate research, and University research impact your chances of getting accepted to graduate school?

I'm not part of an admission committee so take this with a grain of salt (maybe someone with more experience here will chime in). But from what I've seen second hand, yeah it will help. Probably more indirectly than directly though. You're making connections with people in the field, developing interests, and presumably doing research. All these things let you put together a stronger application - from relevant letters of rec to a well informed personal statement. That could give you an edge over someone who has less specific experience.
It probably won't make up for bad grades, lackluster research, or other shortcomings in your application though. So basically, it could make a good application better but it isn't going to fix a bad application - if that makes sense.
I think it's too individual to generalize though. It's just one part of an application. You can spin any experience to your benefit, relevant or not. But since you have relevant experience, run with it.

I agree and I will add that undergraduate times of research should be spent with an impactful advisor willing to guide you.


text:
Convince my supervisor for me to switch my research field to his major area halfway in my PhD
I am going to finish the 2nd year of my PhD and have been working in a field which is not the major research area of my PI. He promised there will be industrial involvement and collaboration with other professors so I agreed to work on this field, thought I have only a little bit background in the area. However all of these promises have just not been fulfilled (I did try to find collaborators myself as well). As nobody in my group is working in this field and my PI is not particularly knowledgeable about it, I feel isolated and helpless. Meanwhile, I am attracted to a field in which my PI is an expert, and several of my colleagues actively work on it.
I have mentioned this problem to my PI and he agreed I can get trained about the field which I am interested in, while continuing to work on the field I originally worked on. Recently I have found my 2-year results within my original field of study are invalid, and there are fundamental errors in it.
After learning the new field in which my group is much more active and becoming knowledgeable on it, I really feel passionate and motivated about this. It is a more difficult field but I am determined to spend time on it. As I am halfway into my PhD, how should I convince my supervisor that I should switch my research field to an area in which our group is more active and knowledgeable, while abandoning my initial field completely? I am not trying to avoid solving the problem I faced in my initial field and would not like my PI to feel that is the case. I just think working on my initial field here in my group is pointless as nobody is knowledgeable on it, nobody knows what I am doing so nobody is able to give me genuine comments, and most importantly, I am not enthusiastic about it. However I know my supervisor would like to develop this field as it is more commercially viable. I need to admit I am not genius in this field and can't just work on my own without any proper supervision.
Any opinion is welcome.
PS: I would not like to change my supervisor. This would be the last resort.

Do you have a time limit on your PhD?

I'm confused. You seem to believe that your supervisor will need convincing, but you don't seem to have even discussed this with him yet. Have you tried explaining to him exactly what you just explained to us?

You have opened a bounty because "this question has not received enough attention". Can I suggest something else that might help get more attention? I think that you could edit your question to be considerably shorter and more punchy. At the moment it feels quite repetitive, and I think it could be summarised in a few bullet points. If you feel the extra details are vital to include, perhaps add a "TL;DR" summary at the top.

This makes me so angry. When will PIs learn that while it might be cheaper to point a PhD in a direction and say 'figure it out', it's often better value for money to hire someone who has been studying that field their whole lives. It also, you know, doesn't destroy someone's life in the process.

@Blaisorblade My funding is from my department so I am quite flexible, and usually the time is around 4 years, but under some circumstances it can be extended.

@ff524 Yes but just not so extensive. I have mentioned I am very interested  in one of his active research fields and he agreed I could spend time on getting trained.

So I'm not sure why you think it will be a problem. Just talk to him.

I would close this question as being too personal (as ff says: just talk to him) but I can't because it has a bounty. #seFail

Is there an underlying reason OP has not discussed request with advisor although that seems the obvious easy route particularly if funding his PhD in a different project were not the issue. What jumps out is his line supporting why he wants to switch  'Recently I have found my 2-year results within my original field of study are invalid, and there are fundamental errors in it."  I understand that OP might not have been productive because of feeling isolated and unknowledgable. Asking how to switch when one has established a sloppy/careless reputation puts a very different spin on it.

Overall, I think your best argument is switching fields would be better for both you and your supervisor because you're likely to be more productive. But remember that your PhD is yours, and a good supervisor shouldn't have you do work you're not passionate about.
Maintaining motivation in a PhD is maybe half of the job. And doing research by yourself can be pretty demotivating—because, indeed, you can argue it's pointless. Arguably, part of the supervisor's job is to deal with that.
You need to decide whether the answer is to try harder or whether that's a waste of time. If further mistakes are likely, for instance, because you're unsupervised, so that the project is likely to fail, stopping might be a good idea.
Furthermore, you accepted your topic assuming collaborations would arise. These things are often intrinsically uncertain; but you can use this as an argument.

However I know my supervisor would like to develop this field as it is more commercial viable.

First let me answer to you.
Since you're investing years of your life for research to be published under your name, your PhD should serve your goals.
This has to be balanced with external constraints such as funding. But unless you're being paid by a project forcing you to work on your old topic, constraints are only up to your supervisor.
And especially, even if he's interested in developing a new field, that doesn't mean he has to force you to work on it.
On the other hand, a PhD is also a collaboration where both parties have interest. Talking to your supervisor, again, I'd emphasize that you're likely to be more productive on the field you want to switch to, than on the field you're working on right now.
You also have alternatives to convincing him to switch right now. Since you've already spent time on your current project, and your supervisor suggests you to work on both fields, you might want to give it a try. Try to negotiate focusing on the new field for a while and revisit the issue. At that point, if you're actually making more progress (even just in learning), you might still want to switch and have a stronger case because you're making progress. Or you might realize that after all the old field was not so bad (as they say, "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence") and decide to work on both projects.
Relatedly, even though that's not your core question: If you have a short time limits on your PhD (3-4 years), you have a bigger problem and more motivation to get something out of your current project if possible. But if you have a more open-ended PhD (5-7 years as common in the US), changing topics after 2 years shouldn't be a big problem.

I advise you to change your subject to the active topic of your supervisor group as soon as possible. You probably heard about "fail fast" strategy. This strategy from software engineering tells us that if you have plan A for doing something, you should have a plan B for it. If your plan A didn't work, then fail fast and go to plan B. This strategy saves us plenty of time that can be applied for other works.
I have a similar story with my PI but speaking very seriously with my PI and after some hard discussion, he accepted to change my topic.
If you would like to be a good researcher, it is essential to have courage and knowing your abilities.

Um yes, should always get a plan B. I should think of it no matter what project I work on.

I had a similar experience in my Masters. I was frustrated with not being able to make headway without guidance. My thesis adviser admitted that much.
What worked eventually was this. I solved part of the problem and then switched focus to the bit which he was experienced in and has much interest in solving.
You are probably not the first student in your lab to face this issue. Your adviser has had students in similar situation. You could start with coming clean about the frustration, show him how your efforts have not yielded results and how you can transfer to the new problem.
There is a very similar situation described here in this link (by Philip Guo, Stanford Phd, currently  an assistant professor). He admits how he was going nowhere with the problem he was working on for the first two years. You will find it very useful.
The Website:
www.pgbovine.net/PhD-memoir/
His notes:
www.pgbovine.net/PhD-memoir/pguo-PhD-grind.pdf

The story of Philip Guo is really encouraging (of course success follows from hard work!)

You really need a deep discussion with your supervisor to get things straight. What is there to convince if you haven't even talked to him(her) in the first  place?
There are a few things you ought to consider before you make your decision about switching your field.

"I am not enthusiastic about it"; there are people who did their PhD with enthusiasm, but in many, even the people who were very enthusiastic would lose it at some point. It the the passion to complete the degree and hard work that gets them through in the end.
"Recently I have found my 2-year results within my original field of study are invalid" Adopting from Edison's quote, you've discovered 2-year's worth of ways that doesn't work.
Do everyone who do their PhD get their support from research groups and PIs? No.
Getting into a field where your group is more knowledgeable might allow you to gain knowledge soon but saturate just as quick. Your progress might be constrained by the progress of the group, whereas you would be more flexible in your research otherwise.

After thought about the above points, if you still hate your old field and feel passionate and motivated about the new field, then by all means go for it. Because your interest in it do matter nonetheless. You are not going to make much progress with a decision you regret; it would really be a barrier for your success.
Then again talk with your supervisor, whether you make the change or choose to stay so that you may clear the feeling of doubt in your mind.

I understand not all PhD students get appropriate and enough support, but I think it is natural and of interest for both the students and supervisors to provide proper supports to students

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


text:
Should first authorship be given to the one who proposes an algorithm or the one who implements the algorithm?
I have written detailed, low-level pseudocode for a new algorithm and would like to implement it in C++ instead of Python or R. However, I don't know how to program in C++. Therefore, I want to ask my friend who is a C++ programmer to help me with implementing the algorithm in C++ and offer coauthorship for the resulting paper and package. I will do other parts in the paper such as writing literature review and conducting a simulation study.
Should I give them the first authorship or second authorship for the resulting paper?

It's really better if all the authors are involved in the writing of the paper.

This probably entirely depends on how much work goes into going from "pseudocode" to "implemented". The word "algorithm" is rather vague, and it's very possible that most of the work will be in the actual implementation. Not to mention, once you have implemented the algorithm you'll need to test it, and choosing what data to test it on is probably important work, too.

@Stef's comment should be expended into an answer, and then it's the correct one.

What about writing the paper? I can imagine that if you have the idea (and your pseudocode is indeed working) and you also write the paper, then you both should be co-first authors.

If it is necessary to make such a distinction then you are first author since the algorithm (assuming it is correct) is yours. Only a specific implementation is theirs. The intellectual content came from you.
However, an alternative, that would be common in (pure) math and (to a large extent) in CS, would be to treat the project as collaborative with author order unstated and listed as alphabetical. The paper could contain a paragraph specifying the contributions of each.
If one programs at the direction of another, while skill is needed, the result is the intellectual property of the one who conceived the solution and, in your case, likely the problem itself.
Note also, that a translation from, say, Python to C++ could be done mechanically by a cross-compiler. Depending on the specificity of pseudo-code it might even be possible to do mechanical translations to actual programming languages.

In my field, the first author is the one who "owns" the project and usually does the most work on all aspects of the manuscript. Middle authors have varying levels of contribution - though everyone must meet the minimum requirements for authorship. Last author is usually the senior author.
Who goes where depends on many factors. It is not as simple as "giving" a particular position (assuming you are trying to act ethically). Who came up with the idea vs who implemented it is only one aspect. And there is obviously much more that goes into writing a manuscript than a bit of coding. As long as you both meet the criteria for authorship, it's up to you and your co-author to decide.
What this all means for you is that you should have an early discussion about the order. I think it's reasonable to say you want to go first - it is your project after all - but it should be a mutual decision. There is no right or wrong option, it just depends on who does what for the project.

Unfortunately, it's quite likely that the questioner's field in fact has a specific convention for this particular question and an answer from outside that field will be useless.

This question is a tough one. As an analogy, many people uses the common spreadsheet program Excel, as well as Python to produce the content of their papers. They ask for help not to friends but to random strangers on the internet (for example on Stack Overflow (SO) ).
However, Doug klunder the original creator of the "pre-"Excel Doug Klunder nor the latest implementer of Excel Charles Simonyi  are co-author of papers. And also the many contributors from SO and similar sites are not co-authors of the paper. Guido Van Rossum of Python fame may be cited every now and then, but he is not co-author of the python based papers, not even if he contributed to them (answering FAQ, answering to blog posts, fixing bugs, etcetc.)
In short and in general: if your friend is just building the code for you, in my view he deserves a lot of gratitude, but not the co-autorship. However, YMMV depending on your field.
Even more general: your friend is doing his job (programming) for free for you. If they want something in exchange, they are practically lending you some money (in form of their work).
If, on the other hand, you give them first authorship and later realize it is too much, you will always have the feeling of having given (lend) him too much, so you will expect a subsatntial pay back.
Do you know the saying

If You Want to Lose a Friend, Loan Them Money

?
you are walking that thin line ... either you give up on asking your friend for so much help, or he accept doing that as a pro-bono help to you, without messing up with "sizing" the right reward.


text:
Is it a problem if I start doing research too early?
After graduation, I will go to a graduate school to pursue a master by research degree in Applied Mathematics. The program will be research-based without any coursework.
The supervisors can suggest some courses to take if they think it's nececessary, but let's assume that the program will be research-based only.
I am confident with my mathematical skill. I believe it is good enough to understand research papers in the field I am interested. However, there are clearly a lot of advanced (applied or pure) mathematics topics that I have not learnt.
At the moment, it is not necessary for me to learn them, but I don't know if they will be useful in the future. For example, A gets inspired by a concept/technique in another field B to produce algorithm C in field D. Knowing things in B may help, but of course, it is not guaranteed and could be a waste of time.
Since the program is research-based, my time will be devoted mostly to research work, and there will be no time for any coursework. I wonder if it is a problem to start with research too early instead of spending time on taking advanced coursework to (at least) have a basic understanding of other fields in mathematics.
Should I delay the enrolment date to self-study some coursework, or should I just focus on doing research instead and learn things along the way?

Where do such programs exist? I assume you are an undergraduate. Yes?

@Buffy Exactly. This question is for Aus&NZ universities. I changed the tag

but I have seen many situations where students went directly from 3-year bachelor to PhD in Australia. There was of course the influence of faculty members on these decisions. Still, I do not know if it is a good idea.

Not sure how applicable that is to math, but in computer science many "research-based" programs still include a lot of studying. Not necessarily based on formal courses, but there is certainly still a lot that students (have to) learn "on the job". The expectation is definitely not that students already know everything they need to know in their subject at the start of the PhD.

Every researcher necessarily needs to do some studying. Maybe not following specific actual courses, but reading text books, review articles etc. You seem to think that an NBA player does not need to practice or spend time in the fitness room.

I don't know that Australian or New Zealand systems so this is a bit speculative. I'll assume, however that those systems are well designed and that accepted students are able to be successful and have good careers afterwards. Of course, if that were not the case those systems would change. So, as the kids say, obvs.
When students are accepted into a graduate program, someone makes an assessment that they are ready for that program and have a likelihood of success. It might be a committee, as in the US, or a specific advisor, as in Germany IIRC. But, the student's background is taken into account.
Once the student is in the system and has a (good) advisor, they are given advice (advisor -> advice). If the advice is good and the student follows it, they can prosper, though it takes work. Lots of hard work in math (been there, done that).
But, you don't seem to be trusting that the system is rational, when it actually is. Delaying your start for self study is highly speculative that you will focus on the right things, since you don't have an advisor to guide you. It might be ok and it might increase your odds of acceptance. OR NOT.
What you seem to want is something more like the US system, which would be fine if you are willing to move here. Lots of early coursework. Comprehensive exams to prove your readiness. Choose an advisor and a problem. Do the research. Write the dissertation. It is a fine system, but not the only rational system.
Expect that if you are accepted into a system then you are ready for study in that system. It works. Just. Do. It.
And, a life in academia is a life of learning. Don't fear to begin.

Thanks for your kind words!


text:
Time to read student evals again (shudder)
Why do the negative ones hurt so much more than the positive ones feel good?  Should I even read them this time?  If so, please give me the courage.

It's not a unique concern, but I don't think this is really a question.

I will send you a package of courage per mail.

Because, as every other desirable thing, Joy is a concave function:

Stack Exchange is in good mood today:)

@Haque Graph your sorrows, so that they don't become graphic.


text:
What should I do when a paper is published similar to my PhD thesis without citation?
As part of my PhD thesis I extended an existing method to a new problem. I finished my PhD thesis about 5 years ago and graduated afterwards. After graduation I started working in industry. I never published my thesis (or parts thereof) as a paper, since I was mainly focused on working at the beginning and after several years just was not motivated enough, since I was not pursuing an academic career.
Using a simple google search about the topic you would be able to find my PhD thesis even though the content cannot be accessed online, but surely could be accessed by contacting my previous school or the library.
I recently found a published paper that pretty much does the same things that I did for my thesis. It makes the same modifications to the existing method and comes to the same conclusions. My thesis is however not mentioned or cited in the paper. I am not implying any sort of plagiarism. Once you think about the problem, those modifications are very natural. It's just that I came up with them earlier.
As said above, I was never really interested in publishing my thesis, but now that I saw the paper I was thinking: Hey, I was the first! They should have at least cited my thesis!
I am now wondering, what my options would be and came up with the following two possibilities:

Well, tough luck! I never published my results and so it just seems fair that somebody else did (assuming that they came up with them independently).
Write the editor of the journal and inform them that the main message from the paper was already covered in my thesis and thus is not novel research.

So I was wondering, whether number 1 above applies or whether I should go with number 2. Or what would be other possibilities?

Are you sure the thesis is not published? Most uni administrations (that I know) require you to submit the thesis to your university's library. They put the thesis on the internet, if you submit a digital file. tl;dr: Dig up your university's library for your thesis.

Technically a doctoral thesis is indeed a publication everywhere that I'm aware of. The whole point of the exercise isn't just hazing and training, but to produce a solid contribution to your research area.

@OlegLobachev They're put online but usually behind various types of paywalls with access restrictions. This is important for many humanities because it is expected their thesis will become a book and there is a concern that wide distribution of the thesis will make publishers uninterested. This was an issue when a previous institution tried to make them OA.

@user71659: University library? Behind a paywall? Are you sure?

@OlegLobachev Yes, mine is, I've checked. The university has free access to all of its own theses, but not necessarily others. It's almost always ProQuest in the US.

@ASimpleAlgorithm It's a publication, but [field dependent] it might not count as a "real" publication. For example, most journals don't count theses as "prior publication", and conventionally theses don't contribute to your h-index. And in instances where publications counts are tallied for things like grant and tenure review, theses usually won't be included. -- Which is a long winded way of saying that even if a thesis is technically a publication, depending on the field it doesn't necessarily count as actually "publishing your results".

@R.M. Indeed it might not in some places or fields. But as for journals, I'd argue that they are often merely misusing language by "prior publication", by which they mean to define their own use of the term as jargon, not to make an absolute claim about the document. I suspect the real cause of this is the reverse case, publishing papers in journals then your thesis containing the same material. Squaring this practice with our restrictions on self-plagiarism means we basically have to allow it as an exception, which logically leads to allowing it in either order.

Does your institution not have a open-access repository of theses and dissertations somewhere? AFAIK, most institutions do.

If I were the one writing the paper, I would appreciate you contacting me about the issue and solve it together.

what are you trying to achieve? What will make you most happy?

@ToniMa If there was (unpublished) thesis 5 years before yours, that pretty much does the same things that you did for your thesis, what do you think those authors should do when they find out about your thesis?

The editor is not the person to talk to here, but rather the authors of the paper:

"I was reading your paper and wanted to share that I found something similar to you in my unpublished thesis from 2014, thought this might be of interest to you: (link to or attachment containing thesis)"

No accusations (they've done nothing wrong), nothing combative like contacting an editor (which would imply they did something wrong). There is nothing they need to change with their original paper, but if they do future work to follow up they can now consider citing your work.

This would give the authors of the paper the opportunity to compare their approach to the one of the thesis, and publish a short follow-up on their paper. In this follow-up the thesis will be cited, and the record set straight. You can't blame the authors of the paper for not knowing about a thesis that was not available to them.

Well, if you did not publish, and your thesis is not available, you really can't complain that somebody else's similar independently performed work is not novel - they had no reasonable way of knowing about your work.
Really, the only way to approach it is the first way. And learn that undocumented work buried in a drawer somewhere does not exist as far as the rest of humanity is concerned. Going forward, document and publish (as appropriate) your work (document for internal business use, publish for the outside world).

Well, if you did not publish, and your thesis is not available, you really can't complain that is really the point here! +1.

What is known by just one person, is known by nobody - unfortunately, I have no idea where I got this quote from. It just came to mind.

I'm not even in academia and I've heard the maxim, "Publish or perish."

@EvilSnack Yes it's a very popular adage. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publish_or_perish

I would suggest something intermediate between your two proposals. There is no reason not to contact the editor and point to your thesis. But don't make a claim that the new work isn't "novel" since it truly is if done independently as seems to be the case.
The one thing you might possibly get is a note, pointing to your thesis, hence to you, that the same ground was covered in an unpublished dissertation. That might happen or not,
But, if you are also still interested in the topic and want to continue to extend it, you can contact the authors also, both congratulating them and pointing to your earlier work. That, along with a suggestion of collaboration in the future.
Independent work is very common. It is especially common in popular research areas. Everyone has access to the same background and many people are thinking along the same lines.
I'll also note that Newton and Leibniz had the same sort of issue, with Newton's early work left "in a drawer".

In mathematics at least it is not uncommon that the omission of a key reference be corrected in an erratum, which may also help clarify the accompanying issue of priority.
Assuming that this approach is not entirely field specific, the course of action would be to contact the authors, indicate your priority, provide links to (if available) and bibliographic information on your thesis, and suggest that they submit a short erratum clarifying this.
(If no copy of your thesis is easily available online, consider attaching a copy to your email to the authors.)
Here is an example.

Theses are not widely cited. I disagree with this practice.  Almost all scientific Ph.D. theses are on Michigan microfiche and are readily abstracted, searchable, etc.  But the bottom line is people don't really read them or cite them enough.  I have even had a collaborator of mine (buddy of my advisor) publish experiments that duplicated something in my thesis (several years later).  That one, bugged me.
But bottom line, lots of people don't look at or consider Ph.D. thesis to be a publication.  Really it is.  But lots of people don't treat it that way.
I would just ignore it.  Oh...and you should have put it in a journal.

In my university is was common practice to write papers, and group them in a thesis. There is no use in citing the thesis rather than the papers.

Perhaps, you should look at this question:
What's the point of PhD theses if nobody reads them?
People do not read theses even when they are publicly accessible. In your case, who want to read your thesis need to overcome the hurdle of contacting your former school or library. (I would suggest putting your thesis on ArXiv if you hope somebody to read it).
Theses are not official publication. And even publications in lower rank conferences are largely ignored, as they are often of low quality.
Nowadays, there are just too many papers to read, and the junk/predatory journals/conferences make the problem worse. So a strategy to optimize the time is to read only papers in well-known conferences, and hope that the authors did a good job in their related work (in good papers, they often do).
No pain, no gain.
Publishing papers in top venues is a pain. But there is also reward on it, otherwise people just goes for easy venue to avoid rejections.
In my field, Computer Science, a PhD student is expected to publish a couple of papers in order to graduate. What other assumption can you make about a thesis without publication?
In your case, you didn't even try to publish your idea, didn't even try to make it accessible, why hoping it get cited?

Just because somebody writes a claim in the title of a question does not mean the claim is true. The thread you linked to contains multiple refutations of the claim that nobody reads PhD theses. And it is very much false that theses are not "official" publications.

@E.P. there is no statistic about how many theses are read, but I heard the same claim from several people, from different fields. I guess the people who upvoted that question agreed with the claim.

The question you've linked to was on the Hot Network Questions sidebar for a substantial period. I think it's much more likely that most people who voted that question up just agreed that they had heard the claim somewhere, it sounded plausible to them, and they never bothered to dig deeper. Much like you see people throwing that claim around elsewhere on the net (here included) without bothering to qualify it or provide any evidence for it, even when explicitly confronted with evidence that it is false.

@qsp i upvoted that question because the answers accurately refuted the title question, and I thought it would be good for the answers to be seen and hopefully stop the unsubstantiated and anecdotally inaccurate (ime) belief that no one reads theses.

Hey, I was the first! They should have at least cited my thesis!
Many an academic has sung that blues. This has happened to me several times. The one thing that always makes me laugh is that never do they even bother to change the notation.
This may seem like a small thing, but to me it suggest that plagiarism is so g.dd.rn blatant because the perps know they can get away with it.
You could make reclamations and see what happens, but in the fight between yourself and the old-boys network, always bet on the latter.


text:
Are there academic institution-specific equivalents to attorneys (a professional who assists in navigating conduct and justice systems)?
There's an interesting question over at Law.SE on the possibility of suing a university over what the OP saw as unfair disciplinary practices. I have often wondered...
Is there a type of professional or professional practice related to advising or representing students and/or faculty within the context of internal disciplinary procedures?
As a concrete example, let us assume that Mary was expelled for allegedly falsifying data for her thesis. Mary contests this.

If she sues in civil court, she should consult an appropriately-qualified, local attorney.
But if she instead takes her argument directly to the university's disciplinary committee, she will need someone with an in-depth knowledge of the policies, procedures, rules of evidence, witness disqualification criteria, time limits, etc. that are internal to the university. This person could scrutinize the investigation in-depth and "beat them at their own game" by pointing out how the evidence, according to university policy, should be seen in her favor or does not meet the internal requirements for expulsion.

Another example might be a purely advisory context: perhaps one is considering a romantic liaison with a student, and is wondering whether this could affect their employment.
Does such a professional or service exist? Is this a domain of highly specialized "regular" lawyers? Is there a separate professional practice for academic advisors?
Clarifications:

This is a general question; I'm not currently facing a situation on which I need advice.
If necessary, we can limit the scope of the question to academic misconduct (plagiarism, falsifying data, cheating on exams, etc.) rather than personal misconduct.
I will tag this as US to further limit the scope, but I'm certainly interested in any answers, regardless of the location.

It's becoming common for students to bring attorneys in to help them in defending themselves in internal disciplinary cases of this sort.

I think you win the prize for longest text length of tags I've ever seen. nice

This is also one of the longest text lengths I have seen -- 718 words! I have made some edits that reduce this by 60%. Feel free to make further changes if I botched anything, but I recommend keeping the length as short as possible.

In the US, disciplinary procedures are different at every university.  The answers below are just examples.  At some universities, disciplinary procedure is run by the dean of students, who might assign an associate dean of students the responsibility for representing a student.  At a few universities, disciplinary procedure is run by a student  honor court.  In this case a student would be assigned to represent the accused student.

I’m not aware of what you are asking about existing as a type of professional that one can retain (as per your question) — I suspect that would be a rather poor way to make a living — but at my university there are people who are available to consult on matters such as Mary’s expulsion case.
Since Mary sounds like a graduate student, the relevant place to go would be the university ombuds office. In some cases the student union or an employee union of some sort may offer some help.
If Mary were a faculty member, she would go to a committee of our academic senate where advisers would be able to advise her if the thing she wants to complain about is a violation of her rights as a faculty member, and about the procedure for challenging the administration’s decisions.
These advisers are themselves regular faculty members like me and only do this as a “side gig” for a few hours a month, but they will have received specialized training that gives them the knowledge to offer this sort of advice (in fact I am currently on a sister subcommittee of this committee so I received a lot of the same training myself), and will also have auxiliary staff they can turn to who specialize in the relevant policy matters and can offer further information if the need arises.
These advisers won’t be available for an unlimited time. Likely they will be able to meet with Mary 2-3 times and discuss her questions, but it’s not quite the same as having your own lawyer or other professional that you retain on an hourly basis.
Since through my involvement in the sister subcommittee I am privy to faculty grievances a bit like Mary’s, I can tell you that faculty members who really need professional help with their grievance process will often hire a lawyer (I have also seen cases of students hiring lawyers for help with a disciplinary matter), and this can make a big difference - it’s far from easy for someone without experience in these administrative processes to navigate the system. A lawyer may not be intimately familiar with the specific institution’s policies, but broadly speaking they have the right training and skill set to help in such challenging situations. They don’t come cheap, however...

It's worth noting that the ombuds office is generally a resource available to faculty as well if for whatever reason they are not immediately comfortable going to the academic senate.

Worth also noting that the union is (at many instutitions) an important support source for faculty, not just for students as you mention.

@PLL faculty don’t have a union where I am (not allowed, they are regarded as managers).

In the United States, there is a lot of variation from institution to institution. If such an office exists, your best bet is to ask the ombuds.  An ombuds is generally an impartial third party who mediates disputes within an institution.  Ombuds typically cannot make binding decisions, and merely serves as an advisor between parties.  Many institutions in the US have an "Office of the Ombuds", or something similar.  For a couple of descriptions of what an ombuds' office may do, see:

University of Arizona's Ombuds
UC Riverside's Office of the Ombuds
MIT's Ombuds Office

Many institutions also often maintain separate offices for addressing specific kinds of complaints.  For example, most American institutions of higher learning have a Title IX office, which is meant to focus on issues of sex and gender discrimination.  The Title IX office will often be tasked with investigating accusations of misconduct, and may employ one or more attorneys who specialize in Title IX cases.  Such an office may also employ or authorize various semi-professional investigators or coordinators to help deal with their caseload—the ATIXA website may give some insight.  The Title IX office might work in parallel with a civil authorities (police and the courts), and may issue academic penalties (suspension or expulsion, for example) independent of a criminal case.  There are attorneys who specialize in these issues, both in terms of prosecution and defense.
Most institutions also have some kind of "Academic Integrity Office" or "Offce of Student Conduct" (often housed under the umbrella of a Dean of Students).  These offices are generally tasked with adjudicating accusations of cheating, plagiarism, and (if applicable) honor code violations; and may hear cases of discrimination, harassment, or sexual misconduct.  Typically, this office is empowered to make decisions regarding student conduct, and can issue penalties (such as failing grades in classes, suspension, etc.).  Most institutions have some kind of formal process, and the decisions are often made by a committee consisting of faculty, administrators, and/or students.  Appeals generally go to a provost, president, or chancellor of an institution, and can eventually involve attorneys who specialize in academic misconduct (there are property rights associated to education, hence these kinds of issues cannot always be resolved internally).  Examples include

University of Arizona, where academic integrity falls under the purview of the Dean of Students,
University of Nevada, Reno, which has an independent Office of Student Conduct, and
UC Riverside, where accusations of misconduct may be brought before the academic senate.

Depending on the nature of your question, any one of these offices (or its equivalent) might be of service.  Within an institution, you might also consult with HR, the chair of your department, your dean (assuming that you are faculty), your union (assuming that you are represented by a union, either as a graduate student or as faculty or staff), an appropriate vice president's office (e.g. VP of Student Services), or an outside attorney who specializes in the appropriate field.

Not sure HR and HR-like structures are a good suggestion for someone who is at least in a potential conflict with their employer. You wouldn't go to the other side's lawyers either, would you?

@darijgrinberg I did consider that, but if the question is hypothetical, then there aren't really "sides" yet, and the folk in HR can be expected to know the rules.

An additional perspective (from a European university, if that matters), adding to already good answers. Mostly in case that someone with a concrete issue finds this question later.
I would most likely advise our grad student to wait retaining a lawyer until absolutely necessary. Apart from the non-negligible monetary cost of doing so, bringing your lawyer to a meeting can often be interpreted as escalating the conflict, which in systems where private disputes are rarely settled in court, will mean that the university will do likewise. As such, retaining a lawyer might close the door on amicable solutions.
I have personally seen some cases where students (possibly by online advise) will "lawyer up" in cases about minor academic misconduct (plagiarizing an assignment in a course), which promptly made our dean forward the case to the legal department -- we are not equipped to handle such things ourselves. This meant that cases which would have been handled with a slap on the wrist and a failed course, was now dragged out in a lengthy legal procedure. In such cases, consulting with the student union or university ombudsperson is almost always better.

All that stuff would still generally be best done by a lawyer.  Aside from being knowledgable in actual law (or at least able to look it up properly), lawyers are well-versed in finding and analysing rules/policies/procedures, and marshalling evidence and argument to achieve a desired outcome within a set of rules.  The skills that lawyers use would transfer easily to internal university procedures conducted under university policies.  (Note that some university procedures do not give much latitude for use of counsel, but they would almost alwayes be entitled to attend hearings, etc., and give advice.)
If you are looking for a specific type of lawyer then you probably want someone who is good in contract law, administrative law, discrimination law, and litigation.  These are the main areas of law that are likely to bear on university processes relating to university disciplinary procedures.  In particular, if you are dealing with a public university then they are subject to rules of administrative law that may go beyond their written contractual obligations, so a lawyer will be aware of legal requirements imposed on the university that its own staff may not be familiar with.
The main reason that lawyers are not usually used for this type of thing is simply that they are too expensive for internal matters like this.  Nevertheless, for certain wealthy people, it would be perfectly natural for them to hire a lawyer for a matter like this, particularly if it involves a matter of high importance to them.


text:
DVV/ICC Stage-One Test for the Certification in English
I've received a CV that includes a certificate on a "DVV/ICC Stage-One Test for the Certification in English". I don't know this test. What is equivalent, e.g. w.r. to the European Framework (A1-C2) or TOEFL score?

I'm having trouble getting a direct link, but Google turned up a PDF about TELC which started from German Adult Education (DVV). "Stage One" appears to be very old terminology as they currently use the European Framework that you mentioned.

@mkennedy: Thanks. Make an answer out of it, I'll be happy to accept it.

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


text:
What are some of the starting phrases that I can use while responding to Ph.D examination committee questions during my defence?
I am appearing my Ph.D defence in a few weeks. I am in need of some starting phrases or words which I can use while responding to the questions from the examiners. There could be difficult questions which are beyond the objective of my thesis, the examiner could point out a better methodology or I might have missed some of the most important papers in the field and so on.
I need a list of some starting phrases for responding the examiner's question.
I am clear about my objectives and the contents of my thesis. Just need some speaking tips.

I'd say the truth :)
Be honest, be polite, be direct....

There are times for witty phrases that you spent the last two weeks memorizing; your dissertation defense is not one of them.

Here's what worked for me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4d8PHDG4yE . Like De Niro, you may wish to practice in front of a mirror beforehand.

@Corvus I assume you're not recommending those specific phrases... or are you? ;-)

Phrases, yes. De Niro's....prop? Not so much. (Unless you're at UT, of course, where it's perfectly legal.)

I went to a defence where every answer started with "that is a very good question". Towards the end, it got quite funny; and when we told him later, he said he hadn't realised.

I think you've got a good answer already - and I would really just say "know your stuff as well as possible". BUT: There are differences in the PhD defence in different countries - in the UK it is a formal meeting with your examiners, in Germany it is (apparently) an open lecture. - So naming the country would help.

"that is a very good question" is a good answer - if you mean it. Of course, in math, "Gauss had proven an early version of that statement" is almost always right ;-) And "does it work also in the intuitionist version" is almost always wrong :-))

Well, you could always say AAAAAAAAAAAAA! - the best defense being a good offense, after all.

PhD defences are not about canned beginnings to sentences. You're being examined on your ability to answer questions, not to say some magic phrase before answering questions. Just answer the questions.

@Davidmh If I had been on that panel, I would've responded: "We know, that's why we asked it!" :)

In addition to Pete Clark's excellent answer, I would like to offer a second piece of advice.  When you are feeling nervous or "put on the spot" by questions, an excellent first step is to begin by ensuring that you have understood the question.  You can say something like:

"If I understand correctly, you are asking [paraphrased question]

and then go on with your response.  This both makes sure you are clear about your communication as well as giving you a moment to steady your nerves and to think about your response.

Yes, in fact, I was looking for such tips.

+1 for a great tip that applies much more generally whenever you are communicating with people about research. Too many people have a tendency to answer a completely different question than the one they were asked, without even bothering to check whether their (flawed) understanding of the question is correct.

Of course, over (or mis) using this makes you sound like an idiot.

@Kimball I'd interpret an overusing of this as a sign of nervousness more than anything else.

Also "that's a very interesting question... I don't have an answer for that right now."

This is especially important if you are not sure if the whole audience was able to hear the question. Sometimes people from front rows ask in a rather quiet voice and if there is no microphone, it is generally good to repeat or paraphrase it for everyone present.

Trying to prepare for any academic examination via stock phrases which are not related to the content of the subject is a very poor idea.  You are never expected to know everything about your subject or be able to answer every question related to your work.  When you do not know something, an ideal answer is "I don't know, but..." What follows should show that you know something related to the question and/or have some ideas about what you would do in order to learn the answer that you do not now possess.
I don't mean to be harsh, but in my opinion "while preparing for your PhD defense" is a bit late to be learning the above lesson and in particular that "polite and impressive phrases" will please no one.  If I were on an exam committee and saw someone answering in this way, it would make a much more negative impression on me than a crisp, honest "I have no idea" (with no "but...").  If someone said that, then 90% of the time I would drop the line of inquiry and move on to something that they do know.  If someone tried to blow smoke in my face, I might well try to wring an honest admission of lack of knowledge out of them.  Please consider yourself warned.
Added: The clarified version of the question changes things a bit.  I would still advise against memorizing specific phrases, as I think that could come off as trying to obfuscate (which, as above, would be very bad).  It sounds like the OP may just be a bit nervous about an important presentation given in a non-native language.  I certainly hope it is the case that the OP has given academic presentations before and has answered questions from faculty before.  I would recommend that the OP talk to his advisor, to get some feedback about the format of the defense and to get some practice answering questions.  In my opinion the precise words used to frame an answer to a question are not very important, and the less framing material and the more direct the answer, the better.  But the OP can try out answering questions with his advisor, and if there is really some formal deficiency, his advisor can help him remedy it.  This is part of the advisor's job. Getting stock phrases from the internet from those who don't know the OP or the subject of his thesis seems quite likely to backfire.

@ Pete L. Clark Makes perfect sense to me. What I meant by polite and impressive phrases is to respond in a confident way by using appropriate words to justify my research in the context of the question asked. For instance, just saying "I have no idea" might not suffice but expanding the answer to "I hadn't thought that way, but it looks like it is worth considering in future research" could  be better. I am in need of such phrases just to expand my eloquent speaking. It by no means was to memorize the stock phrases and keep on responding with the phrases which are irrelevant to the question.

@visresearch: Once again, I would prefer "I have no idea" to "I hadn't thought that way, but it looks like it is worth considering in future research" once it became clear that by the latter you meant the former.  You do not need to speak "eloquently"; you just need to speak clearly and with sufficient (not perfect) mastery of the subject matter.  Why are you seeking to put on airs?

@PeteL.Clark - I think you might be being unsympathetic here.  My guess is that the OP has a very poor command of spoken English and has trouble coming up with sentences on the fly.  I imagine that if I had to defend my thesis in French, I'd want to be prepared with some stock phrases (even though I basically have no trouble reading papers in French or, for that matter, basic survival in a French-speaking country).

@Alexander: If that were the situation, I would be more sympathetic, yes.  The OP hasn't said anything like that though.  Perhaps this difficulty communicating is symptomatic of his problem?  Anyway, someone with a shaky command of English is especially advised to speak simply and clearly, rather than trying to memorize "eloquent" or "impressive" phrases.  So I think the content of my answer still applies.  (Also, the English of the question and the comments looks flawless to me.)

@AlexanderWoo My question is in line with your comments.However, I wouldn't say that I have a very poor command of speaking English. There are times when I feel a bit shaky especially while choosing the right words otherwise I am confident. Maybe the title of this post was misunderstood or I was not explicit enough in my queries. Anyway, it is good to get inputs.

@visresearch: If linguistic difficulties are the primary motivation for your question, please edit that into your question.

@PeteL.Clark Have edited now, does that make sense. Apologies for using words such as polite and impressive. I realised that those were bad choices.

I need a list of some starting phrases for responding the examiner's question.

No you don't, what you need is good arguments to back your research claims - their validity, their novelty, their applicability/importance and so on.
Having said that, some universities have certain rules of protocol, e.g. examiners begin their questioning by reciting "By the permission of the esteemed [position-holder-here] and by my right, I will address several questions to the candidate" or something along these lines. It might be the case that there's some ceremonial opening for your reply. That kind of ceremony - like the robes, and hats, and the "procession" etc. are of symbolic but not material importance. Find some official involved with organizing the examination and have them tell you about the ceremonial procedure.
But again - it's the substance, not the form, which matters.

You're in the Netherlands, aren't you?  I was on a Ph.D. examination committee in Delft a few years back, and enjoyed the ceremony greatly, particularly being called "Herr Opponenten"

@jakebeal: Yes I am. I wish people would take their defense more seriously... if only opponents would actually ask hard (but failr) questions rather than just assuming the guy/girl needs to get his degree.

In my case, nobody thought to tell me to take it easy, and as the person from farthest away I was the first opponent, so I gave a fairly hard US-defense-style interrogation.  :-)


text:
I asked for a recommendation, then decided I wouldn't, but I've changed my mind again. Will the professor feel annoyed?
I was planning to apply for a Ph.D. program and I asked a Prof to write me a letter of recommendation. The prof already agreed. After that, I didn't feel confident about applying and informed the professor to not write LOR for me.
Deep inside, I still want to apply but I haven't made up my mind yet.
Will the professor feel annoyed if I ask for a LOR again? Should I tell the professor that I haven't decided yet but in any case, can they still submit their LOR.
I know professors are busy and I don't want to bother them too much.

When is the deadline? Six months, next Friday?

at the end of this month :(

Speaking as somebody who's written a good number of letters of recommendation, here is what I would suspect this looks like from the professor's point of view. At the time when you decided that you wouldn't apply, either:

The professor hadn't yet written the letter, in which case there's likely no effort wasted, or
The professor had already written the letter, in which case it's just sitting there ready to go (or even already submitted).

If you have a good relationship with the professor, as it sounds like you have, then you should be able to explain the situation, and they will likely understand and be able to plan appropriately.  If they have dealt with many students before, they will likely understand this type of situation and may even have useful advice for you as you approach your decision.  For me, at least, and I suspect for many other recommenders, the most important thing is clear communication.
Bottom line: you are unlikely to have problems with the professor if you explain your situation clearly.

Probably yes.
Writing a strong letter of recommendation demands some effort. Make sure of your decision before asking for your professor to invest his time in it.

My prof is very friendly. When I notified her that I would not apply, she still said that if I would need a letter, she would write it. But basically, I can only decide that whether or not to submit my application on the last day but I cannot inform my prof on the last day to write LOR for me. I am still waiting for results of a standard test which the results will be realsed on the last day of the application deadline. If it is too low, then I would not apply

@old man So let her be aware of the situation. It's understandable.


text:
Are student papers treated differently from main papers in a top conference?
This is referring to a top tier conference like AAAI, CVPR, NIPS.
Other than the apparent difference that the lead author is a student, how differently are student papers treated? Will the reviewers be less harsh on the paper, and if accepted, will it be given the same amount of recognition as the main conference papers? Is there any segregation done when the final papers are presented at the conferences?

AAAI and NIPS (I don't know about CVPR on the top of my head) are double blind. So, the reviewer does not know that all authors are students!

I doubt there are 'student' papers in these top conferences.  I'm sure the supervisor(s) has spent considerable effort on the paper. In other words, if you are a newbie or inexperienced (including researchers), your chances are low.  You need someone with a track record at these conferences.

@Prof.SantaClaus There absolutely are papers at top CS conferences written entirely by students, with minimal or no involvement from their advisors or other faculty.

@JeffE Well I guess your definition of 'student' is different to mine.  I can always do another PhD and get myself labeled as a 'student'.

@Prof.SantaClaus My definition of "student" is "someone without a PhD", and on very rate occassiona even "somone without a bachelors degree".

@JeffE my point is, someone without a degree can function at the same or higher level than someone with a PhD.  If Freeman Dyson decides to do a PhD, and become a 'PhD student', I'm sure he won't have any problems getting published in top places.

In my area of research there is no special category or process for student papers. All papers are submitted using the same process and the overwhelming majority of conferences uses double blind peer-review.
By design this implies that reviewers should not even be aware whether a paper was written by a student or not. Also during conferences, all papers are treated exactly the same.
The only thing I can think of that's special for papers written by students is that some conferences offer a special "Best Student Paper" award, for which - naturally - only student papers are eligible. (What defines a student paper can differ between conferences.) But these awards are decided after all accepted papers have been chosen and do not influence acceptance/rejection.


text:
Etiquette Question - Professor asked if I could meet after X time on Y day. I emailed to confirm a specific time but he has not responded
I have been looking to get started in undergraduate research (CS) and finally got a bite on a cold email. This professor said he read my resume and "liked my profile" and asked if I could meet him after X on day Y. I responded asking if a specific time in that time frame worked for him. However, it's been a day and a half and he has yet to respond. (the day is tomorrow)
If he does not respond today, would it be rude to knock on his door during the time frame he specified? Or does the lack of response suggest he has rethought the offer?

No, it would not be rude to knock on his door. He's already said the time is OK! However, I would not have worded the email asking him if [time] is OK - I'd simply say something like "alright, I'll be there at [time]", which saves him from having to respond.
If he indeed rethought the offer, it'd be quite unethical of him not to tell you before you visit him. But you knocking on his door won't hurt anyway: the worst that can happen is that he tells you then that he's rethought the offer.

I would guess that he expects you to knock and it might be discourteous not to go.


text:
Is it appropriate to ask former mentors/professors to peer review a study?
I conducted research with my former professors and mentors during my internship and master's program at my former institution. We published one paper together, of which I was the lead author. Three years later during my PhD training, I recommended them as reviewers for a manuscript I also led. I have a great deal of respect for my former mentors and implicitly trust their objective feedback. However, given my previous relationship with them, I wonder whether this was a conflict of interest.

Review for whom?  Just yourself or as a recommendation to an editor?

Recommendations to an editor for publication

I don't think I've ever seen a scenario where one could choose their own peer reviewers. Recommend or suggest, yes, but not select. It would be up to the editor to choose reviewers, and they can decide if the conflict is an issue as long as they're informed of the situation. Most reviewing is done blinded in some way to avoid this sort of thing - it's typically deemed inappropriate for authors to even know who is reviewing their paper, much less choose them. I'm surprised you have the opportunity to pick your own reviewers, regardless of who you choose.

Certainly you can recommend them to an editor as possible reviewers so long as you make your prior associations clear. You don't make the choice, the editor does, relieving you of any conflict of interest. But that notice of prior relationships is essential to avoid ethical issues.
One might misunderstand the request to nominate reviewers a bit, though. It is (I hope) the editor that makes the choices.
Such people are probably competent in the topic to do a good job and the editor will be aware that other, more independent, review might be needed.
I think the practice of asking authors to nominate reviewers is fairly common, especially for narrow research topics where the editor may not know who the obvious candidates are.

I did not disclose, though I am sure they likely may have disclosed our prior association with the editor-in-chief given that one of my reviewers is an editor at the same journal.

You can still make the disclosure. If you don't, then it raises conflict of interest issues. Make it explicit.

You should definitely disclose this when suggesting the reviewer. Example.

We ask reviewers to declare any potential conflicts of interest and email the journal Editorial Office if they are unsure if something constitutes a potential conflict of interest. Possible conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to):

Reviewer works in the same institute as one of the authors;
Reviewer is a co-author, collaborator, joint grant holder, or has any other academic link, with any of the authors within the past three years;
Reviewer has a close personal relationship, rivalry or antipathy to any of the authors;
Reviewer may in any way gain or lose financially from publication of the paper;
Reviewer has any other non-financial conflicts of interest (political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, intellectual, commercial or any other) with any of the authors.

Reviewers should disclose any conflicts of interest that may be perceived as bias for or against the paper or authors.

The two highlighted bullet points both count against your case. It doesn't mean they won't be eligible to review, the editor might choose to invite them anyway, but they will definitely want to know the reviewer might be biased (and hence you should disclose).