text:
PhD at same location as undergraduate?
I'm an undergraduate currently. I am looking to pursue a PhD next year. I have an established PI here who I have been working very well with, and we already have, well, probably at least 2 years in the future worth of plans for potential projects.  Obviously, it often does not look good to do your PhD at the same program as your undergraduate, as I have read that institutions view it as though the student does not want to leave their comfort zone, will have a more restricted network, fewer diversity in the background of recommenders, etc.
The problem is, my undergraduate institution is number one in the field I am doing, and in the graduate field I hope to pursue (its "specialty" is a different subfield than mine, but I am sure it is still at or near the top of the specific subfield I work in, and the entire program itself is still number 1). So my question is, could it potentially harm me in pursuing my PhD at the same place? What potential impacts could it have on me down the line? If I have other connections that I also have worked well with in the past at, say, the number 10 school in the field and am accepted there, would that be better, worse, and why? If I could instead work in a similar field at a different campus of the same university that is also top 5 (and also would allow me to perform the same research, take as interesting and focused coursework, etc), and my current PI would be able to co-advise me with a faculty member from that department, would that change things and be "far enough" of reaching from the undergraduate institution?
I am not at all concerned with rankings, but obviously with the current pay structure and employment market in academia, that is not something that can be taken out of the equation. I agree that I really enjoy pushing my comfort zone as well; at my current university, The only places with that sort of funding for the area of research I perform are top 25 schools, and getting hired by one of those is obviously a majorly uphill battle to start with.  I really appreciate any insightful feedback/suggestions/tips you guys can give!

is that a little better? sorry about that!

You could reduce potential harm by interning elsewhere and, subsequently, taking a postdoc position elsewhere.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I heard it was only bad to do a PhD at the same university you want to teach at. Undergraduate + Graduate at a university is no problem.

The problem is, my undergraduate institution is number one in the field I am doing, and in the graduate field I hope to pursue.

Here's a well-known story:
Richard Feynman did his undergrad studies at MIT. Near the end of his studies there, he approached John Slater (the head of physics at that time) asking to stay on as a PhD candidate. Slate asked him why, and Feynman's response was:
"I want to go to MIT because it is the best school in the country."
Slater then said: "That's why you should go to some other school. You should find out how the rest of the world is."
(Paraphrased from "Surely you're joking...")

Here's a personal story:
When I was applying for graduate schools, everyone is applying everywhere, and in particular most of my cohort also applied for the graduate school program where I did my undergraduate degree. Now, most of them do not really want to stay another four or five or six years there---entirely understandable as the town is not very exciting, and after four years of undergraduate studies there one typically cannot wait to go away for a while. So the department is often reluctant to admit their own students for fear of "wasting an offer".
So I was slightly surprised when I got a phone call from my then undergraduate thesis advisor inquiring about my intentions, after laying out the above "facts". This being rather early in the process and before I had received any concrete offers, I responded in a way that is mostly truthful but also (I thought) calibrated to not ruin my prospects of getting some/any offer! So I equivocated that only an offer from one other institution would seriously tempt me away, and in the case I get offers both from that other institution, and my then current one, I would have to think harder before making up my mind. But the chances are 50-50 absent any significant differences in the offer.
My thesis advisor then asked me whether I am out of my mind, and why I would consider going anywhere else when he is the best in the world there is.
I stayed, and I am not sorry for it. (Well, at the very least, I still have a job.)

Having been in hiring discussions: I have never heard the esteem of any candidate lowered solely because he or she studied for both the undergraduate and graduate degrees at the same place. Concerns about "leaving one's comfort zone" and about "lack of connections" are more often raised in the context of

Having postdoctoral research that closely mirrors doctoral research (no growth).
Having a very small set of collaborators, one of whom is the doctoral advisor (no connections).

By the time most of us finished our undergraduate degrees, we are significantly less mature than we are after we finished our PhDs. No reasonable person would judge you on one decision you make when you are so young. Besides, if you really are the type that cannot venture far from your comfort zone, it will show up (probably more clearly) elsewhere in your CV.
So your consideration should really be: will I learn if I stay? Will I grow if I stay? Can I count on myself to reach out and make more connections should I stay? Will I perform excellent research if I stay?
Your decision should ultimately rest on your expected growth as an individual (both scientifically and otherwise) and not on unreliable perceptions from "the community".

wow, very very insightful. The last few questions I hadn't really thought of; thanks so much! These honestly sound like questions that I could make sure to address with my PI here, and maybe he would be able to help me address them over the next few years if I decide to stick around. Thanks!

Yes, there is some taboo about it.
Yes, I have met people who did this and they are now professors at top schools.
From a logical perspective, if you are already at the best school in your field, then it may not make sense to go elsewhere. But like you said, it can also be beneficial to get out of your comfort zone and work with other groups.
In the end, if you do great research then no one will care where you did your undergrad. The important thing is to pick the university/department/advisor that you believe will enable you to do great research. We can't tell you what is best for you.

what is your opinion about ppl that changed field from undergrad and grad' how they are regarded?

Thanks @Austin. It's just like, literally every positive I can think of a negative. My PI here does good work, and maybe I could get more papers out here; the PI I could work with at another school gets more citations even though the work is equivalent in quality. I have lots of collaboratory here; maybe I'd get some more elsewhere. Such a hard decision :(

@SSimon, I think it depends on the field. For instance, physics is a very broad topic area, in which many people with a undergraduate degree in physics go into many far reaching fields, simply because physics is such an amazing undergraduate major for preparing you for a variety of mathematical questions (and mathematical questions form the basis for most, if not all, quality research in any scientific field). I think fields that teach you a concept like physics, math, etc (problem solving, mathematics skills, etc) are far easier to apply in other graduate study than say, a sciences field.

It is far easier to learn math, and then learn how to apply it specifically, than to learn some other subject, and then learn the mathematics behind it. Knowing the mathematics, you can accelerate your learning of the sciences just by seeing the mathematical proofs, whereas knowing the science itself will do little to help you understand the math in most situations.


text:
Returning to academia after 6 years in industry
I graduated with a Masters in 2009 in US. Since then, I have been working as a Software Engineer. I am mostly intellectually bored in professional life and feel I am not learning. The idea of going back to school fascinates me. I don't have it in me to do a Phd but I am very keen to do another 2 years of focused study. I am keen to understand about courses where I can intersect with folks in the similar walk of life.
Any suggestions?
Update: Are there any popular 1-2 year programs in Economics/Finance?

are there any universities that focus a lot towards adults going back to college?

Ask yourself what you want to do after further study, not during.

A majority of universities serve large numbers of adults with work experience.

Welcome to Academia SE. Can you please [edit] your question to focus on a more specific goal. Please also read this and this Meta post.

Take a look at University of Wisconsin Madison Computer Science.  Not sure if this is still the case, but at some point the particularly encouraged returning students to apply.  // Please don't rule out a PhD a priori.  Let yourself be guided by your progress and interests.

In your case, consider this: what do you have to gain from the additional courses taken? Are you going to apply the knowledge gained in your current job, which you do not find so interesting?
Typically the purpose of universities is to allow students to study for degrees. In your case, that degree would be PhD, but you already ruled it out. If your feel bored in your professional life, the professional life would not support the PhD degree. In practice, you will have to terminate the uninteresting employment to obtain PhD. The other option will be to only take some courses without studying for a PhD, which may be possible too.
Are you planning to take temporary study leave from your current job, or to terminate the employment completely? Check your local laws related to study leave. In Finland, two years of part- or full-time study leave is allowed after 1 year of employment at the same employer, and after 8 years of employment (not necessarily at the same employer), you get adult education allowance which will financially support the studies.
To me, your situation sounds like you have not found the right job for you. I also work as a software engineer, but in a research-oriented environment at the research laboratory of a major telecommunications equipment vendor. I have found the job so interesting that I'm now studying for a PhD related to my dayjob using a part-time study leave.
So, my advice to you: keep looking for new job opportunities! It definitely sounds like your current job is uninteresting, and the problem solution is to find a new job, not to flee back to the university. I have had uninteresting jobs as well. But, to find the right job for you, you have to find out the root cause of the current job being uninteresting. In my case, it was lack of research orientation. If you find the right job for you, you may very well find yourself in the case that you have enough to say in a PhD thesis.

It's not that unusal to have two master degrees in more or less related fields.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Three given names, the second being my calling name: what to put on paper?
I have three given names, say Adam John Isaac. Furthermore I have one family name, say Harris. (The names are not my own, but the initials are.) On this website, I read that I can freely choose which names to put on a paper.
My first given name is not the name that I'm actually known as. Therefore, it feels a bit strange to put Adam J.I. Harris on a paper.
In other papers, I often see people placing initials between their (first) given name and family name. So far I have never seen initials before the first given name, like A. John I. Harris. This looks strange, in my opinion, both because an initial before the given name is uncommon, and it might be read as the word 'a' instead of the initial 'A.'.
Now I've been thinking of using John A.I. Harris on the paper. This way all my names/initials are there, and it looks less strange. Furthermore it's kind of funny, as I'm an AI student.
Another option would be to just stick with my calling name and family name: John Harris.
Do you have any thoughts on this? Can the initials A.I. be seen as some (stupid) joke, so could I better leave them out? Or doesn't it really matter at all, and should I just pick an option?

@MichaelC. My calling name is actually a given/official name, so the situation is not exactly the same. Furthermore I have a specific question about using the initials 'A.I.'.

Using "A.I." or not is opinion-based. You can choose whatever name on your paper. The key is consistency. Starting from your first paper, always use the same name so that it is easy to search and your reputation is established. Again, using whatever name is your own decision, not ours.

Actually, I think "A.I." is good because it's easy to remember.

I know several professors who use A. John Harris on their publications, and wouldn't think twice about seeing A. John I. Harris. It makes it very clear that you use the second of three given names.

There is a guy who is in the same situation like yours, and he uses A. Jone I. Harris without any problem. He is also pretty famous in my field, see here: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/leino/about.html#saywhat

Go with A. John I. If nothing else, it's more memorable than just "John". Names that are not remembered are, well, lost, and so is the owner.

I would not base such a decision on the fact that it is funny or not, as funny depends by the person that reads.
Naming it is not a big issue as long as you are consistent during all your career.
I would suggest you to pick up one of your three names, your surname and use the composition of them. As far as i understood, you are known as John Harris, so just go with this.
Cheers!

There can be some benefit in using an additional name or initial, even if it isn't one that you use in day-to-day life: it may help distinguish you from other people named John Harris (especially if that is a common name).

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


text:
how to reply the email from professor?
I want to say got it, but it seems not appropriate.
Can I just reply like, well noted with thanks or well received?
How to reply emails like this?
thanks in advance
EDIT----------------------------------
I work as the TA for the professor. So the usual cases are:
1. he gives me an assignment and I want to reply 'I will do it right away'.
2. I ask him some questions about the assignment and he replies something. And I want to express 'yes, got it!'

Depends on the content of the email you received. Was it to indicate a letter of reference had been sent, that he received you assignment, to encourage you to attend class....the list goes on.

He gives me an assignment and I want to reply 'I will do it right away'.

Then reply: "I will do it right away".
But if you're going to do it right away, you can probably wait replying until you have finished the assignment, if a reply in that case is expected.

I ask him some questions about the assignment and he replies something. And I want to express 'yes, got it!'

Then reply: "Got it, thanks."
To sum up: as many students, you're overthinking all this.

I have found (through trial and error) that a simple "My sincere thanks" can work wonders.


text:
What is required of a mathematics referee?
To review a paper that was submitted to a good journal, what am I required to do?  Must I understand everything presented in the paper? Must I check the details and verify each argument/proof? Or is it sufficient to check that the paper is generally well-written, contains no obvious mistakes, and is interesting?

You might be interested: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/122840/without-accessing-the-code-how-can-a-reviewer-confirm-if-the-simulation-results

Or this : https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/130944/72855 and basically, YES, you need to check the detail.

My experience as a both reviewer and author in pure math suggests the following:

there is no universal standard for refereeing (some referees check papers thoroughly, some are much more cavalier)
editors may have different expectations/desires of reviewers, depending on the situation and on the editor
the typical expectation is that you assess a paper from several aspects: importance of the paper (this includes factors such as usefulness of the results/methods and novelty), correctness, and presentation/clarity.
refereeing is a process, not a "yes/no" assessment
refereeing well takes a fair amount of time, and results in little personal recognition, but is important for the community

Based on your specific questions, here are my suggestions for how you might go about refereeing a paper:

First assess the results claimed in their general context.  If they do not seem interesting enough for the journal in question, or are clearly wrong, you can simply say that (preferably with more details) and recommend rejection.
Understand the general argument of the paper.  Read the introduction in detail, and then try to understand the main points of the paper.  (You might not read the rest of the paper in order, particularly for long papers.)  Assess the novelty and feasibility of this approach.
If all seems good so far, convince yourself of the correctness of the paper.  This might entail checking all details, or you might be convinced after only checking certain details.  While you should definitely assess the correctness of the result, ultimately the burden of correctness lies with the authors.  Of course it's great if you can check the paper completely, but in my experience most referees don't.  How much effort you put into this may also depend on the situation (e.g., for a completely novel approach with an amazing result, you probably want to put more effort into checking details).
Very often in this process, there will be things you don't understand.  There could be a couple of reasons for this: (i) you aren't an expert in the methods being used, (ii) the authors' explanations are lacking.  In both cases, you can simply ask the authors for more explanations or explicit citations of the results they are using.  It's not necessary to understand everything for a first report, but hopefully you will mostly understand the paper after a successful refereeing process, which may include several revisions.  However, if (i) is a very serious issue, you might consult with the editor.  E.g., if you can read though the details in Parts I and III but Part II is a complete mystery to you, the editor may find someone else to referee Part II.  (Possibly this is a conversation you could have when agreeing to referee the paper.)
In the above process, you'll likely come up with a list of questions/suggestions, both about the mathematics and the writing.  While you should of course include these, these are typically of secondary importance in the referee report (though sometimes if you have some really good suggestions, it can dramatically improve the paper).

The following is all highly dependent on the field being mathematics or something closely similar. It makes no claim about any other fields.
Sorry, but if that's all you do, then your reviewing career is likely to be short, ending (with that journal) the first time you approve a paper that is revealed to have an error that you should have caught but did not. That journal at least is unlikely to consider you in the future. If you have the same attitude generally then other journals will also drop you early.
In and attempt to avoid further misunderstanding, let me try to be more clear. In mathematics we really really like published material to be correct. But people do make mistakes. Reviewers serve as a bulwark against poor work that looks superficially good actually making it in to print. But unless you take the job very seriously, as mathematics, you are highly likely to miss errors that should be caught in the review process.
You are the last real guard against errors getting published. You may also be the first independent look at a paper other than the author(s). And the errors can be subtle. Errors also reflect on the reputation of the journal as well as the authors. That makes editors very unhappy. Editors want a stable of reviewers they can trust to get it right. That means, first, that you can assure them that papers are correct, to the best of your ability to determine. They also need some assurance that you actually have the ability to determine correctness and treat the job seriously.
So, if an editor sends you a paper and you treat the reviewing task casually (just "generally well written" and "no obvious mistakes") and you miss an error that should have been caught then that editor, and by extension, that journal, won't be well pleased and you are unlikely to be offered additional papers. Of course you are generally anonymous to everyone else, but when other editors, from different journals, give you a try and you also do the same, then your opportunities decline, journal by journal.
If you don't completely understand the paper and its arguments then you are probably not the best person to review the paper. In math, which is very balkanized, this can be a problem. It has been around a hundred years since any individual was able to understand all of mathematics. Editors will, therefore, try to send papers to people with the same specialty whenever possible. Mathematics is subtle and deep. Editors expect high standards both from authors and from reviewers.
The writing style and presentation are important, but not nearly on the same level as correctness. And even with diligence, errors do pass through the system and get published.
If a paper is so poorly written that even a field specialist can't follow it, then it needs a serious re-write at a minimum and it may be hiding serious errors.
I have had to turn down editors for papers outside my current interests as I felt that I was unable to verify the claims and all of the steps in the proofs. Neither was it fair to the authors to spend the time to come up to speed in the area covered by the paper as it would delay publication for too long. Best for everyone that I just stepped back and passed the job to someone more current in that field.

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

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


text:
Presenting an expository paper that has already been accepted by a magazine
I am an undergraduate student in mathematics and recently I have written an expository elementary paper that got accepted by a magazine (I wouldn't call it a journal, because it mainly focuses on olympiad-type questions, not on reseach) aimed at high school students (in case it is relevant, my paper presents some advanced tools that may come in handy when dealing with olympiad problems and then goes on to actually show some applications to such problems).
Now, my university organises a conference for undergrads where we are encouraged to present papers that contain interesting ideas (they specify that the results needn't be original and they also needn't be research level, they just want to encourage undergrads to do some kind of research). I would like to make sure that, given these conditions, it is ethical to submit my paper to this conference. Of course, I will definitely mention that my work is going to be published in that magazine. I don't see any problem with this, but I am young and unexperienced, this is why I want to make sure that I am not doing something bad. I am not even sure that my question is fit for this forum, because I am talking about an expository paper, not a research paper, but this place seems to be the best place to ask my question.
EDIT: I forgot to state this, but I will definitely let the editors of that magazine know about me wanting to present the paper to that conference, I just want to make sure that from an academic viewpoint this looks all right.

Since you will inform everyone about the situation, there are no further ethical concerns. You need to cite the earlier work in the later one as usual, of course. And the submission to the conference may be accepted there or not, depending on the judgements of others. You are making it possible for that to be an informed judgement, so all is well.
The citation avoids any possible charge of self plagiarism.
I would also give the same answer if it were a research journal and a professional conference. If you give the impression (vocal and written) at the conference that you are presenting prior work, rather than new, it would be fine. Expository talks on existing research should raise no issues. There are ways to step over the lines of propriety, but this isn't one of them.

thank you, I just wanted to be 100% sure that I am not doing something that may damage my reputation

sorry for asking this after quite a while, but it has only occured to me now: should the submission to the conference have the same title as the ones in the magazine (those will probably have titles of the form "something Part I" and "something Part II")? I am not sure if it is necessary to do so. I should mention that what I submit to the conference may be just a part of the whole thing that was accepted in the magazine (basically I may skip some prerequisites that are well known at undergraduate level and above).

If it is a different paper it needs a different title. And Part 2 is only appropriate if it is a clear extension of the earlier. But the "same paper" in a different venue should have the same title. But your advisor could give better advice.

thank you, I don't know why I thought that eliminatating some prerequisites would make it a different paper.

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


text:
Choosing a Grad school from the perspective of opportunities in Academic Job market
I have received Ph.D. offers from my 3 Top choices (with funding). I had five top choices (with no order) but I am expecting a rejection from 4th and my 5th top choice has frankly told me that he is not going to accept any Ph.D. student (at least for this year).
Now I am thinking to make a decision between the three choices

Univ A: A "mid-ranked" Univ (Rank 8 - 15); New Professor, Very strong record considering his age. Excellent thesis at a top Univ. (Rank < 3). I am getting a new and exciting topic for my Ph.D. thesis, which hardly anyone else except this Prof. and his PI works on.

Univ B: A slightly "Lower-ranked" Univ (Rank > 25); Well established and very well-known Professor (H-index>80). Ph.D. topic: Relatively popular topic but less exciting than at Univ A. Good industry opportunities.

Univ C: A slightly "higher-ranked" Univ (Rank 4 - 8); Well established Professor (not as reputed as the Prof. in Univ B).  Ph.D. topic: Relatively popular topic and almost same as that at Univ B but less exciting than at Univ A.

Which of the factors should I take into account if I aim to get a faculty position at a well-ranked (Rank < 15) US university or any other top Univ outside the US?
Assume roughly similar and above-80 percentile Ph.D. work (in terms of quality and number of papers).
Moreover, Will, I get any advantage (in the job market) if I choose Univ A as the supply of faculty with those skills is negligible? If I am able to clinch a Postdoc at an even higher ranked univ will that compensate for the "mid/Low rank" of Univ A, B?
Rank is based on my overall perception of the department (and not of any specific Research area).

Actually, you've listed the factors that you intend to consider. The rest depends on your personal choices.

The expected helpfulness of the potential advisor is a very important consideration, actually. Hard to judge from the exterior, of course.

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/90/university-rank-stature-how-much-does-it-affect-ones-career-post-ph-d Does this answer your question?

Yes thanks. It provided great insights

Don't forget to consider what the potential advisor is like as a person! Try to meet them and their former students to understand what they're like to work with. It's no use being supervised by a someone with a big h-index if they're also horrible to their students.

@astronat I have one more doubt. If I can get famous persons in my Advising committee will that help?


text:
Best certification for requesting disability accommodations for GRE?
I am planning to take the GRE Subject Test in Math. I have ADHD and would like to request accommodations.
I live in a first world country now but used to be based in a third world country. In this third world country I was seeing a resident psychiatrist.
I am about to have a new psychiatrist who is not a resident.
This psychiatrist has met me for only an hour while my old psychiatrist , the resident, met with me for over 12 hours already.
What certification should I submit to ETS?
new doctor only? Old doctor though resident only? Both?

Follow the instructions given by ETS. They are very specific about what kind of documentation they need.
Give your current psychiatrist the link and ask if he/she can provide everything on it, and if not, what he/she recommends you do to collect the necessary documentation.

Thank you, ff524. This was actually a stupid question because I should have just and later asked ETS who advised me to submit from both psychiatrists.

@JackBauer - This is useful information and I suggest you post it as an Answer.

@aparente001 Done!

This was actually a stupid question because I should have just asked (and later I did ask) ETS, who advised me to submit from both psychiatrists.

Please fill in the missing word: "should have just" what?

@aparente001 I should have just asked ETS. I later asked ETS. ETS advised me to submit from both psychiatrists

Good luck.  I still think the jerk, ahem, pardon me, ADHD skeptic, should have been left entirely out of the picture.  He was involved with you such a short time, and his contribution was entirely negative, as far as I could tell.

@aparente001 Thank you for editing! I didn't submit documentation from ADHD skeptic :)


text:
Is it legitimate to upload educational youtube video that is based on my professors book?
Lately, I've been thinking that uploading a YouTube video of a proof that was shown in class would help me with understanding it better. Before doing so, I would like to have a better understanding of if this counts as plagiarism - The lecture notes are only shared on a private website of the course (and to students only), and uploading myself describing the proof seems like a grey area.
Any thoughts on that?
Furthermore, what about the idea of me re-writing the proof in my own words, but still maintaining the same thread of thought? so for example, I'd share my own perspective on a lemma, but would still show it and prove it?
Finally, what if I do upload a YouTube video but base it on some online source and not my professor's notes? This seems like the best option as I view it.
Regardless, I would appreciate your opinion!

It isn't plagiarism unless you say or imply that the ideas are yours. Even then, those ideas are probably well known in general if they were in a textbook.
But what you suggest is probably a "derived work" and copyright law may apply to it. You can ask the professor for guidance on this. They might approve of it. But in any case, it is copyright that you need to be concerned with here, plagiarism not so much.
The same applies to other copyrighted works, such as things you find online.

I think it is quite likely that copyright doesn't come into play at all. What is protected by copyright is not the idea of the proof, but the professor's specific presentation of it. It's totally fine to present the same proof in a different way. (And even then, it seems beyond unlikely that a busy professor would care about a grey-area copyright issue with a student making a video about a proof that happens to be in one of their textbooks...)

@TomvanderZanden, one of the rights granted to copyright holders is typically control over derived works. It might not be the professor that cares but the publisher of the textbook. See, for example, https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law

It's not a derivative work if it does not contain any (significant) elements of the original work that are copyrighted. The proof itself (likely) isn't copyrighted, only the specific presentation of it is.

May be worth also considering this related answer discussing the copyright provisions of the US Code (though author may be in a different jurisdiction).

Why don't you check with the professor to see what they think of the idea? Maybe they like it and will even use it in class - or maybe there are some issues that you should be aware of (it sounds like this is a theoretical proof, so there seems to be little possibility of you accidentally spreading unpublished data or something similar, but in either case - always better to be safe than sorry).

YouTube video of a proof that was shown in class would help me with understanding it better

This is most definitely okay unless he came up with the proof (which I doubt). Even then, it is still most likely okay.

uploading myself describing the proof seems like a grey area.

You are uploading the proof, not the (presumably copyrighted) student notes. Let me put it this way, it isn't against copyright to upload you playing Mozart's Moonlight Sonata. However, it is copyrighted to upload someone's techno remix of Mozart's Moonlight Sonata. Here, the proof is Moonlight Sonata, the student notes is the techno remix and your playthrough is basically your proof video.

what about the idea of me re-writing the proof in my own words,

Again, completely okay.
The only way this is going to backfire is if you claim you came up with the proof. Even then, it probably isn't illegal (it isn't illegal if I went out there and said I composed Mozart's Moonlight Sonata), but would definitely be morally and ethically dubious at best, plagiarism/academic misconduct at worst


text:
I've applied an intership to prepare for grad school, but the acceptance result won't be sent before the deadline. Should I mention it in my SOP?
If everything goes smoothly, then before going to the grad school in fall next year, I will have an three-month long internship. The problem is, the admittance result will come after the deadline of the PhD application. What I can only say for now is that I have applied to that internship.
Should I mention it in my SOP and CV? Since I'm switching the field, getting that internship will be a strong proof that I'm capable on this field. And if I should, how to mention it?


text:
Should references in foreign language be translated to make popular audience get familiar with how academia works?
Typically, references in foreign language are cited with title and journal name in original language, whether they are academic or popular science books. As pointed out in this answer, popular science books, written by native authors and published by different publishers, report English, German and French references without any translation.
Of course leaving the identification of the references is vital. However, I wonder if this is the best practice for the audience who are not familiar with how academic works, especially kids. I imagine that having them written in their mother tongue will make them compelling and informative enough to read, and after reading them, they will know at least these things:

Academic researches are published in academic journals, collaborated by many authors
Titles tend to be very specified, journals are very niche
Consistency needs to be maintained
And whether they understand them or not, some terms will get into their mind, enhancing their vocabulary. To put it as Wittgenstein, "my language is the limit of my world".

The book I'm translating is What If? from Randall Munroe. It's academic enough to have several pages of references, but entertaining enough to have comic on it. What I am trying to do is to find the balance point to make an academician and a kid both happy. One reference of it goes like this:

Merlis, Timothy M., and Tapio Schneider, “Atmospheric dynamics of Earth-like tidally locked aquaplanets,” Jounal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 2 (December 2010); DOI:10.3894/JAMES.2010.2.13.

Questions:

Should this be done? I guess yes, despite of the current practice. How far should this be applied? Having the origin text first, the translation first, or only the translation if other identifications exist such as DOI or URL? As long as the audience can trace the references on their own, then there's no reason for not doing this, right? What if only some references have DOI, and some others have dead links? Should I add the DOI for every academic papers? What to do with blog posts and YouTube clips?
Is there any drawback of this? Would the readers lose their interest in the middle, or having no interest in reading them at all, hence wasting the translating time?

I don't understand who the intended audience is for what you are writing.  (Primary audience, secondary audience.)  I didn't understand where the young readers fit in. // I translate scholarly articles, and I do provide translations into the language of the target audience, of both article titles and quotes from others' work.  Basically, what the scholar-author and translator are aiming for is for the reader to understand the text.

it's a popular science book, so the audience has no background in the field, and maybe academia at all. I put the young readers in since I think they are likely to read every words in the book if they really like it, even if it's the most boring part. I agree with your second point, but what do you mean?

Aack, what's my second point?  Could you copy and past the part you didn't understand?

The part after the double slash. I've thought you were questioning me

No, I wasn't asking a question in the second part, just explaining my recommended approach.

Figure out what the younger portion of your target audience is, and find out how comfortable they'll be with the various languages your references and quotes are in.  For example, my guess would be that your typical younger readers would be age 12?  And that you are writing in German?  I imagine your interested 12yo readers will be okay with most article titles given in English, so those translations could be given in footnotes.  The reader who doesn't need the translation could just keep reading and not bother with the footnote.  My guess is that all the French would need to be translated.
The general answer is, you need to know your audience.  Give some talks in schools to get to know them better.

Translations in footnotes? There are several pages of them, so I don't think that's feasible. I agree that I need to research my audience, but what do you think about translating them itself? Would it acceptable? I haven't seen any precedent on this

"Translating them itself"?  Sorry, not sure what you mean here. // The first step in research is to visit your local bookstore's science section and also a school library.  While you're there, you can chat with the bookseller and any customers there are in the store, and the librarian. // Please explain "several pages of them."  Usually books for children ages 9 - 14 have a section at the end of the book called "Further reading."  Is that what you're talking about here, or are you trying to cite your sources as you go along?

well, the book I'm translating is What If? from Randall Munroe (aka XKCD). The book, while being hilarious enough for children, does have multiple pages of scholarly references. Therefore putting the translations in footnotes is infeasible, I think.

@Ooker - Are you talking about the section called "References," on pages 299-303 of https://www.amazon.com/What-If-Scientific-Hypothetical-Questions/dp/0544272994#reader_0544272994?  If so, this is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about ("Further Reading" at the end).  In this case, I personally think it is unlikely a child reading this book in translation will go hunting for one of the references, and therefore there is no need to translate the titles.  However, you should definitely translate the section headings (e.g. "Global Wind Storm," "Spent Fuel Pool").  Optionally, you could

put the translated book title in brackets after each reference.  In my translating experience, a book title, e.g. "What happens underwater during a hurricane" is easier to translate than some of the cutesy, "entertaining" section headings, e.g. "Periodic Wall of the Elements." I don't think, in any case, translating these book titles will be much extra work for you, since you'll already be immersing yourself in these very topics in order to translate the main body of text.

yep, those pages. I agree with you that it is unlikely a child will go hunting for one of the references, but my point is to help them get familiar with how academia works. I guess, therefore, doing "Translated title," [Original title] will bring the best of both worlds? Putting the translation first will make the references more compelling, I think. As for the ease of translating book titles, do you mean that I should only translate those? Why?

@Ooker - Do you have a contract and therefore an editor you could ask?  If not, look at similar books published by a couple of your target editorial houses.  In my opinion, ages 9 - 14 are not usually ready to "get familiar with how academia works."  If a child of this age wants a book from the reference list at the end of the books, s/he is likely to ask a librarian, teacher, bookseller or parent for help.  Furthermore, with the possible exception of English, s/he is unlikely to want to try to read the reference work in the original language.  My children are ages 21 and 14. // I don't

understand your question at the end.  Please show me a sample translation of a specific reference that includes more than the book title.  Are you perhaps talking about a chapter title?  If so, then yes, it would be helpful to translate that too.  When you were 11, how well did you understand other languages than your first?  It would be helpful if you would identify the target language you are translating into, as children's level of comfort in multiple languages varies tremendously from one country to another.

well, I can definitely ask the publish house, but I guess their answer is more on the reader's viewpoint, that is to translate them. That's what they did with similar books, and also my thinking too. My concern is how far should I apply this?. Children at that ages need not to know how academia works, but I imagine they would be interested to know how scientists work. When I were 11, I barely knew English, so having something translated into my mother tongue (Vietnamese) would definitely increase my knowledge a lot.

I'm still not sure what you're intending to say about references contain book titles. Aren't books and papers the same in a reference section? I don't have any "sample translation of a specific reference that includes more than the book title" right now, but I guess there no difference to reference that doesn't include any book title, like the What If? book. By the way, can I ask what kind of book do you have experience to translate with?

@Ooker - You mentioned several reasons in favor of translating titles.  Are there any reasons against translating? // Thanks for identifying the translated language/country.  What is the primary foreign language studied in school in Vietnam?  At what age is this study begun, and what level of fluency is achieved by age 11?  Are there school librarians to help?  What level of internet access does this age typically have (or does it vary widely, e.g. between urban/rural)? // When I said "book title" I should have said "book, article or blog post title." // My translating experience is

... primarily with journal articles but I've read children's science books with my children.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.


text:
Can I write in my SOP that I want to join labs which aren't belonged to the department I apply?
I want to work on a research which requires both field A and field B. On the school I want to pursue, both lab X and X' from department A work on A+B. If possible, I'd like to work in both lab because there is some niches in both lab X and X' will be needed on my proposed research.
However, I would like to apply to department B because I don't want to limit myself inside a field. I want to broaden my knowledge as much as I can, before concentrating on my thesis. I don't think that this approach is bad.
Being said that, is there anything that I should be aware of when writing the SOP to department B? Would mention about the labs which aren't belonged to the department harm me in some ways? Or should I just apply to department A? Is there any harm if in my SOP there is a paragraph saying that I want to learn more about B (than A)?

This entirely depends on the university culture. Some universities and labs are very free in terms of the flow of faculty and students, others are much more siloed. It's impossible for us to give you a general answer.
You should instead talk to students and postdocs enrolled at that university and in those labs and ask them whether it's possible. They are the ones who are most likely able to tell you what the situation is there.


text:
Is going to institute the same as going to grad school?
A (top) professor in her field advised me to look at the Santa Fe Institute. I look at it, and wow, it is perfectly match my interests. I love to research, but I don't want to focus only in the niche of the niche of my field. I also want to explore things outside my discipline, and I want to collaborate with people from other fields.
The point is, should I go to there instead of going to grad school? As far as I know, because it isn't a grad school, so I can't receive a PhD from it. I want to research; if a PhD is a ticket for me to be a full time researcher, then I want a PhD. However, looks like that without a PhD, I can't be considered to be serious in my career path. From its About page:

Researchers come to the Santa Fe Institute from universities, government agencies, research institutes, and private industry to collaborate across disciplines, merging ideas and principles of many fields

And Wikipedia:

The Institute consists of a small number of resident faculty and postdoctoral researchers, a large group of external faculty whose primary appointments are at other institutions, and a number of visiting scholars.

Looks like I'm not a person who it has interest with.
But how about its researchers? Say I send an email to Researcher X, from University Y, who works for the institute (part time? full time?) to join their lab. If I get admitted, which organization am I in? X's lab as a worker, or Y school as a X's student, or something else? Is there any difference from applying to school Y and join X's lab as usual? And what does my career, in long-term, look like after that?

If you want a PhD you need a university to award the title. You can work with a research institute during your PhD if the institute is somehow affiliated with a university. Ideally, you will get paid from the institute, work with researchers there but you still have to pass required courses, do the necessary publications and the PHD will be awarded from the university.

@Alexandros  I want to research; if a PhD is a ticket for me to be a full time researcher, then I want a PhD. However, looks like that without a PhD, I can't be considered to be serious in my career path. Therefore, in long-term, should I have a PhD or not?

If you want to do research, you will need the PhD title.

@Alexandros thanks. Do you know why it is hard to do research without a title? Also, what does working on it look like if I get paid from the institute? I don't have a master

Why it is hard to do research without a title? Because there are many other guys with a PhD title that are interested in doing the same research as you and they will get the job.

@Alexandros wow, this solves the problems immediately. Make it an answer and I will accept it. Although I have no more question, it would be great if you can elaborate on the "Ideally, you will get paid from the institute..." part

See Is it possible to get a PhD through government/industry/military lab, and if it is, what is the process? and Advantages and disadvantages of doing PhD research at a non-academic lab

And is some countries it is hard to do research without a PhD title because that title is required by law if you want to apply for a researcher position in a university.

If you want to get a PhD you need a university to award the title. You can work with a research institute during your PhD, if the institute is somehow affiliated with a university. Ideally, you will get paid from the institute, work with researchers there but you still have to pass the required courses at the university, do the necessary publications. If all goes well, the PHD title will be awarded from the university.
To elaborate a little bit more. Research in institutes (I will speak from an EU perspective) is usually funded by "soft" money awarded from a grant or research program. The outcome of those projects is not only papers but also deliverables (i.e., written reports), online demos, even full fledged server applications and infrastructures. Thus, working in a research institute is not just producing papers (you do that as well) but also produce applications, write deliverables, prepare proposals and so-on. Conclusively, in research institutes, there are junior people working on the various projects for the more mundane "programming" tasks. Those people are more "disposable" (i.e., they work only during the duration of one project). Contrarily, there are people with a PhD that might work in this institute for years, have worked in multiple projects and have a more active role (they supervise the junior people, write proposals etc). Although many of them are not permanent employees of the institute (they are still paid from "soft" money, as well) they can collaborate with a research institute for many years.
Where do graduate students fit in all this scheme? If the institute is closely affiliated with a university, the PhD students of the university sometimes are assigned the junior roles in some projects, in order to get funding. As years go by, the PhD student (towards the end of his PHD) becomes a expert in his area (which might be close to the project's scope) and he may be assigned more senior roles.
So, if you want to do research in such a institute for a long time, you will need the PhD title, sooner or later.

Research in universities is also often funded by a grant or research program, and also often requires deliverables, demos, etc.

@ff524 Yes that is true, but there are many students in universities that strictly get funding working as TAs. In research institutes there is no other alternative.

Is this center a department or an institute? It seems like to be a department, but if so, why it has to be named as center, not department? In general, what does center mean?

@Ooker. It says "UMCES supports ... students annually through a joint Marine Estuarine Environmental Sciences (MEES) degree program with the University System of Maryland. Students can also enroll in University of Maryland Baltimore Graduate Program in Life Science (GPILS) and the Masters Program at Frostburg State University" That means that it is a research center collaborating with universities.

is there any difference between research center and institute?

Probably depends on the jurisrtiction, but in my EU country a research center might have several research institutes below it.

Thanks. Since, the advisor of mine is not working in the school, does my SOP to this school have any difference to ordinary SOP, which the advisor is also the faculty of the school?


text:
Should I ask my online PhD interview panel whether my partner can sit in?
I have an online interview for a PhD program via Skype. I want to ask the panel if my girlfriend can join in the interview. She will turn off her microphone and camera, so there will no interrupting sound from her. She will only hear our conversation and see our faces (if they turn on the camera). She is there just to share with my experience, not my stress. I can do the interview alone. I also don't need to impress her.
This looks odd and unprofessional, I admit. But from what I read from the book of the professor that I follow, he is very open. He always use first person point of view. Even when at the time I contacted there was no funding for me, he managed to find one and asked me to do the interview. The professor who introduce me to contact him described him as "cool", though it is an informal conversation. Based on those observation, I want to take a little safety risk (just a little, and safety).
I think the asking question is not the important thing; just pretend they are human and ask simply:

My girlfriend wants to observe the interview. She won't make any interruption. Should I let her in?

Q: However, should I ask this question? If there is no problem, there are some more things to consider:

Should I ask this via email or when we begin to talk?
It can have technical troubles, such as lagging. Of course the interview is more important, and if the connection keeps unstable, she shouldn't take part anymore. If this happens, would this leaves a bad impression on the professors?

One more thing: seriously, I don't need her that badly for just one hour. Yes, this is not a Nobel prize, it's just a normal interview. I just think that it's nice to have, and until I can't find a good reason to not to do that, I'll take a try. If everyone is scare of making a mistake, when they can't point out what that mistake is, then there is no development in this world. I seriously don't think that "unprofessional" or "childish" is a good reason, especially when the person I'm talking with is open-minded.

What is the purpose of having your girlfriend join?

@MJeffryes just to be with me when I have to deal with something important?

I also have the same feeling as @ff524 about this. I think an in-person interviewer would find it weird if an interviewee requested their partner joined them in the room as the interview took place, which is roughly the equivalent of what you are asking.

@Ooker That is very cute, but unfortunately in a work environment your significant others cannot be with you in every important situation that arises. An interview is (very partially) also there to figure out how you (alone) cope with this type of situation, and you would be making it a quite different situation.

@MJeffryes I'm not really sure... What ff524 says is true, I don't object. However, i think that having an unrelated person in the room is kind of different with having an unrelated icon in Skype.

Replacing "girlfriend" with your "mother" (referred to as "mom") will make you understand why you should not do it.

I totally recommend against this (simply because I find the whole idea pointless and don't see why anyone would need their SO within an interview situation, especially if it is not for morale support), but why does your girlfriend not simply sit in your room, just behind the computer, i.e. invisible to the interviewer. That way, no one would ever notice and therefore no-one would find it weird (which it still is...).

@dirkk well, she lives in a different city

@Ooker So you are telling me you have a long-distance relationship but absolutely need your SO on your side for this one hour?! I would like to remind you that you have a Skype interview and this is not even close to getting the job - You are not receiving the Nobel prize! It is roughly as important as a life event as tasting the newest Starbucks coffee flavour.

From the recruiter's point of view, this seems very straightforward. Do we want to employ somebody who can't (or doesn't want to) function on their own when necessary? Answer: no. Next applicant, please....

Why don't you just record the interview and save the file for her? There are a lot of programs that can do this. See this: http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/win-screen-recording-softwares/

@alephzero That may be true.  If it is important to OP, then he should similarly reason they can't make a simple accomodation? No.  Next program please.  The best outcome for all parties may be OP looking elsewhere.

Doing this is kind of insane. It would suggest that something might be deeply wrong with the candidate.

You could record the interview, with consent, "to learn from the interview experience later" perhaps, and send the video to your girlfriend. Although this would definitely be unusual, perhaps less unusual than having your gf join your PhD interview remotely.

That is a bizarre idea to even have. Whose was it, yours or your girlfriend's? I was in a relationship in which this kind of behavior could have (almost) come up. But the situations I wanted to share, while in the wrong and in retrospect extremely inappropriate, were still much less extreme than this. It can be unhealthy to the relationship, so be careful with that. And more on topic, it looks terrible for all the reasons listed, but if you want to partake in such dangerous dependencies with your partner use a Skype recording software.

@Alexandros Apparently, it's not obvious to some people that you should not take mom to your job interview.

"Until I can't find a good reason to not to do that, I'll take a try." Consider the fact that your instincts seem to lead you to do things that many people inside and outside of academia find unprofessional, offputting, or inappropriate, like in Should I start my CV by telling about myself?, In an interview, should I greet a professor I know in one of his speech?, Does giving compliments to the fellowship help?,

(continued) Should I omit some of my qualifications in my application materials to “surprise” with during an interview?, Is it appropriate to include drawings in a cover letter?. Given all that, maybe you should consider taking other people's advice on what will be perceived as offputting behavior, at least until you're so wildly successful that you don't need anything from anybody else and don't have to care about what they think of you.

@ff524 yes, so that's why I keep asking those questions, to make sure that I don't miss any good reason just because of my ignorance. And I listen to all of the answers in those questions. The interview has done, and I didn't ask them about this.

That's good. I thought when you updated your post to say "until I can't find a good reason to not to do that, I'll take a try", you meant that you were going to do it anyway. I'm glad that's not the case, and I hope your interview went well.

just adding that this also sounds completely, utterly insane to me. no, of COURSE you shouldn't do this.

Go ahead and do it.  It gives the employer/mentor a better idea of what he's getting into and gives other candidates a leg up.  Very generous of you.

I seriously don't think that "unprofessional" or "childish" is a good reason, especially when the person I'm talking with is open-minded. Say goodbye to your Phd!

@SnakeDoc why?.

You are trying to build a business relationship with another person. Bringing in outside parties, even as "observers only", sends a message about how you will conduct your business and what type of business relationship you are planning on having. It is, quite frankly, a red flag, and even if you are perfect in every other way, it will leave a nagging feeling that you're going to be a handful, and that there are going to be many little issues like this that will get in the way of an easy, productive business relationship.
If you want the position you should present your best self - and only your self - to the panel, leaving all else aside. As relevant as she is to you and your life, she has little to no relevance to the position, and bringing her in, even as a mere observer, will cause them to include her as part of the equation as to whether to hire you or not.
If you don't care about the position, and just want to try out having your girlfriend sit in on your interview, then go right ahead.

I would find this odd and unprofessional. I recommend against this.
Also, I want to be able to talk freely and openly with you in an interview, and have you respond in kind, and I would be worried about how having your girlfriend on the line will affect this dynamic. (For example: I might worry that you would be distracted by thinking about how she is perceiving the interview, or trying to impress her.)
I might also be concerned that needing moral support for an interview this badly does not say much about your ability to handle the stresses of graduate school.

I think it is an interesting question. This was my first reaction too, but thinking further, I remembered all of the times that I have gone into an interview and have been introduced to someone from HR who was just going to sit in on the interview and listen. That was something that I just had to deal with/ignore. I realise the situation is not symmetrical, but I think it's an interesting comparison. I suppose the difference results from the power differential.

@user2390246 The person from HR has a legitimate professional reason to be there (for example, to make sure that the interviewer does not ask any questions that aren't allowed and that company policies on hiring are followed, to provide another opinion on how well the candidate would fit in at that workplace, etc.)

I agree, I can see the difference in terms of the role that the extra person is playing. But from the point of view of the other party, the effect is the same - an extra "observer" to be essentially ignored. I agree with the advice you have given though.

Thanks for your answer. I don't need a moral support that badly. I also don't need to impress her. The panel is who I need to impress. But I agree with your concerning as an interviewer.

@Ooker You may know for yourself that you don't need her that badly, and wouldn't try to impress her. But your interviewer doesn't know those things about you.

is that what most people will normally concern about when hearing someone asking for letting another one join the interview with?

@Ooker The main concern that most people will have is "this is unprofessional behavior". The other concerns are secondary.

But from what I read from the book of the professor that I follow, he is very open. He always use first person point of view. Even when at the time I contacted there was no funding for me, he managed to find one and asked me to do the interview. The professor who introduce me to contact him described him as "cool", though it is an informal conversation. Is this still a risk?

@Ooker Yes, it's still a bad idea.

@Ooker, even though your professor is very open minded I wouldn't recommend you to do that. It just sounds weird. What he can concluded? (1) You need support and can't handle it alone; (2) you want to impress your gf, or/and (3) your gf will be your "behavior analyst". But main problem is- it sounds unprofessional/ weird

@Ooker if he is indeed "cool", he may not mind it. But it is still a risk that will harm you, and a remote chance of actually helping you in any way. So, leave her out and tell her all about it when it is finished.

@ff524 this is an example of the "asymetric power".  We can just as easily say that the girlfriend (aka life partner) has a legitimate reason to be there - to make sure all the OP asks all the important questions and none of the inappropriate questions and to provide another opinion on how the workplace would fit in the couple's life.

Consider whether or not this would be considered appropriate were you doing an in-person interview.  Would anyone be allowed to sit in on said interview, even if they were told specifically not to interfere in any way?
Now also consider that even if your girlfriend doesn't verbally react to your interview, that her presence there, and her facial reactions to the interview going on (assuming you will have video) could change how you react during the interview.
Finally, consider whether or not this will make a good impression on your professor, or anyone else sitting in on this interview.  Even if he is usually very understanding, he might find it a very odd request, and question the helpfulness of doing so.
If, and only if, you have a very good reason to have her sitting in on it should you even consider inviting her, and usually 'moral support' is not a good enough reason - this is meant to be a serious interview, and anything not contributing to it in a significant way could very easily be treated with some skepticism.

As some have suggested, recording the interview might not be frowned upon - even for personal reasons, but I would not share it with anyone else unless you have explicit permission to do so.
What is said during the interview could be very personal and private information that you should not be disclosing to others - which, by the way, is another good reason why this request would be awkward and unadvisable.

Most states are "one-party" states.  Only one party to the conversation (OP) needs to know about and consent to the recording.  If they are going to share personal and private information with OP they need to get an NDA.  Otherwise he is absolutely free to share anything he hears or records.

@emory: OP never said this is in the US. It could be any country. Also, one party could be in the US and the other not.

@emory Whether or not it is legal to disclose that information in one's nation/state is only tangentially related to whether or not one should disclose that information - even if it is not illegal, it is rude and potentially damaging to share a recording of someone without their permission, especially when it is a personal thing like a one-on-one interview.

@Zibbobz it is not a one-on-interview.  It is a panel-on-one interview.  Panels should not discuss private, confidential information with outsiders (including candidates for PhD positions),  If it is necessary to discuss private information with the OP they should NDA OP.  In general, it is not rude to share.

I agree with everyone else that having your girlfriend join in or even asking if that's allowed sounds very unprofessional.
However, as an alternative, I'm pretty sure there are screen recording programs out there. Perhaps you could ask permission to record the conversation? That way you can analyse it with your girlfriend afterwards.
If you still want to add your girlfriend to the conversation you should definitely ask the interviewers beforehand through e-mail and drop it if you have technical issues. But again, I would recommend against doing it at all.

I think asking to record might also come across as a little strange (and as an interviewer, I'd be worried about legal/liability issues. Sort of like how it might be useful if you could ask your boyfriend if you can record your break-up conversation so you can reflect on it later, but it would likely make him think you were slightly crazy.

I personally think that in a formal environment recording conversations is pretty common. As for legal issues, as long as you ask permission (and not film secretly) it should be fine? For example, in my department it's very common to use voice recorders for discussions with supervisors.

Hiring (and especially interviewing) can be a bit of a legal minefield, at least in the US. it's  trickier than ordinary workplace conversations.

Yeah I'm not in the US, so I have no idea about that. But I still think asking if you can record the conversation is a better idea than asking to have someone unrelated join the conversation...

I was about to recommend this.

To be quite frank, this is a very bad idea.
While this may seem like a good idea for self-improvement, I think it's a terrible idea for getting the position. The first impression that you giving someone with the power to decide whether you get the position is "those that care about me think I have such poor interpersonal skills that they want to watch what it is that I'm actually doing to make all my interactions fail" (I'm sure that's not the real motivation, but its not impossible for them to see it this way). Perhaps the best interpretation of the events on is "We're trying to use this as an opportunity to build my interviewing skills so I can get a position I really want".
Neither of these interpretations are ones that would favor you getting the position you want.

While I agree with ff524 that the request "My girlfriend wants to join in with me. She won't make any interruption. Can she join in?" would come across as unprofessional, the situation may be different if you could present a compelling reason.
A possibility would be that you want a person to observe the interview to give you feedback afterwards to improve your presentation for future interviews. That would strike me as a good reason, however, the fact that this person is your girlfriend and not just any friend would again be a bit strange. If this would be your motivation, leave out the fact that she is your girlfriend.
However, the request to have some of your friends to observe the interview in silence may also come across as "I'd like to have a watchdog to make sure that everything goes fine." and this would sound really strange.
To conclude: You may be able to render the request reasonable  but I would still advise against this since it still may come across strange.

The only third party I could possibly imagine the interviewers not finding it very strange to include in this would be a documentary crew of some sort. I'd be very weirded out if someone wanted to bring their life coach to an interview.

"leave out the fact that she is your girlfriend" - chances are the interviewing people (at least the ones who the OP is going to work with on a daily basis if they get the position) will find out later and feel weird then.

Here is the real world answer:
Don't add her to the skype call, that would be foolish.
If you need the support then add her to a separate screen/webcam/audio sharing program. She can sit in without affecting the atmosphere or interacting with the call at all. Your interview panel will be none the wiser.
Its your computer and unless an NDA was signed then you have every right to share the data that comes out of it with whomever you see fit.

One more aspect that appears to me not completely covered in previous responses:
Having your girlfriend sit in will create the impression that they will have to deal with 2 people in each decision, that OP will have an external "handler" or "supervisor" in everything that OP will be asked to do. Of course, what you do at home is your business, but you should not send the message that this is how you conduct your professional life, too.
It may also signal that you will be asking for special exceptions on other matters. In short, it spells "trouble" to a potential employer.
An employer may be open-minded, but being open-minded does not imply seeking out likely trouble.
Note that this is completely separate from a request for help in solving a two-body problem, which would be perfectly legitimate; but it should be handled separately from the interview itself and probably only after the interview was successfully concluded.

If you are willing to have the interviewers ask your partner questions also, then this might be relevant and appropriate. Otherwise, it's vaguely reminiscent of having "your lawyer" accompany you.
To extrapolate: would you request hearing from partners of the people interviewing you?
It is not so wacky to think about the larger social network, and one's important personal network(s), but/and a significant part of interactions is a sort of privacy, first, and, second, a "mode" or "directness" about certain practical issues. It is not universally believed that everything should be shared with all one's family, friends, or even partner, nor that one is obliged to provide testimonials from family, friends, or partner. It is certainly not clear what the "universal social construct" is or should be, but it is not so likely that everyone should want to manifest their own conception of it in situations that might give the impression that they'd have trouble coping with the reality-on-the-ground in the job they're interviewing for. That is, I'd think one should present oneself in a mode closely resembling the mode in which one would be operating day-to-day.

"Join in" is just bad phrasing - it implies she will be a participant, and that simply isn't wanted.
Instead, "observe" makes sense, and might be acceptable, particularly if you phrase the question as "can I record it, or have her observe in real time, so that (she can provide me with feedback/she can learn how to do interviews/whatever)?"
However, the simplest solution is just don't have her join in using the same software. No need to get permission then anyway, and no way for her to interfere. My wife TeamViewers into my machine, so she can see and hear what I hear. There is no difference between this, and having my wife sit off-camera in the same room.

I don't see why you need to ask permission or even tell them.  Just do it.  Some panels might hold it against you, but would you really want to work with them?
Remember you are interviewing them just as much as they are interviewing you.
I would recommend codemonkeyliketab's recent answer over mine.  It has all the positives of my answer with none of the negatives.  It is perfect.

This whole "would you really want to work with " mindset is a lot easier to hold when you are, for example, a professional working in a field with a lot of need for your role. It's rather harder to live with if you're trying to get into graduate school, and you're well aware that the school can pass on you and have another candidate in a heartbeat. You have to compromise on some things, especially if (as in this case) your desire is wildly unprofessional.

@ChrisHayes if it were an in-person interview, I agree it would be unprofessional.  They have invited OP (not OP's girlfriend) to their location.  If instead, they invited OP for conversation at StarBucks, then OP's girlfriend would not need an invitation to show up.  Is a Skype call more like an interview at their location or an interview at StarBucks?

I disagree with the premise. If I invited a candidate for an informal interview (which is what a "conversation" is) at Starbucks, and they brought somebody with them, I'd find that very unprofessional. The clear understanding is that this is a 1-on-1 situation between you and the interviewer. You can't bring somebody to that just for fun.

"Remember you are interviewing them just as much as they are interviewing you." That's only true for people which get a lot of interview invites, but not true if this is the only one....Not to mention that there is the risk that all say NO to a request like this, what then?

@NickS The competition for PhD positions can be fierce.  There is a non-zero chance that all programs will deny OP whether or not OP takes this approach.  What should the OP do if OP follows all the unwritten rules and still does not get admitted?

@emory At least in that scenario the OP knows that he did his best. But when the competition is fierce it would be plain stupid to start shut down doors for trivial reasons, wouldn't it? The fact that the competition is fierce and he might not make it nevertheless is actually a strong point against your answer.

authors: Сергей Varick


text:
Resubmission to journal of same publisher after paper was not reviewed by another journal
I submitted an article to one of the JAMA network specialty journals. I asked for my article to be referred to a second specialty journal if not deemed acceptable for publication by the first. However, the editor of the first journal did not send it out for peer review and thus it was not referred to the second specialty journal at all.
I still think my manuscript could be a good fit for that second journal. Does anyone know the policy for re-submitting since it was technically not reviewed by that second journal?

How much time has elapsed since your submission?

And, have you gotten a letter of rejection?

Have you heard back at all? If not, then you need to withdraw your paper before resubmitting it elsewhere.

If you have a clear statement from the editor/publisher that the paper has been rejected, then you can submit it anywhere you choose. Different journals, even with the same publisher, have different policies about what they will publish.
If you have formally withdrawn the paper with a written statement to the editor/publisher, then you can also submit it anywhere you choose. An email is all it takes.
But the rule is "one journal at a time". Editors frown (pretty deeply) if they learn you have multiple concurrent submissions. Don't go there.

Thank you! This is very helpful insight.

Broadly speaking journals aren't aware what other journals are doing, even if they're operated by the same publisher. In fact unless you are in the (very rare especially for large journals) case where the same employee is assigned to both journals, the second journal is not likely to even notice.
You can just submit your manuscript to the second journal.

Not until you withdraw from the first journal or it is rejected.

@Buffy it's already been rejected (desk rejected, in the case of the OP's paper).

How do you conclude that? I don't find any such statement in the question.

@Buffy I'd interpret "didn't send out for peer review" to mean a desk reject. It's probably good to verify here since some of our visitors are confused about the process, but I don't think that applies here.

@BryanKrause, both you and the OP may be making assumptions here. "Didn't", "Won't", etc mean different things and a rejection needs to be explicit, not assumed.

My apologies - yes it's been desk rejected from the first journal.

"the second journal is not likely to even notice" Probably not. Sometimes there is a question during the submission process like "Has the manuscript been submitted to any other journal of [publisher] before?". Then of course you should answer the truth. Personally I usually would disclose the info of previous submissions with the same publisher in the cover letter, including some short remarks about improvements made to the manuscript in the meantime thanks to the previous constructive feedback, if appropriate.


text:
Is it possible to go from a non-thesis MS to a PhD?
I graduated with my B.S. during the pandemic and decided to go directly into a non-thesis Masters in Earth Science. I want to pursue a PhD, however I am unsure about my eligibility without having completed a thesis beforehand. I do have some research experience which have resulted in 4 conference posters, although I have not published a manuscript to date. As I prepare for my next steps, I would appreciate any insight. My other consideration is to seek a one year MRes though a school in the UK.

Are you asking strictly about UK? If not, say more to get better answers that what I currently see here.

Hi, not necessarily. If an applicant can show they have sufficient background experience and skills the research group needs, they will probably give them a chance to hire them. If the PhD path is something related to the skills they have gained during their MSc thesis, that is one possibility. But those research and study skills may be gained during professional work, freelance studies and research, etc. The CV and recommendations are so important.

In my experience, having a non-thesis MSc in the UK doesn't really make much difference in terms of PhD applications. If you have a supervisor/tutor who you worked closely with (or at least knows you well enough), and can write you a strong letter of recommendation, you should be fine. Often MSc students' thesis isn't even relevant for the PhD they're applying for anyway. It's also uncommon here to have publications in the sciences before beginning a PhD.
My advice would be to just apply for the PhD's, write about your research experience in your cover letters/CV. If your grades are up to the standard, I don't think you'll have much of a disadvantage .

Yes, it is absolutely possible.
You have to write and publish some research papers in peer-reviewed journals.

This seems too facile. Do you have UK experience to back it up?

People have gone from just a BS to having a PhD as well as from programs like OMSCS (example of an online non-thesis MS) to being able to get a PhD so I would imagine it is possible for you as well.  I would definitely highlight the research experience that you do have so far, as a PhD is all about your research.  Also, I would make sure that you know what your (specific) interests are in, as that will be of great help for identifying programs and advisors of interest, and vice-versa.
I'd start by talking with any research advisors you have had or advisors in your current program to see if a PhD is the logical next step for you, and if you can still get involved in research at your current program to help further hone your interests.

This answer probably works in US, but the OP is asking about UK. Are you sure the same is true there?


text:
Masters if not accepted for PhD?
Several CS graduate programs in the US have a checkbox stating something along the lines of "Would you like to be considered for MS if not accepted for PhD?" in their applications. I'm curious as to how this process works in general. Some specific questions that I also have:

Do both committees (MS and PhD) review the application individually in parallel?

Is there a lower chance of being accepted to the MS through this way as opposed to applying directly to the MS program?

How can a single statement of purpose (and letters given by recommenders) state the purpose of attending MS, if the application is for PhD? To rephrase, how would an applicant state in the SoP that they would be willing to go for MS, without killing the application for PhD?

I would take this at face-value. You're submitting an application for a PhD and want to do a PhD, so design everything around that, no need to change anything in your application materials to leave room for a masters option.
Then, upon submitting your application for a PhD, if you would consider a MS admission if not admitted for a PhD, check the box saying so; if not, don't check the box. No need to play a game with it beyond that.

These questions are pretty much impossible to answer as every university will have its own procedures. There might, actually, only be one committee.
If you want a doctorate from such places, then focus on that, and check the box for masters if you like. But write the application and the LoR with the doctorate in mind.
It is even hard to predict in general whether a place has more or fewer masters "slots" than doctoral ones. There is probably limited space in the doctoral program, but if they focus on that then maybe there are few masters students.
Note that a doctoral student in the US will probably be offered a teaching assistantship (TA). This provides a useful service to the university in managing the undergraduate program and these are seldom open to masters students.
But you need to decide which degree you want. Spend some time thinking about your long term career if you are undecided. If it is a doctorate, then focus everything on that whether you check the "masters" box or not.


text:
Returning Research Fellowship funding
I'm doing a PhD in the US and I got a research fellowship for a month this summer. I have done some work, but I'm not satisfied with it. There was no motivation and I haven't studied as much as I should have. Because of ethical reasons I want to return the money. Is it possible to do this in theory?

I'm very confused and at a point to change my field radically

What you may need at the moment is a break. A vacation. A chance to clear out the cruft.

@Buffy I did that already, but it wasn't helpful. My main thought is to leave math and I'm not sure how to make it ethically, because I believe that people around, including adviser have expectations. I made some promises when I had motivation(or rather I was hoping that motivation will restore). I might need to ask here a separate question for this.

at least I'm still at the beginning of my phD so I'm not burning so much bridges

Never mind the bridges. You need to do right by yourself. Maybe you need a long talk with your advisor. Math research can be very frustrating. Especially so if the problem you tackle isn't "ripe" for advancement. I've been there, and switching problems was the solution. But I was smart enough to recognize early on that the problem had no edges or cracks or anything that would permit entry. Some problems are, at a given time, perfectly impenetrable. Some have taken a century for solution.

@Buffy Thanks for your advice. I will think over this issue for some more time and then talk to advisor.

I do not consider myself an expert, but are not most fellowships structured as a contract between the government and the university?  You are not formally part of the contract.

Quite a lot of funded projects are unsuccessful, though few may be willing to admit it. Whether you can return the money is up to the funding agency. I'd guess that few of them would require it, absent outright fraud, and many might not even be prepared to do it.
But, if you really want to do this, contact someone, such as a "program officer" at the funding agency and ask for "options". If the university was involved in accepting/managing the funding, as is typical, then first contact the program officer at the university and explain your qualms.
It is possible, also, that your "not being satisfied with it" is a function of your own high standards. Moreover, a month is hardly an indicator of much of anything in math research.

I assume you need to write a final report as part of the funding. Describe that the ideas proved fruitless and little or no progress was made (assuming that is true). Many people would consider this situation as a reason for requesting additional funding, by the way. "There is more to do here. Send $$$ to ...".

+1, especially for "a month is hardly an indicator of much of anything in math research."