text:
How to deal with graduate school rejection and overall academic failure?
There has been a lot of buzz about how difficult it is to achieve tenure, however, even getting into graduate school seems harder every day. My case (and the case of a lot of people too): I graduated early from school in a developing country and decided to study Biology with more passion than reason (low salaries compared to a Doctor or an Engineering). I completed in four years a five years Bachelor's in a top institution of my country, with some national awards, grants and scholarships. My GPA was among the best %5. I did research since my second year and established good relations with my Professors (their letters of recommendation are fine without bluff).
I applied to some MSc in Europe and US and got rejected the first time. I got the only available (bad paying) job until the next admission period. I lowered the stakes for my second round of applications and got rejected again. With two consecutive rejections, I am starting to think that I am ineligible for any graduate position. Especially considering that I have been off academia for two consecutive years. Why? A MSc in my country, even at a top school, has no international worth. Furthermore, it doesn't have worth in my own country as few positions are available.
I know I have weaknesses:

My college is top in my country, but almost unrecognized internationally. The awards I got have no international value.
Although I was in that 5%, I had a harsh beginning. The first page of my transcripts has some bad scores (~2.8, lowest) along good ones (~4). That first page causes a bad impression.
The extra course load is irrelevant for the admission committees.
I specialized myself too much. While some students attest experience in three or more projects, I focused on one big project since the beginning.
Few publications and conferences. In my country, there have been almost no conferences in my field in years and I cannot travel abroad for a presentation.

My future is staring to seem bleak: no job in my country, no graduate school abroad. Overall, I feel a complete failure in what I loved. What should a person in my position do? Should I try again or set new professional goals?

Luis, How many graduate programs did you apply to in each round of applications? Also, did you apply to only the very best programs, or did you apply to varying levels of programs?

Welcome to AC.SE. Sorry to break it to you, but getting into grad school is way less difficult than getting tenure. Your question as it stands seems like a rant and is all over the place. Further, a number of your questions (e.g., should I set new goals) are not really answerable.  Have a look at our [help].

Does it have to be a choice between "Try again" or "Set new professional goals"? Why not pick some challenging goals to pursue while continuing to try for what you really want?

SE318 - I applied to three MSc programs the first time and five the second time. The second time I  targeted from the very best to generic.

StrongBad - Sorry if I sounded like loathing tenure. I didn't want to make my question seem like a rant, maybe I was a bit unspecific at the end. The key point is that I have to make a living one way or another, and maybe I have to accept that I won't make it in academia despite how much I wanted to. Indeed, given the lost prospect for a biologist in my country, I would have to make it in a complete different field. That what I meant by setting new goals.

Patricia Shanahan - The answer is a bit similar to what I wrote to StrongBad, I cannot live off charity forever. If I focus myself in something else, I will lose any possible contact with my field, professors, laboratory...

I applied to three MSc programs the first time and five the second time — Quadruple that.

@JeffE: Easier said than done for someone from a developing country, for whom a $50 application fee may be a considerable burden—let alone applying to 15 or 20 different schools.

@aeismail the op should look for fee waivers, most schools offer them.

Aren't questions like this more about psychology than academics?

Highly relevant: I was rejected from my dream graduate school…what should I do?.

I also did my undergrad in the most prestigious university in my country (a developing country) albeit in engineering and started graduate school in the U.S. I have some suggestions for you.
First of all, you need to apply for about 10-20 schools to have a chance. Do not focus on the most prestigious universities (Harvard, MIT, etc.). This was something I had issues with, I didn't want to settle for less than the best because I was in the best university in my country. The truth is, at least in the U.S., there are many many good universities.
Do your research and find schools which you would think would be a good match for you. To get a start you can look at a ranking for your major. If you are looking at the U.S. there will be graduate school rankings for your major published by U.S. news. They can give you a good idea of which schools you may have a better chance of getting into. Once you find the programs you are interested in look up professors and research groups in those universities and even try to get in touch with them and let them know you are interested in their work. Don't just blindly email them, familiarize yourself with their research, read their publications, and try to discuss their work in your emails. Be specific about what you like and what you are interested in and they may help you out and give you suggestions to steer you in the right direction. Take note that professors receive tons of emails from prospective students on a daily basis and often won't read them, so don't get discouraged if they don't respond.
Finally, something I did not see you mention was standardized exams. If your undergrad classes were not taught in English you would have to take the TOEFL. Most U.S. universities also require taking the GRE general exam. For biology, you may also have to take the subject test as well. Focus on getting good scores in all of these tests. Even in the sections not related to your major such as the verbal section of the GRE general test. Often grad schools will be reluctant to offer admission to students from foreign countries who do not have good verbal scores even if for majors like biology.
If this is really your dream, don't give up. Good luck :)

I have good scores in those test. TOEFL >110, and GRE general and subject >95%. I applied the methodology you talked about. Instead of focusing in the name of the institution, I focused on institution that have programs and research groups were I can adjust my previous experience.

Honestly, there is a huge luck factor in the process and obviously you have not had much of it. However, I think that applying to only 3-5 schools hurts your chances. I know applying to 20 schools is time consuming and difficult but I think you need to apply to 8-10 at least to have a decent enough chance. If I had only applied to my first 5 choices I would not have received any offers. I ended up going to my number 7 (out of 9) and it turns out that I'm extremely happy with where I am. Even though I didn't really fancy this school back then, now I do.

When it comes to the "art of applying" (which may be non-trivial for anyone who is outside of US), I would like to point to my answer on a related question. E.g. research statements of the same person, in matter of 1 year: bad (was rejected everywhere) and good (was accepted everywhere, and these were only top places).

I don't have any particularly good suggestions (the world is not always fair) but it is worth remarking that a typical applicant to grad school in the US probably sends out somewhere between 10 and 20 applications. A suggestion would also be to spread where you apply. The United States has a fabulously wide range of universities. My advice is usually to apply to some that are aspirational but unlikely to work out (Harvard, MIT), to some in the middle, and to some at the bottom that you may not necessarily have at the top of your personal list but that are more likely to come through (Boise State, Pomona City College, etc). Hedge your bets.

not true in my experience that people apply to 10-20 places. I applied to 4 and got 1 offer. Most people applied to 6-10. 20 places is a waste of money and means you haven't identified clearly where you want to go.

I think similar to @user4050. Although I applied to more than one school, applying to 20 is very time consuming. I think may possibilities be increased if i focus in a set of application. Furthermore, applying to some universities (including mail, GRE, TOEFL scores, etc), may cost more than 100. Let just say that that is half the salary of a construction worker.

Many schools offer fee waivers for applicants that can demonstrate a financial need. Try that route! Also, some departments may let you informally apply to them outside of the typical route to bypass their application fee under certain circumstances.

Do you think it is reasonable to apply to TAMU having a GRE score 299 in Mathematics?

@Topology -- we don't require the Math GRE, so I don't have a comparison. The applicants we accept are usually in the range 158-170 for the Quantitative GRE (in the new scale, which corresponds to 740-800 in the old scale).

I'm talking about general GRE. I have 156 in the Quant section.

That's low. You may get in or you may not. GRE scores are only one part of the picture.

My heart goes out to you in your quest, and so I hope to help shed some light on the situation to help you better decide how to proceed with your life's ambitions. I won't begin to try to tell you what you should do or how to live your life, but I hope some information can help to guide you. There are surely many, many people in the same place all over the world, so I hope this will be useful to others as well.

First, it's good to understand the reality of University admission in the USA (and I wouldn't doubt in Europe as well, but I'll leave that to our friends in European countries to confirm/deny). Lots of institutions are proud of their selectivity and the small percentage of applicants they accept (with 2-4% being a commonly cited elite number, in both undergraduate and graduate programs). The numbers cited aren't exactly a lie - but they don't actually mean what people think they mean! These numbers are often intentionally twisted for marketing purposes, so let's get their real meaning.
I'll give you one "worked example". Using publicly available data for one state "flagship" University that reported that only 4% of applicants are accepted, I was able to dig through a number of tables (surprisingly hard to find, took shifting through hundreds of pages of admission statistics), I was able to determine that two sets of statistics were kept and reported: domestic (citizens of the United States) and international (everyone else in the world).
Of the US citizens that applied to the institution and to even one specific department (I picked Engineering as one example, being indeed an international topic), ~40% were admitted. Of the international candidates that were admitted, ~3-4% were indeed admitted. How is that possible? The international applications dwarfed the domestic applications, with more than a 10:1 or even 100:1 ratio in some years! Many US institutions are flooded with international applications, while at the same time engaging in active funded outreach programs to try to find more US citizens to apply to their programs!
Many institutions don't make these stats available, or at least hide them in mountains of other reports no one likely reads, so it's hard to say just how generalized this situation is - but I've yet to view program for a department or speak with someone who has commented that they just don't have enough international applicants for their program. On the other hand I've been contacted by a number of US Universities who actively are trying to head-hunt for applicants from undergraduate and high school programs, etc.
The reality is that at many (all?) institutions in the US, there are two application tracks: one for US citizens, and one for non-citizens. The University/department/program determines an amount of seats available in the program (considering funding, professor availability, etc), and often a set amount of seats are potentially available to international candidates. This can be a flexible number or fixed, but generally it is understood that it is neither desirable nor even possible to accept more than a certain percentage of international students.
This reality is determined by funding sources (many grants and fellowships from the US government are not available to non-citizens), the higher natural rate of failure of international applicants (due to stress of living in a new country, lack of local support resources, preparation/quality of home institutions/education in that country, reliability of foreign test results, and many other factors), bureaucracy (Visas, endorsements, etc), language/culture barriers, local cultures in the US that aren't supportive/accepting of foreign students, etc.
Coming to the USA to study is a hard, hard road, and one that is desired by more people than the road itself is really able to support!

So given the above, what does it take to be admitted to the US?
For one, your application is not in a stack sorted according to % ranking of your country, nor will your application be immediately compared to US candidates (at this stage it doesn't matter how you compare to US candidates in any way - you aren't in that stack yet). Your application goes directly into the other stack - a minority of available seats will be allocated to what is by far the largest stack of applications, simply marked "International".
Being in the top 5% for your country is great, but it isn't something really considered - you will be compared to applicants from every applicable country on earth (other than the US, of course). When you are in a stack this big, honestly even being in the top 10% is great - because you're all probably completely qualified and hard to differentiate. In a world of unlimited resources you'd all be admitted! Honestly, it has nothing to do with what you deserve or have earned at this point - all of this cream of the crop of applicants would be great candidates for admittance to most institutions in the US.
So, how do you stand a chance? Well, for one thing the US is a big place, and every institution sets it's own relative weighting of factors! Some will only accept candidates who've already been to the US before, some will prefer candidates with family here, some will give more weight to reference letters, others will independently evaluate every publication you list in your CV (and will care about little else), others will give greater weight to your personal statement, and yet others will look straight to your grades...etc.
This is where the wisdom of "apply to many places" comes in - because institutions generally do not advertise their weighting criteria! It may even  change every year!

What can an "international" applicant to the US do about all this?

Realize that rejection is going to be common - insanely so. The vast majority of applications will not be accepted, and honestly nothing you do will change that reality - rejection is the rule, not the exception, for international applications. And I don't mean 2:1 - even 50:1 shouldn't be a complete surprise.
Apply to many places - you might request fee waivers to help cut the cost down, as some places to understand that $50-200 in US funds is minor here yet an outrageous fee in many countries.
Try to customize your application per institution - this is generally more helpful if you actually know what they are looking for and more about the place so that your application doesn't look like a mass form-letter. You might be applying to lots of places, but - just like when looking for a job - you don't want people reading your application to get that impression! Tailor your statement/application at least a little, if nothing else. If you can even talk with someone in the department who is able to offer some insight into what they are looking for from international applicants, take advantage of that!
Don't be an international applicant. Many people have gone through the expensive, multi-year process of becoming a citizen of a new country and working any menial crappy job they could get just to get the benefits of being a citizen - even though it doesn't guarantee anything. On the other hand, many people just say "screw it".
Be an applicant to a place that's more welcoming of international students from your region. If you are in Asia, consider a higher-profile nearby Asiatic country. If you are in Europe, consider a different part of Europe, etc. There's lots of wonderful places in the world outside the US - and many of them are even known and respected in the US, too.
Apply to places that aren't so swamped with international applicants. Smaller, less internationally recognized state schools and private institutions will be less likely to have insane amounts of applications for a tiny amount of available seats. Institutions that are advertising that they are expanding their programs or creating new ones may be more risky in some ways - they don't have a proven track-record of success - but they will also have way less applicants to chose from and may be more flexible in their admissions criteria (or at least have more time to look at each candidate more deeply).
Consider "getting your foot in the door" by actually applying for an undergraduate degree in the US, either more general or more specific than your previous one. You may prioritize "feeder" institutions where you will have the opportunity to meet and/or work with people who make decisions on admittance to graduate programs. This way not only will you get rid of the problem of not being from a recognized school/country, but you can also work yourself into being a "domestic" applicant AND having earned your own social connections and recognition to help aid your future applications.
As with going for an undergraduate degree in the US, you might also wish to target places/programs that have good industry connections, as if nothing else you can at least leave academia with professional interests in the area of your passion and in a place where there is demand for your skills.
Seek out international campuses/extensions of US institutions. These can be ultra-competitive too, but not all are - and they come with a built-in connection to "brands" that are valued in the US and Europe, and there is the potential to make international connections with the home institution.
Finally, reconsider your existing credentials and professional outlook - with a specialized degree, often job opportunities are very regional-specific and not well advertised. This is true everywhere - here in the US I lived in a place where there seemed to be 2 total positions for my professional skills, while 150 miles south there are a dozen companies who are getting into a bidding war for candidates because they can't find enough qualified people!

No matter what you do, I hope you realize that no path will be easy, and neither does any path - regardless of difficulty - guarantee anything related to success or even happiness. In the US alone we have more people who commit suicide than die in traffic accidents - over 30,000 per year choose not to live any more. Even if you get what you want and even if you decide to move to the US or any other country, there are people who are unhappy there too, regardless of even if they were getting what they wanted.
Your journey will be whatever it ends up being - this may include going to another country sooner or later, or not. What you've achieved already is proof that you are capable of a great deal, and surely that you also are capable of even more than that. Don't accept only a single isolated path as The One True Way - be open to other options too, so that you get to chose the best option, rather than just end up with the only one that ended up possible. And so in this you won't ever give up - only choose the option that seems to be the best, even if that was not necessarily what you had originally planned!

Maybe networking? Presumably, professors in your country would like to see a promising student go on to further studies and research. Some of them might have contacts in universities with good biology programs. Work broadly and as indirectly as it takes. If you know a biology professor who knows an engineering professor who knows an engineering professor at a suitable university, try to use that.
The objective would be to change your application from being simply an application from someone whose university no one on the admission committee has heard of to being the application from that student Professor X mentioned.
Meanwhile, try to find something constructive to do until the next admission cycle, something that is a start on your career if you don't get into a graduate program. Keep in touch with your professors by e-mail and similar, and go on reading their work, even if you do not have lab access.

My answer is localized and anecdotal, but may be of interest.
In France, MsC is called Master and is a 2 year program. After the second year (called M2), the best students are accepted to the PhD program, with a funding for 3 years (PhD are done in 3 or 4 years on average in France).
We have a lot of students coming from North Africa (Algeria, Marocco, Tunisia) and a few from Eastern Europe, Africa and China. Most of them already have a degree that corresponds to the M2, but only a very small number of applicants are directly accepted for the PhD or the M2. The usual strategy for those foreign students is to apply for a M1, where they are most of the time accepted (the problem at that point being the visa). Then they follow the usual ladder from the M1 to the PhD.
This strategy means losing 2 years at most, but is working for most good students.

I was thinking about doing the same thing. But was unsure. You confirmed my thought. Than you.

 A MSc in my country, even at a top school, has no international worth.

I think a rational way to think about it to weigh against all options in a 10 year frame. The probability that you will be an excellent biologist after graduate school, no matter in company or university setting, is very small. As others pointed out it is significantly smaller than the chance of getting into a good graduate program. This situation might change, but at least right now it is very difficult to get a serious position without a paper in Journals like Nature, Science, Cell, etc.
The situation thus become very simple. Either you accept that knowledge is an end to itself, and titles means little, then you should continue your studies in a place most likely to help you (not others). You may reapply if you wish, but I think a degree from an obscure university is totally okay from a long time perspective. Otherwise you might consider this as a soft way of indicating that you are not suitable to enter this field, and you should be glad that you were informed this earlier than later. As to how to build a career totally outside of academia I think is outside of the scope of this site, and could not be answered in a Q&A site in general.
You probably did lose 2 years because your wrong perception of yourself, but this is life. Accept this and move on to do more valuable things in future would be more helpful than dwelling on this. I say that as someone who received more than 50+ rejection letters in life.

I get your point. However, I think you don't get paradox I am in. I am aware that getting serious position in academia is extremely complicated, but the issue with MSc in my country is that: 1.It's costous; 2.It's doesn't increase the probability of achieving job because most Professor come from abroad (that people without a paper in Science, but very good MSc...); 3. I am running out of money. I understand that knowledge is an end in itself, but I can live off my parents and friends' money forever. I if want to come back an achieve a decent position in my country, I have to go abroad.

@luis_1991: 1. You can apply to a PhD program which will give you money instead of a master degree that cost you money. I assume you must have considered this option earlier. So I suggest you reexamine your logic. 2. Money issue is difficult but can be resolved in a variety of ways, like working for a few years first then apply again, borrowing money from others, asking for fee waivers, etc. 3. I seriously suggest you to reconsider your academic career, either accept the reality, reapply to more places or drop it at this stage. Life can be more difficult if you are penniless and fail your PhD.

I met someone from a developing country who went to the office of a professor in Europe on every day, he didn't have time until one month later he had and she finally got accepted for a PhD there. Trying everything for your dream may pay-off.
If time is not that critical, you could even try to get a Bachelor's degree in a related field (Chemistry, Psychology, Bioengineering,...) at a more prestigeous university. Then you try to score top notch grades there, for which you can use your skills from your first bachelor.
At least in Germany, there is the German Academic Exchange Service, which may help you find a suiting university and/or scholarship.
You could leverage the one big project you focussed on a bit more. Make your weakness to a strength. Probably there is a chance to write a publication about that project - and there may be another small chance, that one of your professors gives you guidance on it (Look, I wrote that paper, would you like to give some remarks and write your name on it?). Maybe it will be accepted somewhere which would increase your chances. You could focus on professors/institutes which specialize in that area and apply there.

I meant to comment that while I was in undergrad school in the US, I met numerous international students who were earning undergrad degrees, who already had under and postgrad degrees from other countries. If you can't get into a postgrad program in a developed country, try getting into an undergrad program.  Working hard and excelling in such an institution could also put you in a better situation in the long term. Where before, no one would accept you into a postgrad program, keeping an excellent GPA in a US/European university could position you for acceptance into a prestigious university.

Another thing you should maybe point out is how your grade system is working in applications to universitys in Europe.
In some if not most countries(I know for sure it is in Austria and Germany) here the best grade is 1 and goes down to 5 or 6.
So if someone reading your grades and is not familiar with your grad system it could seem that you got mostly bad grades (1 is exceptional, 4 is minimum to get further while 5 or 6 is failed).
Disclaimer: I had loved to write this as comment but because of reputation it was only possible to answer. I thought it needs to be said and could stay as a short answer.

That may be a problem I didn't pointed. Although my final degree, converted to a scale of 4, would be 3.5, it was the second best GPA in my cohort. The best was 3.6. Regularly, 80% of the students graduate with GPA below 2.8 in my undergraduate. I may seem low compared to a 3.8 from an American college.

Well Luis, In my view, I understand that you have to keep doing your best. I know very well how it is to get good grades in an unrecognized school, and people looking at you and asking "University of... what? Where is it?" and bla bla. It is hard to keep up after doing so well, and people still think of you as a regular-bottom person, but that is how world works, and you will have to adapt until they see that you are better than what they think you are.
Also, maybe you should try to apply to a broader range of Universities, so you can have more chances to get approved (yea, the shotgun technique may work sometimes).
Just one more thing, which country are you talking about? Sorry, I just got curious.
Keep up and trying!

I think my last round of application was "in the shotgun way". How many schools do you mean? I applied to Germany, the Netherlands and US.

authors: Ольга Болонина


text:
Can a theoretical proof-of-concept be published?
I am working independently on an idea, and to test its conceptual feasibility, I have done a bit of math, and it seems to check out. The idea is in the area of web engineering, or web science.
Now, in order to simplify the math, I've had to make several assumptions, which may or may not be valid in the real world. Is this a problem? I'm trying to make the calculation as realistic as possible, but I've noticed that it can quickly get out of hand in terms of complexity of the problem.
However, I believe that the concept has value in that it is a novel way of approaching an existing problem, and it could have the legs required to flourish in a theoretical sense.
EDIT: Just to be clear, the simplification I'm referring to replaces non-linear functions with linear functions, so that the math is simpler.

As Massimo says below, this isn't really a proof of concept. I would maybe use the phrase "simplified model". @Joebevo

From your description ("I have done a bit of math, and it seems to check out"), it sounds like you have ended up in an entirely ordinary and reasonable piece of theoretical/analytical research.  Indeed, such research can be almost precisely characterized (informally) as doing a bit of math and seeing if it checks out.
The question of publishability then boils down to whether your simplifying assumptions are considered reasonable (which you can argue and test by comparison with prior work, both theoretical and experimental) and whether the conclusions reached by checking it out are interesting and significant.
Bottom line: go forth and publish (in an appropriately scoped venue)!

A proof-of-concept is usually considered to be an experimental implementation.
Your analysis might be publishable, but don't call it what it's not: the reviewer may probably object. There are other, less objectionable, ways in which you can title and describe your work: find a suitable alternative.
As for the simplifying assumptions, yes, they can be an issue: at least, try to approximately figure out what can be the worst-case scenario if those assumptions don't hold, and address these limitations in your manuscript.

The only way to know an answer for this is to write it up and submit it to a journal or conference. You will get feedback from reviewers and the editor. I can't guess how they will respond and it will depend on the solidity of your ideas and how you back them up.
If you are already well established it might be more likely as your reputation for past success might make people less willing to question your concepts out of hand.
But if your resulting paper seems unusual to an editor it might not get much traction. But writing it up formally will probably help you firm up the idea and give you ideas for completing it.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can a novel and potentially important observation be published without the scaffolding of an entire theory or experiment?
I have what I feel is a novel and potentially helpful observation in the field of neuroscience, which connects it to another field, but it is just that - an observation. If this needs to become publishable, do I need to develop an entire theory around it (which is difficult, given that neuroscience isn't dealing with the relatively "simpler" objects that we see in physics or mathematics). The other alternative is to gather as much evidence from prior studies as possible that point to the observation being valid.
How does someone who is theoretically inclined go about this?

How much training do you have in neuroscience?

None, to be honest. I've been learning from the iBiology website and following up by reading the reference papers mentioned.

Related: Publishing a novel idea without experiments and results, Can a psychology article be published without verifiable results?

Just to be clear, the observation is really from a computational perspective, not pure neurobiology.

@AppliedAcademic: Points taken, and edits made accordingly :)

It's possible. Your observation will need to be novel and interesting. From your description, it might also need some preliminary calculations to back it up.
The original paper describing the flyby anomaly is an example.

Just curious, would arXiv be a good place for this? I'd ideally like to elucidate the basics of the idea and continue working on it and add evidence/justification as I make progress.

@Joebevo I'm not familiar with neuroscience, but I'd guess no, because it doesn't look like the arXiv has much neuroscience.

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


text:
Is it easy to find a job in industry in a different area?
I am doing a PhD in the field of atmospheric chemistry at a good university in Canada. I feel I do not like my research very much and I am not very interested in teaching or doing research in my area.
But I will fulfill my PhD study and get a degree as an international student. In the meanwhile, I am learning or plan to learn a lot of online courses on coursera, especially in machine learning and data science.
I also think about quitting from PhD program and apply for a master/PhD in data science, CS, machine learning or something. But the investment would be huge and it may be not a good choice. I think maybe it is easier to get some courses online and certificates in a certain area like data science, and then I can convert to another area that I am more interested in in terms of future career building up. Also it is bad for my adviser if I quit from his group and I do not want to hurt anyone even if I am trying to seek for alternatives of my future.
My question is that is it easy to find a job in industry after I complete my PhD? Of course I will not find a job in my area but in data science.

Unless your advisor is an assistant professor and needs to graduate someone for tenure, I think "quitting" your Ph.D. is not substantially worse than doing research that you have no interest in.

Also, do you have the option of getting a Master's along the way of a Ph.D.? Many Ph.D. programs in the US grants students Masters degrees along the way, and some students opt to receive a Masters in a completely different field. For example, a Ph.D. candidate in the meteorology department can get an EE Masters degree.

if I can get a master of CS it would be best option for me, and our school has a good CS department as well as machine learning direction. But I need to apply again to the program and that means a lot of work, such as taking GRE, prepare recommendation letters and so on. Also I do not have strong CS background.

In my university Ph.D. students don't need to go through this. They just submit a form, no recommendation letters required, and they are automatically enrolled in the Masters program. Have you checked the policies are your school? It might be different in Canada. Is there a M.Eng. program in the computer engineering department? I heard in Canada, M.Eng. does not require a thesis and may be easier to be enrolled in.

Yes it is possible to find a job in a different area than your field. But you need to gain experience. In my point of view.. follow these steps..
1. Take courses of your interest. (Online or from institute)
2.Gain experience (Paid or unpaid internship)
3. Find a real job based on your experience.
I am electrical engineer and working as software engineer.

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


text:
Is there an internet Git-like repository for collaboration on a paper?
I've just started using git for tracking changes in a LaTeX paper I'm writing, and for collaboration with co-authors.
However, I cannot find easily private git repositories with reasonable plans for scientific collaboration (I'm not asking about discounts, just about a different workflow, so no "one team of n developers", but there are "many small project, with different people").
There is ScribTeX, but unfortunately they are going down :/.
Other:

GitHub free academic plan with unlimited private repositories and number of collaborators
Bitbucket free academic plan with unlimited private repositories and collaborators
Assembla free: priv, but no bug-tracking; next ($9/month): n=3

So, is there a (La)TeX-oriented Git (or, say, Mercurial) repository service?
That is, I'm looking for a repository (free or reasonably priced - i.e. for one with a PhD student salary, not a programmer salary :))

allowing for:

many collaborators,
many private repositories,

but can have strong limits on:

users per repository,
repository size.

Bitbucket offers unlimited private repos for academic users: http://www.atlassian.com/software/views/bitbucket-academic-license.jsp

May I ask how this will help me as a "new" researcher? I got SugarSync for writing papers. I usually create folder and invite my supervisor to the join so he can also see and update the folder.

@seteropere I see, SugarSync is something like Dropbox - to backup and share folders. (I use the latter also for backing up research files, BTW.) However, it's not version control system indented for working on the same piece of code. It may fail when many people work on the same file. Plus, it gives to insight in changes, plus  - it is not (as) easy to get any version you want. But to make it full + post screenshots - could you post is as a question (i.e. "Why use version control systems for writing a paper"). I would love to answer.

Since you edited the question, why not correcting the info on the cost of github and bitbucket (both free with unlimited private repos for academic users)?

@FedericoPoloni If you know, why don't you edit it? (I would be grateful.)

@PiotrMigdal Done it now. Sorry, I didn't realise the last editor wasn't the OP (confusing interface...). As a good practice, I try to have OP's consent before making changes that could "break the flow of the question" like this one.

You could always host your own bonobo server.(it is really easy. Click;click;done) Just deploy it to IIS and you're done. The default credentials are [admin:admin] but if you really want your paper to be confidential, host it on your own VLAN and let only your contributors have access.

Aditya's comment should be the accepted answer:
Bitbucket offers unlimited private repos for academic users.

Sounds the best, I will test it.

Is this for all academic personal or only students?

It seems to be for everyone. There are no specific terms, but they only ask What University are you associated with?, and test for an academic e-mail account.

Overleaf (used to be writelatex) now works with git.  Latex is fantastic for typesetting academic papers properly, and Overleaf is great for writing latex collaboratively.

This is my standard solution for multi-institution LaTeX collaborations now, and the WYSIWYG interface of Overleaf means that even collaborators from normally non-LaTeX fields have been willing to work this way.  One warning, though: Overleaf's backend appears to be proprietary and not actually git, and so many more sophisticated git tricks won't work with it.  It also rejects file types that it doesn't believe are compatible with LaTeX.

@jakebeal: While people at Overleaf's open-source alternative ShareLaTeX continue to discuss on how to implement git integration or whether it's worth doing, in the first place, folks at closed-sourced Overleaf initiated relevant real-time collaborative editor open source project with git support. (to be continued)

@jakebeal: (cont'd) However, it seems that they realized the potential "danger" from this project to their commercial "big brother", as a brief look at JotGit's repository shows that the most recent change has been done in July 2014. BTW, those interested in truly, but feature-limited, multi-platform (that is, beyond only LaTeX) collaborative writing platform, might want to take a look at Authorea (see this post for more details).

I've been meaning to look into Authorea, but I haven't yet.  We used Sharelatex for a while but Writelatex had better features so I reluctantly migrated despite liking the folks at Sharelatex & supporting their ideals.  My tech decisions are driven by not just my own experience, but how my PhD students do as well.

Consider asking your research institute/university IT services.

In terms of fees, I'd consider such a tool as necessary for scientific work as your office chair, or backup disks/servers. My personal experience with asking for a git repository on a file server was that our director immediately answered "if that's what is needed for work, it needs to be installed." - that was it.
The far more important concern is, where research in progress and possibly data will end up. Storing such sensitive data outside the collaborating institutes is by default a big NO, even though lots of people send their research data by skype or dropbox.
You'd be totally screwed up if you run into ownership/privacy problems.
Even Bitbucket (who have "academic license") have write in their terms such statements (there are other statements about you retaining ownership of your data, privacy etc.):

End User hereby grants Atlassian a non-exclusive license to copy, distribute,
  perform, display, store, modify, and otherwise use End User Data in
  connection with operating the Hosted Services.

For some areas of research it is even more NO, e.g. I work with patient data...
git works very well with distributed systems, even if they are only seldom connected. Worst case, people can email patches.
But installing git on a server is easy and people may get an ssh login, and that is all you need to have for your private git repository inside your institution IT structure, which avoids all that privacy trouble.

Good point with the privacy and tricky EULAs! Hopefully, in my case (theoretical physics) it is not an issue. But when it comes to asking local IT service... well, I have very mixed experience with them. That is, sometimes they can install you ask (and clearly not always), but also it's likely to break without a notice, in an unpredictable moment; I have had much, much better experience with external (usually commercial) services. Moreover, even in the most optimistically-unrealistic case (where everything works well), I won't be at the same place for more than a few years.

The restrictive words in that EULA are in connection with operating the Hosted Services. To me, it means that they may perform those operations if and only if they are related to providing you the Hosted Services, i.e., they can show you the source files when you click on your repositories or you write git pull, but they may not put them online on the internet or have their employees read them if it's a private repo. IANAL, but I'd trust them if this is the exact wording.

@PiotrMigdal: I agree with your IT services experience. One of the advantages of git is that no master is needed. You can just copy your repo and it will work. That is, 1) you can copy it and take it with you when you change jobs (if permitted by employer) 2) failure of the IT department's server does not affect syncing your local repo with the colleagues repos. Not convenient (ask for IP address, allow connection [talk to IT because of firewall - that hassle may make them repair the server ASAP], sync, deny connections again), but work can go on. You can also email patches.

@FedericoPoloni: Neither am I a lawyer. But I'd at least get official approval for using that service. As a (relevant) side note: the DFN (German national research and education network) has its own doodle replacement because of such concerns. And doodle is just about scheduling meetings, not about upload of your research.

This should be the one way to go when the collaboration is not a mulit-institution one. And this answer should be the accepted one for the simple fact that it takes in account the sensitivity of the data.

@m.raynal: thank you. I may add that later on the git server got outside access for specified ssh keys (basically our own little VPN), so collaboration was possible with specific colleagues from other institutes. (It also gained a gitlab community edition web interface). For non-git-savy collegues, I nowadays use my own nextcloud server for collaboration: it includes a markdown editor, and I can of course have the files in a private git repo in addition.

I always found it difficult to teach people how to properly use repositories when collaborating on a manuscript. I have found www.authorea.com to work much better. Unfortunately, authorea suffers from the same problems you discussed in your question. Lack of private repositories.

If you really want to use Git. Then I recommend you install your own git server. There are two worthy clones of github: GitLab and Gogs.

Gogs - Go Git Service
  A painless self-hosted Git service

I prefer Gogs since it is just one file install based on GoLang and looks very pretty and has all the functionality you would expect: Code History, Issue Management, Wiki pages

If your collaborators aren't software developers themselves I wouldn't subject them to learning Latex.
It is not an easy task, believeme I've tried.
What you need is something like Google Docs that saves history of the document and allows you to collaborate.
Thankfully there is: https://www.sharelatex.com/

LaTeX, Evolved
  The easy to use, online, collaborative LaTeX edito

I'm not affiliated with them... just a happy user.

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


text:
How do I change schools/advisors without making my advisor angry?
I am currently a PhD student in a program that I do not find challenging. A part of that may be due to the fact that my advisor has an EXTREMELY hands off approach. He will not return my emails for weeks on end and rarely gives me things to do, despite the fact that I am being paid as an RA.I worked with him for two years as an RA during my masters and I am currently in my first year of a PhD agree.
I also don't know if the program I am in is good for my career. I am generally unhappy with the required coursework I am taking and just weary of my future career options. Given the previous internships I have done at renowned institutions, I think I can do better.
I have been toying with the possibility of switching schools for quite some time now. Here is my problem: How do I apply to a new school without burning bridges with my current advisor? The problem is my advisor is NICE and so amiable. The hands off approach just doesn't work with me. Sometimes I get the feeling that I am not important or the least of my advisor's priorities.
I know that any program I apply to would want a recommendation from my advisor. I just don't know how to proceed! I want to apply to top tier programs in my field -- but want to retain a good relationship with my current advisor just in case I don't get accepted.
1)What is the best way to proceed without burning bridges?
2) Is it possible to apply to a new program without my previous advisor's recommendation?

“It's not you, it's me” ;-)

Could you elaborate on that? I am familiar with this quote but what is a specific example that would work in this situation?

What F'x is saying is that your approach should be: you explaining that it is your "fault" things are not working and you don't want to stand in a way.

Since you received your Master's degree from the same institution, it is understandable that you would want to pursue other options even if you were not having difficulties with your advisor. This might be a good way to approach your advisor without causing unnecessary tension. Ask for a meeting, express your concerns tactfully, and ask for opinions on what your options are (both including going elsewhere, but also discuss what measures you can take to get more out of your program). Hopefully is your advisor is as amiable as he/she seems, this won't be a problem.
I do not know how not having your advisor's recommendation would be received for applications, but it could lead to questions.

This is the answer to everything, but talk to your advisor.  If he is, as you say, very nice but hands off, you should talk to him.  Express your concerns, that you really feel you need a more hands-on approach and that right now you feel like you are floundering.  If you're honest and direct without blaming him, asking for help, he may change his behavior or work with you to find a better fit.  Either is good for you, but you need to talk to him.  He knows he's being hands-off, he just may not know that it is not working for you.  You need to communicate that.

I'm not so concerned with my advisor's behavior as a I am with how to approach applying somewhere else. I don't imagine that he will change. I just don't like the program I am in right now and want to apply elsewhere. How do I communicate that to him without seeming insensitive?

I suggest "I don't like the program and I want to apply elsewhere."


text:
How can an IT undergrad become a Data Scientist.?
I know asking undergrad questions are not well received here. But I don't know any other place have the standard of this place.
I am a Bachelor of Information technology student. I am maintaining a second upper GPA at school. My target is to become a data scientist. And this is my plan.
 I will learn data science basics on coursera. I will start with a diploma in applied statistics parallel to my final year of my degree. Then I will go for a M.Sc in CS. Where I come from doesn't have undergraduate/pg math degrees available for me (only for few merit students who enter state universities get to those). I will do a research more related to data science. (Not sure if I can do it in a M.Sc in CS)
 I know there should be opinions, and this question won't lead to a one single perfect solution. But I'm asking if you can tell me if this is a good plan.?

You do not need a degree in data science to become a data scientist.

As a side note, I suspect that masters in statistics will be more relevant than most CS masters (unless you find some kind of dedicated data analysis CS program).

As Aleksandr Blekh's answer indicates, there is a better place for this question, and even if there weren't you are unlikely to get the kind of academic advising you need in this venue.

I have answered several related questions on the Data Science SE site some time ago. I hope that my answers are relevant to your situation and will be helpful. Wishing you best of luck!

Graduate Degree Choices for Data Science
Starting my career as Data Scientist, is Software Engineering experience required?
Data Science Project Ideas

Question: How can one become a data scientist?
Answer: Call yourself one.
That's what everyone else does. (Yes, cynical, I know.)

Yeah ,Plan B :D


text:
Ignoring referee reports
Let's consider the following situation:
Author A submits a paper to a journal. Referee B writes a critical referee report and recommends rejection. Author A then resubmits the same paper to another journal managed by Editor C with no edits made. As luck has it, Editor C asks Referee B to referee the paper again.
Let's assume here that Referee B's criticisms are valid. My questions are:

At what point do Author A's actions become unethical? Can they count as research misconduct?

Assuming Author A's actions are misconduct, what actions should be taken by Referee B? By Editor C once the issue is exposed?

My understanding is that it would be unfortunate to attempt to republish someone else’s work without being aware of it, but would be considered misconduct to do so intentionally. So I guess Questiin 1 is partially asking if Referee B’s report should be construed as prior knowledge.
I'm also aware that the critiques Referee B give influence the outcome of Question 1. Some, like omitting critical details of a proof in a math paper, are field specific. Others are more universal, like refusing to cite prior work that contains some of the claimed results.
Edit: question 1 has been edited to use less strong language.

I don't understand what you mean in the edit by "...partially asking if Referee B’s report should be construed as prior knowledge". Prior knowledge of what?

Your understanding that it is not misconduct (beyond carelessness, perhaps) to unknowingly publish or republish the work of another. Also that it is serious misconduct (plagiarism and/or copyright infringement) to knowingly do so. The review system is an imperfect guard against both.

@Buffy If I claim to give the first proof of a theorem and it turns out that it's already in the literature, that's a bit embarrassing. Once Referee B points this out to me, I believe I would be obligated to cite the prior work. By not revising the paper at all, I am intentionally choosing not to cite it, which I would say is a version of research misconduct. However, I could imagine one objecting to the idea that receiving a negative referee report indicates prior knowledge on my part.

The paragraph in the question that begins "My understanding ..." presupposes that Referee B's criticism of the paper is (or at least includes) that the work was already published elsewhere. That presupposition wasn't mentioned in your original description of the situation. You should clarify whether you're asking about the very general situation at the beginning of the question or the much more special situation involving prior publication.

@AndreasBlass I understand there’s a broad spectrum. With respect to question 1, I’m most interested in extreme cases. I understand that there are many reasonable cases where folks agree to disagree and that those are just a part of the process. Perhaps I should clarify further in the question.

-1 Question is too unclear.

Why use A, B, and C to describe this? There is exactly one author, referee, and editor mentioned each, so they cannot be confused. This just makes everything unnecessarily difficult to read. Same goes for describing everything in third person: Even if you are not the referee, you can still write the question from their perspective (and maybe add a note that you are not them).

Possible duplicates: Asked again to review a paper, when the authors don't wish to modify it, How to deal with rote “publication shopping”?, Can I tell the authors I was a referee for the same paper for another journal?, How should I decline a referee request for the paper which I refereed before?

«it would be unfortunate to attempt to republish someone else’s work without being aware of it, but would be considered misconduct to do so intentionally. So I guess Questiin 1 is partially asking if Referee B’s report should be construed as prior knowledge.» Why did you write this? I said yourself that author A resubmitted the paper without any changes... This question is not clear enough!

Does this answer your question? How to deal with rote "publication shopping"?

There is no misconduct. There may be disagreement, but not misconduct. Journals accept or reject for a variety of reasons, some of which are fairly philosophical.
It may even be that Referee B will recommend acceptance at a second journal if there is a better fit with the paper there.
Whether the author is wise to ignore referee suggestions is another matter. In most cases the suggestions lead to improvements and increase the likelihood of acceptance somewhere, but not always.
But if the referee targets misconduct (say, failure to cite) in a paper, others will likely catch it also and recommend (require) changes.
A fair number of papers actually are in the scenario you mention, though fewer with the same referee at a different journal. But in some sub-fields, the number of appropriate reviewers is limited.

At worst, the "misconduct" would be the discourteous wasting of people's time. But the referee would surely minimize that waste in any case in which that is the issue.

Note that many people first submit to a journal that they know is not likely to accept the paper. Then, after rejection, submit to one that is a better fit. That, too, can waste people's time, though, in this case, the editor may do a quick reject, saving everyone else's effort.

Yes, and, further, authors are allowed to disagree with referees' (and editors') opinions, and seek other venues. It's not unethical to disagree with referees! :)  (... even without supposed facts of who's right or wrong, etc.)

I understand authors will disagree with referees and editors. In this scenario, we are assuming the issues Referee B finds are valid. Some issues (e.g. results are not significant) are up for debate, but some (the main result appears in uncited paper X or this result contradicts well-known theorem Y) are fundamental issues.

@ZachH, yes, I do understand your point, as well. Still, "in principle", it is possible to more-or-less sensibly disagree... even though most people might not. It's not "unethical" to be irrational, etc. Maybe irritating, and, yes, possibly consuming other peoples' time, but, still, ...

"Paper X got the same resulat at the same time" is something that happens. It's not midconduct to draw the same conclusions from the same data.
If the referee finds a major fault with the paper I think it's unethical to publish results which are known to be wrong. At least include a "This is all wrong because" at the beginning.

When the authors don't bother fixing obvious typos pointed out by the reviewer, it isn't a scientific disagreement... As for "minimizing that waste", if a paper with known errors is sent to a different reviewer, then it wastes the time of that other reviewer. Resubmitting is normal, disagreeing with some review comments is normal, but I find this answer too lenient for people who entirely ignore all feedback, even very sensible comments repeated in multiple reviews, even about things that would take them less than a minute to handle.

In my view, there is no scientific ethical question in play: once your paper has been rejected, it is up to you what you want to do with it, and that can include sending it somewhere else as is. Indeed, some rejections will come with an explicit offer to transfer your paper to another (usually lower ranked) venue that is expected to want to publish it!
There is still, however, a question of professionalism and reputation. If your paper has significant errors in it and you decline to correct them, then those errors will still be there, and that's going to look sloppy and unprofessional to anybody who becomes aware of it.  I have been referee B for such a situation, and I recommended rejection because the problems hadn't changed. And then people will think you're disrespectful for wasting people's time, and that will definitely not help your career.
Here is how I'd think of dividing the general cases of when to revise or not with a rejection:

Rejected due to scientific errors or lack of clarity: these issues absolutely must be fixed before submitting anywhere else.
Rejected due to scope mismatch or "not significant enough": you can submit elsewhere without revision, but it's always good to use critical feedback to strengthen your work.
Rejected because the reviewers wanted more material: depends on the circumstance. Sometimes, reviewers identify a significant gap, and you need to correct it; other times it's more "I wish this research were further along already" and it's reasonable to go without revision to a venue that welcomes early results or preliminary work.
Rejected with offer for transfer: pretty much always take the offer (assuming it's reasonable), and no need to revise unless requested to as part of the process.

@Roland: yes, we want to have few false-positive publications of bad papers. But we also want to have few false-negative final rejections of valid papers. Being allowed to submit to another journal is a safeguard against the latter. Having received reviews ranging from very enthusiastic "recommend immediate publication, would like to see more such high-quality studies" to outright "recommend rejection, don't see any merit" on the same manuscript I see this as a pragmatic heuristic that starts with as few reviews as possible and increases the number if needed (by editor or authors)...


text:
Can I teach English at a community college with only a Bachelor's degree?
Can I teach at a community college with only a Bachelor's degree?
I am interested in the liberal arts. Specifically: English.
I read someone else's post with a similar question, and the responses really shot it down. That is, of course, teaching with only a Bachelor's. But I found on another site: Higher Ed Jobs, many community colleges require only a Bachelor's. Do they want the candidate to be a PHd student or something?

If you're trying to better understand the requirements of these job listings you mentioned, please quote the relevant parts and link to the listing. Without those details, this is a duplicate of the other post.

many community colleges require only a Bachelor's Teaching English or Teaching English as a second language (ESL)? You need to read the job ads carefully.

FYI, in the U.S.A. during the 1990s when I was involved in several job searches, the nearly universal requirement for community college teaching was a Masters degree (or higher) and at least 18 semester hours of graduate credit in the field you intend to teach. Thus, someone with an M.A. degree in math and who also has 18 semester hours of graduate credit in English would be qualified to teach math or English.

Thank You, And to ff524 - should I dig out some job descriptions?? Again, thank you to everyone who responded

@ff524♦   Hello, ff524  I am this gentleman who asked the question about teaching at a community college with a BA. You responded. I am trying to get back to you. Now I am not playing around. Because I have been threatened to be blocked from the site. Can you help me any further?? You mention a "link to the listing". If I provided this could you help me further. I found a site 'Higher Ed Jobs'.  Again, I am asking in a nice way. And would certainly appreciate any help. Hope to hear from you to work all this out. Thank You so much!!!!

Use the [edit] link to update your post if you have additional information that makes it distinct from the duplicate.

@ff524 How would this help me? Can Stack Exchange or anyone at SE help me?? If I put job info from this site I mentioned, could someone help me? Is this site just for technical fields?? I am interested in the Liberal arts!! Thanks again

ff524♦So are you suggesting I put a job listing in the post, and say for example, ask everyone on SE -- if I should bother to apply for the job. I guess that is essentially what I am asking, and what I gleaned from your post. Thanks again!!!

@ff524♦ So are you suggesting I put a job listing in the post, and say for example, ask everyone on SE -- if I should bother to apply for the job. I guess that is essentially what I am asking, and what I gleaned from your post. Thanks Again!!!

@Ben Crowell Can you help me? Do you understand what ff524 wants me to do?? Create a new question, and put a job listing in it?? Then what can Stack Exchange do for me?? Can you answer if SE is right for me?? if not I will go away!!


text:
Should I provide my transcripts for all years or only the last year?
I am applying for a a PhD in the UK, and they ask for my bachelor transcript. Should I only include the third year transcripts or full three years ? Since I am translating it from another language it is better for me to only include the last year

This may vary by university, but a transcript is a full academic record of your time at an institution. As such, they will expect information on every course that you took, all three years. A partial transcript is obviously acceptable for degrees which have not yet been completed, but omitting completed courses may look like you have something to hide.
There will likely be a firm requirement to provide a full original transcript, and if not in English, an authorised translation, before your place is confirmed, regardless of whether a partial transcript is acceptable for an offer to be given.

The simple and clear answer is YES. Include all year's transcripts. This is especially important in the UK, where the final marks are more crude than other places (e.g., 70% and up is concerned to be A).
Also, many colleges in the UK might have independent offices for initial evaluation of your application, and they would require all transcripts.
In case of doubt just ask the relevant supervisor/faculty. This is a crucial point to understand.

When evaluating applicants for PhD studies, the reader of your application will check whether you seem to have a good chance of finishing the degree within the suggested time span. This is especially important in the UK, where the duration of PhD studies if relatively fixed.
Now for checking whether you have a good chance of finishing in time, they need to see what courses you took in the past. In some fields, there are considerable differences between universities (and countries of study), especially regarding whether the focus is more on the theoretical or more applied topics. Thus, the full transcript allows them to estimate whether you bring the needed background knowledge with you for the PhD program that you are applying to, as they want to avoid that you have to spend time on filling your gaps in knowledge before your can work on research in a productive way.
As a summary, full transcripts are essential for a good application! Even if you can - for some reason - only provide a partial translation, if your certificates are good enough for, say, Google translate to extract some of their meaning, it makes sense to include scans/copies of the original non-English transcript. This holds especially for languages such as Spanish or Italian, which are close enough to English for a rough translation.


text:
Applying for terminal MA in sociology, concerned about weak letters and missed funding deadlines. Is it better to put off application for a year?
I'm strongly interested in a terminal MA in Sociology (because I am currently not willing to commit to the length of a US PhD program) and know that I want to work in research for social policy. I'm mainly looking at one-year programs in Europe (due to lower cost, larger quantity of good terminal programs).
Applications for funding deadlines are coming up in January. I have only recently been reaching out to my letter writers, and I haven't yet finished my writing samples, SOPs, or CV to send to them, so many of my letter writers do not have very much to work with since only one knows me well. I also missed every deadline for grants to study abroad, like the Fulbright scholarships. So I potentially will have weak letters of recommendation and few funding opportunities.
My question is how wise it might be to put off my applications for a year to instead try to work at a public policy research institute, then get together much stronger applications for funding next year with letter writers who might be more familiar with me and my interests.

Thanks for clarifying. Is there any reason you can't apply this year, see what offers you get, and then decide whether to accept one of those offers or apply again next year?


text:
Handling possibly unethical disclosures in letter of recommendation
While reviewing applicants for a position, I noticed a disclosure in a letter of recommendation that is potentially unethical. I'm sure this happens from time to time - something like "Jane Doe's contributions are especially impressive because her husband is constantly busy working at a hedge fund and she has small three children, two of whom have cystic fibrosis". On the one hand, that does put her work in context and make it more impressive in some respects. However, if there are no hedge funds near my university or the local medical system isn't well developed to treat such a complicated condition, it'd be hard not to let that disclosure influence my or my department's thinking. Sometimes these disclosures are intentional, but I don't believe the one I noticed (which is not the scenario outlined above) is.
My first reaction is that I should take the disclosure as a positive if it is in fact a positive (maybe we have lots of hedge funds nearby and a cystic fibrosis research center, so Jane would consider stooping down to our department's level!) and try to ignore it if it is a negative. On the other hand, perhaps it would be best to check directly with the writer and ask what they intended by making a disclosure. If the disclosure is unintentional, this gives the writer a chance to update their letter.
Clearly, the approach taken should vary depending on the details of the case, but are there other options I'm not considering?

Your title is very confusing because you are not asking if it is ethical to disclose something.

My reading of "husband works at a hedge fund" was that you should hire this person because they are so wealthy they can survive on the puny salaries you are offering.

Presumably, the candidate knows their own situation better than you do. You shouldn't preemptively reject them because you suspect your local hospital isn't good enough -- you should ignore that information and let them decide for themselves later.

@AnonymousPhysicist You're right. I've edited the title.

@knzhou For the case in question, I agree with you. I'm more asking, "are there things I can do to address possible negative outcomes from the letter writer's disclosure elsewhere"

"It'd be hard not to let that disclosure influence my or my department's thinking"... I beg to differ. This should be easy to ignore, because I don't think there are any negative conclusions you can draw with high confidence even if you didn't ignore it.

Perhaps it would help if you could spell out what you think are the negatives of this disclosure --- it is not clear to me what negative implication you might be drawing from it, so it is hard to give advice.

Ignore it. Speaking of unethical behavior, I think it’s borderline unethical to draw conclusions from the irrelevant information in the letter, which are quite obviously unwarranted, the way you are doing in your example. Many people work remotely these days, why would you assume anything about the relevance of there being or not being hedge funds in your area? And what do you know about what kind of hospital this job candidate’s children need? It seems rather presumptuous to me to think that your deductive powers are so amazing that you can make useful predictions about someone’s future job performance based on such tidbits of information. There is a real risk that this attitude will cause harm and lead you to reject a perfectly qualified candidate, or to accept someone less than perfectly qualified.
Judge the candidate based on her professional achievements. And leave to letter writers the agency to decide what to include in their letters. They won’t get it right every time, but your meddling certainly won’t help.

Drawing conclusions is not unethical.  Acting on those conclusions might be.

Cystic fibrosis is a major, deadly health problem, not "trivial."

@AnonymousPhysicist OP wrote: “it’d be hard not to let that disclosure influence my or my department’s thinking.” That’s a clear signal that the conclusions being drawn might affect the actual outcome.

@AnonymousPhysicist good point. Of course, I did not mean to imply that there was anything trivial about cystic fibrosis, I meant that it’s trivial in the sense of being essentially a piece of personal gossip that has no relevance to the person’s job candidacy. Edited to remove that word in any case.

+1 for "Judge the candidate based on her professional achievements." This and only this. It is irrelevant whether the candidate has a hyper-accelerated superbrain or has overcome heavy sedation by inane soap operas to reach the level they are at, unless there a stipulation that the position is specifically dedicated to couch potatoes.

Saying that it is "essentially a piece of personal gossip that has no relevance to the person’s job candidacy" seems a bit too strong. That a person is able to perform well under stress is certainly relevant to assessing how they might perform in the future. The problem is that the relevance is hard to assess in a case like this, and hard to separate from things which aren't relevant for the job (such that they are a mother at all).

@DanRomik I'm not sure it's unethical to draw positive conclusions based on this type of disclosure (maybe they will consider us after all!), but agree it would be unethical to let this negatively impact our views. On the other hand, I expect many people to unintentionally, perhaps unconsciously make negative inferences based on precisely the presumptuousness you describe. It worries me that a letter writer might unwittingly disclose information that hurts the applicant while trying to help.

@ZachH it’s a futile exercise to go around giving ethics advice to any random person you see committing small acts of tactlessness or incompetence, particularly people you never met and have no professional relationship with. You will antagonize many people if you go that route and achieve nothing positive while you’re doing it. If someone doesn’t have the sensibility to know what’s reasonable to mention in a letter of reference, they will make some other similar mistake again next time regardless of what you tell them. Basically, your intentions are good but you’d be wasting your time.

In your position I would (try to) ignore the extraneous information.
Perhaps well after the hiring decision is made you could say something to the letter writer in an informal way. I don't know whether I would. A lot depends on the tone and the details that you have (correctly) disguised.

I can't tell, from the information given, whether the letter writer was being helpful or trying to sabotage the candidate. This seems the only reasonable solution, though un-seeing isn't really possible.

In the actual case that inspired this question, I think they were trying to be helpful but were unwittingly sabotaging the applicant, which is what distressed me about the situation. If I knew the letter writer personally, I'd reach out and ask whether they had considered the negative implications of their disclosure, but that seems risky with a stranger.

@Buffy For a situation like this one, where you don't know if it's intended to be helpful or not, I'd air on the side of helpful.  "This is someone who works extremely hard and make stuff happen and be successful even with a 5/5/3 teaching load, advising half the department, doing community outreach, all while meeting your insane two articles a year plus a monograph requirements to make tenure".

The job applicant's family is irrelevant to your hiring decisions.  Always ignore information about the applicant's family, no matter where it comes from.
Asking the letter writer for more irrelevant information, or criticizing the letter writer, both seem rude or at least not helpful.

I'm not addressing your local hiring laws, which may tie your hands here.


text:
From an author's point of view, what would you consider as negative peer reviewer comments?
I have been reading about how authors deal with negative peer reviewer comments. This got me wondering what kind of reviewer comments would authors consider as negative? Of course, most authors would consider harsh or rude comments as negative, but I feel that harsh comments, if directed at improving the paper, are at least better than dismissive or superficial comments that do not add any value to the paper. What kind of reviewer comments would you categorize as negative?

I am voting to close this question as primarily opinion-based as it is a poll or survey and there cannot be a definite answer.

@Wrzlprmft I strongly disagree: I think there's a lot of good ways to answer this question generally.

@jakebeal: I am not entirely sure what you mean by this, but if there are several good ways to answer a question, this is not necessarily a good thing. Also, take a look at the existing answers: Two reduce the question to the definition of the word negative (which is clearly off-topic) and one (yours) addresses a different question, which is however still opinion-based in my opinion.

@jakebeal "What would you consider" is a crystal-clear request for personal opinions.

I agree with the close votes and have been waiting to cast the last vote. This is exactly the kind of question described in the [help/dont-ask]. The number of potentially valid answers is unbounded, and so questions like these tend to attract a steady stream of low-quality answers that just keep being added to the end without anyone reading the existing answers. It's a perfectly suitable discussion topic for a forum, but it doesn't belong on a Q&A site.

When reading reviewer feedback, I generally divide things up into five mental categories (sorted from best to worst):

Praise: It feels really good when a reviewer "gets" a paper.
Little stuff: Anything that can be cleaned up easily, like typos and grammar failures, dropped minus signs, mislabeled figures.
Suggestions for improvement: Things that are legitimate issues, but are reasonable to push off to future work if necessary.
Legitimate complaints:  This is where a reviewer points out actual significant problems with one's work.  If you were unaware of them before, or thought they were less important than the reviewer explains them to be, then this can really sting, but it's a reasonable judgement.
Nasty, unfair reviewer #3: This is the stuff that really burns, when a reviewer seems to have an personal agenda or grudge and is taking it out on your paper.  A recent example I encountered included the phrase: "All the hard questions are systematically discarded."

What's very difficult, as an author, is distinguishing between suggestions for improvement, legitimate complaints, and unfair reviewing.  This is particularly true when things are presented harshly: I find a major difference between directness (which raises a clear issue about the science) and harshness (which might or might not be clear, but is presented with a side-dish of personal attack).
However, especially when it comes to things where you have feelings like "but it's obvious!" or "but we already addressed that!" or "they must not have read the paper carefully!", there is usually a legitimate difference of viewpoint, which it's important to figure out how to overcome.
That's why I always read feedback more than once, at at least a couple of days separation.  The first reading lets you see how much the review is praise vs. little stuff vs. the other three categories.  At that point, though, you're generally too emotionally involved and reacting (particularly if you got a rejection) to distinguish which category the issues raised by the reviewers actually fall into.  A couple of days distance, though, and I find it much more possible to parse out the different strands of negativity, figuring out which are legitimate, which are unfair, and which are more appropriate to push off to address other papers.

Thanks for your insightful answer. I agree there's a lot of difference between a direct comment and a harsh one. I also feel that a direct comment that clearly points out where the author has gone wrong is much more valuable than comments that are polite but superficial. I work with authors from cultures that are big on the politeness issue. I sometimes find it difficult to convince authors that direct comments are better than vague ones.

tl;dr - everything useless for improvement = negative

For me this is more a question of consequence than of "form" (style of writing, word choice). (Here I agree @Wrzlprmft's warning, that answers can be very opinion-based)
From a (tried) objective view, I categorize comments as negative if they:

criticize without suggestions or advice to improve the submission

e.g. something like "the paper misses other important relevant sources" with a peer not naming these sources or providing references

praise without pointing out a special issue (form, content, relevance etc.)

e.g. "really like this paper, go on like this" ... (really? no suggestions for improvement? has my peer really read it, or was he/she just lazy?)

(I recieved both kinds of comments for my last submission, one super critic, one super praising, but both super duper useless)

So a comment like "The paper is very well-written." is negative to you?

Thank you for your answer. I find this perspective very interesting, and it is an extension of the idea that was bothering me: that negative comments need not always be harsh; comments that do not add any value to the paper, even if they are polite or express appreciation, can be construed as negative. I agree with you that a simple word of praise is not enough, the peer reviewer should at least explain what I have done correctly, so that I can do those things the same way in my future papers.

@Mangara... ah... as I read your comment a second and third time: your example contains a point to some specific property of a paper (I missed that before): "well-written" states about a strength to keep or develop further (good writing skills). regarding to my answer your example would be a useful comment, because it suggests to keep the writing style.

Reviewer's comments should ideally be constructive. They should not just point out the flaws but ideally, it could also provide some suggestions or briefly comment about how to fix these flaws or improve the paper. Reviews should discuss strengths and weaknesses of a paper objectively.
What is a negative comment?  It could be just rude or harsh comments as pointed out in the question. An author could also perceive as negative some suggestions that requires to rewrite or delete content in the paper, or that criticize any decisions made by the researchers (weak litterature review, poor experimental design, etc.). Also, if a paper is very weak, a very negative comment could be to not publish the paper because it has no scientific value.  Basically, what is perceived as negative by an author is subjective and could be any comment that criticize the paper or requires to change it/reject it or shorten it, and any comment that is harsh, rude or not written in a constructive way.

Thanks for your answer. I agree that any comment that is not constructive can be considered as a negative comment.

I don't understand whether you're asking about my subjective emotional reaction to reviewer statements, or my rational evaluation of the objective content of the statement. So I would assume you're asking about both.
Basically, any comment that suggests a flaw in my data, analysis or reasoning is emotionally negative: I freely accept corrections of typos, with no emotional entailments. This would include criticisms of framework (as a subcase of flaws of reasoning, since I use reason to select my framework).
After I set aside emotional reactions and focus on objective content, comments are sorted into two groups, valid and invalid. Valid comments (e.g. I got a fact wrong, I messed up the logic, the section is actually unclear) are positive, because they make me aware of things that I must change and would have avoided. In the remaining, objectively invalid comments, which would be negative, they can again be divided into the trivially-disposable and those that, again, cause significant negative emotional reaction. A request to add a gratuitous reference to Smith (2012) might be trivially disposed of by acceding or resisting, depending on the details (e.g. is Smith (2012) actually relevant or valid?; is it just one of hundreds of studies of equal value?). A request to expand the coverage could be easy to satisfy so I might throw in a couple of additional examples (if not also under the "and cut 12 pages" gun), but not if it required adding a couple of ultimately irrelevant pages chasing a hypothetical rabbit.
This leaves seriously annoying invalid comments, such as framework-attacks ("I don't like your metatheory, recast this in theory Y"), professional-competence attacks ("why should we trust your data") and sociological attacks ("most people don't care about this"). I would call these the "truly negative" comments, as opposed to the mildly annoying ones. What characterizes them is that they are based on something that is plainly false, such as invalid logic or assumptions (e.g. in a theory journal, assuming that a paper must demonstrate a practical application) or egregious factual error (usually of the form "X has shown that Y" when X has merely hinted that Y might be true).


text:
I have nothing to show for the last five years but graduate school and I can't finish/want to leave this field
I have no formal work experience. I have a BA in sociology and went into graduate school for education. Instead of following my instincts or really thinking about whether I could teach childhood as a job, I told myself it would feel more natural. It has not.
I will fail this program if I have to teach full-time, which is required to graduate (as is an exam that's so new there are no prep books, and it is required to stay in this program). I am in my mid twenties and have zero formal work experience. Foolishly, I'm one of those people that could barely juggle a full courseload and work. I've always chosen school and realized too late that graduate school was a horrible choice for me.
In terms of anything resembling work, I've assisted as a volunteer in classrooms, written papers and portfolios, and have put two years into this program but am incredibly unhappy and cannot finish, nor do I want to be in this profession anymore. I thought it was the one way to put my useless liberal arts degree into a professional path.
Before that, I went through a year and a half after graduation looking for entry level office job, bookstores, retail...no callbacks. Maybe three interviews in the whole time. Temp agencies stopped responding and when I called one to ask why they weren't calling me in to offer advisement, they said they'd have to call me. I graduated with a 3.0 but my resume was too weak, I guess. I had friends look at it to see that it was passable, but as I said I have no experience and I'm now in my mid-20s. (And for what it's worth, am incredibly ashamed of myself.) No experience, no work. My family says I am "unemployable" and I fear they're right--I was in this program two years and should have pulled out sooner. It looks suspicious. If nothing else, it is damaging because I went to school full-time instead of working.
The time, money, and effort I spent on this makes me feel bad, but the lack of a degree/ANY work experience in all that time makes me feel worse.
So there it is, I have no work experience AND no degree to explain the time gap. Can I salvage this? I feel embarrassed even to put the school on my resume b/c of the lack of a degree, but it's the only thing I have to show for the last few years.
(This is in teaching/early childhood. I don't know how to spin graduate school into first experience in even a basic clerical job.)

It would be helpful if you would add some specifics to your question. It would probably help people make suggestions. For example, what is the subject/area of your current degree program? Also, what was the subject of your "useless liberal arts degree"? Parenthetically, I don't understand why people are so down on the liberal arts.

I was a sociology major and studied a lot about family welfare/poverty. I wanted to work in not-for-profits. Now I know that work isn't there and without experience, no one would hire me. My current program is in early childhood education--I want to leave education and childcare, period, but have no formal employment history. Just graduate school, the assistant teaching that was part of coursework, and volunteering.

Thanks for the update. I suggest you make this part of the question, rather than a comment.

If you are close to finishing your degree, and you will take any job that comes along, why not finish your degree and work in that field?

The skills acquired as a graduate student are often very employable outside academia. I was doing a PhD in Linguistics with a focus on corpus linguistics. As part of my education, I learned statistics, Python scripting, Mandarin Chinese and technical writing. Those skills ended up getting me a job offer from a major computer software company, which I accepted and left grad school to take.
You probably have more employable skills than you think. Spend some time thinking about what skills you possess and what professions need those skills. a PhD to your name is not the first thing employers look for - they look for whether you have the skills that they need.
Stop thinking about your degree and start thinking about your skillset.

Problem is, it's a really limited skillset. It was never paid; 80% of it was as a student.  I can't stand this program, after all this work-the writing, the assistant teaching--but have nothing of FORMAL value to an employer...including a degree, which proves I can finish something. I can list "assisted teachers/helped students meet lesson plan goals in x, y, z" on a resume-that's it.
Tech writing/stats can be parlayed into lots of jobs--all I did was follow kids around, basically. It's exhausting, mind-numbing work unless you love children/teaching. I know now I don't, not this much.

I should add something--all I wanted was a basic entry level office job, but I don't even know what "entry level" office skills are. I have no programming/coding knowledge or know where to start; I have basic understanding of Microsoft Office, Adobe, internet browsers, etc. I couldn't get an entry level job as a clerical/admin assistant with my sociology degree but I know now that to say graduate school was a mistake for me would be an understatement. The worst thing? Not only do I feel incompetent/unfit to interview--I am FED UP with school!

@user10897 perhaps you are over-qualified for entry-level office jobs? Aim a bit higher.

I don't know if I have much of value to add, but here is my two cents for what it is worth.
First it sounds like you have (in your opinion) gone down the wrong path, and are panicking a little bit. This is understandable. The first thing I should say, is, join the club. We've all been there. Everyone makes mistakes. The thing to do it to learn from them, and try not to repeat them. Though this is easier said to done. Also, try not to panic. It really doesn't help. If you are panicking, try to calm down. You could also try things like yoga. It can have a calming effect, apart from the health benefits.
You said you are in your mid-twenties. This is not really old at all (by any definition). Many people at this time in their lives are still trying to figure things out. So, again, don't panic. Spend a little time making a calm assessment of where you want to go, and what you want to do.
@user9042 made some useful suggestions. You said in response that all you wanted is a "basic entry level office job". Well, I don't think you do, really. If you have a functioning brain, you would hate it. I think if you are feeling that you want a job, any job, it is because you are feeling demoralized, and like a drowning person, you want a lifebelt to cling to. I think you can aim a little higher than that. Are you actually interested in (for example) statistics and computers/software/programming (per @user9042 posting)? If you are not sure, then I suggest learning a little about them, and seeing what you think. You could start by taking some basic college classes. If you aren't interested in these fields I do not recommend going into them. The world is already too full of programmers who aren't interested in programming and just want to make a fast buck. If you are, then you could consider a graduate degree in these areas and see where it takes you. More generally, you should consider seeing what area of specialization you think you would like. If you are an intelligent person, you probably won't be happy just dropping out of school. Most good jobs these days require some degree of specialization. You say you are "fed up with school", but this may just be a reflection of your experience in your particular program.
Specific suggestions - if you want to learn basic computer programming, try learning Python. It is about as accesible as any language out there, and very popular. It is also not a toy language; many people use it for real work, including in research contexts. Are you familiar with the world of free software? If not, try installing Debian and see what you think of it. Debian is a fairly obscure operating system, but also has some claim to be the worlds best. Other similar Linux based operating systems would probably also work. Check out unix.stackexchange.com for example.
Learning on your own about a more academic discipline like statistics is more difficult, but you could take a look at R.
You can at least respond intelligently to questions people have put here, which is more than many people seem to be able to manage.
Admittedly, none of this really has much to do with academia.
Also, again, I suggest revising your question to include the information that you have given in the comments, so people don't have to look all over the place for it.

I'm grateful for the insight.
I am "fed up with school" to the extent that I'm lucky enough to have had a supportive family but know, on some level, that the longer I stay out of the formal workforce, the more likely it is I will never have a job other than, say, working in fast food. If that. I don't want to program--I have friends that learned what they needed to learn through work. They were trained. They had initial jobs as secretaries or assistants and moved up to middle management or specialized positions.

Short answer is yes, it is so easy to salvage the situation that over half my friends can say ‘been there, done that’.  A book I found helpful at the time is ‘What Color Is Your Parachute’, by Richard Bolles, which is about and figuring out what you want to do, and finding work you like.
Things that I or friends have done while straight out of school and clueless: SAT/GRE tutoring, boring clerical work, low paying internships, living with parents while looking for work, or networking with friends, family, and random strangers and finding good paying jobs within a month or two. I’d strongly recommend the last one, although you can get by on the others.
You just need to find a starting point. Ask around your family and friends to shadow people at the office and get an idea of what goes on in different departments and industries. Once you have a clue what you want beyond ‘earn money’, it will be easier to focus your job search efforts. It sounds like so far you’ve just thrown your resume into the air, and gotten a copy to recruiters who have a few hundred more just like it. Instead, figure out something you’d like to try doing, and make an effort to meet people in that field, and ask them for work.
You mention that you have no skills, and then you mention you’ve taught, so you can do public speaking. You’re a graduate student, so you’re an above average writer, and probably know how to think. If you’ve worked with kids, you’ve probably done customer service type work with their parents. You say you’ll have an inexplicable time gap. Just say ‘I was in graduate school studying X, but decided that field wasn’t for me, so I left.’  I used to explain a one year gap as ‘A bunch of unrelated short term jobs that wouldn’t fit on a resume.’
Think about things you enjoy. Do you like writing? Solving puzzles? Thinking about problems, and coming up with solutions? Helping people solve their problems? Organizing and carrying through on your commitments? People skills?  Marketing involves a lot of writing and strategizing, computer programming is all about solving puzzles (why I love it), or customer service lets you help people while puzzling out what their problems really are. People skills will help you out in any field you choose.
You haven’t ruined your life, or even your entire 20’s. Quit beating yourself up, and start actively looking for something different.

You are frustrated because you feel that you are stuck. You want to leave academia and don't know how to find a job outside.
I'll answer a practical issue first. When you write your resume, you can say

Education
BA in sociology, University A
Graduate study in early childhood teaching, University B

Prepare to explain why you did not have graduate degree from University B. Your explanation can be that you are not interested in early childhood teaching anymore. This is not uncommon. Many people change their career in their twenties, thirties or even much later.
As your employable skills, I believe you already have some. You may not know you have them. For example, writing is a very important skill. You may be surprised to find out many workers don't know how to write when you enter the job market. If you don't have the skills current in use, then acquire them. Go to job training. There are plenty available. Find what you like to do and acquire the skills needed.
Now, back to academia. I don't know what you don't like about your current graduate school. Early childhood? Teaching? Or graduate school in general? I cannot tell from your question. It seems to me that you are worried about the upcoming full time teaching program. I guess you need to be with kindergarten kids for a while. If this is the problem, I think you entered a wrong area. If one wants to study early childhood teaching, of course he/she needs to go through such a real program. Otherwise, everything you have studied is just on the paper, no real value.
If you don't like graduate school, then I would advise you to leave as early as possible. If it's the program you don't like, I would say you should consider changing your field of study. Only you know the answer. Good luck!