text:
Poster orientation: Landscape or portrait (horizontal or vertical)?
Which is a better poster orientation: Vertical/portrait (taller than wide) or horizontal/landscape (wider than tall)?  Assume that the content does not "naturally" fit either of these formats so as to make one choice obvious.
Are there any studies that explore the differences between these two?
If you aren't aware of any, what psychological mechanisms might underly differences in the way people perceive the research (or researcher) based on the difference between the orientations?
I'm not interested in answers that say "it's just a subjective personal style choice" but am interested in answers that detail at least some difference in what may be perceived or communicated differently as a result of a change in orientation.
If there are strong field-specific conventions, those would be good to know (because being the only person who fails to follow that structure might give an impression that this person is an outsider or doesn't understand the community) but it'd be nice to have at least some answers that can apply in a very broad multidisciplinary poster session which is too topically diverse for any field-specific orientation convention to apply.
For the purposes of answering here, please assume the two dimensions are fixed at a bit under 3 and 4 feet, but orientation is not fixed.

Related:

What are some general good principles for creating a poster for a poster session?
Default poster size

If you can actually choose between portrait and landscape, you obviously have enough space available for a bigger, quadratic poster, which is arguably the best choice, as you can give your content more room.

Portrait makes it easier to stand off to its side and talk to someone about the contents of the poster without blocking it from passerby, especially if space is tight.

@Wrzlprmft What do you mean by a "quadratic" poster?  Do you mean "square" (which may not be an option if the limiting factor is the size of provided backer boards)?

@ff524 I think there's been some research done on the psychological effects of a presenter taking up more space (e.g. does it make the work seem to have greater impact?) esp. when space is not that tight; if space is tight does a vertical orientation mean you get even less space and wind up blocking even more of the poster as you stand there?

In my experience, the poster stands are set up before you get there, so no, you get the same horizontal space regardless of your poster's orientation.

@ff524 I have been and will be going to some that require presenters to set up their own, as well as some where they're spaced out so much that there is empty space between presenters and the presenter gets to decide how much space their poster and standing / poster "zone" will occupy.

Nobody wants to have to kneel down or get on stepladder to read a poster.

While I am not aware of field-specific differences, my personal experience leads me to believe that landscape is likely to be better for conveying information than portrait.  The reasons for this are:

People are much more visually sensitive to vertical than horizontal changes in position, due to the fact that we are largely surface-dwellers.  You'll have a much bigger visual impact from things that are near eye-level than things that are significantly displaced up or down.
Posters are typically consumed in parallel, with different people arriving at different times and looking at different parts.  A landscape format lets more people be close to the poster (and potentially the parts they're focusing on) than portrait format.

That said, 1) many venues restrict you tightly in the amount of space that you are allotted, and it will generally be better to use the space you've got rather than make a smaller poster with a preferred orientation, and 2) good vs. bad graphical design will vastly outweigh portrait vs. landscape in terms of impact.

Since you've tagged this question as a [tag:reference-request], it seems reasonable to ask that you add references for your answer. Particularly for the statements in your first bullet point.

I don't see any statistical evidence cited, so make your own stats:  create two posters with same copy, font/size, and image;  one portrait and one landscape, and hang them vertically side by side.
Ask 25+ people which version they prefer, note their gender and age and height.  Don't allow discussion betweeen viewers. (EG dominant people may prefer one version and influence/skew the others)
Then switch the L-R order of the posters and ask another 25 people.
See if the change of L-R orientation changes preferences.  (Theatre folks know that a character entering from stage right (audience left) is strong and smooth; and entering from the other side is clashing, because (in the West) we are used to reading left to right.  When people look at any scene, even a full dinner plate, most sweep eyes left to right (tho' I wonder about southpaws)
Put distance marks on the floor:  See if one poster draws viewers physically closer. The landscape should be spaced mid-point with the portrait version's mid-point,  mid-points at 58" from the floor.  (paintings are oft hung too high).
Finally, invite subject to add their comments.  EG, "this one feels harder to read"  "this one feels fake" "the colour is warmer in this one" "this one is too harsh"  etc etc.
Perhaps the only significant factor is that horizontal posters are much rarer.
====== ===
I invite statisticians, pyschologists and other smarty pants to improve on this experiment.  This might rock at a science fair: every visitor casts their vote before reading the test results.  Let me know how it goes!  scripts at dennishassell * commmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.


text:
Should correlation tables be half or full matrices?
With a table showing correlations between several variables, one must choose whether to show values in only ~half the cells (and if so, then choose above or below the diagonal) or all the cells.  Since correlation is a symmetric measure, the same amount of information is conveyed with both options.
Filling the whole matrix might make it easier for people to find a particular value, because they can think of either one as primary and look for it in either part of the matrix.  However, filling the whole matrix might make the presentation more overwhelming to a reader ("wow, that's a lot of numbers") while the half matrix might seem more elegant.
Has there been any work done looking at which is more effective for communication?
Are there widely used style guides in certain fields that answer this question, which might provide a starting point for a field which lacks such a guide?
Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/79256/36320

I would only include (i,j) pairs with j<i . I won't expect that potential readers (mostly researchers) have any problem in the undertanding a correlation matrix.

Strictly speaking, I'm not sure this is off-topic but I think it would make a lot more sense to ask over on http://stats.stackexchange.com/

"Requirements and expectations of academicians" is explicitly on-topic here. Stats.SE is more for questions about actually doing the statistics than formatting their presentation. That's why I asked here. Also @Ian_Fin, when you think something should be migrated, you can flag to request migration instead of close.

@WBT I at least would see no obvious reason to flag this as off-topic over at Cross Validated. Indeed, they have a tag for reporting, which, as the name suggestions, is concerned with guidelines for presenting data/results. There's also likely to be a greater number of people over there with related expertise. Of course it's your choice where to ask the question.

Consider whether there is extra information that could be included in the other half of the table e.g. potentially one half could show r^2 and the other could show the p-value.

For what it's worth, the convention in APA format is for the diagonals to be labelled with a dash and for the upper triangle to be left blank. See e.g. Table 1 in this paper.
Personally, I think that including redundant information in the upper triangle is wasteful and only serves to overwhelm the reader. A table formatted like a lower triangle is, at first glance, obviously a correlation matrix, while a fully-filled-in table could be anything. However, I'm not aware of any studies on the effectiveness of either method.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Waiver Form for Remote Video Class
I will be teaching higher-level math classes in a Texas community college this coming Summer semesters. I will be using the same platform that I have been using for this Spring semester since the shutdown, e.i, Webex video conferencing. I am quite happy with this choice of technology as I and my students are able to engage effectively in both directions.
To be sure, at the beginning of semester I will tell my students categorically that even though they are attending the class from the comfort of their bedrooms, but they have to follow certain codes of good behaviors. For example, they have to dressed up appropriately, to remove any offensive artifacts or sensitive personal items that might cause others to feel uncomfortable, to use only blank wall as backdrop, etc. All of these will also be stated in the syllabus.
However, my department is still concerned about the liability that might incur since accidentally I might have visual access to my students' personal belongings. In connection therefore, I am thinking of requiring my students to sign a waiver form addressing to the issue. Do you, by chance, happen to have copy of such hold-no-harm form that I might use as example? Thank you for your time and helps.
PS. This question was originally posted in Mathematics Educator, but was advised to be posted here instead. Please note that here I am not asking for any legal opinion, but instead asking only if you happen to have a waiver copy which you care sharing with me. Thank you again.

PSS.: Since I posted this question yesterday, I am grateful to have received lots of animated comments. I wish I could thank each of you for sharing your ideas, but brevity of space and time won't allow me to do that. But let me address the answer from Massimo Ortolano since he is the only one who answered my posting. First of all I would like to thank him for his great response.
(1) To your first point "Network Bandwidth": I don't think the bandwidth issue is relevant in my posting. My College advertised the strict, rigid class hours well in advance long, long before the college finally has to convert the classes online, and I dutifully and strictly follow the same class hours in order to be fair to the first wave of students who signed up early. After that, I believe it is student's responsibility to assign priority if there are other heavy internet users in the household. Finally, I am happy to say that the current video technology is such advanced that you do not need spacial bandwidth. Thank you though for your comment.
(2) To your second point "Family & House Mate Life": No, I do not restrict third parties to come into view. I will only intervene if the background noises is too distracting such that they interfere with other students' concentration. But otherwise, students' family members are free to go on with their normal lives. My goal is to have my virtual class conducive and welcoming to all.
Also a family member's flushing a toilet in background will not be "heard around the world" is in the case of recent Supreme Court session. I will use two different and separate webcams to conduct my class. (See the comment I posted yesterday.) The first one is exclusively for interaction between my students and me, this will not be made public. The second webcam is exclusively focused to record my lecturing (video and audio) and to be uploaded immediately to YouTube for students' asynchronous reference. Students's likeness and mutual verbal conversation will not be uploaded to public.
(3) To your last point "Law": Fortunately again, this is a non-issue in my posting. As I wrote clearly in the original posting, I am an instructor in a community college in Texas. As you might have known that in US a community college always belongs to a county, which is literally the smallest jurisdiction unit in state government. As such, most students are in-county local residents. We do have out-county students from time to time but they are nevertheless still Texans. Out-of-Texas students are complete rarities and they are nevertheless still in US soils. International student accessing from abroad? Never come across one to my best knowledge. In rare occasion, we might see an international student with F1 student visa, but she/he resides in Texas. Remember that all courses in my college are advertised as face-to-face classes in the first place, but the college has to convert them to online because of shutdown.
Finally, I would like to thank Massimo Ortolano again for your comment on this point. Before I wrap up this posting, allow me to add some points.
(a) I am happy to read a recent article from The Chronicle of Higher Education about a professor's 5 takeaways from remote teaching since the shutdown, see the complete article here. Interestingly, the first takeaway is that teaching using video technology is tiring to her but it is very "rewarding."
(b) I will not demand students to have only blank wall as backdrop. The unabridged sentence I will write in syllabus is that " ... the best practice is for you to have blank wall as background..." etc.  (Notice the words "best practice.") Also, I will not ask students to drop from my class if they refuse to sign the waiver. In fact, I do not think I have authority to dis-enroll a student.
Thank you again for all who have contributed to my humble posting. Be safe!

Sorry that I don't have an answer for you, but if any of your students are legal minors then there are laws about what you can record, and perhaps, even broadcast. Parental permission may be required. But you should have a legal department at your institution that can answer this question.

Since you are teaching it now -- what are your expierences with this problem?

Thanks for the input. As far as recording & broadcasting are concerned, I think I do not have any issue, since I am using two webcams. The first one is for video conferencing between students and me, the other webcam is used for recording and live-streaming to YouTube. As such, the public at large will see and hear only me and my speech, the visual image, likeness and audio of students will not be made public.

You are correct, I should have contacted the legal department. However, I am such a small potato in this multi-campus community college. I suspect I have to go through layers and layers of bureaucracies before a lawyer has time to see my email, if at all. I am thinking of anyone out there who might have a ready form. Thank you though.

I’m voting to close this question because it is possibly better on the Law Stack.

Solar Mike, thanks for your input. But here I am NOT asking if accidental viewing exposes me to legal liability or not, instead I am asking if any of you happen to have a copy of such waiver that I can borrow. Only academia person would have such copy, I don't think I am asking for legal opinion. Thank you again for your input.

I am not a lawyer. However, it seems as though you are clearly stating expectations to what is or is not allowed in the video feed in the syllabus. It would seem unreasonable to hold the instructor for things beyond their control (if someone committed a murder on live webcam, why would you need a wavier that absolves you of this?). The burden of adhering to the rules lies with the student. A waiver, in my personal opinion, should be unnecessary. Simply kick offenders from any video meeting until compliance is obtained.

It should probably be clearer defined what sensitive personal objects are. Here you could probably have some misunderstandings.

Keep in mind that not in all jurisdictions such a waiver would be valid. You are essentially saying "sign this waiver or you cannot participate in the lectures", meaning the students cannot realistically refuse to sign.

Whether or not a lawyer will personally see you, your institution should be able to provide direction into what they view as permissible expectations.  If you don't know who else to contact, try starting with your department/unit head, who should be able to at least point you in the right direction.

What makes you think that you have the right to require your students to sign an arbitrary legal contract of your own design as a precondition to attending your class? This is a strange belief. Your waiver idea sounds terrible, sorry.

"my department is still concerned about the liability that might incur since accidentally I might have visual access to my students' personal belongings"  It's a very strange law that makes you liable for seeing something someone else voluntarily shows you without your permission.

" they have to dressed up appropriately, to remove any offensive artifacts or sensitive personal items that might cause others to feel uncomfortable" totally reasonable requirement "to use only blank wall as backdrop" That is totally unreasonable.  Not everyone has a blank wall.  Some of your students might be homeless, and many of them have no control over their families' walls.

Please shorten this giant wall of text.

Sorry, I'm not going to answer your question, but I'm going to offer a frame challenge which, I think, is really necessary (and too long for a comment).
I understand your willingness to offer lively and engaging lectures, offering an interactive experience as close as possible to the real thing—it's certainly my desire too—but don't. For the following reasons:

Network bandwidth: Your student may not be the only person in the house that needs to use an internet connection at that time. They might not live alone and have siblings or house mates that attend lectures too, and they might have parents or other resident relatives that are teleworking. What if everyone needs to transmit and receive videos at the same time? Are you really sure that your lectures are more important than their siblings' or one of the parent's presentation to their boss?
Family and house mates life: While you're lecturing, the other members of the family or house mates have the right to go on with their lives. Take a shower, cook, listen to music, whatever. And your student may not even have a room just for themselves (don't assume that all your students are wealthy enough to have such a luxury!). Don't impose your restrictions to all family and house members! If one of the students is watching your lecture from the living room, should everyone in the house stay sit and silent? In one of my lectures in which I used Webex, I accidentally forgot to unmute participants on entry. You could hear music, kitchen noises, children playing and so on. Should all other house members (family, house mates, whatever) stop their lives just because you're teaching? What if every professor demands this?
Law: Probably not all your students live in your same jurisdiction or even country. Trying to write a waiver that works for all your students, wherever they are, can be a daunting task. I wouldn't even think of administering a waiver suggested by random folks on the internet without the legal advice of the university lawyers.

The above are just the main issues of your approach, but I'm sure I can find others too. So, let me repeat: rethink your expectations, accept a less lively interaction (e.g. I use a Telegram chat to receive student's questions and their videos are turned off), and don't.

RE #2: Apparently a toilet was flushed by someone in the home of a participant in a US Supreme Court official online session. Heard by the world.

"Sorry, I'm not going to answer your question"  Please don't post answers that aren't answers.  Reason 1 isn't a reason to deny students the opportunity to interact.  Reason 2 has nothing to do with the restrictions in the question.  Reason 3 makes sense but does not support your opposition to interactivity.

@AnonymousPhysicist As I wrote, this answer is a frame challenge, and this is certainly not the first answer of this type (if you want to further discuss this type of answers you can bring the discussion to Meta). Reason 1 tells the OP that they should avoid the type of interaction they want to implement, not others; reason 2 has indeed all to do with the restrictions in the question; reason 3 supports my opposition to the OP request.

I'm not convinced in the least.  Since there is ample experimental evidence that interactivity increases learning, I consider this answer harmful.  I do agree the asker's premise is wrong, but my reasoning is totally different.

@AnonymousPhysicist Indeed interactivity increases learning, I'm not obviously disputing this, but you cannot force your willingness to offer the most interactive lectures to a whole house. A course is not a one-time event for which you can exceptionally ask the other occupants to behave differently.  Have you first-hand experience of this kind of teaching during this lockdown period?

The question has nothing to do with "forced interactivity."  The interactivity is presumably voluntary.  It is only the waiver that the asker wants to require.  Your interpretation of the situation may have diverged a great deal from the actual question.  Perhaps waivers do not exist where you are?

A lot of questions along these lines have arisen since the stay-at-home orders.  As in most of these cases, I'm puzzled as to why you feel like you have to make this call.
Things like this, especially if you have legal concerns, are literally why schools have administrators.  Pass the buck to people whose job it is to organize and administrate the school as a whole.
You mention that your department has concerns about the liability.  Well, tell them you need clear instruction on what they want you to do then.  Don't make any sort of legal judgments on your own, not even with the advice of the internet.  Don't even consider writing your own waiver.
To use in-person class analogies, if I wanted to hold a class in a Starbucks instead of a classroom, I wouldn't do that without getting clearance.  I definitely wouldn't make up my own liability waiver in case a student gets hit by a car crossing the busy road to get to the Starbucks.
If the school says something is purely up to you, then that's pretty explicit clearance to do it how you want.  If you're still concerned, ask what they think of your specific proposed method.  As an educator and (presumably) non-administrator, there's no need for you to go out on any limbs.

I am sorry for getting back with you late, thanks also for your input. While I did not get the thing that I had in mind while I was writing this question, but I did get lots of useful insights. In hindsight, I think the "waiver" I wrote in the title was too legalese and beyond my plate. Therefore I will write instead Classroom Rules, which I believe are well within my authority to do so.  Additionally, I will coordinate with my Director of Student Conducts to make sure that the rules are within the boundary of the college. Thank you again for your great input!

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


text:
Do graduate schools care about published solutions of contest problems in Mathematical magazines?
The math club at my university spends its time solving problems from mathematical magazines (e.g. Mathematics Magazine). Let's assume I, as an undergraduate student, submit a solution to a challenge problem from such a magazine, and my solution is published. Is there any advantage to having one or more published solutions like this when applying to graduate school?
For reference, assume this is graduate school in math.

Sure, that would certainly be viewed favorably.  How favorably would depend on the rest of the application and the institution (though I can't think of any situation in which it would play a decisive role), but if the question is having done it whether to list it, then the answer is a clear yes.
If on the other hand you haven't done the problem-solving yet but are wondering whether you should engage in this activity for the value it has in your future grad school application: I don't recommend that, but I can think of plenty worse ways to spend your time.

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


text:
Should I mention that I'm currently studying in CV?
I'm currently taking course in Business Intelligence and writing a CV to apply for jobs. Should I mention the fact that I'm currently taking this course in my CV? Since I have no previous work experience I'm  having trouble with filling my CV with information.
That's what I came up with so far:

Summary:
A highly motivated, results-focused SQL Server/T-SQL/SSIS developer. Currently in finishing stage of BI Developer course.
Technical skills:
Database: MS SQL Server 2014
Programming: SQL, T-SQL, basic level C#
Database tools: SQL Server Management Studio, SSIS
Languages: English(Fluent), Hebrew(Fluent), Russian(Native)
Formal education: BA in Business Management(Tel Aviv University)

Since you said you have no previous work experience, it is essential that you include as many information -true facts- as you can that imply that you are a serious candidate for the job. That course might show the motivation you have, so I think it will be taken under consideration.

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


text:
Does an offer for tutorials amount to rejection from a summer program?
I recently received the results of the selection process of an application for summer courses and jobs (in the context of courses for undergraduates, mathematics and the United States). On the part of one institution, they could not offer me a place as a paid student (the stipend), but instead they have invited me to participate in some classes and have offered to pay the costs of some necessary licenses and software (with funding from third parties).
The institution is very prestigious and I can participate remotely from home, but I don't know if this intermediate offer, which coincides in time at my university with possible exams to raise my grade, is worth it.
I also wonder if this intermediate offer simply amounts to a rejection and if this offer is made to all applicants.
I imagine that not participating in these classes will not be inconvenient to request this course again another year. I currently also have other open offers, and committing myself here, in addition to the possible exams (extra, to raise grades) is perhaps not the wisest thing.
I also wanted to know if I could be closing any doors or opinions before expressing my wishes to the organizers.

How should I tag this question properly?

It's hard to tell from your description just what "participation in some classes" means.
I suggest you think about whether you would enjoy those classes and what you might learn from them. I think that's a better way to decide how to invest your time than trying to calculate how it might affect your grades.
It does not really matter whether this invitation has been extended as a consolation prize to all the applicants.
I doubt that any decision you make now will affect a later application to the program.

"Participation in some classes" means, parcitipation in the tutorials prior to the work developed in the course, which is paid and reserved for the awarded students.


text:
How to stay calm when receiving review notifications?
I've been in academia for roughly 8 years now. Wrote quite a few papers. Still, my heart starts seriously racing each time there's an email notifying me of a review for one of my papers.
Does anyone have any good tips on how to be less stressed out about this?

I have co-authored 100+ papers, and it's still exactly like that (at least for every important paper). I don't think this is abnormal, even though some colleagues seem to pride themselves in not really caring whether a paper is accepted or not (I don't get this sentiment, personally).

@mhwombat The related question of How can I clear myself of emotional attachment when reading reviewer feedback? has been asked, but I think that one is more about the reaction to the actual comments, not the reaction to the notification.

I've been in Stack Exchange for roughly 5 years now. Wrote quite a few questions and answers. Still, my heart pumps each time there's a notification of a comment for one of my posts.
No, I don't think you can escape from the fear of being rejected for something you emotionally invest into it. As long as it doesn't affect your health, you may want to feel relax when it's come.
Acknowledge your fear, and tell yourself that that fear is not scary may reduce the stress of not being able to control your fear. The fear from the notification is unavoidable, but the stress from not being able to control your fear is a secondary stress that you can control. Take a breath. Accept the fear.
If anything, I suggest you to practice mindfulness. It's a technique to not being overwhelmed by our emotions, and has been recognized as an effective way to reduce stress. It has been used in many programs and therapies for stressful people.

Source:
• Germer, C.K., R.D. Siegel, and P.R. Fulton, Mindfulness and Psychotherapy (Guilford Publications, 2005)
• Hofmann, S.G., An Introduction to Modern CBT: Psychological Solutions to Mental Health Problems (Wiley, 2011)

I thought it was just me :)
Here is a tip: wait until 3 or 4 days before reading the email. (At least in my field), you can know immediately if your paper is accepted or rejected by just looking at the title of the email.

If the paper is accepted, say congratulations to your co-authors, and leave it there for a couple of weeks. Why? because even when the paper is accepted, the reviewer often suggest too many things to correct. For some reasons, I often feel emotionally exhausted that I don't want to do anything with that paper.
If the paper is rejected, of course you are very disappointed. Wait for a couple of days until you can calm down and read the reviews.

Of course, my answer is not applicable to rebuttal when you often need to respond to the reviews within 3 days.


text:
Promotion approved this month but not awarded until August. Can I add this to job apps
My promotion and tenure have been approved but don't officially take effect until next semester. Unfortunately, my University will be closing in the summer of 2025 so I will be applying for jobs this fall. Is there a way to put on my CV that my promotion to associate professor and tenure have been approved for any job apps that are due before next semester?

Sure, say you’ve been promoted. Is there something about that that seems unnatural?

Don't say or imply that you are now an associate professor (or whatever). But it is easy enough to say that you have been promoted to associate professor effective "some future date". That is accurate and honest. It won't be misunderstood.
It is probably overkill but you could also give the date the decision was finalized. But don't omit the effective date.
And, for many such applications, you might be awarded the associate professor title but still need to go through a short (maybe 2 year) probationary period before you get actual tenure. That can happen even when a full professor moves institutions.


text:
Would I italicize a treaty in Chicago style?
For example;
War crimes, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court...
OR
War crimes, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court...

What does the style guide say about it? Maybe this helps?

This isn't quite about citation style -- it's about content style.

I’m voting to close this question because it's probably better on the English usage site.

@Anyon provides the normative answer, but I want to provide a different perspective. You probably spent twenty minutes thinking about the issue and another ten writing the post here. With clicking "Refresh" a number of times to see what people write, and other distractions, you will have spent an hour on this one issue.
This is not a good use of your time. Style guides are there to make it easier for readers, and to provide uniformity. But in cases where it's a one-off -- we don't reference treaties all that often, and the fact that you didn't know what to do means that your readers likely won't have a definitive stance on it either -- a reasonable strategy would be to pick a style for your paper and be consistent about it. Then move on. In that hour, you could have written a page or two; instead, you worried about an entirely unimportant question -- there are better things you can do!

You know what, you're right! I guess in the end it doesn't matter, all I have to do is be consistent. Thanks for the advice, I'll be sure to keep that in mind in the future. Also yes, I spent an hour thinking about the italicizing of a treaty. In fact, I spent over 3 hours yesterday thinking about how to cite a treaty in Chicago style in the first place. My teacher is really strict with citations, so I want to make sure I do everything right. Otherwise, I risk being caught for "plagiarism" and given a zero because I didn't cite something properly.

Also might I add that I am honored to have something that I submitted be discussed by someone of your fame. I took a look at your profile and you, you definitely are famous on stack exchange. Top .15% this year. So thanks for taking time out of your day for responding. Really, I appreciate it.

@Ati "Not citing something properly" refers to not including the source of the information at all, not typographic decisions. Your professor would be insane to invoked plagiarism over an italicized-vs.-not distinction.

Not as a matter of course. The 16th Edition of the Chicago Manual of Style itself does not italicize treaties.
8.79 provides several examples of "Formal or accepted titles of pacts, plans, policies, treaties, acts, programs, and similar documents or agreements" that, notably, are all set in Roman type. International examples include (formatting preserved)

Treaty for the Renunciation of War, known as the Pact of Paris or the Kellogg Briand Pact; the pact
the Treaty of Versailles; the treaty
the Treaty on European Union (official name); the Maastricht treaty (informal name)

Elsewhere, 14.302 states that, in the bibliography,

Titles of treaties are set in roman and capitalized headline-style (recall that The Bluebook capitalizes prepositions of more than four letters). An exact date indicates the date of signing and is therefore preferable to a year alone, which may differ from the year the treaty was published in one of the works above. Page numbers are given where relevant.


text:
Why are linguistics and law "sciences"?
Why are linguistics and law considered as part of the "sciences" rather than "non-science" academic disciplines like say philosophy, history or engineering?
Seeing how both linguistics and law only study what has been created by mankind to begin with, or how there is virtually no room for scientists to actually test out various theories and models, it would seem, to me, that both of these fields fail to meet the criteria for being a "science", which is enlarging humanity's pool of verified/easily-testable knowledge.
Or to perhaps phrase the question in a less abstract way, how do the linguists' methods for reaching consensus differ from the methods of historians, which basically is "just" some majority of people agreeing on something based, ultimately, on their intuition. (In contrast to something like math where one can provide formal proofs, or sociology where one can run experiments and tests that meet certain criteria for validity and significance). Similarly, isn't law "merely" applying the knowledge provided by sociology (and others) and thus more of an engineering discipline rather than a science?
Or is it perhaps like with computer science (and various other examples) where the field is just called a science for practical (political/economical/etc.) reasons, but actually fails to formally meet the criteria upon closer examination?
I hope no one is be offended by this. It is a serious question and I'm genuinely interested in objective answers.

Do many people actually classify law as a science?  Maybe this varies between universities, but I've never seen that.  By contrast, linguistics seems to me to be one of the most clearly scientific fields among the social sciences (and I can't imagine excluding it as a science if you include mathematics and sociology).  I'm not sure what you're looking for.  Is this a question about what linguists or lawyers do that might be considered scientific (in which case it's a reasonable question but would be a better fit elsewhere), or what academia considers to be a science (which might fit here)?

linguistics can analyze patterns within words and across languages.  There is a good amount of work that overlaps set theory and discrete math with linguistics.

Signal processing and physiology are also important in modern linguistics research.

What is your evidence for the claim that 'linguistics and law are viewed as science'

@Anonymous Mathematician: Which place do you suggest that would be more suitable for the question?

You could try linguistics.stackexchange.com for the linguistics part of the question (although I don't know whether they would be open to it).

@AnonymousMathematician I understand the comparison to sociology, but why mathematics? Perhaps mathematics is philosophically very different from the physical sciences (e.g. it is not contingent on physical reality), but from a practical standpoint most sciences have a lot in common with math (e.g. by using it).

@AlexBecker: I didn't actually mean anything deep by choosing these examples (they were just the two given in the question).

Can you give an example of a place where law is considered to be a science? I've never seen one. If you've seen a university where the law department is a part of the faculty of science then that may have just been an administrative convenience for that particular university, rather than a statement of where law fits in the grand scheme of things.

This question seems confused to me.

Some linguists perform randomized, double-blind experiments with control groups.  Essentially, they use the same scientific methods found in psychological and medical research.  Other linguists may not (for example, I presume historical linguists do not do experiments).  I think it is pretty clear that some linguistics is science, but since linguistics tends to be highly multidisciplinary, your mileage may vary.

WHOAH, Engineering is an applied science.  The key word is application of scientific knowledge and principles. If you apply unscientific knowledge, your engineered solutions are likely to fail. Thus Engineering is clearly in the broad sense, a science.   A bridge that fell apart when people tried to cross it, due to not accounting for tensile strength, failed in its application.  In contrast Art can never be "wrong", except by the viewer's subjective perception, the painter and the viewer can have differing expectations of success and/or intention.

The applied sciences are how we confirm the validity of truth itself, they justify why science is so valuable.  They both depend on them, and contribute to them.  For example, what materials have what properties, when used in what context? Electrons travelling within computer chips, or photons across fibre optic cables. Without applying the knowledge gained from science, what is the purpose of that knowledge?  It's the applied sciences that make science different from humanities.

I disagree with several of the assertions in your question regarding linguistics specifically, as well as more generally.
Firstly, there is no universally agreed upon criteria for something to be classified as a science. The division between science and non-science is a false dichotomy whose only purpose is to elevate some fields and denigrate others as less 'worthy'. This is a cultural distinction. Source: degree in history and philosophy of science.
Secondly, linguistics does in fact display the classic hallmarks that many would say are indicative of science-hood. When you document an otherwise undescribed language, you have to demonstrate correspondences that are repeatable, e.g., a noun phrase in language X consists of a determiner phrase followed by an adjectival phrase, followed by a noun, and this generalisation should hold across the phrase structure of the language. If you find a counterexample, you need to account for it by modifying your theory or disregarding it as an aberrant case. Moreover, your results are repeatable in that if someone goes back and asks for the same sentences, they should get the same, or comparable, responses.
Then you start deriving hypotheses about things like the structure of the language, on the basis of empirical data; a corpus of collected examples. These are subject to peer review and criticism, and if you survive something that this language does that others do not, or that current theory does not predict then you have to back up your claims with extensive empirical data.
This is a short description of the workflow of just one field of linguistics, and does not even encroach upon phonetics, which even has numbers and graphs! Source: a bachelors and a masters in linguistics.
Finally I would disagree that something is not a 'science' (or is less sciency) if it studies something that is a human invention. Language, yes, is a human invention, but each language is a system, and has its own rules that can be teased out by induction and deduction from the data. People don't just decide 'let's start using plural inflection'; its part of the independently testable system. Just like a game of pool is similarly invented by humans, but is analysable as a system. In fact game theory is a perfect analogue to language sciences in this respect; invented by humans, but analysable as a system.
Can't speak about law, however.

So the method of deciding upon what is and isn't a science isn't a scientific one itself. That's fine, it may mean that the distinction is an arbitrary one, but it doesn't (necessarily) mean that its a false dichotomy. This isn't about looking down on non-science fields - I'm not questioning their validity as academic disciplines. This is about research results of sciences having been validated by some method that goes beyond "just" the collective researchers' intuitions in that field agreeing with one-another, and how Linguistics and Law achieve this.

Since most people understand "science" as "good" and "not science" as "a system of mystical thinking akin to Zoroastrianism", just questioning whether something that's called a science is "really" science is guaranteed to offend the people who practice it, contrary to your hope that no one will be offended by your question.
I somewhat sense that you don't know much about linguistics, and your image is of prescriptive linguistics, i.e. a bunch of guys sitting in an ivory tower and making pronouncements forbidding prepositions at the ends of sentences. This is not what linguists do; that sort of thing is usually found in English and modern languages departments. You similarly misunderstood computer science, as Ben Crowell addresses in his answer. If you look into things a little, you'll find that modern linguistics is "scientific" in lots of ways.
Many linguists do field research. This involves living among the speakers of unrecorded languages, learning and describing these languages, and helping to analyze the impact these languages have on currently held theories. This is fully as scientific as what cultural anthropologists, sociologists, and behaviorists of all kinds do.
But where do linguistic theories come from? Linguistic theories, for the most part, are either psychological theories, attempting to make sense of human language as an activity of the human mind, or mathematical theories, developing formalisms that describe the structure of language. Noam Chomsky's formal language hierarchy and generative grammar are mathematical formalisms that are also used in computer science, which you also malign as not a science. More recent theories, like lexical-functional grammar, are even more mathematical in character. These mathematical formalisms describe the syntax of human language, and books on them contain proofs, as do most books on computer science per se, and not programming. Set theory is also used in some corners of semantics.
Statistics is frequently applied in linguistics; see for example this paper. The answer to your question "how do linguists' methods for reaching consensus differ from historians'?" is that linguists make use of statistical data, try to explain things within existing theories, and apply mathematical formalisms, similar to the way economists and physicists reach consensus. And linguistics continues to get more mathematical, by incorporating statistics, probability, and computer science into its theory and practice.
Finally, have a look at historical linguistics and comparative linguistics. Modern linguists' painstaking reconstruction of the Proto-Indo European language, the common ancestor of languages as widely sundered as English, Latin, Armenian, Persian, and Hindi, cannot, in my opinion, be called anything other than a work of science. There were judgment calls; there were ambiguities to resolve; there are competing models; and there are some things we'll probably never know. But that's also true of paleontology, geology, and astronomy, and no one disputes that those are sciences.
As Jangari says, there is no sharp dividing line between "science" and "system of mystical thinking". Entire books have been written on this question. You can read them, and decide for yourself on the question of law. But if you believe that a field's methods and intentions make it scientific, and if you accept that cultural anthropology, economics, sociology, statistics, mathematics, computer science, paleontology, geology, wildlife biology, and physics are sciences, then linguistics is a science.
(I tried not to be offended, but as a computer science major / linguistics minor who considered law school, your apparent ignorance of computer science and linguistics touched a nerve.)

As a professional linguist, I have nothing to add to the above explanations of the nature of linguistics as a science. Instead, I will explain why law can credibly be considered a science (though isn't actually called one). As noted, it is incorrect to think that science does not deal with the man-made. Also, note that veterinary medicine, dentistry and many other sciences could be called "not sciences" in particular application, e.g. your dentist is not formulating a scientific hypothesis and testing it when he fills a cavity. You can't generalize from what the guy in the strip mall does, to what scientific researchers in the field do.
Law studies the nature of legal systems. It extends beyond rote memorization of specific pieces of code or judicial decisions -- it in fact emphasizes the construction of abstract principles that predict the behavior of the system. In common with social sciences, the theories of law make testable claims which can be refuted (though hardly by a single observation). A theory that predicts the outcome of a proceeding given a set of facts is validated, and one that repeatedly fails to predict that outcome is falsified.
There is, in fact, some significant intertwining between law and linguistics, since many legal facts are linguistic in nature (that is, the wording of the law matters, and legal interpretation often requires appeal to linguistic scientific knowledge).
Indeed, legal research also runs experiments, especially psychology experiments, to test theories. An example is how the wording of jury instructions affects the outcome of a trial; it has in fact been shown that the standard burden of proof instruction stated in terms of "beyond a shadow of a doubt" is understood to creates an (unintended) requirement on the defendant to create doubt, where a "firmly convinced of guilt" standard does not impose that burden on the defendant.

Seeing how both Linguistics and Law only study what has been created by mankind to begin with,

History, big part of philosophy, engineering, large part of chemistry deals with artificial/men created events and items

how there is virtually no room for scientists to actually test out various theories and models

Not less than in history, astronomy, many parts of biology, archeology, anthropology, literary sciences..

Or to perhaps phrase the question in a less abstract way, how do the Linguists' methods for reaching consensus differ from the methods of historians, which basically is "just" some majority of people agreeing on something based, ultimately, on their intuition.

Historians and linguists are actually creating models based on their intuitions and discuss the findings, proof or disproof, argue and counter argue, just like other scientists.

In contrast to something like math where one can provide formal proofs,
  Such formal proofs exist only in mathematics and related subjects (CS and such), but not in sciences like Physics or Chemistry. Proof in "natural sciences" are different in nature from Mathematics.
Or is it perhaps like with Computer Science (and various other examples) where the field is just called a science for practical (political/economical/etc.) reasons

This remark, being rather belittling and offensive is not based on actual argument or knowledge about CS. Real CS is pretty much mathematics in most part.

I hope no one is be offended by this. It is a serious question and I'm genuinely interested in objective answers.

Unloaded questions and actual knowledge about the subjects could greatly improve the quality of this discussion.

Science is anything with a set of observable constants, a philosophy is something subject to interpretations. Meaning no matter who you are or your feelings, murder is always against the law (science) and also wrong (philosophy.)

Linguistics and law are merely science since they all fall under the observable set of rules and principles when someone else is interesting to get study on either both of them.


text:
How does an engineering undergraduate apply for master in humanities?
I am doing undergraduate in engineering but I want a transition to humanities for masters (history, anthropology).
How do I do this?
Should I take  prerequisite courses at a community college or through online/distance education?

simply put, you don't :P. Anyways, switching field is not easy though you might need to first read the general prerequisites for the program at the university you are interested in.

While I think the other way around (transitioning from the humanities to the sciences) might be harder, if you can demonstrate that you are serious and prepared to undertake graduate training in the humanities, it is definitely doable.
In my sociology department (PhD track, we didn't have a separate MA program and most entered straight after undergraduate school), many of my colleagues did not have any sociology training. While most of them came from related fields of economics, political science, and psychology, there were people with math and physics backgrounds and these were sometimes the people who were doing the most innovative and interdisciplinary work. The selection committee was fine with accepting them as long as their proposed research area fit with the department faculty's research and they showed promise as a sociologist.
While a degree in the field isn't necessary, make sure you address how you have been working to fill the gap you have on your CV. A personal statement will be a good place to address this. In addition, you can take additional courses, read as many works in your proposed field, and try to have a well developed study plan to give confidence to the committee that you are as competitive as the other candidates. It might be a good idea to also build contacts with professors in schools that you are applying for and go talk to them to see if they will be interested in working with you. If you plan to specialise in a society other than where you are based in (especially in case of anthropology), make sure you demonstrate regional expertise, language skills, knowledge of the society, or maybe work and/or living experience. Also, since those departments (in case of a PhD program) will likely ask for a writing sample, start working on one well in advance so the committee can see that you can indeed to the work in the proposed field.

This really depends on the country. In the US, most undergraduate programs offer enough flexibility to take a lot of electives. You can also extend you studies by a semester to pick up additional prerequisite classes. In the UK, there is generally not enough flexibility to take electives and you cannot easily extend your studies. Further, you likely would not have the prerequisite A-level classes to get into a humanities program. It a probably best to go talk to someone in the relevant department at your university for advice.

Briefly speaking,  your odds of getting admitted to a program of distinction (necessary for any academic job prospects) is low unless:

You have an excellent GRE score (absolutely required);
You have substantial coursework (30+ credits at minimum) in advanced humanities subjects with excellent grades;
You have an especially polished writing sample and excellent references from leading professors in your desired field;
Perhaps,  you have published work.

Remember, in humanities, admittance to a truly outstanding program is required for even limited career prospects. Do not settle for a lower ranked program.

I would suggest choosing either anthropology or history as they are fairly distinct areas of study when you get past the surface of things. If you haven't already picked a minor in either history or anthropology. This way you can see if it's a passing fancy or something you are serious in.
If it turns out you are then you will be part way there for the second degree. You may depending, on how far in you are, be able to dual degree in engineering and history/anthropology. If you can't dual degree but you took the minor you will then probably have enough to go on to appear like a good match for most schools you may apply to for graduate studies. You will also have the side of not having to go through as many lower undergrad classes to catch up with the mainstream majors.


text:
What to do when you spend several months working on an idea that fails in a masters thesis?
How shall a masters student deal with the complete failure to meet the expected results when working on a master's thesis?
For example, in the field of machine learning a masters student might spend 4-5 months  developing a method that turns out not be useful, not even being comparable to benchmark datasets.
Should the student quit it?
Should you at least take a break from academia to avoid harming your career ?
Or should you work on a different idea and risk another few months which is also not guaranteed? Given the fact that the advisor is simply asking you to try new things

I think this presentation by Uri Alon can be relevant. It certainly helped me see things differently.

Research is 95% failure and 3% success (the other 2% you don't have even a clue). Don't panic.

Research is only a failure if you fail to generate useful information. Knowing that an approach doesn't work is a useful result.

@AnderBiguri: The other 2% is probably the caffeine.

Step 1: Don't panic
I was in a similar situation halfway through my MSc. I was in a panic, sure that my academic career was in ruins. My supervisor calmed me down, reminded that a negative result was still a result, and and told me that a for a master's degree, it was not strictly required that I make a scientific contribution or have a publication. In the worst case, in my thesis I would present my negative results, explain why this technique didn't work, and suggest what could be done differently by future researchers. (Once I was relaxed enough to think clearly, I came up with new things to try, and everything worked out grand.)
I suggest you discuss the "worst case scenario" with your supervisor; you'll probably find out it's not as bad as you think. Remember that this is research: positive results are not guaranteed.
Step 2: Think about why this technique isn't working.
I'm sure you've learned something about why your technique isn't working. That should give you some ideas for what to try next. If you're out of ideas, sit a friend down and explain everything to them. The friend doesn't need to know anything about machine learning; they're just a sounding board. The naive questions they ask may give you ideas. Maybe you need a week off to recharge your batteries.
Step 3: Try something new.
Take those new ideas you got in step 2, and apply them. But now that you're more experienced, think about how you could find out more quickly if the idea is feasible, so you can change tack again if needed.

+1 Exactly this. Failure happens and then you have to talk to your advisor. He will know what to do.

Very helpful advice.

How the student can survive from the failure is one story, and how this failure may affect his future of academic life is another story. Because, a masters student works about one or two years on a thesis. After two years, he needs to start a newer research... When he fails in his thesis, consequently may have no publications. The masters student may have weaker or no chances for continuing his educations in phd or finding a scholarship. Everything seems to be ruined...

@EnthusiasticStudent a positive thesis ending in a published paper would be helpful; but a well written thesis that explains why the results are bad and what could be done about it, may be an equally good indicator of research capabilities. Remember, no one is expected to publish during the masters.

@Davidmh I did my masters thesis perfect indeed including the theory part, formulation, concepts, etc. but because I had no access to good computing facilities I had no result from numerical part of my thesis, so I could not publish a journal paper. Now, I contact professors for an open PhD position, near ten professors told me that they can supervise me and I did really well in my thesis. When I apply for scholarships, the other applicants have one or two publications and consequently I cannot compete and find any scholarships.

@Davidmh  I submitted my thesis successfully and defended my thesis with a high mark; but, as you see, the publications and a completed masters thesis is really really important for a student who wants to apply for PhD. In my case, I did really well in my masters research, but because I have no publications, I can not find any PhD position... That's why I think, my academic life is unfortunately seems to be over; just because of not having publications. :(

@EnthusiasticStudent I know many people with PhD funding and no publications before it. Me, for starters. I am sorry you haven't been able to find anything, but this is not necessarily the end.

@Davidmh Concerning those who had PhD funding without a publication before it, were those in US/Europe? Because once I was told that stress for a publication before PhD is in top tier US universities but in other universities like European universities you can get a funding for your PhD without a prior publication history.

@Magellanea I know cases in both. Even more, one of them rejected an offer from (I think it was) Harvard, because he got a better one.

Years ago Marguerite Lehr, a colleague of mine at Bryn Mawr College, told me of a conversation she'd had years before that with Oscar Zariski, a brilliant algebraic geometer then at Johns Hopkins. She told him about a failed attempt to solve a particular problem. He said "you must publish this." She asked why, since it had failed. He replied that it was a natural way to attack the problem and people should know that it wouldn't work.

Just a general answer, more to the overall issue than to your specific case: "Failure" to get the expected results isn't necessarily "failure" in the sense of not producing a good thesis.  Although in the specific case you mentioned (machine learning) there is often a desire to produce something usable, in many cases a thesis topic is motivated by prior research.  A negative finding can still be significant if it adds to the overall knowledge total in the area (for instance, by showing that predictions from earlier research are not confirmed by yours).
For my PhD, I spent over a year conducting a series of experiments to test a certain hypothesis derived from earlier research.  I found no evidence in support of the hypothesis.  Nonetheless, I wrote it up as a negative result, and framed it as placing limits on the theoretical proposals that motivated the project (i.e., "people suggested things might work like this, but I checked and apparently it's not so").  My committee thought it was a useful contribution and I got the PhD.
A lot depends on your field and your committee.  It is easier to do what I described in a field where there is a lot of speculative theorizing relative to the amount of hard data.  I can imagine it'd be a lot harder to do that in machine learning.  Also, the bias against negative results (the so-called "file-drawer problem") can create pressure to produce a positive finding.  In the broadest sense, though, if you had a good reason to go looking for something, not finding it can be as informative as finding it, and that's part of science.

I concur with the above answers.  I spent a year working on a topic for a PhD dissertation, before I decided that I lacked the qualifications to do it.  So I went to my advisor, and said, "What now?" Two weeks later I was starting the work that got me my PhD.  Leaving academia will probably be a mistake; you may find that you never have the right time to go back.  As pointed out, negative results can have value.  I think of Gödel and the Completeness Theorem, wherein the concept of unsolvable problems was formalized. Instead of proving that first-order predicate calculus was complete, just the opposite was proven: it is possible to create theorems that can never be proven (see also Alan Turing, Church, Post, and for that matter, Heisenberg).
So take a look at your work.  Proving that some idea cannot work is a contribution.  And if not, try another topic.  That's what advisors are for.


text:
How to get my humanities paper published in the short timeframe before admissions deadline?
I have around two months before the application deadline to a masters program in humanities, and I want to increase my approval chances. I don't have papers in the program major (got one paper in mathematics though), but I already have enough material for a short article.
So I wonder if there is a way to improve my admission letter by listing a publication in a subject close to the major. Is preprint (via some analog of arxiv.org) the best I can have within the time limit?

I don't know about humanities but in the area of Computer Science, conferences will often have a review turnaround of around two months. Though it might not be published for a while thereafter, it is sufficient for a paper to be accepted for it to be listed in an application. (Journal turnarounds would generally tend to be slower.)

This will be very field dependent. In mathematics, there'd be no hope of getting a paper accepted, let alone published, in this time frame. On the other hand, having a paper submitted and a preprint available would be worth quite a bit.

@badroit, suppose I don't wish to attend a particular conference, I just want my thesis accepted & published, is it a bad tone generally?

Again this might be field specific, but in computer science, it is typically mandatory for at least one author of the paper to attend the conference and to the present the work: note that the core purpose of a conference is to offer a venue for presentations and discussions of early-to-mid-term work. Oftentimes conference organisers will threaten to withhold the paper from publishing if nobody attends.


text:
What computations of the Lotka function exist for publications in humanities meta-disciplines?
Given Lotka's law's general applicability to publishing rates and bibliometrics; what computations of the Lotka function exist for the meta-disciplines in the humanities?  (Philosophy, History, Literary Criticism by language, Film criticism, Anthropology, History and Philosophy of Science / Science and Technology Studies)
I wish to test cultural assumptions ("work culture") about publication rates of sole authored papers against Lotka values to check managerial assumptions, and my own assumptions, about productivity levels and "workload".  Yet I have no adequate grounding to find computed Lotka functions for discipline.

There have been a few papers published in this space by bibliometricians/scientometricians already. Having said this, why would you need pre-configured values of lotka's law for certain sub-disciplines in the humanities?
I would collect data (perhaps using Web of Science/Google Scholar/Wiley/Elsevier etc.) ; then do empirical testing with the generalized Lotka's law on particular sub-disciplines and then control against your cultural assumptions and other variables. This is because every discipline changes over time and a paper published on this in the 1970's may yield different results now with the same methodology. Most of my references cited below point this (or some variation of this) out as limitations of temporally specific computations of these laws.
Having said this, there are a few papers which might help you in this task if you haven't found them already:
This paper specifically looks at generalizing Lotka's Law in the humanities and formulates the same queries that I laid out earlier about it being spatio-temporal specific.
This paper is the Pao's modification to Lotka's law for humanities and has some empirical evaluations from certain humanities literature.
This paper is an empirical modification of Pao's variation (see above) to Lotka's Law in certain humanities disciplines.
This is an editorial response to Lotka's law applicability in the humanities.
This is a general paper which looks at quantifying author productivity and impact specifically in the humanities. It is a very good read for approaches.
In other words, do some up-to-date empirical evaluation and then perhaps, run your study. The first could actually make for a fine empirical paper by itself in the scientometrics world. Pre-configured function values are like using empirical regression estimates ; they are fine and specific to that study but may not be generalizable across all studies.


text:
How to engage in the scientific committee of a conference?
I have published few papers with high impact factors in power systems already and graduated with M.Sc. couple of years ago. I am a reviewer in couple of top journals like IEEE as well.
I thought it would be exciting to enroll in scientific committee of a conference in my field, electrical eng. power systems, specially abroad. Well my question is:

How can I find a conference to engage in their scientific committee?
What qualifications should one have for that?
Is it normal to apply for this by email online? and how?

Also see How to show interest to serve as a TPC or reviewer in top conferences?

Well, thats close, but I am not looking for top conferences, even small ones are fine to start. @ff524

The marked duplicate, How do you join programme committees for conferences?, is not specifically about top conferences. (See especially the second answer to that question, which specifically addresses your question about how an email request to be on TPC would be perceived.)


text:
Am I obligated to finish my post-doc term before starting my tenure-track job?
I am currently a postdoc at a research university. I had originally intended to stay at my postdoc for two years, and this was the understanding I had with my postdoc adviser.
However, I decided to speculatively apply for a few faculty jobs, intending to defer any offers for a year. I have now obtained a faculty job offer to start at the end of one year of my postdoc.
After much reflection, I believe that it is better for my family life not to ask for a deferral and to start the faculty job earlier.
In the event that I take the faculty job offer,
I still intend to continue and finish the research work
which I have started with my postdoc adviser,
so I will not be hurting my adviser by starting but not finishing my postdoc work.
Question: Do I have an ethical obligation to stay at my postdoc for two years, because that was my initial plan and was what I told my postdoc adviser?
Should I expect him to be understanding when I choose what is best for my family?
The following timeline may explain the sequence of events more clearly:

March 2014 I was applying for postdocs, and I told my potential postdoc advisor that I was intending to stay for two years at the university if he were to give me an offer.
April 2014 I was hired with a one-year contract starting August 2014. My adviser explains that there is a good chance my contract will be renewed at the end of the year.
Sept 2014 I decide to apply opportunistically for a few faculty positions just in case I can get a good offer, and intend to ask for a deferral, so that I would only start my faculty job in August 2016.
I told my postdoc adviser that I was applying opportunistically only for a few jobs,
and that if I got a job offer, I would ask for a deferral.
Jan 2015 I get a faculty job offer to start in August 2015.
By this time I changed my mind and feel that starting in 2015 is better for me and my family.

Additional relevant details:

My research area is applied mathematics,
so the only requirements for my research are
a decent computer and an Internet connection.
I can collaborate productively with my postdoc adviser effectively
even if I am not physically in the same location as he is.
I did tell my postdoc adviser that I received a job offer.
However, my postdoc contract has not yet been renewed for the second year,
and we have not yet had a conversation about when to renew the contract.

Was your contract renewed? Have you talked with your adviser?

No, my contract has not yet been renewed. I did tell my adviser that I was planning to ask for a deferral but I have now changed my mind and prefer to start early.

Congrats on getting a tenure track position!
You are not the first person to whom this has happened.  Of course, there may be specific circumstances that make the early departure more difficult - say, if you are the only person who can operate a certain instrument in a lab.  But people do leave post-docs early, from time to time - it's not at all unheard of.  And, if you applied opportunistically, you probably have a job that you are happy to take.
My advice is to break the news to your advisor as soon as possible - once you have made the decision to accept the offer. Your current institution might still be able to find a replacement for next year, which would be good for them. If you reflect on it, it's hard to see real advantages of telling your advisor later.  And there is a good chance they will be happy for you that you got a tenure track position.
Remember that you will still be in touch your advisor professionally, so you want to try to keep the relationship on the best terms that you can.

In my experience, most academic contracts last for a single academic year.  For instance, I am a tenured (associate) professor, but I still sign yearly academic contracts.  Postdocs are often offered with an "expectation" of N years, and the expected value here depends on the institution.
In my opinion there is no dishonor in leaving any academic job after the current academic year contract expires (and before signing another yearly contract).  In some cases you will be missed if you leave: that's just part of the situation.  I have multiple graduate students and am scheduled to teach several classes next year, more than one of which would probably be cancelled if I couldn't teach it.  If I wanted to leave my job next year, I most certainly could.  It would be honorable to take an active role in covering for my own departure, but it is not strictly necessary.  Presidents of entire universities often give less than one full year's notice of their departure: that's just the situation.
When it comes to postdocs: a postdoc is by definition a temporary job.  Those who supervise postdocs want (or should want) nothing more than to have their postdocs eventually land a suitable permanent job.  In my department (mathematics, UGA), when a postdoc leaves early it is a bit sad to see them go, but we definitely view it as a success story.
A postdoc who is doing key research on a PI's project may be more like a tenure-track faculty member in the "weight" of their leaving, but I don't see how that changes anything fundamentally.  If a postdoc is doing something so valuable on a project that someone else can't be trained to do it over a period of months, then something is wrong: that's a PI-level of indispensability.  (In fact postdocs should be assuming that they will depart in the relatively near future and start training others as soon as they have the skills themselves.)  There is no doubt that a postdoc has a legal right to leave at the end of the academic year.  Any PI who would not be able to deal with that one way or another in the face of a permanent job is someone that I would distance myself from all the sooner.
Anyway, the OP's particular case is the best possible one: the OP doesn't have a solid offer from his institution for the next year's employment.  So the OP can leave: case closed.  If the institution actually regrets his leaving then there's a real lesson there: don't string valuable personnel along on serial year-long offers.  You can't have it both ways.

I agree especially strongly with the last paragraph. Your advisor couldn't commit to you that you would have employment with them next year, so how could they possibly expect you not to take this job? Imagine that you do defer this tenure-track offer, and then your advisor tells you that they can't renew your contract. In this situation, they haven't done anything unethical; instead you've done something stupid, and left yourself without employment for a year. And there's no reason to think this couldn't happen!

This answer is undoubtedly affected by the fact that I'm in pure mathematics and can do my research even without postdocs (unlike people in experimental sciences who may need postdocs to keep their labs functioning properly). If one of my postdocs gets a tenure-track offer, at a good place, before the end of the scheduled postdoc period, I could not in good conscience try to get them to stay as a postdoc.

My postdoc advisor always told his postdocs to consider what's best for their career, rather than what's needed for their current stay when thinking about whether or not to take outside offers. (Then again, he was at the stage of his career where he didn't need to worry about paper N + 1.)

I think it is true even outside of the field. With some very rare exceptions, I cannot really think of a situation when a tenure tracking offer should be rejected for keeping a post-doc contract. In this situation, there is even no contract yet, only a promise for a renewal.

Congratulations on your new position.
In the research group I manage, I make it as clear as I can that the job of a post-doc is to get a job.  We will do everything we can in terms of having good, well structured projects to enable that, but the post-docs should always be thinking about getting a real job. If somebody is good enough to go get a real offer in the first year, well, we probably got a lot of good work out of them, they moved the projects along nicely, and we have an opportunity to go find another post-doc. Also, we hope we have made a new friend in the research community that we can collaborate with (and get good post-docs from in the future).  More power to them, and to you.
Don't agonize, take the position, make sure you get publications out on whatever you haven't finished up, and go out and do great things.

Actually,  you are not being fair to your advisor.  They might have actually turned someone away because they preferred you.  That person unlike you might have actually honored their promise to stay 2 years.  Defer for a year, and keep your promise. Otherwise, why should anyone trust you to ever keep commitments?

It's understood by academic employers that postdoc positions are a springboard, not a marriage.


text:
How often do Ph.D. holders hold faculty positions in different, but related, fields from their Ph.D.?
This is something that I thought about a while back when reading (I forget where) about someone who held a Ph.D. in chemistry, but focused on physical chemistry throughout his Ph.D. years and actually became a physics professor.
I was wondering how often this happens. For instance, do electrical engineering Ph.D. holders with very physics-oriented research become physics professors ever? What about vice versa? Or what about, for instance, applied mathematicians specializing in cosmology. Do they ever become physics professors?
More important question here: does this open up the possibility in which one can apply for faculty positions in multiple departments, thereby increasing one's chances of a faculty position? Or does the interdisciplinary nature of it actually limit the candidate's faculty choices?
Note, when I say someone is a professor in another field, I mean, for example, they received a Ph.D. from a department of chemistry and were subsequently employed by a department of physics.

Perhaps a somewhat extreme example: Back in my undergraduate days, I took a computer science course; the professor – who I believe was assigned to the CS dept – had received his PhD in music. I have no idea how commonplace such jumps are.

A point to consider is the historical development of research groups. If the group leader(s) progressively changed their research topic you might end up with strange combinations. In related fields, such as physics and chemistry, the line separating both is very narrow and you will find plenty of physicists in chemistry departments and (possibly even more common) the other way around.

The likelihood of this happening depends a lot on the department personalities involved. As anecdotal evidence, my adviser had a PhD in physics, a joint appointment in geosciences and material science, and graduate students from 5 different programs (physics, geochemistry, geology, material science, environmental science)

For interdisciplinary researchers, this sort of thing can happen fairly often.  For example, if you are a chemist working on ecological applications, you might well have started out in a chemistry department and end up in an ecology department, or vice versa.  This happens even more so when dealing with disciplines that may be categorized differently by different institutions: for example, is work on medical devices part of biology and the natural sciences faculty or part of electrical or mechanical engineering?  Generally, however, if it's going to happen, there is at least some logical trail that you can see how the faculty member got from point A to point B.

This has happened in the past, especially in some emerging fields. For example, I know a professor of electronic engineering, whose PhD was actually carried out within a mathematics department, studying cryptography. From there, the practical applications of cryptography in physical systems led towards electronic engineering. At the time of his PhD, computer science was quite different to what we have today, and indeed it wasn't hugely unusual for people to complete their PhD in mathematics, yet end up working in a different (yet related) department.
While not precisely what you asked, in my experience it isn't at all unusual for people to make fairly significant changes in field, when working in postdoc positions. I've seen people from civil engineering working brilliantly in electronics groups, and vice versa. They can then end up forging a successful career in those groups. The impression from what I've seen is that if someone is doing work that's sufficiently inter-disciplinary that it's related to a group or department, provided their skills and expertise are in line with the department at the time, they are not disadvantaged.
Obviously this might depend on location and discipline, although I know many people who moved into computer science in the early days, from different (often completely unrelated) fields.

Adding to the existing great answers (about interdisciplinary research and emerging fields), I'd add perspective by asking, "why are there obstacles at all?". After all, traditionally the degree is awarded as a deliberately non-specific "doctor of philosophy", that happens to be in recognition of advancing the state of knowledge in some specific area, not as a "doctor of chemistry" or "doctor of linguistics" or whatever.
At issue is that in our increasingly specialized academe, hiring is usually done at the departmental level. Therefore, those hiring committees ask, "will this candidate contribute to the reputation, research output, and breadth and depth of expertise in our department?" And also, "will this candidate help us train graduates in our discipline, and/or instruct service courses in our discipline to the broader student body?"   And, frankly, "is this candidate like me, so that I can confidently assess their capabilities and fit?"
A senior, respected scholar with sustained research output, that will have necessarily broadened out of the narrow area they started their work in years ago, will present little concern based on what exactly was the topic and awarding department of their Ph.D. years ago. And this will be easily outweighed by the breadth and reputational benefits they presumably bring.
For more junior hiring, it depends on the nature of the position. Where an open position is targeted on an interdisciplinary area, or the search is being run by a specific research team or "Institute" or "Centre", which may well be a part of a conventional department but has some autonomy, there will likely be a lot of openness to candidates from adjacent fields. If it's a hard-fought generic departmental position -- "we've finally got approval to hire another assistant prof in our physics department" -- a newly minted Ph.D.-Chemistry (that did their research in the intersection of physics and chemistry) will face a lot more skepticism: "Will they be able to build and fund a physics lab? Can they teach Physics 101? Which upper year Physics courses will they be qualified to teach?"
The implications is that if you're junior and doing something interdisciplinary, that's great. But I would also consciously build and demonstrate your broader credentials in the standard field you think is most likely to employ you. And you'll have to work harder if you want to prove that in more than one field, or if it's a field that's different from the name of department that will sign off on your "doctor of philosophy" (sic).
Note: Written with a North American perspective. Hiring dynamics can be quite different in e.g. the continental European model.

This seems wonderfully naive. Especially, but not limited to, the first paragraph.

:) @Buffy, seems I can't win. Someone else (offline) just told me it was too cynical, focusing on what hiring committees look for, rather than what's right!  But maybe my 1st para came across too literally, as if we were at the University of Bologna 800 years ago. To be sure, of course candidate needs to have actually relevant background and experience...but I wrote the answer from the perspective of why is that (often) not enough.

We agree about Bologna, actually. I've been there, but it was less than 800 years ago. I "broadened" my outlook over time, but there was no way back to mathematics once I did.


text:
How much does it hurt admissions if I don't take an essential class until after I apply to schools?
I've asked a related question about dealing with two courses that I need that are scheduled at the same time. I'm not sure if I'll be able to get it resolved yet, and so it's been on my mind.
One of the courses I need to take is very important for my desired field of graduate study (as in, it's important for the specific field of research), and it's possible that I won't be able to take it until spring of my last year, which means it wouldn't be on my transcript when I apply for graduate schools. Will this hurt my application if I say I want to do work in this field while not having taken the necessary course yet? For reference, I've got plenty of research experience, I should have great letters of recommendation, and potentially a 4.0 GPA, and I will have taken many upper-level courses in my major, so while my application may be strong in those areas, I'm wondering how detrimental not taking this course early on will be (particularly when applying to top 15 schools). Of course, I will have taken the course by the time I graduate, but perhaps that wouldn't mean much to admissions committees (who wouldn't know my grade in the course).
For further reference, my interest is in antenna engineering, and the course I'm referring to is a standard engineering electromagnetics course. Also, if it makes a difference, I plan on applying to masters programs, and so if there are differences between what is looked for in masters vs PhD admissions, please keep that in mind.

I think it hurts if you haven't demonstrated the ability to handle other classes of similar difficult/material. But if you have a strong record in other similar courses, it won't be an issue.

@MadJack this is my primary concern. I have done well in my standard intro E&M physics course, and I have, in self study, gone over much of the material covered in our EM course, and from that, it's by far the area that interests me the most in electrical engineering. I hope to ask around my department to speak to any professors that can, at most provide me relevant research experience, and at least guide me in a solo venture to get some experience of what it's like to do research in the field.

possible duplicate of How does the admissions process work for US Ph.D. programs, particularly for weak or borderline students?

I cannot speak directly to antenna engineering, but more generally, having research experience, strong letters of recommendation, a high GPA and a good SOP will almost certainly strengthen your application much more than having simply taken a specific (yet relevant) course. This is true for both masters and PhD programs.
Take a look at this write up of the admissions process decision making for the Computer Science PhD program at Carnegie Mellon University (a very prestigious and difficult to get into institution for Computer Science). Notice that the author doesn't say something like, "The student has taken operating systems. That is an absolute must!" and it should make sense why -- because it's a poor metric of your potential to succeed in a graduate program. If that was the metric they went by then a huge proportion of computer science undergraduates who applied would be accepted. Of course, this is not the case.
On the other hand, having done research and been published is a strong signal of your capacity to succeed in a program. It shows that you have talents and creativity beyond your courses, and that your professors respect you enough to work with you. In addition, having strong letters of recommendation matters significantly more than having taken a single course. If a colleague of theirs speaks highly of your skills and potential, they will likely weight that heavily, given that they know what it takes for a student to succeed in a graduate program as well.
Now, that does not imply that you shouldn't take relevant courses to your discipline (and that failing to take important courses may have an impact on your application). However, when considering the whole spectrum of the admissions process, I believe that not taking a single course will play a much smaller role in comparison to the other factors of your application.


text:
Applying to work at an acquaintence's school
Background: I'm a mathematics student in the US who plans to finish my PhD this year, and I'm currently applying for jobs at small liberal arts colleges throughout the country.  I already have some acquaintances throughout the math world, either from grad school, REUs, conferences, etc, and some of these people are at schools to which I'm applying.  They would definitely remember me, but I would be surprised if they knew/remembered anything about my work.
There seems to be relative agreement that knowing someone at a school to which one is applying for a job is a good thing, but I have a few questions related to that situation.

How do you go about telling such an acquaintance that I am planning to or have already applied?  Is it acceptable for me to simply drop them an email?  Is there anything specific I should tell them?
Most schools list a designated contact person within the department.  Would it then be inappropriate for me to ask my acquaintance questions about the school or position?
One of these acquaintances works at a school that is far from the region I would like to end up living someday, and I believe that they are aware of this.  How will this impact my chances at that school?  Would it still be beneficial to make them aware of my application?

I am aware that a similar question already exists, but I was hoping to get more general information than what was discussed there. Any advice or insight is most appreciated.

You may want more general information but some of the specifics might be relatively important. For example, what position is this acquaintance in? How you might want to proceed is likely to be different if it's the head of the school, versus if it's the janitor. Generally speaking though, if this person is involved in the recruitment process then there might be an issue, but otherwise you're likely overthinking things.

Is the acquaintance an acquaintance of you or of some in faculty you know? Does this acquaintance know you by name, does she/he know your work?

I've updated my question to provide some extra clarification/background.

I asked another somewhat similar question earlier and found these responses helpful too: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/74964/how-should-a-job-market-candidate-leverage-his-or-her-network

How do you go about telling such an acquaintance that I am planning to or have already applied? Is it acceptable for me to simply drop them an email? Is there anything specific I should tell them?

Yes, you should just send them a short email (don't make it too long, or write it in a way so that the recipient is pressured to answer it). I would email them after all of your application materials are in, and tell them that you have applied to their school. If it is among your top choices, I would mention that in the email too.

Most schools list a designated contact person within the department.
  Would it then be inappropriate for me to ask my acquaintance questions
  about the school or position?

The contact person is most likely the secretary of the department, or the head of the hiring committee. However, every member of the department has some say in the hiring process, and it is generally better to establish contact with your acquaintance. However, I would hold off on asking questions about the school or department until you receive an interview, unless the answer to the question that you are asking decides whether you will apply to the school or not. If there is no chance that you will be hired, then you don't want to annoy your contact and waste both of your time.

One of these acquaintances works at a school that is far from the
  region I would like to end up living someday, and I believe that they
  are aware of this. How will this impact my chances at that school?
  Would it still be beneficial to make them aware of my application?

This seems like a tricky question. If you are a superstar, they might still try to interview you and convince you that their school is fantastic. However, if they are deciding among several candidates of similar calibers, and if one of the candidates rank the school as their first, that could tip the balance in their favor. Nonetheless, it wouldn't hurt to alert them of your application. However, do not lie and say things like their school is your top choice. In a small world like academia, you do not want to burn any bridges if you can help it.
Finally, I'd like to add one thing out of paranoia. Do not apply to positions that you would not accept. This is especially important at tenure-track level, where there is a lot of work that people have to put in before an offer can be made. At the tenure-track level, once you receive at least one offer, it is expected that you accept one of them, otherwise you may not be taken as seriously when you re-enter the tenure-track market in a later year. These kinds of things get talked about, and as the job market is a sensitive issue for most mathematicians, people tend to have very long memories about these sorts of things.

Thank you for all the detail in your response.  With respect to your last point, I do feel some measure of concern--I have applied to many jobs. That said, I do anticipate accepting a job during this cycle, even if it's not the ideal position.