text:
Understanding an abnormal grade distribution
I have three years of experience teaching as part of a team (many teachers, some with more experience, agreeing on a syllabus and preparing the tests together), but this year is the first time I am fully in charge of some courses.
After grading the mid-term exam for one of my class, I noticed I had a weird grade distribution:

(If this is useful, there are 24 grades, the set of grades is { 1.2, 1.4, 1.4, 1.9, 2.0, 2.3, 2.6, 2.6, 3.4, 4.2, 4.2, 4.3, 4.6, 4.6, 4.8, 4.8, 4.9, 5.3, 6.0, 6.2, 6.4, 7.1, 7.8, 7.8 }, the average is 4.25 and the standard deviation is 2.01.)
I have looked carefully at all my previous tests, and I can confirm I have never seen a curve like this before.
In my short experience, I have heard, read of reflected that a distribution with two curves would probably either mean that a) a large subgroup of students cheated or b) as a teacher I am mostly addressing the best students and letting the others down.
But this looks like there are actually three curves, and I am wondering which characteristic of my teaching or my students could explain that.
Besides, if someone is aware of any scholarly work on this subject, that would be lovely. I couldn't find anything myself.

Thank you for this question that adds content for the academia SO site that is not about how a given supervisor is a mean person or sense of self-worth issues. On the topic, I must say that I'm always amazed when I learn an instructor/prof does not care about grade distribution.

Your bins look too small for size and standard-dev or your dataset. Wikipedia has a few suggestions on bin-size: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histogram#Number_of_bins_and_width

@RedSirius: Indeed, I have tried with the first suggestion, sqrt(24)≈5 bins, and the resulting curve has only one peak.

http://xkcd.com/1347/ (Excuse me, but I couldn't resist.)

It's hard to believe anything particularly unusual is happening when adjusting three students by one SD each (move two from 2 to 4 and one from 8 to 6) gives a single-peaked distribution.

Plot histograms of raw points. Does it look better? If not: 2) Plot histograms of individual tasks in order to figure out whether some problems had issues, or the exam as a whole. And always, 3) employ statistical tests in order to see whether your data is truly abnormal.

That distribution looks very much like the Teacher's T distribution. In other words, sometimes data will just look weird without meaning there's anything weird going on.

For what it's worth, I'd worry more about the fact that the majority of your students don't seem able to score more than 50% on the exam. Unless you have explicitly designed the exam with the intent of having them select between questions rather than complete all of them, this suggests a mismatch between students, instructional techniques, exam and material being taught.

My two cents: your set should not be a set, but a multiset.

There are several possible factors here: given the relatively small number of points available, lumping can skew how grades are distributed, particularly if they're also awarded in whole number increments. (That is, there's not enough refinement in the model to separate things out.)
Another issue is that the sample size is relatively small; twenty-four students is not a particularly large sample size—your standard deviation here is two points out of 10! Also, you should try plotting the data according to half-integer bins (0.5 to 1.5, 1.5 to 2.5, etc.); you'll end up with a very different distribution.
So, basically, I wouldn't try to draw any definitive conclusions from such a plot or distribution.

Thank you for your help. It is true that using half-integer bins gives a different result, although it still looks abnormal. It would still be interesting to know what a larger abnormal distribution would mean.

I agree with the other answers that this may be an artifact of the histogram. May I humbly offer a few alternative ways to plot these grades?

All of these essentially show that your effects are likely due to small n and possibly an essentially discrete underlying data generating process.
R code:
require(hdrcde)
require(Hmisc)
require(denstrip)
require(beanplot)
require(beeswarm)

grades <- c(1.2, 1.4, 1.4, 1.9, 2.0, 2.3, 2.6, 2.6, 3.4, 4.2, 4.2, 4.3, 4.6, 4.6, 4.8, 4.8, 4.9, 5.3, 6.0, 6.2, 6.4, 7.1, 7.8, 7.8)

opar <- par(mfrow=c(1,6), mar=c(3,2,4,1))
    boxplot(grades, col="gray90", main="Standard\nboxplot",yaxt="n")
    hdr.boxplot(grades, main="HDR\nboxplot",yaxt="n")
    bpplot(grades,xlab="",name=FALSE,main="Box-Percentile\nPlot")
    beanplot(grades,col="grey",yaxt="n",main="Bean plot/\nViolin plot",border="black")
    plot(c(0,2),range(grades),type="n",xaxt="n",yaxt="n",xlab="",ylab="",
        main="Density\nplot")
    denstrip(grades, horiz=FALSE, at=1, width=1)
    beeswarm(grades,pch=19,main="Beeswarm\nplot")
par(opar)

EDIT: (sorry, I'm a statistician, I can't help it...) I went and took Jack's kernel density estimate and resampled 24 "students" from it a couple of times. In each case, I plotted a histogram. The result is below. We see that even an innocuous unimodal curve can lead to pretty bumpy histograms, because of the discretization and the small sample size.

R code:
dens <- density(grades)

opar <- par(mfrow=c(2,4))
for ( ii in 1:8 ) {
    samp <- rnorm(length(grades), sample(grades, size = length(grades), replace = TRUE), dens$bw)
    hist(pmin(10,pmax(0,samp)),breaks=0:10,xlab="",ylab="",main="",col="gray")
}
par(opar)

Given that you are a statistician, can you reject the hypothesis "data comes from a normal distribution" with any goodness of fit test? (I'd guess no because of the small sample size, but that would give "proof" that nothing is wrong.)

shapiro.test(grades) does not reject the null hypothesis of a normal distribution, p = 0.27. However, as you write, this can be due to the small sample size. We actually know that the data cannot be normal, since (a) grades are bounded between 0 and 10 (?), whereas the normal distribution is unbounded, and (b) grades are discrete through the points given. Which illustrates why the p value > 0.05 is not "proof" of anything and why statisticians are not too keen on NHST ;-)

@StephanKolassa: Of course, every sample is finitely bounded and discrete, so surely that's not too heavy a restriction. One could probably test against binomial or whatever gives you the form you consider "expected" in grades. Yes, sample size is small, but that's the point, isn't it? If it's too small to reject "normality" statistically, the OP should not worry lest they interpret the data even though there is nothing there. (I think this is called overfitting?)

@Raphael: yes, of course every sample is bounded and discrete (including samples from the normal), but in this particular case we know that the population is bounded and discrete, so it cannot be normal. So so be nitpickery, the Shapiro-Wilks test asks a question about the data that we know the answer to. But as long as we don't take the p value too seriously, your bigger point is correct: the data don't look "abnormal" enough to be concerned (although this is really not overfitting, which would be a consequence of fitting too complex a model).

Most of your plots just make it hard to see the multimodal aspect of the data. Making something harder to perceive isn't the same as showing that it is insignificant.

The data don't look multimodal in a meaningful sense to me. If we, e.g., do a kernel density, multimodality (or not) will depend on the bandwidth we use. The bandwidth density() chooses gives a curve that is only very slightly multimodal, see the plot in Jack Aidley's answer. A histogram is in the end very similar to such a kernel density estimator, with a very particular choice of smoothing kernel. YMMV, of course.

You might be right, but I don't think a box-and-whisker plot is any evidence at all for this.

+1 to your comment about my boxplot. I couldn't agree more. Boxplots are really too crude, and I don't like them much. My three plots on the right are much more informative. Unfortunately, boxplots are very common, and many people understand them who may need quite a bit of explanation to understand the beanplot or density plot. My personal favorite is really the beeswarm, unless there are too many data points.

I did a Kernel density estimate plot of your data, shown below. You have a central lump of candidates with 4-5ish and a second lower lump of students who've done pretty badly.

Not being a statistician, can I ask you to add a couple words about what kernel density estimates are and how they are computed? Thanks.

A kernel density estimate is an attempt to derive the distribution from which a sample is derived from that sample. As to how they are calculated? Ask someone better at stats than me, perhaps @Stephen Kolassa

A quick intro: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_density_estimation. KDE involves a subjective bandwidth (smoothing) parameter, with some rules-of-thumb for automatic selection. Would be interesting to know which software was used to create the graph above.

@DanielRCollins It was done in R but so long ago I couldn't tell you exactly how I made it. I would likely have used its default settings.

Just adding to the other statistical analyses here...you can't really be sure that this sample doesn't come from a normally distributed population of grades from similar students in similar classes. Here's some more R code for analyses and their output: x=c(1.2,1.4,1.4,1.9,2.0,2.3,2.6,2.6,3.4,4.2, 4.2,4.3,4.6,4.6,4.8,4.8,4.9,5.3,6.0,6.2,6.4,7.1,7.8,7.8);qqnorm(x);qqline(x)
 Compare your grades to:  by Skbkekas
Your grades on the left don't fit the QQ line wonderfully, but they're not deviating very systematically. The numbers on the right are from a normal distribution; other than being more numerous, they seem similar.
Your grades are basically not skewed (skew(x) = .12). They are platykurtic, but you don't have enough of them to disregard the possibility that this difference from a normal distribution is due to sampling error with much confidence. Here are results of an Anscombe–Glynn kurtosis test (require(moments);anscombe.test(x)): kurtosis = 2.03, z = -1.23, p = .22. FWIW, you can also test the null hypothesis that your data came from a normally distributed population using a Shapiro–Wilk test (shapiro.test(x): W = .95, p = .27), but normality testing may be 'essentially useless' (this may apply to dedicated significance tests of kurtosis or skewness too).
You seem to refer to the modes or local maxima as curves. @StephanKolassa, @aeismail, and @JackAidley have already demonstrated how misleading histograms can be in this regard. @RedSirius' comment is on-point as well, and you've acknowledged the effect of bin size in your comment, but haven't edited your question to clarify what this doesn't answer for you (hint hint ;) ;). It's unclear what more needs to be said here. You haven't got much evidence of anything unusual, much less have you given a serious external basis for your proposed interpretations regarding cheating or uneven service to students of different aptitudes, so it seems further speculation could only grasp at proverbial straws.
However, it may still be worthwhile to recite some (maybe insufficiently examined) academic truisms:

It's very hard to make one size fit all when students greatly outnumber instructors.
In the case of students who exert near-zero effort, you really can't help enough.
Cheating probably won't matter enough either if that's the main form of effort exerted.

Remember that the central limit theorem assumes independent samples. This is often a bad assumption for students. Cheating is of course a possibility, but it could also just be that they study in groups (most people find this very helpful). The spikes in your data could just correspond to groups who study together and have similar strengths and weaknesses.

It seems to me that the distribution could be an artefact of the test as easily as it is an artefact of the teaching or students.

@jack: Yes, of course there are many possible explanations. I just offered one.

I have a theory that can explain situational anomalies such as this in classroom that's as situationally accurate as I have time to puzzle out.
To simplify the mathematics of the problem, I'm omitting some scale factors from my math which serve as little more than visual clutter.
Let an ideal bell curve be defined by C(x).
Your set of students is S, and you have a magical function Q(s) for s ∈ S which yields the "quality" of a student's work.
Now consider a test.  The test consists of a set of problems (call this set T).  Each problem p ∈ T has a difficulty, given by D(p).  The probability of a student s correctly answering a problem is defined:
Pcorrect(s, p) =
It then follows that a student of higher Q than the D of the problem will be more than likely to solve it, and one with a lower Q will be less than likely.
Let's define the ideal score of a student taking a test to be Si(s, T) = Σ Pcorrect(s, p), p ∈ T
If you were to take the ideal score on a particular test for each student in your classroom, you would get an ideal distribution, and chances are that if your students actually took the test, you'd get a distribution that at least roughly approximated the ideal one.
The important thing to take away from what we have so far is that, for an population of students taking a test, the difficulty of the problems on the test mathematically affects the grade distribution you're likely to have.
For example, assuming your student population is roughly bell-curved, you might see a grade distribution like your observations if your test questions have roughly these difficulty levels:
[2, 2, 5, 6, 6, 7, 7, 8, 10, 10+, 10+]

A large number of students would get the 2 easy questions right, but since there are few questions of low-intermediate difficulty, some of the students on the lower end of the curve wouldn't be able to get any harder ones right.  On the very high end, there are some questions that might be extraordinarily difficult for the skill level of the students (this can happen for a number of reasons) that most of the class got wrong (assuming the grade is out of 10 points total).
Assuming your class distribution is something like this,
0-2|
3  | 1
4  | =2
5  | ===4
6  | ====5
7  | ====5
8  | ===4
9  | =2
10 | 1

Their ideal distribution (as defined previously, rounded a bit to reduce clumping) would look something like this:
0  |
1  |
2  | ===4
3  | ===4
4  | ===4
5  | ===4
6  | ==3
7  | =2
8  | 1
9  |
10 |

Which resembles, in a muted way, the observed curve you experimentally observed.
Also, realistic situations won't have such elegant mathematical solutions (like a student's probability of getting a question correct), so this model should only be viewed as a reasonable, educated approximation.
TL;DR It's possible the questions on this one test were more difficult and less comprehensive than you thought when you handed it out.

If every student were able to solve every question with an independent probability p, then you would expect a normal distribution. But that is actually not a very good model.
Let's say you have a good number of problems in your test that any decent student would be expected to solve. Solving all of them gives you grade 5. Therefore you get lots of students on grade 5; everyone who is doing reasonably well in this course; some are a bit lower because of stupid mistakes which just happen, plus a few who are just badly prepared and have no chance to pass.
Then you have a few really hard problems. The average student solves none of them. Excellent students solve one or two or three, until they run out of time.
That kind of test could produce your distribution even with a very large number of students.

Difficult class scenario with pretty standard student groups:

Champions - ambitious and hardworking / clever / interested
Mere students - every hour on this subject hurts but I must pass it
Underachievers - no time, no effort or no idea how to handle the topic

If the test wasn't important enough or was too difficult, breakdown above explains it all.
Champions didn't manage to max it out but they collected pretty nice scores of around 6-7 points. Mere students managed to learn enough to halve the test. Underachievers found out that without grasping the topic they aren't going to shine here.
Groups 2 and 3 blend together, which is visible in plot from Jack Aidley, hope I can borrow it :)

Is the level high? Was the test well-constructed and offering questions of different difficulty?
If so, then I think that's the case and you just managed to see who your students are. You might want to find out whether the problem is lack of motivation or being unable to jump into the subject.

When I first served as a TA (in 1996), the principal instructor told me that there were 3 types of student: “the ones who are here because they're interested and want to learn; the ones who are here to get the degree to get a good job; and the ones who are here to keep warm.” It's remarkable how well they map to your categories :)

Well said @Emmet, or rather well quoted. However, students occasionally change categories when changing subjects. It's relatively easy for a passionate to become underachiever (or the other way) in a particular area. Sometimes students need a nudge to get fascinated by a subject or their willingness to learn can fade away when the first tasks seem unclear or too difficult.

I have no respect for students who're just "[there] to keep warm" - if they had even a modicum of drive and self-respect they'd knuckle down and badger their parents into moving to warmer climes.  Seriously though, +1 for the psychological side.  People near a pass will struggle to make it; those in with a chance to excel will be spurred on.

I think you have over-tailored the difficulty of the questions to the range of abilities in the class. This is a similar theory to @gnasher729's.
Obviously this is all guesswork based on the data, and you will have to decide yourself if it makes sense or not. But it would be consistent with the data if you had two extremely easy questions (which absolutely everyone could solve), three slightly harder, three harder still and two impossible ones which no-one could solve. Everyone fell into one of three levels, with some of the students also making one or two errors on questions which they knew how to solve.
If one point doesn't correspond to one question, than the same thing could still be the case, but with a different amount of questions.
So you tried to spread out the difficulty of the questions (as is normal) but a) you clumped to many questions of the same difficulty together and b) you spread the clumps out too much, with 4 of 10 questions not giving any indication at all as to the relative ability of the students (because everyone got 2 of them, and no-one got the other 2). My guess is that the time-limit of the exam was not a big factor, since people work at different speeds and time limits probably therefore smooth out grades.
There is any easy way to test this theory. Did the students who got 2, 5 and 8 all get the same or very similar sets of questions right? My theory predicts that they did.
Edit
Looking closer at the numbers (this is still guesswork), I would now say that the 3 different ability groups correspond to something like 7.8 questions (with quite a few making  one or two points worth of mistakes), 4.8 questions (with most not making many mistakes) and 2.6 (with most making 0.5-1.5 points worth of mistakes).

I believe that part of your issue is how you're doing the rounding for the graph. Instead of rounding up, let's just round to the nearest integer.

This looks far more like a normal distribution, if perhaps a little heavy in the back end. Honestly, rounding like this makes a lot more sense when dealing with a distribution of a class, because without this kind of rounding, something similar to what your graph looks like can crop up. This also explains why many of the non-integer graphs look rather normal as well.

Something similar to the OP's graph can crop up with rounding more or less as easily. I think @StephanKolassa has already demonstrated how ordinary this is with histograms of small samples.


text:
How to treat a paper accepted at a conference and included in proceedings if I could not attend the conference?
Recently I had submitted a paper to a conference. It got accepted for presentation. But I could not attend the conference. However, I had registered for it and paid my participation fee. My paper has also been included in the conference proceeding.
My question is how will I treat this paper:

Can I include it as a conference paper in my CV?
Can I submit it to another conference?
Can I submit it to a journal for publication?

I understand that part of this question is highlighted in previous questions e.g. Am I allowed to submit to a journal, a paper that was accepted to a conference but not presented yet?, but I need a specific and straight forward answer.

If you want a clear answer, you need to communicate with the conference organizers. At this point, it's possible that the paper will be retracted from the proceedings (then it counts as unpublished) or will remain in the proceedings (then it counts as published).

If it's published in the conference proceedings, it's published.

You can list it as a conference publication in your CV.
You can't publish it again in conference proceedings.
Regarding publishing it (or an extended version) in a journal, see Under what circumstances can one republish a conference paper/presentation? especially this answer.

"If it's published in the conference proceedings, it's published." In case of an electronic publication, the editors might still retract the publication.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What are turnaround times like in Finance, Financial Economics, Economics / Econometrics journals?
What are turnaround times like in Finance, Financial Economics, Economics / Econometrics journals?
I would be among at least a 1000 other aspirants looking to publish in quality journals. There seems to be no feedback/survey about how long the review process takes and what to expect as feedback for journals in this/these fields

Here is a wiki where people report Econ journal turnaround times: https://www.econjobrumors.com/journals.php

The individual journals also publish their stats. Here are Econometrica stats: http://www.econometricsociety.org/sites/default/files/reports/Report%20of%20Editors%202014-2015.pdf

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


text:
Is there a rule for repeated letters when creating acronyms/initialisms/abbreviations?
I'm writing my master thesis and I've created an initialism that has the letter S repeated three times in a row (the initialism is OSSSP and stands for Optimization Search Space Scope Parameters). In my opinion, the constant repetition of letters in initialisms, abbreviations, and acronyms makes them look ugly, but I couldn't find a well-accepted rule for what to do in such scenarios.
Turn my initialism in something like 'OS3P' is an option, but it seems to be naive and informal. If I knew how to do it for this specific case, choosing synonyms to replace the original expression would be an option too. Any other thoughts on this?

How about OSP = "Optimization Scope Parameters"?

Would you consider "Parameterized Optimal Search Space" or POSS? Now that I see it in writing, I can't recommend it. But perhaps you'll find it amusing.

The problem with OS3P is that some people may believe it is a shorthand for OSPPP. For example, in France, C2I stands for "Certificat Informatique et Internet".

Are there any existing, similar abbreviations in common use, in your field? Avoiding confusion is probably more important than looking pretty.

Turn my initialism in something like 'OS3P' is an option, but it seems to be naive and informal.

There's no rule against such kind of initialisms, and I wouldn't consider it naive either. Actually, there are standards designated in similar ways, e.g. the I2C and I2S data busses, also spelled I2C and I2S.

+1 Similar acronyms occur in names of well-known tech organizations and much-cited research papers. Also: i18n.

IMO the superscript notation is a little better. But really, when it becomes famous people will get used to whatever you call it :) There's a well-known algorithm in mathematics called the LLL-algorithm (after its three creators' initials) and we're fine with the triple L.

If you pick a superscript, be prepared that 99.9..% of the time it will be written without the superscript (except for official documentation I'd think) - at which point why bother in the first place?

I doubt there's a rule. I agree that OSSSP is ugly. "OSP" for "optimum search parameters" with the full five word meaning when you first define it should work fine.

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


text:
Submitting more than three letters of recommendation to a math PhD program
I will likely be applying for PhD programs in mathematics. Several of the schools I intend to apply to state that they require ‘a minimum of 3 letters’. Presently, I have three solid letters from well known professors in my current institution, as well as a fourth letter from a professor from a different institution, with whom I’ve conducted research. Is it acceptable if I send four letters to these programs? Will it have any sizable positive/negative impact on the application? My main reason for sending the fourth letter, is because I feel it would highlight a specific research experience, and add credibility. Thanks!

If it says "a minimum of 3 letters" then you should be allowed to send a centillion letters, especially if they are serious about mathematics.

When you wrote "a minimum" did you actually mean "a maximum"?

@md2perpe A set can have only one member, and it will have a minimum.  So, I don't see how they would be less serious about mathematics if they only wanted 3 letters.

I don't get this at all (the question, and most of the answers). What is unambiguous about "a minimum of three letters"? Of course you can send four letters!

@RedGrittyBrick No, I meant a ‘minimum’ as the question states.

The first criterion, of course, is that if a particular institution's application intsructions communicate that only three letters should be sent, then abide by that. For the ones that say "at least three" or the like:
To be honest, in practice it really depends on the internal details of each university's application storage system and how it lets reviewers view applicants' files—and this can vary wildly from place to place. At my institution, if you have four letters of recommendation, they will all be visible when I look at your file. In other places, their online portal might have specific spots for three letters and no more (I would hope such institutions would make it clear in their instructions that only three letters should be sent).
As someone who has reviewed graduate applications for nearly twenty years, I can tell you that if my file system allows me to see the letters, I will read all the letters if I am interested in an applicant. (Well, I probably wouldn't read ten letters … but certainly four.) If you have reasons to believe that the letters will offer complementary perspectives on your excellence, I would use them all.

Thanks for your response. That makes sense. The only reason I want to send the fourth letter, is that one of the schools states that it does not go through one’s research work, and any such work should be mentioned in one’s SOP and letters of recommendations. Given that the SOP is one’s own word and thus not the most reliable, I think letters addressing this are a better option.

I would think that the fourth letter (the person you've conducted research with at a different institution) may actually be one of the most relevant ones, and maybe you should prioritise it over the other 3 (if you apply anywhere that limits the number of letters)

@DavidW Thanks for your response. I certainly agree that a recommendation from a faculty from an outside institution could help. However, I cannot forsake sending the other three letters, as they are simply too strong. Also, they have connections at the institutions I intend to apply to. I think I should only send the fourth letter to a handful of schools, which accept more than 3.

A problem you might encounter if they will only accept three and you send more, is that the might just ignore or throw out some of them. They might throw out the ones(s) you most want them to keep in such a case.
Unless you hear otherwise from an institution, stick to their requirements.
Some of the rules are to limit the work they have to do in evaluation, and some of it is just establishing fair rules for all applicants.

Thanks for your response. I just felt that this would add another dimension to my application, explaining the external research I conducted. Some of the schools state they at least need 3 letters. This could be construed as allowing more than 3 right?

@Geometer in that case I would assume they would read your 3 weakest letters and bin the rest.

How would they gauge that without having chosen the letters first?

@emory It is kind of a CS way to think about it, them reading the three worst letters out of the four is the worst-case scenario. That it could happen warrants consideration.

@Geometer They would not, but if it is their policy to only read 3 letters then you surrended an element of control to a random process.  I really think you should ask them.  If they are not going to read more than 3 letters then send them your 3 strongest letters.  If they will read more than 3 letters, it is more complicated.

You should email the institution to which you are applying and ask their graduate admissions team if they would accept more than three letters. Whether it’s acceptable, irrelevant, or above a threshold to send more than 3 letters is subject to the preferences of the institution to which you are applying.

Thanks for your response. Some websites list that they allow more than 3 letters. I was just concerned about whether this would harm the application, as I don’t control the relative strength of the fourth letter.

Do not email if the answer is in the instructions, as stated in the question.

@AnonymousPhysicist Yes, I don’t think I should. Emailing unnecessarily might hurt my application.

Having worked in various universities in all sorts of different roles, from being a systems programmer to teaching etc., I would go to the department's office at first. These are the people who send out letters, open the mail and, usually, are the ones who calm down students who are late with submissions - although they can't and won't break the rules.

In fact I would phone them. Or even visit! I did this a few times and
by making a personal connection I had a running start. For example I
visited one institution without any appointment. Someone asked if they
could help me. It turned out that they were a senior member on my
interview panel and were impressed by my making the effort. I got the job and had many enjoyable years.

Phone call
"Hello, I'm sure you are busy so I hope you don't my asking. I'm planning to apply for X and I notice that three letters of recommendation are asked for. Would it be unusual to submit four?"
Anyone who has worked in that office for less than a year will ask a more experienced staff member.
Either they will answer or they will tell you who is best to talk to. This will most likely be the lecturer/prof who is  overall responsible for intake.
Say: "Oh I don't want to bother them. Do you think it would be alright?"
There is a good chance they will arrange a brief phone conversation with the person. You will end up discussing your aims and interests as well as mere conventions.
Important
If you meet indifference or even hostility at any point when asking for information, this will tell you something something about the department and how it is run. Personally I would only want to go to a friendly place and would cross anything else off my list.
By contacting and talking to people, you change from being paperwork to being a human being. They will notice your application when it lands on their desk.

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


text:
Were the duration of Bachelor's, Master's and PhD degrees different in the U.S. 100 years ago?
Given that there were much less to learn 100 years ago, was the duration of degrees shorter then than it is now?

Actually there was never "much less to learn". People just learned different things than now. Lots of things that Henri Poincaré learned, you don't need to learn. In fact, 100,000 years ago, humans had the same mental facilities that we do. But they had different concerns and so learned different things. How to hunt Woolly Mammoth, for example. No degree programs then, I suspect.

From my alumni magazine, a bachelors was 4 years then, still 4 years now. A masters was 1 or 2 years, same as today. It would seem that PhDs in, say, physics, were somewhat shorter on average (3-5 years, not 5-7ish). Why? Hard to say for sure.

@JonCuster, even 60 years ago, you could earn a doctorate post bachelors in 4 years. It was pretty much standard. I'd have done it had I had a more helpful advisor. But I had a grant, so didn't need to TA.

@Buffy - indeed, directly doing a PhD after a bachelors was doable in 4 years in many fields. It is kind of unclear just why things have lengthened, but part of it might be that the demand for PhDs was not being met by the supply (in general).

Hard to say, exactly. There were lots of TAs back then and they may have taken longer than 4. But in some fields, it might have been a ramp up in demand and more students meant that less accessible research problems had to be introduced. Harder problems so longer to find solutions. There was a lot going on in math back then. New fields opening. New ways of thought. I don't know of any research on this.

Thee may even have been an effect that an influx of new faculty meant less experience on average so more likely that their students wouldn't get the help that the previous (smaller) generation had.

@Buffy - I'm on the physics/materials side, and I can recall several examples of people getting a PhD in ~4 years, publishing perhaps one or two papers, becoming a professor at a major university, and having a long, if not well published, career afterwards. Certainly post-war there was a large demand to staff up. Pre-war there just weren't really that many PhDs being awarded.

Don't forget the moon program and the NDEA funding. It ended when we beat the "Ruskies" to the moon.

In the UK, all PhD have a 4 year time limit...

"there were much less to learn 100 years ago" doesn't make sense. In the last 100 years there has been a lot of knowledge added to what is known, so in theory at least, there was actually more to learn 100 years ago.  But in practice, the amount of unknown knowledge that PhD students can discover was, and is, effectively infinite.

Interesting question, but the scope is too broad.  In Australia, the first PhDs was awarded in 1948.  So, yes, the degrees offered were different 100 years ago.  Maybe narrow down to a single country?  Many countries have seen changes owing to Bologna process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_Process

In the U.S., the Ph.D. is longer now on average, especially in the sciences because of the influx of money for paid research, the use of grad students to do research, professors as almost pure managers and grant funders versus real working scientists, etc. It has become something like Renaissance painting done by subordinates.  Except I still think the painters got their hands dirty and gave instruction.
There is almost no apprenticeship in R1 science from the professor, just other students and perhaps post docs. It is essentially about milking the grad student for results to get more grants, travel, promotions, grow the empire, etc.  Thus the expectation for work product has gone up.  Add onto that, that the money has enabled way more actual Ph.D.s to exist, but not increased the number of geniuses in the population and fundamental advances are if anything harder as simple much of the low hanging fruit is plucked.  And you have a situation of volume of result being emphasized.  Not the trainee education.
And enjoy the job market at the end...
All that said, if you sniff around you can find profs or even departments that still emphasize the classic 4 years.  But you will have to search. It is abnormal now.

I would argue that on average these degrees take longer now, so yes, they would be shorter back then. Why do I say this? Because today there are many students who might take internships for a year, many students take longer because of more distractions available to them, more institutions exist now, and because supervisors typically have substantially more administrative tasks they are responsible for now suggests that it’s more likely supervisors also have less time now to give to their graduate students then they did 100 years ago.
I don’t know if “there’s so much more to learn now” is as solid as the reasons that I have suggested. Yes, there is more to learn, but it doesn’t mean everything is relevant to learn. We also have tools to significantly boost our productivity in order to manage that intense growth of knowledge (think how much just one computer screen can boost productivity, let alone 2-3 of them).
These reasons, among others, are probably factors that would contribute to longer graduation times.


text:
Does it matter who your thesis examiner is?
I am a MS (research) student and recently finished writing my thesis. I have put a lot of time into it and tried to make it explanatory. At my institute, the advisor names five external tutors to review the thesis, among which one is chosen by the dean. My advisor asked me if I had suggestions and I suggested a few names. The people that I suggested are researchers working in the field on which most of my thesis work is based, and with whom I have previous interactions on account of my graduate position.
However, my advisor suggested that I avoid some of these people and instead made some suggestions of his own. Now, the names he suggested are people that are hardly related to my field; one of them, for instance, is an experimentalist working far from my field. I have a little doubt on their credibility as well.
When I told him this, and pointed out the effort that I have put in writing the thesis (and therefore, I would prefer if someone really went through the content, not just superficially write the report), he said it doesn't matter who the external reviewer is and that it is better if one sends the thesis to someone who can write the report quickly and doesn't delay the process. My advisor pointed out that the fact that one has put effort into writing one's thesis doesn't necessarily mean that reviewer will also put in much effort. They have their own affairs and the more famous they are, the more time it would take to get a report. He added that if someone does find the work interesting, they will read it, anyway.
I do agree with some of his points; nevertheless, I would still prefer not to send the thesis to a reviewer who will possibly not read it and would only write a superficial  report.
Does it matter who your external reviewer is for you MS or PhD thesis?

I think the answer to this will very much depend on what system the student is working in.

In which country? PhD systems are wildly different in how assessment is done.

When you ask if the examiner matters - in what dimension are you thinking? Are you asking if people will know in the future who your examiner was? (no) Or are you asking if the questions they make may vary considerably? (most surely yes)

@IanSudbery How do you mean 'system the student is working in'?

@JackAidley I am talking about in India, but the question I'm posing is generic.

@YoungKindaichi The question may be, but the answer isn't. It depends on the role the thesis examiner has in the system in question.

@RicardoCruz In both sense, since I assume that the choice of external would matter  in terms of how the thesis is reviewed.

@YoungKindaichi - I basically meant which which country. It does matter - the role of the external examiner is very important in, say, the UK and similar systems. Other countries, the external examienr is basically a rubber stamp, and the defense more of a ritual and a celebration than something it is exepected some people will fail, which yet other countries, such as the US, don't have external examiners.

Examining MS theses is all work and no play for the examiners. The only reason to agree to be an external examiner is because you are going to need external examiners for your own students, and are trading favours. The only person this thesis is important to is you, I'm afraid.

Yes it matters for PhD thesis, my internal examiner was a nightmare.

Finding good examiners is certainly important, but there are a number of aspects to this:

Does the person have the right expertise? You want someone who is well-placed to understand what you've done.
Are they reliable? If they don't complete the task properly and on time, your graduation and future plans may be impacted.
Will they have realistic expectations? You need someone who has a sensible perspective on the standard of work that is normal for your career stage, and who is not going to focus unduly on minor details.1
Do they understand the local context? Systems differ from country to country and from institution to institution. You don't want someone who misunderstands their role, or who does not appreciate the parameters under which you are working (e.g. the resources that have been available to you).
Do they have influence? Examiners are well-placed to write references for you in the future, and if they are impressed by your work they may even be proactive in sending opportunities your way. This may be an opportunity to build a connection to someone who you think might help you in your future career.
Are they likely to say yes? Sure, it would be cool to have a Nobel laureate as your examiner, but they probably have better things to do than read random MS theses. There is usually an implied quid pro quo in selecting examiners, i.e. the people who examine your supervisor's students are the people who might plausibly ask your supervisor to examine theirs. This may imply both geographic and 'institutional quality' constraints.

The relative importance of these factors may vary from case to case. A good examiner for a strong student may not be the right choice for a weak student; similarly, a student destined for a career in industry may have distinct considerations from a student hoping to stay in academia.

1 We've all heard stories about that examiner, who feels that your thesis cannot be passed until it contains no instances of an Oxford comma, or any data points plotted in the colour red.

Worse when they're from Oxford and they don't want the Oxford comma.

Does that imply that examiners from Cambridge can be assumed a priori to hate Oxford commas?

I think the answer to this is that it depends on the system/country you are working in.
In the UK, generally, PhD theses, but not masters theses are examined by external examiners.
Does it make a difference who they are? Yes and No.
Going forward, no one will know who your examiners were, and you won't get extra kudos for being examined by well known practitioners. Once you have graduated, the only people who will remember who your examiners were will be you, your supervisor, and perhaps the examiner.
Things to consider:

People will have different reputations for how they approach exams. Some people might have a reputation for being unfair or unduly critical in an exam or flat out refuse to believe something that contradicts their prior beliefs.
People who are deeply into a field might be more likely to get hung up on small technical details, and miss the big picture.
People within the field are likely to know where you might have buried the skeletons (so to speak).
People less into a field may not appreciate the importance of the work.
People from outside the field may spend their whole exam questioning you on things that turn out to be basic assumptions within the field. This can be both refreshing (if you like reexamining unspoken assumptions), or annoying (if you feel it gets in the way of talking about what is important).
The exam is a time to show off your work to a senior colleague. If your work is particularly good (or bad), you might make an impression on the examiner that might come in useful (or the opposite) in your career.

In general, I would suggest that you pay serious attention to who your advisor selects, as they are likely to have knowledge of the reputation for how one examiner or another approaches an exam. It may also be that they have a good knowledge of who is likely to agree to do the exam. Perhaps he has no personal relationship with the people you have suggested, but the people he suggested owe him a favour.

People from outside the field may spend their time "questioning you on basic assumptions" -- or, worse, misunderstand the basic assumptions and spend the whole exam arguing at cross-purposes with the candidate. Yes, I've seen it happen.

I agree with this answer. In math, in the USA, it doesn't matter. We do have committees for both PhD and MS, and sometimes committee members are natural choices for letters of recommendation, but the key to choosing a committee is someone who won't flake out, who understands the point of being on the committee, and who has enough knowledge to assess the work. Some advisors want to pass through students who haven't really done enough work, so the committee can be a check against that (or, in the other direction, against an advisor who wants to keep a student forever, who has done enough).

I don't know what school or even what country you are in, and these things vary (even by department).  But I've been a statistical consultant to grad students getting PhDs in various fields at various schools in the US.
Based on my experience, your advisor is right. Further, he knows his school and department very well. Not only much better than anyone answering the question possibly could, but, almost certainly, better than you do.
If "advisor" in your system is like "mentor" here, then he needs to understand your thesis very well. But other examiners do not.  Your thesis should be reasonably comprehensible to anyone in your department.
What you want to avoid is precisely the sort of thing that your advisor notes. You don't want someone who will just sit on your work and not read it and need constant nagging. You also really want to avoid a clash of personalities. I went to one progress meeting (an intermediate stage in a dissertation) where one professor told the student to shorten their work a lot and another told them to add a lot!  It turns out those two professors really didn't like each other and often clashed. Your advisor will know about these things. You don't want your thesis to be the tennis ball that gets batted back and forth!

I don't know the system that you are working in, but I am answering on the assumption that it is similar to choosing the external examiner for a PhD or MRes in the UK.
Yes, the choice of examiner is important. Their knowledge of the field (and hence interest in your work) is an important point - but it is not the only important point. You also need somebody who is not so busy that it takes you months to find a spot in their diary to arrange the exam. You want somebody who is going to be prompt with feedback and not give you more months of delay while they write up their report. You also want somebody who is rigorous but kind; not somebody who will let you off with shoddy work, but also not somebody who has unrealistic expectations at the level you are at or somebody who enjoys the power trip of being an examiner.
It is possible that your supervisor is taking some of these other considerations into account. And in the latter case, if one of your suggested examiners is known in the community to be a jerk who will give you an unnecessarily hard time, your supervisor may not feel able to share this with you.
Of course, the actual reasons might be different again!

TLDR : Yes, it does.
You should keep in mind that you are examined by the committee in different ways. During examination, the questions would be asked both for the sake of examining you and also for the sake of the examiners' own understanding. Every examiner is different and you cannot and should not attribute one statement for all the examiners. And it is possible and common as well that one or more examiners in the committee are not directly related to your field. In that case, the higher chances are that they would pass you and ask questions just for your understanding. Some general questions pertain to your field might be asked to check your general knowledge about the topic. So, don't be afraid to face the examiners because you are there to defend everything in your thesis not anything outside that.

It is important and be grateful that your advisor takes care of this aspect!
Usually, people try to avoid conflicts to make the exam not more difficult as it already is. Rivalries or past disputes between your advisor and potential examiners must be avoided. Your advisor might know people how ask unfair questions or will highlight their own research by asking related question, which you might have a hard time answering.
To be clear: This is not about letting students of befriended advisors pass and give the favor back later. It is minimizing the negative impact of department politics you should not be affected in the first place.


text:
What is the meaning of 'six-week course'?
Edit: I found the answer. In the preface to the english edition it says

This book is a translation from the orginal Chinese text of notes based
on a six-week course on algebraic curves and Riemann surfaces taught at
Beijing University in 1982.

However, in the English Translation of the Preface to the Chinese Edition it says

In the summer of 1982,1 had the honor of teaching a course on algebraic
curves at Beijing University. The course met six hours a week for a period
of six weeks. This book is a thoroughly edited version of the notes taken
during this course.

So this is like 3 hours a week for a period of 12 weeks so about 1 semester then.
I accidentally checked the english translation to the preface to the chinese edition around based on user111388's question 'Are those numbers from Chinese university terms?' Thank you, user111388.

I'm planning to self-study Phillip A. Griffiths - Introduction to algebraic curves and am wondering about how long it would take to finish. I can reasonably estimate how long this book would take to finish if said book was used in some university and is expected to be completed in a semester.
In the preface of this book, it says:

based on a six-week course on algebraic curves and Riemann surfaces taught at
Beijing University in 1982.

I understand a regular semester to take about 16 weeks and a summer semester to be about 6 weeks, but I'm not sure if the above quote refers to 3/8-ths of a regular semester or a full summer semester.
Context: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3724134/ordinarily-how-long-does-it-take-to-complete-phillip-a-griffiths-introductio

This could be a "full" course delivered in a short period of time, perhaps meeting every day all day, or a "short" course meeting less often. There is no way to tell from the description here. Ask the university.

Or ask Griffiths; he's alive.

@NateEldredge ok. thanks. i was just thinking there wouldn't be a need to because there's already an indication of 6 weeks in the preface. some prefaces will usually say that the text is/n't good for a semester.

@BryanKrause oh man/girl, thanks so much for the edit! There's no self-learning tag here unlike in maths se.

@JohnSmithKyon (he/his/him for me) Yes, like on the other stack, I expect people to initially expect you are asking to try to determine whether this book is a good choice for a particular term length you plan to teach, rather than self-study, so it's pretty important to include the reason you are asking in your question. I'd heed the comments on your closed question that suggest the answer might not be as important if you are self-studying. If you plan for a certain pace and that pace is either too slow or impossible for you to learn, you have freedom to adjust. Good luck.

@BryanKrause Thanks for the support! :) But it is about 1 semester right?

@JohnSmithKyon I'd refer you to JonCuster's answer and the comments here and on your other question.

@BryanKrause Right. someone there said 1 semester, so i just guess 1 sem. thanks!

@JohnSmithKyon: Please don't edit your question to embed your answer.  Posting as an answer (which you've already done) is sufficient.

I found the answer. In the preface to the english edition it says

This book is a translation from the orginal Chinese text of notes based
on a six-week course on algebraic curves and Riemann surfaces taught at
Beijing University in 1982.

However, in the English Translation of the Preface to the Chinese Edition it says

In the summer of 1982,1 had the honor of teaching a course on algebraic
curves at Beijing University. The course met six hours a week for a period
of six weeks. This book is a thoroughly edited version of the notes taken
during this course.

So this is like 3 hours a week for a period of 12 weeks so about 1 semester then.
I accidentally checked the english translation to the preface to the chinese edition around based on user111388's question 'Are those numbers from Chinese university terms?' Thank you, user111388.

It is not uncommon for visiting scholars/professors to give a short high-intensity course during their period of visit. These have little relation to the usual/normal university semester/summer schedule since they are (1) tied to the limited visit of somebody, and (2) aimed at people not burdened by classes on the normal schedule (not undergraduates or early grad students in the US).
I have seen these as a full day once a week, half days several times a week - whatever can fit into the schedules of the visitor and the pool of people who want to take the course.

So what's the answer? 6 weeks regular i.e. 3/8? (where students attend 3 hours a week for a 3 unit course) or 6 weeks summer? (where students attend 5-6 times a week with 1.5 hrs each or something)

Whatever fits the material and student schedules.


text:
Can auditing students attend consultation hours?
Assume a university allows students to audit classes informally, so they're not enrolled and don't pay, but they attend classes anyway. Obviously, no one has obligation to allow these students to attend anything and therefore doesn't even have the obligation to check their exams and such.
In case this is relevant, my intention is for math classes.
(12 hours ago, I was rejected for a math PhD program, and the professor told me I could audit. I told the professor that 6 months ago I asked the math department if I could, but it said no. The professor told me "Don't ask; just go!" The professor suggested I audit some classes and try to do some of the classwork. I didn't think of many questions about this, but I think I won't go since the commute is 4 hours by train or 70 us dollars by taxi, and I can ask all my questions on stackexchange anyway. Thank God for the Internet)
I don't think students really learn from just attending the classes even if they ask questions in class. Exams of course are great ways to learn, but what I had in mind is asking further questions either during the professor's consultation hours or in further auditing the teaching assistant's tutorial classes.
It sounds like the questions of auditing students in class, tutorial or consultations is taking up time that could instead be used for the registered students, but I think anyone who speaks up is making a contribution by asking something anyone could wonder. Therefore, the professor or teaching assistant could clarify to the rest of the class before anyone else would ask, which actually saves time.
(I don't want to first ask the professor because it might be disrespectful if the answer is a definite no anywhere in the world. If the answer here is maybe/yes/double check with the university/go ahead and ask the professor/"Don't go; just ask", then I will be inclined to ask the professor)

Have you asked the professors teaching the courses if you can audit their class, or just a different professor?

@BryanKrause Thank you! The professor in the parentheses invited me to audit his class that starts next month. There, I don't believe he'll prevent me from consultations. He suggested other classes, that also start next month, to audit, but he is not teaching those. I have not asked those professors; I do not even know the professors yet.

@Buffy Why don't you post that as an answer instead of a comment? Thank you!

Auditing is a formal relationship between you and the university. — Yes, but sitting in a room where there just happens to be a lecture (and empty seats) is not.

@Buffy Did you mean "informal" instead?

@JeffE I think Buffy meant "informal". I could have confused her with a previous version. Thank you!

No formal. You pay some money to the university for an "audit" and you get a line in your transcript for the course that says so. No grade is assigned.

@Buffy I didn't mean that kind of audit. I mean attend without pay, whether or not sanctioned.

Universities have a definition of it. If you use the word differently you just confuse things.

Since it hasn't yet been mentioned in an official answer, let me note here that, in the US, at least, auditing is a formal relationship between a student and the university. You need to pay for the privilege of sitting in on a course as if you were a regular student. You get a line in your transcript marking the course as audited and receive no grade. Whether you are allowed to take exams (for no grade) or not depends on things, perhaps just on the professors willingness to grade them. If the course is a large lecture, with break-out sections, you are probably permitted to attend these as well and ask questions as any other student would. Among other things, formal registration allows the professor to get an official list of who should be present in the classroom.
Actually, a professor could get in some trouble for letting you sit in with no registration of any kind. Not only are you taking up resources that others are paying for, there are liability issues. If you are hurt in some way, or have a grievance, or if you harm another student when the university doesn't know about your presence, the situation can be quite dire.
I think it is a mistake for a professor (in the US) to permit this. But if they permit it, they will probably also permit you to come to smaller sections, though you will be consuming even more time that should be devoted to others. But, I think, an individual professor permitting this without the knowledge of the university is a poor, possibly dangerous, practice.
However, the question of "taking up resources" is a delicate and subtle issue. If such a student asks a question in such a situation are they "consuming resources" or are they "contributing to the class"? Normally, my view is the latter. Questions from students contribute to the learning of everyone, provided they are properly thought out. This is true independent of the official status of the student.
I'll also note that in the past (maybe in the present) in at least a few graduate schools, a math student would never consider taking an advanced course unless they had (officially) audited it first - possibly more than once. In such places, such courses can be extremely rigorous, so you want a heads up (and practice on exercises) before you take the course "at risk" (i.e. for a grade). Part of that was just student paranoia and obsession over grades, but the courses were very rigorous requiring a lot of self-learning.

Speaking only to your last paragraph, as someone who completed a mathematics PhD in 2014, I have never heard of graduate students auditing every advanced course before taking them for credit. I have no data to back this up but I'd be very surprised if this was a widespread practice.

@GregoryJ.Puleo, no, certainly not wide-spread. I said "a few graduate schools". I was never tempted to do that as I went to a more reasonable place. Hmmm. There was one course, though, ...

Indeed, I didn't mean to imply that you were calling it widespread. Since it holding in "at least a few graduate schools" is at least consistent with the practice being widespread, and since I also don't know how widespread the practice was prior to my own grad school experience, I figured it was worth chiming in.

The easiest answer to this would be to simply ask the lecturer. A simple "Hi, I'm auditing this class, is it ok if I drop by your office to ask a few questions during office hours, if you have time?" would probably suffice. If the lecturer doesn't mind, then you're good to go.
I would probably not agree to auditing students attending office hours/tutorials, especially in large classes. Generally speaking, auditing classes is fine, as long as you do not put additional strain on the lecturer/course apparatus. If I start accepting office hours from one auditing student, I'll have to do so from all of them. If my guest students start attending tutorials and take up other students' time from actual registered students, I would probably intervene.
This is me, and other lecturers can have different attitudes towards their auditing students. The best thing to do is to ask.

Good enough for me. I may consider asking the aforementioned professor then, but maybe after Christmas.

@JackBauer To start you should also really get permission from any individual professor to audit their course in the first place. "Auditing" a class doesn't mean you just show up these days, you typically have permission to be there. I think Spark wrote this answer with the assumption you were part of a formal auditing process, which normally means you are A) a paying student, but B) not getting course credit for this particular class.

Yep, auditing students should probably be registered to the institution. If not - it's really up to the professor unless someone complains about you. If some other student calls you out to the admin, you're out, and the professor will have a meeting with admin...

Spark and @BryanKrause I didn't I say I was going to just do it or wasn't going to ask anyone. I said I would ask the aforementioned professor. I guess I would ask the professors of the classes as well. Anyway, this is probably pointless because the commute is too long or expensive. Thank you!

@JackBauer Understood, just wanted you to make sure you knew that you should first ask the professor whether you can audit their course, rather than starting with whether you can attend office hours, etc, and certainly not starting by stating "I am auditing your class..." if you, you know, aren't.

@BryanKrause HAHAHA thank you! That would be so awkward or presumptuous. I think I wouldn't have ended up in that situation though.


text:
Psychiatrist from whom I requested documentation doesn't believe in accommodations for adults with ADHD/"hyperkinetic disorder" taking meds
Update (October 24/25):

You were approved for 50% extended time, breaks, water in the testing room, separate room, pens for scratch work, and extra scratch paper

Update (October 12/13):

Please be advised, you have been registered for the exam, while we work on reviewing your accommodation request. If approved you will be testing with accommodations for the exam. Please wait for the email decision letter from our review department.

TL;DR
- I'm planning to take the GRE Subject Test in Math on Saturday October 29, 2016 in Country A to boost my profile for PhD applications.

I have ADHD, which I discovered in August 2015.
I am planning to request reasonable accommodations for the GRE Subject Test in Math.
I have recently moved to Country A from Country B.
**ETS has advised me to submit documentation from both psychiatrists.
My Country B psychiatrist is amenable to writing me the disability documentation, but my Country A psychiatrist is not.**
I am unluckily the recipient of one of those doctors who (practically) doesn't believe ADHD exists
I am not likely going to get another psychiatrist in time to submit the required documentation (disability documentation takes 6 weeks to review; I am planning to submit on Saturday September 3, 2016).
How can I appeal to ETS for reasonable accommodations without disability documentation from my current psychiatrist?

Any advice on my dilemma would be highly appreciated.

Through this question which is of academic origin but somewhat medico-legal in nature,  I hope that I may get advice.
I wanted to keep myself anonymous, but it looks like I will have to reveal aspects about myself in order to get advice.
My Background
I am a citizen of Country B and a permanent resident of Country A: I was born in Country A and lived in Country A for sometime until I moved to Country B (my parents are originally from Country B) for some time because we could not afford the cost of living in Country A. Eventually in 2013, we were able to afford the cost of living in Country A again and so we moved back to Country A. However I stayed in Country B to complete my master's degree which I finished this year (June 2016). I moved back to Country A last month (July 2016).
I was not treated for ADHD until last year: I was diagnosed by a psychologist in Country A in January 2000 but started treatment only in August 2015. I was not taking any classes at that time; I was in Country A having online consultations with a psychiatrist in Country B. At the same time I was under the care of a psychologist in Country A.
First time in school as an ADHD student: In January 2016, I went back to Country B to resume my masters studies and was under the care of a different Country B psychiatrist from January 2016 until July 2016 (6 months). At the same time, I was having online consultations with my Country A psychologist. This was my final semester as a masters student of mathematical finance and the first semester where I appealed for accommodations.
I was granted accommodations in my university: I submitted documentation from my Country B psychiatrist and my Country A psychologist to support my appeals for reasonable accommodations. My university doesn't have a disability office (I don't think any university in Country B has a disability office because it's third world). so while I was granted accommodations of using a timer while taking exams and taking an exam in a separate room, I was denied extra time. So I spoke to a lawyer and the head of the counselling office and appealed to the dean of student services and the dean of sciences which led me to be assessed by a third party psychiatrist (to substitute for not having a disability office) to qualify for extra time on examinations and projects.  Specifically, I requested and was granted 1/3 extra time on exams.
My current dilemma:
I moved back to Country A in July 2016 and am living with my family.  I have been under the care of a new psychiatrist in a public hospital and my original Country A psychologist.
The hospital in Country A where I am currently going for consultations does not treat ADHD (or "hyperkinetic disorder"*). I was told that they treated only "mild" mental disorders. So when I moved to Country A in July 2016, I was immediately referred to a different hospital. Unfortunately, I can't start having consultations until October, 2016.
Not having time to ask about the GRE in my last visit, I asked my current (Country A) psychiatrist just today if he would have problems writing me disability documentation.  I explained to him my exam difficulties that led me to be assessed as qualifying for 1/3 extra time by the third party (Country B) psychiatrist, and showed the documentation from my own Country B psychiatrist, my Country A psychologist and the third party (Country B) psychiatrist. The Country A psychiatrist indicated he would have a problem writing me disability documentation. From what I remember, the opinion is that granting reasonable accommodations applies mainly to primary school/grade school students, not so much to secondary school/high school students and almost never to adults with ADHD. His view is that my difficulties are shared by normal people and that everyone gets distracted, anxious or has time management problems.
To be absolutely clear, it is not the case that my current (Country A) psychiatrist acknowledges the need for reasonable accommodations for people with ADHD and deems me as not qualifying for such.
Rather, my current (Country A) psychiatrist does not acknowledge the need for reasonable accommodations for people with ADHD.
I asked to be referred to a different psychiatrist and was told that I already had been. The most he could write for me was a note certifying my diagnosis.
I believe I do not have the time, money or probability:

to have an appointment with a private psychiatrist,
to be referred to a different psychiatrist in my current hospital,
to move up my appointment in my soon-to-be-new hospital,
to make successful complaints to my hospital or to the Hospital Authority of Country A
to file a legal case or
to be allowed to submit disability documentation from my (Country A) psychologist

If I was living in Country B, I would just submit the documentation from my Country B psychiatrist who saw me for 6 months and that would be it. Unfortunately, my discovery of the GRE Subject Test in Math was in June 2016, I moved from one country to another and I again unluckily was the recipient of one of those doctors. Technically, the Country A psychiatrist is not one of those doctors that doesn't believe in ADHD, but might as well be. I have to put up with this for about two more consultations.
Anyway, I have to submit the documentation soon (again, Saturday September 3, 2016). How can I appeal to ETS given my situation? The only thing that comes to mind is explain what I just explained and then ask for the possibility of the following:

To submit documentation only from my Country B psychiatrist who saw me for 6 months (January 2016 - July 2016)
To submit documentation from my Country B psychiatrist who saw me for 6 months (January 2016 - July 2016) and my Country A psychologist

Again, any advice on my dilemma would be highly appreciated.

*Psychiatrist follows ICD not DSM. I didn't mention DSM initially but BrianDHall brilliantly deduced its relevance.

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

I think the most important part of the ETS documentation page is their conclusion:

ETS is committed to providing equal access to our assessments for all
  test takers. If you have been diagnosed with ADHD and believe you need
  accommodations for equal access during the standardized testing
  process, ETS will evaluate, individually, the information that you
  provide and will work with you to identify any additional documents we
  require to make a timely determination of your eligibility for
  accommodations. Of the many thousands of applicants who request
  accommodations every year, over 80 percent ultimately receive
  accommodations.

In short: provide them with what you have, give a short, professional description of any material request that you cannot obtain, and hope for the best. Either they will accommodate you (as ETS reports they do for "over 80 percent" of people "ultimately"), or they won't and you will not have extra time on the test - which will not necessarily prevent you from doing acceptably on the exam, but obviously isn't ideal.
First, give it your best shot with what you have. Give them as much of the paperwork requested as you can, such as including paperwork from the professional from Country B. You will want to be honest but very concise. If they requested info from the second provider and they only agree to confirm your diagnosis but nothing else, you may want to basically say "the provider has stated that they do not personally believe in adult accommodations for anyone, and can only confirm the diagnosis" - which may violate at least American norms for standard of care, but is not so strange as to be unbelievable at all.
For those not familiar with this area of psychology, note that the ETS specifically mentions the DSM 5, which is a standard for mental health diagnosis in the US - but is not universally well regarded or used outside the US (though is not at all unheard of). The ETS and GRE are US based, but they should be familiar with the issues of how non-US providers may view things like ADD/ADHD and their lack of support for the DSM 5.
You can basically hope for the best, but "prepare for the worst". They may simply deny your request, or require more paperwork that will mean that you can't take the test during your required period of time.
As for preparing for the worst, if you are only requesting a 1/3rd extra time on the test, it is very possible that you can still do acceptably on the test as is. You should prepare for the test as best as you can and may have no choice but to give it the best go you can and do as well as you can in spite of the non-ideal circumstances. Some people require far more drastic accommodations, such as having a personal reader, assistive technology, even more extra time, etc. These people would have no chance of completing the test without accommodations, so I guess it could help to think "well, it could be a lot worse".
To build your comfort you can download timed example test software from the ETS website, and simulate normal test taking conditions in the place of your choosing, for free. It will even give you an estimated, unofficial score. You may find it helpful to go ahead and give it a try to see how you can do, and to improve your test preparation. You can also have the software simulate 1/3rd extra time on the second example test, to test just how big of a difference it could potentially make for you and if it would be worth the extensive work and expense to try to delay taking the test and getting some kind of paperwork to get accommodations.
I wish you the best regardless, and I hope this can help you even a little.

Thank you BrianDHall :) Does violation of norms count as malpractice? I'm not in the US obviously, but what if an American doctor did that?

@BrianDHall, The DSM-5 is a bit flawed.  Like in my case, I was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome in 2011, but under DSM-5 all specific autism related diagnosis are now just "Autism Spectrum Disorders."  There are other missteps taken in the current version as well.

BrianDHall and @NZKshatriya Actually, I think ETS mentions ICD as well. That's what my previous psychiatrist was following. I think ICD uses hyperkinetic disorder while DSM uses ADHD

@NZKshatriya Wait what's up with the DSM/DSM-5/any DSM edition being flawed? I don't believe there's a section on reasonable accommodations for adult ADHD there

Actually BrianDHall, how did you know DSM vs ICD is relevant? I don't believe I mentioned anything like those in my post except in the hyperkinetic disorder part. What is your experience or extent of expertise (if you're a doctor or psychologist) or familiarity (if you're not a doctor with ADHD/ICD/the DSM?

@JackBauer  Yeah,  I am just going by personal experience with the DSM.  Lets see, Video Game Addiction is now a recognized disorder, and people can get disability for that......Aspergers Syndrome, and basically all other Autism related disorders have been folded into "Autism Spectrum Disorder."  That and the people involved in writing the DSMV had to sign a non-disclosure agreement so as to not be able to discuss what was going on.   DSM5 craziness     diagnostics manuals usually don't consider accommodations, from my experience.

@JackBauer Part of my education is in psychology, which included some practical psychological assessment (I'm not a clinician, nor training to be), one aspect of my research is in psychology (also not clinical), and I often advocate in this area for others with mental health-related issues. I've also come across people who believe that ADHD is over-diagnosed/abused in the US, and thus the ICD often comes up as it differs from the DSM - and your mention of multiple countries made me think at least one country probably didn't use the DSM.

@JackBauer And to your earlier question about malpractice, my understanding is that it's generally a pretty high bar - and notes from doctors/psychologists/psychiatrists requesting things like accommodations is often considered optional (they are generally free to refuse to issue any at all as it's not a standard of care that is strictly required of them). But IANAL either, so I can't say with any certainty - I've just never heard of such a thing being discussed as a useful measure in a situation like this.

@BrianDHall Thank you and by the way, I cannot believe: you're still an undergrad ?!


text:
When is it wrong to look at previous exams?
It is clear that if I study for an exam in 2014, then it should be okay to look at previous exams from the previous semester of 2014, exams from 2013, 2012, etc.
First question: Is it wrong, however, to look at previous exams within the same semester?
Example:
Let's say there are two classes (9:30-10:30 MWF and 12-1:30 TTh) for a subject (S101). Say I am in the TTh class and I have a friend in the MWF class. My friend takes the S101 exam on Monday. I am to take the S101 exam on Tuesday.
Is it wrong for my friend and I to discuss the S101 exam after e takes the S101 exam and before I take the S101 exam?
Here is what I am thinking:
It should NOT be wrong because the S101 exam on Tuesday should be different from the S101 exam on Monday since professors should expect that students will discuss it among themselves. If the professor makes identical exams, then this is unfair to the MWF class who do not have as much information as the TTh class who easily obtain information from the ones in the MWF class who tell them.
Second question:
Some of my friends say it is cheating while others do not. Our "Code of Academic Integrity" handbook makes no mention of such behavior or perhaps I misread it.
If the CoAI in fact fails to mention it while doing such is wrong, can students be faulted for doing such?

Related:

Are Identical Make-up Exams Fair?

When is it wrong for students to ask about previous exams known to change?

Why is it unethical to share the contents of an exam with students who haven't taken it yet?

Make Up Tests: Should I alter the questions?

This apparently varies a lot, but over here (Germany, university with STEM focus, CS department) we expect students to use old exams for preparation (as far as any are available). Basically, they should know what kind of problems they will be getting and use the larger pool of problems to train/test their skill.

@Raphael, including exams given to different sections of the same class  the day before? That's what this question is about. Exams from previous years are generally agreed to be fair game.

@NateEldredge That's nothing we do (and I fail to come up with reasons why anyone would think that it's a good idea) but if we did, I think we would have to assume that students in round k have information from round k-1 and earlier. Even students talk. (As it is, we typically have one exam per course and reading period.)

@Raphael "I think we would have to assume that students in round k have information from round k-1 and earlier. Even students talk" --> EXACTLY.

@NateEldredge: "different sections of the same class" - In a way, yes: The only comparable situation I could think of is oral exams, which naturally exhibit more variation than written exams, but that can still feature a few "central" questions that the examiner will ask each student. When such exams are scheduled e.g. in consecutive 30 minute slots, it is fully expected that student n will possibly have used an opportunity to talk to student n + 2 (or later). I would even say it is considered due diligence for student n + 2 to actively seek that talk with student n (or earlier).

A major principle of academic integrity is when in doubt, ask the professor.  Academic integrity codes cannot cover all possible cases, and it's expected that all parties will act reasonably and request clarification when it is needed.  You should not assume that "everything not explicitly forbidden is permitted", nor that "it is easier to ask forgiveness than permission."  The answer to your second question is absolutely yes.
The case you describe in your first question is sufficiently questionable that I don't think you should proceed without explicitly checking.  There is certainly the potential for this to be unfair to the Monday students who don't have the option of talking to anyone before taking the exam.  If several of your friends consider that this may be cheating, that's a clear warning sign.
There are a few possibilities:

The professor hasn't thought of this issue.
The professor has thought of it, and doesn't want students to do it, but is afraid that mentioning it will only encourage students who wouldn't otherwise have thought of it.
The professor has thought of it, but thinks it goes without saying that this is inappropriate.
The professor has thought of it, and has taken other steps to ensure that students can discuss the exam without inequity (e.g. giving completely different exams).

In case 1, it would be inappropriate for you to take advantage of the professor's oversight.  If you ask her about it, you might suggest that she make a policy and announce it explicitly.
Case 2 is perhaps a questionable decision on the professor's part, but in any case, by asking, you protect yourself from inadvertently running afoul of integrity rules.  See also Case 3.
In Case 3, you also protect yourself by asking.  Note that the university bodies that enforce academic integrity codes usually have no problem prosecuting students for doing things that they consider "obviously" inappropriate, even if no written rules explicitly forbid them.  And since they are usually composed in large part of professors, they are likely to have a similar sense of what is "obvious" to your professor.
In case 4, when you ask, you'll be told to go right ahead.
My own practice in such cases is to write on the Monday exam "You may not discuss this exam with anyone, not even to say whether it was easy or hard, until Tuesday at 1:30".  (In some cases I might weaken this to "anyone who has not yet taken it".)  I do this even if the exams will be significantly different, partly because I feel that any differential in available information is a potential inequity, and partly so as not to tip my hand as to whether the exams will be similar or not.  But as I said, you should not interpret the absence of such a warning as permission.

One way to mitigate damage, at the cost of more work, is to prepare three exams and release one of them chosen randomly before hand.

Nate, you seem to assume that the professor has such authority over the class? If the code of academic integrity does not say it is wrong but the professor says it is wrong, then it seems to be that the professor is superseding the the code? Furthermore, why is it that exams from previous years are fair game while exams from a few days ago are not? I mean, the professor could say exams from previous years are not fair game right?

"I do this even if the exams will be significantly different, partly because I feel that any differential in available information is a potential inequity" --> Why not make an exam on the assumption that information WILL leak? If you don't do so, it seems you are not doing everything you can to make ensure equity.

@BCLC: In my experience, generally the professor does have such authority.  The academic integrity codes I've seen generally do not have an exhaustive list of forbidden conduct; they let each professor specify what is and isn't permitted in each class.  It's entirely possible that a professor could prohibit the use of exams from previous years; I don't use this rule in the classes I teach, but I have taken classes where this was prohibited.

@BCLC: As to "make exam on assumption that information will leak": It's a tradeoff.  The best way to do that would be to make the exams very different, but this risks accidentally introducing inequity if one turns out to be significantly more difficult than the other (this is harder to avoid than you might think, at least for me).

By what authority does a professor have to forbid looking at exams from previous years? These are public information. It's like a professor forbidding different textbooks. Actually I could understand professors making students sign non-disclosure agreements at the beginning of the sem but to declare an exam of an earlier section private on the day of the exam or to not declare it but assume it? That doesn't seem fair. It's imposing secrecy on an ex post facto basis...i think?

Nate, what else can you do? You know info will leak. It's like knowing your previous year students told your current year students about the questions in their exams so you will make your current year exams predicated on that?

Actually "Everything which is not forbidden is allowed" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullum_crimen,_nulla_poena_sine_praevia_lege_poenali

@BCLC: I am well aware that there are people who disagree with this, and I am not interested in engaging in a debate right now.  I would not characterize such a policy as "incompetence" or "laziness", and I do not believe the "formulas on the blackboard" example is an accurate analogy.  Others are of course entitled to their own opinions.

@BCLC: "By what authority does a professor have to forbid looking at exams from previous years?" By the authority of the academic integrity code.  Rather than the code having a preset exhaustive list of what students may or may not do, the code instead requires them to follow the rules set out by each professor.     Whether the professors have moral authority to forbid it, or whether it is fair or reasonable, is a matter of opinion.

@BCLC: "You know info will leak."  Some professors may have sufficient trust in their students to believe that it will not leak, or not to a serious extent.  Some may be justified in such trust and others may not. Please know that I am not here arguing for or against any of these positions, just stating that they do exist.

'Please know that I am not here arguing for or against any of these positions, just stating that they do exist.' -->  are you sure? you say 'major principle of academic integrity is when in doubt, ask the professor' i don't want to ask because if they do then they may amend the rules to explicitly exclude what i want. but if i do 1st, then i can argue the rules were gray/grey/ambiguous. better to ask for EXONERATION than permission. Note: exoneration not forgiveness

i find it similar to a question in homework or exam that has an obvious counterexample that the instructor must've forgotten like dis/prove all X are Y. why bother asking 'well it's obviously false because of the exception Z right?' when the proof for the new question is going to be so long when i can get away with 'false because Z' ?

@NateEldredge if a professor doesn't assume info will leak, then how is the professor keeping it fair for students who are not really in the loop? like say me 1 student ok i won't share or receive info but how is that fair for me? i don't know others aren't doing it, so what's my incentive to not join them? it's unlike actual cheating during exams when there are actual proctors and stuff: i won't cheat because i know others are not cheating

Do you have access to the exam in question? If you can "legally", e.g. download it from the subject's site, obtain it, then I see no reason why this would be wrong. On the other hand, you could have personal issues with it, i.e. personally consider it wrong, in which case you shouldn't look at it, even if you had the opportunity. I find this and similar kinds of dogmatically forced moral dilemmas in most cases very counterproductive, as I find it hard to believe that the staff would undermine the subject. So, if the staff is ok with it, i.e. makes it available and the CoAI makes no explicit mention of it, it isn't wrong.
Finally, I'd like to advise you not to impose obstacles on yourself where none should exist by overthinking it, it wastes your time and energy.

Thanks, but I don't quite get it. Does your answer then depend on whether or not the professor allows the students to keep the question sheets? i.e. If yes, then it's okay. If no, then it's not okay. It seems like the morality of doing such should be independent of whether or not the professor says so because the professor should make a different exam in the first place...

@BCLC Following your logic, since companies should have controlled access to all sensitive information, if they do not then it must be OK to use it for your own purposes. If the professor does not make it available to you and uses reasonable safeguards (does not let students take the exam papers home) then you should do the honorable thing and not try to get around the system.

@earthling exactly, everything that falls not in the category of "getting around the system" is fine.

@BCLC yes, the whole point is that the answer to your question reduces to whatever the professor chooses. It may be their policy that he's making a different exam each time, and you should use previous exams as study material; and it may be their policy to reuse exam questions and request people to not look at previous exams - and in that case doing so would be wrong. Not preventing the ability to view the questions doesn't imply moral permission to view the questions. For example, having grading key (correct answers) on his desk in plain sight doesn't imply that you're allowed to use it.

@earthling Right so if the professor allows the students to keep the exam question sheets, the students of the next class are allowed to see said sheets?

@Peteris The grading key example is obviously wrong as I did not have the right to that information. However, if I took an exam I obviously had the right to that information. Hence, I should be allowed to share it if I want to. Am I wrong? How can the professor choose? Institutions allow non-uniformity among professors? So in the chemistry department it's okay but in the biology department it's not okay? Or can two professors in the physics department have different rules?

If the prof. hasn't set any rules explicitly, I think it's safe to say you can use a past exam if and only if it has been graded and the grades have been released.

Edit:
This was just a rule of thumb based on the premise that you won't see grades given until everyone has taken the exam. If your professor distributes grades before that then you need to wait until everyone has taken the exam.

I don't see the relevance of if it has been graded and the grades have been released

@ff524: You really don't? The idea is that at that point students have found out the correct answers officially, and therefore have are allowed to talk about it. Before then, there is no guarantee that everyone has taken the exam, and thus the contents need to be kept confidential. I think it's a pretty handy rule of thumb.

Grades =/= Answers. (Instructors can release grades without ever releasing correct answers)

@ff524: It doesn't matter if they send out the official answers/solutions or not. If they never do that doesn't mean you can never talk about it, obviously. For one thing, when grades are released some students can tell what they missed just by looking at their grades. For another, the instructor isn't going to send out anyone's grade until everyone has taken the exam, so once you've seen your grade that's a signal that you can talk about it.

the instructor isn't going to send out anyone's grade until everyone has taken the exam - why not? Some of mine have.

@ff524: Color me surprised. I guess in that case my answer should be amended to say wait until everyone has taken the exam, but as far as I can remember I've never had or seen any professors release grades before everyone has taken the exam.