text:
Being a post-doc for most of your career and get a faculty job later; how likely is it?
Is it possible to spend most of your academics career as a post-doc, or senior researcher in research institutes or in research groups, and get a faculty job later in your academics career? I mean, of course, it is possible, but how likely is it?
Field: Physics & Biology. Region: mainly Europe

Why would you want to? A postdoc is a stepping stone, not a career goal.

@JonCuster because I don't want to give lectures, and just focus on research?

@JonCuster Also, I don't want to deal with other responsibilities that comes up with being a faculty, such as advising student, attending department meetings etc. I just want to focus on research.

If you don't want to teach, why would anyone offer you a "faculty" job later? It sounds like you want to be treated as "faculty" without actually doing everything that implies. Unlikely. Very unlikely.

Why would you want to have a faculty position eventually? I mean, there are positions at research institutes, why not those?

@Buffy I mean I don't want to teach, but after reaching an age, I might want to "settle down" even if I don't want to (this means that I would be teaching, without wanting to)

@user111388 how easy/hard to get those compared to get a post-doc position?

Please, do not get a position where you teach when you don't want to teach. Many institutions I know hire believe that for teaching all it takes is to be a good researcher. The teaching quality from those "smart people" was horrible. (I disagree with @Buffy here, it seems to me like all that matters is being a good researcher for getting a faculty position, at least in many European places, unfortunately).

@user111388, I'm not sure how we disagree. In fact, I quite agree with this comment. (Except for the part where you suggest we don't agree ;-)

I think I do remember you from some other question: you are the guy who does (or wants to?) watch lectures in his pajamas. Since you are probably young, my advice is to you to not to make too much academic plans. Too many things are random in academia -- no matter how good you are, you cannot plan to ever get a tenured position. Stay in academia while you enjoy it. Have fun researching, keep your eyes also open for non-academic things and when you don't have fun anymore, just leave academia.

@Buffy: I meant the fact that I do believe that people without teaching qualifications get  offered teaching positions;) but let's just say we agree:)

@user111388 oh, yes that is me :D

So go to work at a research institute. If you become well known you may be able to become a professor later.

By the way, about " do not get a position where you teach when you don't want to teach", I definitely agree with you on that; the idea was I might be willing to teach as I get older, though I don't want to right now

@JonCuster but how hard/easy to get those jobs?

Well, where I work we employ several thousand PhDs. Some do leave to become professors, and the last staff member I hired was leaving a professorship. Research is more than academia.

What does "most" mean? Literally more than half? In usual circumstances it's highly unlikely. Let's say you start working on your PhD at the age of 25 and retire at 65, just to have nice round numbers. That's a 40-years long academic career. Now half of it would be 20 years of postdoc.
Out of all the people I've met in my academic field, math, I do not know one single person who has spent this long in postdocs. Off the top of my head the highest must be around 10 years, and the people in question had almost given up any dream of landing a permanent position by the end of it. Take it as you will.
I guess it can technically be "possible" for it to happen, in the sense that there is not some kind of physical or legal impossibility. But is it going to happen? I doubt it. Postdocs are hired for their promise of working well while they're at the institution, and justified or not, someone who's spent 10+ years in postdocs will be considered an underachiever in the eyes of many.

Though not legally impossible, many jurisdictions in Europe make it legally hard. In some there are limits to the duration or number of consequtive temporary contracts. In others (Germany) there are specific legislation aimed at putting a maximum on the number of years you could be a post doc (there are ways around it, but it is a hurdle).

I would suggest treating a post-doc as nothing more than a temporary, if necessary, bridge to a permanent job. It would be different in a place where a post-doc is open ended on a rolling, say, three year contract. But for fixed term post docs, just use them as a base from which to search for a permanent position.
I'll just have to guess, and my perspective is US rather than Europe, but after a certain number of post docs people will start to wonder why you haven't advanced. They might, then, lower your rating for any permanent position.
Of course, when times are tough in your field, then you may have few options but to compromise, but use every position to work toward a better one, at least until you have a tenured job.
However, you might meet such a goal, but only, IMO, if you become so incredibly, internationally, famous that people ignore everything else to get you. Possible, of course, but a risky path.

A "rolling" contract is one that guarantees you at least a certain number of years of employment after notice before you can be let go (other than for cause). So a rolling three year contract implies that if you get notice today (2020), you lose your job in 2023 rather than at the end of a fixed term.
There are people in the US who have such contracts and they are considered "safe", unlike post-docs. Professor of the Practice for example is for teaching faculty at some top US institutions (Duke, Stanford, CMU,...). While not tenured, the job is very secure, though not absolutely so.

@CJR, certainly for post-docs, the term is likely fixed.

@CJR: Not too uncommon in smaller Europe unis.

As I tell my postdocs, the job of a postdoc is to get a job.


text:
I feel like my mathematical competence is fading
Background:
I studied Physics and Mathematics (double major) in my Bachelor, and now I'm working in the field of (theoretical) biophysics (I'm a Master's student). I have had a fair amount of research experience so far which gave me a lot of ideas about how research is being done. Most of my contributions to such a project involved wiring a bunch of code, improving an experiment, improving the data collection process etc. but nothing mathematical.
Problem:
I have no problem reading papers, especially theoretical ones; I would describe myself as familiar with a lot of fundamental ideas employed in research. If I want to dig deep into theoretical a paper, I don't have a problem. But the issue is that I feel like my mathematical competence is eroding, both high-level and low-level. I do a lot of errors in algebraic calculations, forget how to integrate certain functions, etc. and I am internally scared from finding out I am bad at mathematics, given that I used to love mathematics.
But unfortunately, right now there is nothing that challenges and pushes my limits. Because, to my experience, physics students only use certain mathematical methods, so once you learn how to do those (all of which can be done via Mathematica), there is nothing that can push your limits, unless you are doing very mathematical research.
So, now whenever I need to calculate something, I go and put it into Mathematica because I have done the same type of calculations over and over again many times, and I don't want to do it again.
I'm afraid that if I start working on a theoretical project which requires mathematical competence, I'll fail because I haven't been practising the art of doing mathematics in a true sense for a while.
Question:
Given all these, how to keep up my game? How to push my mathematical skills even when I am not working on a theoretical project?

+1 I really sympathise with this feeling. My PhD was very computational rather than theoretical (physics) and nowadays I too make silly/trivial algebra and calculus mistakes. I'm hoping there's a better solution than just revising undergrad algebra/calculus and doing practice problems...

Related: First year Math PhD student; My problem solving skill has been completely atrophied and continues to decline

@DanielHatton Thanks for sharing your experience. That is true; human verification is important, but even in that case the mathematics used in most of (bio)physics research is really not advanced. It is just a re-usage same method in different ways over and over again.

this is just to say that I know how it feels and my sympathy is totally with the TS. Whether you gain your skill back or not, I hope you find a way to make your peace with it. Realizing that you were good at something but aren't anymore can be a terrible feeling.

This is modern math, don't panic. If you really want to keep it up, lie in bed with eyes closed and start solving problems in your head, only in your head, with no pen and paper. After a while you'll see your ability come back. And soon enough you'll be solving problems in your dreams. Try the Collatz conjecture. It's good for falling asleep too.

Its normal - if you don't practice maths, you forget it. (Just like anything else, you become "rusty" if you don' practice something.) Unfortunately humans don't have the possibility to perfectly store/retain competency like a computer who once trained/programmed will repeat the same step 100% identically.

This also happened to me. Badly enough, it's during my ungergrad. I've carried the subject.
My case, not solving and not going to Maths Class, although the same b'vior had no effects on my High School

I guess it happens to everyone . Participate in the relevant areas now and then. Relax , and re-visit old problems that you once considered your strong points.

First there’s no magical “being good at mathematics,” so it’s not something you can suddenly lose.  If you want to get better you can practice more and get better, and if you practice less you’ll get rustier, but neither state is permanent.  Your anxiety around your math skills may be due to this kind of black-and-white thinking about math skill.
In terms of practical advice, one thing that really helps keep you sharp on the basics is teaching.  Maybe try signing up to do a little tutoring, or do something with the undergrad math club.

Good suggestion re tutoring/teaching!

How to improve: Hop over to MSE, pick an interesting problem or two every day.

@Aruralreader: I suggest posting that as an answer.

Re teaching/tutoring - you might want to check out https://www.upchieve.org/.  They provide free math tutoring to low income and minority students through their online portal.  You may want to consider volunteering as a tutor with them as a way of brushing-up on your math skills, and helping out some low income and minority students at the same time.

I had a professor in college who said the only time people know Calc 2 is when they're teaching it. It just fades out of their minds and they forget how to do some of the more complex integrations despite having taught it 5-10 times. There's nothing wrong with forgetting information, but teaching definitely is a great way of retraining your brain to think in certain ways.

I certainly agree, and Calc II is probably the most extreme case of this phenomenon!

@RobinClower - how many times have I actually done a trig substitution for an integral in now 40 years of physics and engineering? None at all...

It's quite normal for knowledge and skills to fade if you don't regularly use them. Since you don't want to do routine but possibly tedious/lengthy calculations by hand and prefer to keep using Mathematica, how about learning some new mathematics? Find a book on something that strikes you as potentially interesting - it doesn't necessarily have to be directly related to your research - and work your way through it. Just be sure to check the prerequisites for the book first so you don't jump into something too difficult for where you currently are and end up frustrated.

I agree with the tip to try learning something new. Furthermore, I would not really recommend trying to ``relearn'' things known and forgotten (unless needed as prerequisite for something else), since I suspect the OP will find that rather boring and not stimulating.

I like to see knowledge as three-fold - there is what you know, what you don't know and what you know that you don't know. As you time goes by, many things of the first category fade out and find themselves in the third category.
I remember when I was preparing my finals and I knew all common integration techniques and some tricky trigonometric substitutions. Now I forgot most of it, but for my research, if I stumble upon such problem, I can easily find those in my old books or online. So practically, this shift of category for my knowledge is transparent for my work.
And what it was traded for, is a kind of mathematical soft-skill but the kind that make someone "great at mathematics" (not that I am particularity great; rather better, this is obviously a spectrum), which is a deeper theoretical insight, a wider mathematical culture (mathematical culture is eminently in the third category!) and some kind of a problem-solving creativity.
So in the end, it's your mathematical ability at large that you may want to enhance or maintain and now the task is way more enjoyable - first such abilities do not fade away so fast and second, to enhance it, like J W suggested, you can just look for a new topic that you have leisure or work interest in and "work your way through it".

This is better than the top voted answer, which implies "memorizing integrals" or "miswriting numbers" is some how something that is both important and a prerequisite at being good at math.  School makes you memorize those things and take off points for silly mistakes for practical reasons, not because it's actually required to do math.  Don't expect yourself to remember those things or be perfect at copying values, humans are not robots, we are not meant to memorize every thing and its impossible for us to avoid mistakes.  We don't even treat quantities linearly by default.

Frame shift: being good at math doesn't mean getting the right answer, but rather knowing how to solve the problem (or knowing where to find how to solve the problem).
Computers are almost infallible; humans are not. So you, and everyone else in the world, are going to make computational mistakes. It is as inevitable as death and taxes. It is not something to fret over. In fact one could argue that if a calculation is complicated enough, it's irresponsible to not check it with a computer.
Your skill as a mathematician is not tied to how many computational mistakes you make. It's much more important to know what to do and how to do it, because once you know these things, you can always program a computer to do the calculation flawlessly for you.
As an aside, ask one of the many mathematicians on this SE how much of their work is done on pen-and-paper.

There's an interesting comment on the question by Daniel Hatton about a professional time when a computer algebra system gave him the wrong answer (in fact, two such systems).

@DanielR.Collins right, but it implies that recognizing when the computer output is incorrect is also a mathematical skill.

This is a tough one, and something I myself wrestle with. It is also one of the current issues I have with academia/advanced degrees as a whole (overly specialized leading to atrophy of your general skill set).
All I can offer is that advanced degrees seem to build your "learning ability" in that they require you to jump into a complicated, foreign area and learn it quickly.
Thus, while you might lose your general skill set, you are gaining the ability to learn complex topics quickly.  The answer to your conundrum then becomes "if I forget/lose skill x, I will be able to quickly re-learn it in the future if I ever need to use it again".
As other posters have mentioned, however, it is also not a bad idea to try to maintain your general skill set if you have time.  Many of us don't, but if you do have spare time, tutoring or working though a textbook or online course can help keep you fresh.
If you don't use it, you will lose it. If a skill is not being used in your current job, you need to find an extracurricular avenue to continue to exercise that skill set if you want to keep it strong.  Otherwise, the only solution I have found is to accept that it is going to fade but to have hope that I will be able to re-learn it quickly if I ever need to use it again.

Skills require an application.  It's normal to let skills lapse if you don't need them, and to only refresh your memory when you do need them.
Some people solve maths problems for fun.  You're probably not one of those people, otherwise you wouldn't be here.
Assuming maths ability is merely a tool for you to do your job and not an end-goal in itself, then you will inherently get good at the bits of maths you use, and let things go which you don't use.  That's just how it goes.  You will still be good enough to learn or refresh whatever you need in future, though.  Either you already know it and just need to remind yourself how to do it, or you have enough basic knowledge to work through the learning process.
Your supervisor should be fine with this.  A scientist/engineer won't know all the answers when they're doing new work, because if they already had the answers then it wouldn't be new!  The important part is that you know in general terms where you're going with it.  You should be able to be up-front with your supervisor about this, and just put the time in to get your skills up the curve.  Chances are that your supervisor doesn't know it either, so they should welcome a post-grad expanding the scope of what his team are capable of.
No-one remembers everything forever.  You're only at the start of your career here, so you probably didn't learn this more than a few years ago.  As you go forwards, you can absolutely expect to see something in 20 years time where you think "hang on, I did something about this as an undergrad" and have to go back and refresh your memory.  You aren't expected to have this at your fingertips forever, because humans don't work like that. :)

I studied physics. About the second year I started to realize how things were interconnected and it was a revelation for me. Fantastic times. Then I started to teach and it is only then when I fully grasped what I was teaching because I had to understand (and not only learn).
Teaching will help you a lot to keep up.
Then I moved to industry and all my physics and mathematical skills started to erode, to the point that when I once looked at my notes in physics I could barely understand what was there.
I was very disappointed and sad because I loved physics (and to some extent - math) and realized that it will go downhill.
Fast forward many years. I now have children who are starting to learn some more advanced maths (differentials for instance).
This is at this point that I realized how deeply math and physics is engrained in my mind. They had a hard time understanding differentials. The main reason was because they simplycould not see the reason for these strange operations. I explained them what a differential is for, and what it is (in that order, going though some examples from physics). It helped me to overcome the feeling, and I see that it will still be a quite some time before I stumble upon something in their curriculum that will make me go into "well, dad cannot help you on that one" mode.
So try to teach somewhere (I took some volunteering help with more advanced homework for children who are not helped at home) - the higher the level the better.

Similar personal experience:
No, your abilities are not fading. At least, not as much as you assume at the first glance.
What really happens:
You face challenges of the same domain, but of increasing complexity. The increasing complexity comes from two sources:

The natural development of the scientific knowledge in the field (remember, you are not in the high school anymore and the development happens as you learn)
Your own increasing experience, encouraging you to skip more and more "trivia" as you are thinking.

Both processes promote simple and innocent mistakes and ommissions. They can slow you down while you double-check and cross-check, but they can't fail you.
And there is nothing bad in refreshing some memories and abilities if you have to.

There are some excellent answers touching on the role of time on task, teaching or tutoring, and solving problems for fun. To this, I would like to add the aspect of mathematical creativity, which some people feel does drop off sharply with age.
In this article and blog, Lila Guterman evaluates the hypotheses that in mathematics in particular, young people are more capable of breakthrough results. There are a lot of citations of practioners that think this is true. A counterargument is that mathematics has expanded rapidly, so there are more young than old mathematicians. They also mention the Fields Medal, which is for mathematicians 40 or younger. Furthermore, there is an argument that older people might have the same capability, but are just not able to focus as much because they already have a larger set of responsibilities.

If you have the time and inclination, consider contributing to (or at least perusing) Mathematics SE: this is a good (and humbling) way to keep you on your mathematical toes.

how to keep up my game? How to push my mathematical skills
Karsten mentioned "solving problems for fun"
Some publications have "problem" columns, with problems to solve, and solutions published later based on what was sent in.
See Are there any more mathematical journals or websites with the “problems and solutions”?

I used to be good at algebraic manipulation and at integration tricks, too. Now, I'm not, but it doesn't matter, because Mathematica can do those things far better than you or I ever could.
The world has changed, so the skills needed to survive and prosper have changed, too.
Many of us used to know how to...

Do long division with a pencil and paper
Add weights expressed in ounces, pounds, and stones
Use a slide rule, tables of logarithms, and a desk calculator

These skills are all obsolete, and I'm not too worried about the fact that they're now pretty rusty. I've learned new things, instead ... how to write code, how to use a calculator, and how to use Mathematica.
Of course, not everything we learned in our mathematical youth is obsolete. I personally still get great value from my knowledge of classical geometry, my intuition about approximation, my ability to draw pictures, and my ability to express ideas clearly.
So, when considering how to "keep up your game", the first decision is which skills are worth preserving, and which should be replaced by new ones. The game has changed.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Referencing a material that wasn't referenced inside the text
By chance, I happened to read this article and noticed that even though the author doesn't reference any other publication, there is a reference list.
Is this a common/sensible practice in scientific publications? Namely, when publishing, say a book or an article, is it an acceptable practice to include reference of the material that wasn't referenced in the main text?

@Roland may bad: forgot the add the link. thanks for the comment!

This is not common in standard refereed journal papers, but you can easily find examples of this elsewhere. For example, Scientific American articles (and Martin Gardner's "Mathematical Games" column in particular) used to have references that where almost never mentioned in the articles (not sure if this is still the case; I'm mostly thinking of articles from 1960s through 1980s) and textbooks often have "for further reading" lists at the end (at least those in math and physical sciences, being areas that I'm mostly familiar with).

@Anyon sorry, apparently i failed to copy the correct link

References that are included in a bibliography but aren't cited in the text can be useful for some readers, but many journals prohibit them. I suspect the prohibition is related to the prevalence of citation-counting for evaluation of research. It's too easy to add references just to up someone's citation count. If I felt that a reference is useful for the reader, I'd mention it in the text and say why it's useful, e.g., "for a clear  and thorough exposition of background material, see ...."

As @AndreasBlass comments, it is easy enough to comment on prior art, background, etc., with a few sentences that might aid some readers. Although history/awareness of prior art maybe doesn't directly aid in understanding line-to-line aspects of proofs, it does help enormously in orienting one's thinking about things. Of course, some people like to pretend that mathematics (for example) is disconnected from humanity, so would claim to be uninterested in prior art, but only in the current state-of-the-art, etc. Tastes vary.

My first thought was that the list of papers there should have called a bibliography, not a list of references.  However the link given is not to the article, but just the abstract.  The article cites these (at least most of them).
I should add (as mentioned in the comments) that research physics journals do not usually allow a bibliography, but only a list of references actually cited in the text.  They are much stricter about this than are math journals, in my limited experience.
Bibliography:
Reference List and Bibliography according to U. of Birmingham

Cute irony about having a bibliography... :)

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


text:
How bad is making mistakes in the lecture slides?
I am giving a lecture in IT (for the first time) to more than 100 students. I refused to use the slides of the previous lecturer and I wanted to make my owns. They take me a lot of effort and I believe that are better than most lecture slides on the same topic.
The lecture includes so many mathematical equations (almost every slide). Because I am making them from scratch, I made already 3 mistakes in the equation (e.g. multiplication instead of addition). I discovered two of them during the lecture I said that it is a mistake. I corrected the mistakes before I uploaded the slides.
the third mistake I did not notice but when I gave an example I used the correct one. In the exercise, the students were claiming that the equation does not give the same result as expected in the exercise (which is graded). I decided to give all the students the full note for that exercise.
My question is how bad to have these mistakes? Should I use the slides of the previous lecturer?

for me also is optional. I am talking from a perspective that whether this  makes a bad lecturer. A bad evaluation for my first lecture will just hurt because of the effort I am putting.

"Should I use the slides of the previous lecturer?" How confident are you that the previous lecturer's slides have fewer errors than your own slides?

@Andreas Blass That is actually a good point!

Not an answer to your question, but a concern about information overload. With "almost one [equation] per slide" will the students have time to absorb the material (and maybe write it down) before the next slide appears? Do the students get to see the slides before the lecture? Can they have hard copy to write notes on?

Making mistakes can be good.  I tell my students upfront, there are errors on my slides.  Be vigilant!   So I sometimes 'stumble' along, and keep them on their toes.  As long you know what you are talking about, it is all good.

Everyone makes mistakes. Teachers, students, everyone. It isn't terrible that you make them, but it is good, and can be extremely instructive when you correct them.
Your description suggests that you do the right thing here. Proof your slides and make corrections. But also, when mistakes are pointed out in class, not only admit them readily, but work through the correction as needed. If it is just a typing error then it is easy, but logic errors might require more effort.
However, seeing a professor work in real time to solve a problem, rather than just showing prepared stuff is extremely enlightening. Students can get the idea when presentations are perfect that this stuff is supposed to be easy. In fact, it may not be easy and so seeing a solution develop, even seeing false starts and corrections, will give them more confidence in their own work. Especially if they struggle with some of the ideas.
Your students will be evaluating you overall, not just your slides. If you act in a human and humane manner, especially by responding to their needs, you should do fine. But occasionally a student will be unreasonable. Don't worry too much about this.
But perfection in a lecture isn't necessarily the most effect way to teach. That doesn't excuse sloppiness, of course, but consider the overall picture, not just the minute details.
I've had students complement me more often on "lectures" that forced me to work "live" than on those that were very polished. In fact, I once tried to develop a "perfect" description of a hard problem and it left the student baffled. "Where did that come from?"
Be good. Very good. But recognize that you are human, which means being adaptable.

As to using the previous slides, I have no opinion. They might be good, but they might be too perfect. They might also force you into stilted delivery, which you should avoid.
But as a newcomer to this stuff, you might have conversations with colleagues about your teaching materials and get their feedback. People learn a lot by interacting with students, but it isn't obvious to a new teacher how that all fits together effectively. Some places have more senior instructors visit the classes of new faculty and then give feedback, either formally or informally. There is no real reason why you can't ask a trusted colleague to do that, even if not required. While it might feel risky, it also shows you are trying to improve your craft.

It can mean a lot of things, but "slick" isn't necessarily good. But, no, proofs should be correct. Insights shouldn't be ignored, of course. The key idea, perhaps, is that students need to be engaged in learning so something that is too perfect may let them think they understand something that they really do not.

@Heutl, you can capitalize on mistakes when you make them to direct the students into deeper understanding. Make it an opportunity. Not every such mistake is fruit here, but look for the chances.

@Heutl, I agree. My answer is more general than the question. That is actually a positive value here. Future visitors may have similar, but not identical, situations. If we do no more than answer the question and only for the OP then this site is no better than a chat room.

If you are averaging 3 errors/lecture*, that's too much, especially with typed materials.  Makes the course hard to follow and creates a real confusion factor of people using the uncorrected materials in error.
Not sure if the solution is to use the previous materials or just tighten up on what you are doing yourself.  I suspect there is some way to be better prepared without just using old slides (which may have issues themselves).  Wonder if you are somehow trying to be too ambitious.  All that said, if you are not so strong on the materials yourself, perhaps using old lecture materials, at least for first run through a class, might be a better course of action.  After doing that, you are more knowledgeable about what you want to change and why.
P.s.  I hate slides--find blackboard and chalk much more engaging.  (But that's off topic.)
*If instead, this was 3 mistakes over an entire course's typed notes, than no biggie.

3 errors/ 9 lectures till now, bit still 6 are remaining

That's OK.  There might be other reasons to evaluate if you should do your own stuff or use pre-existing.  But not the corrections.

Personally, I like to first have a mixture of my own and previous lecture slides to begin with and then slowly create my own for sections as I see fit. We don't have to reinvent the wheel every time.

Well, first up be frank with the students and then give them some freeby decimals on their grade as apology because if they study from the mistakes  they will get it wrong in the exams (besides the full note you already gave), and to avoid it, start a mistake hunt.
Give your students ALL the slides and tell them to analyze them and submit the mistakes they find or improvements they can think off, you can do this as part of the grading as some homework project or you can add it as an optional with an extra point or 2 over the final grade, that will be a nice incentive.  In the end you can find even more mistakes you didn't noticed, improve the layout or design, have the students study and work, and all resulting into material you can use later on in the future. And your evaluation will be saved.

Making a good slide deck is really, really hard. It is entirely normal that a lecturer needs several years teaching a course to develop the perfect deck.
Consider the purpose of the slides: to give the students the best possible education. If your current deck isn't good enough yet, you should really consider using some of the old deck. There's nothing wrong with using a blend, as long as you give credit to your predecessor. If you really don't like the old deck, you can also look for slide decks for the same topic produced at other universities.
Making good slides is so hard actually, that it's quite normal for a really good slide deck to get used by many grateful lecturers at multiple institutions. For the original creator, this can lead to a lot of name recognition, as someone making a valuable contribution to the community. (Remember to put your name and institution in the footer of your slides.)
Finally, be honest with your students. Encourage them to ask questions, if they think there may be a mistake in a slide. Either in class of privately. Either you find and fix a mistake in your slide (and discover a smart student), or you get to explain to your student why your slide is correct after all (and the student learns something).


text:
How to read/react to students' evaluation?
For my first course on CS topic (first course on the topic and not the first overall), I used the university evaluation system to ask students about their feedback.
In addition to responding to questions by giving rates, the students were also asked to specify what they liked and what they didn't like. There are some comments that are obviously wrong but among which, there are comments that the students believe are true.
One common comment is that the slides contain many formulas and they claimed that most of them are not necessary because they didn't understand the lectures. In contrast, they could understand the topic from youtube videos without all these formulas.
I wanted to teach the topic from the right perspective of master university level. but it seems that the students prefer animated lectures, which are useful to understand the overall idea but not the core of the topic, especially because math/algebra is important in this course.
I am wondering whether I should satisfy the students' opinion or I should keep the current way which I find more useful to reach deep understanding.

I spent many years of my professional life discussing how to present complicated ideas. The first rule that I developed was: "Any comment, however stupid seeming, should be taken seriously". In the OP's context that means try to understand what the student comments are getting at, even if the students who are commenting cannot explain it. Something you said evoked that comment. If you don't like that comment say something differently next time.
The second rule is: disregard any specific suggestion for how you might say it differently. Only you know what you want to say. Your students do not.

I advise that you consider every comment as having some validity. But they may be just preferences for what they wish you had done, not actually valid objections to how you teach.
But some of them might indicate that you could be more effective in general. I agree with what I think is your sentiment that a lecture isn't an entertainment, though some students wish it were. But, it is also possible to be too pedantic in lecturing so that students are pushed into detailed explanations that obscure deep insights into the topics.
I also agree that in certain CS courses, as well as math and some others, it is important for the students to have the formulae and to be able to access the detail, but you can also ask whether that is best done in lecture with slides or writing on the board, or, alternatively, with handouts that can be studied as leisure. But in either case, the students need to be given tasks that reinforce the key ideas and feedback so that they don't draw the wrong conclusions or miss important points.
But, the main value of such written comments is that it gives you the ability to evaluate what you do and ask whether some alternative might be better.
One of the best ways to check whether you are effective is to also look at student grades along with the comments. How is the group of students doing overall? Are you happy with that? How are the low performing students doing? Can that be improved by changing pedagogy somehow? Are the best students being challenged or are they just skating along without effort?
Ask the questions. None of them, or any of them, might induce you to change how you teach, but it is worth asking the questions.

Since some of your comments suggest you may be too pedantic (valid or not), take a look at this question from CSEducators.

There are objections you should ignore and ones you should pay attention to.  These are ones you should pay attention to.
It's a very standard, normal problem that you are prone to.  You want to be rigorously correct, perhaps even defensively (!) and are not considering the human element.  I see the reliance on slides (rather than chalk) along with pre-checked formulae as indicative of this problem.  Which again, is a very common issue.
Note, I'm not saying disregard correctness.  The more you can be correct the better (it is very distracting if a lecturer has a high error rate).  But you also ABSOLUTELY need to consider the HUMAN element.
How do you excite, engage, motivate, and TRAIN your students?  How much can they absorb?  Can you keep them engaged by varying between derivations and examples (and believe ME, examples from homework and similar to test problems ARE motivating).  Also have at least SOME in class drill.  Even a couple trivial problems will engage the students and...well wake them up.  (They are not silicon, are not angels, are not robotic.  Are flesh and blood, with limits on their power of concentration.)
You have 50 minutes in a lecture and are using up 30+ (typically) people's time.  That's a heavy investment of manhours.  Make them count.
Go look at HOW to teach (and not just theoretical or scientific treatments, but practical lessons of good teachers).  Not just WHAT to teach.  HECK, look at the damned Youtubes.  Maybe something useful in there (not on the content, only, but on how to teach).  Go watch the Conrack movie (now there was a teacher's challenge).
But the good thing is...you CAN evolve.  Can try different things.  I remember my first set of feedback.  Lot of comments about me being too stern.  Other teachers had an issue with discipline or the like...but I had control from the start, without even needing to emphasize it.  I actually thought about what I was doing and toned it down a bit.  Realized, I COULD. But a little more touchy feely and joking around.  And second semester went even better than first (which was not bad, itself).
So, yes, DUH.  You should absolutely consider this feedback.  And yes, you should change.

Satisfying student opinion is not the objective here. However with these comments look for anything that is consistent about what they didn't understand, and then have a think about whether there is anything that you can do, to help more of the students understand that next time. There's probably a few comments in there that are helpful, and there probably are things you can do other than dumbing down the lecture.
If a large number of the students fail to understand the algebra can you introduce the topic with numbers rather than letters for example ? This can help some students. Yes this may make more work for students, but if they understand it better they may well prefer.
Also bear in mind that going through algebra can be better done as a homework exercise or in notes than in a lecture.


text:
What is the best way to approach any professor for Ph.D. opportunities who my research advisor has referred?
I am a final-year undergraduate student, and I worked with a professor for more than a year. I recently asked him for a reference, and there he suggested contacting another professor he knows to look for Ph.D. opportunities in his lab. What can be the best way to email the professor citing the reference of my advisor?

@AzorAhai-him- I have edited my query.

Ok. I don't think it's substantially different from the linked Q

Kindly do not downvote my question. I am in dire need of answer to this query.

Yes, I linked a question to help.

Thanks a lot. But the question you have linked is more generalized instead of being specific.

@AzorAhai-him-, I, too, disagree that this is a duplicate. I realize that the question you linked is a bit (but not completely) canonical. Maybe you would like to update that to cover this sort of case.

Where is the university you would be applying to? If In the US, I'd add a bit to my answer. And see https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/176908/75368 for general information.

@Buffy I don't feel anything further is needed. If you do, you'd be the better candidate to update.

@Buffy Yes it is in the US.

Just mention that you were referred by professor A. I wouldn't open with it but would include it quite early so that it isn't missed. Open with your interest. Mention the reference and that it was suggested you contact them directly. Close with some words about your capabilities. Make it short, but also ask what your next steps might be if the person has any interest.
Don't make it long or it is too easy to discard. Offer to send additional information if needed.
Don't use bold font or such for the professors name, but assure that it is placed where a quick look at your mail won't miss it.
Note, however, that, in the US, the only answer you might get is something like "Yes, I'm interested, but you need to apply for admission using the normal procedures." It is rare here that individual professors have a lot to say about admissions and, unlike other places, they seldom "hire" doctoral students directly.
For general information about how the system works here, see the answer for the US to the canonical question

Note that even better would be a note from your professor to the other introducing you. That won't be ignored most likely.

Thanks a lot for your suggestion


text:
Is it inappropriate to contact my Master’s supervisor on Facebook or Instagram for a reference while she’s on maternity leave?
I am currently applying for a PhD degree in Canada and one of my potential supervisors from the UK asked if he could ask my Master’s supervisor for reference. So I emailed my ex-supervisor about this but got an automatic reply saying she’s on maternity leave.
However, I have her Facebook and Instagram info, so I can message her there, but is it appropriate to do so? She gave birth around three months ago, and we have not been in contact for around two years.

If you emailed her then you have already asked, actually. If she replies then she is willing. The auto bounce doesn't mean she hasn't seen it.

Are you actual friends on Facebook or do you happen to have the contact details?

@JackAidley we are friends on FB and Instagram but haven't actually sent messages after I graduate.

I think it depends what kind of relationship you had with her, did you used to message each other on Facebook/Instagram prior to not speaking with her for two years?

If she's not responding to professional email, what do you thing the chances are that she'd respond to private messaging?

This is from an American perspective, not a British one, but absolutely do not message her on Facebook or Instagram! Especially if you have not been in touch for two years. I would never consider messaging a supervisor in such a way to ask for something professional, and that goes 10x while they are on official leave for any reason.
Explain the situation to your potential supervisor and get in touch with your master's supervisor's department chair or director of graduate studies for advice. They may know when her maternity leave is up or may be able to get in touch with her1. In the worst case, they can provide the best reference they can.

1: Some people on leave may be checking their email infrequently for matters like this. Of course, she is entitled not to, but they will know her personally and know whether she's open to requests like this or is entirely offline.

Thanks Azor I think you're right, I guess I will try ask the teaching assistant of the department first since she mentioned contacting the TA during her leave

@Pajxy No, the TA would be for her students, you don't need to contact them for this.

OP said that they actually are friend on Facebook, so the situation isn't the same as if he were contacting here out of the blue. It proves some kind of willingness to keep touch outside of work boundaries.

@Echox It doesn't matter, she is on official leave from work. That doesn't mean "try to contact me in other ways so I can do work." Asking for an informal reference is not life-and-death. Even if they occasionally chatted, it would still be inappropriate. And, honestly, depending on the writer, could harm your letter.

@AzorAhai-him-, writing a reference letter is not part of official "work". It is neither paid for, nor is it even mandatory! Hence, her official leave is only partially relevant here.

@Dilworth Most professors I know personally, and many on this site, describe it as part of their duties. Since professors are not paid hourly, I'm not sure you can say whether or not it is paid for. It's not mandatory in the same way deciding not to give someone an exemption to join your class is not required (i.e. it's using your professional judgement to decline).

@AzorAhai-him-, I am a professor, and I don't see this as part of my "work". Also, I wouldn't care to get a message on FB. But this depends on the student, if I think they are good, friendly, respectful, etc. I also didn't understand your answer re mandatory: it's certainly not part of a paid duty.

@Dilworth Well then, we'll agree to disagree.

What does it have to do with American or British, it’s inappropriate period, thus the opening phrase seems strange and out of place.

@shalop Dunno, I'm not British! I think it's important to state our own limitations when answering a question

@Dilworth whether something is part of work (your work role) or not seems pretty simple to answer: would you do it if you didn't hold your work position? Could you even do it if you didn't have your work position (and in this case the work place relationship with OP)? If no, then it's part of your work. Going out with someone you know to talk about whatever -> not work related. Writing a reference for someone you worked with -> work related as no one would care if you weren't hired by your university and thereby were in the supervisor role.

@AzorAhai-him- You might include the reasoning of why not to contact in the answer to make it more clear and allow people (OP and others) to judge whether the assumed context matches theirs. For instance, some might be known to mix private and work life more than you assume, or be known to not monitor their mail particularly regularly but be open to be directed to important mails via a more direct contact. (generally agree with your answer as default behaviour, but since OP is already facebook friends, they might know whether their supervisor/situation could be an exception to the rule)

@FrankHopkins, Actually this is not the "definition" of work. Work is what you are paid for and is part of your written contract. I'm unaware of any academic contract mandating writing letters for students (or even implying this is part of the obligations. Well, it simply isn't). As for your argument: indeed, even if someone is not a paid academic he/she can (and does at times) write letters (think Erdos!).

@Dilworth most contracts have a pretty loose "and reasonable tasks related to your role" sentence that would cover this. Not to mention that academic contracts and work definitions are even more loose than regular industry jobs. E.g. my work contract never had "give talks" or "write papers" in it either. but yes, if you want to argue with your employer the contract is your go-to place (along with any verbal agreements that are built on top); no one will force you to write student letters though as this is about deciding whether you write one. it's part of your professional scientific role

@Dilworth thus part of your work role if you're hired at a university/in a respective capacity. If you're not in such a job that backs that role obviously it's not part of your (regular) job (you might still have an honour association etc) but unless you have major credentials, no one cares about your recommendation letters if you write them in your private capacity as John Doe.

@FrankHopkins, again, writing letters is not part of your work because it's not mandatory. Publishing papers is mandatory and not doing so leads to losing one's job in most cases.

@Dilworth having a policy of never writing recommendation letters also gives you negative points at sane institutions. Most higher level jobs don't have a comprehensive list of mandatory duties. On the contrary, the definition of how to do such jobs well often is vague and implicit, because it's not easy to put into clear instructions. Anyway, we have different views here what's part of the job, just take into consideration when you interact with people that what for you is your private fun, for them is part of their work and thus they won't tolerate it intruding into their private life.

@FrankHopkins, maybe. But also being not a nice person (even outside work settings) "gives you negative points at 'sane' institutions". But being pleasant is still not a requirement of one's work.

You have already used this person's professional email address, so your request is made.  She will check your email and respond to it when she is good and ready.  Many office workers set automated emails when they are on leave but continue to check email and deal with important matters; nevertheless, they are under no obligation to work while on leave.  It is not appropriate to badger an academic through their private email/social media while they are on leave (and doubly so since she's just had a baby).
The simplest thing to do here is to let this prospective supervisor know that you have contacted your former supervisor with this inquiry, but she is presently on maternity leave.  You can give this new prospective supervisor her (work) email address for direct contact and he can also email her if he has an inquiry.  If necessary you can contact your department head (or relevant staff that run the masters program) to obtain assistance in getting an alternative reference.

Thanks Ben, but is it also inappropriate to give my former supervisor's contact to the new supervisor since she has not actually agreed to be my referee?

As I understand your question, your prospective supervisor has asked for a reference from your past advisor.  Professional email addresses for academic staff are public knowledge; they are included on staff web-pages, etc.  They are essentially like office phone numbers, etc., so unless there is some countervailing reason to the contrary, you can share them with whoever you want.

There's a big difference between someone googling your supervisor's email address and you giving that address to them as a reference, though - even if it's a technical difference.

@Joe, true, though one's former supervisor is (perhaps in perpetuity) in a professional relationship that (as we all know) may involve future employers'/supervisors' inquiries.

"However, I have her Facebook and Instagram info, so I can message her
there, but is it appropriate to do so?"

Yes, it is "appropriate" to do so. In other words, you would increase the chances of getting a letter if you do so, and only very marginally decrease it. The reason is obvious: you make her understand that it is important to you.
Furthermore, Academia is not a usual work-place. It is certainly not a corporate work-place, and for most parts it's not even a "work": many of the major aspects of academic life are on a volunteer basis. Hence, while it may be seen as "unprofessional" to contact your boss on Facebook if you work in a traditional industry/corporate (e.g., insurance company), it is not entirely inappropriate to contact academic colleges on social networks.
Clarifications: it is impossible to know in advance if your supervisor is going to be happy or not to receive your message.
It is also important to understand different cultures, and know where your previous supervisor works: if she is from UK/US, then she may indeed be more inclined to see her job as akin to a "corporate" job, IMO. If she is from Central Europe, she may be less so (again, IMO).


text:
Would it be ethical/reasonable for a PhD student to hire an undergrad for help with research-tangential tasks (see proposed job description below)?
Pretty much what the title says (I know this question is quite strange).
I have some extra money (my research stipend is fairly generous, and I get paid by doing TA work on top of it) that I'd like to spend to increase my research productivity. I am thinking of hiring an undergraduate to help me with odd jobs (not actual research). This is the "job" description I've come up with:

Calling all maths students interested in research!
Want to learn what a PhD involves, get hands-on experience, and be paid for your time? Keep reading.
I’m a second-year student in X, working with Prof. Y. I’m looking for
help with some research-tangential tasks. This would be a flexible
role, both in content and schedules. It’d probably involve a few hours
each week, whenever it fits our schedules (maybe one hour/day Mon to
Fri, or ~5 hours every Saturday).
Tasks you would be responsible for:

Helping with the design of my research posters (eg, see my previous posters here), and printing them (which can be done for free
in the Faculty).
Help with the design of my presentations (both technical research presentations and science communication tasks). You can find
a list of my past talks here, with links to slides and videos.
Proofread my research manuscripts and other research-related documents (eg, cover letters for applications), for grammar mistakes
and to improve the language style.
Help me with my research planning and accountability (e.g. setting goals with me and make sure I achieve them).
Occasionally typing maths into LaTeX (my handwriting is good!).
Very occasionally drawing pictures in Tikz (eg, see these diagrams in my previous paper).
Help with Overleaf/LaTeX documents, eg formatting my references.

This list is not set in stone. If there is anything here that you
would prefer not to do, please let me know. If I find other tasks that
I’d like you to do, we’d discuss if you’d like to do them or not.
Requirements:

Be at least a second-year student, but a third-year would be ideal.
There is no definite minimum grade required, however, you must demonstrate high academic standards.
Be a highly motivated individual.
Demonstrate a specific interest in working with me (at the very least be considering pursuing a PhD, better if in X).
Excellent time-management, organisation, and admin skills.
Excellent written and oral communication skills in English (native-speaker strongly preferred), including scientific terms.
Familiarity with LaTeX and willingness to learn Tikz.
Familiarity with PowerPoint or similar (I now use Google Slides for my presentations).
Be able to meet in-person during term-time, at least once a week (We’d decide later how to proceed out-of-term, perhaps less frequent
remote meetings), for at least this coming academic year.

What you’d gain from the opportunity:

Direct insights into the work and life of a PhD student, and how academic research works in general.
Soft skills that are useful in both academia and industry (eg, communication and design skills).
A payment of 10 pounds per hour.
Life-long regular academic mentoring from me.
The opportunity of obtaining good letter of recommendation from me (if you do a good job, of course).
This is not a traditional research assistant position (you won’t do any research). However, I might host a summer research student this
summer or next summer. If so, you’d have priority over other
applicants, should you be interested.

I know this is an uncommon job advert, so please get in touch with any
questions! If it helps, I’m thinking of this role as something in
between an executive assistant and a personal assistant. To apply
please email xxx your CV and a short text explaining your motivation
for the role.

I can expect there would be quite a lot of interest from undergraduates in my university. I was also an undergrad here, and I would certainly have said yes. My questions:

Is this ethical?
Would it be ethical if I didn't offer pay?
Should I tell my supervisor before doing this?
Is this reasonable?
Any other ways I could get a similar (ideally more) benefit? Eg, hiring a professional proofreader for my manuscripts, hiring a graphic designer for my posters/talk designs, etc.

(which can be done for free in the Faculty) --- Did you mean "... by the Faculty", or is there a word inadvertently omitted that comes after "Faculty", such as "lounge" or "workroom"? Either way, the person reading this might not know how to interpret it -- Are you considered "faculty"? Would the student be considered "faculty"? Are you and/or the student allowed to use faculty printing privileges? This isn't something we need to know here, only a suggestion that a word or two of additional clarity in the actual advertisement might be helpful.

@Roland thank you! I'll remove the part about the (lifelong) mentoring. Do you mean other ways (which?) to use the money for a goal, or just other life upgrades in general?

@DaveLRenfro ah sorry for the confusion. Yes, there's a printing room in the Faculty. I was referring to the "Faculty building" more generally but I omitted the second word.

@ThrowAwayAccount Also, why are you looking for student interested in research when they don't get to do any? From what it sounds like (and from what are you looking for), you should rather look for design or language students interested in mathematics.

Friendly warning: I highly suspect you will spend more time making this happen than it will actually save you. You might help your "research assistant" in the process, but I worry you're going to waste time, on balance.

you mention your stipend - are you just planning on venmo'ing them or actually hiring them as a university employee?

There are many aspects about this that seem very strange to me. For example, asking an undergrad to help you set your research goals and keep you accountable is backwards. You should ask someone with substantial research experience (i.e. your advisor) to help you set goals and be accountable until you can do it yourself, which is basically the point of the PhD program.

@Ian Yes, that was my worry

All of your “research-adjacent” tasks are actually a part of “research”, and develop skills that are essential to an academic career. Your view that you can outsource the grunt work of research so that you can focus on the “fun” part of thinking about cool science seems rather misguided.
Whether or not it’s ethical for you to outsource these activities to an undergraduate, I’ll leave to others to discuss. But if nothing else, I think you’ll be undermining your own development as a researcher and scholar if you don’t do those tasks but outsource them to someone else. So about question 4, no, it’s not particularly reasonable.

Thank you, this is the sort of answer I was looking for. I still think that I could do with some help with certain things (eg proofreading, as I'm not a native speaker) and that it's fine for some individual activities to be outsourced (eg, I've heard of groups hiring a software developer to make sure their package is usable).

Why wouldn't it be ethical, you are hiring an assistant (a bit like a secretary)?
Unpaid work is almost always exploitative, and unpaid interships luckily mainly a thing of the past. Yes, no pay = unethical.
Definitely.
While creating an assistant job per se is not unreasonable, offering someone life-long counsil just for a student job seems pretty unreasonable, as does requiring the person to want to persue a PhD in the same field, when the job is basically layout/proofreading and organizing stuff.
As 10 pounds per hour is quite low pay, I wouldn't imagine finding someone that does more/better work that is not a student.

Thank you! I'll remove the part about mentoring. My reason for requiring them to be interested in research is that I don't think they'd be otherwise motivated to do this. It doesn't have to be necessarily in my subfield of mathematics, but I do need them to understand mathematical writing

we had a team-assitant at our microelectronics research institute that did a great job even though he was a sociology student.


text:
How can two people as a couple enter into the same PhD program?
My partner and I are from the same background [math/stat], and we are study buddies as well. We plan to enroll in Ph.D. in the public health program at the same university. It's important for both of us to make an academic career, get into a good Ph.D. program, as well as being together through the ups and downs. Ph.D. is a long time commitment of around 4 years. We both want to spend this time together and in a better way. Getting into the same Ph.D. program will help us to be physically, mentally healthy and active, and collaborate academically.
How should we approach the committee or professor about the situation?

Strongly related question: Mention two-body-problem in PhD applications? If so, where?

I voted to close as a duplicate (it looks so to me, but if it's not, please clarify), even though I don't entirely agree with the accepted answer there--we have considered admitting a couple to our grad program before, and I personally was in favor.  (I think it didn't work out because of COVID/visa issues however)

"Getting into the same Ph.D. program will help us to be physically, mentally healthy and active, and collaborate academically." That's great, but, to be blunt, how this any of the department's business? You would need to make a case that this would benefit the department, but you're only making a case that this would benefit you and your partner.

A couple was just admitted to my department. They did not mention it and said they weren't asked about it. Their names were different, but they attended the same undergrad and mentioned someone could have noticed they shared an address. The answer to your question is "They both get in on their individual merits."

I think this is more of a chat discussion and opinion-based so I won't ask a separate question. If your department was hiring a professor (or 2), what would be more attractive--a couple who had the same academic background possibly including post-docs or ones who had different backgrounds and thus wider collaborative networks?

Your situation is like a "job-share," but simpler (conceptually), but also harder to execute. With job-sharing, some employers are willing to accept that it is unnecessary for either of the two people involved have all the relevant skills as long as jointly, they meet the requirements of the job. Your situation is more likely to approximate the case when an employer wants both job-share people to have all the relevant skills.
A graduate school is unlikely to take the view that the two of you together are better than the sum of the parts. Instead, they will want to ensure that each of you is capable of completing the graduate program with or without their partner. I suggest therefore that you both apply (individually) to as many graduate programs as you can, and hope that both of you get accepted (best outcome!).  However, if only one of you is accepted, there is still a strategic card to play. Having been offered a place, only then enter into a discussion about how much you would like to accept the place but are really looking for a place where the two of you are accepted.
You can then choose what to do, depending on the outcome of that discussion.
Short form: apply first, hope for the best, then strategize.

In my department, if anyone tried to negotiate their partner to get a PhD position (when they weren't also accepted already) would be told in no uncertain terms where they can get off. I believe the same would be true in any UK university. Other countries might be more amenable to these forms of corruption.

The second part of this plan seems rather optimistic - good PhD programmes tend to be very competitive. I'm not sure what leverage the couple would have here to get an extra PhD position? Unless one of them is really remarkable, I don't see why the committee would (and at least in my institute, even how they could) give a place to someone they've already rejected.

@DanielHatton I've rethought my position about this (and deleted my previous two comments). There are definite situations where you hire a spouse for a PhD position, because it's a variant of the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem. If you have three candidates for two positions, and you rank them, and first and third are married and will only come together, you offer it to 1st and 3rd, not 1st and 2nd. Doing the latter means you only fill one place in the end. So it can be done purely for selfish reasons. Such situations are highly unlikely to arise in practice. (This applies even for 2nd and 3rd.)

David_A_Craven Interesting that you should mention UK universities. It is in fact, at a very reputable UK university, with a very reputable department/supervisor, that I know of the scenario described by @DanielHatton being implemented ... 1 & 3 being accepted after negotiation with 1 because 1 & 3 are seen as better than the 2 & 4 alternative. Additionally, most PhD selection committees recognize that there is considerable error-or-measurement in their own rankings.


text:
Is it reasonable to keep rejecting postdoc offers to honor your part of the agreement with a professor for another postdoc?
I met Professor X, during an interview at a high-ranking university in which I wasn't selected. Weeks later, the professor invited me for an informal video chat. He gave me a lot of feedback and told me that I wasn't selected after a split decision and want me to join his team at his university. He really liked my profile and said that he can help me in my career basically (in particular in developing the skills that I needed, which contributed to me not getting that job offer).
He invited me to apply for a postdoc that he's going to advertise and gave me articles to read. He didn't say "I'm definitely hiring you," but he sure gave me a lot of info about the project and really wanted me to apply. Also, at the time, I was really lost because I had 0 options and 0 interviews, and that chat gave me the first hope after months and months of looking.
Days after that chat I was invited for two interviews from two universities, A and B. I got a quick offer right after the first interview from university A, I emailed Professor X about my situation and he said you can accept and ask if a collaboration was an option. He also mentioned that his university is a lot better than University A, which is true. After some thinking, I decided to reject A's offer and wait for the X's postdoc to be advertised, which he said should be available in a few days.
Then, University B sent me an offer. Note that University B is a much better university than previous ones: top 5 in the world! I really don't know what to do! I can't keep emailing Professor X after every offer I get.
My gut tells me to honor my part of the agreement and wait for Professor X, especially that we've established that first personal contract and he has a good impression of me. Also, he also put extra effort (invited for chat, feedback, and opening a postdoc that I can apply for)
Another professor said that you don't say "no" to a high rank university, others are just surprised that I rejected an offer after months of stress and looking. Help! it's a moral dilemma. Am being unreasonable here?

I don't appreciate the use of word "foolish" and the fact that you're speaking for the entire community, so I'm flagging your comment.

"he said you can accept and ask if a collaboration was an option." That was about University A but do you have any reason to think that he would react differently if asked about University B?

I'm confused as to the nature of these positions. Are all of these for postdocs? I'm asking because in many fields they are tied to a supervisor rather than a university. Some of this sounds like you're applying for tenure track positions which are very different.

These are for postdocs, and I agree with you. But I mentioned Professor X because I have a direct contact with the person, unlike the other postdocs where I only saw the advertised position from the University's website.

Your life is yours, and your primary responsibility is to yourself. If it makes you happier to work for one person, then it's totally reasonable to decline amazing offers to make yourself happy.
Some thoughts:

Also, he also put extra effort (invited for chat, feedback and opening a postdoc that I can apply for)

This not really extra effort to the degree you should consider it affecting your decision. This is pretty standard, even if providing feedback was a nice extra step from him. Certainly not worth deciding the future course of your life over.

My guts tells me to honor your part of the agreement and wait for the professor, especially that we've established that first personal contract and he has a good impression of me.

The agreement is when the papers are signed. Yes, it's a little rude to verbally agree and then renege. But a university would not blink to say "oh sorry, we can't offer that job," and move on with no regard to how this affected your life. Sure, the prof you interviewed with might be sad, but in the end, they are out of an employee, and you are out of income.

After some thinking, I decided to reject the offer and wait for the professor's postdoc to be advertised

I would not have done this. Trust me, a professor asking for a job posting is far from a guarantee it's going to happen. Hold on to all offers, and if it comes down to it and you have two offers in hand, wanting a response, and there's still no job posting, then  you can ask them when it's going to be posted, and ask your other offers for extensions.
Don't turn down any job you'd really take until they have given you a deadline. Then, yes, you can make the decision to take the guaranteed offer, or to gamble on another position. In the end, if the professor couldn't get a position up in time for you, that's their fault.

It is one thing to turn down an offer from a low ranked university for a verbal offer from a mid-ranked university. It is entirely another to turn down an offer from a top 5 university. The professor is not just being altruistic here, they are recruiting you for your skills and the benefits you would bring to their lab.

@Dawn I'm not really sure what you mean. I understand from the question (I just edited), that B > X > A. OP turned down A waiting on X's job posting. I would not recommend they tell B "don't bother to make a formal offer, I'm committed to X."  Do you think my answer gives that impression? I can edit if so.

No I think you are saying that turning down any formal offer in favor of an informal offer is foolish/not advisable. There may be some cases where X>>A and so the risk is worthwhile, especially with B still in the mix.

@AzorAhai-him-, I understand your point. I understand the risk I took by rejecting the offer from University B (knowing I didn't have any other offer at the time). But I have rejected the offer for other reasons as well. My reason was that professor X promised me "carreer growth"  and his the best at his field and in that country. But then again, a top 5 university will benefit me just as much..

I think you (Azor) were assuming that A was content to wait, I would not have made that assumption.

@Dawn I mean there is no reason to turn down X until you are forced to.


text:
Is it acceptable for a professor to claim that his students will never revolutionize the field?
Today, a very respected professor of ours, uttered a scattering reply that instilled within the hearts of my colleagues greasy distaste for him.
It all started when one colleague of mine, when the topic had dramatically went from discussing physics to discussing the potential of a 21st century physicist to imitate the work of Newton/Einstein, asked the question "Is it possible for a lone wolf to exist in today's era, a lone wolf who can give us revolutionary insight onto nature?", and suddenly as this question ended, another colleague could not maintain patience and asked in succession, "Are all of us capable of revolutionizing physics, just through hard work, creativity and extreme diligence? Or perhaps, is this ability rare and impossible to achieve?"
My professor smiled and said what would later lead us to contemplate the idea of reporting him to the department;

Einstein and Newton were godlike geniuses. They had it by birth, and it was something which cannot be obtained by practice. I am sure that there are many geniuses today, perhaps more than ever, but none of them is a godlike genius. You have Witten, Hawking, Hamed and many others, but I think they can be considered to be extraordinary geniuses perhaps, but not godlike. And regarding whether a single individual can revolutionize physics today, yes.

He continued;

That is possible but unlikely, just as it was possible but unlikely for somebody to revolutionize physics before Einstein published his papers in 1905. But for many reasons, I believe that if such a lone wolf would exist, he would not revolutionize physics within academia but rather outside it. Academia has too much noise for him to do so. And regarding the fact that physics is now too vast of a field to revolutionize single-handedly, I think this too is misplaced. Only 45% of it you need to revolutionize physics.
In fact, I believe it is impossible for one to turn physics upside down within academia. None of you will ever revolutionize physics, but do not be disheartened, for only one within a billion men are capable of doing so. But what you can do, what we can do, is that we can atleast contribute, however minor it may be, so that it may be a part of some other revolutionary work.

Yes, I agree it is extremely difficult, to a degree where it becomes almost possible, for "normal geniuses" like me and everybody else in academy today, to revolutionize physics single-handedly but this put off some students in the class, and it effected me too.
For example, he said that only "one in a trillion men" are capable of revolutionizing physics, excluding women, and there were 4 female students present who got very angry at the end of the class, saying things like "A sexist idiot!", "What does he know?!", "Women are as capable of doing good physics as men, what he says is nonsense."
The female students were mainly suggesting that we should report the "sexist" to the department, but not only them, many male students were too saying so. Almost all of the class is angry, which I believe only for the "You will never revolutionize physics." remark.
It could be true, perhaps it IS true, but what should be done about it? Should it be just pushed aside? Or should it be reported?
And I must also add here that the professor is very famous and respected and if you are in physics, you probably know him. We were all surprised to hear such a thing from him.

If such a claim is sufficient to make you angry, I suspect that you will all be rather disappointed by life...

Sounds to me like the professor is just explaining that you should not waste your time trying to create this super all-encompassing theory for everything, and instead contribute in small ways towards pushing forward worldwide knowledge. Which is quite good advice. I'm quite certain he did not mean to ignore women or offend anyone.

this all sounds like good advice and 2) even if it weren't, what are you going to report him for doing? Having an opinion that you don't agree with?

You may have made a typo. First you said for only one within a billion men are capable of doing so., then you said "one in a trillion men" are capable of revolutionizing physics. Billion and trillion are one thousand times difference. Please clarify. Also, when he said 'men', did he mean male or just people?

I guess he was just telling the truth. Are you afraid of hearing the truth?

Reporting for "you'll likely not revolutionize physics" will probably get you either a blank stare or hysterical laughter from whoever you report to. Reporting that the figure of speech "one in a million men" is sexist has a higher chance of being taken seriously, but frankly do you really believe that what the prof. wanted to say is that "for the men there is a tiny chance, for you girls the chance is 0" - as opposed to "for all of you the chance is tiny"?

To me, it sounds like he was rather humble, and was expressing the extremely rare intersection of genius-like talent and the right circumstances that are needed for scientific breakthroughs. Do you consider it unacceptable of your professor to say that most colleagues and students are not exceptional geniuses? And "one in a trillion men" usually only means "one in a trillion human individuals" in that kind of formulation (see e.g. dictionary.com), if he did not specifically make it clear that he was only talking about males.

From the quotes, it is also quite likely (at least not impossible) that your professor is including himself in the group of people that will never "revolutionize physics".

I think the quote is a cracking answer to the question. If your quotes are an accurate record of what he said, I don't infer anything arrogant or sexist, or even discouraging towards the students.

I disapprove of what he said, but I will defend to mild discomfort his right to say it.

IF you concede that "perhaps it IS true" I absolutely see no way how you get the idea that this justifies reporting - except you consider the uttered (potential) truth a top secret endangering national security ... but now it has leaked to the Internet

This is sexist...? Do you object that every use of the word "mankind" should be "womankind" or perhaps "mankind and womankind"? Similarly, would you get offended if someone used the word "manhole" to describe one that was created by a woman? Would you tell them to change "man" to "woman" there?

One can learn all the physics and geometry in the pre-Newton times in a few years, so he could gather enough knowledge to revolutionize analysis, astronomy, optics, and mechanics. By Einstein's time, theoretical physics was something that fit in a few books.  Nowadays, you would need many years to just understand each one of the subfields inside theoretical physics; so it is unlikely that one would have enough time to gather enough knowledge to cause a revolution of that size.

There's something a bit suspect about this question.  The quotes have perfect English, while the English in the rest of the question is very shaky.  Also the cause of the indignation is very confused.

Is it acceptable for a professor to claim that his students will never
  revolutionize the field?

Yes. He was clearly expressing his opinion. This is what we do in academia. If you are so soft and fragile that hearing one man's opinion that you disagree with causes you such extreme discomfort, I suggest that you go and find yourself an occupation where one does not encounter a diversity of opinions on a daily basis.

It could be true, perhaps it IS true, but what should be done about
  it? Should it be just pushed aside? Or should it be reported?

Who would you report it to? The thought police?
My suggestion: be the change you want to see in the world; go out there and prove him wrong! Revolutionize physics yourself, and then you'll laugh at this small and silly man who had no imagination. And if it turns out he was correct after all, then you will still have a lot of fun and discover some cool things. Not everyone needs to be a Newton or an Einstein.

+1 for ... ummm... well, I don't know what, but I just wanted to differ from the three commenters above :P

Is it acceptable for a professor to claim that his students will never revolutionize the field?

It all depends on the point of view.
I really came to love the 'dent hypothesis'.
You can make a difference only in a very small field which for you will be the world.
Human knowledge simply progressed over the point that you could just throw everything upside down but you can certainly advance a part of it.
To you - to everybody else in that part - it will look like a big part of the world.
I found it best visually described in this comic by Dr. Might - though you could discuss the actual size of the dent you can make and when exactly you can make it:
http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/
Reading between the lines of the question as a whole one could guess the overall motivation of those young students in this context would most likely be to go in for a career. This almost always fails since the intrinsics of that motivation will change as the person gets older. As the question now suggests, this hasn't been factored in.
Please also see a very good example of this by Dr. Might in his follow-up post:
http://matt.might.net/articles/tenure/

This is exactly why physicists today desperately need to incorporate the history and philosophy of science into their education. To claim that Newton and Einstien were 'godlike geniuses the likes of which only occur with a 1 in a billion likelihood' reveals an incredibly naive understanding of how science actually unfolds. These characters are romanticized long after their deaths and the portrayal of these men is one of a cult of personality.
The reality is that nobody revolutionizes physics by themselves. Period. Does that deny the existence of geniuses in the field? Hardly. But much more important is recognizing that a revolutionary idea is revolutionary only if it is incorporated into the main body of scientific knowledge. Any work that significantly deviates from the norm is usually rejected. Put another way, there are undoubtedly thousands of papers that could have completely 'revolutionized' physics had they been produced under different circumstances.
You should read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. And so should your prof. One of the main takeaways is that scientists continuously rewrite history to further the narratives of their textbooks. I'll end with one example. Everyone credits Boltzmann for having invented statistical mechanics and defended atomism (in physics!) long before anybody else. But this was a very minority view, and the exclusion that he felt from his peers contributed hugely to his suicide.

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


text:
In U.S. universities, do male professors get paternity leave?
Do American universities typically help male professors transition into fatherhood by offering (paid) paternity leave?  If so, what is the standard amount of paid time off that is offered?
Feel free to compare with maternity leave benefits for female professors, but my question is mainly on the availability of paternity leave.

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because  it belongs on workplace.se

“Because it belongs elsewhere” is not a good reason for closure. The crucial question is why the question does not belong here, not where else it may fit.

I thought that in the US, neither fathers nor mothers get paid parental leave.

US Federal law (FMLA - Family and Medical Leave Act) specifies the conditions under which unpaid leave is required to be offered. Companies (and universities) may exceed the Federal requirements. One would have to check the HR policies of your particular institution.

Is there a difference between paternity leave for men and women?

@FuzzyLeapfrog Besides the fact that leave for a woman is called maternity leave? Yes, a company or university could have paid maternity leave, but not have paid paternity leave.

I semi-randomly chose two universities. Ohio State has 6 weeks maternity and 3 weeks paternity leave for 75% or more contracts. Standard has maternity leave, and a "baby bonding leave". The latter I think is actually a California-specific program also know as "paid family leave". So it's going to vary.

Clearly worth talking about on academia.se -t here are a lot of academia-specific aspects of this question - it is not about mandatory lawful minima, but typical examples. Also, tenure clock and teaching leave, etc, are all academia-specific.

The answer varies wildly across university to university, even within the same class of university. This can go from the mandatory FMLA minimum of 12 weeks (unpaid) to 12 months, with some pay. I've attached a comparison table from a 2009 survey by Robert Drago and Kelly Davis,  Parental Leave and Modified Duties Policies across the Big Ten.

I found this from the AAUP's page on family leave, which is fairly useful: https://www.aaup.org/issues/balancing-family-academic-work/leave-policies
In addition to the formal leave offered, there can also be varieties of teaching relief and tenure clock stoppage for both mothers and fathers. All of this seems to vary from place to place, and probably some details could be negotiated at the time of a job offer.

As AJK said, there's no "standard."  I can't vouch for the reliability of this source but fairygodboss.com states that the average paid paternity leave for colleges and universities in the U.S. is two weeks.

Just FYI, I didn't downvote you, and I appreciate your answer :)

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


text:
Is it ok for an applied mathematician to research a topic that she has personal experience with?
Would this idea be too sensitive / too much information / generally a bad idea?
For example, I have a friend who is doing her computational biology PhD at a strong U.S. program, and her main research is about the illness of one of her family members, whom she unfortunately lost recently.
I have also heard of specialist (medical) doctors who got into their field because they suffered from the very illness that they are now trained to diagnose and treat.
For me, at a much lower level, at the MS Thesis level, I have a chance to work with a very well-known applied mathematician, who has joint appointments at our math dept and medical school.  But, I don't have a clue what project I would like to initiate with him, other than about something that I have dealt with personally and medically  -- and this topic could likely be within his research domain.  Of course, I would be naturally very passionate about working in this area.  I am always fascinated, when I see my own team of doctors twice a year to have discussions about my health.
If I could do a mathematical project about my own health issue, do you think that this is ... TMI?  A classic "beginner's mistake" perhaps?  Or, is it pretty common for applied mathematicians to dedicate some (or all) of their research to issues that they are intimately familiar with?
Thanks,

At the very least, this is likely to motivate you more. I see this as positive.

The only problem I could see if your specific issue does not lend itself to a mathematical treatment -- either generally or at the level of a masters thesis. This is hard to say without knowing specifics (and this is not the place for it). But this is something your advisor can decide. My advice is to propose the project and see what they say. It's quite likely that they will shift the project away from your specific issue toward more basic research -- do not be disappointed; if it works out, it'll just be the first step in your research program.

is the research you're planning to do of general importance? are your proposed methods likely to produce informative results? these are the questions you should be asking. your own medical history is really not even close to the most important thing here. but don't let anyone tell you your medical history disqualifies you from pursuing any research endeavor. @ChrisWhite's comment doesn't make any sense to me.

you might check out kay jamison as just one famous example of a clinician who suffers from the chronic illness she treats. (and famously faced and fought discrimination based on her diagnosis.)

I think the answers below cover the big points to consider, but I thought I'd add that I have heard a colloquialism for this. It's called "me-search," and I think you particularly see it in fields like psychology. That being said, it's fairly common,

@ChrisWhite I've edited to give some specific biomedical examples (though not links, since I am not sure how public the second is)

Having personal engagement with your research can be a great benefit:

Being directly affected by something is a strong motivator for persisting through the inevitable struggles of research.
Being engaged also gives you perspective that may help with formulating effective questions and answers and avoiding traps in thinking.

Some successful examples I personally know in the biomedical field include an amputee researcher of artificial limbs and an autism researcher with an autistic sibling.
As @xLeitix says, there can be challenges with personal bias, but I don't see that as any different than the personal bias that all researchers bring to their subjects.
In fact, I think one needs to be more careful if you are not directly engaged with a problem, because it is easy to be blind to the true needs of the people involved.  Consider, for example, the way in which a largely male medical establishment simply ignored many aspects of women's health for many years, or the continuing embarrassment of many misguided aid projects in the developing world.
In short: go where your passion is taking you.

I agree with this, but I do think that the danger of bias is more substantial if you are deeply personally involved than in projects where this is not the case.

@xLeitix: It depends on the motivation. If you are personally strongly committed to helping others due to personal experience, you will not easily face the danger of bias at least in the area you are trying to contribute to. Though you may have narrowed perception due to a biased view that your area is more important than others. However, if you're committed to some ideology, that is downright dangerous.

I do not have experience with specifically applied maths, but in general, there is no problem at all with conducting research in a direction that you have some personal connection with. One could argue that many applied research projects are driven by concrete needs, and I fail to see why those would have to be needs of other people rather than a researcher's own.
That being said, you will need to remain cautious of your own bias in your endeavours. As a researcher, it will be expected of you to work on the topic from a neutral, scientific, "big picture" perspective, which is easy to lose if you are at the same time also part of this "picture".
Let me provide one example from my own research. I conduct research on software engineering. Many of our best PhD students have worked as software developers prior to starting their PhD, so in a way they are also part of the same demographics that they research. What can now happen with inexperienced students is that (s)he will, for instance, interview developers with regard to a specific problem, process, or practice, and, during the analysis phase, discard statements that go against their own prior experience as "obviously wrong" or "bad". In that way, a student may overemphasize results that resonate with her/his own prior experience, and discard results that don't, essentially guaranteeing that the results are in line with what the student expected going into the study based on her/his own experience.
You will need to make sure that you do not run into the same trap - don't assume that everybody experiences your health issues the same way, that you are some sort of gold standard of this specific condition, or that your specific variation is more important or relevant than others. However, these are definitely issues that a good advisor can help you with.


text:
What are the differences between a PhD in Statistics and a PhD in Applied Math?
Both types of programs will have predominantly undergraduate / master's level mathematics majors, both programs' students will likely take courses in measure-theoretic probability theory (so that knowledge of introductory real and complex analysis are prerequisites), mathematical statistics, develop programming backgrounds, and learn some differential equations, e.g., ODEs, PDEs, SDEs.
Both types of PhD students are well aware of the (current?) opportunities in data science, machine learning, etc, and are giving these areas of study some considerable emphasis.
Those are the similarities.  What are the differences?
It seems that people apply to the Phd in Stats as a way to avoid taking the Math subject GRE test, or that perhaps it is "easier" to get into a good PhD in Stats program, from having an undergrad math background.
Thanks,

Many of the similarities you mention are far from universal.  In my experience (not necessarily representative, either), most applied math programs don't require measure-theoretic probability or mathematical statistics; most statistics programs don't require differential equations.

The line "both programs' students will likely take courses in measure-theoretic probability theory" seems very presumptuous to me. Are you thinking of PhD program(me)s in particular countries? Particular kinds of universities? Local circumstances are much less universal than some people seem to think.


text:
Is it advisable to try and avoid attending a PhD program from a U.S. public university?
I read this Sunday's New York Times, which had a big article on the funding crisis of public universities - the Times went into detail about the school system, CUNY, but stated that similar problems are occurring at many other public universities across the country (United States.)
The Times writes of the horror stories such as overcrowded classes, lack of lab equipment to teach science classes, chronically leaky ceilings, bathrooms with no toilet paper, faculty who haven't gotten raises in six years now, and other stuff.  At CUNY, the Times writes that the morale is extremely low, and, in the fall semester, the faculty have vowed to walk out, if the contract disputes are not resolved.
Meanwhile, the administrative leadership at these public universities have gotten significant raises and big bonuses for their work.
So, my question is:  should I be worried as a math PhD applicant, who might possibly apply to some public universities, e.g., CUNY Graduate Center?  (CUNY is a "Top 50" math department, according to the U.S. News and World Report.)
Should I avoid applying to public universities to do a math PhD and instead try to attend a privately funded school?
Are the STEM fields perhaps better protected from this funding crisis, and that it is the humanities fields that are the most adversely affected?  (The example of lack of lab equipment probably shows that STEM subject areas are not doing any better...)
Thanks,

Do you have any evidence that conditions are better at private universities?

Also, there isn't a single US public system, rather, each state has its own system (or multiple, in fact).

The NYT article focused on City College, which is the main engineering college of the CUNY system. Clearly STEM is not immune to anything.

Yes, @ff524 -- I was going to edit and put that in my question :(

For what it's worth, many private universities and colleges in the US are also having financial problems. See e.g. this article, this article, and this article.

yeah, U of Illionois, Champagne-Urbana.  that's a crappy school.  Don't get your PhD there.  or UC Berkeley.  another crappy public university that you never wanna get a PhD from.  U of M (Michigan Minnesota, whatever) those PhDs don't count for anything.

Should I avoid applying to public universities to do a math PhD and instead try to attend a privately funded school?

No, it doesn't make sense to decide anything at this level of granularity.  You are thinking about some of the right issues, but oversimplifying the situation too much when you boil it down to public vs. private universities.
Public vs. private is literally one bit of information, and your graduate school decisions should be based on far more information than that (if you change your mind based on this one bit, then you are either overreacting or suffering from a tremendous lack of information).
Before deciding where to apply, you should talk with people you know (faculty, other students) and look into different options online.  Once you have offers, you should investigate the programs that have admitted you much more thoroughly, including visiting in person as well as gathering whatever other information you can.
Facilities, faculty and student morale, and grad student funding are all factors that you should consider, but you should evaluate them based on the specifics of each program, rather than by jumping to conclusions based on whether it's a public university.  (Keep in mind that both public universities differ dramatically from each other, as do private universities.)  These factors may also be outweighed by others: Stanford is much better off financially than Berkeley is, but your mathematical interests could be a better fit for Berkeley.