text:
How were people able to graduate with a PhD at a such young age in the past?
When I read up the bibliography of the mathematicians and scientists in the early 19th to 20th century, I am always shocked at how they were able to graduate university with PhD(s) at such a young age.
For example, John Von Neumann graduated from two universities simultaneously at the age of 22 with two PhD degrees and critical papers published.
John Forbes Nash graduated with a PhD at 22 on game theory. Enrico Fermi finished school at 21 with thesis on X-ray diffraction. Kurt Gödel finished school at 23 with dissertation on predicate calculus. Abel finished at 20 with thesis on quintic equations. Galois never graduated but created a field of his own before dying at the young age of 20 and the list goes on and on...
I am not knowledgeable of the trend in the social sciences but I suspects much of the same.

Can someone tell me if there has been a major shift in how university
education is conducted such that university across the world takes
longer to get through than it used to be
or is it truly because
these people are unusually talented and are able to get through
university purely based on their almost unnatural abilities?

Most importantly (and relevant), why is there such a decline in these young PhDs (I've never heard of a professor at my university who graduated at 21) and is it still possible for people to graduate at such a young age nowadays?

Modern example: Terence Tao got his PhD at 21 and became a full professor at 24. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_Tao

I think your sample of scientists is severely biased and hence, the conclusion that there is a decline in the number of young PhDs is not supported. I suppose that the relative number of young PhDs  is decreasing (just because the total number of PhDs is increasing fast) but I do not see any evidence for the absolute number to be decreasing.

I submit that your sample set is seriously atypical, consisting as it does of 5 mathematical geniuses (every one a household name) and one of the leading theoretical/experimental physicists of the 20th century (Fermi). If you are making a collection of famous mathematical prodigies, you could add Norbert Weiner to the list. :-) Having said that, there might be a reasonable question in there, if you can refine it further. You'd need to actually try and get hold of some concrete statistics  if you are trying to show that people graduated more quickly in earlier years.

"or is it truly because these people are unusually talented and are able to get through university purely based on their almost unnatural abilities?" There are famous mathematicians that don't get through university super-fast too.

I'm not sure you should draw too many conclusions from when this specific set of people graduated. Nash essentially came up with the most important aspect of modern game theory, equilibria, with the possible exception of VCG auctions, while sitting in a bar. He was a genius. Von? LOL. Every computer we try to make to this day that somehow attempts to "get around" or "defeat" the limitations of Von Neumann machines fails miserably; it seems that Von was right then and will continue to be right possibly forever.

...Godel, in essence, proved that "some true things cannot be mathematically proven". I wouldn't derive conclusions from when that guy graduated either.

@FaheemMitha In some households maybe, lol.

One relevant aspect is the shift in the socially acceptable career schedule of people. The age of adulthood has been shifted from 13-15 y.o. to 18 in Europe and 21 in North America. This is not only true of scientists, but of all other professions. In the early 19th century, people started their professional career at 15 and peaked around 30, blacksmiths or scientists.
This shift likely happened during the 20th century. One example from the UK*:

the minimum school leaving age increased from 12 to 14 in 1918, to 15
  in 1947 and 16 in 1972.

I've heard it's 17 now.
Nowadays, kids spend years filling coloring books and playing the recorder awkwardly before they first hear of mathematics, natural sciences or philosophy. And even after that, it's socially accepted to enjoy teen years riding a skateboard and playing beer-pong. So, we can certainly argue that we had a more laid back childhood than our 19th century counterparts, but it sure delays PhD graduation.
Some still go faster than others. For example this guy did his PhD in 2 years, got hired as a faculty at Columbia at 25 and got a tenure track position at EPFL at 29.
*Education: Historical statistics, Standard Note: SN/SG/4252, available: http://www.parliament.uk

FWIW re: your example, a Ritt Assistant Professor at Columbia is essentially a postdoc. Certainly postdocs are faculty members, but being a postdoc at Columbia at 25 (while impressive) is quite different from being a tenure-track/tenured faculty member at Columbia at 25.

@Cape Code: A "named" assistant professor is usually a postdoc -- or, more precisely, a non-tenure track job.  This is a top-drawer postdoc offered by very good departments.

There are several issues:

Your examples are somewhat biased, since you've selected researchers who were not only brilliant but also prodigies.  By contrast, Riemann finished his Ph.D. dissertation at the somewhat older age of 25, and Weierstrass didn't start his research career until he was 39 or so.  Brilliant researchers are more likely to get an early start than average researchers are, but the correlation is far from perfect.  Focusing on prodigies gives a misleading picture.
There are plenty of prodigies today (Terry Tao, Noam Elkies, Akshay Venkatesh, Erik Demaine, etc.).  If they occupy a smaller fraction of academia, it's probably because academia has grown enormously even relative to the population.  The faculty in the top departments today are stronger on average than a hundred years ago, but there are many more departments nowadays, so the average professor is overall probably not as talented.
The amount that's known is steadily increasing, so getting to the 19th century research frontier takes quite a bit less time than getting to the 21st century research frontier.  This is not as relevant in very new fields, but finishing a Ph.D. in algebraic geometry in two years is a more impressive feat today than it was a hundred years ago.  This increase in knowledge doesn't translate perfectly into an increase in time to degree: people also compensate by specializing more and then broadening later in their career.  However, the obstacles to a quick Ph.D. are certainly increasing over time.


text:
Under what circumstances would a professor be offended at students taping or recording his or her lecture?
Are there any policies on taping or recording or even streaming a professor's lecture?
What do professors think about students who do this?
Obviously, most circumstances the professor would never find out, but there was this one instance when a professor got really angry because a student was recording him without his permission.
I don't understand why he would be offended, most likely the student is only using it for review and not commercial purposes as the nature of the class is quite obscure, could anyone shed a light?

I know of one case where the university records it but the videos are only available to off-site students; despite the efforts of the professor to make them publicly available. The university refuses.

To get the answer just ask yourself: under what circumstances would you be offended if the professor would be taping/filming you without your knowledge?

One time while doing a review TA session before the final exam, suddenly a bunch of students took recording devices and smartphones and put it in front of me. I was surprised and told them that I do not agree that this session will be recorded. Makes me wonder how many times I've been recorded without my knowledge...

In my experience lectures are often recorded for/by students with with special needs such as dyslexia which makes taking notes in class difficult. One of my friends did this and I don't think she ever asked permission. However, I doubt the lecturers realized as it was audio only.

I#d like to add that this is also a privacy issue. I would always be angry if someone is filming me without my permission, it doesn't matter if it is in a classroom or anywhere else. If you record someone, ask them! I wouldn't want my face all over the internet on some strange youtube video, even if I would give a brilliant lecture.

In the US, depending on state, recording someone without his or her permission runs afoul of wiretapping laws.

Beside all the specific details, people just generally don't like when they feel tricked. Comments like "most circumstances the professor would never find out" suggest that yourself approach this in a less open way, and try to hide as a first option, instead of asking directly for permission or doing it openly without asking, assuming it is normal.

There's a profound difference between surreptitiously recording someone who has every expectation that an individual conversation is private and obviously recording someone who is at the front of a room full of people and is having no private discussions with no reasonable expectation of privacy.

To perhaps clarify by way of ad-absurdum/addendum: under the worldview many of the comments and answers are espousing here, it should be illegal to record a police officer without first asking their permission, because they might be offended. You have the right, at least in the U.S., to record the things that happen in public as long as you aren't running afoul of circumstances under which the recorded party has a reasonable expectation of privacy (i.e., private conversations, or the underside of their skirt)

@abathur If there were two students having a conversation with a lecturer in an office, they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy: this is necessary for them to interact and learn by "failing safely". The ideal in teaching would be for the same attitude to prevail in ever larger classes, right up to a big lecture: there should still be student interaction, and they should feel safe doing so. If a lecture is about teaching rather than the talking head, the privacy expectations of all in the room should be considered.

abathur, having the right to do something doesn't mean that doing so should not be expected to offend, and it has nothing to do with privacy.  If a member of faculty recorded questions asked after the end of a lecture (but still in a public place), I suspect that many students would be offended or at least put off asking questions under those circumstances.  IMHO students ought to ask before recording lectures.

@Ian The expectation of privacy here is about someone actually releasing the recording to the public. We already have to overcome the fear of looking stupid in front of our peers to ask questions (or looking stupid in front of our students, to give lectures). I think we fully realize students may be writing down anything stupid we say (as a student or a lecturer) for posterity; our expectation is that they not go share it with the world (unless it becomes a matter of public interest, perhaps if some crime is incidentally recorded).

@DikranMarsupial Anyone has the right to be offended by anything; this doesn't mean it's unreasonable (or illegal) for students to record a lecture for their own educational purposes. In fact, the expectation is already that students sit, pay attention, and record the most educationally significant events with devices like a pen, pencil, or laptop. The Livescribe smartpens exist more or less explicitly for this purpose. Some institutions encourage the use of the Livescribe pen, especially in student disability services; many university bookstores even sell them.

@abathur, the question is "Under what circumstances would a professor be offended at students taping or recording his or her lecture?".  It wasn't whether students have a right to record the lecture.  Arguably they don't, rock bands giving a concert don't have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" but that doesn't mean you automatically have a right to record the concert for your own use.  A lecture has an element of intellectual property, which means that it is not clear to me that there is an automatic expectation that it can be freely recorded.

@abathur You have missed the key point: the other students have an expectation of privacy. Their consent is key. For some students, removing the "safe space" to make mistakes will inhibit them and damage their education.

@DikranMarsupial I didn't answer the question, which is most certainly about the professor being offended--I commented after someone suggested the recording would run afoul of wiretapping laws.

Rather than asking whether it is reasonable for students to record the lecture, perhaps we should be asking why students don't see the need to ask permission (which seems to me to be the obvious thing to have done).

@abathur, in which case, why not simply agree with me that the right to do something does not mean that it is reasonable to do so without permission.

@Ian, I explicitly addressed the fact that other students are already completely capable of recording anything another student says or does with the pen and pencil in their hand; it seems disingenuine to suggest I "missed the key point" when I said the privacy breach occurs when they begin sharing this information with others who weren't in the room, and not upon recording.
That said, I don't entirely disagree with you; the "chilling effect" is our biggest objection to government surveilance, as well; a prominent recording device certainly has a similar effect.

@DikranMarsupial Because I don't necessarily agree that it is logically "unreasonable" to exercise what may be a legal right and educational prerogative without first requesting permission from anyone who might be offended.

@abathur, sorry, I now see that you did. But I think the thrust of our arguments remain distinct. I'm saying that the expectations and regulations set by the lecturer/teacher should be there to maximize learning opportunities for all students. Those expectations form the basis for the actions and trust levels of the entire group in the room. By breaking those expectations the behaviour of the group will change (I would expect for the worse), even if no privacy is breached. As the teacher responsible for setting the expectations, I'd think it reasonable to be annoyed at such a breach of trust.

@abathur I didn't say that it was logically unreasonable to exercise a legal right without permission, I said that the right to do something does not mean that it is reasonable to do so without permission.  Those are not the same thing.  There are some rights that don't need permission, there are others where it is reasonable to ask permission first.  As a lecturer, do I have the right to record students asking me questions in a lecture for study purposes (to improve my lecturing) without first obtaining their permission?  Perhaps.  Would it be reasonable?  No, probably not.

@DikranMarsupial A fair distinction--but (to add another) a lecturer's interest in student questions is different than a student's interest in the information a lecturer is giving them. The student is expected to learn, know and understand the information payload of the lecture in order to pass the course (in order to obtain a degree, in order to obtain a better future, etc.), and their recording exists within and is fully explained by the motive for attending lecture in the first place. I should clarify that I think it's sufficient the lecturer notify students they will be recorded.

Please take all further discussion to [chat].

I do not believe it had anything to do with the act of being recorded by itself. Most universities are beginning a process of recording lectures for later consumption by the students anyway.
Instead in this case it is likely because the professor was unaware they were being recorded. They may do or say something that they regret or which gets them into trouble. If however they knew beforehand that they were being recorded it would be unlikely that they would do that since they know the repercussions would be more severe. I think it was an instinctive reaction to protect themselves from others using the recording against them.

I agree.  For example, the teacher might say something meant as a joke but will appear as highly offensive if not seen in the intended context.

@Bristol I can say highly offensive things to be funny that I don't actually believe at all. Often it is a lame excuse but it can happen and you're probably best not to say those sorts of things in a classroom environment.

@Bristol What about a lapsus? You may just change a single word in a sentence by mistake and an harmless statement could become a really harmful sentence. In class you can realize that and correct it, but if a student wants to give you troubles he can simply cut the recording and distribute that stating that you said that really with that intention.  The point is: a recording can be manipulated, even by simply cutting & pasting in the right places.

In many countries and US states, it is illegal to create an audio recording of a person without their permission or knowledge. Awareness and consent are key.

@Bristol The big problem in my opinion is not with full statements meant as a joke. The big problem is that in some situation the full statement could be a good joke, but half of the statement could be interpreted highly offensive....

I can think of some reasons why a teacher would get angry when a student videotapes the lecture without his or her permission:

Doesn't want a public, permanent record of his/her errors
Believes that his/her lecture is his/her intellectual property and considers the videotaping without consent as a form of theft

Actually, a lecture is the IP of the lecturer.

@Greg: Not necessarily. My university owns the copyright to my in-class lectures, as performances, under the rubric of "work for hire".  I am explicitly forbidden to post videos of my own lectures on YouTube.  On the other hand, I own the copyright to anything that I write.

@JeffE You are right, it is case by case (country by country), but the point is, it is generally not public domain and cannot be assumed that it is.

@JeffE To complicate things, though the university may own the content of the lecture, the video itself will usually be the IP of the student who filmed it.

@Vality I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that the copyright for any performance automatically attaches to any recording of the performance.  See concert videos being removed from YouTube.  So no, the video itself would not be the student's intellectual property.

@JeffE I think a better wording would be "the video would not be solely the student's intellectual property".

The first item is just silly. Not saying it's an argument nobody would make, though. :/

@JeffE YouTube taking down videos is not a legal ruling. If someone takes pictures or video from a location they are legally allowed to be in, the IP on those belongs to them. Whether or not those contain IP that belongs to someone else is the issue that would be in question.
There are other issues with the idea of a lecture belonging to someone. Most lectures are just relaying factual information, which does not qualify for copyright in the US, though might in some countries.

@Cdaragorn The MPAA, concert vendors, Broadway theaters, the NFL, the NBA, and MLB all disagree with you.  Vehemently.  The information in a lecture may not be copyrightable, but its presentation definitely is. (That's why textbooks and research papers and newspapers, which also "just" relay factual information, can have copyrights.)

@JeffE Good job naming the most egregious offenders of copyright in history. Just because they want it to be true does not mean anything. The fact is that to be eligible for copyright something must have a significant amount of creative content. The fact that you did something does not make it copyrightable.

Just because they want it to be true does not mean anything. — Pot, kettle, black.  Lectures do have a significant amount of creative content.  My employer pays me specifically to create that content.  Therefore, by current US copyright law, my employer owns the copyright to that content.

Leaving aside the points already made (that it's exceptionally rude to do so without consent, etc.), I'll just (approximately) state the policy of my institution: anyone speaking or otherwise appearing on a recording made on university property has copyright to their "performance" in that recording. Thus if a lecture or seminar is being recorded, before it can be re-broadcast, every voice and face that appears must explicitly consent.
The usual context is the lecturer recording must either get an explicit release from every student or edit out the appearance of any student from the recording. However, the converse also holds: if a student records the lecture, they need to get the consent of the lecturer (and also all students that might appear on the recording).
There are no cases where I would worry about a student recording me. There are plenty of cases where I would worry that a student recording a session would inhibit or discourage the participation of other students. This is especially true if the other students found out about the recording without having been told in advance and explicitly asked if they're happy about it.

There are plenty of cases where I would worry that a student recording a session would inhibit or discourage the participation of other students. Bingo.

To further this answer, my school required all teachers to include this in their syllabi: "Statement on Classroom Recording
To ensure the free and open discussion of ideas, students may not record classroom lectures, discussion and/or activities without the advance written permission of the instructor, and any such recording properly approved in advance can be used solely for the student’s own private use.", so yes, some schools definitely see there being an issue with free discussion

Some people might have a protected identity. Publicly making pictures and movies without consent can endanger lives.

I agree with you.  However, a person who does not want his or her identity made public would probably not teach in public.

When recording a lecture or seminar, it is not just the teacher who appears: it could be other students. By recording it you remove their ability to participate.

@Ian, good point.

@JoelReyesNoche Giving a lecture in a university, which only students of the university may attend would, I believe, be considered a private situation, not a public one.

@JoelReyesNoche: There's a bit of a difference between being visible to a hundred students and being seen by the entire internet.  If you're hiding from a specific abuser or criminal, the lecturing is completely safe.  Having your face and location broadcast is definitely not.

You are choosing to go somewhere where there will be other people. Pretending you can hide in the wide open is just setting yourself up. Insisting that others are somehow responsible to protect you is simply wrong. If you have a "protected identity", it is not the public's responsibility to protect it, it is yours and yours alone.

Cdaragorn: I disagree. There are children, for example, that go to school, that are under protection, and they are of course not responsible. It is common courtesy to ask for permission before videotaping at a non-public location.

Speaking as a professor, given the capabilities of today's gadgets I'd say get used to it. I teach programming, and note-taking has recently turned into the entire class raising their phones and taking a picture of the screen. I step out of the way so they all get a clear view. Given the topic I really can't object - it's a technology-based course and as with all programming it's very precise - one missing comma produces a lot of frustration.
If I speak as a student, I would also say to the professor get used to it. I paid (a lot) for the lecture, I will have a copy I can refer to later. It's not like hiding the camera is at all difficult. The more noise made about it, the more likely it will end up on YouTube. Any in-class rants on the topic will definitely make prime time.

Some students have legitimate reasons not to want to be recorded, especially if that recording will be made publicly available.  I have taught students who were being stalked by abusive ex-spouses or abusive parents.  FERPA requires my university to protect those student's identities, which includes strict policies about recording them.

@JeffE My professor's voice says "fine, but not really my problem. I will announce 'no video, please' at start of term". My inner-student's voice says "sit in the back row and keep to yourself". My other voices are recommending things like different fashion or online learning.

Your answer doesn't actually address the question - you talk about what students want and will do, but querent knew that.  You don't actually discuss the question topic of when and why the lecturer might be offended.   (Also: so, your inner voices think students overcoming abuse shouldn't ever be able to sit at the front, or wear what they want, or even attend university in person instead of online?  Way to support the victims, there.)

@Tynam 1. Question fully addressed at the end of sentence #1: "get used to it". Repeated in para 2. If that's not what you wanted to hear, too bad.

@Tynam 2. If someone has an abusive whoever / stalker / ratted out the mafia then yes, they should keep as low a profile as possible. Sitting in the front, actively participating in debate while wearing neon would not be a good choice when trying to escape unbalanced, violent people. Tell me what's going on at the start of term and I won't call on you in the back row, and you can do your tests in my office and get advance notice of guest lecturers.

@peter: I'm genuinely horrified by this comment.  You've decided that it's acceptable for someone else to have to spend their entire lives crouching in a corner pretending not to exist, for fear of being ratted out to their abuser by you - rather than admit it might by a good idea for you not to do that.  You do know that "actively participating in debate" is actually very important to education, right?

More importantly: "Get used to it" is not an answer to the question "why would the professor feel this way?", since it tells us nothing about the professor's feelings.  "Get used to it" is not an answer to "what policies exist?", since it doesn't mention any policies.  You have not even attempted to answer the question; your answer is you asserting a personal opinion on what you would do.  (This is getting over-commented so I'm ending discussion here; I'll meet you in chat if you want to continue.)

I am surprised this hasn't been mentioned before, but (at least in Germany) this is first and foremost a personal rights issue. Recording someone without his knowledge and explicit consensus is a violation of their rights and people react very strongly because it is a sensitive topic. Finding out in retrospect that you were recorded doing something, of questionable nature or not, is rarely something people rejoice over. (If you've ever been to an alcohol-heavy college party, you probably know.) Generally, people like to be in control over what is documented about them.
Most lecturers I've had over the (ongoing) course of my bachelor studies made it clear that they were ok with e.g. photos of the blackboard but not with video or sound recordings. But without such clear regulations, basic decency dictates to ask.

I've been on both sides of this issue.  I've been in classes where recording was encouraged and also seen syllabuses where it was expressly disallowed.  The justification for the disallowing was 'intellectual property' and the distractions that recording setups might create.
As a professor I've never had an issue with it.  But I liked being asked instead of being surprised.  I am not camera shy but I don't like the idea I have to 'perform' well on camera.  Sort of adds a layer of anxiety to the teaching experience.
Good point above on the re-broadcasting issue.  I'd hate for some bonehead mistake to end up on Youtube and ruin my career.  And I don't like the idea that people could take turns going to class and share the videos instead.  That's why I do daily quizzes without makeup opportunities.

In this particular case, I would think the professor didn't feel respected and therefore became angry. He didn't even get the chance to acknowledge what the student is doing, and also the student didn't give himself the chance to quickly explain why he is recording  him.
I think a small dialogue before the class would have easily clarified this and even could have had a positive impact on the professor's reaction.
Imagine yourself being taped by the professor during a in-course presentation without being told. If he just said "Hey, I'm recording you for feedback purposes" or whatever, it would be a whole nother deal.

At least in the UK it is likely to be illegal to stop a disabled student that is unable to take notes from recording a lecture.

"likely to be illegal" I would really appreciate a reference for that claim. (Not that I think you're wrong, but I am honestly interested in this topic and reasoning for such a regulation. It's a delicate topic and both sides have striking arguments.)

@Romiox, http://www.csie.org.uk/inclusion/education-disability.shtml gives a overview.   Given that most professor allow recording, I can't see how a university could show that it is not a reasonable adaption to allow a disabled student to record a lecture.

In my mind, i think there are different aspects.
The purpose of the recording is one of the main aspects => for personal use only, for the students of this university, for public publishing, etc
The context of the event recorded is another important aspect. If it's a public meeting, it may be difficult to any party to restrict the recording.
If it's private, it's another story, even if the lecturer is a public personality i think. In some context, you only can be present because you implicitly agreed on some specific rules linked to the event.
If it's secret, it's another another story, ... etc
In a university course for example, do not forget that what your record is owned by the university.
This is not exactly public stuff, so you really should tell and ask the professor if he does agree to be recorded, and also, who will use the record later.
The same should be done for everyone present that could be identified on the record.
I think that everything but "personal use only" may even need any kind of written agreement between all the parties (the recorder, the professor, the university, and even the students that could be identified on the record).
This agreement may contain some conditions, like "you can publish it only if you hide the face of the professor, or of a students, ... "
Some party may also want to keep the possibility to forbid the use of the record afterward.
Anyway, i suppose that if all the parties don't mind, it eventually can stay only a verbal agreement assuming that every party is a witness for the others. But that's pure speculation from my part.
To answer the original question, the reasons for the refusal of one party (not just the lecturer), may be VERY variate (rational or not), and even if it may be frustrating or sounds like an injustice, i am not sure the party even has to tell you why if he don't want.
It is his right to refuse and you have to respect his right.

I have "solved" this by recording my lectures myself and making the recordings available to students.  That addresses the requirement of U.S. law that a performance "fixed in a tangible medium" and so protects my own copyright in the lecture.  Students are put on notice every class that the session is being recorded.  They're told at the beginning of the term that I am being recorded and they may be recorded.  So far, no one has complained.
http://bbrown.kennesaw.edu/papers/podcasting/podcasting_protects_ip.html

Following up on a comment made earlier, I stop recording before taking individual questions after class.  For questions during class, the questioner is usually a disembodied voice, often unintelligible, so much so that I always repeat the question for the recording.

A colleague was recorded giving a single lecture at another institution without her permission- the reason given was "we can't afford you next year" - on that occasion she insisted that the recording be destroyed. A student recording a lecture isn't participating fully, much like the person recording a concert, the student is blocked from the experience by the device and action.
I put all essential material online for review after a lecture has happened, as I insist on student participation, in the form of discussion / Q&A / replies to direct issues, any record would also record the students- who have not consented formally to being recorded?
Finally, this is just plainly rude! Why not ask permission? A lecture is not a rehearsed performance, it will contain fumbles, digressions, new perceptions. You have not bought an experience, you are supposed to be a participant. Put the phone back in your pocket and join in.

I realise this is many years past when this was written, but I just wanted to make the point that one reason for recording is to help the hearing-impaired student who may be missing parts of the lecture 'live' but will be able to make them out when replayed later from the recording.  It may not be their choice not to participate fully at the time, as the answer implies.

There are likely policies on taping or recording lectures, but as with many policies, they will likely vary by institution.
More importantly than that, if you're going to tape or record someone, it's polite to ask their permission first, and if they refuse, to accept that. Even if there's no policy/legal basis for it, nor do they actually need to justify themselves.
Beyond that, the professor may legitimately have concerns beyond just whether or not you intend to sell the recording. Knowing there is a recorder in the room changes how people act. A professor might wish, for example, to have fostered an environment where people are free to make intellectual leaps, push the bounds of their knowledge, make mistakes while discussing a problem etc. in a relatively consequence free environment.
Having a recorder in the room now makes those mistakes permanently recorded, and if you're streaming, it makes it publicly broadcast. It's not unreasonable to presume that will have a dampening impact on those "This might be wrong but..." questions, and the professor may wish to prioritize those over your note-taking convenience.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Do academicians routinely face discrimination in industry job searches?
I spent sometime recently at a HR department of a government company (in the utilities) in the US.
I accidentally found a file that listed out interview outcomes for new applications for a technical position (spreadsheet jockey - nothing fancy)
Out of the 10 applications, 2 of which had a PhD, 1 with a masters degree and the others unknown.
One of the PhD (call him PhD A) had spent considerable time doing research at a university, the other (call him PhD B) just recently finished his PhD program.
The comments to the interview outcomes as follows:
PhD A:

spent considerable time in university, have academic (not real world) experience
might have difficulty adjusting to a new environment
may contribute to discussions
not likely to be followed up

PhD B:

fresh out of university, have less experience than PhD A
research is too narrow

What I found funny is that very few people who actually works at the organization have PhDs (or masters for the junior staff), you'd think they would get a staff rotation just to improve upon their overall knowledge level.
Do you also feel that people with higher degrees are not welcomed with open arm in the job market? Why do you think that is the case? Have you personally faced discrimination or prejudice when applying for a job that is not too academic in nature?

This is an interesting question, but as currently written, it seems to be a poll/mainly soliciting opinions, which is considered out of scope of this site (as per the [help/dont-ask] guidelines). Can you [edit] the question to reframe it according to those guidelines?

None of those statements are discrimination. Your question is close to "is research experience valued in industry job searches"? (which is closely related to this http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11993/is-phd-worth-it-when-considering-your-career-in-industry)

I don't see discrimination in this example, if I were the employer, I would hire neither ones of the PhDs to do a low-level technical job. They'd get bored, they'd question everything and quit after everyone had lost valuable time (and money).

It also depends on the type of job someone with a PhD is looking for outside of academia and how strong his or her preference is for "pure" research.
In academia, the focus is usually more on "pure" research where you just need to demonstrate that an idea is viable.  You don't need to bring it all the way through to a finished product.  In industry, the focus is usually more on development and/or "applied" research where ideas are converted into marketable products or services.
If you have a PhD and have a strong affinity for "pure" research and little experience / interest in applied research or development, and you are applying for a job in an organization that does very little pure research, then it will definitely be a disadvantage.  However, if you're applying for a position at a research lab in a big or niche company, then this is probably an advantage.
For example, I work for a company that develops software.  If during your PhD, all you did was hack together prototypes for your papers and are not very interested in the end application, then I'm not very interested in hiring you.  If, on the other hand, you like the end application and like good software development practices, then having a PhD is a big plus.

I think of a PhD as "vocational education for researchers", not as the "highest level of education". So if a company is looking for a researcher then a PhD should be an advantage, but if a company is looking for a "spreadsheet jockey" as in your example then there is a mismatch between the education and the job and a company should take that into account.
On top of that there are large cultural differences between companies and universities. Such differences can lead to frictions, and if you can hire someone without such frictions then that will be an argument.

Companies hire for different reasons, and some unspoken expectations are often attached to the open positions. They vary from reasonable to immoral to illegal. I've seen in a few countries:
Age informal rule to disqualify applicants over 35 for regular positions; only allow older applicants for very senior positions, like director of design.
Tenure expectation informal rule to weed out applicants who are unlikely to stay with the company for 3 years, so anyone with unstable background, unclear career plan, etc.
Salary expectation weed out anyone who may be overqualified, like the PhD A. First they may reject a lowball offer, and even if they accept a bad offer, they may leave for greener pastures in a year.
Seniority reject applicants whose resume screams senior when the position is internally mid-level, even if the position is advertised as senior. For example avoid new hire being "smarter" than their manager.
Avoid academics under various assumptions, from having little practical experience, to different concepts of deadlines or quality of deliverables.
Hire academics under various assumptions, from expectation that they have good interpersonal and inter-department skills, to wide experience, to being able to read and follow written documents.
Academics for research only hire them if the expectation for the position is research (competitors, markets, regulations, etc.) but never for the actual hands-on work.
Avoid fresh grads on the assumption that training is long, unlikely to get productive within 2 weeks.
Hire fresh grads on the assumption that they can be easily trained, and they have no choice but to accept the mediocre ways of the company.
In short, a lot depends on the oragnisation culture, and the internal expectations for the role, neither of which is stated in the OP. "¯\_(ツ)_/¯ "

Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn't have to produce anything! You've never been out of college! You don't know what it's like out there! I've worked in the private sector. They expect results.  - Dr Ray Stantz, "Ghostbusters"

Basically, the discrimination is not against someone being an academician. The discrimination is against someone having zero industry job experience - and that includes intangible but important things like different priorities, balances and tradeoffs in academia vs the for-profit workplace. You can do research but produce no results in academia. You can research pretty much anything you want. Doesn't work that way in real company.
In other words, an academician who just got his PhD is treated exactly like a fresh BS graduate - nameley, like a guy with education but no industry exposure. (The difference being that BS analyst level fresh hire isn't paid a lot and doesn't have trust and responsibility in their first job that would have majors consequences because they are unused to "real world" and the needs of the business, so they pose a lot less risk).
An easy way to falsify your theory is to compare the employability and level of interest in someone who has a PhD vs. someone who has a MS or PhD and after that worked in the industry for at least a year. Personally, when I do hiring recommendations, no-experience person has no chance by comparison, all other qualifications being equal.
In certain cases, having a PhD isn't of any help (doesn't hurt, but it isn't a research position, or even one requiring super-high-IQ).
As such, a PhD would be a hindrance since PhD holder would expect to be compensated higher merely due to holding his degree (since on average, PhD does lend itself to higher pay if you look at labor market statistics). So, why would a company overpay someone for a useless skill/resume point?

Note that OP works in a 'government company' in which it is far from uncommon to get heaps of money for no results whatsoever.

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


text:
Is there an affordable way for non-students to subscribe to multi-journals/archives?
As a student I had free access to thousands of scholarly articles through my universities in databases/archives such as JSTOR, EBSCOhost, Google Scholar, Econlit, PubMed, etc, etc.
With no subscription, glancing at the full text of any 1 article costs anywhere from $20 to $60.
For any one project or paper I'd use at least five to ten papers and I'd skim over the full text of many more. For a meta-analysis of the literature, I'd go over dozens and perhaps even over a hundred papers.
As a non-student the cost is extremely prohibitive to continue reading past the free abstracts. I don't want to pirate the papers or give up reading them, but I can't find any reasonable alternatives.
Does anyone know of any monthly subscription I could sign up for to give me student-like/institutional access to papers?

Note:
  A community wiki answer has been added to this question to provide a list of solutions to the problem.

I think Aaron Swartz provided the unfortunate answer to this question... :(

I think it is a good idea to provide a community wiki answer that every one can add his own suggestion and the users have access to a list of suggestions, not just separate answers to the question.

@EnthusiasticStudent Great suggestion. I've just added a community wiki solution, feel free to edit it!

@R.. His trick wouldn't work anymore for JSTOR, at least not on MIT campus: people are now required to identify themselves with their MIT login (which is a pain) + JSTOR is a bit more careful regarding download thresholds.

#icanhazpdf

I think Alexandra Elbakyan took her own approach on this one. The world is still processing what to do about her solution.

If you email an author and get a copy, ask them politely to put it on their webpage or on a preprint server/institutional repository/etc to help others who might also like to read it and don't have subscriptions.

While potentially problematic in terms of legality, the answer to this question is hardly complete without mentioning http://sci-hub.cc/

As an individual, or as a member of a professional society, or as an employee of a corporation? Many of the latter have reduced-rate or company-wide subscriptions.

A month after asking this question I randomly stumbled onto the type of solution which I was originally seeking -- open-market subscription based access to multiple journals and full-text article links from sources such as Google Scholar, PubMed, EconLit, etc.
While searching for full text access to an article on Manufactured Environmental Toxins in umbilical cords I noticed that one of the full text options was through a service called DeepDyve.
It claims to be the "Spotify of Academic articles" (Spotify is a popular Internet radio app that lets you download and play music at will if you subscribe). Here is a somewhat dated review from Ohio State's TechTip a la 2009. It's a $40/mo subscription plan for non-students like the institutional access you get within academia. I'm on a 2-week trial of it now.
Of course, I'm still going to continue to make use of many of the other good suggestions and I'm on the lookout for other services like this to select from.
USE WITH ADDITIONAL SOLUTIONS
In addition to the service I found, I'm taking advantage of several other solutions offered. Even with the subscription-based service there are many papers and journals to which I do not have access and the follow suggestions remain vital:

Many papers are freely available on authors' websites, and pre-print servers (use search engine to find those).
Write to the authors, asking for copies. Majority of academics are happy when their work is read, and will send you a copy.
Your public library might subscribe to more than you suspect. Check it out.
Many institutions grant library privileges to alumni, which might include remote access to the university's online subscriptions. You might get in touch with the librarian at your alma mater and ask if they offer such a thing. (In some cases you might be required to join the alumni association and pay dues, but this would probably be on the order of US$10-$100 per year.)
Many universities open their libraries to the public. If you live near any university or college that has appropriate subscriptions, you may be able to just walk into their library, sit down at a computer, and download the articles you want. Then just put them on a USB drive, upload them to a cloud storage account, or email them to yourself. For older articles that aren't online, the library may have them in bound volumes; they may not let you check them out, but you can photocopy or scan any article you want.

LIMITATIONS OF THIS SOLUTION
The subscription-based service isn't a perfect solution. @J.Zimmerman points out that, unlike institutional access, you do not have the right to print or download papers. It's "read-only" access.
The selection of journals is quite large, but still limited. My feeling is that it directly provides access to about the same selection you'd have with most universities, but unlike universities there's no inter-library loan or other work-around for when you do not have access.
AFTERWORD
As I use this solution more over the course of the next few days I'll update this solution with further limitations and I'll better integrate it with the other useful solutions which have been posted. I will also take a suggestion from the comments to make this a Community Wiki solution.
Finally, I will also be on the look-out for any competing services like DeepDyve. Please update this solution if you know of any, so that we're not inadvertantly providing an advertisement for one arbitrary commercial service.

The only problem is that this is NOT like having institutional access-- deepdyve offers read-onlya access to fulltext articles; no printing or downloading. This limits its usefullness. +1 anyway.

@J.Zimmerman  Yes, that's a good point. I will update my answer and/or make it a Community Wiki answer to reflect that. So far it's fitting my needs pretty well, but I'm sure I'll discover more limitation after a few more days of use and I'll update this accordingly. +1 on your comment.

You can print a limited number of pages per month on DeepDyve, which you can 'print' to PDF to create soft copy. You can also purchase additional access to certain papers and journals.
Some significant publishers are absent, notably IEEE.

Many papers are freely available on authors' websites, and preprint servers (use search engine to find those).
Write to the authors, asking for copies. Majority of academics are happy when their work is read, and will send you a copy.
Your public library might subscribe to more than you suspect. Check it out. When I was a student in a community college, my local public library subscribed to JSTOR for example.
Become a student or an academic again :-)

The costs of being student again may be much more than the price of two or three papers he wants. Becoming a student again may not be affordable indeed.

That heavily depends on what is available to him. In Germany, the cost of being a student is negligible.

At my German university, it is around 250 € / six months, and you get a bus/tram ticket with it.

+1 for the suggestion to check libraries. Your local library may not have what you're looking for, but a larger or specialized branch might. Also, many college libraries allow nonstudents access (though not necessarily borrowing privileges).

To add to Boris Bukh's suggestions:

Many institutions grant library privileges to alumni, which might include remote access to the university's online subscriptions.  You might get in touch with the librarian at your alma mater and ask if they offer such a thing.  (In some cases you might be required to join the alumni association and pay dues, but this would probably be on the order of US$10-$100 per year.)
Many universities open their libraries to the public.  If you live near any university or college that has appropriate subscriptions, you may be able to just walk into their library, sit down at a computer, and download the articles you want.  Then just put them on a USB drive, upload them to a cloud storage account, or email them to yourself.  For older articles that aren't online, the library may have them in bound volumes; they may not let you check them out, but you can photocopy or scan any article you want.
Institutional access to subscriptions is usually based on IP address - all computers on the campus's network have access.  So if you still have a computer account at your alma mater, you may be able to log into it and fetch articles through there.  You may even be able to set up a proxy/tunnel/VPN or something similar to let you browse from your own computer but have requests routed through your university account.  For instance, if you have a Unix shell account, this is easily done with an ssh tunnel (but the details are beyond the scope of this site).
If you have a friend who's still a student or faculty at your alma mater or elsewhere, you could ask them to download the occasional article for you.  (This is probably not helpful for your 100-paper meta-analysis, unless they're a really good friend.)

Unfortunately, as you've probably discovered, personal subscriptions are usually prohibitively expensive, and may have to be purchased individually for each journal, or at least each publisher.

Thanks. I appreciate the suggestions. I still have half a mind to try to open a business that purchases institutional access and sells it to non-students though LOL ;)

@NerdLife: Sadly, I fear the publishers would shut  you down in a heartbeat.

FYI proxy server for Windows: http://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/a/4013/903

@Nate Eldredge but why? If they will make a deal with a small university that has, let's say 3,000 students, then why wouldn't they make the same deal with a private company that has about the same number of students? Wouldn't that be the same situation as group health insurance or other things where groups get together to purchase in bulk?

@NerdLife also surely it would benefit the publishers? They could get sales from a market where they currently get zero sales. No casual graduates will idly buy papers just out of curiosity, but loads would join a scheme like this if it was reasonably priced (I'd be your first customer! :D )

Publishers make a lot of money from purchases of one-off preprints.  They make deals with universities because university researchers (who provide most of their inventory) wouldn't publish in those journals otherwise.

I feel like I needed to select more than one submitted answer as the official "answer". I just wanted to let you know that although I checked the earlier solution as the answer, it was a tough call and I wanted to select this solution and @cbeleites as well

@JeffE So the reason the whole journal scheme works is momentum? If researchers would just start to publish on their own websites, it would not longer work out?

@queueoverflow Sort of. Journals provide evidence of independent peer-review, because they (supposedly) won't publish anything without it, as well as a certain amount of version control (you can't change a journal paper once it's published, no matter how embarrassing it becomes). Publishing on your own web page (or arXiv and the like) does not.

I'm apprehensive that some of these suggestions are illegal...

@MichaelChirico In which country?  "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

Depending on where you are, you may have access through government-funded agencies (similar to public libraries).
E.g. in Germany, the DFG purchases national licenses for quite a number of journals, and you can register for that as individual (technically, it works via the university library of Frankfurt)
Your library may be able to get the paper via inter-library loan for less than the direct purchase costs.
Not only universities, but also research instutes have libraries. These are often connected to library networks and may have access to quite a number of journals. In my experience, even if you cannot become member of that library, it is often possible to go there and read journals they have (including making a copy) as well as download papers they have electronic access to.

I never thought of this. I should've specified that I'm in the United States, but this is still a good idea

@NerdLife: about the national licenses, I don't have any idea whether you have state or national subscriptions (but OTOH you have major funding agencies requiring that produced papers must be made available). Also here, hardly anyone knows about the possibility to visit a research institute's library. When I was at a research institute in Canada, they were connected to the British Library and could get everything within a day or so. Not sure whether they'd let outside people into the library, but asking doesn't hurt. Here you often have to sign in and out of a guest list.

If you are in the UK, then you may be able to get access through your local public library.

I'm so jealous!

Ho ho ho. Let's all travel in meatspace to a special place to access on a computer no different to our own an electronic copy of a document that has severe restrictions on how it can be used.

@David I don't understand your comments. This is one possible access option and it has advantages and disadvantages like every other solution. Or have you found a solution with no disadvantages but don't see a good reason to post it here?

It is an access option, yes, for some. It's very specific and hard data shows that while this is the preferred option for publishers to look like they are addressing the 'public have a right to access tax-funded research', the uptake is low. The user's about page says they are in the US, but I grant you that people in the UK might find this useful. Apologies for the saltiness!

It turns out that a related survey was posted this week in this PLOS blog post on how paleontologists access the (non-open access) literature:

I put together an informal, non-scientific survey. The survey asked
  questions about how people access the literature, the kinds of
  journals they can access most easily, and basic demographics. I
  advertised the survey via Twitter and Facebook. I wouldn’t count it as
  a scientific sample by any means, but I do feel that I got reasonably
  good coverage of various types of paleontologists at various types of
  institutions (as well as non-paleontologists who follow the
  literature). 115 individuals responded, during the course of about a
  week.

I believe the answer is fairly simple here. The subscription that you may be looking for may not be a specialized article service, but rather the university itself.
Just find a university that has a good network, and register to do a course there. I believe some universities allow you to sign up for a single course, evening school or for a parttime scholarship, significantly reducing the costs.
Of course you will need to check the legal requirements, but as long as you use your access for academic research I think you should be ok.

You could also check out Academia.edu which encourages users to upload papers that are then made available for free to that community.

Similar sites are ResearchGate.net and Mendeley.

But @episanty the problem is - everyone won't do it. Especially, big guys - why will they care about it? More often than not, you can't bank on these options to find the paper you want.

Oh, I'm not saying it's the way to go - it may or may not be. All I was pointing out was other similar options. Keep in mind, also, that these are not 'self-archive' sites like the arXiv, and people other than the authors can upload the papers.

Depending on your field, the answer can also be to join a professional organization and subscribe to their digital library.  As an example from my field, members of the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM) can purchase an annual subscription to the digital library, with access to every paper ever published in any of their publications, for $99.  I imagine other fields may have similar deals.

That's a good point, thanks. I used to be an ACM member myself. It's not a perfect solution because I really miss not being restricted to reading papers from a particular field/group, but it's definitely a way to go and I think an ACM membership is certainly worth the $99.


text:
Should someone be an author if they helped understanding a concept?
I am writing a paper. I have performed the experiments and I also have the results. However, there is a section in my paper where I have to explain my observation upon which the whole idea is based. To ensure that I explain my observation correctly, I want help from a professor. I will be basically asking him questions along the line of: ‘why does this happen?’.
Before asking such questions, shall I inform him that I’m writing a paper and need help in explaining something?
I’ll definitely thank him in the acknowledgement section but is it required to add him as an author?

To ensure that I explain my observation correctly, I want help from a professor. I will be basically asking him questions along the line of: ‘why does this happen?’.

Whether this merits coauthorship depends on whether the professor is making a significant intellectual contribution.  If you are just getting straightforward explanations of well-known theory (which you need because you are an experimentalist, not a theorist), then there's no need for more than an acknowledgment.  On the other hand, if nobody knows why these things happen and the theorist comes up with a novel explanation for your data, then coauthorship sounds appropriate.  There may also be intermediate cases, such as theory that is relatively well known but requires some calculation to apply to your case, in which case you would need to discuss whether coauthorship makes sense.

Before asking such questions, shall I inform him that I’m writing a paper and need help in explaining something?

Yes, certainly.  If you get only quick answers that do not seem to involve much effort, then you should mention the paper but there's probably no need to discuss coauthorship.  If you get answers that seem to involve serious effort, then you should discuss coauthorship.  (Discussing it doesn't necessarily mean he will be a coauthor.  Rather, you just need to be careful to make sure there are no misunderstandings.)

They might merit a "thanks" acknowledgement, but probably not being credited with doing (a substantial part of) the work.

The standards for coauthorship vary by discipline, but basically yes, you should probably mention that you are writing a paper before you ask your question, so you can discuss authorship up front as well.
I'm not sure though why you are worried about having a professor as a coauthor.  It's well established that papers with better known authors, or even authors from better known institutions, are more likely to be read and therefore cited.
I am a professor, and I personally tend to be generous with coauthorship.  If I think that someone has made a substantial contribution, or might make one, I tell them that I wouldn't mind if they were a coauthor.  Usually people don't take me up on that, and I just acknowledge them. Sometimes they decide they have made a substantial contribution and want their name on it, which is fine by me.
It also depends where you are publishing.  Some journals require that you say what the contributions of the authors are, so there's no problem with saying X did almost all the work, Y had one cunning idea.  You can also just say that in the acknowledgements if there's no other place to say it, but be careful to do it tactfully if you do it at all.
In general, I think it's better not to stress about authorship so long as you write enough papers with enough different people.  If you always write with one famous person, there's a chance they will get all the credit. But if you write with a number of combinations of authors, or if you establish a reputation through conference talks or social media, then it will be clear what part of the voice in your papers is your own.


text:
What is a research assistant in the Australian system?
I've noticed postings for positions with the title “research assistant” from Australian universities. They require a PhD and are often (or exclusively) one-year contracts. Are these positions akin to anything in the US system? Are they more of a trainee position (like a postdoc)? Or is it more of a senior position within an established lab (like a research assistant professor)? Is it something else?
The one-year contracts suggest that they might be soft money positions. Are they typically renewed or transformed into more permanent positions?

"Soft money" is a US term that doesn't necessarily translate.

I use such a position to hire someone with a PhD to carry out some parts of my research; e.g., experiments, coding, etc.  Usually it won't lead to a permanent position as it is usually attached to my research project as opposed to my school.

Job advertisements in Australia invariably list a level.  If it says "Level A Academic" it is a postdoc.  If it says "HEW Level Something" then it is not a postdoc.  Consult the unversity's Enterprise Agreement for detailed definitions of the levels.  An enterprise agreement is the same as a collective bargaining agreement.  Note that starting pay for Level A is usually much higher if you hold a PhD.
http://www.nteu.org.au/rights/agreements

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


text:
What is recommendation/reference draft copy?
I am applying for a PhD program and reached out for a recommendation to a professor under who I had done my master’s thesis. He told me to:

send a draft copy as per the requirement

What does that mean? Am I to write my own recommendation and how?

Welcome to Academia SE. Do you have any ideas to what requirement he might be referring? (Please [edit] your question to clarify.)

No idea about requirements, couldn't find anything, bit wary of asking him also.

It is fairly common, though not universal, that a professor will ask the student to write a draft of a recommendation letter. More generally, he is asking what you would like him to stress in the letter. This frees him from the need to investigate the requirements of the individual university and will refresh his memory about what you did together.
So, yes, provide a draft. Say what you have done and what you think your future potential is. Don't make it too obvious that you are writing about yourself, of course. But make it positive.


text:
How does a philosopher publish a paper?
How does a philosopher publish a paper? Does it work as in natural science where the steps are:

Find an appropriate call for papers
Submit a paper within a deadline
Receive anonymous peer-reviews
Send a final version for publication in the proceedings

In BOTH natural sciences and philosophy, your eyes should be on journal articles NOT conference papers.  Often the first issue of the year describes instructions for applicable content and how to format it.  You can ask people what are the decent journals in your subspecialty (and will over time learn their flavors from looking at them.)

@guest, this actually differs by field. In CS, for example, conferences are extremely important and they are where things both happen and are developed. Whether it is like that in philosophy or not, I have no way of knowing.

CS is unusual in that aspect (versus either natural sciences or classical subjects like philosophy).  I realize that stack exchange has a very CS bias in the participants, but when you look at academia overall...it's not the norm.  The question from the reader was "does it work as in the natural science".  Not CS.

This source argues that even the difference in CS is overemphasized:  "Don’t  buy  into  the “only- conferences-matter,  conferences-are-better-than-journals”  viewpoint.  This viewpoint has some vocal proponents, but as the articles discussed here clearly demonstrate, it is not the prevailing view...this view is wrong"  https://www3.nd.edu/~kwb/Mentoring_Conferences_Journals.pdf

My daughter, the philosopher, suggests that in philosophy, it is in journal articles that you make your reputation.

Journal articles or books (book chapters).

@Buffy How does it work? Are there calls for papers?

@FuzzyLeapfrog How does it work? Are there calls for papers?

The main difference with the publication process in the humanities is the emphasis tends to be far more on single-author works, and the primary publication venues are journal articles, book chapters in collections, and monographs (i.e. a book). The heavy difference is in the tilt towards books in many humanities fields, sometimes referred to as a "book culture", but this is not universal across fields (or even sub-fields). Journal articles are still pretty typical fare, even in book cultures - the main difference being "can an academic in that field get tenure without a book or two or three".
But yes, there are indeed philosophy journals, and this page gives a nice quick overview of what are considered a few of the top ones. As a general idea of the publication process, check the memo to authors for The Journal of Philosophy, or the Instructions to Authors for MIND.
These are not so much calls for papers, as they are open to submissions to whatever is considered on-topic and relevant/good for that journal (read the journals guidelines/author guide for starters, and if it seems of interest you'll want to read through previous proceedings of that journal to see if the type of work published there suits you). Calls for papers on more specific topics would be more expected of special editions that some journals put together on occasion.
But yes, looking over the author guidelines you see its all pretty standard fare in terms of process. Most use some form of blinded review (usually at least the reviewers don't know who submitted the paper), and some use triple-anonymous where even the editor doesn't know who submitted the paper. The rest of the process is pretty standard - the editors can desk-reject what the like, the remainder of interesting papers get sent out to reviewers and send back the reports, the editors review the reports and then decide on a course of action, there may be revision rounds, etc. If the paper is ultimately accepted they work it up and publish it in according to their schedule, which is usually once every X months.
Journals are less driven by deadlines in terms of submission periods, because of course if you miss the date for X proceedings there is always X+1. But overall, the humanities have a publication culture that is at least not completely alien to those of us who have most of our experience in the "other culture" (to reference C. P. Snow's formulation of two cultures, though in practice there are far more than two).

What about the process to publish a book?

@Bob Books are quite a different beast entirely, but generally the formal process starts with a book proposal: https://katelynknox.com/writing-first-humanities-book/academic-book-proposals/ Its a part of the academic world I have no first-hand experience with, and I haven't even talked much with fellow academics about the process of books (I do know that 'popular' and 'academic' books work quite differently, but that's about it). It's sufficiently a unique process that you'd need to make a separate question, and hopefully someone more personally acquainted can say more.


text:
For how many years does a university keep the thesis?
For how many years do universities keep the thesis records. When do they destroy the old thesis reports? If there is some mistake in the thesis then in how many years can the university revoke the degree.

In many countries, virtually forever. But universities don't revoke degrees for mistakes in the theses.

Let's be precise - for true mistakes. Plagiarism and related fraud can lead to revocation of a degree (google the Guttenberg, or the Jan Hendrik Schön cases in Germany).

As far as I am aware, most universities keep a record of PhD thesis awards (title and recipient) in perpetuity. It is also the responsibility of the university library to archive the thesis; which is usually done on a permanent basis.
The reason for this is that future researchers, when doing their literature search should be reading these thesis to understand prior knowledge, as each PhD should be an original contribution to the sum of knowledge. Technology has enabled most universities to eliminate some of the burden associated with the perpetual storage of the thesis documents by allowing the microfilming of the thesis, which has now become the scanning and electronic storage of the work. There are consortia of university libraries that are working to ensure the problem of permanent storage of electronic texts is addressed in an era where we have non archival quality of electronic media.
The answer for the storage of PhD thesis and records would be "forever". For a Master's thesis or dissertation the answer is less clear. In many universities I am familiar with, often only the awarding department archives the Masters, and they are less reliable. I have seen with my own eyes archives of older Masters works being "tidied up". To me it was a travesty, but to others it was modernity.
A degree is not usually revoked on the discover of a "mistake" in a thesis. A degree might be revoked if it was discovered that nothing in a thesis was the original work of the student who submitted it; otherwise known as plagiarism, theft or deceit. It would depend on the statutes and regulations on the awarding institution on whether or how this might happen. One can consult the news archives to find many reported incidents of this happening. The revocation can even happen posthumously!

in my research i was edit some answers for making them significant on the behalf of my adviser. that time i dont know its wrong. but this changes cant effect the anyone because i only change the p value of the result. if i put all results as it is thesis can also be approved. this all happen because of less knowledge of my adviser which i understand after my work experience in teaching. but i insert all experimental data true. if someone complaint in future about my thesis will university revoke my degree and can i defend my degree. i worked on machining of some material.

@srp You should ask this as a separate question. Also, information in this question might be useful.

@srp: Your fear of your degree being revoked is completely disproportionate. Simple mistakes in your thesis do not endanger your degree. As Brian Tompsett said, only plagiarism and other grave violations are reasons for revoking a degree.


text:
How to deal with constant stress and uncertainty in academia?
I know there are a lot of similar questions but most of them are related to stress/pressure from their supervisor. I am doing my PhD and I am in my third year out of four. Everything is going very (or even extremely) well. I have two first-author publications in prestigious journals and one of them even in one of the “big two”. I attend several conferences a year, the salary is great, my supervisors are very supportive and relaxed and I have all the freedom to do whatever I want whenever I want.
However, I feel often very stressed and pressured to produce new groundbreaking results or to just learn new things and work (even on the weekends). My supervisors never pressure me into producing new results etc., so it is mostly self-caused. The uncertainty that comes with an academic career is also adding to the situation. I don’t know what happens after my PhD, if I have to move countries (again), or when/if I would get a permanent position. I really like the place where I live right now and I don’t really want to move somewhere else. I never can really shut off, not even on vacation. If I would know that I get an (academic) position after my PhD, I wouldn’t feel like I permanently have to push myself to increase my chances.
Is this a common feeling? It doesn’t feel very healthy but I don’t know how to deal with it in a better way.

"Is this a common feeling? It doesn't feel very healthy" Yes and indeed, I'd say. But admittedly, this response isn't particularly helpful, so I won't write it as an answer. ;-)

and work (even on the weekends) --- Interestingly, for me (and for many of my graduate student peers), weekends were times when we often got more done (per day) because we didn't have classes to attend (this is in the U.S.) or office hours to hold (for our T.A. work) or department seminars and such to attend. The longer uninterrupted periods of time I had on weekends allowed me to more deeply engage with the thorny problems that required these periods of time to sort through.

Do you do regular exercise as this helps a lot (I go to the gym four times a week and forget about academia momentarily when I am there).

@Tom yes I am working out daily otherwise I wouldn't be able to stay sane :D

@DaveLRenfro more or less productive, it does not really matter: it means pursuing a PhD requires a commitment of much more than the normal working hours, without reward (unless one is applying theseefforts to applied stuff). What you are implicitly saying is that it makes sense to have a regular, decently paid job, even 80% parttime, then pursuing a PhD in your freetime (no judgement, I know you are not saying this, I am just extrapolating)!

If you like your geographical area, you may pursue a career out of academia if you choose.  This is major-dependent, I was in Engineering, which allows this more than some majors.

I once heard that what makes academic life so stressful is the winner-takes-all tournament-like characteristic of the employment market. That is, just like in a tournament, if you are the 2nd-best competitor, you get the same thing as the 399th-ranked candidate: you get nothing (no job). Put in another way, if you manage to be 99% as good as the #1 candidate, you don't get 99% of the benefits, but 0%. Yes, once the #1 candidate is off the game, you can then apply to the next job, but no two job requirements are the same, and new candidates join the arena every day. So there's an extreme incentive to "just do one more thing", e.g. one more paper, one more presentation, one more grant application, one more project, one more committee, etc., or whatever might give you that extra 1% edge over the other top candidate. And that is a recipe for burnout and a mental health crisis. This all to say that among top candidates, the feeling is common. And as you suspect, it is not healthy. (I will leave aside the fact that the academic employment market does not actually behave like a tournament, it just feels like one.)
Now that I am at the other end of that, having finished the PhD, done the postdocs, gotten the job, tenure, full professorship, etc., it would be easy to say "don't worry about it, it will work out at the end", but the truth is that it was never guaranteed to work out at the end. I have lots of regrets for the years of overwork and constant pursuit of "that one more thing", but again, perhaps that is what brought me where I am. But one thing I can tell you is that you are not your job and that your worth is not the sum of your accomplishments. You can love academic work, but the university will not love you back. You can still love academic work without giving your life to the job. Surprisingly, and I learned this way too late in life, the more time I give to non-academic pursuits, the better I seem to perform as an academic, according to my own criteria of what it is to be a "better academic." Keep that in mind as you are tempted to keep the foot down on the gas pedal.
One more thing: I don't know your friends, but try to spend less time with those on the hamster wheel, and more time with people who live balanced lives. You might be surprised with how many academics actually live balanced, fulfilling lives worthy of admiration. You just won't find those people at the lab on Saturdays or on social media.

I think the first part of your second paragraph is a very important point. Quite of few people who have been in academia for a long time like to claim that "you shouldn't worry, because things will work out in the end". But there is arguably a lot of selection bias in this.

On the other hand, I'm inclined to think that the last part of your second paragraph might also be a bit biased. Yes, there are quite a few things one can do to become a "better academic" that do not correlate with being a workaholic - but many of those things are much easier to do once one has a permanent position.

@JochenGlueck Yes, it's part of the dilemma. This is why I wrote "easy for me to say" in the answer. But even considering my own possible bias, I still think there's value in the idea that putting your mind to something else than academic work can improve your academic work.

Yes indeed, I agree.

just like in a tournament, if you are the 2nd-best competitor – It is worth nothing that the best competitor not necessarily wins the tournament as academic careers and the job market depends on luck too much.

@Wrzlprmft the best competitor is the one that wins, not the best according to some objective measurments. So yes, the lucky one is the best one (and this makes the system even more unfair).

Super answer. Upvote!

I think the first paragraph is so misleading that it actually perpetuates the problems the OP describes. There are hundreds of suitable jobs, so being 2nd best is not at all a 0% position.

I don't understand why this answer is upvoted so much. It is absolutely not true that being "second best" results in nothing. The best person ends up at Harvard, MIT etc. The second best person ends up similarly ranked department. The 50th best person ends up at a good state school. This is not true.

@user479223 that's how you think it ought to work, but it's not the way it works.

@Cheery Are you implying that literally only one person is hired each year?

@Cheery I'm not arguing about "best". I'm saying that it's not true that literally only one person gets hired. That is what this answer said.

@user479223 One person gets hired per search. On average, a better candidate has better prospects, I think that's what you mean, but each candidate does not get the average of the jobs. Each candidate gets (100%) or does not get (0%) the job per application. That's why it feels like a tournament, although it's not actually a tournament. The question is about the uncertainty of the academic career.

@Cheery "On average, a better candidate has better prospects, I think that's what you mean" that is absolutely not what I meant.

Question: You can be the "second best" candidate on the job market and still get SOME job at SOME university - true or false? Does literally only one person get hired? Is there literally only one professor per discipline across all universities?

@user479223: For people with a life other than academia, it is often important to work in a.certain country/city. Why would I want to work at MIT? My friends/family is not there, nor is it a pleasing environment to me. Nor would it be easy for my partner to find work there and it'd be even worse if I had children. So yes, people for who academia is not top 1 priority in there life, they might be geographically inflexible and there may be only a position for the best, if at all.

The solution is to talk to a mental health professional. What you describe is common enough that they will have likely solutions.
Yes, there is a lot of pressure, and more if you have very high ambitions, as seems the case. But, a lot of things help, such as time off, exercise (especially aerobic), and having other interests. We can't prescribe for you here, but a professional can. Your university may well have an office that offers such services. If not, your health plan might, depending on where you live. Go talk to someone who has the skill to evaluate and suggest.

This. I never worked in academia but in industry (Silicon Valley; retired now), nonetheless the situation described sounds very similar to what I experienced. My solution for time off was to inform my employer that I am "out of the country and off the grid" and that is exactly what I did. Life without cell phone and the internet is possible :-) Where I went wrong is in not paying attention to the importance of aerobic exercise. My primary care physician actually prescribed daily walks in addition to medication at the age of 45, and I am still sticking to that regime many years later.

I think a lot of health professionals are not well equipped to advise on this kind of thing. (not that I am saying you shouldn't see one, but that advice from people in the same boat can be very useful in addition) Academia is a pretty unique beast and they often don't understand the kind of pressures and stresses we are under. Advice that applies to a 9-5 job doesn't always fit our situation.

@Cole, the intention was mental health professional, actually. I've made an update.

@Buffy I interpreted the original post as mental health professional.  Unless they have a PhD and are practicing clinically, they likely do not understand the unique pressures of academia.

First of all, we can only provide rational reasons to feel good, mental tricks, etc. These may not suffice and that’s when you may need a mental-health professional. Also, I will focus on aspects that are specific to academia.
That being said, here’s what kept me sane:

Shatter the meritocratic illusion. While skills and accomplishments are to some extent necessary for academic success, they become less relevant above a certain threshold. Instead, academic careers depend a lot on factors outside your control, in particular luck. There are several reasons for this, but the main ones are that research and publication success is luck-dependent and that academic job markets are specialised and thus small and therefore strongly subject to fluctuations.

Realise that the above means that you can fail through no fault of your own (but also that you can succeed without having given absolutely everything). Consider whether making a tremendous effort just to increase your chances by a tiny bit is really worth it to you.

Have a Plan B and C. Invest a small portion of your time (e.g. one day a year) to investigate alternative career paths. Become aware of what graduates of your field are doing for a living; search relevant job portals for positions matching your qualifications (after PhD); etc. Unless your PhD is in underwater basket weaving, your options are probably quite good. While you may already be vaguely assuming this, having this substantiated can considerably reduce the pressure.

I agree, talking to people about back-up plans so that you have something to fall back on if academia doesn't work can considerably reduce stress and even enable you to do better research.

Your feelings are very common among academics and they may hunt you down for a long time if you let them. I can speak for myself on it. Maybe it is the thing that made me get where I am now (got my tenure and all), but this feeling of having to perform and having to to just one more thing never stops, even on weekends, holidays and so on. It may get better, but for me it is like an addiction… it keeps coming back! Even after 12 years of finishing my PhD, it still applies to me. One time my therapist said, when will it be enough for you? All of that said, it makes me rethink a lot of things in my life and the life of my students. I keep trying to let it go, it has worked lately, but maybe it is just part of the game to continue to be productive in the Academic "industry". I should say though that just realizing this, is already progress! You can only change if you know what needs to be changed. Some people don’t even have a clue.

I often ask myself when enough will be enough but I can't find an answer (yet).

I can only talk out of my own experience, after going through the hell of phd, several post-docs, constant anguish over ternure, etc...
The stress is not worth it.
Looking back, i wish i would have been more laid back on my pursuit of science. It really makes no difference if you spend one weekend more or less in the lab. The whole academic structure does not care about it, and having one more or one less paper is less important than you think.
As a matter of fact, i only managed to get my ternure position after i realize this fact, and started to let it go. You have to remember that your job, as an academic, is not only to generate "innovation" ( whatever this means), but more importantly to train the next generation. And you don't want them to be mindless working monkeys.
So, go ahead, have the beer on a friday night and forget that the lab exists on weekends. Being a phd candidate/post-doc/wathever is a job like any other else. It is just your function, and you are very much replaceable.
When it comes to carreer, i cannot stress this enough: place a deadline for yourself when it comes to professional goals. Like: if i dont achieve a ternure position by year X, i will go working in a bank. And stick to it. Also, make sure that, the closest you get to that deadline, the more of your research time is spent learning skills for jobs outside academia (e.g. programming in databases).
Most people do not manage to stay in academia, and most people shouldn't. It is just a job like any other, and should be treated as such.


text:
Is it acceptable to list unpublished papers in a PhD application for computer science?
I have a couple of papers that are works in progress or in the submission process. Can I list under my publications list (and clarify they are not yet published but on the road to it)?

It's not only acceptable, it's necessary! :D

If you want to list working papers or conference papers, do it.

There are 4 different stages of a paper:

In preparation. In maths, this means: we know it's true and we're writing it down. In engineering it can be: measurements done. Etc.
Submitted. That's clear what it means. I'd just add: In general, you don't say to which you have submitted it, just in case it got rejected and you re-submit it elsewhere. However, for an application, I would include this information to show the level of journals or venues you aim at.
Accepted or To appear or In print. You've got a final "ACCEPTED NOTIFICATION" from the journal. Maybe the proofreading wasn't done or whatever, but now it's clear that the paper will be published (well, it need not, but that's a borderline thing). I personally prefer to write "accepted" since that's clear. Both "to appear" and "in print" may indicate that the volume and pages have been assigned, which need not be true.
Published. It's published.

You can include papers in all 4 categories in your application. I would actually say that for 2,3,4 you ought to include them. For the ones in preparation, consider the significance of the paper, it can look like: The applicant hasn't done anything yet on it and is just blowing up his publication list. Of course, you have to say in which stage the paper is (well, not for stage 4 papers).

"In press" is also a synonym for "in print".

Yes, this is done routinely; provided, however, that these papers are clearly marked as "currently under peer review" or "submitted for review" and specify the journal. If the paper has passed peer review and us merely awaiting publication, it can be marked as "to appear." If the paper has not passed peer review,  it should not be labeled as "to appear."
Best regards and wishing a swift publication process.

What about papers that have not yet been complete, and not yet submitted for review? Can or should I mention these?

If the papers have not passed peer review or have not been submitted to a journal, I believe I could justify listing them under a separate heading like "personal projects" or "papers in development" but I doubt it would be useful to list them as papers without a modifier. If I were reading such a list I would be looking for impact factors and citation statistics,  neither of which is possible for a paper at that stage.

I've never seen ״to appear" used before. The more common term is "in press".

@Michael Both are used regularly.

Probably you'are asking for a PhD application in the US, but, just in case, let me give you an answer from a different country. In Italy, in general, unpublished papers don't count for an application, whatever the position you're applying to: PhD, researcher or professor. So, you can list them, but it's typically useless: they will be discarded by the application board.
More specifically: accepted papers might count, typically not as much as published ones, but you have to attach the acceptance letter received from the journal's editor; submitted papers rarely count; and manuscripts in preparation never count.
In any case, what counts and what doesn't count is specified in the announcement for the applicants.


text:
How do junior professors build up a team of lab personnel?
In the field of computer science how does a junior professor recruit graduate and undergraduate research assistants to initially build up a lab at a university? How long would this normally take? In the mean time, does the professor have to engage in the time-consuming 'grunge work' of research (ie. programming and running experiments), to generate papers?
Where would be a junior professor initially get the money to pay lab staff?

Is it paid and exactly what are you expecting them to do?

I'm not personally in this position, but I'm curious. Some undergrads would probably do research for free and for experience, but the rest of the graduate and postdoc staff would presumably have to be paid.

To answer the question correctly these two things need to be part of the question.

As usual, things vary a bit between institutions, countries and even specific posts. One particularly important point here is what exactly a "junior professor" is and how independent (s)he is supposed to work. In the following, I am assuming that you mean an entry-level "real" professorship, where the junior professor is supposed to execute pretty much the same responsibilities as other faculty, just maybe on a different scale.

how does a junior professor recruit graduate and undergraduate research assistants to initially build up a lab at a university? How long would this normally take?

Generally speaking, the hardest part about getting started as a professor is not finding people. Of course it is sometimes hard to find good students, and recruiting them takes a bit of time, but generally (depending on system) we are talking about weeks or a few months here. The real issue is indeed finding ways to pay for them.
Junior professors may have a so-called startup grant / package, which is basically a defined amount of staff money or positions given to her/him as part of the contractual negotiations. This money is available right away, but will not be sufficient to cover the entire intended research group. Hence, the junior professor will typically spend a substantial fraction of her/his time writing grant proposals to fund new staff. The two troubles with that are that, (1) grant proposals are rather uncertain money (most funding agencies have very competitive acceptance rates), and (2) the entire process takes a while (in Switzerland, the review window of proposals to the national funding agency is 6 months). Hence, if you are a new faculty and you really need some project money, it is often unwise to just write one or two proposals. Rather, you will need to write a bunch of proposals concurrently to hedge. This is typically very time-consuming.

In the mean time, does the professor have to engage in the time-consuming 'grunge work' of research

Yes, typically a starting faculty with a small team will to more her/himself than the head of a larger lab. However, most faculty don't perceive this as "having to do the grunge work", but rather as "still having time to do actual research". That is, most professors like being researchers (that's what they signed up for, after all), so if they still have the chance to get down and do some work themselves, that's typically a positive rather than a negative.

To add up, in Finland at least some professors will be exempt of teaching duties during their first year so they have more time to focus on starting the group. I'm guessing this also happens elsewhere.

+1 for "still having time to do actual research". Many of us who have a research group to advise, feed, and run wished we had more time for actual research.