text:
How to quiet noisy undergrads students during lecture
I am teaching a class of about 100 undergraduates.
The class meets for a three-hour block every week
in a lecture hall which seats about 120.
We have about 2-3 breaks every lecture,
to give students time to buy food, go to the restroom,
and also to work on some in-class problems
which they have to submit after the lecture.
The problem that I am facing is
that many of the students like to chit-chat even when I am talking.
I find that this is distracting for the students
who want to concentrate on what I am saying.
What are some techniques which I can apply
to nicely tell the students to keep quiet?
Clarification:
When it's time to work on the in-class problems,
the students get 20 minutes to do so,
and are free to talk as much as they like.
The problem with the students being noisy
is that they are noisy during the lecture
when there are supposed to be quiet.

A professor of mine once screamed "sex!". He immediately got everybody's attention.

I had a (fantastic) professor that spoke very low... barely more than a whisper. The students themselves "shushed" the chit-chatters... weird, but apparently works...

one of the most effective I saw, in a class of 700 was, the professor looking at the chatting students: "Please be quiet", then 10 minutes later "I ask you again to please be quiet" then after they began chatting again, spoke to the whole class: "I'm sorry, I have to leave. We will commence tomorrow from lecture 15, the remainder of lecture 14 will be in the exam".

@Oxinabox That would be a reason for me, as a quiet student, to file a complaint against the professor. I come to a lecture because I want to learn about something, not to waste time traveling for a professor that does not want to give lectures.

@Sumurai8 as a quiet student, I would blame the noisy students who pissed off the professor rather than the person who is paid to teach to a class that should have the common courtesy to listen. As the professor I would probably cover lecture 14 in lectures 16-17 if I saw the noise problem didn't repeat itself. It's a good shock tactic, and probably works in a university environment. It would definitely backfire at high school / secondary school though, and there you'd have parents filing complaints.

Three hours? No wonder they stop paying attention! You should seriously consider changing the schedule next year.

@DavidRicherby I have to investigate if changing the schedule were possible. I suspect it is not. Many classes at my university seem to be scheduled in 3 hour blocks for efficiency reasons.

@ILiketoCode Efficiency of administration, rather than efficiency of learning! But, unfortunately, if that's the university's culture, changing it is somewhere between difficult and impossible.

@Davidmh A professor of mine screamed INSPRAAK, which means student participation in university governance, the point being that the moment students are asked to participate in such governance, they have nothing to say and they shut up.

@DavidRicherby 3 hours is actually great if you don't lecture continuously, but let them work for about 50% of the time. Since attention tends to drop after you've been talking for 20 minutes, you can stop the talk, reinforce what you've said with a small exercise, and repeat until time is up. It works quite well.

One thing I learned when I started lecturing is that not all noise is bad noise. Often, when I hear students talking, it's actually because they're paying attention, and they've been triggered by something I said. Remember to check whether the talking you hear might be in response to something you've said.

A somewhat passive-agressive trick that might work is to make sure you're not speaking loudly to compensate for the noise. If you keep the volume down, the students who want to listen will shush the others.

@Mari-LouA The professor punishes the well-behaving students for something the ill-behaving students do. I hate that kind of behaviour, and shows to me how little the professor actually cares about what I do, or how valuable MY time is, or for that matter what the ill-behaving students does. If the professor makes me travel 2,5 hours on a day, just to get an incomplete lecture and thus waste those 2,5 hours + whatever time was wasted during the lecture I am pissed at the professor, not at the students that did not significantly alter my ability to follow what was going on in the lecture.

How disruptive is the chit-chat? Is it loud, or are they doing their best to be quiet while communicating? I ask because I have definitely had to ask my peers questions in school when the professor was lecturing so that I could make sure I understood what the professor had just said, and I tried to be as quiet as I could, but it's not possible to be entirely silent without disrupting the learning experience...

"Ssshhhhh!  People are sleeping!"

@Peter, in that case I usually ask the talkers to share their questions with the class.

@StefanWalter Punishing the group for individual behaviours is not always ineffective or uncalled for.  It is commonly used in the military, for example, where cooperation of the group is essential and all parties are, in effect, responsible for each others behaviour.  In the context of a university lecture, however, one has to agree that it is not an acceptable solution.

I have a SuperSoaker (very powerful water gun) given to me by a student for this very purpose.

A three hour lecture and you give them breaks to buy food? Do they naturally have miniscule attention spans, or is the chattering a result of you giving the impression of freedom like this? Gosh, what are these kids going to do when they go into the real world??! They should not even have food in a lecture in the first place, let alone be purchasing it during the lecture.

@Oxinabox. You would in fact punish the quite students. Since they are the ones really listening. As a student I once had the same situation at a TA Session. The TA was pissed off that only a few people came and cancelled the class. The people that didn't show didn't care and the ones that showed wasted their time.

The way this is handled in the majority of colleges in India is to have a minimum 75% or 65% required attendance, and then mark students as absent if they disturb the class, or ask them to leave the room if they cause a disturbance. The 65/75% minimum is actually govt enforced in India, though certain colleges tend to have their own, stricter limits and a few elite ones do not enforce these limits

I'd like to ask everyone to think about their perspective as-well. I'm the guy who was always chit-chatting during college classes. Discussing ideas is probably the best way to learn, much better than just listening and is a fundamental part of critical thinking that avoids they just accept what you say without reasoning about it. If the behavior disturbs the rest of the class, that's a problem, but if it's just the ones talking let them be.

@SlySherZ During the lecture is not the time to do this.  If you're attending the lecture then you're doing so because you feel there is value in listening to the lecture - so listen.  If you're chatting, you can't be listening.  If you're not going to listen, just don't go - get together with your classmates and have a discussion somewhere appropriate.  Either that, or have the discussion after class.  Take notes, if you'd like, to keep track of points you'd like to discuss, but talking during the lecture is simply not the appropriate time or place.

@SlySherZ Further, just because nobody complains doesn't mean you aren't distrubing them.  You may think you aren't, but unless there are fifteen empty seats between you and the nearest person in earshot, you probably were disturbing people who were simply too shy or polite to make an issue of it.

I had a professor once who just started to wander around the lecture room (he used slides and a wireless microphone anyway) and stand directly next to/ in front of the chatters while calmly going on with the lecture for a while. Usually they either silenced or left.

Call them out when you notice it. Stop what you're doing - single the chit-chatters out, and ask them if they have anything they'd like to say.  If they have questions they should ask them so that the entire class can hear - that way everyone can learn.  If they do have questions, remind them of whatever protocol you have for questions (raise a hand, hold questions for designated question breaks, etc).
Otherwise, make it clear that you won't tolerate chit-chat and, if they persist, simply remove them from the class.  Make it clear that they are welcome to return to the next lecture on the condition that they keep quiet during the lecture. Be sure to be polite and cordial, of course, but don't waver on being firm.
It is not acceptable for a few noisy students to compromise the learning environment for everyone else. Just get them out of there. You probably won't have to do this more than once or twice before the rest figure out that you're serious. As a lecturer, you're the captain of the ship. Don't be afraid to be the captain - keeping order is your job.  The quiet students are relying on you.
Also keep in mind that it is not your job to make sure that they pay attention - that's their job.  "Listen to me" should not be your responsibility, it should be theirs.  Your responsibility is primarily "Don't disrupt my lecture!  Others are trying to listen to me".  If they would like to quietly not pay attention, that's fine.  They're paying for a seat in the lecture hall - what they do with it is up to them, so long as it does not affect the learning environment for everyone else (who are also paying for their seat in that lecture hall!).

"If they would like to quietly not pay attention, that's fine.", something to remember.

What you just described looks like a boatswain to me, not the captain. Sorry.

Sorry to keep arguing, but: The students are paying to learn, not for a seat in the lecture hall. The lecture is to facilitate their learning, isn't it? If students quietly not pay attention, they do not learn. How this can be fine?

@Stacey That is right. But maybe there is a better alternative to both "stay quiet" and "get out"?

@DmitrySavostyanov I'm not sure what your point is.  The answer is predicated on the notion that the lecturer is holding a lecture, that they intend to hold a lecture, and that a minority of students are disrupting that lecture.  If you want to have a debate on the merits of lectures over other forms of instruction, this doesn't seem to be the place. That's not the context in which the answer was given. Additionally, the only alternative to "stay quiet" is "not stay quiet" - I fail to see how noisy students are compatible with an effective lecture.  t's pretty clear cut - one or the other.

My point is that there is still a lot of flexibility of what a lecturer can do with their lecture to facilitate students' learning without embarrassing themselves and kicking unpleasant students off the lecture hall.

@DmitrySavostyanov We're not talking about children here.  These are adults who are well past the age where they should be expected to have learned that disruptive behaviour is unacceptable.  Bad behaviour should hardly be the precipitating trigger for a change of educational policy.  Changing a lecture format should be a decision made on the basis of an evaluation of its effectiveness as a teaching tool, not as a pandering move to bratty overgrown children misbehaving.  Whether a lecture is effective or not is irrelevant - students should be able to control themselves in either case.

Chit-chating students indicate that something is wrong with the lecture. Perhaps they are just rude. But it is also possible that the lecture itself is not perfect and should be improved. The focus on policing students rather than seeking ways to improve the lecture indicates that you treat them not as equals.

@DmitrySavostyanov Sorry, on this point we absolutely disagree.  Adult students should be expected to not act inappropriately, full stop.  If there are things wrong with the lecture, there are perfectly effective means of communicating this to the lecturer other than misbehaviour.

They're paying for a seat in the lecture hall — That is not what they are paying for; the lecture is just a means to an end.  If a student doesn't find the lecture useful, they should simply leave, rather than disrupt it for others.

I went further: when I called a student out and he still disrupted, I asked him to leave and halted the lecture until he left. He and others got the point. For the remainder of the semester, I didn't have any more trouble. And I'm still in touch with that student some ten years later. He was a good student, just disruptive.

@JeffE It is definitely one of the things they are paying for.  Otherwise, I think you're generally echoing my point.

+1, in my experience, not calling out (and if necessary, not excusing from the lecture hall) talkative students is one of the most common  shortcomings in a lecturer. This is especially true for undergraduate classes, which are not only typically larger, but also tend to be filled with younger students who may not have the manners and maturity of an older, graduate student. For me, it typically ruins the lecture, as I find it very hard to concentrate when there is the continuous, slightly audible sound of a side conversation going on around me.

+1, good answer, but I would like to point out that what students pay for actually depends on where they are attending. For example in Italy, at least at public universities, attending a lecture is actually free and open to everyone unless it requires some special equipment, like some chemistry lectures; students pay to be able to take exams.

@A.P. Fair enough, but be it taxpayer money or just paying for exams, it is expected that lectures of sufficient quality are delivered to enable the successful taking of those exams, etc.  Still, your point is valid.

Calling them out and reminding them they don't have to be there should embarass them into silence. If it carries on, I side with asking them to leave, the best I saw was after being asked to be quiet twice a lecturer said to two students "Your conversation clearly can't wait until after the lecture, so could you please leave to finish it off" and then waited until the offenders left the lecture theatre.

Keep it short and simple. They are adults, able to understand what you ask of them, and able to understand that you have the right to request this. At the first time, say something like: "Please, you guys in the 5th row, your chatter is disturbing the class. If it's important for the class, you can always raise your hand and ask." At the second time (which shouldn't happen): "Please, if you really need to discuss something unrelated to the class, you can do it outside." At the third time, ask them directly to leave.
Also, don't be too picky. Sometimes people mishear your words or aren't sure what you've written. It happens that they ask the neighbour and he replies. Pointing out this can be annoying to the students themselves, since it's often a result of the lecture, and it would be more annoying if they asked you to repeat stuff often.
Last but not least, do not tell them to listen to you and keep paying attention. Again, they are adults, they know why they are there and it's their responsibility. Make them keep paying attention by good lecturing, and ignore those that don't try to pay attention.

Point 2 is important.  It is definitely worth checking the assumption that the entire class can hear the lecture.  That's easy to remedy if not.

"They are adults" Are you sure?

@yo': Apparently it is your issue to solve otherwise there would not be a problem. (Where "your" actually = the OP)

Didn't say it wasn't a good solution.

Here are my 2 (euro)cents. Mostly are general remarks based on my -maybe lousy- experience, point 5 somehow answers your question.

Though breaks are useful for all the stated reasons and more, one
should always take into account that it takes some time to the
students to regain concentration after a break. During this time,
they typically continue to speak, eat food etc. I typically allow 1
break for a 3 h lecture and 2 breaks for a 4 h lecture (we had 4 h
lectures up to a few years ago).
Students, frequently, start to talk when the pace of the lesson is slow. Or put it in an another way: if they can find the time to talk, maybe the professor is not keeping them enough busy. Try to analyze the pace of your lecture and see if it might be worth increasing it.
Be sure to look at them when you speak, even if you have to write a lot on the blackboard.
Don't interleave too frequently the parts where you speak with those in which they work the exercises. Separate clearly the two parts (e.g. in the first 1.5 h you speak, in the second, they work).
When I think that students are speaking too much (rarely; they are typically quiet), I just stop talking, it is typically sufficient to regain the audience.

+1 I like point (5). But, it may have negative impact to the teaching evaluation rating, though.

As for point 1, expect me to fall asleep due to lack of oxigen in the poorly ventilated, often packed, lecture halls if breaks are every 1.5 to 2 hours. A break allows me to stretch my legs, get the blood flowing again and concentrate again for another 30-45 minutes. Even taking notes and answering questions the professor asks keeps me from falling asleep for soo long. From personal experience, don't give less breaks, or allow windows to be opened completely even when it is -10 degrees outside.

I agree with most of this, except for the 1.5 hours of letting the students work at the end of a lecture. That's not what lecture time is for. If you're finished with the lecture, just dismiss it and let students do their exercises on their own time. If they choose not to do the exercises on their own time, that's their problem; not yours. They're adults and should know how to manage their time.

@reirab: I generally agree with you, but my answer specifically addressed what seems to be the OP's decision to let the students do the exercises during the lecture time, so that they are assisted, and I didn't want to question his method (I've just suggested to distribute differently the two parts). And he is not alone, actually: many professors run this kind of assisted exercise sessions (I don't), so in some cases they might be useful.

I have found that slowly reducing the volume of your voice can be effective. Students are trying to talk just loud enough to be heard by their neighbour but not so loud as to be noticed. Slowly bring down the volume over 1-2 mins and they will try and bring down theirs too so as not to be noticed. You have no chance if you try and talk over them with a big group (though that can be effective with a group of up to 40 or so). If you can learn a few names and ask "John" to be quiet rather than "the class" you will do better too.
Best of luck - sometimes the class dynamic can just kill you, so don't take it too much to heart.

This. A technique I learned from teaching third graders is to become completely silent, and stare at your watch expectantly.

You can consider the following.

Make the parts when you are talking as brief as possible. If you have to deliver a lot of content, consider flipping the classroom and ask students to read the material before the lecture.
Engage students in group work, so they chit-chat for the right purpose.
Make sure that the time when you talk is valuable for students, engages them and contributes to their learning. If you do not feel enthusiastic about some part of your lecture, think how you can replace it.
Keep your voice at a right level and do not raise to speak over the chit-chat. Instead, you can ask students a question or attract their attention to the fact that you want to speak and fellow students may want to hear what you're saying.

I have found that group work frequently leads to more chit chat among students, even when group time is over. It seems from my experience that the larger the class, the longer it takes them to settle down after being asked to interact.

@Dan The goal of a lecturer is not to stop chit-chat or settle students down. The goal of a lecturer is to facilitate the learning.

That is true. I just don't find, in my experience in large classes, that group work and lecture sections mix well. I also find group sessions frequently get irretrievably off-topic.

I probably wouldn't do exactly like this, yet +1 because the first opion is to try not to need to take action against the noise, but prevent it. Plus "do not raise to speak over the chit-chat." is spot on. @J... reply is a complementary to this one, I say

Sounds more "like a boatswain" than J...'s answer, to me. Converting a lecture to group work exercises sounds like changing the entire format of a class to accommodate rude students.

@Dronz You implicitly assume that student learn more from a long classical lecture more than from a sequence of different activities including the group work. Can you justify this point?

@DmitrySavostyanov The point is that you shouldn't change the format of the class completely to solve a problem of a couple students. If you have a good reason to change the model, then fine, but this isn't a good reason.

I believe that making the lecture a more pleasant and engaging experience for a larger number of diverse students is a good reason to abandon a tradition of uninterrupted 1-2h "reading" format. The change of format can benefit to other fellow students, too.

@DmitrySavostyanov active learning is yet another tool in the teaching box. There are cases (combinations of topics, audience, and lecturers) for which it is an excellent choice; for others, a more traditional masterclass is the right choice. 2% of rude students should not be a factor in this decision.

Chit-chating students is just an indication that something is wrong with the lecture. Perhaps, they are just rude. But is is also possible that the lecture itself is not perfect. Lecturers are supposed to actively try to improve their lecture to improve the experience of all students.

@DmitrySavostyanov yo' and Davidmh were right that I meant changing class format seems out of proportion to the question and its problem. Yes, many things are possible, and it's good to try to understand and see what can be done. You posted ideas which can be useful to consider. (However personally I've also heard many more rants from students who are annoyed by contrived required group exercises and by disruptive classmates, than I have heard requests to abolish lectures in favor of interactive teaching formats.)

@DmitrySavostyanov If the whole class is chit-chatting, then, yeah, that probably indicates a problem with the lecture. If a few students out in a lecture hall of 150 are chit-chatting, that says absolutely nothing at all about the lecture and just indicates that those students are rude. Keep in mind that we're talking about college here, not elementary school. Students should have an attention span of longer than 30 minutes and should know how to behave by now.

@Dronz Students rant on many things, including "exam is too difficult", but this is not a good reason to abolish exams. Students rants on group work, home work, long lectures, short lectures, are somewhat irrelevant. What is important is what facilitates their learning.

@reirab The whole class will never chit-chat because of the reasons you described - taught behaviour. However, one or two students in hundred may be not that good in keeping their focus, especially if a lecture is dull and boring, or too difficult, or too fast. Why blame them for bad behaviour, not the lecturer who is hired to help them but failed?

The popularity of both traditional lecturing and the question about how to manage chit-chatters is not a coincidence.

This relates to the issue of individual and group focus. The following worked for me in a foreign country, where they would speak in their own language and interrupted me as they pleased:
During presentation, after n slides, one slide is a question about the last n slides, where students need to solve it. Then ask two individuals what is the answer? They can't answer? More two... and so on.
Note on the N: This depends on the class; and how out of control they are. For me, a master class the n was 7 and for an undergraduate was 5.
Note on the Question: The question should not be too hard or easy. A little above the medium level.
After couple of classes like this, you will see, students will take things more seriously and the competitiveness of human nature will dominate the class; which is a good thing.

Interesting suggestion! Though I do find it surprising that you had disruptive students in a graduate class. At least at the university I attended, most of the disruptive students had either learned how to pay attention or dropped out by the second year of undergrad.

@reirab tell me about it. They kept talking :/

This is a technique that my high school teacher used: ask questions, and ask the students who were chit-chatting.

First, unless the students do not respect the professor, in which case it should be handled differently. In general, the students only chit-chat when thinking that the professor does not pay attention to them. When you ask the students questions, it is a message that "I'm looking at you". So these students will keep silent.
Secondly, imagine you are talking with somebody, and suddenly the teacher ask you a question. Since you didn't pay attention, most of the cases you can't answer it. It is so embarrassed when all other students look at you, and you will keep silent until the end of the class, and likely the rest of the course as well. This also sets an example for other students.

I was also one of the students being asked in that way, I know how embarrassed it was :)

When doing this, it helps to say the name of the student at the end of the question (rather than the start), because if the name is at the start then a proportion of the class stops paying so much attention as soon as they hear someone else's name. E.g. "Description of problem followed by question ... Johnny?" Rather than "Johnny, description of problem followed by question"

This is so passive-aggressive. Please do not do that. It's better to tell them: "Excuse me, but your chit-chat is disturbing the class," than to try to put a shame on them. They are adults, for Pete's sake.

@yo': teachers are supposed to ask questions in class, right? or they should not? What's wrong with choosing the disturbing guys for questions? I should mention again that I was embarrassed, but there were no hard feelings.

@qsp Questions are a good thing, but it doesn't mean that every question is a good thing. Of course, questions used to waken the class up, get a feedback on whether your lecture is clear etc. -- that's fine. But here, you obviously ask the question only to embarrass the chatting people.

By doing this, you also run the risk of the student making the class laugh by giving a delightfully stupid answer. I've been that student more than a few times.

@yo' Sometimes —fortunately, rarely — adults need to be shamed.

As an aside, I would also add that this doesn't work for students who don't appear to be paying attention, but aren't talking. I'm remembering myself from high school here. I had one math teacher (pre-Calculus) who was just so absolutely awful that I would actually know less about the material if I paid attention to her, so I didn't. Occasionally, she'd attempt to bring attention to this by asking me the answer to a question she'd been working on for the last 10 minutes. After a couple of times of me responding with the correct answer without even looking up, she stopped doing that. :)

On the positive side, I did set several high scores on the games I was playing on my graphing calculator in that class.

I have a professor that will look at the person and politely ask, "I'm sorry, do you have a question?"
It typically works.
I think it's slightly embarrassing to the student, enough to get him to shut up, but not enough to humiliate him.
If the student continues, I'd pull him/her aside after class and ask that they not talk in class.
As a student, when someone is talking in class, it derails me from the lecture. I just sit there and think, "how could someone be so rude?" I know I shouldn't let something like that pull me away from the lecture, but it really is hard to concentrate with something like that going on. Because of this, I do think that something should be done.
And I'm not saying that when this happens, the professor is doing a poor job of running the classroom. This happens often. In upper level classes it seems less so the case.
Some professor lash out and go on a rampage -- I don't think this is the solution either. I've had professors do this to students and it kind of makes the professor unapproachable in my eyes. I'm worried I'll ask a "stupid" question and they'll yell at me and say, "Weren't you listening in lecture? I went over ALL of this!"

I like Dmitry's general approach.
Some specific suggestions:
If you have mobility in the lecture hall, you can take a couple of index cards with you to remind yourself what you need to say, and wander around the room.  This can be done in a natural way, as an expression of your dynamism and enthusiasm.  Now, with great subtlety, pause a bit when you approach the chatty cluster.  You must do this with subtlety so as not to embarrass them.  Just your proximity, without you even needing to give them a look, will generally cause them to stop or taper off.  If need be, you can park yourself briefly near them several times during the class.
Here's something you can do if you don't have mobility, or if the above procedure doesn't solve the problem: at some point during the class, say, "I'd like to ask Row 7, starting with green sweatshirt across to black and white baseball cap, to come and see me briefly at the end of class."  End two minutes early.  (If anyone else wants to talk to you, ask them to wait for you in the hall for a moment, and catch up with them there.)  Now you may say to the chatty Hatties: "For next class, I'd like to ask you to temporarily separate and choose seats that are in different locations of the hall.  Some students are having trouble hearing, and I need to find a quick solution to that."  Do you see?  You are not embarrassing them.
Have some classical music playing as the students are drifting into the class.  Nothing noisy -- no full brass choir, no crash cymbals.
Periodically show a short, entertaining video at the end of class.  Let the students propose these via email.
Last suggestion: do a course evaluation ASAP.  Draft it in as constructive a form as you can.

I think it would be better to explain to them how it feels when they chit chat while someone is teaching. Try to make them understand instead of scolding or taking harsh actions. Be more friendly and teach as if thinking from their side(As in what you would've thought if you were one of the student). I think the slight change in your teaching methodology can do the trick.

As noted by J...,
it is my responsibility rather than that of the quiet students
to help the noisy students to be quiet.
Here are some of the techniques that I have tried,
as well as my observations about their effectiveness.
Note about the classroom:
Due to the size of the lecture hall,
which is more than 100 people,
it is difficult for me to be heard unless I use a microphone.
A wired microphone is provided by the university,
but the wire is not long enough for me to walk
beyond the first row of seating for students.

If students who are seated near the front are talking
standing in front of the talking students
and looking more intently at them
is a subtle signal for them to stop talking.
This is quiet effective for some students,
but for others they seem to be oblivious to my presence and my stare.
If students who are seated near the back are talking,
I was able to walk through the middle aisle and speak there,
where I was closer to many of the noisy students.
When I was standing in the middle of the students,
many of them were more quiet.
I suspect that this is partly because
they were surprised to see me at that location in the lecture hall.
If a group of students is particularly noisy,
I will point out the general area where the students are located,
and tell them, "The students in this section are rather noisy.
Please keep quiet."
Catching the students' attention with something interesting
helps them to quieten down,
e.g., showing them a video that is relevant to the class,
or speaking English with a fake British accent.

Observations:

Students take some time to settle down at the start of the lecture,
and also after every lecture break.
After about 10-15 minutes,
students are more quiet than they were at the beginning.

I'd also like to emphasize that any strong confrontations should not happen in front of the class. I made the mistake of being very confrontational with a student.
She had repeatedly throughout the term been disruptive: talking, laughing, making gestures, playing on her phone etc. in a class of maybe 20. I stopped the lecture and asked her very directly, "Is something funny?" She absolutely lost it. She insulted and yelled at me in front of the class and then refused to leave when I asked her to. I had to call campus police to finally get her to go. Then I had to go through the process of arguing that she should be withdrawn from my class.
If it is a reoccurring problem that is not solved by soft, but firm rebuke, ask the student to stay after class, give them formal warning, follow this up with an email, and then withdraw them if necessary.

Take into account that not in all countries it is possible to withdraw a student from a class, that is, unless the student is expelled from the university, you have to take them, like it or not.

@MilesRout I cannot send a disruptive student in another class, if my class is mandatory and I'm the only one who teaches it. That is, either the student is expelled from the university or I'll have to cope with them.

@MilesRout I can expell a student from a lecture once or twice, but I cannot prohibit him the attendance of the whole course: university in Italy is public and there are laws to respect. University is (quite) different across countries.

@MilesRout Probably yes, but with a caveat: entrance to the university and to the rooms is free (anyone can attend university lectures, even those who are not enrolled): if someone persists in a seriously disruptive behaviour, the university can press charges against them for disruption of public service (disclaimer: IANAL). If I recall correctly this happened a few times in the 1980s-90s, during several university protests, when protesting students fled the rooms to interrupt lectures.

What Paul says: "reducing the volume of your voice", is going to work very well.
If the students cannot hear you, they'll make sure they can hear hear you if they know that they need to ask their their neighbor to stop talking. I've seen this technique used with success quite often by some professors when I was a first year undergraduate. I guess what also helped here was the fact that only about 30% would pass the exam and that there was only one make up exam after which you had to wait a year. A significant fraction of the students attending the lecture were second year students who had failed the exam twice.

I have been to 1000's of lecture hours in my lifetime as a student/undergrad/postgrad/medical school.
In a smaller class scenario such as your's the best thing to do is specifically single and remove those students who fail to comply after atleast one (1) attempt has been made on your part asking for compliance.
Doing this effectively activates/deactivates the dopamine reward pathway system of the brain in both attentive/non-attentive students. Placing the burden of perhaps lost attendance/lack of information understanding on the troublesome students while not affecting those that are listening.
This is a cliche example of a scenario where it's better to be feared than liked.

This is probably not going to be the answer you are looking for but I would like to give it anyway.
Why do you feel the need to do anything? This is not High School anymore. The people who attend Tertiary institutions are supposed to be adults. If they behave themselves like children just plainly let them.
If they have so little respect for there fellow students and teachers then let them talk. Don't get mad just go on like you always do.
When these man children eventually fall behind you can be honest with them when (and if) they come to you for assistance.
Just remember you are their educator not their parents. You educate them. You don't raise them.
You do have to realise that there is absolutely nothing you can do for a student when there is a refusal to listen to your teachings. I had to find that painful truth out the hard way.

Please don't. I recall a few classes I had in college in this style  - a 'Laissez-faire' teacher - and it was just impossible. The teacher has a responsibility towards the students that want to listen, as there little to no chance for them to stop the noisy guys.

Exactly. It's not about the talkers, who may or may not deserve your help to grow up a little. It's about the people next to or behind the talkers who can't follow the lecture and deserve your help to be able to do what they came into the room to do.

Me: "You two with the conversation.  What are your names?"
Them: "Mike"  "Dan"
Me: "Hi Mike and Dan."  "Class say hi to Mike and Dan."
Class: "Hi Mike and Dan."
Me: "Mike/Dan you must have some really good stuff you are talking
  about.  Since your conversation is more important than your
  classmate's grades whatever you are talking about must be
  groundbreaking."  "Can I get two volunteers to come up here."
Two students come up (the other students love this).
Me: "I am going to ask my volunteers to stand 30 feet apart.  Mike/Dan
  come on down and stand next to one of my volunteers."
Mike and Dan stand next to one of the volunteers.
Me: "Now whisper to the volunteers what you were talking about and why
  it was important."
30 seconds later...
Me: "OK volunteers can you share what they were talking about and why
  it was important?"
And this is the fun.  You will get some stupid reasons.  But the
  funnest part is that the two stories hardly ever are the same.  Which
  leads to...
Me: "Mike/Dan given that you guys can't remember what you were talking
  about 3 minutes before I would suggest taking good notes."

This takes 5 minutes, it is entertaining, and I have never had to do it more than twice for one class.

No, it is not entertaining, it is embarrassing. You should not try to embarrass people.

Yeah seriously. This is just a teacher on a power trip trying to shame people like if they were in kindergarten. It's bad of them to chit-chat while a teacher talks, but that's no reason to treat them like kids passing around notes in class.

This is also disrespectful for the students who want to learn, went to a lecture, and got a circus instead. Don't waste their time.

Perfectly fine response, but only do it if they're clearly disrupting the class.  It's not rude in that case.

I'm a student and I've had students lean over and ask me to repeat what the professor said. I'm very quiet and polite and make it very obvious I'm describing what the professor is going over (pointing at the board and my notes)... again, VERY quietly and VERY briefly. If a professor were to call me out like this in this one instance where I talk in class, I would be devastated.

@MelanieShebel - This is not to call out a student who whispers for a couple of seconds.  This is to squash an ongoing conversation in the middle of my class.  I would say the 3rd time I look over and notice the same two people talking is when I would think about doing this.

That is just horrible.


text:
Acknowledge previous advisor/collaborators for ideas in article
A PhD student switches to another PhD program and writes an article based on an idea or proposal on which the PhD student has worked, but which was written by the former advisor.
The PhD student leaves in good terms, and then contacts 2-3 times the former advisor to know whether they are interested in contributing to the article, without never getting a response.
If the PhD student publishes said article, should a note be added to the acknowledgments mentioning something like "we would like to thank Dr. Smith for some of the ideas that generated this article"?
Note that none of the original proposal is part of this article but some similar ideas are mentioned.

Acknowledging the contribution of someone, however small it is, is seldom a bad idea.
Usually, when I acknowledge the contribution of someone, I send a copy of the paper to acknowledged people before the final submission, informing them of the acknowledgment. In possible critical cases, I ask whether they are ok or not with the formulation of the acknowledgement, specifying by which date I intend to go on with the submission.
I think that the above approach can be used also in your situation, and should there be no reply by the specified date, I would keep the acknowledgment as it is.

Good suggestion, but should I rather do this after the article gets accepted, so the last stage before the final submission for printing?

@user4050 Yes, you can also do that after acceptance, though I usually prefer to do it before the submission.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What date goes on your hardbound PhD thesis?
I submitted my thesis in 2013 but passed my viva (the oral defense/examination) in 2014. Should the date (month+year) which I put in, on and around my thesis be,

When I submitted my soft-bound copy to the examiners.
When I passed my viva (the oral defense/examination).
When I submitted my hard-bound copy to the university.

A fourth option is,

It depends on your university.

(Note that I am at a British Uni, so I presume that this is governed by something the British Library said...but what they said, I cannot find...)
This seems to be ridiculously hard to search for, but I apologise if it has been asked before.

Depends upon your University's policy. Perhaps even your department's policy.

This is the kind of question which is best answered with actual evidence. Many American universities have their thesis formatting rules online, and you can find them with relatively little effort. British Universities (Oxford and Cambridge, in particular) often seem not to give as detailed rules. From these examples, it is clear that the rules for which date is used depends on the university.

Harvard University:  "[Month and year of the submission of the completed dissertation to the department, division, or committee and Dissertation Acceptance Certificate was signed]",
MIT: "the date the degree(s) will be conferred (June, September, or February only)",
Stanford University: "(Date should reflect month and year of submission to the Office of the University Registrar.)"
University of Michigan: "year of degree conferral not year that dissertation was finished" (they don't want a month).
University College London: no date seems to be required on the thesis (none is mentioned in the guidelines, and there are theses without dates in their archive).
University of Edinburgh: "Year of presentation.
In the case of a thesis which is resubmitted, the year in which the
thesis is resubmitted should be shown as the year of presentation." What do they mean by "year of presentation"? From their website: "At some point between submission of your thesis and the viva, you are encouraged to give a final presentation of your work to the School, often via a research group seminar series."
University of Leeds: "the year of submission
for examination (Or resubmission where the thesis is submitted following re-examination after referral)."

Oddly, University College London says nothing about the year in the text of the thesis (so presumably it's not required, as you say), but it does require it to be printed on the outside. For that it says "Thesis submitted for examination in November and December should have the following year lettered on the spine."

While I agree that you should check your institution's regulations, I will give some pointers based on experience at UK institutions. Everything I write should have the proviso "This may vary between institutions" attached.
The thesis you submit will have the date of submission on the title page. After the viva, the examiners at a UK institution can make one of several decisions. The following is a rough guide:

Accept the thesis without requiring corrections. In this case, the hardbound thesis will be the same as the submitted version except possibly for fixing typos etc. In this case, the date on the hardbound version should be the same as the date on the submitted version.
Accept the thesis subject to minor corrections. In this case, you will have a certain period (often three months) to make the corrections, which the internal examiner will check before formally accepting the thesis. (There is usually no second viva on the corrected thesis.) In this case, the date on the hardbound thesis should be the date that the corrected version is completed and given to the internal examiner to check.
Reject the thesis but offer the candidate the option of making major corrections and re-submitting within a certain period (often a year). In this case, the submission process starts over and the dates will all reflect the new submission process.
Reject the thesis for a Ph.D. but accept it for an M.Phil. In this case, there are no changes (except possibly for changing "Ph.D." to "M.Phil." on the title page) and so the initial submission date remains on the hardbound thesis.
Reject the thesis entirely. In this case, the question is moot.

I took my PHD at the university of manchester and was told that "minor corrections" did not count as a resubmission and therefore the original submission date stood.

My intuition would be that it would depend on the university’s regulations, but I’d guess 2014, since your examiners could have asked you to make changes, which would mean that the version you submit wouldn’t be the same as what you submitted to them. I assume you’re actually being admitted to the degree this year, too.
The quickest authoritative answer would presumably be obtained by emailing the relevant library (note that only some universities’ theses go to the British Library).

I got my PhD from Aston University.  There, its the date it was first submitted to the examiners.  If you then have to resubmit after corrections (which most people have to do) this doesn't change the date, since its the original date that is used.
I had to pay for labels to be printed to cover up the incorrect date on the spine of my thesis, as I used the resubmitted date by mistake!

There's yet another option you don't mention (and the one I chose for my dissertation): The date you submitted your manuscript to the press. This date signifies when it left your hand for good - you could not make any changes after this date whatsoever.

I agree with dbmag9 that your university's regulations are definitive. If they do not give any guidance - and if you have nothing helpful from your supervisor, department, etc. - then I would suggest the following: The date on the thesis should be the date when the text was most recently submitted for examination.
Typically, a thesis undergoes minor or major corrections before being accepted. However, the approval of corrections is done without repeating the full examination process. More significant changes require "revise and resubmit" and in my mind this justifies bumping the date. But for small changes, the text is essentially the same version. That said, I don't think it's at all wrong to use the final hardbound submission date. I wouldn't pick the viva date, even if you had no corrections: the text was produced for the viva, not at the viva.
In my case, I had to include the text "Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy" on the title page of the hardbound version, and I had to include a statement affirming that the text was the same as the original submitted thesis, aside from changes required by the examiners. This made me think that the accompanying date ought to be the date of the submission, not the date of the approval. (In fact, there were many different possible approval dates - examiners, the department, the central university authorities, the actual graduation ceremony. None of these seemed like the obvious correct choice.)

The date would normally be when the university conferred the degree, so some time after the viva. But really, just ask your academic department.

I took my PHD at manchester in the UK and ran into this issue.
When I queried it I was told that "minor corrections" (the result most people get from a phd viva) did not count as a resubmission. Therefore the original submission date stood for the final thesis.
I would reccomend querying this with your supervisor rather than risking paying a bunch of cash to print/bind your thesis only to find out you have the wrong date on it.

It's the date that will be on your diploma, most presumably your viva.
Why should your viva be the correct date? Because PhD thesis are supposed to be contributions to a field acknowledged by your peers. Thus, a PhD thesis must be publicly disclosed (i.e., published or presented at an oral exam) so that you can be questioned about your work.
The oral exam rules will vary depending on the country. For example, in France only PhD degree holders (but any PhD degree owner, not just the jury) are allowed to ask questions at the oral exam. Some Swiss institutions (at least EPFL) keep the oral exam with the jury private, but the PhD degree gets awarded only after a public presentation, and the public presentation date will be the date on the diploma.

This isn't correct for all institutions. From the Harvard University rules for formatting the thesis: [Month and year of the submission of the completed dissertation to the department, division, or committee and Dissertation Acceptance Certificate was signed]

@PeterShor Do you have a link for that? My Ph.D. dissertation from Harvard has a different date in the dissertation from the date on the Acceptance Certificate. That seems like a given, since the certificate is signed immediately after the defense, prior to subsequent revisions of the dissertation.

@Sverre: The link is here; Page 3.

@PeterShor It does not say "and Dissertation Acceptance Certificate was signed". That was the part that puzzled me (and which strongly disagreed with what I did in my Harvard dissertation). So where did you get that part from?

You're right; that was the wrong link. It's Page 12 here. These are the March 2014 rules, while the other link is from July 2005. It looks like Harvard changed the rules, possibly to a form that is now impossible to honestly comply with.

@PeterShor Interesting that they made this change, because it would generally be impossible to adhere to, since the date of the submission never (?) is the same as the date the certificate is signed. Something for the current Harvard grad students to worry about ...

@Sverre: Since they only require the month and year, the right thing to do (???) would be to hold your defense on the first of the month, after which you have thirty days to revise your dissertation.

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

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


text:
Citing in two connected sentences
I read the answers to this, however I'm searching for an elaborated answer on how two (or more) sencentes are obviously from one source, and hence can be cited with one citation at the end of all sentences.
Example to reduce a really long sentences:

The thing varies in dimension A, because of . Consequently, it is categorised as 1,2 or 3 [Mr. Twit,
2013].

Are linking words like consequently, therefore and so on enough to signal that is originates from one source? Can I swap the dot (.) and the citation [Mr. Twit, 2013] to indicate that the citation does not only belong to the last sentence?
Bonus question: If I write a whole paragraph and add one citation at the end, does this imply that the whole paragraph is quoted?
In general I'm trying to reduce he-said-she-said structures, as they are akward and hinder the information flow.

Read what you have written, and check. Altering the order of punctuation and citation might seem a logical way to do it, but many style guides actually impose the respective order of those elements, and not logic.
In the end, I'm afraid you have to choice of either:

accepting ambiguity of your example
using the author's name to make things clear: “Twit et al. demonstrated that […]. As a consequence, it is categorised as X, Y or Z [Mr. Twit, 2013]”

Nice, but nicer with a citation style that doesn't repeat the author's name (e.g. superscripted numbers).  If the point is well-accepted, the ambiguity may not matter too much.

Every "idea" you introduce that is not your own needs a reference. It doesn't matter how many sentences it takes to express this idea, you only need to add the reference at the beginning/end (depending on your citation style) of the idea. If it takes more than a couple of sentences to express the idea, you may want to use a quotation.
In your example it seems like you have two ideas so you need to reference each idea. Often, it is better to provide context of each idea you introduce so the ideas are generally not back-to-back. Sometimes you have to have a list of ideas, in which case you put a reference after each idea.

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


text:
What happens if your manuscript is accepted as a filler?
I just got a response from a journal of the MAA that my manuscript is accepted as a filler.
The correspondence reads:

"The Editorial Board likes your submission and has asked me to move it
  to the "Filler Archives." Filler pieces are used only on a space
  available basis. Hence, it is now in a queue with other filler pieces
  awaiting publication. It is impossible for us to predict if or when we
  will use it, but if an opportunity to publish it arises, then we will
  let you know. If you choose to publish it somewhere else, please
  inform us so that I can remove it from the archives".

Since it is impossible to predict "if or when" they will use my submission, this could mean that I might wait "forever" for publication? I am a little bit confused and I would like if anybody has any similar experience to give me some advice.
What should I expect about the publication of my paper given its acceptance under "filler" status?

That seems more than a little unfair. They tie up your manuscript so you can't submit it anywhere else?!?

@NauticalMile: No, you can still submit it elsewhere.

This is an interesting corner case of the usual prohibition against double submission. Could you really submit it elsewhere without first withdrawing it here? Would you be obligated to inform the other journal?

@NateEldredge I suppose I have to withdraw first and to inform the new journal.....

My interpretation of your e-mail is that you don't need to withdraw your submission to the MAA until your paper has been accepted for publication elsewhere. The reason why double submissions are bad is because you would waste the editor's and reviewers' time and effort. But in this case the MAA has already processed your paper, so you're not wasting their time by submitting it elsewhere (which they anyway are letting you know you can do).

Yes, this is different from being accepted for publication (instead, it's closer to not rejected).  It means they might publish it soon, they might publish it at some point further in the future, and they might not publish it at all.  I have no idea what the statistics are, and they may vary depending on the current editor in chief.
Here's some background:
The Mathematical Association of America publishes several widely read, high-quality journals that focus on exposition rather than original research (most prominently the American Mathematical Monthly).  There's a lot of competition to publish in these journals, which means they reject many submissions, including almost all submissions to the Monthly.
The Monthly has a tradition of using short, interesting submissions as filler (and I think other MAA journals do as well, but I'm not certain).  This tradition arose in the print era, when it was more important to ensure that the number and layout of the pages came out right, and it has continued since readers enjoy the filler and there aren't many good places to publish pieces like this.  The filler articles are generally not considered particularly important, and they are chosen to fill the available space, to complement the main articles, or just because they caught the editor's eye.
So why would someone allow their submission to be used as filler?  One reason is that there may not be other good opportunities for publishing it, but I think the general reason is that the author doesn't consider it a big deal.  The typical filler article is short and entertaining, but not a major part of the author's career.  If your submission really matters to you, either because you would feel insulted to see it used as filler or because your career would benefit from having it published soon, then the filler archives are probably not a good place for it.  (You might get lucky and see it published immediately, but probably not.)


text:
Is it acceptable if an advisor does not include me as a co-author on presentation?
I apologize if this question is redundant in some way but I was unable to find a question similar to this.
I am a MS student (with thesis) and have an advisor who received a grant with myself as a collaborator to do a particular project. He has a hands off approach (or is just extremely busy) so I have planned, executed, analyzed the entire project. I am currently writing a manuscript that he will be a coauthor on (as the PI).
Recently he went to a meeting put on by the group that funds the project, with a presentation about my project. However, he left my name off the title slide and had me last on the acknowledgements (with my name spelled incorrectly) and a small picture of me next to people who only made smaller (albeit important) contributions. I feel like this is wrong, but he said it's normal to only have his name and another PI (not an author) on the title slide when I brought this up. To boot, he asked me to prepare the presentation, which I did, and he took my name off deliberately.
Am I crazy/egomaniacal? This seems wrong...
I was hoping for some opinions outside our lab group. Any thoughts would be appreciated!

You might be correct that you were overlooked. However, what did the other presenters do and specifically who did they include? Some granting agencies only let the PI be listed as the talk's author.

Thanks for your perspective, Richard. That's a good question to ask when the awkwardness dies down a bit!

So - it wasn't required, but listing only the PIs is what all the presenters did....

This is not good and fortunately it isn't normal either, but it happens. A former supervisor of mine managed to go through a talk where half of the work (and the slides)  were mine without writing or mentioning my name. It was particularly hurtful because I was in the audience. Leeches who thrive on others' work exist in every sphere of life, and academia is no exception.

leech? he is sharing his grant money with you.

Miguel I'm sorry this happened to you! I appreciate you telling me this, it's hard to know up from down here

rapidCascade, based upon your comment, I can see why you may have not been a co-author, however, as the presenter, I would have handled things differently. Personally, I will often have the acknowledgments as my 2nd slide, especially people like you who contributed a lot. I'm also sorry to hear that your adviser did not give you credit.

I think it is perfectly normal to not be on the title slide - that slide is to identify the presenter, not the contributors to the project, though in my field it is always well understood that most of the work on projects is done by grad students and post docs. However, PIs will often address by name the contributors to each section of data in the talk - sometimes even with a little picture at the top of the slide - and certainly acknowledge them at the end of the talk, with appropriate emphasis. I would be much more worried about that part than the title slide in your case.

@RichardErickson Seconding this. Acknowledgements second or last (sometimes even up during the questions) are pretty common, particularly for large teams or multi-site teams.

There are basically two schools of thought on who should be on the title slide of a presentation: (i) everyone who has contributed, (ii) the name of the person who is actually standing in front of the audience and giving the presentation.
There is no accepted standard for which is the "correct approach". I tend to think that fields where projects only comprise 2 or 3 people use method (i), whereas more collaborative fields use method (ii) -- and I tend to think that that makes sense, because otherwise one would have to list a dozen or more people on the title slide, which is simply not very practical, and also not useful to the audience.
So I don't think that taking your name off the title slide is unprofessional or unethical in itself, even if you were the one who prepared the slides -- your adviser was, after all, the one who presented the talk and the project.
That said, if the adviser had been me, I would have made sure that you would have been prominently mentioned in the talk (and made sure that your name is spelled correctly!) but in the beginning ("Before I go through the details, I do want to mention that most of the work I am presenting here today was actually done by my student rapidCascade, and I do want to make sure that he gets the credit he deserves!") and at the end ("Before I end, let me acknowledge that many people have contributed to the work I just presented. In particular, I'd like to single out rapidCascade who has done more than any of the others.") These words may not be reflected in any of the slides, and unless you were there in person, you'd never know that this much credit was given, but it is possible to highlight someone's contributions without making this explicit in the slides.

Yes, it sounds like not only was OP not credited, but had that contribution diminished.  I would seriously think about changing advisors.

The conflicts of opinion here validate the awkwardness of the situation! (I wonder if there isn't a divide between advisors/advisees). I don't know if I agree with Wolfgang because often times, people will distribute their presentations to anyone who asks for it. It's like a de facto publication, in which case "ghosting" authors to me is unethical

To follow up with Wolfgang since we are at the same institution: what about the RCR authorship guide? https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-Q7fFcWeihxWEVxVTg0SFdyUm8/view. Section B says that in the absence of any written standard, their rules apply, namely, "All contributors identified as an author must qualify for authorship, and all contributors who qualify for authorship must be identified as an author."

I think the question comes down to what one believes the name(s) on the first page indicate -- is it the authors, or the speakers? As I said, one can genuinely be conflicted about what exactly this should indicate, and I am. I believe that I'm generally pretty good about giving credit to others, in particular my younger colleagues. But I often have only my (the speaker's) name on my first slide instead of the dozen or so I would have to list for most of my collaborations. I do make sure they get (verbal) credit in the talk, though. If one of them is in the audience, I make sure I point it out.

I should also say that if one of my collaborators has only their name on a talk about joint work, I take no offense at all. In particular, if it's a younger colleague, I want them to take 100% of the credit and not have it diluted by having a senior person's name show up next to their name.

While I would never handle it like this advisor did, I would definitely dispute that this sounds like a "de facto publication." Publications are published. An arXiv is a "de facto publication." Some slides for an invite-based sponsor meeting are not.  While I like using point-based systems  if it gets dicey (e.g., https://artsarmy.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/procedure-for-assigning-authorship-wei-wen.pdf), I've only ever had to bring that up once in my career. Usually just keeping open channels about ordering keeps everybody happy.

The appropriateness of this situation depends vastly on:

Purpose of the meeting
General patterns of working with that professor

In this case, there's really only one piece of information given to go on, and it's one that actually backs up the professor's behavior (mostly): "a meeting put on by the group that funds the project." This is basically an issue of rhetorical goals: what is the purpose of this presentation? If you're a PI presenting to sponsors, this is a money meeting. Yes, it is a research meeting (research results are presented) but fundamentally the relationship is that some group gave the PI's money to do something, those PI's were responsible for it getting done, and the PI's need to show something got done. If you did it well, they're still responsible to the sponsors. If you did it poorly so it never got done, they're responsible for that too. Either way, to the sponsors, the outcomes rest on the PI's. Even from your perspective, the best outcome of this meeting is that your PI shows the sponsors something good, the sponsors find more money, and it supports you (or people like you) for more good research.
At least in my field (and almost any that I can think of), presenting in a closed meeting to sponsors is typically not considered something you'd list on a CV (it's below-board), so authorship credit is somewhat of a moot point. There are a couple of exceptions to this. First, if you were a PhD student or postdoc, the PI might want to list you explicitly or highlight you to help raise your profile with those sponsors when you submit for grants in the near future. Since you're an MS student, you're probably a ways off from that, so there's not a ton of sense promoting you to sponsors (who might well have changed jobs or retired by the time you had a PhD). In fact, as a master's student, I would say that even being brought to a sponsor meeting is a good sign (e.g., you're getting networking with sponsors and other labs). So I wouldn't feel so bad. Flip it around: what would you have hoped to gain from being highlighted in that presentation? You're there at the meeting, you can just talk to people about what parts you did.
On the converse though, I would say that burying you at the end of the acknowledgements is a pretty thankless treatment for a major contributor. I'd never do it, and most people I know would never do that sort of thing intentionally. So I would be on the lookout for if this pattern of behavior ever touches an actual publication or presentation in an academic venue (e.g., conference, workshop). Leaving authors off in that venue or burying the main contributor in that context is a serious no-no. So that's where the pattern issue comes in.
But keep in mind that sponsor meetings, open academic presentations, and invited talks are really all different animals that serve different purposes (e.g., respectively: funding, reputation/ideas, depends on the invitation!). Credit and responsibility are not the same across these, because in each case you are trying to accomplish different goals when you speak.

Thanks, Namey. Your input really made me think about the other perspective here. It still doesn't sit right with me, particularly if it were distributed. But perhaps I need to give my PI the benefit of the doubt this time, and sit down for a meeting about future authorship. I really appreciate everyone's thoughtful input!

I wouldn't necessarily give a benefit of the doubt, but it's a good idea to consider the overall picture before talking with them (which you should be doing). Some people are well-intentioned but just poor collaborators (careless, anxious about getting one goal done at a time). Other people are not particularly well-intentioned (e.g., credit hogs). Either way you should be having regular discussions with any advisor about how what you are doing advances your career.  I try to have these with my students at least 2-3 times per semester to check in on long-term goals.


text:
Leaving academia at 39
I am 39 and I have a good position in a European university, on my way to tenure (in the Economics Department). I am miserable in Academia, and I have been saying for many years that I want to do something else. I hate teaching, and I feel my research is totally useless. Still, I manage to publish quite well. I avoid conferences by all means, and I minimize the time I spend at university. The only positive side is the extreme freedom I have, which I have been taking advantage of by travelling a lot, for instance.
I am desperate to leave, but I am terrified. I have no idea what else to do, I feel I don't have much to propose to this world. And I am scared to lose my freedom. And what if I hate my new job, while having lost the freedom? I have been sending out my CV to private companies, and I am learning data science online, but I have no answers so far. I am really not a junior profile, but I am definitely not a senior profile as I have no experience.
I am completely depressed, feeling like I should have made the move earlier, that it is too late, and that I will never find something else. Hence I will be doomed to stay in academia forever.
Is it common for one to leave academia around during their late 40s? What factors should I consider when deciding whether to leave considering the conditions I described above? Please answer based on the fact that I need to hear happy stories, since I am currently struggling.

This is not the place to tell stories, but I have heard good (and bad) stories about this dilemma. Do you know what you want to do (instead of knowing what you not want to do)?

Before this question is killed let me say that those questions are masbe good for reddit! Start st AskAcademia, but maybe there is a better forum for that. Best wishes

Changing careers is totally normal.  "I hate teaching" For the good of your students, please find a non-teaching job.  Remember that Academia is a bad paying job (for someone skilled enough to do it).

May also be off-topic as "about preparations for a non-academic career (“What graduate degree will help me get a job as X?”),"

what are you trying to achieve?

You sound like the perfect candidate for a government job. Sometimes folks in gov't are looking for a fresh perspective.

What do you like to do? If you feel your research is "useless", but you do not dislike research pe se, is there perhaps a slant of your research that might actually be useful? Think interdisciplinary, for instance.

In economics, surely it's more natural to think of going to a think tank or government job? There are tons of economists who don't work in academia, and in a non-academic setting there's at least somewhat less expectation that you'll be blazing a trail into the great unknown, as opposed to giving confident expert advice on questions non-researchers actually need answers to.

Here's a book recommendation: Shop Class as Soulcraft by Matthew Crawford.

There is a meta discussion here about the on-topic-ness of this question.

Your post really spoke to me. In fact, I found it by google about leaving academia in your late 30s. I was wondering if you had an update on your situation? Any advice for people contemplating a similar path?

I would ask more exactly how long you've felt this way? As in, is this due in part (large or small) to the COVID-related changes in Academia? If so, you might think on struggling on to see if/how those changes remain post-COVID (realizing however, that may be multiple years yet.) This also relates to the opportunities available in the professional realm are lesser than pre-COVID, so switching now may be problematic.

desparate [...] terrified [...] depressed

First of all, however, I think you need to get proper counseling.

 Does anyone have managed to leave academia after 40?

I'm maybe within 5 % of that mark - but my story is nevertheless quite different from yours: I like research, I like teaching, I didn't look for a job when I left: I'm freelancer/self-employed now, my field (analytical chemistry + statistical data analysis) is quite different from yours. I decided early that I don't want to become a professor. Last but not least, I'd been considering this step for a long time. I.e. I considered this my plan B in case I end up without a new contract at some point. As it is, it was I who didn't renew the contract, and I took the opportunity to do a slow transition by part-time remote work at my now former employer.
I'm still involved with research and closely cooperating with research groups. And I'm teaching both in industry and in academic settings.

And are you happy with the change?

Very much so.
But I'm sure you realize that neiter is n = 1 a proper base for decisions nor will you be able to predict much how you will do even from a good poulation description of 40-year-olds leaving academia since the variance will be large.

I'd also like to state the somewhat obvious that by asking on academia.sx you'll probably get mostly answers by people who are still close to academia, since those who cut all ties to academia are very unlikely to read your question. And this means a selection of people who probably like research or teaching or both.

+1 for the recommendation to get mental heath counseling. This seems like a classic case of confounding dissatisfaction with work with broader work that needs to be done on one’s mental health.

I do see a therapist since 2 years, and he told me that it is vital I do something else with my professional life. I am mostly happy with my private life, I have plenty of friends and a very rich social life. My problem is my job and the whole university environment, which makes me feel like I am wasting my time/life.

I always wonder about the very prevalent advice here concerning mental health counselling when it is clear that it is the circumstances that create the problem and it is not self-generated. OP needs advice about how to fix the circumstances, not their mental health. It's about like being told to go to the pediatrist when your feet hurt, rather than helping to fix the fact that you have a shoe of the wrong size (where, of course, the problem is that changing the shoe is not trivial)

@user10522: that is good to hear. You'll need to know what you want (in addition to freedom) and what things you like to do and are good at in order to decide what professional future you aim at.

@CaptainEmacs: I deliberately did not say mental health counselling - I would not decide for OP whether they need professional/career counseling or mental health counseling (or both). But the post reads like too problematic to be adequately dealt with solely by advise from strangers on the internet. In addition, to me it is far from obvious where the root of the trouble lies. After all, I know many people who are or were unsatisfied with their job, but who were not terrified or depressed. In any case, being depressed and terrified is not particularly helpful for making good choices about

... [professional] future. So even if that is secondary trouble here, it may be a good idea to deal with it in order that OP enables themselves to do the carreer change. Again something that is IMHO not up to  strangers on the internet to decide.

@cbeleitesunhappywithSX Yes, indeed, you didn't use the word. Unfortunately, one of the comments did and that's what I ended up referring to. But it's not just this response, this is a prevalent response on SE. I do think that there needs to be the distinction of internally generated pressure and externally generated one. Some people do not get fazed even by extreme external pressure, others are very sensitive to it - but still the pressure is external. Counselling does not make the problem disappear, but may only make one more indifferent. See "Office Space" for a satirical take on this.

Irrespective of whether problems are internally or externally generated, there are only two ways to change a problem - change yourself or change the situation. For both internal and external problems counseling can help you decide which of these options is possible and help to get started on making the change. But it can't make that change for you in any situation.

I left academia about three years after completing my PhD. At that time I had a lectureship at a good university but I was deeply unhappy with the job and restless. I love academic research (biostatistics) but climbing the academic ladder interested me less, and I was disheartened by the massive attention put on grants and publications rather than research itself.
I decided to quit and move country. I took up a job as a data scientist at a large tech company. I immediately hated it. I felt trapped in an utterly vapid and uninteresting role. I didn't realize how much I would miss the ability to publish my work. Now anything I produced was hidden behind corporate NDAs. I felt like I didn't have any ownership of my work. I found it extremely difficult to sit at a desk from 9am to 6pm. In academia I could work whenever I wanted and did it because I was intrinsically interested and motivated. I regretted what I left behind  and became quite distraught at what seemed like limited career options ahead of me.
I survived for nine months on the new job but it had become unbearable. Out of the blue I got an email from some researchers abroad who were interested in the work I published shortly before I left academia. They flew me over, paid me a lecture fee for my visit, and offered to pay me again if I helped them with their research project. It was the push I needed. I quit my new job and became self-employed. I reached out to an old boss in academia and agreed to a part-time academic position where I could work remotely. This gave me some security. In the meantime I reached out to more of my former colleagues and I got more work as a self-employed freelancer. I absolutely loved this new way of working. I had the independence and freedom to manage my own time, and to take on as many many projects as I wanted.
One project in particular was extremely interesting and exciting. It involved academic research and the subsequent commercialization of our findings. I got to do the type of research that I enjoy, combined with the excitement and challenges that a startup environment can offer. I continue to work in this academic/entrepreneurial niche, combining interesting research with the opportunity to really scale and grow ones research outputs. And no faffing about with academia bullshit.
Leaving academia was the best thing I ever did, but be prepared for a shock to the system as you enter the "real world". You might not find what you are looking for straight away, but stick with it and you will succeed!
Don't burn your bridges when you leave. Returning to academia in a year or two is a perfectly fine option if you miss it. Also, it took me a while to get a job in industry. Several employers were turned off by someone who had been in academia for too long, but stick it out and you'll find something. Exciting times, good luck!

Thank you, this is really inspiring :-)

Awesome answer. I feel like this is very close to what I am experiencing right now. I recently moved to industrial job and I don't feel good in it. It is a large corporate, as in your case, which I think might be one of the reasons why it feels this way (limited, trapped). But I think everyone has to check on their own how it is like. Just leave options opened and don't burn bridges.

One of my favorite quotes is

A fault confessed is half redressed

Personally, I believe there is no such thing as too late in terms of professional decisions. I have seen many examples where people change their careers in their late 30s. Some of them started college to be proficient in some other field, some of them completely ignored their formation to do something else.
To me, academia has two huge benefits, which are the freedom of time management, and being able to choose the topic you want to work on.
In return, it is not well-paid.
If you do not enjoy the first part enough, then it seems like you are just doing a low-paid job for absolutely nothing. So, if you leave, then you will have more money and be happier.
If you are confident that you can utilize your skills in a corporate job, or be self-employed, then I'd say you should go for it.

I need to hear happy stories.

One of my former colleagues left academia after getting his tenure, and he dramatically improved his life. He left academia because just like you, he hated teaching. Unlike you, he loved research.
He found a job in a research institute, now he is earning double, and twice as happy. He quit occasional drug usage, cut his smoking habit in half, and lost a ton of weight. He wanted that energetic, always shifting, so called "exciting" life-style which academia could not offer.
In short, you are unhappy, depressed, and have a low paid job. What could go worse?

I think this is a perfectly legitimate question and may apply to many readers. The answer here seems clear by the way the question has been asked, which is that it is time for a change.
It is difficult to make the change because we worry that we might be reacting to something internal and making a huge mistake. Perhaps the answer is to take a sabbatical, pause the career and do something different, somewhere different. If it turns out that you're not happy in the new situation either then consider a return to academia with less of a grass is greener on the other side feeling.
If you don't want to make a giant leap into something totally unknown and burn your bridges, can you swing a year or two doing something which is accepted as having value? For example, writing for an economic journal or even learning a new language at a language school in the country of that language? You could make the case that you were adding a unique skill set with the plan to branch out into a specialist field. This sort of thing might be a face-saving way to get some breathing space and evaluate what you want to do.
EDIT 24.04.2020: One more idea, I got an email from a publisher about a webinar called 'Learn Start-up Principals: Utilize your research background to build a successful start-up without leaving academia'.
I had not thought of this and perhaps it's not as suitable for economics as some other fields but getting involved in a start-up is another idea for how to change it up without burning your bridges.

Thank you! Unfortunately I cannot take a sabbatical, because I am not tenured yet (and I need another 3 years to be). So if I leave, there is no way I can come back. Another reason I am still doing this job is that it allows me to be in a very nice location in the south of Europe, where there are not many job opportunities. Hence most likely I will have to move to the north. But my desire for a professional change is strong enough to do that. You are totally right, I am afraid the problemis internal and it would be a mistake, but I do not want to regret not having tried something else.

I empathise with this, another suggestion is can you chip away at the stuff you don't like, get some marginal gains. For instance, you hate teaching, can you change the format, teach for a college instead of the university itself or do more mentoring which is a slight sideways move from teaching? Can you get involved in governance and leadership? Regarding the is it internal or is it my job bringing me down, that is a tough one to answer!


text:
How to justify quitting PhD because of a professor in statement of purpose?
I planning to drop out of a PhD program after one semester because of my encounter with a professor with little experience.
This professor is also very intervening, non-perceptable, unapproachable, and worst of all, willing to go to any extent to sabotage my career.
The advisor altered credits of some courses to make sure that even though I got As in those courses, they will have a tiny efect on my cumulative average grade.
Obviously, when I apply for another university, the fact that I've quit and my average grade will raise some questions.
So, what can I say in my statement of purpose that will put my quitting in the best possible light?

These are some pretty broad charges and it's not clear what evidence or reasons you have for making them.  This makes it difficult to know how to respond.

"The advisor meddled with credits to make sure that I cannot be in good academic standing even though I got A's in courses." This seems like something that can be proven. If you can show that, you should be OK as far as your transcript and grades go.

I’m struggling to understand how an advisor could “meddle with credits”, or even what “meddle with credits” might actually mean.

@JeffE I think OP means that the prof is entitled to change the credits. So he used his power alter the credits of OP's really good courses.

@padawan I am not familiar with any academic system where a professor has that power, and if you are at such a university, I would advice to get away fast, as that is a sign of a hugely dysfunctional system.

@TobiasKildetoft It's not crazy, at my university you can register for as many research credits as you need to be "full time" if you aren't taking any classes (or just one, etc.) I read this as the professor reduced the variable-credit research "classes" they supervise to 1 instead of the 4 that was agreed on at the beginning of the semester.  A little weird the professor has  that unilateral power, but maybe no one ever considered that someone would abuse the variable-credit system.

@Azor-Ahai If he has the power to alter those after the fact, rather than sticking to the agreed upon amount, then yes, that really is crazy.

I planning to drop out of a PhD program after one semester and apply
to another top university for a PhD program.

Not all universities allow applicants from current Ph.D students. Although not 'illegal' it is looked down upon based on the requirements that I've seen thus far in my applications. Also try to finish the year at the very least. Perhaps your struggles are due to you trying to adjust to a new environment rather than the institution itself.

This is because of my encounter with a professor with little
experience and who is very intervening, non-perceptable,
unapproachable and worst of all willing to go to any extent to sabotage your career.

You mentioned a number of extremely negative attributes. Have you tried to talk to this individual about your reaction to their actions? If so, don't you have alternative options within the university? As in, changing advisers? Your judgement of a professor after one semester as inexperienced, micromanaging, unintelligible, hostile, and malicious seems rather premature.

The advisor meddled with credits to make sure that I cannot be in good
academic standing even though I got A's in courses.

Perhaps this is my lack of experience, but professors can only give grades to their class. The assignment of credits for different classes are determined well before you matriculated to the university. In other words, the class credit was predetermined when you signed up. At the same time, unless the same professor taught all of your classes, I don't see how it could have affected your academic standing. If you got all A's then the connection doesn't make sense.

Obviously, I have to submit my transcripts from all universities, and
my quitting and grade will raise some questions. So, what can I say in
my statement of purpose (or anywhere, I suppose) that will put my
quitting in the best possible light?
Thanks in advance for all your help!

I say don't quit, yet. Finish the year before making drastic actions such as this.
The evidence you've provided thus far are self-contradictory and doesn't seem to lend the idea that you tried to resolve the issue within your dept. If you did, then within the institution as mentioned by Mohammad Ghassemi. See if you can sign up with another adviser. You are running away from the problem rather than addressing it rationally.

As I noted above, there are such a thing as "variable credit" classes that can be adjusted to fit the students situation: https://www.hcde.washington.edu/policies/variable-credit-registration

@Azor-Ahai "Each quarter, before a student registers for a variable credit course ... students must have written permission from the faculty member supervising their coursework" The designation is made before the class starts.

I was addressing "The assignment of credits for different classes are determined well before you matriculated to the university." which isn't always true

No need to split hairs now, the part I left out were the list of classes that the policy applied to.

You should speak to your school’s Ombudsperson, most universities have such a person to handle these issues.  I would submit a letter from him/her, along with your application materials. The letter should explain the conflict from a third party perspective.


text:
The position that I have applied is being advertised again. Should I be worried?
I am interviewing within a couple of days for a position. As far as I know, that position has been rejected by at least one candidate before me.
I know why the position was declined in the past, this aspect of the job was discussed with me.
However, I just realized that the College has started to advertise the position again on the usual academic job boards.
Should I be worried about this? Is this something that was mandated by the people leading the search or something that HR Departments do on their own?
If anyone with insights on this process could give some perspective that'd be great.

"Again"? They took the ad down and then put it back up?  Normally ads would stay up until a candidate had accepted an offer in writing.

My mistake. The ad was initially posted on another board a while ago. It expired there, but now it can be found on a different board as well and it was posted recently from what I can gather.

Should I be worried about this?

Nope. It is totally out of your control and impossible to guess what it means. It could mean they have already written you off and are just wasting time (and money) bringing you in for an interview. It could also mean that they are hopeful about you and need to satisfy some HR requirement. It could also mean lots of other things.

Could you elaborate on why they could be hopeful about me, and meeting HR requirements? Thanks for your reply!

They might think you are worth bringing to campus and interviewing and hoping that they will make you an offer (this seems reasonable since they invited you for an interview). HR may have told them they need to relist the job after the earlier search failed. They may be simply saving time by not requiring you (and everyone else) to reapply. Again, just ignore it and keep preparing for the interview.

Thank you, StrongBad! Been preparing for this interview for days and your post just gave me hope, since it does make sense. But as you mentioned, who knows. All I can do is prepare and do my best during the interview. Cheers.

@fuji-phd welcome to AC.SE. You should take a look at our [help]. If my answer is helpful, you can give me an upvote (and eventually accept the answer). Good luck on the interview.

Some universities have a policy of interviewing "not less than 3, not more than 5 external candidates". What happens when you have only 2 strong externals? Free trip to someone, just to fill the numbers.... Been there, nice hotel at least..... (just as an illustration of possible absurd scenario)

They have started calling my references. I don’t know what to think anymore. The academic market is very unpredictable!

Basically yes. This is how I would interpret things in the job world.  (Have had the exact experience.)  And this is more of a job world issue than a pure academia one.  (No worries, mods, still fits the forum.)
They might still be holding on to you as a deep fall back.  But when they send a new request out, it almost always means they don't like who they have seen so far.
All that said, you need to have a gazillion hooks in the water and not pay too much attention to one until it is very serious.  Keep prospecting.