text:
How do teaching buy outs work?
Normally a professor is paid for eight to nine months each academic year for teaching several courses in the period. However, if a professor gets a research grant, he can support himself by the grant in the summer months, or teach fewer courses.
I'd like to know how it works exactly. Let's say, if a professor only teaches half of the normal load of courses, then he will receive half of his normal salary from the department and the rest is covered by the grant, right? If the grant is large enough, can he choose not to teach any course without loss of pay?

Variations of professors' pay is probably proportional to the number of professors...

There is huge variation in how it works. What is true one place will be utterly false in another. Some are fully funded by outside sources and don't need to "teach" other than guiding doctoral students. But in many (most?) places the grant recipient can't manage the funds her/himself. An administrative office does and disburses funds when given appropriate documentation. You need to ask the question locally if it is of real concern to you.

Guiding doctoral students also needs teaching (graduate) courses generally. I want mainly how it works in mathematics

In more teaching-oriented departments, buying off teaching might not even be offered

"Guiding doctoral students also needs teaching (graduate) courses generally" - not at all. Advising PhD students is often completely independent of coursework.

Yes, that depends on fields of study. In mathematics, however, I think it is true that professors need teaching courses to doctoral students when guiding them.

At [most] US schools you are told a breakdown of the position's time. E.g., 60% research, 20% teaching, 20% service. So buying out of half of your classes is not worth half of your salary.

Possible duplicate of How does "buying out" of teaching work?

@MathWizard From my own experience, you'll be able to keep your question open if you don't generalize to the entire world.

@henning I think this question has got better answers and more attention. If we close as a dupe, we should close the other one.

@AzorAhai I agree, and your suggestion seems to be in line with site policy.

@henning Well I try to not to suggest things that a contrary to policy!

@AzorAhai Sure. I didn't know if there was a policy on which duplicate to close, and it turns out there is.

Nearly every school will have a different policy on buying out of teaching.
In the US, many universities have a breakdown of the position's time. For example, you may be hired to do 60% research, 20% teaching, 20% service. At some universities, this means the grants must cover the percentage of your salary that you are buying out of. At others, there is a flat buyout price (presumably the amount it costs to pay an instructor). Although, some also have requirements for a minimum number of courses you must teach per year (can't buy out).
You can also get a reduced teaching load through additional service (e.g, serving as graduate coordinator or department chair).

I have seen many (eminent) researchers who do not teach any (or few)  courses in several years. For example, Andrew Wiles in the 7 years of working on FLT. In those situations, they just have visiting positions elsewhere or departments simply do not assign courses for them. So buying out all courses is possible and happens pretty often. Any thought?

@MathWizard Buying out of all courses is possible (depending on your university/department), but no it is not common. The ones I’ve known who didn’t teach were bringing in multimillion dollar grants semi-frequently, which is quite rare. It is generally expected for professors to teach.

I’d expand this to nearly every department.

It is complicated. The amount a grant is charged when a professor "buys out" from a course generally factors in the professor's salary and benefits as well as the replacement teaching costs (salary, benefits, office etc).
The number of courses a professor can buy out of varies. Some departments will let you buy out of all courses, others will require you to teach 1 course a year and some will not let you buy out at all. The exact number can vary year to year depending on the teaching needs of the department, past buy outs, total grant/overhead income, and other factors.
You should not take a TT job expecting to buy out of all teaching and it is not unreasonable to ask during the hiring process what the buy "rules" are.

Yes, tenure-track position requires some teaching and you must teach some courses in order to prove yourself

Normally a professor is paid for eight to nine months each academic year for teaching several courses in the period.

No, professors are paid for doing many things, including teaching. See this question.

However, if a professor gets research grant, he can support himself by the grant in the summer months, or teach less courses.

That’s a misleading statement that’s only approximately correct. Many professors don’t receive summer salary but that doesn’t mean they can’t “support themselves in the summer months” - the base salary is usually adequate for supporting oneself. And it’s not always an option to teach fewer courses - that depends on the nature of the grant and on the department agreeing to a course buyout.

if a professor only teach the half of the normal load of courses, then he will receive half of his normal salary from the department and the rest is covered by the grant, right?

No, again your math shows that you are assuming the incorrect premise that professors are only paid to teach. Even if there is a well-defined percentage X such that X percent of the professor’s salary is given for teaching (there isn’t always such a number), the amount that will be charged to the grant for a course buyout may not directly correspond to a simple arithmetical calculation of the sort you suggested. As others have noted, every institution will have its own policies about such things.

If the grant is large enough, can he choose not teaching any course without loss of pay?

Professors never “choose” how much they teach. They get assigned teaching by their department, and are required to teach the number of courses that they are assigned. But given appropriate grant funding, they can request permission from the department for a course buyout, and if that permission is granted then they can teach less than the normal load. In some places this is a routine matter and effectively professors can assume that permission will always be granted; in others it may not be.
Also note that it’s not just the size of the grant that matters. The grant budget and policies of the funding body have to be compatible with using the money for a course buyout. That won’t always be the case even when the grant is “large enough”.

Many professors don’t receive summer salary but that doesn’t mean they can’t “support themselves in the summer months” I don't think the OP literally meant they thought profs would starve without a summer salary

@AzorAhai I don’t know what OP meant, but what they wrote seemed to suggest that professors who don’t receive summer salary would have trouble supporting themselves. When people here ask loaded questions they not only confuse the people trying to answer the question but they may also mislead readers of the thread, so I thought it made sense to point out the imprecision. But I agree my answer is on the pedantic side, perhaps a bit more than was necessary.

I think the rest of your answer is fine, I just thought that line was maybe a little compared to the rest and could have been part of why you attracted some early downvotes (I didn't downvote). I don't feel like you're being "picky on words."

@MathWizard because I don't think there are anything wrong in Well you're just straight up wrong about those things, which is what Dan is trying to explain to you. | Also you said in your first comment "So this post is really picky on words" and then in your most recent one "Picky on words is not my own feeling, as reflected by others." Please don't try to make that my opinion.

This is just a question in which I ask some of my thought. They may not be accurate or right, so that they can be answered.

@MathWizard that’s fine, please don’t feel offended because of my answer. It’s completely reasonable for you not to know the answer to the question you are asking. I think we’ve all clarified our positions. Whoever thinks my answer is not helpful is free to downvote it, same as with any other answer to any other question.

Your answer is obviously approaching it from a research university perspective. From teaching universities, these things are often very well defined. A full-time faculty is required to have x units from which they are granted y units of service time, z units of time from research money or internal time grants, and the remainder must be filled up by teaching (x-y-z) units of classes.

@user71659 that may be the case at some institutions. I have no knowledge that there is a general distinction between research and teaching universities in this regard. I suspect that whether a given university follows such an approach to its internal accounting or not is more or less random and related to various historical quirks having to do with how things were set up early in the institution’s history.

@DanRomik There's a fundamental difference in that teaching universities have faculty teach, normally, 2-3 full classes. It is the variability between teaching 0-3 classes which makes buy-outs much more common and feasible. It is not like a research university where everybody teaches one class and it's rather special to bring it down to 0.

The answer to this question is always the same: contact your office of the Vice Provost or equivalent office. Ask the chair of your department if you don't know which office to ask. A Google search works wonders. It doesn't matter how other schools work, you need to know how your school works.  Here are examples:
University of Michigan
Texas A&M
University of Illinois Springfield
With questions about policy, it's always best to start with what's posted publicly, as the institution is liable for this information in an audit. This makes it pretty rock solid.


text:
PhD interview question: BSc dissertation/'thesis'
My BSc dissertation was basically a literature review of Sean Carroll lecture notes on general relativity.
I got a first in this, and was offered PhD interviews with the supervisors being aware of this so it must suffice. I'm unsure how you explain the motives and conclusion of such a piece of work. By doing a literature review I have pretty much, almost, produced my own set of lecture notes.
This is a common question in interviews that throws me.
Any advice?

"a literature review of sean caroll lecture notes" What do you mean by this? A literature review is usually a survey of the literature; restricting it to a specific individual seems odd, to (presumably) unpublished literature (lecture notes) even more so.

Well, how did you explain the motivation and conclusions in the dissertation itself?

erm I thought on something like this for the intro/motive:
General covariance motivated Einstein to genereralise special relativity (the principle only holding in inertial frames to relative accelerated frames)Unexplained precession of perihelion of Mercury by Newtonian formulation and this for the conclusion: cosmological constant problem, the cosmological constant not naturally arising-other means to explain universe accelerating? the coincidence problem, all motivate modified theories of gravity . (have touched on how I will continue the concluding leads of this project to my next project)

source: Stack Exchange

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/

sort: votes


text:
what happend status of the journal changed back to the under review from reviews completed?
I submitted an article to JMES (Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Sciences) on April 3.
On April 10 the status was changed to "Under Review" and on May 7 to "Review Completed", but then on May 22 the status was changed back to "Under Review".
Can anyone explain this?

My first guess is that the editor didn't like the completed review(s) and decided to get another one.

A possibility could be that one of the reviewers proposed rejection, other one revision (or acceptance). Then, the editor could have asked for a third review.

After reviews are complete the editor has to make a decision about the paper. There are various possibilities between accept and reject including "seek more information". For some reason the reviews weren't sufficient for the editor to either accept or reject and so they sought more information - putting the paper back into review.
It might have been simple like seeking a clarification from one of the existing reviewers or it might have been asking someone new (or several someones) to take a fresh look.
It might even have been that the editor sent the paper originally to the wrong reviewers and so got back nothing useful.
It is possible that they will respond to a request from you for the reason. Your situation isn't unique.

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


text:
How to cite ebooks that have no pagination in intext cittion in MLA7?
I'm writing my dissertation and the novel I'm working on is an ebook.
I tried looking for the paperback, but the English version is not available in my country. I tried checking on the web but all versions I found are epub or pdfs without page number.
My problem is about the intext citation. I checked citation guides and all I could find is that I can use only the paragraph or the chapter number. I think it will be weird to analyse several emphasized text quotes from the novel without mentioning their exact location.
So I was wondering whether I can use the page number mentioned in the adobe reader?

If you're worried about what is "correct" for your dissertation, I think you will need to check with your adviser -- I think different people might have different perspectives, and you'll only know what those judging your work will expect if you ask them.
From a more utilitarian perspective, I'd say listing the chapter number is ideal. Only the most critical or curious readers will follow the citation; for such readers, it will not be a terrible inconvenience to flip through a few pages to find the exact passage. The chapter number should be enough to get them to what they need.
I would not list the page number that shows up in Adobe Reader, because it's going to be arbitrary, a function of the text size, page size, font, etc. that you have chosen. The function of a footnote is to help the reader find the text, but using arbitrary page numbers may have the effect of hindering them, as they may not immediately realize why the numbers they're looking at don't correspond to yours.


text:
How important is it that your PhD advisor is an experienced, well-known faculty member?
I have a quick question about choosing a PhD advisor. I know they are some threads on this but my question is a little more specific.
How important is it that your PhD advisor is an experienced, well-known faculty member?
There is a new professor that is coming to my school this fall. She will officially have her PhD in May. However, she studies almost exactly what I have wanted to focus on ever since I was in high school. Now, I won't start doing research until after I pass my qualifying exams- so I have about a year.
My goal has always been to teach at college. I am really, really good at teaching and have received lots of money and numerous awards for doing so. So many college professors are disconnected from students and simply do not know how to teach and this is something I have been extremely passionate about.
I am not trying to become some world famous mathematician. So, given this, is choosing an advisor this young a bad idea? Is it looked down upon in academia, and does anyone have any experience with this?
I am looking forward to your answers.

I'm confused by your post.  Are you in math?  In math, it is almost unheard of for someone to become a professor at research university straight out of getting a PhD.  If this is the case, I would say she is very exceptional.

Are there any possibilities of having 2 advisors, the junior and a more senior one? This is quite common in some countries/fields (in France, the junior one wouldn't even be allowed to be your sole advisor). Did you look at other criteria than topic+seniority?

I got my Ph.D. in 1970; my adviser got his Ph.D. in 1968. But I also had a recommendation from a very well-known senior mathematician. And I'm pleased with how my career is going.

@Kimball maybe in 3rd world universities? in some such universities, every instructor is referred to as a 'professor' even though they don't even have a phd and then 'professor' isn't a title you use to call someone even if (they have a phd and) their job title is (assistant/associate/full) 'professor'. they're just called 'Dr X' instead of 'Prof X' so basically there's no distinction with phd's who are vs aren't yet professors. maybe in those kinds of universities you can phd advise straight out of phd. idk

well every phd advisor has to start somewhere ? well at least in phd advising. or maybe there's some distinction here like experienced in phd advising vs experienced in researching, and then you're referring more of the latter than the former?

My advisor was a fairly new professor. They were around my age, not yet tenured, and not even in my area of specialization (they essentially replaced my well-known, experienced, but abusive ex-advisor). In fact, I didn't have a single tenured faculty member on my committee, and - to my knowledge - none of them were well-known in the research world. Still...I graduated, got the job I actually really wanted, and am overall content with my professional accomplishments. Experienced, well-known professors can certainly be helpful, but your success is ultimately determined by your own efforts.

@Kimball: while it is not common, almost unheard sounds like too much. I personally know several cases, in the US, in Canada, and in Europe.

@MartinArgerami In pure math in the US, the only examples I know of are superstars at elite places.  In my department, we don't even consider faculty applications without postdoc experience.  Do you know of more "normal" cases in pure math?

Yes, I do. Like I said, I agree that the standard is to have a postdoc, but exceptions happen.

The biggest disadvantage here is that her first priority will be, and needs to be, her own quest for tenure. If that comes in conflict with your needs, say just time for research and publishing, then you will wind up with little help.
Another disadvantage is that, as a new and untested academic, she won't have the name recognition that you might want when it comes time to start your own career. That is less important, as you can establish other relationships with more senior faculty along the way who can also help.
A third disadvantage, perhaps even less important, is that she has little experience in advising doctoral research and may not yet be comfortable with it. Some advisors give too much "help" and some too little. But you don't really have a way to predict (from talking to other more advanced students) how she will interpret the task.
But, none of the above is necessarily a problem. It is just something to keep in mind. Being able to work in a subfield that really interests you is a good thing, but getting finished successfully is more important.
Moreover, the advice here is colored by my bad experience with an untenured advisor who provided little real help. Eventually I moved to a senior professor (at a different university) and had a much better experience.

In the first issue, the conflict potential can potentially be reduced if the professor has a "win-win" mindset: helping their PhD student succeed will lead to more (co-authored) papers and, therefore, also help their tenure case. Surely there are unhelpful professors at all career levels, so it's worth having a clear discussion about expectations before signing up for a particular advisor.

Of course, if all students seek out only experienced advisors, no new advisor will ever become experienced.

Just to give contrast with @Buffy's list of disadvantages:

new professors are often full of energy and enthusiasm
they will probably start with a small number of students, so you may get extra attention
they may have better rapport with you since it hasn't been long since they were graduate students themselves
the exact match of research area seems like a big bonus
as you suggest, the lack of prestige/ranking of your advisor is unlikely to be as big a deal when looking for teaching rather than research positions

The only disadvantage I see in addition to @Buffy's list is that a new faculty member might be a bit overwhelmed with all the new things they have to take on (teaching, admin, research, in addition to graduate advising).
All that said, IMO the most important characteristic of a graduate advisor is a good match in terms of personality/mentoring style/expectations. Hopefully you will have a chance to speak/interact with them more to find out about these things before choosing your supervisor.

My thoughts run along these lines too more than on @Buffy 's. And that was true even before I knew who had written this post.

It's a risk-reward thing. Choosing a new professor is like choosing a gambling game with higher standard deviation. Best and worse case(s) are further spread and there is less information to approximate the result. Weigh that against the possible benefits from a better fit and you get somewhere close to "do whatever you think is right".

@DonQuiKong I agree with the higher standard deviation but I would say that the mean still comes out above the mean for senior professors mostly because of the first two bullet points in the answer. It's just that with the senior ones you have a better chance to find out beforehand how they are.

+1 for  'the most important characteristic of a graduate advisor is a good match'!

I like older tenured faculty. They more likely would know how to develop a student into a professional. Newer faculty may not know how to do that well and having a rapport as being a more recent graduate is not very relevant to the task.

@Phil: I think this is the second point from Buffy's answer: "little experience in advising doctoral research"

And math is a young person's game ;-)

First of all, it depends on your character. Some people like to follow large trends and be part of larger teams, some other prefer niche research.
Some prefer to work on their own, some expect their advisor to be around to advise.
Now to your question

How important is it that your PhD advisor is ...

I will break it into two parts

... an experienced [faculty member],

In my case his knowledge of the academic topic did not matter much. I was pushing my own research in an area where there were not many people and my advisor was an expert only on the "context" of my research (for instance he knew particle physics, but not the neural networks based research I was doing on the results (this was at a very early stage of that topic)).

... well-known faculty member?

That was important in my case because my research was niche and I needed someone courageous enough to stand by me. He was extraordinary in this role, I was very, very grateful to him for that.
He was also very experienced in the academic world, so he knew how the PhD would work out, which general lectures to attend, etc. He was also very helpful when managing the frictions between me and the feudal part of academia (one of the reasons for which I left academia). I owe him a lot.

I'm soon to graduate from my PhD, and I was my supervisor's first student. He was on a research only grant and he had a lot of time for me, we ended up working closely together and I feel like I've benefited a lot from this. I'll be applying for postdoctoral research jobs soon, and I have a number of publications and I feel like I'm in a strong position to apply. I think it worked out well for me that I was my supervisor's first student, I know a lot of other students whose supervisors had more  responsibilities and less time to work with them.
I can see different ways in which I may have benefited from having a more experienced supervisor, but I'm pretty independent generally and I'm used to finding my own path with things so  I don't feel like this had too much of a negative effect on me.
Personally I think it's more important that you find someone you think you can get along with well, than someone who has more or less experience

But did your advisor just get his PhD when he started advising you?  There's a big difference between being a fresh PhD, and having been a facutly+postdoc for a few years who hasn't yet had any students.  Of course there's a lot of individual variation as well.

Oh I see, yes you are correct that he had spent some years in postdoctoral positions before supervising me. I agree that this is relevant.

This sounds like a bad idea for both of you, and hence I suspect the question is largely academic since the person may not be willing to take on a student (and the university may not permit them to be a primary advisor).
First, if someone is a new faculty member they will already be taking on a lot of responsibilities they haven't had before, and they will need to get used to managing their main duties before taking on anything extra.
Secondly, if someone is fresh out of a PhD they typically haven't yet demonstrated that they can manage their own research independently, let alone yours.
Now there is absolutely no reason why someone has to have experience advising research students before, or needs to be a well-known figure, to have a successful PhD student. And a graduating student will be judged on the papers they have produced, not on their advisor. However, I think it's vital for an advisor to have a reasonable amount of independent research experience.

Part of this may be right, but (at least in my experience) it would be unusual for a department to hire someone as a full faculty member and put conditions on their ability to take graduate students. Such conditions are often put  on people who have associate membership in the department ...


text:
PhD interview rejection
I had a PhD interview for a position but I had to cancel it because I had an offer from another one. However, I didn't accept the offer and now I would like to be interviewed for the first position. How could I ask them for this?

How long ago did you turn them down? Yesterday vs last month may make a difference depending on how quickly they moved on to other candidates. If I'm into my final decision you would be too late for sure. But since you turned me down once, your application would have to be really good for me to reconsider and re-offer the interview.

One day before the interview. I decline them due to the money that the other position (that offered to me) didn't pay enough in order for my wife and me to afford the living expenses. It was (stipend) something that we discussed in the final interview after I accepted the offer. That was the time that I realized that it wasn't adequate. You will sure say that I had to discuss the stipend issue at the first interviews, but we didn't.

"A day before the interview" doesn't tell us how long ago all of this happened. It could make a big difference in answering: did all of this happen two days ago, last week or last month? But it really is as @Roland says, never ever cancel an interview before you have accepted an offer and signed the contract.

It have been passed 5 days. There is no deadline (until filled). Start October 2021

First, and most important, if you don't approach them then you get no happy resolution.
Second, you are entitled to your own choices and priorities and no one should be offended by that.
Third, probably nothing you do will guarantee success, but you can try to put yourself back in the game, at least, just by indicating that you would welcome an interview and an offer.
I would simply say that my circumstances are now different, without going into detail or apologizing for my earlier decisions. They may assume that they weren't my (your) first choice and might ask about it. It is always good to be honest in answering questions, but you need not try to anticipate them and answer them preemptively.
We, maybe you also, don't know how highly you were ranked earlier or whether they still have an opening. In the best case they will welcome your continued interest.
My advice, then, is not to go into detail about why you are now interested but be prepared to give an honest answer if asked. I doubt they would be surprised by any candidate having other options in such a case, nor by the candidate wanting to explore them.
You were honest with them originally, I think, not stringing them along. Perhaps they can appreciate that. But there are no guarantees.
So, I agree with Captain Emacs, that you should prepare an adequate explanation, but I don't think you should express it unless asked.

Thank you very much for your response

You can always ask in a contrite manner, trying to find an explanation why you declined them in the first place and explaining why you are now agreeing to join them.
I would be wary of a student with such indecisiveness and possible flightyness, but if they have a substantial number of positions and your credentials are strong, you may be in luck.
I pick up on Buffy's comment, there might be also another viewpoint: if there were concrete circumstances or newly arisen facts that triggered your change in decision, it is strongly recommended to mention them. If there is a good reason for you to reconsidering your choice, it is important for the committee to see what your thought process was in changing your decision.

You may not appear "indecisive" if you just say that your circumstances have changed in the interim. It is a statement of fact, actually.

@Buffy Absolutely, but OP did not indicate that in their question. With your permission, I'll edit that into the answer.

Sure, but declining the other offer is, itself, changed circumstances. The OP should be prepared to explain, if asked.

@Buffy Not strong enough argument, in my opinion, as OP was initiator of the changed circumstances. I am thinking of external circumstances that caused the situation to change.


text:
Is it possible to retract an acceptance for a full time lecturer position?
I'm a 4-year (most likely 4.5-year) experimental psychology PhD student who just got an offer to be a visiting lecturer at a regional branch of a major university in the United States. They gave me two days to accept an offer for a lecturer position.
I have a couple of other first-stage interviews lined up, so I'm wondering if I can retract my acceptance if I obtain something better later this month or sometime in July. Nothing in my letter states whether I can retract or not, nor can I find any clear information online.

Hi! I'm just writing to let you know that the information you have given in this post is probably sufficient for your prospective employer to identify you.

Related: Turning down an accepted tenure track for a better one? or Can I back out a tenure track faculty offer?.

When does the position officially start?

@AzorAhai-him- August 22nd

You are asking if it's okay to tell people you will do something when you are premeditating the possibility of not doing it after all and telling them later that you changed your mind. In your personal life you can do whatever you want of course. In a professional setting in academia, behaving in such a way will pretty much always make people upset and can be seen as unethical behavior. Even more so, if you keep looking for a job after accepting an offer, that's definitely seen as a violation of job search norms and not considered appropriate. The standard and ethical thing you are expected to do after accepting an offer is to inform other places you've applied to that you are no longer searching for a job.
I do understand your dilemma and your desire not to settle for an inferior position out of the necessity of a short deadline. People in academia deal with such dilemmas all the time, and trust me, the people who made you the lecturer offer also don't want you to accept their offer and then see you either rescind your acceptance later or start the job with them but end up bitter and resentful that they "tricked you" into working for them. So, the first and most obvious thing to do would be to explain the situation to those people and ask for an extension of the deadline. If it is practical to give you the extension, it's very likely they will be willing to.
In a scenario where they cannot extend your deadline sufficiently for you to explore your other options, you'll have to make a tough decision. That's what people usually do. It also does happen occasionally that people rescind their previous acceptance and then take a different job. It's "possible" in that sense, but it can upset people and harm your reputation.  If you are thinking of doing it, maybe think how you would feel if the employer was the one backing out of their offer to you.
Good luck in any case!
Edit to address the multiple downvotes on my answer:
I can only speculate as to the reason for the downvotes, since no downvoter has commented explicitly. It seems likely that many people consider the academic hiring and employment game to be rigged in favor of employers, particularly in the realm of low-status visiting/adjunct positions. If one starts from that premise, then the conclusion might be, to quote @cag51's comment, to adopt the mentality of "the system screws everyone, so OP shouldn't feel bad about screwing the system when they have to." With that mindset, what I wrote may seem naive or overly righteous.
It's true that the relationship between employers and job candidates is not symmetric. And it's true that if academia has not been kind to you, you might feel less inclined to be kind back to it. I understand that people make such mental calculations, and don't want to argue that they are invalid. I don't want to claim that my sense of ethics is more correct or developed than other people's, and with these sorts of questions there are always many nuances to take into account depending on the specific context. There isn't a one-size-fits-all answer.
Nonetheless, I think there are principles we can all agree on. Dishonestly promising something that you think you might not deliver, and creating the impression that you are committing to something and then continuing to explore other options, are shady behaviors. They upset people. They are things that one should try to avoid doing if there are other alternatives, both for practical reasons and just for your own happiness and peace of mind.
I didn't say to OP: "Don't ever do this under any circumstances." I didn't say: "This is absolutely terrible behavior." I simply tried to offer a balanced perspective, acknowledging that people sometimes behave in such a way, while warning of the ethical and practical pitfalls with OP's approach. I'm fine with the downvotes, and if anyone thinks they have a better way of looking at the situation, I'd be happy to read your answer or comment where you explain in what ways you disagree with my analysis.

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.

Legally there is nothing to stop you accepting one offer to later retract your acceptance. It is highly unlikely that if you do this you will suffer any legal or financial consequences.
Practically it is possible you will suffer some reputational damage. People at the first university may be upset with you. Only you can judge how mad this will be for you professionally.  I doubt they will remember you for long.  And if you get a position elsewhere,
it probably doesn't matter if you've burnt your bridges with people at a minor regional branch of a university.  It's not like we are talking about a tenure track professorship that people have put hours and hours into courting you and developing a package.
The problems are mainly moral and ethical. It's always problematic to say yes to something you don't intend to actually do.  How problematic depends on the damage done to the wronged party. If this visiting professorship is the sort of position i think it is (short term, no fixed hours or pay, otherwise why is it "visiting"), personally I'm sufficiently against the existence of such positions, and the people who offer them, I'd weight that somewhat in a decision. However I still think that on balance I'd decide that I couldn't deliberately say yes, if I knew there was a good chance I wouldn't end up taking up the position.  But you will have to examine your own conscience.

Please can you clarify the double negative in the first paragraph? I think you mean "it is highly unlikely that you will suffer legal or financial consequences if you do this" but you might mean the opposite, so I won't unilaterally edit it

"Legally there is nothing to stop you accepting one offer to later retract your acceptance."  Doesn't this depend on the letter you signed?  Just because employers tend not to pursue civil relief over these sorts of issues, that doesn't mean they're not entitle to in the right situations.

@user2390246 you are correct. I have edit the answer.

@scottseidman the OP says there is nothing in the letter. At most an employment contract could specify a notice period, often either three months or till the end of the current semester. Both would leave the OP clear to start something else in the new academic year. I don't strictly speaking know about US law,  but in the absence of a notice period in the letter, in the UK, this would leave you free to leave at will.  Even so,  you'll note my wording was that it was highly unlikely.

..., and of course, no department would really want somebody who doesn't want to be there for plenty of reasons -- but that doesn't mean that there aren't legal avenues that can be pursued.  I just have a thing about offering what seems to be clear legal advice with no caveats that may or may not be correct, or that may or may not be true.

You would be better to ask for an extension as two days isn't long enough to consider your options. If you sign a contract you can be held to it. But an informal or verbal statement can also be construed (by courts) as a contract so beware.
That said, retracting an acceptance isn't especially rare and the university probably has a backup plan as long as the "delay" is short enough.
But this is a legal question so an answer from a lawyer with knowledge of the law in Michigan would be better than this or any other answer from strangers.
At least do an online search for "verbal statements as binding contracts" to get more information. My quick look suggests that they can be binding. And, an online search isn't a replacement for advice from a lawyer.

I think it is less about what is legally possible, but what impression you leave. Is it socially accepted? Or will the Michigan psychology community remember that zzmondo1 broke his word and will be an a person non grata from now on?

@usr1234567 The bigger problem is that not only the "Michigan psychology community" may remember. Academics meet at conferences, and academics love to gossip. Easy to become henceforth known as "zzmondo1 who agreed to a position at Michigan State and then never showed up".

@xLeitix It seems very relevant to this issue that "visiting assistant professorships" are not real positions in the academic status economy.

This seems to be a not-so-essential visiting lecturer position at a regional campus thus the Earth will not shake one way or the other. You should look for your interest first and act accordingly. The kind of position you mention is in the group of exploitive positions -- lots of hours and not much financial reward that, if you have potentially better things coming, you should go for it. Employers are not institutions guided by some (or any) moral principles, on the contrary, academic institutions nowadays are corporations guided by their exclusive self-interest and greed. I remember that, once upon a time, when I was applying for jobs, I had been swindled by potential university employers twice, one of them an "ivy league" university. In each case they offered an Associate Professor position ORALLY. However, within a week or so, they had rescinded their offers. In fact the "ivy league" one pretended they never heard of me before when I asked them for a contract and all. The other one told me that they wanted me to explain the ongoing lawsuit I filed against my ex university employer. I refused to talk about it after recommendation of the attorneys. I suspect the reason I have not heard from the other one was the same -- it was horrible that I sued an ex-employer (incidentally, I won that lawsuit). Nevertheless, you should not have any MORAL considerations when it comes to employers because employers are not guided by morals, but by money. I would inform them that I am still in the middle of interviewing and that I would like to compare offers (I always did that). If they do not like that, good riddance, it is likely that you have not lost much.

Surprisingly downvoted

@Fattie  Voting here (like everywhere?) has nothing to do with the substance.


text:
Program where I earned my Master's is changing its name in 2023-2024. Does this change how I list it on my CV?
I am a soon-to-be fourth-year doctoral candidate in Applied Experimental Psychology who earned my Master's in Experimental Psychology back in December 2020.
I recently viewed my master's program's website after I saw a job listing for a professor position on Indeed and noticed that the program's name will be changed from "Experimental Psychology" to "Psychological Science" starting next academic year.
Do I need to change how I list my MA on my CV? Will this also change anything else relevant (e.g., how my degree appears on a transcript)? The requirements for the "Psychological Sciences" degree are exactly the same as "Experimental Psychology" (name change only).
To clarify, I am not saying I should remove "Experimental Psychology" or anything like that. I have seen similar answers about program changes on various websites and how they are listed on a CV ranges from "Master of Arts in Experimental Psychology (currently Psychological Science)" to include both names all the way to saying to just list the original name rather than both names.

Since no one addressed it in the answers, your transcript will not change.

You received an MA in "Experimental Psychology" (the original title). The fact that the department renames or changes the master is irrelevant to your title. It is not like you would no longer have an MA if the department were to drop the MA program ;).

That makes sense. I made an edit to my original post, but would it help to list both names? I now have an example of how I would mention both names in the original post.

But you did not get a degree with the new title. If you have a concern that the new title is more accurate, then you need to make a clarifying remark to that effect in a narrative CV, not just assume the decision that the program itself has not changed. That is an assessment that would have to be done by a third party or the degree giver. Just because you do not see any difference between the old and the new program does not mean that there are not.

Basically, you do not want to open a can of worms for no good reason by claiming the new title for your MA.

Put another way, it's the name of the degree that matters not the name of the department etc. What /might/ possibly matter is the identity of any professional institutions etc. that accredit the department to confer the degree.

I was in a similar situation with my bachelor's and was told that in situations where a degree program changes its name after graduation, it's generally appropriate and accurate to maintain the original name of the degree on your CV. The reason for this is that the name of your degree at the time you earned it provides the most precise historical record of your academic accomplishments. It also avoids potential confusion that may arise from listing a degree name that technically didn't exist at the time of your graduation.
In your case, you earned a Master's degree in Experimental Psychology in 2020, and that's the title that reflects the curriculum, focus, and body of knowledge you mastered during your time in the program. You didn't earn a degree in Psychological Science, even if the content and requirements of the two degrees are identical.
If you feel the need for clarification or context, especially if the new name of the degree has more recognition or is better understood in your field, you can add a brief note in parentheses. Maybe you might list your degree as "Master of Arts in Experimental Psychology (program now known as Psychological Science)."

You wouldn't change the program name because that's not the name of the program you completed. However, if the facility changed its name, then you might want to update that to avoid confusion.

... 'then you might want to update that to avoid confusion' ... A practical example/guide would strengthen this lovely answer.

Catholic University of Brabant (KUB) changed its name to Tilburg University (UvT). My paper diploma is unchanged, but i would list it as UvT now, not as KUB.

If you change the name, there is a danger that someone will say "but X University, didn't have a degree called MA in Psychological Sciences back in 2020, therefore the applicant is a fake".

You have your diploma for four years, use whatever title is written on it.
Now if you really wanted, I would suggest you clarify this with whoever is in charge of that program, of if unknown the university administration or a professor you might know. We can't assess based only on your statement if the two programs are really the same, maybe while the course names are still the same the content is different for example.
Supposing they actually are 100 % the same, you have a few options:

Write it exactly how it will be on your diploma / certificate, so if asked to provide it you avoid any confusion, and I believe in academia they might verify your credentials, so you better be using the proper title or university administration won't find you in their records
Pick whichever one you fancy (this could change depending on what role you apply to)
Use both with a slash in between

My professional experience in general is that people in the industry rarely care about the exact content of your Bachelor's or Master's, especially as the course content and quality could be wildly different depending on which college you attended, so I wouldn't worry about using an "up-to-date" name; as long as you have an education in Psychology and the experience relevant for the role, I doubt they'll care.
Also, folks who might hire you will either know that the name changed, or they won't in which case they might not know what "Psychological Science" means. You're better off using the "old" name either way in my opinion.


text:
Forgot to debrief participants on an old qualifier project. Can this error cause my qualifier project and poster I did on it to be revoked at all?
I realized I did not do a proper debriefing on my qualifier project for doctoral candidacy in Experimental Psychology from a little over a year ago.
I only say "proper debriefing" because my first Ph.D advisor (before she left the program and dropped advising me) trained me to simply thank the participant and to not talk about the details of the study with others. Furthermore, she  wanted me to stick to how she trained me without any deviations, which is why I trusted her and was convinced that I was taught how to do a proper debriefing for my experiment (that's not mentioning I had IRB approval).
It was not until I created my dissertation proposal and the materials to go along with it that my current advisor asked about a proper written debriefing statement to upload and submit to the IRB.
That was when I realized that I may have a possible issue. This is a major issue since my previous advisor's consent forms in her lab were shredded entirely and any digital data I can see (on my end at least) is completely and totally scrubbed after one year. I am able to search my emails via an old research assistant's name (since she sent out those emails and cced me in them) and ones I sent out from years ago to email them and properly debrief them if I want. However, would this be necessary at all?
Most importantly, would this error potentially cause my qualifier project to be totally revoked in this case? I also did a poster on it at a conference last year. Could that also be retracted?
If that is possible, what are my options for resolving this discrepancy?
In case it's important, my qualifier project fell under exempt approval because it was an eye tracking study that tracked eye movements as participants read sentences and completed a word reading measure. So, there was no chance of harm at all unless participants held their eyes open indefinitely. I told them to blink as they normally would.

If no one has approached you about this issue then I am quite sure you are overthinking and overworrying. There's nothing you can or need to do.

In your materials to IRB, did you say you would provide a written debrief? I believe mine only requires this if there was deception…

I think they would also require it with certain types of potential for harm.

@Dawn I did not say I would provide a written debrief at all to my campus IRB. There were no debriefing materials even uploaded at all.

I am not enough of an expert here for this to be an answer, but If the IRB didn’t require it then I don’t think this is a problem.

I think the question about a copy of the consent form should be answered separately. Don’t make that part of this question.

@Dawn Got it and I removed that part. I forgot but I asked about the consent form in an older question anyway.

How is this different from your previous question?

@cag51 Consent form is before experiment, debrief is after.

Sure, but is that going to change the answers in any meaningful way?

@cag51 The answers may be similar ("Contact your IRB" could be one answer), but that doesn't mean the questions aren't distinct. "I did not give my participants a copy of their signed consent" vs "I did not provide a debrief statement to my participants" are completely different questions. Frankly, I've never written one, and wouldn't think that contacting the IRB is necessary, so the answers would be different anyway.

These are similar but very separate questions and so this needs to be reopened.

Fine, I'll reopen, I was in the process of closing while there were no answers and now I don't think it's fair to close with only one answer permitted, but OP needs to stop asking these questions here and start talking to their IRB. This is the same question as their last one: what happens when there's a protocol violation or might be a protocol violation. The details are just details. We don't need to rehash this for every possible way.

@BryanKrause I brought up talking to the IRB about my concerns to my advisor (since he's on the IRB) and he discouraged me from doing so since it's a small detail (from what he told me). That's part of the reason I'm here.

@BryanKrause I think it's wise to advise the poster not to flood the site with IRB questions, but two in 16 days is fine. I don't think it would have been closed if someone else had posted this one.

Debriefing is not a universal requirement in human subjects research. I have never written one in an IRB I have submitted.
This is what my investigator's manual says (but check yours; emphasis added):

Research which requires deception regarding the purpose of the research or any other necessary element of
consent is permissible when justified by prospective scientific, educational, or applied value and when effective
non-deceptive alternative procedures are not feasible. Additional consent debriefing requirements are necessary
to obtain informed consent for this type of research. ... If a participant in a study involving deception
chooses to withdraw consent following the debriefing, the data collected in that case may not be included in the
analysis of the study.

Debriefing is necessary when their understanding of what they consented to changed. If there is no deception in your eye-tracking study, there is no reason to debrief. I don't know why someone would ask about your dissertation research needing one, unless that does use deception, or they just habitually use one.
If your protocol was approved as written, without stating you would supply a written debriefing, then you do not need to provide one. There is no need to second-guess your approval here.

Most importantly, would this error potentially cause my qualifier project to be totally revoked in this case? I also did a poster on it at a conference last year. Could that also be retracted?

No and no. Well, unless there was deception you didn't mention.


text:
Is there an age limit on applications for Maitre de Conferences?
I'm interested in pursuing a permanent, independent research position in neuroscience in France. However, I'm getting conflicting information from different researchers in the country about whether or not there is an age limit. One institute has told me that it's not possible to put forth an application for a position like this after the age of 35 (I'm 42). Another has told me that no such rule exists and what matters is how much you have produced since your PhD diploma (in my case, 6 years). I've done as much googling as I can and I can't find any official documentation about an age limit.
If it matters, I already have my qualification through Galaxie and I speak French at a B2 level and eager to improve.
Thanks.

Admitting that I don't know much on the topic, it seems like Maitre de Conferences is both teaching and research.  The research-only version would be Chargé de recherche.  Am I confused?  If not, which one are you looking for?

I believe Chargé de recherche is technically under the umbrella of MCF -- but either way, I'd be interested to know if there are age limits for either/both.

Besides legal terms, what you pursue certainly requires you being in touch with an university, a group, a director. They know better than us, both for the above legal terms as well as for all possible issues/chances etc.

@KatB I think chargé de recherches is a position at the CNRS where you are not forced to give class. Maitre de conférence is the lowest grade (the one when you are recruited) when you are forced to give class at the university for roughly half of your employment time.

There were an official biological age limit for positions in France but it has been removed now.
Now it can still be there in an un-official manner of course. But at least it is no longer in the texts.
Source: a formation I followed at my ecole doctorale (advices to pursue academic carreer).


text:
Should a review paper contain any original (previously unpublished) research?
I am writing a review paper together with two colleagues of mine, to be submitted to a prestigious journal in our field (we already got editorial approval of our proposal). We have contributed significantly to the field, and so the review will discuss some of our published papers together with other materials from the literature, authored by other people.
I have some unpublished results that are basically higher quality data compared with some of what is available from the literature. This means that I have deeper insight into some more or less specific aspects within the general subject of the review than what one could get from reading what has been published.
These results are kind of scattered and I don't think I can put together a  coherent story by stitching together these new bits here and there. But a review paper sounds like a good place to bring them up, complementing everything that's already out there.
My idea of a review paper is that of a critical analysis and compilation of the body of research on a specific topic which has already been published. However, it would feel silly to me (and dishonest to some degree) to write in the review that "x = 10.5" when I know from my unpublished data that actually "x = 10.8" (just an example). Hence my question: is it fine to include unpublished results in a review paper provided that they are just a small fraction of what is being discussed?

I believe that such an approach is indeed fine. I have seen some examples of review papers in my field (example this one : http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009250904009492 ) which are by construction review papers, but which add some news results or complementary results at the end.
Furthermore, I have seen review papers where new results were produced in order to establish, say, a comparison between various modeling approaches or etc.
Consequently, yes. I believe it should not be the core of your paper nor its most important aspect, but I do find it highly pertinent to briefly add new results or non-published results in a review paper. The key word here is to introduce them briefly.

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


text:
Is it appropriate to put a scientific/technical document about code developed by our group on arXiv?
Basically, I have written a tutorial for a code which performs a specific type of electronic-structure calculation. The code has been developed by the group I belong to and writing this tutorial/manual is part of our efforts towards achieving greater visibility and getting people to use the code.
I have put in sections on the underlying theory, some technical details, usage guidelines, and some examples of actual calculations that can be done with the code. As such, there is no original scientific contribution, since we already published the new scientific bits pertaining to the implementation in another paper. However the document is a (rigorous) scientific and technical document.
I have seen manuals uploaded on the arXiv before, but I do not know if this fits the arXiv's purpose. Hence, I was wondering whether it is appropriate/a good idea to upload my tutorial to the arXiv.
(Note: I have been browsing the arXiv help but have not found anything on this. Let me know if I have missed any policies stated somewhere on their website.)

See also http://scicomp.stackexchange.com/q/660/123

Is the code released under a commercial license ($$$) or open source? In my view, this is an important factor.

@FedericoPoloni The code is open source (why is it important?). The document is this: https://zenodo.org/record/17806/files/ofdft_manual.pdf

@Miguel Why is it important? I, personally, would not approve of a document that contains a large part of advertising for a commercial product on arXiv (but I am not an arXiv moderator).

If your manual is specific to your group's environment (software, lab, equipment, protocols, etc.), then I would consider posting such document on arXiv as not appropriate. A better place for such documents IMHO would be figshare or Zenodo. Both services allow artifacts to be not only citable, but also discoverable (via DOI assignment). Version control is supported as well, but the advantage of Zenodo in this regard in comparison with figshare is Git and GitHub integration.
If, on the other hand, the document is not specific to your group's or other particular environment (or, perhaps, you want to share this document as a model of how such documents should be structured, presented and what content should they contain), then I agree with other answers in that it is totally appropriate to post such document on arXiv.

Very interesting alternatives, thanks for the suggestion.

I decided to put the manual on Zenodo, it looks like a better fit than arXiv. Thanks again.

@Miguel: My pleasure. I'm glad I was able to help.

Yes, this seems like a totally appropriate use of the arXiv.  If you hope that other people will use your code, then the documentation has to be available online.  While you will presumably have the documentation available alongside the code (wherever you are making the latter available), putting the documentation on the arXiv as well will certainly make more people aware of the tools you have created.
As you say, the documentation for some scientific analysis programs are already available on the arXiv.  These files form a very small subset of the total arXiv, but they are valuable.  Once or twice I have looked at the documentation for analysis programs on the arXiv, even though I was not using (or even considering using) the software packages myself; I looked up the documentation because it helped me understand other people's papers that did use these tools.

In addition to the arXiv, which I do believe would be appropriate for this purpose, there is a journal called Computer Physics Communications that you might even get this published in.


text:
Why do papers sometimes appear unlinked in Google Scholar?
I would like to download this paper:

O. Faure. Numerical pathwise approximation of stochastic differential equations.
  Applied stochastic models and data analysis, 1992.

but when I use Google Scholar, the paper cannot be accessed. I cannot even access the paper from within my campus firewall.
See the following image:

Why is the title of this paper black, not a blue link, in the list of Google Scholar results?

The downvoter should explain the downvote. The question seems totally legit and to the point.

From Olivier Faure's thesis: Faure O.[90], Numerical Pathwise Approximation of Stochastic Differential Equations, Preprint LAMM 90/7, 1990. A paraître dans Applied Stochastic Models and Data Analysis, 1992. http://pastel.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/52/32/58/PDF/1992TH_FAURE_O_NS15977.pdf

As far as I can tell, the 1992 publication didn't occur (if the Wiley-published Journal of the same name (at the time) is the same journal).

It's black because that's the default colour for text on the page. It's black because it isn't blue, and it isn't blue because it isn't a link, and it isn't a link because there's nothing to link to.

@CharlesMorisset It's about a tool that's designed for people in academia, and a tool that's used on a daily basis by people in academia. Hence, it's about academia.

@@CharlesMorisset  Academia is a question and answer site for academics of all levels That's why i asked my question here. @mkennedy Thanks

The paper appears black because Google Scholar has not found the full-text of the paper during its crawls. Rather it has extracted the document as a citation from other documents it has seen.
Hence Google Scholar knows that the document exists (it has been cited) but does not know where to find it.

Just to mention that having looked around myself, the paper does seem difficult to find online. Typically if it's not in Google scholar, it means you're going to have a tough time to find the full-text online. The venue of the paper also seems to be informal: "Prépublication of LAMM" doesn't seem to yield much. @OP, you may want to email the author or to email someone who has cited the paper. (And just in case: be wary of citing a paper that's near-impossible for your readers to find.)

I would strongly disagree with the "don't cite hard to find papers" part.  If there is previous work strongly related to your paper, you are obligated to cite it regardless of whether the full text is downloadable via Google Scholar.

Sure, but my wording was a bit more careful than that. (1) I didn't say don't do it, I said be wary. (2) I didn't say hard-to-find or papers not in Google Scholar, I said near-impossible to find. By be wary I meant be reluctant; ask the following questions: is the reference needed, could an alternative reference be used, could the context be explained in more detail in the current paper if the cited paper is difficult to get, can the URL of the paper be added to the reference, etc.

If a reference is hard to find and an alternative exists, I agree that citing the alternative or including a summary of the necessary details is good.  However, neither of those prevent you from citing the difficult reference as well.  Disk space is cheap.


text:
What gets a paper rejected after conditional acceptance?
In computer science conferences, the following publication timeline is somewhat common for conferences:

For those who have been involved in program committees, what gets a paper rejected after conditional acceptance? Further, does this happen often? Is there a common percentage of papers this happens with?

Tautological answer: failing to meet the conditions?

I have been a part of computer science program committees that actually do reject papers that do not meet the conditions of their acceptance.
In my experience, papers are generally classed into two categories, essentially corresponding to "minor revision" and "major revision" for a journal. The papers that are basically acceptable in their current state are in the first category, and the organizers mostly just trust that the camera-ready will be acceptable as well---after all, it's in the authors' interests to improve it further.
Papers in the second category often get assigned a "shepherd" or, in rare cases, a second round of review, to ensure that they actually meet the minimum quality standards of a meeting. In my experience, this second category is much more rare than the first, and is not used by a large number of conferences.  In general:

The big first-tier conferences are often already overflowing with strong submissions, and don't need to bother about trying to cultivate borderline papers.
More specialized or not-quite-as-good conferences are more likely to make provisions to help turn borderline papers into solid papers, in order to make sure they end up with enough strong papers.
Low-ranked conferences often aren't very choosy in any case.

Turning to understanding the state of a particular paper: look at the process you've been told is going to happen. If you're being told about something like another round of evaluation or a shepherd, then your paper is likely borderline and you probably need to work hard to improve it to keep it from being rejected.  Otherwise, "conditional accept" is likely to be more a matter of wording than serious judgement questions.

Interesting that you say the big first-tier conferences don't need to bother.  In my experience, shepherding started with the very strongest conferences, and they shepherd every paper to try and get the very best outcomes.  It has spread to other conferences, which vary in competitiveness, but largely have the same desire: to get a bit extra influence in improving the papers.  But none of them actually reject a paper unless the authors are truly obnoxious in refusing to make fixes.

@FredDouglis Interesting: it may be different in different sub-fields.

I don't know statistics,  and perhaps in some fields it is more common,  but in the conferences I'm involved with,  that extra check is more to encourage authors to act in good faith than because papers will actually be rejected then.  In other words,  it's exceedingly rare.
I once served as technical program chair for a small conference in which a junior faculty member wanted to reject a paper he felt didn't satisfy reviewer demands.  Ultimately even that paper was accepted.
I'm guessing there are examples where this has real teeth,  but i haven't come across them.


text:
Is my PhD programme a scam? Does my department only want to get PhD students as TAs for their recitation section?
Next month (August) I am supposed to go back to the US to continue my math PhD programme in a Public State University. I hold a TA position as everybody does in my department. Nobody, I say again, nobody holds an RA position. My duties, as equal to almost everyone, are two recitation sections of 60 students each. Every section meets 3 hours a week, that is 6 hours a week for both, plus preparing material, grading a weekly quiz (120 for both) plus grading homework weekly (120) plus grading classwork weekly (120) plus holding office hours plus organizing and keeping grade records plus going 4 hours a week to a center called "math help room".
I saw many US students leave the programme. They get fed up. The vast majority of the students are Chinese and they seem happy with it but I do not. The workload is too heavy and there isn't much time for learning or research. I have seen most people get their PhD at my department with only one publication that even says "to appear" on the resume of the PhD graduates. All advanced PhD students at my department spend even more of their time on TA duties than doing their research, as opposed to my country (Mexico) where advanced PhD students do not have TA duties.
Is that normal? Is my math department a scam?
I was surprised and happy at first that I was accepted to a US university to do a math PhD. But I could not get admission to a PhD in my country nor Spain nor Brazil, which are not supposed to be as good as a US university. Is my reasoning ok? Why did my department accept me when lower schools rejected me? Do they only want to get staff for their recitation sections?
Is my reasoning correct? Or is the main objective of a PhD here in the US just teaching?

It's very common for graduate students in mathematics to be teaching assistants and much less common for graduate students to be supported as RA's.  The work load that you've described is also fairly common in my experience.  If I were in your shoes I'd be looking at recent graduates of the program to see where they've ended up.  If graduates from your program aren't having the kind of career that you want to have, then it's time to reconsider the program.

You are in an exploitative system, but you really shouldn't expect anyone outside it to recognize that. Talk to your adviser about your concerns and ask if he or she can support you or request you for a TA job where he or she can control your workload. The unfortunate advice that I feel compelled to give after being in a similar situation is that you shouldn't allow your own work to suffer in favor of your students. You should limit your time spent preparing and grading to next to nothing. Grade as fast as you can ( in my experience no one cares), and prepare just enough to be a passable TA.

ProTip: If there is too much to grade in 20 hrs, a common technique is random sampling.  They get credit for handing in the homework and real attempts at all the assigned problems (takes you 10 sec per student to determine = 120*10 = 1200 sec = 20 min).  Plus, in each problem set, you grade problem number "X" in detail (takes you an additional 1 min per student *120 = 2 hrs).  Same "X" for all students, you choose a new "X" each week.  Thus a weekly assignment should take only 2 hrs 20 min for you to grade.  If you come short of your 20 weekly hours, add another prob to grade.

@Pete That ProTip sounds highly dodgy to me, unless the course convenor/co-ordinator has OK'ed this...

@YemonChoi It's extremely common in my experience.  In the US the "20 hour limit", or stated working time for graders if they are different, is a legally enforceable thing.  Possibly with a union behind it.  The sheer reality is that when the number of students climbs into the 100's, which is increasingly common in public universities, you will of necessity run afoul of these legal issues if you try to have every problem on a "reasonable assignment" graded in detail. Of course the grader shouldn't instantiate it all on their own, but it's highly likely to be approved if asked for.

It's probably true that, generally speaking, PhD programs in the US are better than programs in Spain or Brazil or your home country.  It doesn't follow that every program in the US is better than every program in your home country.  All your mathematics training isn't worth much if you can't use quantifiers correctly in real life.

I have no answer, but a tip for grading: AMC (automultiplechoice) allows you to give quizzes that are graded by your computer. You only need a scanner with a charger to make it very efficient. Only applicable if you write the quizzes, though.

@zibadawatimmy I appreciate this (I have taught in Canada, albeit possibly at a different flavour of university from the one that Marcelo asks about), but my point was that approval is needed from the course convenor -- for a start, if there are complaints, a TA needs the backing of the course convenor! I agree that the action suggested by Pete is a practical solution but just wanted to point out it shouldn't be adopted unilaterally

Why remove the [tag:united-states] tag? You seem to be asking about characteristics specific to PhD programs in the US, so the tag was appropriate and helpful.

The idea that there is some sort of dichotomy between academic mathematics "research" and "teaching" in the U.S. is an incorrect over-simplification. It is true that there is considerable PR hype about "research" being the fundamental goal/criterion/status-generator... It is true that almost all math grad students in the U.S. are supported as TAs, not RAs. It is also true that sometimes the TA workload is unreasonable, and, often, people seem to find the TA work more immediately gratifying than their research, and if done inefficiently certainly takes more than 20 hours per week.
It is also true that some grad students from abroad are happy enough to be in the U.S. that working conditions are not an issue...
While it may be that many academic math jobs, particularly those with lighter teaching duties, are filtered on research, faculty still inevitably spend quite a bit of time on teaching and service. If teaching is extremely unpalatable, then academic math will be unpalatable.
Some people might say that any situation in which the "apprentices" cannot expect to get as good a job as the "master" are scams... but it's hard to find a situation in real life which works differently, I think. It's only a scam if someone makes a stupid promise to you that you'll eventually have a job just like your advisor, since, based on numbers alone, that's unlikely.
In my opinion, the true goals of graduate education in math are several: learn how to be an effective undergrad teacher, learn some advanced mathematics, learn how mathematicians make new mathematics, and practice attempting that.
In particular, research in mathematics requires mastery of so much prior work that it's very unusual for grad students to have genuine publications prior to the award of the PhD. This is very unlike lab-oriented engineering or CompSci degrees. That fact is not a sign of failure. If anything, it might be a sign of substance, that faculty insist on graduate education and more genuine research accomplishment than "papers" per se.
Also, in particular, again, the purported dichtomy between "researcher" and "lecturer", and a perception that the "goal" of graduate programs is to produce one or the other, is inaccurate. Graduate programs teach advanced mathematics to the grad students, and show what research is. The likely fact that they'll be doing a lot of teaching in their subsequent career does not affect the advanced mathematics... and the TA practice is helpful in becoming efficient and effective as a teacher.
There is sometimes a subtler issue, of grad programs which recruit international grad students who won't complain ... about workloads or anything else. That's not a good sign... but "even" domestic students are often pessimistic about the possibilities of change, and don't want to speak up for fear of retribution, etc. In the range of "generally reasonable", there are extremes, and there are abuses, indeed. Nevertheless, even then, it's probably not really a "scam".

@ Paul Garret: If I complain, will I get kicked out? At this stage, I actually do not care, but I had already complain to the department chair. He has not reply me yet.

Marcelo, it's not that they'd "kick you out". I hope you "made an inquiry" more than "made a complaint", in the first place. Also, the proper person to inquire of, and who will be your "boss" as combination of student and TA, probably has job title "Director of Graduate Studies", rather than dept chair. I'd speculate that to "complain" in advance, before truly seeing what's going on, might be interpreted as "being a whiner", even if the problems truly exist. For that matter, if the abuses are anecdotal or gossip, then it's hard to really know, especially because self-reporting skews things.

1) Right now, the academic job market for research-oriented jobs sucks balls.  The truth is that, if you are not absolutely f-ing brilliant AND extremely hard-working, your chances at a research-oriented job are pretty close to 0.  Given that you couldn't get admission to a PhD in either your country or Spain or Brazil, and I'm guessing your university in the US is not one of the top-20 programs, you're most likely not absolutely f-ing brilliant.  But I can't say for sure - maybe there are reasons I don't know about, and some people don't realize their brilliance until later in life.
2) I would guess that the vast majority (possibly even 100% historically) of graduates from the program you are in end up in jobs where research is a secondary part of their job (if they end up in an academic job at all).  They will end up teaching in small, lower-rated liberal arts colleges or regional state universities not offering a graduate programs, or even community colleges, and their teaching workload as a professor will be more than double your current teaching workload.  (They'll still be required to do some amount of research, but it might not ever add up to anything as significant as their PhD dissertation.)
3) Given (1) and (2), your program is probably designed to produce graduates who are competent at teaching upper-level undergraduate courses, which includes having enough personal experience of research to be able to explain to students what research in mathematics is and guide students in getting their feet wet.  Research productivity beyond this level for their graduates is purely a bonus - appreciated but not aimed for.
4) It's quite common for mathematics PhDs to graduate without a completed paper.  What matters is not how many papers but how good they are.  If you want a research job, it's probably much better to finish graduate school with a paper in preparation that people think will end up in Algebra and Number Theory or Compositio Mathematica (especially if it's really your ideas rather than those of your supervisor that made the paper work) than three published papers in journals at the level of International Journal of Number Theory or twenty in the Journal of the Elbonian Math Society (which is made up - but, for the purposes of this answer - assumed to be a legitimate but obscure journal).
5) Your teaching workload is not particularly unusual for a lower-tier doctoral program in the US.  If your goal is to be a teaching professor, wouldn't it seem weird to complain about doing a lot of teaching?  If you really want to be a research professor and think you have it in you, wouldn't you be grateful for the chance, poor as it is from your point of view, to prove yourself?

@Marcelo - This is a dichotomy that makes less sense in the US context, because the liberal arts tradition thinks all people teaching in universities should have some contact with research.  But - yes - your program aims to produce graduates for whom the purpose of research is to enrich their teaching rather than produce new knowledge.  Then again, that's true for just about every mathematician - the only difference is the level of teaching and how much continuing research is necessary.

At the end of the day, the only reason my university pays me to do research is because my doing research is necessary for me to be able to give doctoral (and occasionally some masters and undergraduate) students interesting and genuine research problems and useful advice on tackling them.  The reason my doctoral students do research is so they can communicate to their future undergraduate students how mathematics works rather than just reiterating facts the origins of which they don't really understand.

@Marcelo - Since UH is rather tilted towards applied mathematics, maybe it's more accurate to say that it also aims to train people for development positions in industry - positions where you apply relatively new research to "industrial" problems.  But it's still not really aiming to train researchers per se.  Frankly, it would be irresponsible for them to do so, since most of the graduate students it can get won't be absolutely f-ing brilliant and hence don't have much chance at getting a research job.

Keep in mind that, at the end of the day, approximately zero people are paid purely for doing research in mathematics.  You will learn advanced mathematics doing a PhD at your program or pretty much any other PhD program.  I don't think you'll get a substantially better deal elsewhere.  Whether it's worth it is up to you.  One can always learn and do mathematics as a hobby, with or without a PhD, though it is much easier to do mathematics in a mathematics department, and one needs some way to make enough money to not die of starvation or exposure.

Alexander, any need to add an "in the USA" qualifier to your first sentence, and possibly others?

Is my math department a scam?

I've never heard of the math department of a US public university being a "scam". There are for-profit universities that are considered by many to be not much more than a scam. But I have a lot of trouble imagining a public university being one. My rule of thumb would be that if most of the university professors in your department are actively publishing papers, it would be a really "long con" to be a scam. So I wouldn't worry about that so much.

Is that normal?

I cannot say for sure it's exactly normal, but it is at least not so far from it. During my PhD (statistics), I almost always was supported by TAing, although that was only 1 course per quarter. However, my friends in the math department at the same university TA'ed for two courses. I'm not exactly sure what leads to that, but I would assume it has to do with the undergrad course/grad student ratio.
So I don't think you're being intentionally scammed or your PhD program is completely out of sync. And as a light at the end of the tunnel, I will say that my first 2 years in my program were absolutely miserable (60hrs/week of homework + TAing, exams, etc can take a bit of an emotional toll)...but the following 4 years were really enjoyable!
With all this in mind, that's not to say there's no need to question your program; it is possible that it is a legitimate program but with poor job placement afterward. Assuming your program has been around for a long time, looking at what our students in your program have done is a somewhat good predictor for what your job prospects will be. This is not a perfect predictor of course: almost everyone in my program went into industry but I did not.

Since you said that you come from Mexico, I presume that you are on a F-1 visa. If so, then as a condition of your visa, you are permitted to work on-campus only up to 20 hours a week. Keep time sheet to see if you work more than that. If you do work more than that, talk to whomever is responsible for assigning the TA work in your department to reduce your load down to 20hrs. Do not be swayed by "this should take less than 20hrs" if in reality it takes more than 20hrs.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. The text above is not a legal advice.

The TA workload is almost always exactly 20 hours officially. I am not sure how this helps. The person assigning TA's to classes (usually) does not have any control of what constitutes a TA workload of 20 hours. The only way for the workload to go down is for the department to restructure the duties of a TA for a certain course number (or negotiate with the instructor for each and every course). What's the recourse when everyone involved says nothing more than "this should take less than 20hrs"?

I was in a similar situation, and I let the people involved know that I was working over 20 hours and all that came into question was my competency as a TA and likely an unfavorable review by the instructor (and I feel like this will result in less desirable TA jobs in the future at my institution).  I certainly will not do such a thing again.

The workload the OP describes doesn't seem entirely out of line with a 20hr/wk expectation, although with 120 students and three hand-graded assignments taking more than a minute or so if all office hours are actively used by students could push him slightly over.  I wonder if the OP has control over the structure and grading of the assignments.  Weekly graded classwork in college sounds odd, and don't most lower-level math classes (the types GTAs would be teaching) have online packages that can handle much of the homework side of stuff relegating him to just check a box in the grading system?

@guifa: Regarding online homework systems, my impression is that as long as there's a cadre of TA's slaving at that work, then it's quasi-invisible and there's no impetus to change it. Only when a professor is personally burdened by grading do they seek out a technology solution. Thus, places with TA's tend to get stuck with more inefficient legacy procedures.

@ Daniel R Collins and guifa: Besides the homework students submit to me. They also have to submit an online quiz and an online homework. So a tipical calculus student submits a quiz, a homework, a classwork in class and an onlin quiez and online homework each week.

@ChrisWhite A good employer will try to understand why you took more time than they expect, and help you to be efficient. A bad employer constitutes the "scam" that OP refers to, as by being admitted to the PhD program OP was promised that he will TA no more than 20 hours, and spend rest of the time on their studies. It might happen that OP is particularly inept, so much that employer decides to terminate him. But it is not clear what OP gains by sticking around, keeping quiet and being unhappy.

@ChrisWhite In view of the confidence of your comment, do you have experience of working anywhere with a visa or a work permit?

My first semester of graduate school in mathematics at State U, I was given two courses per semester (not TA, I taught them) and ran a tutoring session. I didn't think it was a scam, but eventually I realized I could do better by just working construction 20 hours a week and simply paying my tuition.
My last semester, the department sent out an advertisement for a tenure track position. Starting salary $30000/year, 3 courses per semester. They received over 400 applications from great schools all over the US and got someone who I regarded as very capable and had nice publications from his PhD. That's the reality for non-elite mathematics professors in the US. I guess by your definition, tenure-track professors are being scammed as well.
I now solve differential equations for a steady income, so I regard the trade I made to my university as a good one, but if things hadn't worked out I'd probably agree with you. Just be glad you aren't going into massive debt like the law school students.


text:
I love pure math but detest teaching. What non-academic options do I have after finishing a PhD in Complex Algebraic Geometry?
I love pure math and currently I am at a very low ranked US math PhD programme. My area is Complex and Algebraic Geometry which I love it. But, after some semesters of being a TA, I realized that I detest teaching. Repeating and repeating again. And furthermore, having to deal with those annoying undergrads is horrible.
I really love my research subject, but since I am in a very low ranked US PhD programme at an unknown state university, with probability zero I will get a research job or even a postdoc. What non-academic options do I have after finishing? I do not mind going back to my homecountry, but the only alternatives I have there(Latin America) are working in a Bakery again, which I did during my undergrad, or sell drugs or being a smuggler. I will not even get a faculty position because I detest teaching and my PhD school is very low ranked. I could not get into a math PhD programme in my country nor Spain nor Brazil, so I got into my actual PhD school.
What should I do? Any advice besides learning programming or finance, well I may not have enough time since in my programme all TAs are overloded with work. Thank you very much.
The only reason I remain is for my own self esteem mostly and because I love pure maths; otherwise I would quit. Having said that, I have no issues selling drugs, it is just not to hurt my grandmother, who raised me, that I am looking for an alternative. She made a lot of effort and worked hard so I could finish High school. But I would do anything for not ending up as a lecturer in a crappy community college or another unknown state U or U in my country.

Yes, but I am not a US citizen, I am a foreigner so I do not qualify for NSA jobs and other many in the USA. Also, my PhD is in pure abstract math, Complex and Algebraic Geometry. What non-academic options do I have. Thank you.

Taking the opposite side of the coin from @user37208, one could contemplate the fact that many jobs have unpleasant aspects... and if we concede that your current work has little relevance outside academe, either consider the teaching to be the "down-side" of your job, with the "up-side" being that most parts of the day you get to think about complex and algebraic geometry. Even if you don't like teaching, it is not difficult to do an adequate job at the college level, simply by caring a little and being conscientious.

probability zero I will get a research job or even a postdoc -- [citation needed] Publish. Collaborate with people who can write strong recommendation letters. Publish. Give talks at regional, national, international conferences. Publish. Sell tour research. Publish. Publish. Publish. Publish.

@JeffE - I'm not sure that works so well in mathematics, particularly in "deeper" areas like complex algebraic geometry.  Especially in some subfields, mathematics tends to prioritize graduate students having a single strong result over a larger number of more trivial ones.  It can be hard to get an important problem along with good ideas on how to attack it as a graduate student in a weaker department.  It's possible to overcome this if one is innately brilliant, but innately brilliant students usually (but not always!) get into better departments.

Math Ph.D.s work in the financial industry.  And in computer programming.  In addition to the US, how about one of these in your own country?

@Alexander and Paul: Thanks again for reminding me I am not brialliant and could not get into a decent math school in Latin America so I end up in a crappy school in the US. The only reason I remain is for my own self esteem; otherwise I would quit. Having said that, I have no issues selling drugs, it is just not to hurt my grandmother, who raised me, that I am looking for an alternative. She made a lot of effort and worked hard so I could finish High school. But I would do anything for not ending up as a lecturer in a crappy community college or another unknown state U or U in my country.

@AlexanderWoo Fair point about quality over quantity. Take my repetition as emphasis--Publish!!--rather than advice to publish repeatedly. (And of course it's hard, but OP claimed impossibility.)

@JeffE - The job market being what it is, I don't want to give people false encouragement.  Hard work is important, but talent and where you're lucky enough to be already placed, which are not things an individual can affect much, also matter.  If I'd been given the wrong false encouragement when I was younger, I'd probably be waiting tables while occasionally accompanying some violin recitals for peanuts and getting commissions of several hundred dollars for compositions taking two months of work, all in some expensive city - not a pleasant situation.

@JeffE To a mathematician, the probability being 0 doesn't mean it never occurs. It's just that it almost never happens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely

@YuichiroFujiwara Academic job offers are discrete events, and there are a finite number of them (at most 10^100 per human per second for the lifetime of the universe), so in this context, probability zero actually does mean impossible.

@JeffE Ha-ha. I stand corrected.

It might be too early for you to claim you detest teaching and believe this could remain for the rest of your life. Teaching  does not only consist in "repeating and repeating again", and after a while you can find interest in teaching. Especially if you try novel ideas with your best students.
Part-time teaching can be an interesting way to stick to your field of interest, while doing something else.
Then,  it is unlikely that you get paid for a very focused topic outside academia. Meanwhile, there exists a belief, summarized by E. Wigner in:

The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences

Many people outside academia have some fear of mathematics. Yet, it has found many applications. And those people need some fellow that master black magic. Topology has found applications in data science, algebraic geometry has potentials in cryptography or computer, and possibly other domains:

What are some applications outside of mathematics for algebraic geometry?
“Real”-life applications of algebraic geometry

So why not invest time in applied sides, while keeping connexity to mathematics, at least closer that with dealing with white powder (I mean flour for bread of course)?
Finally, in some countries (like France), there exist research  institutions where teaching is not mandatory (CNRS, INRIA). You could apply there, say for a post-doc position, and see what happens.

I would love going to France and work in a place like CNRS or INRIA, but remember, I am in a US low ranked crappy math department. Hence, with probability zero, I will het a position in CNRS or INRIA or a place like that. I am not a brilliant student, I could neither get accepted in a Latin America school like UNAM (Mexico) or IMPA(Brazil). I am asking for somthing real I could do. Not just that blah blah that maths have many application.

Take into account that firm research positions are like seldom, and a lot of people have funds for limited time, eg post-docs. A match between your interest and the offer could bypass average level or low-ranked math depts.

You keep claiming that being at a weak department will completely prevent you from getting a good research position, but that's just not true. Strong research results will create more opportunities for you. If you want to keep doing math, do good math.

Have you considered working in other countries beside your home country and the US? Some developing countries in Asia or Africa would value your PhD degree and welcome you. Many lecturers there do not have a PhD degree, let alone a PhD degree from the US, regardless it is from a low-ranked programme. True, you would still be required to teach, but undergraduates' attitudes could be different there. Do not cross out these possibilities for the sake of aiming only for the top places. Otherwise, it can feel hopeless.

authors: امير احلامى احلامي


text:
Software tool to identify clusters in academic papers?
I know connected papers, web of knowledge, research rabbits, but they all either only seem look at one or a limited amount of papers and visualise new papers related to them.
What I want to do is to upload a list of 300 papers for example, and then show how they are related. Goal is to identify clusters. I have a large number of papers (the "nodes"), but not any metric of similarity between them ("edges"), nor any tool for analyzing  the resulting graph.
My research area is the connection between land use and transport. There are a lot of different lines of research to explore this. I want to identify these "lines".

@AnonymousM The reason why I posted here is that I don't have the data to connect the papers. I only have the individual papers and their DOI. Usually online tools (often known to this space) is able to take the DOI and use that to identify papers and what they are connected to.

This also seems to me like it's more of a "content of research" question.

I wouldn't say "content of research"; OP is not a graph theory researcher. Perhaps borderline "boat programming", since cluster-finding is a broader problem than just academia. But I know a lot of ML work has been done on citation graphs, etc., so it's possible there is an academia-specific software tool out there.

I think if you just take out the "tool for analyzing" it's an on-topic question.

Does this answer your question? Co-citation analysis of my library?

Related publication: https://projecteuclid.org/journals/statistical-science/volume-34/issue-2/The-Importance-of-Being-Clustered--Uncluttering-the-Trends-of/10.1214/18-STS686.full