text:
Discrimination Free Git Platform
Github, a plataform for collaborating on code implementation has blocked Iranian's based on the fact that they are from Iran. The excuse is that the blockage is to comply with US trade laws.
Now my Iranian students cannot access their work.
Does there exist an european version of github, which is preferentially likely not to adopt the same kind of ridiculous restrictions?

Could you explain why this restriction is ridiculous? You either follow the laws (which themselves might be bad laws, but that is not the point) or you get into trouble. A European site that wants to have clients in the US will face similar trouble, a site that doesn't care about laws might not be the best place to host stuff...

Do I understand correctly that did not keep a local backup of their work in the cloud?

If you rephrase your question in the direction what you could do to help your students continue their work, you would avoid the "shopping" problem and maybe get the question re-opened.

@Dirk: The fact that GitHub says they are required to do this to follow trade laws does not necessarily mean that this is true (i.e., that the law requires this of them).  Companies often make dubious assertions of restrictions they are under as a means of justifying their own business choices.

Assuming that the institution is not located in Iran, the students should be able to use the school server as a proxy to access github (or use any other proxy).

@CaptainEmacs No --- it's impossible to work using git and not have a local copy of the whole repo. They may have lost bug tracking tickets (if they were using them), but not the source code.

@Erwan No, they can't. As you can read here, GitHub decided to [...] ban every user that used Iran's IP address somewhere their history no matter where she/he is living, while they could just restrict access by IP address like other US-based companies. This action is kind of ban by nationality.

@FedericoPoloni Thanks for the link. If that's true it's a blanket ban which discriminates against anybody who ever traveled to Iran, including when it was legal to do so and including non-nationals. Looks like a good recipe for being sued imho.

@FedericoPoloni That's what I meant. I know that git has a local copy of the history, but the meta-information needs to be locally stored, too.

I would say that you best bet would be to have your university host a server running Gitlab, gitea, gogs, or something similar. It would take a bit of money and technical know-how to run the server, but at least you would be safe from embargos.


text:
Looking for an endorser to publish on arxiv.org as well as other suggestions
My grandfather, a long since retired professor, recently finished a very long in the making paper, which tries to cover a lot of ground around physics and general nature science. He is very old-school, so he asked me to see if I can get his paper seen by people familiar with the field. I tried to publish on arxiv.org, but I need an endorser.
The author is 90 years old and has been out of academic circulation for over 30 years, long before arxiv and the internet.
I am posting a link to the paper here (29 pages), nothing huge, and I'm asking for anyone interested to comment as well as for advice on how to get endorsement, and about other locations I can post it at besides arxiv.org
https://app.box.com/s/2m4z6cfyaoje9zc3j3i0mx5sibfi5eaj
Thank you

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/20186/how-to-find-an-arxiv-endorser

Welcome to Academia SE. Please note that this site is not a good place to solicit endorsements (you can ask about how to get one though). Also note that your grandfather may still have a university e-mail address which may help him bypass the endorsement step.

@AnonymousPhysicist  This isn't a solicitation for endorsement, it's a genuine set of questions. You have to understand, the author is a very old man, who left the academia before emails, and neither the institution he worked at nor the country where it was located exists any longer (the USSR is gone). All he wants is for this work to get some views from people who actually are able to understand what he is talking about.
I know academic paper publishing is serious business, but we are simply trying to indulge a nice old man who invested years into this research without any outside help.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
complete all graduation requirement but delay in degree award
I have received the phd progrom admission offer with TA fellowship, which will start in 2019 Fall semester.
For undergrad degree, I tried to graduate in this summer and I finished all the requirements.
But for some classes, the final grades were entered too late before the degree award date for summer graduation, so I could not get my official degree certificate before this winter.
My undergrad school awards degree only three times in an academic year - May, August, December.
The school graduation coordinator can write the letter that I have completed all but the degree will be actually awarded in December.
What I worry is, just after I accepted the admission offer, the grad school only has asked to submit the official transcript whether the coursework is still ongoing or not.
They said, if the degree is awarded after I gave them the official transcript, I have to submit the official transcript with all final grades and proof of degree before the second semester registration.
The second semester, 2020 Spring, will start mid-January, and I can get my degree in mid-December and send the degree certificate no later than early January.
And right now I do not need any additional coursework in 2019 Fall in my undergrad school.
I asked the grad school office and they seemed to forward it to the department which I will join their phd program.
The department said they will write a petition for me but this matter is behest of the graduate school if they accept the petition or not.
Based on what the department said, it is the grad school who has the authority over this matter, but I did not get a reply from the grad school.
Instead, it seemed that the grad school just forwarded my email to the department.
I cannot get any clear answer for this, so I wonder if there is anyone who experiences a similar thing to my situation....

What is your problem, they clearly told you that you can submit the official transcript & proof « before the second semester registration » so do that.

@SolarMike: I presume that registration for the second semester takes place well before the second semester actually starts, i.e. well before January, which is the soonest that OP can submit the degree certificate.

It sounds like, as the department said, it will be necessary to petition the graduate school for an exception.  Even if they are not willing to discuss it with you informally by email, they should consider a formal petition, so that seems like the route you have to take.  I think it's likely that the petition would be granted, since you can show that you have completed all the requirements, and the delay in getting the actual document is purely bureaucratic and outside your control.

@NateEldredge OP does not give the registration dates, some places registration is completed in the first week and can be completed as late as week 4 or 5. Again making assumptions on poor info...

Answers can only come from the institution. Nobody here can help. It is up to their rules and possibly their willingness to bend them. Seek help there.

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


text:
Does department receive funding for each PhD candidate
The reason I'm asking is because my PhD supervisor "collects" - for lack of a better word - PhD candidates. She has at least 15 PhD candidates. None of them is being hired, except for one - as her private secretary. She also does not mind stringing out PhD duration by giving no input whatsoever but insisting that the research is still "weak" (without explaining how), and would let them go only after >5 years have passed. This makes me wonder whether the department receives money for each PhD candidate to finance the department, so that the PhD candidates' number and years spent there are of essence. I'm in Germany. We find the situation not ideal, but we are afraid to take this matters higher up, as we don't know if this might backfire. Is there anything to be done to get out of such situation?

What do you mean by "She has at least 15 PhD candidates. None of them is being hired"? If she has PhD candidates, surely they were hired? Or are they working on their own dime? — And what do you mean by "private secretary"?

@KonradRudolph They are working on their own dime. Moreover, the professor herself doesn't have any research, so there is nothing to be done in the department. The only PhD candidate hired as (officially) "research assistant" is given the task of typing the professor's attendance lists and such.

Who does this voluntarily?!

What OP describes is common in the humanities in Germany (well, maybe not always to the extreme of having 15 candidates) -- not so much in STEM fields.

Is this PhD supervisor the same as in your previous post: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/107485/can-i-tell-my-phd-supervisor-honestly-why-i-want-to-leave-him?

No. I'm rather unlucky with supervisors. My first one was really bad. My second one - the one I met in a conference - retired from academia for personal reasons, and this one took over from the second, because she's the only other professor in the department.

Wait, your department consists of one professor? You're sure they're not gonna shut it down?

This makes me wonder whether the department receives money for each PhD candidate to finance the department, so that the PhD candidates number and years spent there are of essence.

(Context: I'm familiar and have first-hand experience with the German system.) There is no direct flow of money for each PhD candidate. However, the number of graduated PhD students is seen as a performance metric for both departments and professors, and professors might receive a certain salary bonus for scoring well on that metric.
A rational reason for keeping around the candidates longer than necessary might be that she wants to squeeze more work out of them, including papers. There might also be other, non-rational reasons.

Is there anything to be done to get out of such situation?

Walk away. The advisor seems to have little to offer except for the dangling carrot of an eventual PhD degree; however, for a person that values their time as an asset that could be used for other things, that's probably not worth it.

Just a small addition to the "Walk away" part: most universities have processes for switching supervisor or even filing official complaints (shouldn't be your first option). You have very little to lose and a lot to gain from doing this. As to "as we don't know if this might backfire" - I appreciate this is a concern, but the you have to weigh the benefits too. If as you say there are 15 PhDs in the same boat, it stands to reason you collectively bring this up as a problem which is unlikely to incur personal repercussions.

@Yellow In principles yes, but in Germany things tend to be a bit different. To my knowledge, processes for switching supervisors mostly do not exist -- the departments don't play a role in the "supervisor to PI" matching. PhD students might still be able to switch, but they usually need to find new supervisors on their own (which can be tricky, especially if a supervisor at the same department is desired).

@Yellow I estimate that a complaints about this professor would be unlikely to have any positive effect. Professors in German enjoy a great deal of freedom in managing their PhD students. Unless they clearly violate some laws or ethical standards, there would normally not be much the department can do.

@Yellow Traditionally there is no official such notion as "having a supervisor" - you need to have someone who acts as a supervisor when you hand in the thesis, but how you get to that point is up to you. So "switching supervisors" means basically that you have to find someone who is willing to act as the official supervisor for the purpose of the defense. Depending on the department (topics, but also social aspects) this might be tricky. Things are different if there is a graduate school structure, but this seems not so likely given the circumstances.

If you are already to a reasonable point of graduation anyway, it might be possible to get out by convincing the advisor that you will (have to) quit without graduating if you don't gradate in a specific time frame. Since you will be gone from the advisor either way and having a graduated student is usually preferable to a non-graduated student. This is more likely to work if the advisor's motivation is, say, free labor, rather than if she sincerely believes that you aren't ready yet.

There is nothing wrong with asking the question in a neutral manner to your administration or student representative.
I am not sure about Germany, but in France for instance, having doctoral students graduate on time (3 years) is considered a positive indicator for the department/university, and it is complicated for students to be funded beyond that - which has its own drawbacks.  Some information can be found in HCERES reports, eg p7 of https://www.hceres.fr/sites/default/files/media/downloads/e2020-ev-0772710c-def-ped200021039-rd.pdf.

This is something that happens everywhere, and the extent of this depends goes beyond the funding model to cultural differences across disciplines and the personal style of the supervisor.  Getting additional data points - is this a generic features in other groups around you or something specific to this supervisor ? - is important.
Beyond metrics valuable to the supervisor mentioned in another post, good students should be able to finish early and - if they have a constructive relation with their supervisor - will likely continue to work with the supervisor (at least in the short term) to finish papers.  As a result, my experience is that it is rarely sign of a healthy group when students routinely overextend their degree.

"good students should be able to finish early" Indeed, but from the perspective of a formal assessment of the professor/department, the trouble is that there might not be any information about the actual time taken to finish. At many departments, it's possible to register the PhD candidate just in time before they hand in their thesis.

@lighthousekeeper agreed it's often possible to play the system.  In North America it is harder to do what you suggest as universities collect tuition and there is usually a residency period to avoid precisely the situation you describe.

@ZeroTheHero It is not playing the system, in Germany you do not always need to be enrolled/registered as a Doctoral student, in many Unis you can just hand your thesis (if supervisor approves), defend, and get your degree, without being enrolled at all. It is very different compared to other educational systems.

@Dr.Snoopy Exactly. Fourteen out of the 15 PhD candidates she has are the so-called external PhD candidates. They can't be hired, as the professor isn't doing any research, i.e. there's nothing to do in the department. They would come for consultations, told to improve the grammar and such, and it would go on and on for years. PhD candidates are in a weak position and are often trapped in a situation like this.

"good students should be able to finish early" - I think this is a very simplistic view. Unless you strictly define "good" as "being the winner in a race for time" (which IMHO a PhD is not), good students may easily finish later exactly because they are good. They may become involved in more endeavours, dig into their questions in greater depth and in more aspects, play a key role in more projects, and overall may also feel more "at home" in their academia environment than "not so good" students who may strictly follow the easiest/quickest path to their degree.

@O.R.Mapper I’m not sure I agree with some of your statements.  A PhD should not open-ended (timewise). Of course some students could take an extra year but a good thesis director will recognize when a student has done enough good work to stop, write the thesis and move on, this without being a race or compromising the quality of the work.  I agree that racing a student to the finish is rarely desirable, but knowing when a student should stop, and making sure this is roughly on time, is a mark of a good advisor.

@ZeroTheHero: (having 14 external and only 1 normal PhD student is definitively unusual) In my field, chemistry, external PhD students work (are employed) e.g. in industry and do their thesis as a side line to their every-day work. "On time" isn't very meaningful in this situation. Note that the German system is very different in this respect e.g. from the Italian where a PhD student must be hired for a prescribed number of years to do their PhD.

I work at a German university and I assure you that profs do not get money for every PhD candidate. And to be honest, I have never heard of a prof having 14 PhD students doing unpaid work for them.
Where I work, a prof usually gets the money for one or two young researchers - either a PhD student or a postdoc, or both. (This is why she is able to pay one of you.) If they want to have more, they themselves have to apply for third-party funded projects, e.g. from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.
As competition is very high here, getting a third-party funded project is always a success, so profs that have a lot of PhD students are considered successful.
I think your prof does this to push her own career. If she has many PhD candidates, she can publish a lot with her name on it without having to do too much herself, and at the same time she at least pretends to be successful in getting funds. This is why she does not want to let you go.
If I were you, I would leave this prof as soon as possible.

Although I am not familiar with German system, I suppose this is the same as the other countries. Usually, not the departments nor the professors receive straight money per the time the Ph.D. candidates are there. (Although based on the rule of some universities the candidates are penalized after passing a certain time, this money usually is not paid to departments, it is mostly paid as university private revenue).
Anyway, Ph.D. candidates may have different indirect benefits: If they write more papers or receive more research grants from organizations it is beneficial; additionally, they may assist the professors to help other students; their longer education may show the professors' colleagues their seriousness and hardwork.
Another important reason can be the score that professors receive after educating each Ph.D. candidate. He may want to save this working score for his next year.
Or some professors just pass the times to get retired. They don't like to have more students and don't like to spend more time for their job. If their older students got educated, they might have to struggle with a new student.


text:
Whom should I identify as the original contributor?
The paper [1] of Seidel in 1976 is commonly cited when peoples mention two-graphs, but Taylor wrote down the concept of regular two-graph, which is stronger than two-graph in his PhD thesis [2] in 1971, in where he mentioned that regular two-graph was due to his advisor D.G.Higman. Seidel himself also pointed out in [3] that the concept of regular two-graph is due to Higman.
Now if I want to mention regular two-graph, then certainly Higman is the original contributor. But if I want to mention two-graphs in my paper, whom should I identify as the original contributor of the concept of two-graph?
References
[1] J.J.Seidel (1976)-A survey of two-graphs, Coll. Intern. Teorie Combin., Atti dei convegni Lincei 17, Roma, pp.481-511.
[2] D.E.TAYLOR (1971)-Some topics in the theory of finite groups, Ph.D. thesis, Univ.
Oxford.
[3] J.J.Seidel (1992)-More about two-graphs, in Fourth Czechoslovakian Symposium on
Combinatorics, Graphs and Complexity (J. Nesetril and M. Fiedler, Eds.), pp. 297-308.

Why not cite all three?

Why not put in a footnote saying what you do here?

It's common to attribute things something like this:

The study of regular two-graphs was initiated by Higman (see [Taylor], [Seidel]).

or

The study of regular two-graphs was initiated by Higman, followed by work of Taylor [Taylor] and Seidel [Seidel].

Depending on what you want to say.  The point is it's fine, and reasonably common, to attribute something to a person even if that person didn't write the reference you cite.
FYI it's common for people to mess up or omit proper attributions in such situations, because they don't read the original references carefully enough to see who originated the idea.

How about I need to write down the concept of two-graph first? Taylor directly wrote down what is regular two-graph without introducing what is two-graph. Higman's original work is not findable. It is Seidel who wrote down what is a two-graph.

@AlanLao Are you saying Higman wrote something down and possibly published it?  And just that you can't find it?  If so you can still reference it and put something like "(see also [Seidel])" afterwards.  Otherwise, you can just say "two-graphs were introduced by Higman (see [Seidel])".

I think Roger Penrose mentioned some example where a result was named after Gauss, even though Gauss was literally not aware of the result at all!

@Kimball My impression is that Don Higman did a lot of work that he never published. So "not findable" looks plausible to me.

@Kimball Since other authors explicitly credited Higman for regular two-graph, so this is not a problem even he did not publish it. But the question is: regular two-graph wad due to Higman, while it is not known whether two-graph was due to him. Say, regular two-graph is something satisfying A and B, but that does not say anything about what is a two-graph.  Later Seidel published a work defining what is a two-graph, say, it is something satisfying just A.

@Kimball In this scenario, directly from the def. of regular two-graph in fact peoples do not know what is a two-graph, it was Seidel later work making it clear. But it is highly possible that Higman already knew what is two-graph though.
***More details on my previous comment: In fact the author of the first published work on regular two-graph credited Higman for regular two-graph.


text:
Converting my marks from Indian to US grading system makes it appear low
My profile:

BSMS from IISER Trivandrum (7.67/10 overall; 8.5 in MS alone).
MBA from MANAGE Hyderabad (74%).

I'm applying to US universities for coming Fall 2022, for PhD in Marketing. However when my MBA marks get converted to the US 4.0 scale, it is low. The topper in my batch was 83% and we had an absolute grading system as well. I'm worried about this affecting the application. What should I do?

Do mention somewhere in your application (may be SOP/personal essay) that the topper was 83%.

when my MBA marks get converted to the US 4.0 scale - Who is doing this conversion and how?  I usually don't see converted grades for applicants from India.

@Nachiket From context I assume you mean "topper" to mean the top ranked student in the class. This meaning would not be apparent to most US English speakers and I wouldn't use that word.

Straight numeric conversions between grading systems of different countries can be very misleading. I suspect that the people that are responsible for doing this understand that. In some places, like the US, getting "top marks" is common, even when it isn't easy. In other places, and I suspect India is one, it is very uncommon to get such marks. This fact, that professors in different systems grade quite differently, is responsible for the issue.
Unfortunately, some places require the candidate to provide a translation, though they normally don't have the experience to do so "wisely". Other places have professionals provide an interpretation of grades that can be more accurate and useful.
If you don't need to provide the translation yourself, then don't be overly concerned. People understand the issue. If you do have to provide the translation, then find a place to give a bit of context to the grades along with a faithful translation.
The SoP probably is not the right place as it has a more important function.
But for US admissions, GRE is only a small part of the overall evaluation of a candidate. Letters of recommendation are highly valued here, perhaps more than in India. And make the SoP future based, detailing plans for grad study and (important) beyond.


text:
What is a PhD *in*?
I have been offered a place as a PhD student in an English-speaking university, however, I'm a little concerned that the department may be a bit broad and generic (not the project though; it appeals to me greatly and is specific to my interests). It's not a big university, and as a consequence doesn't really have a granular department/group structure.
When it comes to the concept of the work a PhD entails, I understand it well; however, (rather ashamedly) I am questioning my understanding of the relationship between the University name, the school, and the research topic in the formulation of the PhD title, as well as how one might refer to the degree in official situations. It was my understanding that, technically, a PhD should be a standalone demonstration of novel research, and can stand on its own merits without further qualification of which group/department you did your research under, rather than the department forming the basis of the answer to the standard sort of, "What's your PhD in?" questions.
For example, a quite specific biology-related project might be attached to a Biology Department, Computer Science department, or to Engineering etc. depending on the disciplines involved.
Would that individual refer to their study as a "PhD in Biology Department"/"PhD in CS Department" etc. on record, e.g. a faculty page/LinkedIn or would they more likely use "PhD in A quite specific biology discipline" based on the content of their PhD, e.g. viral microbiology or cancer bioinformatics?

How people refer to their PhDs is up to them. Officially, your diploma will likely say “PhD in [name of discipline]”, usually without using the word “department”. It is true that for interdisciplinary work, the name of the discipline could be somewhat arbitrary and depend on which specific department you were formally associated with during your studies, even if the same research could have equally well been done in another department.

@DanRomik It varies by country/university whether you get a PhD "in" a field, cf. my answer below.

In the US system, PhD degrees often include significant course requirements from the department granting the degree.  In that context having a PhD in Discipline X tells prospective employers that you've taken substantial coursework in that discipline.  Many potential employers will insist on a PhD in a particular discipline.  In countries where the PhD is based entirely on research, such a distinction isn't really needed.

Most departments I am aware of award one PhD (as opposed to some that might award BAs and BSes, etc). So the math department will award a PhD in math, but the applied math department - if it exists - will award a PhD in applied math.
So formally, your PhD is in a broad topic, but any place it matters will give you space to elaborate.

For formal purposes, a university will make a specific designation, but it might be pretty general: mathematics, or humanities (terrifically broad, that last one).
But informally you can almost always say what you like. My degree is in mathematics according to the university, but my preferred designation is (mathematical) real analysis. Actually, I studied a lot of math just to pass prelims and I took quite a few topology courses as well. But my dissertation was in real analysis and that is what I'll say when asked. Even if it is fairly formal, such as a job application.

Yep. Mine is officially "Biomedical Engineering" but that can mean almost anything, and I haven't actually worked in biomed since 2006. So in a job application I'll usually describe it as something like "a computation-modelling-oriented PhD" and leave the formal title for my CV.

In my experience, almost every time someone asks that question, the question that they actually want an answer to is "give me an abstract of your thesis, in a form which is understandable with my level of familiarity with the subject".
On paper, it's almost always "PhD, [broad subject]". Mine is "PhD, Mathematics" on my CV, for example.

I think this might vary across countries, but in Germany, you have to register as a PhD candidate in a specific department, with the department being more (or often less) related to the research topic of the PhD, but mainly being the department that your supervisor is in.
People then mostly say I did my PhD in specialty of the department about topic of your research.

This varies by country (and perhaps by university), so there is no general rule. In the US, for instance, where I did my PhD, you're typically admitted as a PhD student to an academic program, and your PhD is "in" whatever that program is. In my case, I literally have a PhD "in linguistics", and this is written on all diplomas and transcripts issued by the university.
But in Norway, for instance, where I am now, you're not admitted to any program to do a PhD, you're hired by a department to complete a PhD, and that's it. Technically speaking, you don't get a PhD "in" anything here, you're simply getting a PhD degree from the school/university. Informally, of course, people say they're doing a PhD "in [name of field]", and many also put that on their CV, even though it's technically incorrect.

My Ph.D. isn't officially "in" any subject.  Unlike my undergraduate degree from the same institution, there is no subject area on my diploma, and at my doctoral commencement, all doctorates in the school were awarded together, regardless of the departmental affiliations of the new graduates.  However (especially earlier in my academic career), it was sometimes important to answer questions about what subject my Ph.D. was in.  I was located in the mathematics department, in the applied math program.  (The doctoral programs in pure and applied math had separate admissions processes and somewhat different requirements.)  However, my advisor was in a different department (which was not uncommon for applied math grad students).  When I was looking for jobs, I applied to positions in both applied mathematics and physics, and a explained that I had earned a "Ph.D. in applied mathematics," although my advisor has been in the physics department and my dissertation work was in theoretical physics.
For somebody doing computational biology (or whatever else), the appropriate answer to a query about the subject of the Ph.D. would be analogous.  For example, they might say, "My Ph.D. is in biology, although my thesis research was on programming predator-prey models of parasitoidy, and my advisor was...," etc.  This gives the official answer and also provides what is really the most important information that another academic might be interested in:  What was their thesis work about?


text:
It it appropriate to request a letter of recommendation via LinkedIn?
I had a professor who told me during the year that he'd be happy to write me a letter of recommendation for a research degree I was contemplating applying to. I've since decided to apply.
My university (in Europe) is on break until 1 October. I emailed the professor asking for the letter three weeks ago on his university email address. He hasn't answered me. However, I sent him a connection request on LinkedIn, and he accepted it within 45 seconds. I am thus wondering if he is not checking his university email during our vacation. However, I would like to know if he is willing to write it before October, as waiting until then would give me insufficient time to request one from someone else.
Would it be inappropriate for me to send him a follow-up letter request via LinkedIn, since I know he's checking that? Would it be more appropriate to make reference to the email I sent him, or send my entire request via the messenger? Or should I limit myself to communication via the university email address and just hope he reads it?

You could send a follow up mail, and then maybe ask on LinkedIn if he doesn't respond to the mail.

If someone is on LinkedIn, especially if they are active on LinkedIn, I see no reason why they would be offended if you sent them a message on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is a professional networking site. That would be exactly what you are doing. I would write something straight forward:

[Salutation]
I am applying to graduate programs at a few schools. I enjoyed your class in Underwater Heavy Metal Guitar and felt I did well in the class. Would you be willing to write me a letter of recommendation for my graduate program applications?
Sincerely,
-bron10

Three weeks is a long enough time that this professor has likely not seen (or has forgotten about) your email. There is no reason to cower in fear about asking for a letter of recommendation from a professor who said he would write you one. If he is at all reasonable, a simple message on LinkedIn will be just fine.

Too much thinking can be procrastinating. Waiting to take an action will halt the whole thing you want to achieve. At the end, it will either be a yes or a no for recommendation, which will be still better than waiting.
I would recommend you to start with by messaging your professor on linkedIn, maybe a simple 'Hello' type communication.
If you receive a response, ask if he gets a chance to check regarding your recommendation letter.
Again either yes or no. Even if checked or not checked, you can request the possibility to receive it, also specifying the reason that something is at halt because of it.
Make sure you acknowledge and express genuine gratitude how he taught and supported you before closing this conversation on linkedIn.
Again there will be waiting time, and you might check back with him on linkedIn after specified possible time plus maximum of 2 days additionally depending on your comfort-ability.
After this point you will be facing the same question again regarding waiting, so read this again and repeat your actions.

Disagree that sending just a "Hello" and nothing else is a good idea in any work-related written communication. Particularly here where one wants to minimize time wasted. Not coming directly to the point will likely decrease the chances of getting any reply.

I understand by initiating with just 'Hello' seems to be informal. We will come to know if his professor responses to that 'Hello'.Also since, it is linkedIn messages(chat based system), Probably it create an equal curiosity on professor side to initiate communication without any subject. In this way the author(student), will be more comfortable putting his queries or asking about recommendation as next step. Probably written the whole request letter texts for recommendation in one go doesn't sounds good for me. I think somewhere it might create the same impression about an email already sent.

For me, at least, I think the person was trying to say a "Hello" type of recommendation, not just a one word "Hello".  I interpreted that as meaning "Hello/Hi Prof Name"

@Daveguy I don't think that makes it better, the initial message should include the actual message to be conveyed (here, the request).

I meant start with Hello something like that, then address the matter at hand.


text:
How challenging is it to transition from industry to a postdoc position after a PhD?
I completed my PhD 2.5 years ago, and since then, I've been working in industry, specifically in data analytics and applied research roles related to the agricultural and industrial sectors. I now find myself more interested in research and am considering a transition back into academia, specifically into a postdoctoral position, ideally in my research areas.
I’m wondering:
How difficult is it to move from industry to a postdoc?
Are professors typically open to hiring candidates with industry experience, or do they tend to prefer fresh PhDs?
I’d appreciate any insights or advice on how to make this transition smoother. Thank you!

Every case is different. It depends on what you have to offer and on the needs of the institution.

At least in my field, I've never heard of somebody going from industry to a postdoc. But it's not because they can't do it, it's because nobody even tries to do it, because it would entail an 80% pay cut.

Any publications you did or have in the pipeline will be invaluable, as will any academic contacts you have. Reach out to the latter and have a discussion with them. They will likely not have open positions, but they may know someone who knows someone who knows someone..., and they will be much better placed to give you advice tailored to your field and your local academic culture than random strangers on the internet.


text:
Choosing interests
I am a final yr physics bachelor student. In my first semester I was really interested in mechanics I used to solve and analyse examples and enjoy learning them but as time went by . It changed to mathematical physics where I enjoyed the concepts of divergence ,curl and line and surface integrals. And then I read modern physics and then the list goes on and on. I am not able to broadly come up with one particular branch in which I am deeply interested in. And the question ' what is the branch of your interest ' intimidates me . I want to know is it necessary at this stage for ke to figure out the answer to this question. Or can I take one more year and wait for my master's to approach and decide what specialisation to take in my second yr of master's ? Please help me . All the advices would be of a great help to me . Currently i am studying special relativity classical mechanics and solid state physics.

You should talk to your advisor / mentor...

If you don't have any research experience in any particular subfield, I doubt your stated interest would carry too much weight -- being undecided is probably fine for now. More generally, I recommend focusing on fields that will give you transferrable skills -- e.g., computers, signal processing, statistics, etc.

Completely unrelated to your question, but worth pointing out nonetheless: You would do well to get in the habit of proof reading anything you put out for general consumption.

talk to graduating undergrads or masters. Ask about their job prospects, and which branch they chose. List branches with decent job prospects, and pick one or two that you like best (or hate the least, and have good grades in).


text:
What is the possibility of being rejected by Graduate school if a professor has already acclaimed to give me a RA offer
I have passed several loops of evaluation by a professor, who would like to be my future advisor. He told me that he made his final decision on me and was pleased to offer me a RA position in his lab. He asked me to submit my application and he could expedite the application so that I could get the admission quickly. But I have a weakness of undergraduate GPA(3.01/4, he didnt ask for any transcript information during our connection). I'm waiting for the admission information but very uptight about the result. I'm super worried about being rejected by the graduate school because of my undergraduate gpa.

Sorry, this depends on the rules of the university.  Stack Exchange cannot help here.  You should always have a backup plan.

US? ............

The best thing you can do is to ask the professor. Tell them you’re worried that you won’t be accepted because of your GPA, and whether it’ll be an issue.
My guess is that if a professor suggests that you join the program, and says they’ll expedite it, they know what’s the admission process and requirements. Send your application to them before you submit and ask if it looks ok, they’ll know what to do. In many departments the word of a professor who really wants someone to join carries a lot of weight, so I wouldn’t worry too much. But bottom line: communicate with the person whom you’ll be discussing many issues with for the next few years.

Thank you so much, Mister. This is quite a nice answer that I need. And the professor was like "I will start working on it tomorrow. You will hear from our staff soon regarding admission. You can expect to receive the decision and an offer letter from the Department in about 2 weeks if not longer". Is it a positive reply ?

Actually I would not go back to the professor. Presumably s/he has already taken the GPA into account. If it wasn't a problem then, it won't be a problem now, and you are just making more work for the prof. If the decision lies elsewhere, then it will be evaluated elsewhere. Let it lie.

If the Graduate School has the final say, then you will have to wait for their decision - we cannot guess their response, and probably neither can the professor.
However, if the professor has the final say and the Grad School just processes his acceptance then you should be fine, assuming there are no hidden things...

Thanks for your answer. Can you kindly help me to check out the reply of the professor? I'm not sure if I might miss some information of it.

-1 contradictory, does not mention that the rules vary between universities

I'm applying for PhD program in the states. How can I get to know the rules of a certain university

@AnonymousPhysicist are you assuming that the professor is working for several universities? Or just being obtuse? OP is reasonably clear, but not explicit by mentioning the name of the institution, that this is one application to one professor with acceptance....

@OwltsanWong check out the university / institution website - they will usually say...

I'm not bothering to elaborate because I'm sure this will get closed.  You stated two contradictory rules, and we don't know which one applies to this situation.  Which one applies depends on the university.  You didn't explain that both answers are plausible.  Without additional detail your answer has no information.

@AnonymousPhysicist The answer starts with "If ..." and the second para starts with "However..." so I assume you must have a problem with English....

@AnonymousPhysicist His answer looks good :-)

Generally in the US, even when the prof has the power to choose their student and the school basically just rubber-stamps it, the school still technically has the "final say". Surprises can happen and the school's decision will be the final one, not the prof's. Still the prof can certainly give more than a guess as to the outcome, just not a 100% guarantee.

@AnonymousPhysicist, I think you are being excessively picky here. I certainly didn't misunderstand the intent of the answer. Policies differ. What is hard or "contradictory" about that? Bad call. Go to the replay.

@Buffy I agree with you that policies differ, but the information is missing from the answer.  The asker does not know it, or else they would not have asked an ineffective question.


text:
In PhD programs, what type of work are PhD students doing after the coursework?
Suppose some has done coursework in Algebra and Analysis. After that they want to pursue a PhD in commutative algebra or in Ring theory or any pure mathematics topics.
My question : In PhD programs, what type of work are PhD students doing after the coursework?
My thinking : I mean, there are lot of theorems in commutative algebra. Did PhD students modify all theorems or do they choose a particular theorem and try to modify that theorem? Also, there are lots of exercises in Atiyah's commutative algebra book. Do PhD students choose a particular/specific exercise and work on it?
Note: I'm a MSc student

Choosing a suitable problem requires deep insight. Often a student just finishing coursework won't have that insight yet. Insight comes from very deep dives into the essence of a problem space. It is an emergent property, not easily or automatically attained.
Hence, students are often guided to a problem (or problems) by their advisor who does have this required insight.
I once had deep insight into classical real analysis and classical topology, but almost none in algebra. This seems odd, but I think it common. I entered the research stage as a good and hard working student, but didn't have sufficient insight yet to come up with a problem on my own. My advisor was a great help.
In fact, it was in working on my eventual dissertation problem that I got that insight. I don't think I could have really considered myself a mathematician until I was at the end of my research. Only at that point was I able to "bank" a number of future work problems that seemed to be important enough for further study.
Get a good and experienced advisor. Accept their guidance.

There are a few students who don't need this advice and come with a problem of their own. Sometimes that works out. But I doubt that, in math, at least, that it is the most common case.

Thanks you sir @Buffy  Can you tell me some reference or books .From ,  where i can get this problem for research/phd in pure mathematics?

Sorry, not much help there. But I found that doing a lot of exercises/problems helped me develop that insight. Look for common threads. Look for relationships.

Typically a Ph.D. student would have had enough exposure at the graduate level to be able to choose a problem they find interesting as their thesis topic with the help of their supervisor.
It does not always have to be a novel solution. For instance, it can be a different way of proving something already proven.
They also can continue to study and take relevant coursework to their thesis topic in either reading or classroom courses.

Often the choice of problem is guided by the advisor. And, importantly, a new proof of an existing theorem has to be sufficiently novel that it gives insight beyond the theorem proven. That requires insight.

That's a great point @Buffy!


text:
If I have a suggestion in general or would like to suggest a modification or an alternative use, can I email directly to the correspondent?
With the availability of journal articles and online technology, how can I suggest an alternative use or a modification to the method reported on a webpage or journal article? The obvious route is emailing the correspondent, but would my email ever be looked at? Being a stranger to the webpage owner or corresponding author, shall I stack my credentials to impress the email receiver? I am sending the email as a public person, so I am afraid that my email message is going to be overlooked.
In terms of contents, they are about syntheses of chemicals and engineering.

As you noted, if it's a journal article, you can always email the corresponding author. I've always received replies when I've sent such emails, though I'm sending from my chemistry dept. email address, which probably helps. I would recommend putting something like "Comment on [insert article title]", or "Comment on your article in [insert journal title] about [insert brief summary of subject]". Either should get their attention. If you're emailing the author in English, I'd strongly recommend having a friend who is fluent in English edit your email prior to sending. I'm afraid that something

sent in broken English, like what you used in your post, is less likely to be taken seriously. And if you aren't an expert in the field, it would be beneficial if it could be reviewed by a local expert prior to sending, to ensure that what you think is an improvement really is one. If you have credentials, there's nothing wrong w/ starting with a brief intro., e.g., "I'm a chemical engineer with a speciality in W.   I currently oversee process control for X at company Y in location Z"

Finally, I'd recommend keeping the body of the email relatively short —no one wants to read a book from a stranger. If you want to give details, you can include them in an attachment (a well-organized attachment, with a summary at the beginning).

Did you also mean the following: if I am emailing as a person in the public -- without briefing my credentials but showing my understanding of the contents, my email is less likely to be taken seriously because I did not state my industry accepted status?

You won't know till you try. If you get past email filters etc, one problem is that if you approach someone with a good new idea they will have to determine how to proceed. Make sure you state your intentions and what you want out of the deal.

@theorist, I suggest you rewrite your comments as an answer.

@theorist. The OP's post is competently written and understandable. It hardly is in "broken English."

@Neithea Starting with the very first sentence, I was distracted by the obvious errors in grammar and construction—and I'm at least somewhat representative of the type of audience s/he is trying to reach. They are so obvious that I noticed them before I even began to consider the content.   That's the last thing you want to have when trying to present yourself as a sophisticated thinker whose ideas are worth considering. Specifically, I'm referring to the missing article, and that "journal article" and "technology" don't have parallel meanings. It should instead be something like: "With the

online availability of journal articles and other technical publications, how can I suggest a modification, or alternative use, for the methods reported in them?"  I'll add that I'm by no means casting aspersions on the OP. My best 2nd language is French, and I suspect the OP's English is better than my French. It's simply that one wants to put one's best foot forward, and to do that the OP needs a native (or highly fluent) English speaker to edit her or his email before it's sent (assuming it's being sent in English).

I'd apply the same guidance to myself: There's no way I'd send an introductory email in my broken French. I'd first have a native (or highly fluent) French speaker review and edit it.  Once the relationship is established, and the interchanges become more casual, 2nd-language errors are typically no longer an issue (so long as the two parties can understand each other).

Yes, you can email the corresponding author. They may or may not receive or read your email, but there isn't much you can do about it.
No, you do not need to stack credentials. Even mentioning them at all, especially in the beginning of your email, probably makes it more likely it will be thrown away than read. You will sound like a crazy person if you mention all sorts of credentials. It's fine to have a brief signature at the end of your email; my professional signature has my name, degree, and work contact information.
They probably won't take your advice, and you shouldn't wait for or expect a response. Papers are published so that everyone else can use the contents. The person publishing a paper doesn't own or have responsibility for all the subsequent steps that might be taken. Someone else (including yourself) is free to make that modification and publish their own paper or use it for their own devices.
To have the best chance of having some positive impact, write directly and concisely. Spend far more time revising your message than writing it initially: make it as short and simple as you can. A brief greeting of praise is fine: "I was enjoying reading your paper (title)..." is enough. A paragraph of how much you admire their work is far, far too much.
Write from a serious email source; .edu is probably ideal, but if you aren't affiliated with a university you probably don't have an .edu address. Hopefully you have a professional email you'd use for resumes and such, rather than "spudbuster69@sketchydomain.co". Use an informative but brief title.


text:
Should I add my contribution to OEIS in my CV?
I am working on the enumeration of some relations in Combinatorics, which is a branch of Mathematics.
OEIS is an online digital repository of over 3,50,000 integer sequences, and it has been cited in more than 800 papers.
I have a contribution to OEIS. It is sequence A345317.
Should I add my contribution to OEIS in my CV?

@Roland I would think the context behind a contributed entry would matter more than the number of entries one has contributed. Considering the size of the OEIS, hardly anyone can be expected to have lion's share of the contributions to the database.

Should I add my contribution to OEIS in my CV?

Yes, but do try to say more about it than just, "I contributed A345317 to the OEIS." Surely some research has gone into its discovery, so describe that in brief. Because, that will determine how interesting and relevant your addition to the OEIS appears in the eyes of whoever reads your CV.
The impact of your contribution might also depend on your level. A contribution by a high-school student would be intriguing, so I would strongly recommend putting it on your CV. If you're an under-grad or grad student, it would still be worth putting on your CV, but I would expect to see the surrounding research highlighted more than the bare bones of your contribution.

Generally, there are two ways to go about it - either it is important on its own to warrant a publication, or goes into some "uncategorized" heap sometimes present in the CV. After all, you showcase what you think is important and representative of your work as a whole. Now, if you include it in the "main" section, let's see it through the eyes of someone reading it, assuming there's no article it's acting as a supplementary for (I couldn't find one):

If it is obscure, you just submitted a sequence into that online repository and it has little traction - that is not a particularly strong result AND you chose to showcase it. Probably that's indicative of how your work as a whole is...
If it is some well-known result - but still not published as an article - perhaps the result is good but you seemingly failed to recognize that. Not great again.

Therefore, to me it only makes sense to include as a part of "other" work like reports, research grant participation, case studies or what you might have there.


text:
How good/bad is my Indian CGPA according to US GPA scale?
I will be applying for PhD programs in USA this fall. I know there are many nuances for GPA conversions and I won't convert my CGPA. Colleges don't ask to convert GPA but still mention that their minimum requirement is 3.0 or 3.5-3.7 for an ideal candidate (on a 4.0 scale). Since, I'm an Indian student, I don't know what this means for me.
Different websites have different score conversion techniques which are confusing. For instance, 60% is said to be converted to a GPA score far below 2.5, but in India, it isn't such a bad score. My undergraduate CGPA was low (6.18/10).But, my masters CGPA is pretty good (8.98/10). So, my question is where do I stand? Should I apply to universities with minimum GPA requirement of 3.0 or 3.5? Can I have a shot at ivies like Columbia or University of Pennsylvania or Caltech?
For target schools, can I choose USC and UCI? Is Stony Brook a safety school for me?

Hi, welcome here. There are some tools available for GPA conversion, are you looking for those? This site may not be the best for school-specific discussions. Also, a lot may depend on the disciplines you're applying to.

For the conversion part alone, this may be of some use :https://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-convert-indian-gpa-percentage-to-us-4-pt-gpa-scale-124249.html

Let me make a (strong) suggestion that you broaden your search to include some schools down to perhaps the 50th ranked university. Don't neglect the ivies, but Stony Brook as a "safety school" is probably too ambitious if you don't want to be utterly disappointed.
Let the school you apply to do the conversion and don't worry about it. It is what it is. Your guess or computation of an equivalent is immaterial to any decision.
Note three things. First, is that your more recent grades are more likely to be considered as indicators than earlier ones.
Second, people realize that the grading itself in Indian universities is quite different than in the US. Here, top marks are pretty common. In India, it is, IIRC, much more uncommon.
But third, and most important, your admission will be based on broad analysis of your likelihood of success, not narrow, single numbers like GPA. In particular, letters of recommendation are very important, more so than some other places. And write a good "future focused" SoP, detailing what you can about your plans for study and thereafter. Don't use it to recapitulate what is already in the CV or try to make excuses for any shortcomings.
Yes, you have a shot, but the competition is fierce at the top schools. Put together a complete application package that indicates future success. Don't worry about what you can't control.
But cast a wide net, not only top of the top schools. If you cast a narrow net, then rejection by one will likely result in similar outcome at others. All of the US R1 universities are more than merely competent in most fields. And your eventual advisor will have a bigger impact than the overall reputation of the universities. Good advisors can be found lots of places.

To somewhat answer the topline question you posed, you are probably fine. But the difference in educational systems means that everyone who does a conversion will likely come up with a different number. Even in the US, 3.5 at one place means something different at another.
At some universities in the US, a student who did 90/100 on everything, could actually have a 4.0 GPA. At others, it might be a 3.7  or so.

Thank you for your comment. You motivated me. The usnews ranking system confuses me a bit. UC Irvine is ranked 50 and UC Santa Barbara is ranked 67. Both are pretty good schools. Since you suggested to choose school down to 50th rank, should I follow this system?

The overall ranking of us news is irrelevant for graduate study in a particular field. The more specific versions mean something. But you can also find a bad advisor at a good school and some are so involved with their own "thing" as to be less than helpful. Rankings give a general idea only, but not as a guide to life.

I will of course look into the advisors more and not be caught up with the school names. But since you said to choose schools down to the 50th ranked university, which ranking system are you referring to? My field is Statistics/Biostatistics.


text:
How to Best Ask Mentor for Guidance
I'm not a currently enrolled grad student, but I am being adopted on as a "grad student" and am currently working on a project in pharmacology involving a lot of things that I'm not too familiar with. I have been spending the last week reading up on the project background as well as some coding documentation since it will be application of MATLAB to pharmacology. I have two PhD advisors that I am working under who are very accommodating to answering questions but have made it clear that they are not here to hold my hand throughout the project.
I guess my main concern is I'm not sure at what stage of understanding of the topic is it ideal to ask questions and not sure how to ask the most effective questions. I never asked a lot of questions in undergraduate research (which was largely just doing low level tasks) or in undergraduate classes, so this sort of independent learning research environment and individual time planning is throwing me for a huge loop. I'm hoping to get some insight from others that have struggled through the same worries and anxieties I constantly have. Is there any advice/tips on being a better communicator and learner that other people have for being successful in grad school/academia/a similar environment that I'm in right now?

Not sure what you are asking here.
If you want us to tell you how you learn then we can’t, you have to sort that yourself.
With regards to questions, your supervisors seem to be expecting developed questions perhaps about the algorithm you propose to work towards a solution (not sure if they will be open to coding questions though), but not questions such as “what is a pill” so you have to get up to speed - which you are doing with this reading.
Have you planned meetings with your advisors? Perhaps once a week may be a good point to start, at least initially. How it develops depends on many things, type of research, outcome etc Some seem to work together every day, others don’t.


text:
Should I ask for a Letter of Rec from a Newer or Older Colleague?
I want to apply for a program where I will be doing research in a particular area for roughly 6 months.  This is an area of research I'm very deeply interested in, but I don't have any experience yet.  The program asks for a letter of recommendation and I'm a little torn who to ask to write this letter for me.  I'm currently a visiting assistant professor at a college and I have a colleague in my department who knows about my interest, but he's honestly someone who isn't super familiar with my work.  He's offered to write a letter with the caveat that this would be a relatively weak (albeit positive) letter.  On the other hand, I'm considering asking my thesis adviser to write a letter for me.  My concern however is that this would like like I'm relying too much on my grad school experience to get me into this program (it's been almost 2 years since I finished my PhD).  Unfortunately neither one will be able to speak that much to my experience in the intended area of research (since I have none).  Are there merits to relying on a newer colleague at this juncture, or is it safer to rely on someone more familiar with my work?

I assume that your skills, if not your direct experience, will be useful in the new area.

@Buffy Yes, i definitely have the prerequisite skills to enter this field, it’s just new for me.

What have you been doing in the 2 years since grad school?

@user151413 adjuncted for a year, and just secured a full time position last August.  Fall semester was too teaching intensive for me to work in research.  On top of that, I went to a very small grad school with little funding and didn’t make any collaborators during my time there.  Trying to change that now.

Ok. But if you want the last two years to be accounted for when assessing your application, it makes sense to have a letter from someone who can assess that time (can be your PhD advisor, but only if he/she can in fact assess it).

You want letters from the people who know your work best. At this point that is probably your thesis advisor, with whom you have actually done research, even though in a different area. Be sure to explain your new interest when you ask your advisor for that letter.
Recommendation letter from CS faculty for math grad school (and vice versa)

Yes, always from those who know you best. Preferably those who have worked with you.

Not clear that someone who knew you best 2 years ago (even better than anyone knows you now) is the best person to write a letter. After all, what people did recently matters, not what they did X years ago.

@user151413 Depends on the work you've done with the person who knows you more recently. The OP says not much in this case.

@Ethan Indeed, just saying that it is not clear in this case.


text:
Handling collaboration requests from the authors of double-blind reviewed papers (after submitting the review)
(I apologize if this is a duplicate, but I was not able to find any similar case on AcademiaSE)
I am finding myself in a very odd and unpleasant situation. The subject is "ethical" peer review in Computer Science.
I am a sub-reviewer of a conference. As such, I was assigned some papers to review (in double-blind format); however, for the papers I am assigned, I am able to see who the other reviewers are, and also their reviews on these papers. As a sub-reviewer, my name does not appear on the listed TPC of the conference.
Among the papers I am assigned, there is Paper A. I reviewed this paper and I liked it, albeit it had some flaws. After submitting my review, I was able to read the other reviewers' remarks - some were positive, some negative. My (positive) comments allowed the paper to pass the first round of review.
Now the problem: I received an email from a Researcher X who I did not know, asking a collaboration proposal; the email had Paper A in the attachment. Apparently, Researcher X found it relevant to include a proof that they're working on something to corroborate the collaboration request. I would be very willing to collaborate with X, as I consider their research group to be strong.
You can easily understand my awkward situation: what to do?
Things to take in mind:

My review has already been submitted and evaluated. Hence, I cannot turn down the review-request.
I can turn down the collaboration request, but I would lose a significant opportunity for my academic career.
Even if I warn the TPC of the conference to "retract" my review, I was still able to see the reviews of the other reviewers (as well as their names).
Moreover, my review has already had an impact on the future of the paper.
My name did not appear on the TPC list, meaning that Researcher X acted in good faith.

You have given the review. Unless you have to re-review, there is no problem here. Your decision was given before you had a conflict-of-interest. If there is a second round of reviews, you can ask the organizer to recuse yourself for future rounds, as you just have been contacted and would like to consider following up.

@Buffy and CaptainEmacs are right. There's no ethical problem here at all. But +1 on the question for the caution that led you to ask.

Thanks for reassuring me!

It sounds like researcher X isn't even related to paper A, did I miss something?

Given the timeline there is no ethical concern. You don't need to retract your review and you can agree to collaborate.
However, you should decline to review paper A if it goes to a next round. And in the short term you should refrain from telling the authors of your review. I don't see an issue in telling them later, after a final decision is made by others.
You might want to inform the program chair of the situation, giving the timeline. I doubt that they would have any complaint nor any reason to act.
Given what you say, the events seem to be entirely independent. Serendipity happens.

I should have read your answer before giving my comment. All said here. +1

Thanks! Your suggestion is spot-on! I'll accept the answer tomorrow unless some contrasting opinions arise :)


text:
Ranking of National Institutes of Health as Research Institute versus top universities
due to lucky (?) circumstances, I ended up as a postdoc at a top 3 university (level of Harvard, Stanford, MIT). However, the supervision and my direct working environment are anything but ideal.
Currently, I am funded by my home government so I could technically switch my job after 12 months. I would have the opportunity for a postdoc at the National Institute of Health in Bethesda and to be involved in a (to me) more meaningful research project.
While the NIH-institutes are well known to researchers in my home country, my current university has a much better standing among the general public in my home country.
Now to the question:

Where does the NIH rank as compared to the to top universities for people in the US (both in academia and outside of academia)?
Would you consider switching the institution in favour of more meaningful work or is the reputation of the above mentioned institutions in your view way above the NIH?
Wich university among all institutions in the US would be in your eyes "equivalent" in terms of reputation to the NIH?

I know, circumstances matter a lot. However, I would be eager to know how a random recruiter at big pharma company would judge two candidates (all other things being equal) from a top university versus the NIH.
Thank you very much for your responses,
J.

I could only guess at an answer to the questions you ask. But I'll caution, instead, that the unhappy work environment you find at your current place isn't likely to be completely absent at a government funded lab. You will find the good and the bad wherever you may be. Sometimes the pressure alone is enough to bring out the worst. Don't expect utopia.


text:
Getting a Postdoc, Dropping out of PhD for Greener Pastures (I hope), or else Staying Competitive in Current Position
I've seen similar questions on here before so I'm sorry if it's a duplicate or anything.
Frequently, I find myself in despair at my postdoc prospects as a result of the reputation of the university at which I am doing a PhD. It's ranked around 30-40th in the UK and, in some places, worse than 350th in the world.
I study Mathematics. In particular, I study a less popular version of group theory than average. So postdoctoral research fellowships are hard to come by as it is.
I could have gone to The University of St. Andrews for my PhD and in an area I prefer over my current one, had I not had a panic attack during my last exam in 2015. I kick myself over it most of the time. I still got the First required, only it was awarded the year later and the position had to start in 2015.
Compared to St. Andrews, my current university looks lame.
Sometimes, although mostly for my mental health, I have considered dropping out then applying to some other university, perhaps St. Andrews again, I don't know.
What's my question?
Well, this is not so much a question so far as it is a lament, I admit.
What I want to ask is this:

What do I do to become a marketable mathematician? How do I get a postdoc?

Also . . .

How do I let go of the "once in a lifetime" PhD position I could have had?

Any advice would be appreciated.

There's no guarantee you'll get another PhD position if you drop out.

Are you publishing well? Or able to get decent publications out? Publications does outrank uni. Dropping out of a lower ranked uni would likely make it harder to get into a higher ranked uni I say

You might be interested: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9039/how-to-deal-with-the-frustration-of-doing-phd-at-a-low-ranked-university

Let me help you to redeem at least one of your regrets: The University of St. Andrews is not a top university either. Reputable, like any other university out there.

How do I let go of the "once in a lifetime" PhD position I could have had?

This is far beyond the scope of mere academics. Life is full of choices, some of them will be bad. Some of it is in our control (in retrospect, hindsight is 20/20 always) and some if it is not.
I think that apart from going back in time - there is nothing that you can do. What you can do about your situation now though, is talk to someone.
You are not alone in this.
I had suffered (and perhaps still am suffering) from impostor syndrome at times, and I know that I could've done much better if I had made better choices.
It's good to have someone to talk to about these things. This could be a trusted friend, a loved one, or a trained professional. There is no shame in seeking help! Universities often have excellent mental health services, and graduate students are a vulnerable population in terms of mental health (not alone, remember?).

What do I do to become a marketable mathematician? How do I get a postdoc?

The academic world has very clear rules on what could make you a marketable academic: publish good papers or preprints, impress some well-known people in your field, present your work at respectable venues, get amazing teaching evaluations that'll land you a lectureship, be an active member of your research community and so on.
If you feel like your current (unmarketable) field is not sufficiently exciting, and you aren't making progress, switch. I have done so twice in my career (and I would like to think that I'm not incredibly old!), and many others I know have as well. What were papers that you read that made you really curious and excited? What skills have you acquired that may help you along the way?
In the professional realm, again: seek advice and help. What does your advisor say? I'm assuming that your relationship with them is not at 100% (else you wouldn't be asking this question here), can you try to make it better? Are there mentors in your department that you look up to?
If you are dead set on staying in academia, the reality is that you'll have to extend your time to accumulate a better portfolio (especially if you want to switch fields). Either extend your PhD if possible, or get a temporary research position. I don't know the postdoc culture in mathematics, but perhaps a lower-tier research assistantship would be within reach?
Good luck!


text:
Informal Meeting with Prospective Mentors at a Conference - How to Prepare?
I am currently applying to doctoral programs in experimental/cognitive psychology and have recently made arrangements with a few prospective mentors to meet at an upcoming conference. I apologize if this question has already been asked numerous times before, but I was hoping to get some advice on how to prepare for such a meeting? What questions are "appropriate" to ask (e.g., can I ask what directions they plan to take their labs in, or is that presumptuous?)? What questions should I be prepared to answer? Any and all advice is much appreciated!

Know what you want to achieve, don’t look like a researcher that has been working all night.

Be knowledgeable: know the mentors’ research papers and themes.
Be curious: prepare a few good questions to ask the mentors. Get them to talk about themselves (there’s nothing professors love more than talking about their work!)
Be forward thinking: what would you do to improve their work? What do you bring to the table? What good ideas do you have? You don’t need a 5-step research program, but you definitely need to show you can suggest good directions for future work.
Be relaxed: or act like it. appearing nervous, profusely apologizing at every turn, being overly subservient etc will make you look bad. Talk to them like an equal. If your prospective mentor has such a fragile ego so that they need you stroking it, they’re probably not fun to work with.

Good luck!


text:
Tips for a successful PhD in Artifical Intelligence
I recently began my Ph.D. program in AI. Coming from a different major, I would like to obtain tips that'll enable me to leave my program with a strong background in my field.

It’s not very different from other fields, really, except for the hype.
AI is super hot right now, and far too many works follow the line of: I found a dataset, trained a neural network on it, here’s the paper! (Preferably followed by a tweet/thoughtful Facebook post humblebragging about it)
It’s tiring, often unscientific, and most importantly- boring.
Focus on your fundamentals instead: be really good in math, theoretical foundations of CS, statistics, learning theory, optimization etc.
This’ll buy you a toolkit that you can use long after the current AI hype dies down.
Programming skills are good to have but should not be the focus. You can have undergraduate students do the coding (they’ll be happy to and at least in my case, they’d do a better job than me). All of the top AI people I know are not coders but theoreticians at heart.
The field is hyper competitive which means you’ll need to be ambitious and learn fast to shine.
Soft skills matter. You need to learn how to present your work clearly, both in writing and orally.


text:
Are professors obligated to accept supervisory role? If not, how does it work?
Firstly, I am not specifically talking about PhD supervision. I think that's less relevant for my question since a PhD supervision is usually a mutually beneficial arrangement, as the professor gains a PhD student to help them with related research.
My focus is more on supervision of bachelor and masters theses. In these, there is less benefit to the professor to act in a supervisory role.
So with that in mind, if a student contacts a professor because they need a supervisor for their bachelor or thesis project (something which is a requirement in order to get the degree), is the supervisor obligated to accept this role?
I don't think the answer is yes, since people usually say that if you want to get a supervisor, you should ask your professior if he/she wants to. So the words imply that the professor has a choice and could turn you down.
And so if the answer is indeed no, how does the system then work? What happens if nobody wants to supervise one particular student? Is that student then just screwed?

Actually, my question is whether that student has screwed him/herself. Professors refuse students mostly when they seem like poor candidates for success. Why/how has the student gotten into such a mess. You have to earn your degree. It isn't something you are owed.

At many schools, the thesis is covered by a "senior project" class or similar, for which a professor also gets credit for. I.e. it counts as teaching a course for them. (Students can find another supervisor if they want to as usual). So the problem is reduced to the same problem of finding someone willing to teach a certain class which students need. Again theoretically a danger that no one may want to, but in practice it gets done.

My experience is covered by the answers below. In the UK usually each faculty gets a quota of BSc and MSc students to supervise in their workload. It's up to the professor to decide which students and what topic. So, each student will definitely get a supervisor but maybe not their first choice on professor or topic. I've rejected many students (with good/medium/bad grades) based on motivation. A motivated student means much less work for me and more probability of getting something useful out of the time I spend. I can help/guide them learn but I'm not a life coach.

The exact answer to this is likely to vary from one university to the next, depending on local rules and terms of employment. In general, the position is likely to be: professors are not required to agree to a student's request for supervision. However, it is generally advisable/mandatory for professors to accede to 'requests' that come from higher up in the management hierarchy.
If students are required to complete a supervised project as part of a course, then it is the university's responsibility to ensure that an appropriate supervisor is made available. If a student reported that they cannot find a willing supervisor, this would likely result in management applying increasing amounts of pressure and/or incentives until someone agreed. However, in such circumstances, the student is likely to be left with Hobson's choice - the project offered may not be a close match to the student's preferences.

There is lurking here a possible problem for departments.  I am talking about US universities.
Of course the professor is rewarded for advising students, perhaps merely as one of many considerations for promotion and raises.
But it could be a problem if that reward to the professor is more when the student does great work and less when the student does average work.  That arrangement will encourage professors to decline the weaker students.  I have advised students of both types; the work for me was much more when the student was weak.
If a department wants to be friendly to students of all types, it should take care to fairly reward professors who take on weak students.

"Of course the professor is rewarded for advising students" This is a rosy picture. A more likely version, in my experience, is that it is a professional requirement and that refusing is treated like refusing to do any part of your job. That is not kindly.

For research students, that is, PhD and research master's, professors almost always have a choice naturally (excluding rare informal pressure made on them due to unforeseen circumstances).
For taught master's degrees, as well as bachelor's thesis, professors mostly do not have much choice to supervise pre-allocated students, because if a student already was accepted to study in the department the student must complete such a dissertation in their final year. However, the way that such mandatory taught supervision tasks are allocated to professors varies from place to place.
For a bachelor student actually suggesting to a specific professor to become their supervisor, most chances is that the professor has a choice to decline because this was an initiative of the student, and not part of an administrative scheme made by the department to allocate students to professors.
Of course, this varies from university to university, countries, continents etc.

Professors mostly have a choice. Especially concerning individual students. Students shouldn't really want to be mentored by someone that doesn't want to mentor them.
Of course, department policies may intervene, either explicitly or implicitly. In the long run, a professor who refuses to mentor any students is likely to get some pressure from the department for not doing their part. Some professors provide their department excess value in other ways and might get away with doing less. For earlier-career professors, supervising theses can contribute to tenure or promotion.
I'd also challenge the idea that only PhD students can do something productive for a professor, though: the junior students might need more direction but can still do good work.
Especially if a thesis is a degree requirement, I would expect the department or program to ensure something can be done to get a student some sort of supervisor, but it may not be their first choice and they may not be able to choose their project. I'd expect the students who are most stubborn about their interests or are otherwise difficult to work with would be most likely to run into problems.


text:
Replacing academic "we" in direct quote
I have a direct quote in my academic work that is from another academic work. It's something like

"We can analyze the execution time as follows."

I had a reviewer say that, since it's now in my work, I shouldn't use "We". What should I use instead? "They"?

That was my thought too. But maybe they are looking for something like "[They]"? Was hoping to get some insights.

Using "we" makes it seem that you did the work. Even if it is a quote. That is why it should not be a quote. The reviewer is right.

It would be helpful to have a little bit more context (i.e., textual context).

You should not change a direct quote. How about changing it into the following?

XYZ et al. analyzed the execution time as follows.

It is sometimes OK to change a direct quote, using square brackets, as OP said. But I agree that dropping the quotation is probably the best solution.

Some prefer to write "XYZ and colleagues" in prose, saving "et al." for only actual citations.

As a bit of a frame challenge. Why are you using a direct quote for this? Direct quotes are typically used very sparingly in academic writing, essentially only appearing when the exact wording being used is relevant to what you are trying to say. In STEM fields (where the use of the academic "we" is typically common)  this is very rarely the case. I would even posit that pretty much any sentence that contains the academic "we" is going to be a poor candidate for a direct quote.
So, as a first step reconsider if you really need a direct quote here at all, otherwise switch to an indirect description of the claim you are referencing (as in lordy's answer). If after reconsidering, you are still convinced you need a direct quote, then the solution using square brackets suggested by Allure is standard journalistic practice.
However, do note that this change does not quite cover the full meaning of the academic "we", which typically is closer to "the author and the reader". In cases where the academic we leans more to this usage it might be better to replace it by [One].

I believe your reviewer wants you to drop the quote from someone else and say it yourself.
This is the perfect place for the passive voice in academic writing:

Before: "We can analyze the execution time as follows."
After: The execution time can be analyzed as follows.

Further reading: Walden University — Scholarly Voice: Active and Passive Voice

Try something like this: if the authors of the direct quote are Smith and Jones, then

[Smith and Jones] analyze the execution time as follows.

The square brackets indicate you have changed the direct quote.

This slightly changes the meaning, so I don't think you should do it

"We analyze" in a paper often means "The reader and me" (still not literally, but nearer than "we, the authors") and not the possibly single author.


text:
Is the Chegg Honor Shield tool an effective promotor of Academic Honesty?
Many college instructors have been struggling with a significant rise in cheating in the last year, notably in the context of required distance learning and online testing during the time of the COVID pandemic. Among websites that facilitate such cheating, foremost may be the Chegg website.
In the last month it appears that Chegg have updated their "Honor Code" with a new tool which they are calling the "Honor Shield". In brief, this tool appears to promise the following:

Chegg will now create and verify registered accounts for course instructors.
A registered instructor can upload a copy of an upcoming exam.
Inquiries or answers are blocked for those exam questions in a set timeframe.
Chegg will delete information from the uploaded exam one month later.
"Presently, there is no charge to use the Tool."

Chegg page for the Honor Shield tool here.
More terms for the tool under the Honor Code page here.
More context in this Forbes article that mentions the Chegg Honor Shield.
Would making make use of this new tool at Chegg be an effective tool for promoting honestly?  Are there any drawbacks?

What is to stop Chegg from selling your old exam questions to future students?  Even if they keep their promise to delete the questions, they can still sell the answers.  There will be no legal recourse against that.

This also makes it easier for Chegg to gather information about faculty (such as their names) which could be used to market Chegg services.

@AnonymousPhysicist: Sounds you're making observations that are good additions to my "no" answer below.

I am closing this question per this Meta consensus as it is about evaluating an individual company. If you can turn this into a (new) question not specific to some company, it may work, but I think that this is very specific to this company. If you want to spread the word about why this is bad, this is simply not the right platform for it.

@Wrzlprmft: I think that's in error. The meta question and answer you've linked to are about evaluating an organization in general. (E.g., the examples there are all of the form "Is organization X useful?"). This is a much more narrowly focused question about how an instructor should use one particular tool, which pertains to an issue we already have many recent questions covering. It's a vote on other yes-or-no to use one tool, and I don't think it comes close to the sense of a "shopping" question. Voting to reopen.

@DanielR.Collins: Your question and answer have all the typical problems of shopping questions and I don’t see how being about a specific tool avoids this. In particular, a central aspect is the trustworthiness of the particular company. This is illustrated by the first non-summarising sentence of your answer: “Chegg is among the worst actors of the online academic community.” It’s also not about how to use this tool or gives any context that the answer could depend on (contrast with questions like: “Which Arxiv license suits my needs?”).

What I consider a good question on this is whether it is good or allowed to share exams with any company, maybe giving Chegg as an example. At least for me the answer to that question is already a clear no, without knowing anything about the company.

I've opened a question on Meta to discuss this.

The problem with the suggestion brought up by the moderator in Meta -- to convert this question into a general "should I give my test to an outside company" -- is that to my knowledge, there is no comparable offering anywhere else. This discussion will inherently be about Chegg's "innovation".

Chegg is making their money from promoting cheating. Their honor shield is nothing but theatre, and in participating, you'd make yourself their useful idiot.

I'll make the argument: No, instructors should not use this tool at Chegg.
In general, Chegg is among the worst actors of the online academic community. Their business model is fundamentally predicated on supporting violations of academic integrity, fraud, and malfeasance. In this sense, we should not be supporting them with engagement, mind-share, or test cases for their systems.
In the same vein of general lack-of-trust, Chegg is not an entity that can be trusted with our exam information. Despite the fact that they currently claim no IP rights to uploaded exams, and a promise to delete information after a month, their promises are not reliable, and we should not give them an opportunity to use our exam information in any scurrilous fashion in the future.
There is no transparency to the exact details of how the tool works. Does it look only for exact text matches, or something similar? If we assume so, then it's quite likely that students will learn to slightly modify the text of submitted questions, so that they avoid the blocking tool, but still get the essence of the answer they need. In this sense, the tool will be a waste of time and give a false sense of security to the instructor.
Additionally, the details say that attempts to post such exam questions to Chegg are simply blocked, with no record of such attempts made. (Per website, "We will not be able to provide any information regarding users who attempt to post a blocked Exam question during the Exam Timeframe.") This short-circuits the possibility of detecting students who make such attempts, and giving required corrections to the students in question. Students may also be driven invisibly to some other platform or method of cheating in those cases.
And the instructor-registration process gathers the instructors' .EDU email addresses, which could be used for other profiling, marketing, or spamming purposes (noted by Anonymous Physicist).
Arguably, even in principle, the tool does not prevent academic dishonesty, as going online to search for answers is itself already a violation. The fact that the Chegg Honor Shield turns students away without reporting them is a broken process (noted by Scott Seidman).
The Forbes article on Chegg as of January 2021 assesses:

It’s doubtful that Honor Shield will dent students’ chegging.

If anyone can see other reasons to add to this list, I'll be happy to edit and include them.

I've marked this answer as accepted after about 20 days, because (a) it continually gets upvotes, and (b) with the question closed by the moderator, no other answer can be added. (I'm still disappointed at the lack of opportunity to get counter-arguments -- if the question were ever re-opened I'd be willing to possibly select a different answer.)

The service doesn't prevent academic dishonesty.  Searching for exam questions during an exam is academic dishonesty.  An honest process wouldn't lock out students, it would turn them in.

Seconding @Daniel R. Collins' answer to his question... and adding a bit:
It is trivial to see conflict-of-interest and/or corrupt motivations in this development. First, Chegg would be happy to improve its PR among college and university instructors, especially if this involved getting instructors to engage with them. At first for free [sic!?!?], and then eventually extort universities to pay Chegg a fee to not help students cheat?!?!
And, as Daniel C. mentioned, they can harvest exam questions and emails of instructors... And the wanna-be cheaters don't actually get reported. And there's no enforcement mechanism from our end. Etc.
Really, when a consistently-bad actor seems to have miraculously turned over a new leaf, there is probably more reason to expect bad faith than a conversion miracle.

Loved the last sentence

I think the service is disingenuous, for a number of reasons.

If they could do this, they could allow me to submit my own exam questions, without ceding copyright, and make sure those questions NEVER appear in their collection -- because I've provided them the question and asserted my copyright in advance.

When they create instructor accounts, that should  entitle us to see ANSWERS in their database.  I've actually paid for membership in order to sleuth questions of honesty before taking them to my Board on Honesty to request info from Chegg (that's the only mechanism there is!)

We should not be promoting a "try to cheat, and we'll stop you if you're doing something wrong" ethos among our students.  Students should not cheat because it is dishonest -- not because Chegg doesn't let them.  In fact, the act of submitting an exam question during an exam is cheating, regardless of whether they get the answer. (In fact, by my Univ policy, unauthorized sharing of course material is a violation of the honesty policy -- so submitting exam questions after the exam, homework questions, and the like are all violations).  Simply locking out answers does not communicate the gravity of the incident to the student, and is not sufficient.  When an answer is blocked by this policy, the Chegg policy should be to notify the prof without providing account ID's, so the prof can follow up through school honesty systems if they desire.

I'm not thrilled with the Chegg Model, in general.  They make money by using other people's IP, hoping the impacted parties don't notice.  They don't do nearly enough to discourage illicit behaviors, because those behaviors are their business model.
So, until I can examine students in the classroom, my policy is to scan Chegg for questions that belong to me, well in advance of the exam, and ask for take down (Chegg is very good about that -- likely because nonaction threatens their whole business model).  I watermark my exam pages, every page, with the name of the course and University, and "Unauthorized sharing not permitted".  I repeat my Chegg scan after the exam, and if necessary pay for membership so I can see the posted answers to see if my students cheated.  If I find they have, I rigorously follow up with Academic Honesty cases.... and yes, despite these precautions, I still find and refer honesty incidents.
I also mention in my syllabus, and discuss on the first day of class, that unauthorized sharing of my material for any reason, is an academic honesty violation, and will be followed through as such, and that I do not authorize sharing.

+1 This is such a great answer, esp. including details on the work-process to deal with Chegg. Thanks for writing this. Nuance on #2: alternatively one can "open an investigation" by web form and in a few days get a text/CSV/raw-html version of the question and answer. But: there's a turnaround delay and it doesn't present in the same format account-holders see it behind the paywall (plus the need to upload a signed letter on school letterhead).

@DanielR.Collins -- yes, but the letter can't be signed by plain old faculty members.  It needs to come from the Academic Honesty officers or Dean's office.  Once I involve them, I feel the need to follow through officially with any clear findings, as this really swamps them.

... and of course, the process to prevent Chegg cheating easily adds at least 4 hours per exam to my work load!

The investigation protocol was slightly changed back in Sep 2020. Faculty can now attest that they're "working with" the academic integrity officer, and so open and send the letter on their own (which I've done in the last month for the first time)... And yes the extra labor around tests to check Chegg is super aggravating!