text:
What do admission committees look for in a diversity essay?
I'm sitting here with my friend, who is in the process of applying to graduate school. She's come across a prompt that looks like this:

If you are a member of a community that has historically been underrepresented in higher education and would like to tell us how this particular perspective adds to the value you will contribute to the diverse learning community we strive to create, please do so here.

My friend is a female, Latin American, previously financially-burdened immigrant, so there is certainly some diversity to speak of, but she's having trouble coming up with how this can answer the prompt. To her, she's never really considered it a struggle, but more of a challenge. She's never let it get her down, so she sees no reason to complain about it in an essay. She believes you should be judged based on your past and present performance, not your national origin, ethnicity, financial status, etc.
How do you even respond to a prompt like that? Also, why do universities ask you to speak about your diversity in the first place? What are they looking for?

It seems to me that it would be prudent to start from the assumption that the words in the question have been chosen carefully, after some deliberation; and so she should answer the question put, as it is asked.
The quote you've given does not ask for complaints. It doesn't speak of judging her by national origin, ethnicity or financial status. It doesn't ask her to talk of struggle. So those things would only go in the answer if they give a particular perspective that adds to the value she would contribute to the diverse learning community they strive to create.
They want to know how her status as a member of a historically-under-represented community adds to the value she would contribute. In your answer, you've already given three aspects of that. I'll paraphrase slightly - I hope I haven't distorted your friend's intended meaning - and for each I'll frame it within the question as asked on the application form:

she's seen her being from a historically under-represented community as a challenge rather than a struggle; as a member of the department her very presence could provide a positive role model for others both internal and external to the deparment
she's maintained optimism and not let the status quo get her down; as a member of the department, she would bring a realistic optimism and determination.
she's sought to work towards a system that rewards merit for its own sake regardless of national origin, ethnicity, financial status, and so on; as a member of the department, she would contribute to the department's culture of meritocracy: academia of all places should strive to overcome conscious and unconscious biases, and work strive towards meritocracy.

That would seem to me to cover the question on the form as it has been asked.

+1. This is a terrible question to ask a candidate -- it's the job of the university to determine how and whether a diversity of viewpoints is beneficial, and it's unjust to try to fob that off onto candidates who are now in a double-bind (their whole lives, they've been told never to "play the ___ card") -- but I think your answer is good advice for the candidate confronted with this prompt.

Yes, indeed, there are many ways that this discussion could get off-track...
The specific, relevant point is that many universities have certain pots of money ear-marked for whatever-it-is that "diversity" refers to, and "traditionally under-represented groups"' members are the only eligible competitors for any part of that money.
(The discussion of the sense of this is of course the elephant-in-the-room, but is irrelevant to the already-earmarked funds.)
That is, at this point, being a woman in a STEM field (Science, Tech, Engineering, Math), or of ethnic origin other than northwestern European..., or... opens certain money-pots to both the department and to the individual.
It is true that one might easily find reason to not go down that path, ... but I note that many people will presume that one has done so if one had the chance, and all that that might entail.
Honestly, if I were in that situation, and did not have severe need, I'd skip it, just to be able I'd skipped it. But maybe nobody'd listen...
I can clarify further, if this is to-the-point for the questioner. I've been involved with such stuff for a long time...
Edit: to clarify, for example, my department did not create the literal "diversity statement" component of the application, it was created somewhere in the central administration. That is, although we have tried to avoid traditional biases (e.g., ideas how "how a mathematician looks", and such, often included male-gender-correlated attributes that, arguably, have nothing to do with mathematics), we did not formalize any part of such discussion. We've tried to be unbiased for far longer than this recent appearance of overt statements about "diversity", not for any immediate tangible reward from higher-ups, but for more idealistic reasons. Having central administration throw a little money at the situation doesn't really change much.

Thanks for the answer! I see you've served on an admissions committee for 30 years. Is earmarked funds the only factor that goes into consideration with respect to the diversity statement, or is that truly what it all boils down to?

@MarcusMcLean: In my experience that is the main thing.  It can have other less concrete benefits, but they're in the same vein.  For instance, a department can "look good" and earn points with administration for having a diverse student body, which can have various side benefits.

The reason for the question may well depend on the School and its own reasons.  One popular case of this is the University of Michigan. While the school may feel diversity is important, and through affirmative action it can achieve it, the government or voters may not agree.  In this case, Michigan created an essay section for contribution to diversity, in which they can more actively decide admissions based on diversity when affirmative action is not available.
Answering the question honestly is the best policy. Of course you would not want to lie, as an interview would probably create automatic rejection.  If you do not want to come off as 'complaining', dont complain, it doesnt ask that.  Answer how your background can contribute, and the simplest of answers is what your question mentions:

As being a female immigrant from latin america, I have been considered
  a minority.  However, I do not look at this like a struggle, I look at
  it as a challenge, and I think my mindset will help contribute to both
  diversity and academics at the University.

There is an interesting brochure on Benefits and Challenges of Diversity in Academic Settings on the website of The Women in Science & Engineering Leadership Institute (WISELI) that mentioned things like this:

A controlled experimental study of performance during a brainstorming
session compared ideas generated by ethnically diverse groups
composed of Asians, blacks, whites, and Latinos to those generated by
ethnically homogenous groups composed of whites only. Evaluators who
were unaware of the source of the ideas found no significant
difference in the number of ideas generated by the two types of
groups. However, when applying measures of feasibility and
effectiveness, they rated the ideas generated by diverse groups as
being of higher quality.
The level of critical analysis of decisions and alternatives was
higher in groups exposed to minority viewpoints than in groups that
were not. Minority viewpoints stimulated discussion of multiple
perspectives and previously unconsidered alternatives, whether or not
the minority opinion was correct or ultimately prevailed.
A study of corporate innovation found that the most innovative
companies deliberately established diverse work teams.
Data from the 1995 Faculty Survey conducted by UCLA’s Higher
Education Research Institute (HERI) demonstrated that scholars from
minority groups have expanded and enriched scholarship and teaching
in many academic disciplines by offering new perspectives and by
raising new questions, challenges, and concerns.
Several investigators found that women and faculty of color more
frequently employed active learning in the classroom, encouraged
student input, and included perspectives of women and minorities in
their coursework.

I don't know whether this brochure would be helpful for those who are working on their statement of diversity but it is a pretty interesting reading.
And in this post on Writing the Personal Statement on the website of Berkeley Graduate Division there is a list of things they'd like to see in a statement of diversity. Here are some of them:

Demonstrated significant academic achievement by overcoming barriers
such as economic, social, or educational disadvantage;
Potential to contribute to higher education through understanding the
barriers facing women, domestic minorities, students with
disabilities, and other members of groups underrepresented in higher
education careers, as evidenced by life experiences and educational
background. For example,, attendance at a minority serving
institution; ability to articulate the barriers facing women and
minorities in science and engineering fields; participation in higher
education pipeline programs such as, UC Leads, or McNair Scholars;
Academic service advancing equitable access to higher education for
women and racial minorities in fields where they are
underrepresented;
Leadership experience among students from groups that have been
historically underrepresented in higher education;

I hope this will help!

IIANM, this conflates originating from a minority group within a (local) society with being from a different ethnic group generally than the dominant group in the (local) society. In the latter category you may find people who have come overseas to study/research/work in high-skill capacities, and that introduces a potential bias in such results.

This isn't very different from EnergyNumbers answer, but I want to emphasize that the question isn't asking "what bonus points can we give you for your background" but rather "how does your background make you more suited for the position you are applying for?". (Bearing in mind that graduate students are usually expected to teach and serve as mentors to undergraduates, so that is a relevant qualification.) I've seen a number of well received diversity statements along the lines of "I have always viewed my background as a challenge, and have risen to meet that challenge. Here are some of the strategies I have used to do that ... Here is how I can mentor students in a similar situation and show them how to excel as I have..."

David, I don’t necessarily disagree with your interpretation, but the prompt will only allow an applicant to explain “how their background makes them more suited for the position” if they are “a member of a community that has historically been underrepresented”. It’s one thing to encourage all applicants to explain why they are suited, even specifically in the context of working with diverse populations of undergraduates; but when you offer such encouragement only to some applicants and not to others, that does in fact carry a whiff of “we want to offer you bonus points for your background”.

(See also the comment of Lightness Races. It seems many readers have interpreted the prompt, presumably in good faith, in precisely the way you said they shouldn’t.)

@DanRomik This is quite a charged question, so I want to say that I can see how the question might be interpreted as you suggest. However, your comment reads as if the question we're discussing is the only one on the application form, which I doubt. I would rather assume that there is a question for everybody asking "how their background makes them more suited for the position", while this additional question asks more specifically if there is anything related to their minority background that would add additional value to their application.

@DanRomik Yes, I don't like how this prompt is written. I prefer something like the Berkeley phrasing "[G]ive concrete evidence of your promise as a member of the academic community, giving the committee an image of you as a person. This is also where you represent your potential to bring to your academic career a critical perspective rooted in a non-traditional educational background, or your understanding of the experiences of groups historically under-represented in higher education and your commitment to increase participation by a diverse population in higher education."

(source https://grad.berkeley.edu/admissions/apply/personal-statement/) Also, I have mixed feelings about diversity statements in general, and don't want to argue that issue here. I wanted to focus on the situation the OP describes -- how an applicant from an underrepresented background, but who does not want to paint themselves as a victim -- should respond.

@DavidESpeyer fair enough!


text:
What makes a didactically effective lecture?
I have made the experience that even the most excellent academics are often didactically mediocre lecturers. I also watched some of last years Nobel lectures and realised many laureates are actually not particularly good at teaching.
What is it that makes some lectures didactically effective and others not, regardless of how knowledgable the lecturer is?

If only we knew.

Reminds me of an overseas reseacher who came to lecture in our seminar. She is truly a brilliant researcher, making breakthrough discoveries every year. Her seminar was horrible, and the PPT slides were a mixture of glowing pink and lime green text on various colors. Of course, it was all typeset in Comic Sans.

@Michael COMIC SAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANS
http://explosm.net/comics/2301/

One thing is to not get too bent out of shape on "mechanical" technique.  Speaking is an art form, and if you don't recognize that and treat it that way, all the schooled technique in the world will only bring you up to mediocre.

@Charles The body of the post doesn't really match the title. The close votes (and many of the answers) seem to be about the question in the body, not the title. Perhaps you can work some [edit] magic on it to tie the two together.

@CharlesMorisset Only recently, I sat together with about 20 full professors and others. Among other things, we talked about what good teaching is (and that includes, as a sub-problem, what a good lecturer is) and how to detect/measure/encourage. Nobody could answer even the "what" part. So if there are such "standards", please forward me a link so I can enlighten a few people.

@CharlesMorisset What you say is true. So far, there have been flaws in the premises of every such collection of concepts I have seen, but maybe I have not yet seen the "good" ones.

@CharlesMorisset My observation is that many such trends phase in and out over time with no clear "winner" -- especially when trade-offs are involved. That said, I tend to agree: even though we don't have a clear idea of what good teaching is (imho) there are systematic studies on the topic. The close reason should be "too broad" as the questions asks for a summary of decades of studies (and opinions).

I believe that the current wording, which emphasises didactics should allow for the question to be reopened, as didactical effectiveness is achieved through methods and techniques and follows objective standards. In its updated wording the question no longer asks for personal opinions.

@Constantin Unfortunately, the re-open vote is caught between a rock and a hard place. If one feels that the question hasn't changed significantly, one must vote for it to stay closed, obviously. If one feels that the question has changed significantly, then the edit should not have been accepted because it invalidates the existing answers and the question still shouldn't be re-opened.

Unless you put a lot of thought into your lectures, it's hard to adopt the mindset of a student who knows much less than you.  You may take certain concepts for granted, and you've long forgotten how you learned them, or what originally confused you.  At the time you learned them you were probably much more well-prepared than the average student, so common stumbling blocks for students were never issues for you.
This means there are a lot of professors who are good at giving talks (to people well-versed in their field), but poor at giving lectures (to people with little or no background).

I think you really hit the key point here... For me, the best lecturers were the ones who could draw from their own struggles in learning the material and presented it from the perspective of a student's struggle to discovery and put it all together.

Ah, the curse of knowledge! And not enough time to work on lectures. And not enough incentive to prioritize lecturing style.

Obligatory not-actually-xkcd: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3565#comic. And kudos for saying in 100 words what I would have explained in 1000+.

What is it that makes delivering a good, clear, informative lecture so challenging?

It is challenging because learning is challenging.  The things that one could easily convey to a very general audience simply by being clear and informative are by and large not the things (or certainly, not all the things) that one learns in university-level courses.
What makes a good lecturer is a great question, but a bit broad for a site like this.  If you have a group of students / faculty colleagues, I highly recommend throwing this out to the group: break the question up into some directed subquestions, give everyone the questions, and then after a week or so meet to discuss their answers.  I actually did something like this recently (the topic was "successful math talks"), and what ensued was entertaining and enlightening.
Here let me (still very superficially) try to address your observation that even Nobel Laureates need not be good lecturers.  Again I will break this up into a few subquestions.

1) Do you expect a Nobel Laureate to be a better lecturer than a faculty member with a less exceptional research profile?  Why or why not?

2) Do you think that Nobel Laureates would be especially good or bad at giving certain kinds of lectures, or lectures to certain kinds of audiences?  Why?

I think everyone can get a turn at answering these questions.  (Probably not here: the site is not designed for that.)  Let me take a crack at the first one:
One can argue that Nobelists ought to be on average very good lecturers.  First of all (contrary to what some people would like to think), intelligence and acumen in one domain is positively correlated with intelligence and acumen in another domain, and the correlation increases to perfect as the two domains converge.  If you are a professor of X, then researching X and teaching X are your two main duties.  They are different, but I can isolate a common variable.  The best way to be a bad teacher is to have a poor understanding of your subject, and Nobelists must be the least at risk for that.  The people who have not thoroughly mastered their field, especially at the level of coursework, are in my experience essentially never the people who are making the cutting edge breakthroughs.
Is it possible that when a true luminary gives a lecture, we evaluate them with that high standard in mind?  I often tell the story of a colloquium I saw given by a Fields Medalist ("the mathematical equivalent of the Nobel Prize").  By chance I had read about his work, relatively casually, about a month before his lecture.  I was profoundly disappointed by his lecture because it was merely clear and informative.  The information he conveyed was almost exactly the information that I had read before.  However, when I read about I found it incredibly exciting and impressive.  In person he did not convey any of this: it was just a recitation of "In 1982, I proved this theorem; two years later I proved the following improvement".  I felt afterwards that if for some (totally counterfactual) reason I had given the talk instead, I would have done a better job, because I would have been so enthusiastic.  Mine is a sincere reaction, but you see that I was coming in with very high standards, and the idea that I could have done better ought to be construed as a description of the psychology of my reaction: taken literally, it seems rather unlikely.
One can also argue that it is not so surprising if Nobelists give lectures that are merely okay or actually not as good as what other faculty are doing.  (Again it depends a lot on what kind of lecture we're talking about, which I am omitting for now.)  Let's go back to what I said before: being a professor of X involves researching X and teaching X.  Yes, these skills are positively correlated.  But they also compete for our time.  If you are a subject area expert with some teaching experience, then you can probably deliver a decent lecture on X with a moderate amount of preparation.  But maybe moderate is more preparation than you want or feel that you can spare.  If you don't prepare at all, then no matter how brilliant you are you are probably going to give a lecture which the audience will regard as being rough -- maybe too rough.  If you want to give a better lecture then you probably have to prepare more.  Now there are a lot of people in university environments who are spending much more time and thought preparing their lectures.  It is not a zero-sum phenomenon because no one tells you exactly how many hours you should spend total in any given week.  There are a lot of leading researchers who are clearly putting substantial time into their lectures.  However, Nobelists are the extreme case: you are selecting people for which the community as a whole feels that their research is much more valuable than their teaching.
Taking these two things together: I would expect a Nobelist to give lectures that are excellent in some ways and below average in others.  By the way, what makes a good lecture is a many-dimensional space, and many is the time that a friend and I have walked out of the same talk and discovered that one of us loved it and the other hated it.  But if you're judging a talk by the types of things that go into undergraduate student evaluations: I think you're mixing together a lot of highs and lows and thus one should expect the results to be pretty much all over the place.

A great and well thought-out answer Pete, as always. +1

Very good thoughts here, +1. But I must disagree with your answer to your first rhetorical question. Being good at something doesn't happen through intelligence or talent, it happens through deliberate practice (intelligence reduces the amount of time needed for the initial stages of skill). I would expect a Nobel laureate to have spent endless hours and energy on research, giving a low priority to teaching, and when doing it, not investing the energy to make it a practice. Thus, he'd probably be a worse teacher than his co-workers who concentrate more on teaching.

@rumtscho: "Being good at something doesn't happen through intelligence or talent, it happens through deliberate practice" I think it's clearly both.  In fact, my operational definition of talent is the quality whose possession makes some people more skillful and successful than others, though both put in the same amount of time and effort.  The rest of your comment is in such confluence with mine that I wonder whether we are really disagreeing.

@PeteL.Clark Scientists who have looked for such a quality have not found it. People who seem to have more talent in a field just have more experience in the skill, or in a prerequisite skill and therefore learn quicker. See Colvin's book on talent for a summary of it.

@rumtscho: To reject my operational definition, it seems that you would have to claim that whenever it looks like one person is picking up something faster than another, this turns out to be illusory.  That is very hard to believe.  If you have a study in mind which claims this for, say, mathematical talent, I would be very interested to see it.

If the above is your full definition, I'm not challenging it, but then it would go against the common sense meaning of the word. I suspect it relies on unstated assumptions. For example: imagine that you teach pupils about the Collatz conjecture. 0% of kindergarteners get it, 10% of second graders get it, 80% of seventh graders get it. The lecture was identical. Can we state that seventh graders are more talented in mathematics by your definition of talent?

What makes giving a clear lecture so difficult? There are two components to giving an interesting and engaging lecture: content and delivery.
Delivery
Does the speaker project, or mumble? Confidently walk about the room, or stay locked behind a lectern? Make eye contact, or spend more time looking at a white board than the audience? Read from a set of PowerPoint slides, or supplement them with pertinent material? Pepper their speech with ums and ahs, or speak as though the talk was more reheased?  Presentation style is imporant. Two speakers can speak from the same script, with one keeping the audience riveted while the other puts them to sleep.
Most doctoral programs don't require a public speaking course – maybe they should? – and public speaking isn't taught in the physics lab, your advisor's office, or the department conference room. If you want to hone these skills, you'll need to do it on your own, join an outside organization such as Toastmasters, or participate in whatever faculty development opportunities are afforded at your institution.
Content
This one is difficult for the lecturer, because much of the content is dictated by the course curriculum. We don't get to choose our topic, and speak about The Day I Was Rescued from the Well, or Three Secrets to Research Success. Instead, we are required to talk about Maxwell's equations, or orbital mechanics, or the logistics problems at the Battle of Wellington.
In the case of a Nobel laureate, this problem is compounded, because the speaker is often speaking about the culmination research to a general audience with little or no experience in the field. It can be challenging for a subject matter expert to distill vast knowledge and expertise into nuggets comprehensible for the layman; it's difficult to convey excitement to people with insufficient background knowledge to share that emotion. Advances in the field are made after years of study with tedious experimentation and observation. How long would you be able to retain interest talking about your dissertation research at a New Year's Eve party? Winning a Nobel Prize wouldn't make that any easier.
Other Challenges in Academia
Whether it's a professor in front of the classroom, or a Nobel laureate in a university lecture hall, most talks seem to be about 50 minutes to an hour long: double the length of most sermons, and quadruple the length of most TED talks. That's a long time to hold the attention of an audience! Even accomplished speakers would find it difficult to engage an audience that long. That's why playwrights pen tales of love triangles, not mathematical proofs.
The classroom professor has an additional challenge in that the "audience" (i.e., the enrolled students) may not be all that motivated to learn, making it especially difficult to give a memorable performance while also ensuring valuable learning took place.

+1, but I can't be the only one that thinks Maxwell's equations, orbital mechanics, the logistics at the Battle of Wellington sound way more exciting than The Day I Was Rescued from the Well?

@dionys - Yes, of course; I was merely trying to allude to speakers who get to speak of harrowing rescues and other survival experiences (you know, this sort of thing). Perhaps I should have chosen a better example, or said more about how I survived the sub-zero temperatures before my rescue. ;^)

I've heard the following story, which seems relevant, but I can't find a source for it now. Someone asked Stanislaw Ulam for the rules for giving a good lecture.  Ulam at first denied that such rules could exist, but the questioner persisted, and Ulam finally came up with the following two rules. (1) Have something to say.  (2) If, by good fortune, you have two things to say, then say first the one and then the other, not both at once.
Violations of Ulam's rules account for surprisingly many of the occasions when I've left a lecture wishing I hadn't gone to it.

I think these are the most important properties:

Understanding your audience I you can empathize with your audience and understand at what level they are mentally, and how accessible the material is for them, you can tailor the lecture or talk to make it most accessible. My most successful lectures were when I remembered exactly what it was like when I learnt the material. The most difficult ones are when the material is too familiar to me and I can't understand why it would be difficult. A good lecturer will go through great trouble to understand his audience and tailor the material.
Repetition Isolating the key points, and repeating them at different points in different ways. If everything you say has a 20 percent chance of sticking, you need to double up on the important elements, for the sake of redundancy.
Putting in the time I've never heard of a good lecturer who could just wing it. Most of them make it look easy, but all of them slave over it. You can't be a good lecturer if you don't care. The audience will notice if the i's aren't dotted.
Telling a good story Firstly, this means both finding a throughline in the material, where every step follows from the last and the listener has a structure to hold on to. Making it more that just an enumeration of facts and subjects. Secondly, it means creating tension. Using the same techniques that storytellers do. It's more difficult if you don't have spaceships, dragons and romantic situations to talk about, but you can still set up expectations and statisfy them and you can still have little jokes and you can still vary between action scenes and gentle dialog.

source: Stack Exchange

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

authors: ΣΠΥΡΟΣ ΠΑΠΑΔΑΚΗΣ

sort: votes


text:
When to answer and when not to answer a brief e-mail from a busy academic?
I frequently receive brief, usually confirmatory e-mails (such as "Can do. Best" in response to a request for a letter of recommendation) from academics with considerably less time than myself.
Each time this happens, I am very indecisive about whether the nuisance caused by responding -- and adding an e-mail with essentially no information, such as "Many thanks; this means a lot to me! All the best" to their inbox -- really weighs more heavily than the risk of being perceived as ungrateful.
Any thoughts, ideally from the referee's perspective are greatly appreciated!

Related: Etiquette on sending a thank you e-mail to respondents who gave me helpful information

See also: Is it appropriate to reply every time to a professor's “thank you” email?

I always thank in advance for several reasons but mainly this one.

What about sending an email with subject like "Thank you very much! [EOM]".  The first time one encounters this acronym, there is a one-time overhead of checking what that means; then the persons says to him/herself: "Ah, that's clever!", starts using it and the easy way to save people's time spreads further;-).

@mbork changing the subject line is a bad idea, it should always be descriptive so the recipient always knows which problem it refers to. Only adding the tag to the subject line is OK

@Erbureth: fair enough.  OTOH, does there anyone not use an email client displaying threads?  And, harsh as it may sound, but if someone uses a tool which causes significant waste of time (and does not want to invest time to learn better tools), s/he should be ok with other people wasting their time, too.

@mbork: I don't. I find that confusing. I need to see my e-mails sorted by date, and possibly filtered, not jumbled in seemingly arbitrary ways because some e-mail client thinks it knows which messages belong together. Occasionally, I have to use a web-based version of Outlook that does that by default. It just doesn't work there, and it gets incredibly difficult to find anything - and it is particularly bad because it mixes up e-mails from different folders, such as Inbox and Sent. (But with that said, changing the subject line seems fine to me.)

@O.R.Mapper: well, mixing /Sent/ and /Inbox/ emails is one of the advantages of using threaded view for me;-).  What's more, in my email client toggling the threading behavior is the question of hitting one key (P in this case).

OTOH, while I have to agree that I was wrong: neither everybody uses threads, nor are they always the best choice, my main point seems to hold.  I receive more than 60 emails every day; if I optimize my workflow so that I save one second per email, and if I assume that I will somehow have to change my configuration once every year, and even if I spend as much as two hours just configuring my email, I gain net four hours.  (And these assumptions are rather conservative.)  IOW: if people for whom email is an important part of their workflow do not optimize it, they are either irrational or...

...or do not value their own time.  And then, they have no right to complain that someone else wastes their time, too.

BTW, I highly recommend a search-based (as opposed to folder-based) email client.  I've been using such a tool for a few months now and I like it a lot.  (If I really want to see emails grouped by folder, I can do it - but normally I just enter a search query, involving content, date, flags etc., and my client runs the search across folders and even across my three accounts.)

My own busy-person email triage has three tiers:

No response needed = near-zero cost
Minimal response needed = minimal cost
Response with significant thought and care needed = significant context-switching cost

A brief "thank you" email would go into category #1: no bother or burden, but noticed and appreciated all the same.  In other words, send the email: it's not a significant nuisance, and it's nice to be appreciated.

Yes, indeed, send the thank-you/acknowledgement. It requires no action, and/but is a positive thing. In fact, to not do so is a slight negative, for me. Not that I'd hold a grudge, etc., but just note-to-self about the on-going self-absorbedness of many... "got what I needed".

Even better: IMHO, there is 1.5 Future response possibly needed = unknown cost. A mere "thank you" e-mail tells me that a particular process is concluded for good and nothing will follow up anytime soon. (Or, if it does, I am not expected to still know about the previous process in depth.)

To me, any email takes some amount of time to process. If I were to send something so short as "Can do. Best" (NB I wouldn't, but if I did) then I wouldn't be expecting a response, and in fact if I got one, to be honest, I would consider it a waste of time. Don't get me wrong, I'd appreciate the sentiment, and I wouldn't be offended, but I'd consider such an email wholly unnecessary and more distracting than it's worth. After all, what's the alternative - that you're not thankful? I think I can safely assume that, unless you're actually an all-around horrible person, that is not the case.
Contrasting this with jakebeal's answer, I think the only general conclusion you can draw is that depending on the person you're emailing, a "thanks" email in response to a short message of acknowledgement may be appreciated at best and somewhat inconvenient at worst, but it's unlikely to seriously bother anyone.

"what's the alternative - that you're not thankful?" - not quite, but maybe that you're not interested any more. In a way, it can show that you stop caring as soon as you got what you wanted. Getting that impression of someone does not motivate me to do them a second favour, because it implies they interpret any collaboration as "I participate as long as I draw direct benefits, and as soon as I reached my personal goals, I stop contributing to the mutual goal."

@O.R.Mapper none of that would cross my mind in the situation described. The other party made a request, I accepted the request, and I see no reason to jump to the conclusion that they are no longer interested unless they tell me so.

Very well, that may be related to whether in your culture/place, it is generally considered customary/polite to respond with a thank you in that situation (or rude not to do so).

To me it depends on how well I know you.

If I know you very well, then we are probably exchanging e-mails frequently. In this case, the continuous streams of gratitude are a distraction and may even seem sycophantic.
If I know you somewhat well, and have already formed an opinion of you (presumably a good one, if I'm willing to do something for which you are thankful), then either way is fine, and everyone's preference will be different. Personally, I'd rather receive the  "thanks!" mail only for really significant favors and omit them otherwise.
If I do not know you well, especially if our only contact was for you to request the favor, then I'd probably appreciate the "thanks!" mail, as I would have no other way of knowing that you appreciated the effort.

Given that you're requesting a LoR, you are probably in the second group, which is maybe why the answers are so mixed. In this case, my personal strategy would be to send a detailed "thank you" mail (or even a small gift) after all the letters are submitted, but I would not continuously thank them after every correspondence.

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


text:
A professor of mine pronounces an author's name incorrectly, what should I do?
My literature professor pronounces the name of a very famous novelist incorrectly (I've searched quite a bit and I'm sure of it). I'll have an oral examination soon, and I'm not entirely sure whether I should adapt and pronounce it like she does, or correctly. I'm afraid that if I choose the last option she will tell me I'm wrong, and I'd have to explain she is, which might embarrass her.
What's the best thing to do? If the second, what would be the most polite way to explain I'm right?

Ask a friend from another department to go to this professor and ask a question about the novelist using the correct pronunciation, and see how they react. If your friend is brave enough, ask her/him to say something like "Is it pronounced like this or this?".

Students should start comfronting professors with their mistakes in front of the entire class. Aren't students subjetively shamed for not knowing things? The protected status and authority of teachers inside classrooms is counterproductive to education. How can you teach students it's okay to be wrong if you aren't willing be wrong yourself?

I have learned....from similar situations but tech related, that correcting a professor can be like walking a mine-field.    Also....if said professor holds a PhD in the field..........

Ideally, find your professor during office hours, and say something like "Hey, this has been confusing me... I'm seeing all these references to one pronunciation and you've been using another. Is there a disagreement in the academic community, or are both pronunciations valid, or did the author use a less-common pronunciation, or are these other references simply wrong?"
In other words, don't tell her that she's making a mistake; ask her to help you learn. Much more polite, much harder to take offense at, and much less likely to embarass you if she says either "Well, this is how [author] always pronounced his name when I spoke to him" or "I have a slight speech impediment that I'm a bit embarrassed about; thanks for not bringing this up in public."
The fact that she's outvoted does not necessarily mean she's wrong. For that matter, she may not be aware that there is a difference, or not be able to reproduce that difference accurately, if her accent isn't the same as the others you've spoken to (or your own)... or you may be having the same problem in the other direction.
You have an interesting question. Ask it. In private, and as a question, and you'll probably get an interesting answer and maybe a bit of an uptick on your grade for having made additional effort. If you tell her that she's wrong, and/or do so in the middle of class, it's likely to go less well for either of you.
If you really can't meet with her before the exam, despite your best efforts, you have to decide whether you're going to pronounce it her way, pronounce it your way and -- if challenged -- say "I've been meaning to ask about that; this is how I've always heard it...", or try for a compromise between them with the "I've been meaning to ask" as a fallback.
But I really doubt you're going to get dinged for getting this wrong if you get the rest of the exam right. So maybe you should focus on aceing the exam, rather than on this nitpicky point.

Just pronounce the name the best way you can. If you think pronouncing it correctly differs so much from the way you have heard it from your teacher then using something close to their pronunciation can help stop confusion so in this case you roll with the punches. The fact that names are sometimes pronounced weird, wrong or even butchered is just a reality. In some cases it is a lack of exposure to unusual names or forms of spelling. This is a very common experience for anyone visiting a country with a different language.
So, in general, don't worry too much about it. Sometimes to avoid confusion if the "true" pronunciation and the way you have heard it differ to the extent it can be seen as two different words, you may have to adopt a stance closer to that which find wrong. But the worst that can happen is that you will be corrected.


text:
The editor asks me to wait couple of days
I have submitted my manuscript to one of the top-tier journal in my field. The reviewers' feedback was positive in the first round of revision; one reviewer favoured the paper and asked for revisions while the second reviewer did not read it because I did not adhere to the target word count of the journal. The editor then asked me to make an R&R. I submitted my revision and 5 days after the resubmission the dashboard was converted into "awaiting EIC decision". The editor discussed the decision with one of his associates and then asked me to wait for a couple of days to render a final decision. He did not tell me that it would be sent out for a third review.
My question is that why the need for days to render a decision after discussing the reviewers' reports with the associate editor?  Can anyone from the journal's editors explain this case?
Edit: The problem is that the status "awaiting for EIC decision" took around 15 days till I received an email from the editor that he was out of the disk and once he received on X day he would render a decision. At that day or the following day, he told me to have patience and waited for couple of days as he was discussing the reviewers' reports with his associate. My question is whether there was disagreement between the reviewers then he may assign another reviewer or what?

I don't think we have enough information to do more than guess.  Maybe the editors don't quite agree and are still discussing it.  Maybe someone wants to think more or look something up or ask the reviewers some questions.  Maybe someone is busy or on vacation and doesn't have time to deal with it for a few days (for example, the editor in chief may have to approve).  I wouldn't worry about it: a few days is not such a long delay, and I doubt there's anything you can do to find out the reason or influence the decision in the meantime.

"My question is whether there was disagreement between the reviewers then he may assign another reviewer or what?" We don't know.  We couldn't: you haven't identified yourself or the journal.  (Which is not to say that you should but just to indicate that it is actually provably impossible for us to answer your question.) You have already been told that you are asking about a minor point of editorial workflow that even the few people who know the answer to your question are under no obligation to divulge.  You have to let some things go; this ought to be an easy one.

In general the editor makes choices as to how to best get a manuscript evaluated. If one reviewer did not return a review, it is only natural to ask for a new reviewer's opinion. The fact that the editor-in-Chief confers with another editor could mean that they confer whether or not the existing single review is sufficient.
As for time, I am not sure why you question a few days for a decision. Most editors do their work outside of normal departmental duties so finding time for discussing a particular manuscript can take some time and surely five days is not anything remarkable?
So from my view point, as Editor-in-Chief (of another journal), you seem to be very impatient and lacking insight in the everyday editorial business of a journal. I do not see anything strange about what has happened and I particularly do not see any reason for the editor to let you in to the internal work of the journal editorship.

Your edit contains the answer to your question: editors are people too, and sometimes delays happen because of that fact.  This is less true for a "professionally edited" journal like Nature or Science, where there is likely to be a formal handoff of responsibilities between editors when one is unavailable. Most journals, however, are run by faculty volunteering their time as part of their service to their scientific community.  If an editor is unavailable for a week or two, it is likely that everything in their queue will just wait until they return.  And that's generally OK, because a week or two doesn't make a big difference in a multi-month process.
In your case, your edit states that the editor had a slipped disk.  This is an incredibly painful medical condition that is probably screwing up their whole life while they get it dealt with.  Compared to this, you and your paper are not a high priority, and you need to have some patience.

The OP wrote "he was out of the disk".  I think this is probably a typo for "out of the desk", meaning that he was away from work.  (Sometimes these questions require some nontrivial mind-reading.  I was really scratching my head as to what "target word of the journal" could mean until ff524's edit.)  Certainly I agree with the advice you give, especially "you need to have some patience".

@PeteL.Clark My attempt at mind-reading involves interpreting "once he received on X day" as "once he received an X-ray", in the context of the out of disk. Perhaps O.P. can make it clearer... and perhaps this is a significant part of the problem in the first place.

Wow, that's funny.  I was interpreting X as a variable.  Maybe you're right!


text:
Quitting PhD program after 1 year
I am currently enrolled in a PhD program in electrical engineering in Europe (not in my home country). When I enrolled to this program, I was a little concerned about the research group, since it has very few publications about the topic for which I applied (they are not expert in my field). Nevertheless, I applied since I believe the value of a phd is up to yourself, not the popularity of the supervisor.
However, after 1 year I am thinking about quitting. My supervisor is not so much involved in my project and I am followed most of the time by an assistant professor that wants me to follow a certain path according with the interest of the institute. I am trying to convince them that I want to follow an other path, since the topic studied at the institute does not fit well with my topic, but they are stack with this topic, which is also studied by few niche researchers.
I asked them also to send me abroad to a research group more specialized in my field, but they are not so much interested in international cooperations (except the ones related to their topic).
Besides this, I don´t like the environment inside the institute. I perceive lack of communication and everybody is studying the same topic, with not so much differentation. There are no international students except me and other 2 people and everybody is speaking the local language. Also the other students are not interested in mobility and the research group itself does not produce many publications.
Thus, for all these reasons, I was thinking about quitting. I would like to have some advice. I don´t know if this can be a valid move for my career. In the same time, I don´t want to spend 4 years without believing in the quality of my research, in which I am also losing motivation.
I would like to apply to an other PhD program in an other university/country, but I am worried about the references/recommendation letters, since if I quit I don´t think I can ask for recommendation letters from my current situation. Moreover, I am worried that other research groups would not accept me, because they may think that I am low on perseverance (I am not really, I am not of the type to quit something easily).
Thanks for any help!!
I want to specify that this institute advertised a position related to my field, so in principle my research interest and the one of the institute matched. I would have like if they have been more honest with me regarding the direction of the research.

I was a little concerned about the research group, since...they are not expert in my field. Nevertheless, I applied since I believe the value of a phd is up to yourself, not the popularity of the supervisor. — Note to others: DO NOT DO THIS.

@JeffE I dont understand your note? I think he is correct

The problems seems to me to have started here:

Nevertheless, I applied since I believe the value of a phd is up to yourself, not the popularity of the supervisor.

I think we can both agree that a research group in anthropology would also have very few publications related to your topic. But you can also see that doing an electrical engineering PhD in an anthropology group would be a horrible choice. They simply wouldn't have the expertise to help you and could offer no possibility to cooperate with your research.
To a lesser extent the same is true for different sub-fields of a large discipline like electrical engineering. If your topic of interest is far removed from the rest of the group, the rest of the group won't have the expertise to help you or the possibility to cooperate with you. This is a very bad thing.
One way to (partially) solve this problem is to modify your topic or switch topics to be more in line with the rest of the group. This seems to be what is proposed here to you.
Your proposed solution is to ask them to send you abroad and to continue with a topic that is not really related to their research. The question now is: why should they agree to this? They invested resources in you by either paying you or at least supporting you and spending time on you. In return you offer to do research at a different institution on a subject that doesn't really touch any of the research done at the group. That would mean that at the end of your PhD, the group would have spend (considerable) money into research they aren't interested in. That sounds like a very bad deal for the group.
If I were to summarize this: you applied and got a PhD at a group without looking at what that group does. After a year of doing a PhD there, you now realize what the group does and conclude that the group is a bad fit.
You have 2 options now as I see it: continuing with this group and focus your topic to be more in line with the research of the group. The other option is to quit now. In that last case the group would see (considerable) resources go to wast because you neglected to properly look into what the group does beforehand. This as you worried looks very bad, because why wouldn't something similar happen at a new group? If you quit, then I hope you can find a good answer to this question when applying to any future PhD.
As for the communication and language issues: I would find this a separate and smaller issue. Here an open and honest conversation about how you perceive the communication in the group and what problems you encounter could work wonders. The problems regarding research topics however is much more fundamental and more serious.

You are absolutely right in every words you said. Although They promoted a phd position in a certain topic that are not involved in: I think they should have been more honest with me during the interview at least. I was admitted to the program because I am the expert on this topic (I have done the master thesis on that) but I never thought that they would change the topic.

Can you compromise, and make some progress on something they find worthwhile, with an agreement that you can spend half your time on your own project?  (You might want to start by asking for 2/3 time for your project.)  Even if you decide to transfer, it might still be helpful to follow a compromise path for a few months, as it might help you leave on good terms with strong recommendations.

I am trying to convince them that I want to follow an other path,
  since the topic studied at the institute does not fit well with my
  topic, but they are stack with this topic, which is also studied by
  few niche researchers.

I wonder how you got the PhD admission in the first place. In most PhD ads I've seen, there is always a requirement for "common research interests". Some places even require PhD applicant to submit a research proposal.
The supervision you are receiving looks OK for most PhD students. The official advisor doesn't involve much, but the assistant professor is trying to work with you. You can't blame your colleague for lack of communication, since your interests are different from theirs.
In Italy and Denmark, PhD students are allowed to have 6 months internship abroad, and the trip is totally funded by the university. The majority of PhD students in other European countries do not have this luxury.
In short, there seems to be no problem in the PhD program at your group. The only problem is you don't fit them, you have different interests. Either you change yourself to fit them or you should leave. The latter option is much more difficult, and you know the grass is always greener.

They advertised a position in my topic, so in principle there was an interest on my topic even though they are not so expert. Now I have seen that they are shifting my topic to something more comfortable for them, that is normal I would say. However the combination between my topic and their is very unusual. And I don't want to spend 4 years trying to fit their topic with mine. I have to spend some period abroad as well, but for now the direction of my research and the one of the other top research groups expert in my topic are totally different.

@Joey iff you are in EU, you should apply to go abroad, and find co advisor as soon as possible that can suit you, you are in possition to choose sicne whole project is payed!!!

@SSimon I am trying to do that! Since my project is well paid I want to spend time abroad as much as possible! Doing so I can have the possibility to collaborate with someone expert in my field. The problem is that I don´t know how happy my supervisor could be.

@Joey if he will be included on paper, hw will be more than happy, iff you can bring strong collaboration, than yes!!! everyone will like it

I salute your initiative and this is right way you do


text:
Should I tell my PhD supervisor that I am looking for an other position?
I am not satisfied with my PhD and the research group and I was thinking of looking somewhere else. I would like to stay in Academia for now and I want to apply to other programs (in an other country and university).
Should I tell my supervisor that I am looking for an other position? Or is it better to tell him once I have found something?
The problem is that I have to contact some professors and there is a minimal possibility that they know each other...

Morally yes. There are also a number of practical benefits.  How is your supervisor in general as they could be understanding and help you get a new position.  They can also be helpful for advice as they will know what other supervisors/research groups are like, especially if they know the reason you are quitting their group.
If you are applying in a similar field there is a good chance they have met at conferences.  Telling eliminates this risk.
Of course if you do tell it will be seen as you quitting your PhD and your funding will likely be cut (depending on how it is structured).  If you don't find a new position, I have no idea how confident you are of securing a new position, it could mean you get left with no position at all.  Of course your supervisor could also be understanding and let you use that group as a fall back.  It would save them the trouble of hiring someone new.
Finally, and this possibly be first, have you exhausted all options to fix your current PhD such as working with your supervisor to limit/remove the issues you have.  You could potentially switch topics but stick with the same supervisor for instance and work less with the research group itself, my own PhD did not involve anyone else in the same university working on the same topic as me (aside from my supervisor who also worked on different topics as well).
The above is very dependent on the personality of your supervisor and the reasons you are unhapppy though so don't apply it blindly but I would lean towards telling them.


text:
Asking a professor to be my advisor (math)
I'm applying to graduate school and there is a professor at my home university I am interested in working with.  As a bit of background, I have been doing undergraduate research with this professor for about a year now and he seems to like me (though maybe he's nice to everyone.  I can't be certain).  My research under him has been going well as hes told me I've been doing good work.  In fact, he uses exclamation marks sometimes, which I find to be odd.  Fast forwarding a bit, I've recently wrapped up the project.  Given my academic history with him, if he was interested in working with me, would he ask me to be his student (sorry if this comes off as having an inflated ego, I don't have one.) All in all, I'm not sure how to proceed in asking him.

Just ask. There is nothing to lose. Many of us would be hesitant to ask a student, realizing that there are advantages to moving on and coming in contact with different faculty and their ideas. He might even suggest that you move on, actually, and don't take that as a negative.
If that happens, ask for his advice on your next steps. And try to keep in touch with him over the next years. An email every year might be welcome if you are progressing nicely.
These things are best done in person if that is an option.
But think about whether this prof (the easy option) or moving on is the best option for your future.

Your right, I should should ask.  Unfortunately, I cannot do this in-person due to Covid.  However, would it be appropriate to ask for a Skype meeting to "discuss post-graduation plans?"  My primary reason to work with him is he is one of the leaders in the field I want to pursue my graduate degree in.  Additionally, he has a style of mentoring I like.

Sure, any means will do if the best isn't available. But "can we meet somehow, Skype or otherwise", is a bit better than being too specific. Note, of course, that depending on where you are an individual professor may have little influence on your actual admission. Committees are used in the US and a full application is required.

These comments help a lot as I'm still quite intimidated by professors.  To your remark, I am still in the US and understand admission is not guaranteed even with an advisor chosen.

As a quick update, I have a virtual meeting with my undergraduate research advisor.  I was curious what type of questions should I expect.  Will he want to go over grades, research, and academic interests?  I'm worried hes going to have tough questions (whatever they may be).

Probably all that and more. Long term goals both for schooling and thereafter. But if this is the same person as in your question, he probably already knows much of it. And you don't want or need to overly commit to any research ideas. His job is to give you some guidance in this.

Yes, it is the same person.  Early on in my college career, I got some pretty poor grades in some major specific classes (I mentioned this in a previous thread).  With that said, I've had good grades ever since.  If he brings up why I got bad grades, should I be brutally honest on why I got them?  I'm quite self conscious about that period of my life, however I'm more concerned he'll change his opinion of me.

I wouldn't worry about it. Many people have a breakthrough that puts them on the right path. Mine came a bit earlier. Much better that trend line that the opposite.

The formalities of admission depend from geography to geography, and institution to institution.
However, it is most emphatically up to you to take the initiative to indicate interest and spur exploration of whether this would make sense. I would have thought it entitled, arrogant, and forward as a faculty member to indicate to a student, even a close collaborator, unsolicited, that I would be happy to be their advisor!
The most I would have felt comfortable is suggesting to a student that I'd be delighted to discuss their future plans with them if they'd like. And I'd probably assume the best I could do for them is help them navigate their choices of graduate school and introduce them to my collegues elsewhere.
Good luck. And as others have said, be open to the idea that the best for you might be to retain this collaborative relationship informally and continue your studies elsewhere.

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


text:
How do I stay focused during an online conference?
Conference season is coming up and my supervisor signed us both up to a series of conferences that are running over the next few weeks. Having already participated in a couple of them, I kind of know what I'm in for and wondered how you guys tackle online conferences.
Is it bad that I sometimes don't/can't pay full attention to certain talks?

Do you pay attention for the entire duration of every talk when the conference is offline?

@cheersmate I try my best, I just feel obligated to stay focused but it's so much harder to do that when the talks are online :(

Do you have a separate screen from your normal one, for example, a nice big TV?

I use an ultrawide for work so I could use that?

Normal attention is just 3-5 minutes.  Or so I was told.

Get off stackexchenge ;-) ?

Online or in person, it's an acquired skill.

Do you go to every talk at an academic conference in meatspace? There's usually exhibits, competitions or other distractions to see when a talk that's not of interest to you is going on. Or you can go out for a wander around whatever city the conference is in. So don't be afraid to skip what you don't think is relevant to your area of interest or study (unless your supervisor insists on it).

My approach is to treat the presentations like an offline presentation as much as possible: force myself to sit back, hands off my computer, I'll even try to take notes by hand. Anything that keeps me away from the keyboard, cause if I'm there, I check my emails, and ... you know. Sometimes I view stuff on my tablet and sit in an unusual spot (couch, even outside) so I stay away from my desk.
Apart from that I treat attention as a (in my case very) limited quantity. I admire the people (often older PIs) who seem to be able to pay attention to talks for 12 h straight. I cannot. I'll scan the program in advance and make sure to focus on the talks which will be of the highest relevance to me. (Of course having too narrow of a focus can mean missing out on unexpected gems and inspiration. But if I try take everything in, it will be closer to nothing. There's a trade-off to be made here.)
Update: PLoS CB's Ten simple rules for attending your first conference also has some complementary suggestions, see in particular rules 5 and 6.

Yes, I think taking notes on paper is very helpful to be focused and keep thinking along the presentation. Also, structuring your notes with a system such as the "Cornell Note Taking Method" may help. Instead of simply "recording" what is said, it forces you think about the core ideas.

+1 for taking notes, though I usually type up ("live tex") abbreviated notes when I do this (at least for talks I am really interested in)---otherwise I'll almost never find those notes again.  If necessary, one can also use software to lock out certain sites/apps for the duration of the conference.

As a note, older academics are likely able to focus for longer because well, they don't need to? If you are new to a field 2 conf talks will kill your brain. The more time you are in the field, the more you "half disconect", as you already know 60% of the talk because you understand the field or have seen previous work.

@cheersmate already mentions many useful strategies that primarily revolve around being away from the computer or at least having your hands off its keyboard.
Other strategies in this regard that I've seen people use or use myself:

If the talk does not actually require looking at the screen -- say, if it's mostly a conceptual talk without pictures or formulas -- then go for a walk and listen to the talk on your phone while you're out there.
Do something else with your hands. My wife knits, I sometimes chop vegetables or fruit for the next meal. That's a job I can do while paying attention and at least part of the time watching, and I'm not tempted to do something else.
Be on a treadmill or a stationary bike and do light exercise.

+1 for do something with your hands (which I find helps a lot).

+1 I put a board over a treadmill so that laptop and a sheet of paper can go there. Still experimenting with that but so far looks very promising (and it's interesting to see how speed and concentration on talk correlate ;-) ). I think (but didn't actually try out) that treadmill works better than bike trainer since you'd need to adjust that in a rather funny way to allow taking off your hands at low power. (And high power isn't suitable for writing notes anyways)

Stephen Wolfram once wrote a blog post about what treadmill speed is most amenable to work. I bet you can still find that somewhere on the internet.

my supervisor signed us both up to this series of conferences that are running over the next few weeks.

Whether it's real-life or online conferences - unless you both have extremely high stamina, or you absolutely must attend (e.g. since you're presenting) -  attending multiple consecutive conferences back-to-back with a full(ish) schedule is not a good idea, and few people would be able to maintain proper focus after, oh, a week of that I would think.

Having already participated in a couple I kind of know what I'm in for and wondered how you guys tackle online conferences?

Not all that well frankly. Not only is it tiring, but after enough days staring at a monitor I can get a migraine.

Is it bad that I sometimes don't/can't pay full attention to certain talks?

Your having physical and psychological limits is not "bad". Also, even if we had told you: "Piece of cake, no problem" - you can't take others as your measuring-stick. It's not as though you've made some wrong moral choice or something. Every one of us has their limits.
Anyway, I would take the time to go over the schedule carefully - even if the first session of the day has already started - and to actively avoid diving head-in to session after session after session. Instead, make sure you identify some cant-miss ones. Beyond that - don't be too "adventurous" with adding sessions that are close to your must-attends. Allow for some time to take a stroll, a jog, or even a nap (Yeah, I said it. A proper actual nap.) between sessions if you can no longer concentrate, or are getting annoyed, or having a headache etc. Also remember you don't fully recharge after a night's sleep; nor fully recharge after a couple of days of rest between conferences.
Finally, find the time to absorb and reflect on sessions you've attended, during and after the conference. Possibly with colleagues or even with your supervisor if your relationship is pleasant enough.

Keep your video turned on
Force yourself to ask at least one question during/after the talk
Plan your schedule so that listening to the talk is one of the main things you want to accomplish that day
Use a website blocker to block sites like gmail, stackexchange, reddit, etc.

One thing I learned over the last year is to empty your schedule. If you go to a conference during normal times, you have a week without meetings or most other commitments, to focus on the conference. Do not try to have an online conference on top of your regular work day! (Especially if the presentations are in a different time zone, and happen during your afternoon / evening. Yes, theoretically you could fit both in your day, but you will not find focus on either. Trust someone who tried that already...)
Cancel your meetings for the week, and focus on the presentations. Otherwise your focus, your work life and your mental well being will suffer from the conferences.
Otherwise I can only agree with @cheersmate and @Taw: focus on the most interesting talks, and do your best to ask a questions at the end. It both shows you payed attention, and makes you think about the material, in order to come up with a question.

If possible, meet with other people (your advisor, other PhD students) and watch online together. Either at one of your houses or in a room in your university. Being distracted when other people are in the same room is less likely (peer pressure).
Obviously,this depends on the pandemic situation at your place, that other people are willing to join in, and that you want to attend the same talks.

Put your smart phone away.
Put your earphone on.
Close the door so that you are not disturbed by the noise outside.
Get a notebook and a pen to be ready to write something important down.
List some questions you want to get answered from the presentation and keep listening to find out.
Remove anything that might attract your attention on your desk.

Hope this helps.

When I need to focus on a video stream, what I usually need is:

Paper, lots of;
Pencil.

And then I focus on taking notes. Every minute or so. This will:

Keep your hands busy;
Keep the keyboard away;
Keep your attention on the video.

I'm not transcribing the video. But I focused on annotating good phrases, keywords, individual names, sketches... As if I will need this after, in a way to easily find something that is somewhere in some video.
And it's exactly that which occurs afterwards, by the way...

Practise your PowerPoint
I had to give a presentation for my company at a Euspen session a couple of weeks ago, at very short notice (like less than 2 days). I did a practise run with Zoom and PowerPoint, and quickly found that the two don't like each other. Normally you'd share the application and that'd be it, but when you run a presentation with PowerPoint then it'll try to put your presenter notes on Zoom instead. It's easily fixable (either share that screen instead, or use the slide view), but you need to be ready for it.
The presenter before me was not ready for it, and imploded rather badly. Since he was from our biggest competitor, I felt sorry for him, but not that sorry. :)
More generally, marshall your attention for talks which warrant it
You've got the list of talks. See what you think is relevant and what isn't. You can stay focused for 10 minutes more easily than for an hour.

If the presentation doesn't contain animations, it can be exported to a pdf document, which combines much more smoothly with Zoom.

Don't eat too much. The hunger will keep you awake -- The opposite of, "A large meal will make you sleepy". Also, don't overdo the caffeine. A cup or two of coffee can do you some good, but as you know, too much can really mess with your sleep pattern.

-1 Hunger is a huge distraction, and trying to think with low blood sugar is like trying to drive with a stuck handbrake.

I don't think that hunger / sleepiness is the number 1 reason for distraction.

First of all, record it! Doing that, you feel free to review parts you missed by inattentive moments or interruptions, rewind, fast forward or play fast the entire conference.
Thats all you need!

Do conferences generally allow that, unless they themselves are providing the recording?

I smell privacy issues...

Even the conference organizers themselves can only do that, after asking permission from everyone present.

A lot of virtual conferences record their talks by default - you are usually warned about this when you sign up.

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


text:
Pseudocode, in a paper -- is it a figure or a table?
The question is simple: I have to insert more pseudo codes in my paper. Last year we have labeled them as Table.
Yesterday, my supervisor has said me to use Figure.
What is the standard for IEEE articles and for the dissertations?

I'd label them as "Listing", "Algorithm" or "Program", according to what they are.

Of course, @MassimoOrtolano, but anything's out of text must be figure or table.

Not necessarily, it depends on the journal and sometimes journals accept labels other than Figure or Table. I've used Listing in a paper and no one objected.

@GiacomoAlessandroni Says who?

Yes, but... this is my dissertation and it must be accepted by my University. :-)

@xLeitix Simple: my template.

Well, then see my answer below - use Figure because it's certainly not a table.

The only standard that matters for dissertations is your advisor.  Ask them.

@JeffE, surely the examiners have a say!

Pseudocode, in a paper, is figure or table?

Strictly speaking, both "Figure" and "Table" are wrong, given that code is neither. However, there is sort of a tradition of using "Figure" for program code (see for instance here or here for examples from the programming languages community in computer science, which unsurprisingly needs to deal with code often). Alternatively, especially short one- or two-line listings are often just inserted without label.
Your supervisor is hence "correct" in the sense that it is at least not uncommon to use "Figure", and nobody should fault you for it. Using "Table", on the other hand, would indeed look strange to me. There is no tradition for using "Table" in this context, and, well, it's certainly not a table.
An alternative that most styles at least seem to tolerate is to use "Listing". I see it rarely being used in other papers, but I have been using Listing for years without it ever being commented on.

One option I like is just placing the algorithm pseudocode in the main body text, with a heading, e.g., Algorithm ABC. This could be your "Listing" option above, though.


text:
How to finish PhD and get through the academic job market as a new mother and primary caregiver?
I am a female graduate student in a competitive phd program.  I recently had a baby.  Although this is a planned pregnancy, and I thought I had thought through the complications having a baby would bring, I am still very overwhelmed by how much different my life is now.
I don't have any time besides taking care of a newborn, and I am very sleep-deprived.  Baby's dad works full-time to support the family.  Even though it brings me a lot of joy, I just can't help but wonder whether I would ever have time for my research again.  I initially planned to go back to school in September, when baby will be about 3 months old.  But I am not sure whether I would be able to do anything next semester.  Or even the semester after next.  I initially planned to graduate next fall, but now I feel that might be a stretch.  The application starts next semester, and I should be going around giving talks and preparing for my applications.  But that feels impossible now.
And there is the financial stress.  I want to put my child in daycare at some point (like around 7,8 months), so I can have some time to do work.  But it's very expensive, and I don't know if we can afford this with our current income.  Sometimes I thought about finding an industry job after graduate school, so things would be easier.  But I don't want to give up research.
What is an effective way to deal with the stresses of being a new mother while on the job market? Specifically, how can I complete my research and apply to jobs in a situation where I am sleep deprived and child care is expensive?

This is a different question than Having children while at graduate school because I believe a female student's experience is different than a male student's experience.  Especially at infant stage, mother's role cannot be placed by others due to constant feedings.  The author in the other post also has his girlfriend/wife staying at home with the baby, so there will be much less work for him.  In my case, I would be the one taking care of the baby since my husband works full-time.  Another thing is I am already at the stage that I am about to graduate as opposed to the other post is debating whether to start the program, so I am more concerned about the graduation timeline.

Also see Advice for having children during graduate school and Can one excel in graduate school with a demanding family life?

You might be able to take a leave of absence, and resume your graduate studies later.

I don't think this is a duplicate question. This question is about getting back to research/going on the job market as a new mother. The others are more "prospective" questions and don't cover the specifics of this this transitional time well. I would like to see this reopened.

@ff524 please take off the duplicate label!

@Dawn After you edited it, it went through a review queue to see if it should be reopened. All the reviewers voted against reopening: review

I do not think this question is a duplicate, but it is not suited for this site either. You are asking about many aspects at once (making it too broad) and your questions are phrased as a poll (which makes it impossible to evaluate answers).

@Wrzlprmft Ok, I changed the questions to make them more specific. I hope this is ok with the OP. I feel very strongly that this question is less of a duplicate and reasonably specific. She points to two hurdles and asks how to deal with them. Yes, it is not a perfect question, but most of the questions on the site are imperfect and still receive quality answers.

Thanks for asking this important question! I will address three aspects of surviving your next year as a job market candidate and primary caregiver: changes in research style, finances, and emotional balance/accepting help with childcare.
Before launching into it though, I do want to emphasize that things get easier. Eventually, baby learns to sleep.
Research/work style: As someone who is juggling caregiving and research, you need to be find a way to use small chunks of time. It will be much harder to get long uninterrupted stretches of time, so train yourself to do without that. Break your work up into as small of chunks as possible, make a list of those chunks, and try to get to them one at a time. This may be more difficult if you are in a lab science and the only place you can work is from the lab. However, you may be able to write at home. To write, I would suggest starting by writing an outline. Then write the topic sentence of each paragraph. Each time you have 10 minutes to concentrate, write one of the paragraphs.
Finances: The best piece of advice I got as a new mother/academic was: throw money at problems. This is not the time to be frugal or save for a rainy day. This is the rainy day. Your career path will look very different depending on whether you finish this PhD, so you should throw resources into finishing. If you can borrow money from family, do it. If you can call in favors, do that too. You should focus your spending on things that buy either sleep or time - i.e. good childcare.
Childcare: If you plan on staying in academia, I think it is best for you to learn to embrace the positives of childcare. There are great childcare options out there, and I found that some childcare providers were just as good with my baby as I was (some probably better because they actually had more experience!). Take the time and use whatever money you have to find someone good, either for in home and daycare. This is where you want to spend because it is valuable to have peace of mind. Honestly, as a mom who has seen development up to age 2, I would say that my child cares if I am around a lot more now (at age 2) than they did at the beginning.
Furthermore, when you are home, embrace the "electronic babysitter" (the TV). Sure, it feels bad, but at least some quality research shows (http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/2006/02/the_benefits_of_bozo.html) that TV doesn't harm kids. Now most programs really don't help them either, but you can get a couple of 30 minute work sessions a day using the TV without guilt. My daughter loved Fantasia (lots of fun colors and classical music!) as a baby. Now she loves Daniel Tiger, and that program has been shown to increase preschool readiness (http://www.pbs.org/parents/expert-tips-advice/2016/07/daniel-tiger-helps-teach-social-skills-preschoolers/).
Finally, if you absolutely can't use a babysitter, embrace the two-parent household you have. As soon as your partner gets home, you leave for lab. At least one day per weekend, you are in lab. Reserve maybe one-half weekend day for family time. Yes, it will suck. You won't get time with your partner while you are in this stage. But you will get more work done, and that may lower your stress.
P.S. The best thing I ever did to get my daughter and me sleep was moving her to another room. She was sleeping in my room and we woke each other up all night. (She snores, my husband snores.) She slept for twice as long at a time once she was in the other room.

Thank you!  These are really valuable advice.  Especially that the kids care more after age 2 is really good to know.  I struggle with guilt when I try to find time to do work, but this makes me feel a lot better.

Kids are very resilient! Your child will adjust to whatever schedule/caregivers you establish. I think it was really helpful for us long-term that we started day care earlier in her life (we started with partial days) because it taught her that people who are not mom can be safe too. When I try to pick her up from care, she almost always tells me she wants to stay.

I feel for you! Our twins were born during my husband's final dissertation year, and thirteen years later our fourth child was born the semester I finished a second degree (that one was a Master's, not a doctorate). Some of the lessons we've learned:

Turn your research skills to your advantage as a parent. Look into various parenting techniques and the science behind them, and then experiment to see what works best for you. No two kids are alike, and what works for one parent/child may not work for you (and what works for this baby may not work if you have another).

If you want to experiment with baby equipment (e.g. baby bouncer versus swing—this really does vary by child), try to borrow them first or buy second-hand. You can usually find very lightly-used equipment (from parents who bought first, and then discovered that their baby didn't like that particular thing).

Accept help where you find it, and reach out for it even if it's not immediately offered.

From your peers: As a grad student, you may find that most of your peers aren't having babies yet. That can be a bit isolating, but it can also mean that they are more excited to spend an evening baby-sitting than folks with babies of their own. If some of your friends or classmates have said that they'd love to play with the baby sometime, let them! Even if they just come over to watch the baby occasionally while you take a shower or write up a job application, that can be a lifesaver—and they probably won't expect compensation beyond maybe a shared pizza. Do invite them to visit with you, too, if you can, for the added bonus of staying up-to-date about what's happening in your department/field while you are on leave.
From your family, if possible: If your family is interested and available, they can be another lifeline. If it works with your family dynamics, having one or more grandparent come to stay for a while, or going to stay with them, is a tried-and-true technique for new parents. This is honestly the only way my husband managed to finish his dissertation.
Look for informal, part-time help.
-You are presumably in a university town, which means there may be students around who could baby-sit part time. This can be a cheaper option than formal daycare, and with careful vetting can be a high-quality arrangement, especially if your school has an education department with early-childhood majors. You will probably need to work around their class schedules, so for full-time help you'd need a rotation of several students, but if you can be flexible in your research schedule and/or want to start out part-time this is very workable.
-Younger kids can be great, too, as "mother's helpers"—a ten-year-old who is "baby crazy" can be a wonderful support while you are in the house working (and again, will probably work for much less money than full-time daycare). Faculty members' kids might be an option for this, or children from your neighborhood or faith community. (My own older kids were a huge help when I was writing my capstone with an infant.)
From other parents. Look around for a new-parents support group or playgroup. There really is no substitute for hearing from other folks going through similar issues. Online groups can be helpful for getting a wide variety of advice (try Parenting.SE!), and meeting parents in-person is wonderful for that personal connection and for local advice. You might also be able to trade baby supplies, baby-sitting, etc. You might find there are faculty members with young children who would be especially valuable mentors.

Figure out ways to multi-task. Play around with baby carriers and slings to find one that works for you; being able to nurse and type at the same time (or just nurse and make a sandwich) will be a revelation (I'm doing so now). Experiment with listening to articles via a text-to-speech app and dictating notes with a speech-to-text app (the latter might have a higher learning curve) so you can work while you go for a walk or do laundry.
It really is easier if you can have a flexible or reduced schedule while the baby is nursing exclusively. Options include going back part-time this fall, or possibly arranging your schedule so you can be with your baby at feeding times. (It's absolutely wonderful if you can find a way to take baby with you to school—possible if you have a very accommodating department and an equally cooperative baby.) But if none of this works out, don't worry—your baby will do just fine without you for the day, with expressed milk or formula. If you want to express milk, see if your school will find you a comfortable spot to pump during the day (in some places, they are legally mandated to do so) and take a "baby break" where you think about your baby for twenty minutes or half an hour a couple times a day.
Give yourself a break. This really is hard, and there's no one right way to do it. Take care of yourself physically and emotionally—you'll be a better mother and a better researcher if you're healthy. Don't beat yourself up if you find yourself progressing more slowly than originally anticipated, or if parenting isn't all cuddles and bubbles. Sometimes you're going to want to be with your baby instead of working, and sometimes you're probably going to long to get away from your baby into grown-up pursuits, and both are perfectly normal.

Note: I don't know exactly where you are or what your field is, so I've tried to be as general as possible; obviously some of this will depend on your particular circumstances both at home and at school. I've also assumed that your husband is already supporting you as much as possible with things like housework and nighttime baby care; if he's not, sort that out as quickly as you can!

I will also second in the strongest terms @Dawn's advice about learning to work in short bursts—this answer was composed over several hours, in between dinner, a band concert/swimming party, putting folks to bed, etc. (If I had more time, it would be shorter!)

The other answer was great too but this one is outstanding.  A few additions: once lactation is well established, you'll often be able to nurse on auto-pilot.  If you need to confer with a colleague, schedule it for nursing time (once a pattern has been established).  For now, explain that you will call when you can and give them a window during which to expect the call.  Simplify housework: buy paper plates and frozen dinners, have the groceries delivered!  After you graduate you'll be able to enjoy cooking once more.  Whether your university is set up for nursing and pumping at work, ...

... it doesn't matter -- YOU can and should take the initiative to set things up.  Look, you're not just doing this for yourself.  You're a pioneer, paving the way for others in your department, and you're teaching all the men in your department what it means to truly include women in science; and also you're exposing them to breastfeeding, which will help them help their partners make a success of it. // Your partner can nightwean baby at 9 months. I know this question is old but there will be other new mothers interested in this topic. Lastly, note that the standard graduation...

... timeline does not apply to you right now.  Give yourself permission to move more slowly or to take a complete break if that feels right for you.  Jane Goodall accomplished a lot -- but she took a three-year break when she had a baby.


text:
Contacting authors directly when reviewing a paper
I am reviewing a paper for a journal that has an open review policy. This means that when a paper is submitted to the journal, the paper is published online on the journal's website and when a decision is made, the reviews are published with the reviewers' names. If they want, reviewers can opt out and be anonymous.
I reviewed a paper where I was not anonymous. The decision was to request a major revision. I was invited to review a new version of the paper. I am still unsatisfied with some aspects of the paper but I do not think the problematic parts are sufficient to request a reject. However, I am reluctant to accept the paper with minor revision because I think the changes are substantial enough to require another round of review for checking the last version. If I could, I would propose another major revision, but the journal policy is that a major revision is either accepted (possibly with minor revision) or rejected.
So I thought I could contact the authors (whom I know) directly to tell them how to fix the issues, and then request a minor revision. Since they already know that I am a reviewer, this seems like it would not break any principles of good reviewing behaviour, would it?
Independantly of my precise case, and in order to make the answers useful to more people, it would be good to see opinions on what circumstances allow a reviewer to contact authors personally.
[BTW, I already asked the journal editors if this would be appropriate. At the time of writing the question, I'm waiting for their reply.]

Edit after journal editor answered my request:
The editor in chief replied by discouraging me from contacting the authors and provide suggestion how to deal with the situation within my review. There were several reasons evoked for not contacting the authors, but I will simply tell the one that I find most important: that it prevents documenting the review process properly. As a journal that prides itself of making open reviews, contacting the authors directly completely breaks transparency.

Your identity is already revealed to authors or it will be revealed after final decision?

Why not instead tell the editor that you think the paper should be accepted conditionally on your approval of required changes?

@MBK: there was a first round of reviews with a decision to do a major revision. The reviews are publicly available on the journal website, with my name associated with my review. The authors know that I would be solicited for a second round of reviews.

Unless the editor gives you permission, I think it would be improper to deal with the authors directly. While it might speed things along a bit, it would also cut the editor and his/her staff out of the conversation.
It is better to just write your report to the editor and submit it in the usual way. This establishes a record of the revisions.
It also avoids a situation in which a reviewer would think that his/her comments were important enough to warrant co-authorship. That might not be your position, but some might want to consider it if the option were open.
Don't feel bad about the authors. The paper must eventually stand on its own, independent of any relationship between reviewers and authors. You are doing them a favor by being honest and having the editor in the loop aids that.
But the editor may have different views, in which case, you can follow them. You have done the right thing by asking.

+1 for "The paper must eventually stand on its own, independent of any relationship between reviewers and authors.". You are over complicating things by introducing another channel of communication. You are there to provide a fair review of the paper, no more, no less.

Your answer is strikingly in line with the editor's response! Anyway, from the useful comments here, and the feedback from the editor, I made up my mind and now agree that it is an unreasonable thing to do.

I submitted a paper to a journal and one of the reviewers asked me to add someone as the last author, then he will recommend the paper for publication. what shall I do?

@MamaD,  it is hard to give a good answer without using profanity. Tell them to go to.... (choice of hot, dark, places). If the editor would stand for that, then it isn't a reputable journal.

I wouldn't do it.  May be seen by the authors or the editors (or potentially other reviewers) as unfair pressure.  Even if your meaning is innocent.  Just file standard reviews with the editor and let it be at that.
Every year there are good and bad papers published and ones that are flawed but useful.  Wash your hands of this and move on to other tasks of your own.

I really like the second paragraph and I think that you are right.

I see a conflict here. Your identity will be revealed after completion of review process and decision, and that too optional. Contacting directly the author means your identity will also be known to author before final decision. In this case they can possibly influence your decision directly or by a reference or  sorry to say but possibly by mutual future settlement.  In my opinion it will raise questions over whole review process.


text:
Is there a way to participate in research, when I am no longer a student?
I've finished my undergraduate studies 4 years ago. I was considering applying for masters, but due to passage of time it would be difficult to get any letters of recommendation. Since I'm a programmer, I thought there might be some research projects which need programming help. There I could help with in exchange for a letter of recommendation (as per this question, it does not seem to be unethical).
This question is quite similar the the one here, the main difference being: I'm also interested in any other suggestions, on how one can work with any academic staff capable of giving recommendation letters, for example some kind of 6 months-1 year online courses (is it possible to get recommendation by completing coursea programs or similar? Maybe some universities offer peparatory programs for masters, where one can try to get recommendation?)

Possible duplicate of How can I get research experience in between degrees?

@Kimball In my question I'm not only asking for research experience, I also accept answers containing other ways of obtaining recommendation letter.

Online courses are unlikely to result in recommendations as there is normally so little actual contact with instructors. You want more than just Zyzk got an A in MumbleFixing 101.

The first step in getting a recommendation letter is to ask for one from prior instructors. It is best to do this in person if it has been a long time, as you may not be remembered by name. But you might be surprised - especially if you were a hard working student back when. This is harder, of course, if you studied at an especially large institution where you had little actual contact with professors. In that case your contact would need to include reminders of who you are and of why some professor might remember you. At such a place, even after four years, it isn't impossible that an old TA is still around to help you.
The more direct answer of course, is that you can, indeed, get connected to a research group to help them. But be upfront with the PI that you are trying to build reputation in order to advance your education later.
The best way, again, to make contact is in person, which implies that you can travel to talk to people. Their work is probably public knowledge, so some research on your part can help you avoid obviously bad fits. If you want to provide primarily programming backup to a research group you may not need to actually sit with them in real space-time, but the initial contact should be face to face, perhaps with a chance to get to meet all the participants so that you can both explain what services you can provide and assure them you are capable of it. Thereafter, it may be possible for you to work remotely. But if all of their meetings are face to face you may need to deal with that also, at least periodically.
An additional benefit of what you suggest to do is that you will invariably learn something about whatever research they are engaged in. That can only help your future educational opportunities, even if you study something different.
There are no ethical concerns here. If you do good work for someone and ask them to recommend you for something related to your work it is all good.