text:
Postdoc disenchantment
Recently, I attained my PhD in biophysics, with three publications in respectable journals, including one letter, and delivered seven conference talks, two of which were by invitation. While I wouldn't claim extraordinary prowess during my PhD, I certainly wasn't unsuccessful. I found a postdoc position in the US, and the role promised to bolster my academic pedigree. It's worth noting that I opted for a minor topic shift, which I believed could expand my skill set, although potentially slowing down my paper output as I had to learn a new topic. Perhaps I was too bold (and mistaken in this assumption)?
Having relocated from France to the United States, I've found the environment here to be remarkably welcoming. However, regrettably, the topic of my current research fails to captivate my interest. It's very complicated and the literature is daunting to say the least. But more severely, it's as though I've suddenly lost all passion for science. My PI communicated to me that I need to time and "meticulously review the literature" which seems impossible to me at the moment! It's not merely the complexity of the literature (although it certainly is intricate) but rather the pedagogical quality is severely lacking. There is no proper book about the theory of my topic; instead, I am confronted with method sections scattered across various research papers. Deciphering these sections from scratch proves exceedingly challenging.
Compounding matters, I find myself missing France and my long-term partner, despite the amicable social ambiance I've encountered here. Consequently, I've begun exploring (industry) opportunities back in France.
Thus, my questions is whether anyone else has experienced a similar sense of disenchantment and a loss of interest in something they once believed to be the cornerstone of their existence. What's more troubling is my increasing inability to cope with the feeling of inadequacy and incompetence, which has put me into a paralysing state of procrastination. If I persist in this self-defeating behaviour and self-doubt, termination of my contract seems inevitable, although somewhat intriguing, as it would trigger change ;-) Nonetheless, it's only been a month since I arrived, so perhaps my reaction is premature?

"I've begun exploring (industry) opportunities back in France." Why not academic opportunities?

What is your field, exactly?

Because my field is fairly small, I rather confine myself to "biophysics" without specifying the exact niche. I did not explore academic opportunities since don't think of my academic skills to highly. Perhaps being a female scientist exacerbates this sense of not belonging If I were to conclude my postdoc here, I would point toward my own incompetence and loss of interest for the role rather than the position or the supervision lacking certain aspects.

Ok, probably not what you want to hear.
You need to decide if you are a technician with a PhD or a scientist. Because right now you hit a very common issue in cutting edge research.... the fact that it is cutting edge and not everything is spelled out neatly! This is where researchers want to be. It's messy, but you get to contribute to a growing area.
It sounds like you would rather things be spelled out and you have a neat path to just follow. The stress is probably compounded by being homesick, understandably.
So, decide. Are you a researcher who sees this as an opportunity, or are you a technician who is frustrated by lack of clear SOPs to follow?

I think right now, I need a neat path to just follow. I had a rather tight supervision during my PhD, maybe that compounds the problem. Genuinely, I want to be my own researcher and not be a sheep to follow instructions. If only I could find my curiosity again!

It might be worth considering if you might need help with your mental health. Sometimes, the reason for losing interest isn't the topic, or the profession itself, but depression. Losing interest in things you used to like is the main symptom of depression, after all.
Please note, I'm not trying to diagnose depression over the internet. It's just something I, and many of my colleagues, have come across personally. So, I think it might be useful to consider this possibility as well.
And yes, I would say it makes sense to wait a bit. I've moved countries a lot, and the first month was never easy for me.

This is a valid point. Initially, I thought my lack of interest might be a sign of depression. However, given my diagnosed mental health condition from years ago, I'm quite familiar with the symptoms and don't believe I currently meet the criteria for clinical depression. Still, it's hard to judge objectively. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.


text:
Is there a tool to order/pay for multiple papers at once?
I need to order/pay >100 papers that are not of open access. Is there a platform or a tool that I could use to order and pay them all at once, instead of having to do it one by one?
Thank you

I don't think such a tool exists. It would be very expensive to purchase so many papers, probably thousands of US dollars.  However, it is rarely necessary to purchase academic papers. There are often open access (ie preprint) versions of papers available for free. See Unpaywall.org for example.  Copies of many papers can also be obtained through interlibrary loans / national libraries for free/a small cost.

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer.

Maybe some big editor offer you a time-limited rental subscription ... I am not aware, but I see it possible.

Giving this type of information is what your librarian is for. So just talk to them, in all likelihood you will be walking away with not just a solution but also a cheaper solution than what you would have gotten if you tried to do it alone.

And if you are not affiliated to a university, your local university's library may still be able to help you.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Bad "breakup" with supervisor. What do I do?
Throughout the completion of my master's thesis, my supervisor suggested that we continue on to a doctoral program together. And after successfully defending my masters thesis, he requested weekly meetings trying to persuade me. However, what he offered was minimal to none.
Specifically, there was no funding from the state nor the university, and the only assurance he provided for me was the possibility of collaborations with foreign universities after the completion of the program. He also suggested that I find another job alongside the doctoral program, and as for the funding itself, we would review that option in the future.
From my side, I thought that working alongside a doctoral program would bring about significant physical and psychological fatigue. When I expressed my thoughts to him, he became more persistent and appealed to emotion, saying that all the work I've done in the master's program would be lost, and if I opted for a university abroad, I'd start from scratch. Furthermore, he mentioned that I needed to decide by the start of next week.
My thought is, if I reject his proposal and get rejected by other universities abroad, then what? Additionally, if my psychological state is at this level due to the continuous meetings and pressure at the very start of a potential doctoral program, what would happen in a year? Is a doctoral program ultimately worth it under these circumstances? Should I tolerate such behavior? Although I have to admit that it is my fault after all, I let him believe that we'd continue together and had not review my choices first.

Don't walk. Run.

By what definition is this "together"? What's he intending to put in?

You don't seem to mention if you actually personally want to get a doctorate or not. Getting a PhD isn't something you can easily do as an unfunded hobby next to a day job, it requires quite some dedication. So the first question you need to ask yourself is just how badly you need a PhD and how much you are willing to sacrifice to get it. If you already have an answer to this question, please edit it into your post.

@BryanKrause I do not like this stale term, but in this case, I fully agree. This supervisor is going to be trouble if things do not go their way. Get some other one, you can always find a better one.

@CaptainEmacs Yeah, I linked it to a Meta discussion about use of this phrase, specifically JeffE's defense of it, in part to credit the originator and in part to acknowledge its value and limitation. I've expanded my thoughts into a proper answer now too, though.

What part of the world are you in? Supervision seems highly unusual.

Unless you already have funding though some other mechanism (ie F31, etc ) any PI telling you to do an unfunded PhD should not be trusted. Not to mention funding is normally a result of productivity. No funding is a horrible sign for a PI trying to recruit a PhD student.

While I can't recommend what to do, since it is your future at risk and not mine, it sounds like you are being used. I sympathize and agree with all of your concerns.
My suggestion is that, assuming you are interested in him and the project, that you tell him you can continue only (only) if he can find adequate funding and guarantee that funding for a reasonable time to completion. You might have some tasks to perform for that funding, such as a TA or RA would in the US, of course.
Yes, you would have to start over in many ways at a foreign place but what you have done wouldn't be "lost". Life is full of risk, but you should think of your needs, not his, in such situations.

And here "guarantee" means a legal contract, not a personal 'guarantee'.

I think that the answer would be a good one if the supervisor merely did not have money, but they look like a serious nag. I think the advice should advise, in fact, to move away from this supervisor.

yes, any PhD advisor will know that funding is a serious issue.   You should be very comfortable resting on that alone.  Nothing is stopping you from applying to multiple programs, along with this professor's, and then comparing the final offers, including funding.

@GregMartin is that a thing in practice though? Where an adviser guarantees funding in writing? My gut feeling that this is something that rarely can be guaranteed unless it has already happened...

Typically it's the department/university that guarantees funding in writing (which is perhaps what you mean by "already happened"). I did intend my comment to mean waiting for this type of guarantee, regardless of who signs it.

The success of your applications abroad is probabilistic. And so is the potential outcome of your work under your supervisor. So I am unable to offer you a definite advice.
Nonetheless, two comments.
(1) Whenever someone is making you an offer and demands that you make your choice "by the start of next week" -- this is a sure sign that this someone is trying to manipulate you. Whatever the potential benefits, beware also of the perils of dealing with such people.
(2) Except in extraordinary situations (like when the fate of your country or your family is at stake), put you health (including your psychological health) first. Working for several years under extreme psychological stress may bring you great benefits -- but at what cost?
Please don't get me wrong. I am not trying to convince you from working for your supervisor. I simply recommend you to first compare the yield and the cost -- and to ask yourself if you can afford it.

I think there is more than one red flag here, this supervisor's trouble. He showed himself when OP was not yet in their full power. Imagine how it will look when they have become a dependent.

Just curious, why is asking that a decision be made before a deadline a sign of someone trying to manipulate a person?

@ErikVesterlund This is a very typical trick of dishonest salesmen. Respected businessmen do not act like that. A rule of thumb is to immediately say `no' to an offer made in that manner.

But don't we all, in misc contexts and situations, have to make decisions before a deadline all the time? Is "offer" the key item here?

@ErikVesterlund Yes, you may say that `offer' is the key item here. Or, specifically, the style in which the offer is being made. Usually, such a style indicates dishonesty.

A PhD is a job. In some places it's legally required to be, in other places it's merely convention, but your professor has not offered you a real PhD position if they haven't offered any funding, just like someone who offers for you to come and clean their house for no pay has merely offered you work, not a job.

the only assurance he provided for me was the possibility of collaborations with foreign universities

There is no value in this promise. A "possibility" does not pay any bills. This professor isn't offering to pay you, he can't substitute that with a suggestion that someone else might pay you in the future.
You know how this person actually behaves because you are already experiencing it. He will find new things you need to complete to earn the next little crumb of support. When your thesis is complete by someone else's standard, this person will tell you that it's not really complete yet and all the work is a waste unless you work for free just a little bit more, and you will feel compelled to do it because of sunk costs. This is a classic abuse paradigm. Unfortunately humans are susceptible to this kind of abuse. People are physically beaten by their partners while justifying it with "oh, if I had just done ______ a little better, I wouldn't be hit". This makes total sense to someone in the moment when it doesn't make any sense to anyone looking from the outside.
Do not fall into this trap. You are worth more than that.
The vast majority of people who complete a PhD will not have a permanent job in academia, they will work elsewhere. If you apply for PhD programs and are not accepted anywhere, you are in a similar position to those people except you have a head start. By the time they finish their PhD, you will have years of experience in the non-academic career you join instead; that experience will likely have more value than the PhD would have.
Your professor knows his offer is a terrible offer. That's why he has a deadline on it, there is no other reason. Just pure manipulation.

Red Flags
Working:  The casual suggestion that you, in effect, "Fund yourself" by working a job alongside your PhD studies is a major red flag.  Not only because that is usually not how things are done, but also because your suspicion is correct-- working a full or even half time job in addition to PhD studies is a very heavy load.
It can, in some circumstances, be done.  The second half of my PhD, I had to work 20 hours a week at my professional job, and the remaining 20 hours (which was more like 30) were devoted to PhD studies.  I made it out with my degree intact, but it is not recommended.
One way or another, this will slow your progress down.  There are only so many hours in a week.  It is also extremely stressful, as you surmise.  Enough so that (and this is an admission I'm only comfortable with behind a veneer of anonymity) I probably should have availed myself of mental health resources on campus.  What is bearable for a month, or even a year, can become intolerable for the length of an extended PhD.
It can be done, but hearing an advisor make that suggestion causes me to think they do not have your best interests at heart.
Exploding offers:  Likewise, the sudden pressure to decide now, now, now!  Especially without any better reason than because he doesn't like indecision.  If there is some good administrative or financial reason you have to make the decision right now, he should be willing to share it with you.  Sometimes life does force us to make fast decisions, but this doesn't seem to be life, this seems to be your advisor.
Both of these are red flags in my mind, not consistent with how a good advisor acts.  Two together...?
What Ifs
There are no guarantees in life.  No one here can promise that you'll be accepted and gain funding somewhere else.  No one at all can promise you that you'll flourish if you do.  No one knows the true value that you will derive from having a PhD.
Consequently, no one can give hard, specific advice.
But I do have some thoughts to consider:

As I alluded to above, you deserve an advisor that has your best interests at heart.  Ask yourself if you really think this guy fits the bill.

Failing to be accepted to a PhD program the first time out is not the end of your aspirations.  I took a long break from academia after my Masters because I didn't get a good enough offer.  But I did come back, and did persevere through the 20 hour work weeks.

The sunk cost fallacy is very real.  I know it seems like you've invested nearly everything into your current work.  I encourage you to think about that with as much objectivity as you can muster, perhaps with some outside advice from someone else you trust at your current institution.

In addition to what the other commenters have written: is there another senior academic at your institution who could provide you with a more tailored perspective? This could be whoever runs your degree program, a former project supervisor or a similar person.
Getting some mentorship from someone in your field (and culture/country) could help you estimate if you're a strong candidate for "applications abroad", and gauge if it's normal for PhD positions in your field to be unpaid. They might also serve as a letter of recommendation writer. You shouldn't go into detail about your "breakup" with your supervisor, just mention that you're not financially able to accept an unpaid position, but would like to continue in science.
An anecnote on "starting from scratch": in my field, having disjoint MSc and PhD projects can work to your advantage, since you can show experience working on a broader range of topics going into postdoc applications. Academia varies a lot, but I wouldn't see a fresh start as automatically negative.

A PhD requires a lot of time and concentration, making your concerns about workload very understandable.
Reasons that legitimize declining the offer from your supervisor include:
Financial concerns: The lack of funding makes it difficult to commit to a PhD program. This is especially important because a PhD program is a significant time commitment.
Workload: A PhD requires dedication and sacrifices. However, it's important to have breaks and other activities outside of your studies. Neglecting this can lead to a gradual decline in productivity over time. Your physical and mental health should be a priority at this stage.
Additionally, some red flags regarding your supervisor's behavior raise concerns:
Pressure: If your supervisor tries to exert this kind of pressure now, it's likely to continue in the future. Are you willing to work on your PhD while holding another job and facing such manipulative behavior?
Future options: It's important to ask whether finding future funding is realistic. Is the possibility of future funding realistic, or is your supervisor perhaps misleading you?

Do not, do not, do not, enter into this - or any other commitment of this nature - if you cannot do it wholeheartedly. Ultimately, you have to do what is best for you, regardless of any pressure that may be coming from your past supervisor. The amount of pressure being applied here is concerning anyway (that is no way to begin a PhD program). You will be fine, and your former supervisor will deal/be okay.

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


text:
Coauthorship of a paper with big name prof
I am 3th year PhD student. I have written 4 math-stats papers (good Q1-Q2 journals but not the top top), one alone three with my supervisor as a coauthor. I am finishing my next paper: my best idea and best work, in my humble opinion deserving to be considered in the best of the best journal. The problem with my previous papers is that although 2 of them so far were accepted to a journal, they have no citations so far (I know that takes a while, but other peers have already more citations etc and it bothers me a bit).
I am going to Berkeley for a research visit for half a year under a big name prof. Now, I can choose - either I submit the paper as a single author, or I can also ask the new prof  (maybe he will have some more ideas though and maybe will help) and include him as a coauthor.
What would you recommend doing? Some pros and cons? For a good journal acceptance, big name is always a good thing to have, and the paper can be much more cited. However, it will diminish a bit my contribution.
Edit: many answers deal with the ethical implications of including a person on a paper that did not do any work. I am not saying that I come to the prof and say 'be on the paper please'. I am trying to improve the paper in several ways: increase visibility+citeability+journal acceptence of the paper. These are the things that the prof can surely help if I ask. Also, the prof can help with certain unsolved parts of the paper-- I can solve them somehow myself but he can solve it differently and maybe more elegantly (maybe not). I am wondering which is a better option for my future academia life.

https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=gift+authorship

The answer to the question in the title is "no, that's unethical".  Based on the body of the question, perhaps you really mean "is it a good idea to collaborate with a 'big name'".  If that's what you mean, I suggest revising the title.

A friend tried this in his first paper. Not only he is "et. al." now, but the big names didn't do anything or increased the citation numbers of the paper.

There are a couple of unclear writings. For example regarding your edit there is the "Also, [...] " which is awful, since you stated: "increase visibility+citeability+journal acceptence of the paper. These are the things that the prof can surely help if I ask"
False. You do not do this with "the help of big prof", you improve these aspects by "improving the unsolved part of the paper".
Whether the big prof is really the person that can help with the unsolved parts of the paper remains to be discussed, and it is worthwhile to ask before going to Berkeley, so you know if it is worthwhile.

"The problem with my previous papers is that although 2 of them so far were accepted to a journal, they have no citations so far".
How do you advertise them? do you present at conferences/workshop/peers? are you working on the same topic? Big professors publish so many papers that you probably do not realize that even they have papers that go not cited for months/years.

@DavidKetcheson there is no question in the title, what do you mean?

"they have no citations". If you work systematically, you could already have 6 self-citations and the Hirsch index of 2.

@FerventHippo The title has been edited.

@DavidKetcheson if so I propose further edits to the question title because it doesn't seem very useful for future searches on the topic.

If your paper contains some nice results and is essentially done, then I think you should submit it before you show up at Berkeley. Once there, show it to your big name prof and suggest working together on extensions and new ideas it suggests.
If it's not really finished and there are results you are close to that ought to be included, ask your big name prof to work with you to prove them.
Just pay attention to the mathematics.
Trying to game the system by massaging authorship is at best a waste of effort, at worst unethical.

"Trying to game the system by massaging authorship" big professor is smart enough to smell if OP is tricking them in the paper just for the name: it will be a rough and sad half a year visit starting on that premises...

@EarlGrey Indeed. The great name prof had been an ambitious youngster themselves and know their psychology, whether on themselves or their peers.

Unless they contribute to the paper, they cannot be co-authors.
But maybe they can contribute if they are so brilliant, and they can improve the paper.
What you should not do is to add them just to puff up the paper. If they have integrity, they will be insulted by the idea, and if they do not, do you really want to work with them?

@Fe2O3 I like the word "reverse nepotism", although I am not sure what it means, precisely. Does it mean "adopt an uncle" or "adopt a nephew"?

I agree with the other answers that a person should be an author only if they make a substantial contribution to the paper. But I have another point: "Big name prof" also knows this. If you ask him to be co-author without doing any real work, then he might start thinking less of you.
OTOH - you got accepted for a program at a really good university under (apparently) a really good professor. Congratulations! You are doing many things right.
So, submit this paper solo. See what happens. You will have plenty of time to submit papers with big name prof.

Let me give you a more pragmatic answer than all those saying that this is unethical. Yes, this is unethical, but pretty much the whole academic pipeline is tainted in one way or another. Those who think academia is a completely moral space are delusional. In the grand scheme of things, this is probably one of the least harmful ways to go around the established rules. However, I think this is a bad idea for other reasons:
One risk you may run into by adding them as a coauthor is that people won't know who came up with the ideas, writing, execution, etc. Unless this person clarifies it from the get go, many will think that the idea and main arguments were provided by them and you are just tagging along. In fact, I know of a couple of big names who would gladly take the credit in a situation like this.
A second concern is the Professor may take this badly over ethical concerns or some other reason. I wouldn't risk my reputation for something like this.
Instead, you should let your work speak for itself. I would make it a point to present my work to them and to the rest of the faculty in the area. Then, you can ask the Professor for insights on how to extend it, and perhaps, invite them to collaborate if they feel so inclined.

Yes, by all means try to be a co-author with Dr. Bigshot.
Just don't go and say that you have this paper already written up and you want to add him, because this would be prima facie unethical. Just invite him to co-author the paper with you, send him your paper with the word "draft" at the top, and he'll send it back with a few minor corrections, if any at all, and voilà, you've co-authored a paper with a big shot. This is how super stars in academia get 50 papers published a year.
One of the demigods in my field used to publish dozens of papers a year while living 215 miles away from campus and having a full-time job promoting his 22 popular-science books. I knew him and some of his close colleagues (some of them deities themselves), and I assure you that he performed 0% of the research written in those papers. This is just normal life in academia.
How beneficial this will be for your career is another matter, but that's another question.

Although "he'll send it back with a few minor corrections" is possible, it's also possible that he'll decide that he doesn't actually want to be a co-author.

@AndreasBlass Always a possibility. But worth the try.

This is absolutely not an appropriate way to game authorship. A few comments is not sufficient for authorship, this answer proposes a highly unethical approach. The people publishing this way are faking their way to productivity based on name recognition alone. This is the worst category of gift authorship. Gross.

In addition to the ethical problems: as a Mediumshot professor, if somebody wrote me out of the blue with a manuscript and said "I'd like you to be a co-author on this", my response would be "ummmmmm, no". I imagine true Bigshots are even more careful with where they allocate their energy.

Worthwhile to note that the author of the 50 paper published in a year says himself
"I do consider myself someone who publishes lots of papers. I think my peak is around 50 in a single year."

to be honest, this answer sounds very postironic where it is hard to determine if it is a joke or not and is at the edge of irony and seriousness but leaning towards irony

@Mihail I might tend to agree with you if not for the last sentence of the response. But maybe it's meta-meta.

@Mihail Yes, I was being ironic, thank you. But I am surprised how much I enjoyed the downvotes. Gift, honorary, and ghost authorship have absolutely ruined publishing in academia, and I am sick of it. How many papers you publish has come to mean nothing. Maybe the upside is that at one point we'll be forced to evaluate researchers based on the merits of their ideas and not publication count, grant money, and bigshot affiliation.

@Cheery Maybe you want to make it clearer that it is an "anti-advice"? These can be quite useful in reflecting to the OP how absurd their question is. I am taking back my downvote.

@Cheery I should add to your remarks - every ranking system can be gamed. It is therefore absurd to believe that it is possible to have an "algorithm" that will just churn out clear quality criteria and that takes the responsibility for decisions off the committee's shoulders. The reason search committees do that is that it is hard to judge good research. The best search committees understand and embrace this.


text:
Does this Asst. Prof. email, to university COO, constitute non-academic misconduct?
I am dumbfound by this Assistant Prof.'s email to Chief Operating Officer

Is this tone professional? Perhaps I am too modest a violet.
Or is it grievable? Does it flout Columbia's rules, standards of behavior? https://www.college.columbia.edu/facultyadmin/dus/grievances

The Columbia faculty hold themselves to the highest professional standards, but from time to time there may be concern that their professional conduct is not consistent with the standards that the faculty have established for themselves. Those rights, duties, and obligations are delineated in the University Statutes and in the Faculty Handbook and can be found on-line at: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/vpaa/fhb/main.html.

But this link is broken.

This post appears to violate the policy on accusations against named individuals.

I’m voting to close this question because it violates the policy of naming individuals. See comment for meta post.

I don't understand why this question is being downvoted - it is a valid inquiry about what tone is acceptable in a challenging situation within an academic environment. I agree that the tone in this message seems quite aggressive at first, particularly when constrasted against the polite response that preceded the rather more emotional outburst.
This is perhaps a case where a bit of background information might help to explain the reaction. Looking into this myself out of curiosity, it seems that Prof. Davidai is not the first person to take umbrage with the pro-palestinean protests at Columbia University. Here is a recent New York Times article by another Columbia University professor who criticizes the form these protests take. Prof. Davidai also refers to the failure by the university leadership to speak out against Hamas, which might make more sense if contextualized against the congressional hearing last December, in which the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania failed to condemn calls for genocide.
Within that emotionally heated context, it may be more understandable why forms of civil debate may slip at times.

The question may be being downvoted by those who consider it not particularly relevant to the focus of this stack... ie it is not a problem but more of an opinion.

I agree with this answer. Also, I was reading this morning in Heather Cox Richardson's column that the President of Columbia told Congress that this particular professor had more than 50 complaints against him and was under investigation. So, that's at least some data in the "misconduct" column.

@DavidWhite "50 complaints against him and was under investigation" but not for his emails, or tone?

I see no problem with the tone of that letter: this is a person who apparently feels threatened at his place of work because of his ethnicity and/or religion. If that happens, you can respond a bit more direct than you would normally do.

I hesitate to endorce cursing out a colleague (or the Chief Operating Officer) on X. Probably not enough to lose tenure, but just not great politics or optics. These are extraordinary times, but readers should keep in mind that actions do have consequences and taking a firm and public stand against the administration might make your life harder afterwards as a professor.

@DavidWhite I see what you mean. However, if someone perceives something as antisemitic, then they are justified to voice their opposition robustly. As to the consequences of that robustness, they are going to be bad anyhow. I don't think cursing is going to make it any worse. Remember, such a person is accusing people of doing antisemitic acts or condoning those. There is no nice way to do that. So if someone decides to take that step, they have to be ready for a nasty nasty fight whatever tone they choose.


text:
How can I convince my advisor to recruit me as a research assistant
I'm about to finish my Msc in a university in Canada, my advisor offered me to stay with him to do a PhD.
The thing is, my first priority is getting permanent residency, and by jumping directly into a PhD program, I will postpone getting my PR for at least 4-5 years.
Given that, I asked him to recruit me as a research assistant for 1 year so I can get my PR and then I can continue my PhD with him.
However, he said this will cost him a lot of money, and he said he can't do that.
Though I know that he has many grants and money is not a matter for him, I think he's just anxious that when I get my PR I will ditch him.
So, as a professor, tell me, how I can convince him to recruit me as an RA?
I haven't started negotiation with him yet, I just asked him and he said that will cost him a lot of money and refused. But I want to start negotiation once again with him.

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

I haven't started negotiation with him yet

Yes, you have. You made an offer, he rejected your offer. To get a different outcome, you need to make a better offer or assume this was a bluff and be patient. I don't think either of these are likely outcomes in your favor.
I think the language you've started with: convince, negotiation, suggests you do not understand your position. Offering to work for funds is not a big offer: it's a neutral trade at best if you're a good candidate and a position is open. I would think less about this as a negotiation and more about what it is that makes you an optimal candidate, better than any other candidates, that would justify opening a position that may not otherwise even exist. Probably a better approach for you is to aim for many possible opportunities with hope that you will be the best candidate for at least one of them.
Good luck!

I don't even see OP as a "candidate". There is no evidence in the post that there is even a position that needs to be filled.

@WolfgangBangerth Agreed.

You can't force someone to hire you. It's at their discretion to do so, and you can't "convince" him if he doesn't want to.
He may also very well be right about not being able to: Having lots of grant money is not the same as having money to hire someone as a research assistant. The grants may have money for equipment and graduate students, but not for other kinds of employees. All my grants work that way, for example, and I can not -- even if I wanted to -- move money around to pay a research assistant. There is also the matter that employees typically cost far more money than graduate students; for example, altogether a graduate student costs not much more than US$50k, whereas a postdoc costs around US$150k. It does make sense for a PI to consider how to spend the money.

It may also be the case that whatever money he has could be used for salary and fringe, but not visa fees.

@AzorAhai-him- All of that is possible. Either way, it's the PI's prerogative to decide how to spend the money.

And in addition most countries don't allow you to hire an overseas candidate to a job until you've demonstrated you can't hire someone local.  This is generally easy for a postdoc by making the requirements very demanding,  but much harder for a predoctoral RA

And on top of @IanSudbery's point - depending on local laws and HR rules, it may be impossible to employ someone without first running a full recruitment process; there is then no guarantee that OP will come out on top.

First, as has already been mentioned by others, grants generally do not allow using funds freely. Funds can generally be used only in accordance with the plan submitted with the grant application.
However, leaving that issue aside for a moment and assuming the advisor can use their grant money as they please, let's focus on a different aspect: what's in it for them? Is there any benefit for your advisor in hiring you as a research assistant for one year before you start a PhD program?
If there's none, then you're essentially asking your advisor to take on additional costs because of your desire to obtain PR. Researchers are significantly more expensive than PhD students.
You may only have leverage if you are highly valuable to your advisor and are prepared to leave if they do not fulfill your request. However, MS graduates are typically not considered highly valuable, or at least not seen that way by professors. Your advisor will likely find another PhD student if you leave.
Also, keep in mind that a negotiation means either party can say no and walk away. Can you say no? Are you prepared to leave your advisor? Do you have any other options in Canada? If not, and your advisor knows this, then it’s not really a negotiation.
It might also be unclear to your advisor why you need PR now if you plan to stay for a few years as a PhD student with them anyway. You don't need PR to do a PhD with them, and you could get PR after getting your PhD. Your desire to get PR now might be seen as a sign that you aren't really planning to spend a few years to complete your PhD.
Given the above considerations and the fact that your advisor has already indicated their unwillingness to agree, I'm afraid that your chances of getting what you want may be non-existent and that any attempts to push your advisor can only do harm to your relationship with them.

The number of grants and how rich your advisor is perceived to be is irrelevant.  As a graduate, you likely get direct or indirect support from the department or institution through a TA, some internal scholarship or in other forms.  In other words, if your income is X, it is entirely possible that your thesis director only pays a fraction of this: X/3 or something like this.  Additionally as an employee there are costs for vacations and benefits so the proposition of hiring a research assistant rather than a PhD student is comparatively very expensive.
Finally, even if your supervisor is flush with funds, this is hardly a reason to spend money unwisely: the funds spent on paying you as an RA could be used to fund 2,3, maybe 4 graduate students so unless you have an irreplaceable skill it would likely be wasteful to not fund you as a PhD student.

Since the question is about how to convince the other person, you will need to have something your supervisor wants. If they want you as a researcher, they will hire you as a researcher.
Others have commented about how grant funds can only be used for stated purposes, so you are definitely going to be an outlier if they hire you as a researcher instead of a standard PhD student.
You should consider options, like if you need to work for one year to obtain permanent residence, find a job outside the University, and if you get an offer, you can renegotiate with your supervisor about being hired as a RA, in this case you would get a work contract anyway, either with your supervisor or outside the University.
Having options is always better than not having them.

The only way is that you can prove that you can provide something that match/exceed the cost of hiring RA. Currently in your advisor's judgement it is not the case.

From my experience and discussions with other professors, supervisors are rarely in favour of students who "master out" of a program. It is really bad optics on their end. They have committed to essentially sign an unwritten contract that you will advance research in their lab over a certain period. They may have to recruit another graduate student to fill your position which will cost them extra on top of an RA position. Additionally, the department doesn't view that favourably.
I am not sure exactly how obtaining PR works for graduate studies, but is it possible that it can be counted toward work experience with a stipend? If money is the issue, consider asking for RA position while completing your graduate studies and taking on more roles in your lab. This will be a good investment for your supervisor. It shows you are not simply focused on your own self-interest but will provide a service to your supervisor in exchange for a position. If money is a non-issue, it may also be possible to be hired as a non-paid RA while completing graduate studies. All this does is change your title while fulfilling the same obligations. I have seen students do this but all depends on your institution, department and supervisor's budget.

I don't think OP mastered out.

That wasn't the point. It is about what research they can offer the supervisor.

Yeah, that part's fine, that's why I didn't comment on it.

I didn't even say that they mastered out. I said that they shouldn't. I don't see why this warrants so many downvotes.

I must admit, I'm confused why you brought it up at all. Would you like to clarify?

Are you not familiar with the terminology? I don't understand what you are missing here. Some will “master out” — in academic lingo, that means a Ph. D. candidate received their Master's degree and decided to leave their program soon after

Yes, I do know what it means.

I agree with Azor. OP has not yet started graduate school, and the options are (a) starting a PhD versus (b) doing a year as a postbacc student and then starting a PhD. Neither option involves starting a PhD and leaving it early, so I’m not sure why you mention this course at all.

My understanding was that OP is finishing a master's program as they mentioned in the first sentence. I was not under the impression that they would be starting a PhD program direct-entry, so it is unclear why a postbacc would even be an option here.


text:
What happens if the professors that write your letter of recommendation have the same name?
So there are two professors at my university that have the same name (the only differences are their titles), and incidentally they both know me well enough to write my letter of recommendation, and I also have no other option. Does this affect my application?
Edit: Thank you all for your answers! They have the exact same name and this is confusing even for student at the school, and may I add even their title are kinda similar (one is Assoc. Prof., doctor in clinical psychology and the other is doctor in psychology).

They share both first and last names?

Are they closely related, or is this just coincidence?

Statistically this has to happen on occasion. There are a lot of Smiths in the world. Also Lees and Wangs and Nguyens.

Do they have the same first, middle, and last name ?

Ah, yes, the possibility of sock-puppet letter writers! :)

For those with a Unix background, there were two people named Stephen R. Bourne working at Bell Labs at the same time in the same hallway so this is not a unique situation. One link here

Did you not say it yourself? "Their titles…" should do it. Apropos of which, who would accept a reference from a name alone, without a title?

As someone who has both an evil twin and a nearly identically named non-related person in the neighborhood, I can sympathize with you and especially with the two professors.

Since it's academia, they should include their ORCIDs after their names.

Clearly, this situation is prone to cause confusion.
However, you should be able to easily avoid this of by informing whoever processes your application in an appropriate space, e.g.:

Please note: The authors of both my recommendation letters happen to be named Alex Smith. This is coincidence; they are distinct persons.

Recommendation letters: Alex Smith (astrochelionologist), Alex Smith (theoretical lepidopterologist).

I cannot imagine that anybody would even subconsciously hold this against you as long as they know what the situation is.
If anything, it makes your application more memorable.
The only exception I can think of is if the two professors are related or married, in which case somebody might consider them not sufficiently independent, but then again many professors at the same department are not completely independent either.
(Mind that I do not consider this a valid reason to consider your application less good, just something that others might think.)

Dang, I see I studied the wrong thing in grad school. Wow, astrochelionologist.

The astrochelionologist is presumably an experimentalist.

Paleoastrochelionologist.

Quantum Paleo...

"The authors of both my recommendation letters happen to be from..." -- either say the authors happen to be, or the letters happen to be from.

@nanoman: What can I say? I rolled back the edit that introduced this.

@Buzz: See the above.

@nanoman, both authors have a parent named Alex Smith.

It seems that an astrochelionologist is a real thing

@paulgarrett "quantum paleo" just sounds like a new fad diet

@Wastrel: Astrochelionoligsts are those who study this being.

I would say it won't affect your application in any way.
Certainly, the professors would include their titles along with contact info such as phone numbers and emails in their letters of recommendation.
Now, as you mentioned that their titles are different, that would suffice.

That leaves open the possibility of a single person with two appointments


text:
How to get Italian High School transcript for UK University admission
UPDATE:
If no transcript is available it seems that the 4 pages paper certificate given with the diploma, where are stated the number of hours for each topic and for each year, comprehensive of the vote for each section of the final exam, is enough. I'm waiting for their confirmation for the final update.
ORIGINAL QUESTION:
I'm trying to enroll in a UK university (University of London) and they are asking me for an official transcript of my studies in Italy.
I graduated from High School back in 2007/2008 and my former school has no idea what a transcript is or how to do it as it's something that does not exists in Italy. The diploma has legal value so there's no need to prove your grades, they have no idea even about how to give me the study plan transcription of the subject I studied as it's all non-digitalized and

"it will take months to copy that from the archive"

(yes they said months).
Did anyone ever experience something like this? As it seems that the transcript is essential for the enrolment process, how can you solved it?

Have you contacted the admissions team at the U of L and explained this, and asked them to advise? I would expect them to be helpful.

I'm trying to enrol in an 100% online BSc that is based on Coursera. I've tried to ask their counselors but they've only been able to tell me to send everything I have and then see what happens next. I would like to have the documentation as complete as possible to avoid problems.

I think all you can do is follow their advice. Perhaps the diploma itself is enough (I think it is for many courses at my university, but for some courses it needs evidence of specific courses taken).

"I'm trying to enrol in an 100% online BSc that is based on Coursera." Undergraduate admission is off-topic on this site.

The issue appear to be a combination of terminology and mechanisation. When applying and registering for things online the replies you get will be automated containing fixed stock phrases that suit most circumstances. You are dealing with a database engine not a human.
How do I know? Because someone like me is on the other side of the database engine. We can only click buttons to send certain phrases in stock replies when processing student admissions.
What you have described is what they expect for a transcript. A set of results in detail. What you have imagined is something different, perhaps due to miss-translation and different uses of the terminology. Just submit the four pages of details saying "here is my Italian transcript". They may need a certified translation from Italian, but that is all.
Admission staff deal with admissions documents in all formats from all countries on the globe. They just need proof you completed high school and the grades. They need to know a little more detail than "I passed" because they usually need to check that you completed things like Mathematics (and are numerate), that you are literate, how much STEM subjects you completed and so on.


text:
Being TA for abusive professor
Over the course of my PhD, I've had the pleasure of being a TA for many courses under many different profs, all were great experiences. I learned a lot, did a lot of good work with the other TAs and helped the students a ton.
Currently however, the professor I am a TA for is an absolute menace to deal with, especially over email. He will give me vague instructions on what to do. If I do what I think he wants, he will rudely ask if I ever bothered to read his emails. If I ask him for clarification, he also rudely asks if I bothered to read his emails (even though the emails have nothing to do with my question). If I say nothing, then he tells me I am not responsive and need to communicate more and ask more questions if I'm confused. At one point, I asked him about a problem that students had with an assignment, and he told me not to bother with anything anymore and that he would just do everything himself (implying that my question had annoyed him to the point of giving up on me trying to help him as his TA). He just seems impossible to work with. No matter what I do, he will complain about something.
He has a very bad review on RateMyProf, and from what I heard from his former PhD students, he was a nightmare and they were treading on thin ice because they didn't want to lose funding. Fortunately this TA position is only a semester long, and even if he ends up giving me poor feedback, I just want to be able to tell myself I did my best at doing my job, even if he does not think so. So I'd like to ask for general advice on dealing with such people, especially when they're professors.

I am truly sorry that you had to experience such a bad work relation, but hopefully you can learn even from this (there will be, unfortunately, others in your career!). This put aside, you might want to clarify your question (there is not a single interrogation mark in your "question"!) if you want to get clear answers...

just get out, talk to the heads and get out.

I have a strong ideological belief that one should act against such behavior if they possibly can. That being said, I suggest being pragmatic: first finish the course, but document that behavior for raising this issue later.

I would suggest meeting him in person, rather than through emails. Ask for appointments before each session and make sure he gives you all necessary details. "If I do what I think he wants" is not enough. You must know exactly what he wants concerning the TA sessions. You could even submit a summary of what you will do in the next session and ask for feedback...

Don't work with people you don't get on with it, just explain the situation to someone and say you don't want to work with them.

Have you tried just quoting him in your reply? That way he can't accuse you of not reading it. I've never been accused of not reading instructions but I've been accused of not watching a video a client sends me (which I usually don't)

@pguardiario The problem with quoting his email is that I then sound defensive in my reply, and he takes it as a personal attack. I had tried it a couple times and it seemed to make him even more angry.

The way I do it is I quote a sentence and go "this sounds like you want me to do xxx, let me know if I misunderstood that.", and then repeat that for every instruction I'm not clear on. And I will usually also quote lines that I am clear on, and underneath just say "ok". which gives him feedback on when his instruction was clear and when it wasn't.

If your relationship with that professor has deteriorated too much, do not meet up with them in person without a witness present.

I second this, I was having huge problems with my supervisor at the beginning of my PhD and should in retrospect have asked to have someone present with me as a witness to what was going on.

@Buffy 's answer covers the ground.
Here's one small step you might consider. When you get an email from the professor about some issue or you are about to embark on a task they might want done differently, write them immediately saying "[...] is what I think you want me to do, so I will go ahead with it unless I hear from you with other instructions".
This is an adaptation of what I taught my software engineering students to do when faced with a possible ambiguity in requirements that was not serious enough to demand immediate clarification from a client. In that context it improves work flow while minimizing distraction. In yours it's more the importance of creating a record.

PS Don't ever look at rate my professors.

I was about to hint at the above. I never enjoyed it as a student and even less so in my three years as a community college instructor. Just like any online reviews, you either have people write on there if they were really happy or really upset (or just really lazy).

@SeanRoberson The main use I found with RateMyProf was to find out whether other people thought the prof was as attractive as I did.

I very much agree with the "please confirm"... approach. However I would add one thing: keep printed copies of all relevant emails in a safe place, complete with the headers that show what servers they have passed through. You need to allow for the scenario where the other party demands that the administrators delete at least some of his email records on the grounds of some imagined grievance, at which point being able to produce the full record in extremis could be a career- (or contract- etc.) salvaging tactic.

Two strategies are possible here, as I see it, depending on your personality and personal goals.

Continue with the bullying professor, and avoid them at all cost after the term. That way you minimize any potential backlash.

Apply standard tactics to deal with bullies at work. There is a risk that the professor is mad. But it is more reasonable to assume the bullying professor thrives on their victims being silent. In that case, simply be firm, assertive, and slightly combative, yet still polite and to the point (no personal insults, accusations).
If they write you: "you should be more responsive". Answer back, assertively that you don't agree: "Dear professor X, I do not believe I have been non-responsive. On the contrary, I have shared with you on Y my concerns regarding, but you have not provided clear enough guidance, in a timely manner. ". Etc.
Bullies, are not used to being confronted. With some high chance they back off.

"There is a risk that the professor is mad" does this mean mentally ill or angry?

I meant he/she are unpredictable and irrational, hence can cause disproportional damage.

The word “mad” means “angry” in the US, but “insane” in Britain.

It can mean both in the UK.

It can mean both in the US too, but for the word itself angry is the more common one.  OTOH I don't think I've ever seen madness and mad scientist used to mean angry.

Some things you can change and some you can't. From your description it seems that this has been going on for a long time. The administration would therefore likely know of it and has decided to live with it. Complaining to authority will probably get you nowhere, if a bit of sympathy. A top researcher, for example, might be "forgiven" for lots of transgressions.
I'll suggest, sadly, that you probably need to "grin and bear it", keeping a low profile if possible.
If it were a recent phenomenon, I'd suggest that the professor is going through a hard period and acting badly as a result, as many do.
For the specific email issue, you might consider replying to every email from them immediately, so it is clear that you have read their mail. For the unhelpful-ness issue you might consider getting advice from a trusted faculty member with knowledge of the course when you need advice about responding to students. I had a helpful advisor, with no such issues, but I also had another mentor who was responsive to questions as well as a good model for teaching.
Keep your head down if possible. Don't give the person a "reason" to attack you in any way. Luckily it is a short term situation. Purgatory, perhaps, but not hell.

The administration would therefore likely know of it and has decided to live with it. Complaining to authority will probably get you nowhere, if a bit of sympathy. - I disagree with this. The department head may know this prof is causes problems, but if they don't know specific details they can't do anything about it.

Complaining to authority will probably get you nowhere, if a bit of sympathy. A top researcher, for example, might be "forgiven" for lots of transgressions
Very true in the short term, but it is better to have +1 comment in said prof's HR folder. As soon as the professor loose a bit of thier momentum (they miss large project funding, there is a change in university administration or political party supporting said professor) they will be among the first people considered to be "restrucutured", instead of other decent persons being employed in the uni...

Yet another comment on the "Complaining to authority will probably get you nowhere, if a bit of sympathy" part. Not right! It provides a written documentation to the HR-equivalent academic body. If the professor later attempts to cause problems by giving you a bad review and report you to some body, such a letter could prove to be of immerse value.

Depending on the structure of your department, this professor is probably not your boss. You probably report to the Graduate Director in your department, or someone in a similar position. This is worth keeping in mind!
Moreover, bullies are usually known to be bullies. All too often, there is usually no way to dismiss them or make them change. If most people in the department are nice, then they probably don't hold your bully in high regard. (Probably -- I can't say for certain!) If so, then this means that he might not have a lot of actual power.
In addition to the other suggestions, I'd recommend doing two things:

Ask to speak to the graduate director (if you trust him or her). Explain the situation and ask for their advice. You might get some good advice specific to the situation -- and you also cover for yourself if your bully later tries to complain about you.

You say that "I just want to be able to tell myself I did my best at doing my job", which is admirable. From what you say about your professor, I'd say that he is incompetent to recognize or evaluate good teaching. So, although you'll want to minimize any damage there, I'd focus on your students, and remember that it is to them and not to your professor that you are accountable. Do right by them, and you will have done a good job.

Good luck!

This professor is a bully and a [redacted], and luckily your interaction with him will be over relatively soon. Your focus should be on getting there with minimal repercussions to yourself and, where possible, others. I recommend you change your perspective on your TA position to get the best out of it nevertheless.

There is no appeasing people like him. There is no magic combination of words, email frequency and content that will result in him interacting pleasantly with you (or with anyone else, it seems). Stop seeing him as an ally (and trying to extract something useful from him: blood from a stone, etc.), and start seeing him as what he is: an obstacle to your goal.
Focus on helping the course students as your goal. Ideally your professor should be on your side in this, but clearly not. What do your students need? In some cases it's someone to act as buffer/intermediary with the professor, in which case it may be necessary for you to contact him and bear the rude and unhelpful responses; even here, write the queries with your goal in mind, ideally with a very simple answer (e.g. "clarify whether exercise 3 is intended to be solved using technique A or B", not "help me make students understand the applicability of A and B techniques"). But in many other cases, the professor may not really be any help anyway - find the answer on your own, perhaps identifying other authoritative people or peers with the relevant experience, then (if you want) send him an email with your intentions (as per Ethan Bolker's quite correct answer) as a CYA. Don't seek your professor's approval but your students' success.
Learn from the experience. This is quite different from your other TAing jobs (which is good!) and therefore you are finding your past experiences are not useful here. Observe this person, how he interacts with others (he may be quite different with "underlings" like you and PhD students, compared to "peers") and learn to spot the signs - it will be useful in the future when you meet others like him. There's plenty of [redacted] out there.

Others have suggested that the problem is really with your professor and they may very well be correct.
However, since you mentioned emails several time in your post: I think it is worth pointing out that (from my experience as a software developer) misunderstandings are much more likely to arise and much harder to clear up when communicating in writing only, rather than meeting in person from time to time. Where I work, fifteen minutes of talking to the difficult co-worker from another department can easily save several hours of semi-angry writing back and forth. Even just meeting up from time to time and casually asking what is new already can improve communication a lot.
So while your professor may indeed be the main problem here, communicating only via email rather than in person (at least from time to time) can also be quite problematic.


text:
Official offer letter versus contract
I'm confused as to whether an "official offer letter" that i have signed is actually a contract.
I have received a tenure-track offer from a US university, and they have sent me a 1.5 page official offer letter specifying salary, starting date, etc. However it does say employment is subject to university funding availability and other background processing (criminal record, visa etc.).
I have signed and sent this offer letter, but was wondering whether this is actually a binding contract, or just an offer on paper and thus not binding.
Could anyone kindly answer my question?

If your employment is "at will" (which is common in the US), you will never get a contract.

An agreement, written or verbal, is a contract. You've signed it, so you've agreed to it, and you should look carefully at what you've agreed to.
Generally, the advice is to make sure your employment offer is in writing not because a verbal offer isn't a contract but because it's a difficult contract to enforce.
In the US, it's rare relative to other countries to have employment agreements that bind employee and employer to a specified length of employment. This varies a bit by state and you can come to an agreement otherwise, but in most cases in the US you are free to leave a job at any time and your employer is free to fire you at any time, as long as they don't violate other rules in doing so (like discriminating by gender or race).

However it does say employment is subject to university funding availability and other background processing (criminal record, visa etc.)

That's pretty standard - if you aren't eligible to work at the university because you have no visa, your offer is void. If you fail a criminal background check, your offer is void. Even if you had already started working and were there for a week, if they run out of money they can end your employment, they're only legally required to pay you for the time you already worked.
Now, there is an important distinction between what is permitted by law and what is free of consequences. If you accept an offer and then decide you don't want to work there, the institution can't legally compel you to work there, but they can be annoyed by you. They can refuse to consider hiring you in the future, the faculty there can tell their friends that you skipped on them. If you have good reasons to renege and gave ample notice, it's unlikely those things would happen, though, at least not to an extreme degree. If there are visa problems, they're likely to see the bureaucracy as a shared enemy and not blame you for it, as long as you've done your part. If they were expecting you to arrive and teach courses and you told them 2 days before the semester began that you chose to take another job that's a definitive bridge burned.
Similarly, if an institution regularly hires people to tenure track faculty jobs and then tells them "oh sorry, we decided we don't have the money to pay you, bye" the word is going to get out and they will quickly find it harder to recruit anyone (and likely other people working there will look for other jobs).

Employment in the US is usually at-will.  There are no employment contracts, and, legally speaking, employers can dismiss employees at any time for any reason (except for discrimination based on sex, race, national origin, veteran status, age over 40, and a few other things some of which depend on state).

@AlexanderWoo I would not say that there are "no employment contracts". A contract is just a formal agreement. Almost everyone in the US has a contract that specifies work hours, how they will be compensated, what benefits they are entitled to, and any terms that apply when employment is terminated, like whether there is severance, or whether an employee who leaves can be compensated for unused leave. It might not be what someone in another country sees as an "employment contract", but these are still contracts that govern the terms of employment.

As already written in my answer: "in most cases in the US you are free to leave a job at any time and your employer is free to fire you at any time, as long as they don't violate other rules in doing so"

I have been in a similar situation; I suspect it is all too common at state universities in the US.
Here's what may be the case.
The department has permission from the  university to search for and hire. Everything on campus has been done - all the way up through deans and chancellors. But the state legislature has not yet officially passed a budget that includes the financing they negotiated with the university. So the letter
needs that boilerplate "subject to university funding availability" so if the money does not appear they don't have to make good on the offer.
In my case and in every case I know of the hire went through. Of course you will have to get a visa and a criminal background check if they are required. That's up to you, not to the state or the university (though they should help with the visa).
Finally - congratulations. Tenure track offers are hard to come by; you seem to be on the track you set out for yourself a year or so ago.


text:
Doing a thesis as an RA/ Lab Coordinator? (Cognitive Neuroscience)
I'm in a neuro masters program where you can do your thesis at any lab (in the world), as long as you can demonstrate that it is related to biological neuroscience. I was in a lab for a year and due to a personal illness had to leave, unfortunately I also ran through my savings that year. Now I am better, but I have medical debts. I don't want to keep putting off my education for the time it takes me to pay them back and save money to support myself for another year. I've been thinking about applying for RA and lab coordinator positions, but I'm worried that I might not get the kind of focused project I need to complete a thesis. Is it fair to ask that of a lab that is paying you?

Is it fair to ask that? In my opinion, yes, if you do so professionally and with the understanding that they might say "no". But you also sound like you need to sit down and figure out exactly whether or not you can support yourself as an RA -- if you had to take time off again for personal illness and already had to deal with significant medical debt, could you manage without racking up even more debt? It may be worth it to pay the debt now and go back to school with less risky financial prospects later. That's for you to decide, however.

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


text:
Master's necessary post-PhD for switching field (neuroscience -> bio/statistics)?
I have a PhD in Neuroscience and am currently a postdoc. Until now, I have been pursuing a career as an independent investigator (PI) in neurobiology. I've had a change of heart because I don't want to manage people and when I think about the parts of my current position that I like the most, virtually all of these parts will disappear when I become the person in charge of a lab.
I think I would really like a career in biostatistics. Math was my undergraduate major and I have really missed rigorous, quantitative thinking since that time (my neuro work has not been computational; as an aside, I have considered this route but still run into the terminal problem of not wanting to run a lab). Most "how to get a career in biostats" advice that I've read have (understandably) been written for folks who do not yet have a graduate degree and typically advise seeking an MS in stats/biostats.
Is such an MS in stats/biostats necessary/worth my time (and $$$) if I have a PhD in neuroscience (and undergraduate math with a couple stats classes) and have used R for data analysis for years now? Alternatively, I've seen a fair number of graduate certificates in biostats that might get me up to speed and increase my employability without the time and financial investment that an MS requires.

I put this on Academia Stack because I'm asking if further education is necessary, but if anyone has ideas about other Stack sites that might get me more feedback, please let me know!

The answer might differ depending on some details of your career goals. Academia or industry (or government or NGO or ...) ?  If academia, what kind of department do you want to end up in? (My answer about switching fields might be useful: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/153694/how-may-a-young-scholar-without-tenure-change-their-field-of-research/153696#153696 )

Future learning may be necessary, but a formal degree probably is not. What you need is to have a  position that gives you some flexibility in what you do and a base from which to do it. Your current degree is technically sufficient, if you can find the position.
From there you can learn what is necessary, start research in the new field and put together some papers.
But, in the short term you may be required to also produce in your current field to satisfy an employer and keep your base secure. This implies it may be necessary to morph over time, rather than to make a clean break.
It might even be that if you have a position in a large university that you can sit in on the occasional course in the new field to help you fill holes in your education that you might have. Even discussions with faculty in the other field can point you to a quick path to pick up what you need.


text:
Can I use facts from surveys which are done by others and are available on internet?
I am doing a research on family business and there are few survey available on internet providing a lot of key information/data.
For examples, there is one detailed survey done by a accountancy firm (2000 interviews around the world) and showing very interesting results which I want to use in my research paper.
This accountancy firm is sharing this survey with viewers on their site, they are even allowing to download the .pdf copy.
So my question is, can I use this information (of course I will give credit to them for this information) OR do I need permission from them to use these facts?

Look for the fine print on their website or in the PDF (they probably have it, being an accountancy firm).

yes they have a PDF downloadable file of that survey. Is it mean I can use it?

There is no copyright in facts in and of themselves, although there is in their expression (so you must put it in your own words). Academic honesty demands you cite the source (but you've already said you will) and that you ensure that the methodology is sound in the respect you want to use it for.

I just want to voice that just because it is a survey done and released by a company does not make it a "fact." Check the design, sampling scheme, questionnaires, funder, and conflict of interest before using the info.

From my perspective, there is nothing wrong with using results of surveys in you text. In many cases, this can help your argumentation and give the reader the idea of the state of the art. And in deed, surveys are used in research papers or other publications as a source of argumentation. Survey papers have their place in academia.
This is one papers using survey in the introduction:

Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SME) are the most common employers across the world. In 48 out of 76 nations covered in Ayyagari, Beck and Demirgüç-Kunt (2007), SMEs employed more than 50% of the formal workforce

What have we learned from the Enterprise Surveys regarding access to
finance by SMEs?,Kuntchev V.,Ramalho R., Rodríguez-Meza J.,Yang J. S.,2012

This is THE TECH WRITER’S SURVIVAL GUIDE written by Janet Van Wicklen who uses surveys many times:

A 1999 survey by the Society for Technical Communication (STC) found
that 95 percent of its membership had a bachelor’s degree or higher1.

with references after every chapter:

1STC 1999 Technical Communicator Salary Survey (Arlington, Virginia: Society for Technical Communication, 1999)

Anyway, before you will use the information you should check:

reliability of the source - you do not want to include results from a company which is considered to be unprofessional and discredit your research
sufficient statistic sample - surveys which say: 9 from 10 asked doctors recommend using alcohol as a medicament against cough will not help your credibility
check the survey closely to avoid some misinterpreting

And you should:

include appropriate citation
be careful when interpreting the results
NOT to change numbers : )

If you are interested, you can take a look at more surveys and related papers at Enterprise Surveys

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


text:
What to do in my gap year to transition from a US pure math undergraduate to an applied math masters in France?
I'm an international student who finished my undergraduate degree at a top-20 US university last December (double-majoring in math and comparative literature) and currently staying in my home country. The math that I studied as an undergraduate was pure math exclusively. In particular, I loved algebra, and my plan was to pursue a PhD in algebraic geometry. For example, I took courses in commutative algebra and 1st-year algebraic geometry, but never took a single course on any topic like ODEs, probability, statistics, programming, etc. My undergraduate GPA is 4.0/4.0.
However, my PhD application results were very disappointing. I was rejected by every program among the 15 or so PhD programs that I applied for. This might be due to that most of these are top US programs and hence way too selective. Due to short-sightedness in planning, I didn't apply for enough back-up programs.
The only two offers that I got were for the math MS programs at NYU and at the University of Bonn, respectively. The former has a tuition fee that I can't afford, and for personal reasons I'm also not a big fan of living and studying in Germany (especially in a small city like Bonn) - though I initially accepted Bonn's offer. On the other hand, my French is fluent, and Paris is a very ideal place for me to continue my studies. However, I didn't apply for any French universities this year, so if I want to go to France for my master's I'll need to do a gap year before applying again.
Moreover, in the last few months, due to changes in family situation, I became more and more aware that a career in pure math is way too competitive and financially unreliable. I decided that pure math is too risky a path to pursue, and that I would instead like to transition to applied math (most likely to operations research, modeling, or simulation) for my future studies.
Therefore, my current plan is to gap for a year, and then apply for M1 master programs in applied math at Paris universities like Paris-Saclay, Sorbonne, Ecole Polytechnique, and PSL. However, I'm worried that the lack of applied math courses on my undergrad transcript might have a negative effect on my chance of being accepted to these programs. I'm also worried that a gap year with no math experience might give grad school admissions people the idea that I'm not staying mathematically sharp enough.
My question is: given my pure math background, is there any activity I can do (preferably math-related, but not necessarily so) during my gap year that can prepare myself better for next year's master applications and also for my future studies of applied math?
A few options that I can think of (but not sure how to proceed with) include:
(1) Take some courses on topics like ODEs, numerical algorithms, optimization, etc. This sounds very good, but the biggest problem is I don't know where to take these courses. Are there any study abroad programs (maybe similar to the Budapest Semester in Mathematics program) that accept students in my situation? In fact, I'm also very happy to self-study these subjects, but I'm afraid that without official academic records, such self-study experience might not be well regarded by grad schools.
(2) Find an internship, whether in my home country or abroad. The main problem with this is, currently having few professional skills, I'm not sure what kind of internship can (a) agree to take me, and (b) have a positive effect on my future masters applications. I'm under the impression that most internship positions in my home country that are feasible for me (i.e. do not require a high level of professional skills) involve doing a large assortment of miscellaneous daily tasks that have very little to do with mathematics.
(P.S. I am aware that this question might depend too much on individual factors, but if that is the case, I am very much willing to edit it and make it more answerable. Thanks!)

"in Germany (especially in a small city like Bonn)" The following won't help much if you decided against the programme itself. But it might be worthwhile to mention that it takes only 30 minutes to go from Bonn to Cologne via train.

Bonn has 300,000+ residents and is tied in to the excellent train network. Why did you apply if you were going to reject it for such a trivial reason? Would you reject an offer from Princeton since it has a population 10 times smaller?

You should be able to shorten this to the relevant bits without the backstory

Look up “graduate non-degree studies” - in the US I was admitted in this scheme and took higher-level math courses with permission of the instructor during a gap year. You pay per course.

Frankly, rejecting Bonn was stupid. Thinking that applied math is less competitive may also not be very smart.

@Dirk: "rejecting Bonn was stupid" Was it? If OP believes that the programme doesn't fit their changed preferences, then why should one call their decision stupid?

@JochenGlueck Given the limited information in the post (only reason that Bonn is small and in Germany) it seems like an uninformed decision. Bonn is certainly one of the best places in Germany to do all kinds of math…

@Dawn Thank you so much, this is more or less the kind of option I'm looking for. However I discovered that many non-degree study programs don't sponsor F-1 visas for international students. Do you know of any university or department that offer visa sponsorship for students seeking non-degree status? Or maybe I should look for some "certificate programs" instead (those seem more likely to sponsor visas)?

@JonCuster The information in my post alone might indeed give the impression that I'm being capricious with planning. However, back when I was applying for grad school, (1) my intended career track was still pure math academia (in particular the field of AG in which Bonn is one of world's best institutions), not applied math; (2) consequently, it never occured to me that I will be finding a job and staying for work in the country where I do my master's, whereas now going to Bonn for master's would almost definitely entail finding an applied math-related job in Germany after I graduate.

@JonCuster As an international student, visa restrictions make it difficult for me to study in one European country (Germany) and find a job in another one (i.e. France). So now deciding whether to accept or reject Bonn is not just a matter of deciding where I'll do my master's, but also deciding where I'd like to work and live in the following years. I do recognize that Bonn is not that small under certain standards, but my home town is a city with population 70 times that of Bonn, so I feel rather constantly distressed by life in any city that's not really, really large.


text:
I did not have advanced calculus and statistics in my undergraduate (B.com (hons)), do I still qualify to apply for Econ PhD in US universities?
My undergraduate was in B.com (Hons) from the University of Delhi, India and later, my MSc in Public Policy from the University College London (UCL). In my undergraduate, I took courses like Business Mathematics, Introductory Microeconomics, Financial Accounting, Cost Accounting, Management Accounting, Fundamentals of Investments and Financial Management which were essentially applied statistics and math. Later in my master's, I had modules in applied econometrics and statistics through modules such as Introduction to Quantitative Methods (using R) and Causal Inference, which I also used in my thesis. Will all these qualify as undergraduate requirements needed to apply for PhD in Economics/Management/Public Policy/Political Economy at the schools I am aiming for namely, Harvard (Kennedy), UPenn (Wharton), MIT (Sloan), Stanford (GSB) and UChicago (Harris)? Can I make the profile better through a Pre-Doc, RAship and a good GRE score?

You are aiming awfully high for someone with holes in their background. If you cast a wider net your chances will improve dramatically. There are around 80 schools in the US that would serve you well. I think that getting rejected by one place is correlated with getting rejected by similar places. OTOH, it isn't uncommon in the US for students to have to make up a course or two.

Do you think having a pre-doc would make chances better at these places? I am willing to spend a few years working in research before applying for a PhD?

Those places are extremely competitive. I can't say what an alternate path would bring. There are good advisors at lots of places.


text:
Can I reuse a large part of my own previously published paper in a new paper?
I am currently writing up a paper, and am tempted to copy/paste an entire section (several pages) from a previous paper I have written.
Some important context before you pass judgment: The section I intend to copy describes an intervention. It was evaluated in a shallow way in the previous paper, and the new paper conducts a more thorough evaluation with different data. So, the two papers have different methods, results, and conclusions, but the intervention they are evaluating is the same. Would it be ok to reuse the section that describes the intervention?
Copying an entire section of the old paper feels a bit like cheating, but rephrasing it just for the sake of avoiding self-plagiarism feels like pointless busy work. I could just cite the older paper and direct the reader to read it for details, but this would leave me with a paper that would not stand up on its own. The reader would not get much from the paper without understanding the intervention, so forcing them to find and read a different paper does not seem like a good solution.
For what it is worth:

I am the sole author on both papers, so there are no concerns about potentially using content from a co-author.
The new paper cites the old paper, so I'm not trying to hide the existence of the old paper.

Even though it is self-plagiarism, it is considered to be plagiarism at the end of the day. As long as you cite the original paper for this intervention, there would not be any problem.

I absolutely concur that very often the simplest course of action is to copy over the technical description of an intervention verbatim, and that rephrasing it just to avoid self-plagiarism is pointless. I personally would tend to copying verbatim and pointing this out explicitly, but happily I am not the one writing these parts of papers. So I would be interested to see what is commonly accepted practice, at least in this community.

@StephanKolassa, paraphrasing isn't a guard agains self-plagiarism. Only citation is as only citation maintains the chain of context of ideas. The earlier paper has potentially important context that is lost without citation.

@Buffy: of course one should always cite the earlier paper, and the OP is explicit they are doing so.

You mentioned in a comment on the answer that the previous paper is a conference paper. That might be a significant thing to mention in the question, especially if the new paper is a journal paper. In some fields it's quite normal to reuse parts of a conference paper in a journal paper, especially if the journal paper is an expanded version of the same work.

I remember there were long discussions in particle physics about this, as obviously the detector is the same every time, but not describing the parts vital to an analysis would put too much of a burden on the reviewers/readers. This involved direct negotiations with the editors, which I assume will be the answer to this question, too.

You misunderstand the difference between self plagiarism and copyright infringement. First, if you cite the previous work then you aren't misattributing the ideas or breaking a chain of context, so it isn't technically self-plagiarism. Second, paraphrasing is no guard against any form of plagiarism which is focused on the underlying ideas, not the specific words.
But what you propose is likely copyright infringement if your earlier paper is published and you have given up copyright. There are some license forms that would permit what you suggest but they aren't universal. I'd guess that, in most cases, a copyright holder would be upset, especially if  you  submit the second paper to another publisher.
Note, however, that it shouldn't be necessary to do this at all. Scholars are used to following citation references to earlier work to get the details of things. You are probably better off using standard referencing of the earlier work pointing readers to the necessary background.
However, you can do what you suggest, with citation, if you are the copyright holder of the first paper. You can also do it with explicit permission of the copyright holder if it isn't yourself.
But also ask yourself whether a more concise paper might be better.

"Scholars are used to following citation references to earlier work to get the details of things." Not everyone has free access to papers.

@StephanKolassa, "free access" isn't a part of the definition of either copyright infringement or plagiarism. The world isn't perfect. And, again, paraphrasing isn't a guard against any form of plagiarism. Only citation is, which the OP promises in any case.

@Buffy thank you for identifying that this is an issue of copyright rather than plagiarism, that helps a lot. Fortunately the conference organisers for the prior paper explicitly state that copyright remains with the authors, so in this particular case I am free and clear, but I appreciate that this would not always be the case.

Regarding whether I should just cite the old paper and shoot for conciseness, I think that depends on the extent that other parts of the paper rely on an understanding of the content in the section. If I remove this section the new paper will not stand up on its own. There are parts of the discussion and conclusions that talk about specific aspects of the intervention, and won't make any sense to someone who hasn't read the section. I think at that point you have gone from concise (which is good for the reader) to confusing and cryptic (which is not).

Given that you hold copyright, I don't disagree as long as you cite the earlier work. For me, however, I think it would be wise to clearly indicate (i.e. quote) that the copied section appears as is from the earlier paper. If a reader is familiar with the earlier work they wouldn't feel the need to read all of the quoted material again, not realizing it was a copy and not knowing there is nothing new there. Indentation of the copied part might be a way to avoid a lot of quote marks. But a statement that "the following" appears as is from the cited work would be helpful to (some) readers.

@DavidMilne Holding copyright is not necessarily enough, if you're being thorough about it you would also have to consider any license terms you've agreed to and especially any exclusive terms. If you give exclusive commercial publishing rights to your work while retaining copyright, those exclusive rights are still something you're required to honor. That said, I would not expect a publisher to pursue any sort of claim in this situation, and there's probably no claim to make if the copied section is sufficiently brief.

Is there any form of blind review here?  I could see reviewers saying "Section 4.2 is copied directly from Milne (2023).  Reject!" - ie even if you cite the passage, if it's longer than 'fair use' they may flag what they think is a copyright violation because it would be if anyone else did it, and they don't know that you are the author. Either it's a violation or you're outing yourself as the author, both of which may be criteria for rejection.

@user1908704, OTOH, you could inform the editor of the situation so they can evaluate such reasons for rejection. Review isn't blind to the editors. And it would need to be "double blind" for such a situation to occur.

@user1908704 that is a great point. It's another reason to explicitly state that the section is reused so the reviewer won't jump to negative conclusions. Its also something worth mentioning in the cover letter for the submission (I think this will be the first time I've ever had something useful to say on one) so the editor will know what is going on. For blind review I think I will have to redact the actual citation since it basically outs me as the author.

@DavidMilne suppose you could do something like:
"4.2 Methods are the same as our previous work [76], reproduced here:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet ...
[76] Reference redacted for blind review". At least that way there's a justification for repetition - if the method is identical, there's no point rephrasing it in a different way when the whole idea is to show that it's the same (and hence the two studies are directly comparable).

Can I self-plagiarise a part of a previous paper?

No, you most certainly cannot self-plagiarize. But also, what you are proposing to do does not actually sound like self-plagiarism, so maybe the titular question is not what you should be asking exactly.
Self-plagiarism is the act of passing off your old work as new. That is, an essential component of self-plagiarism is that there is some kind of deception involved, where you deliberately withhold from your readers the information that part or all of your text has already been published elsewhere.
If there is no deception, there is no self-plagiarism. Therefore, if you cite your old paper, and not just in a misleading, sneaky way but with a clear explanatory remark along the lines of: "the following subsection is reproduced verbatim from [citation]", then you are not committing self-plagiarism.
Does that mean that it is okay to do what you are proposing? Well, not necessarily. Because the downside of not committing self-plagiarism is that your readers now understand that some of the content of your article is not novel. And they may consequently feel that the article itself, is, well, not novel, or at least not sufficiently novel to be published. You won't have committed any ethical transgression -- you may simply have submitted for publication a not very good paper, which may end up with the article getting rejected.
Anyway, if your question is about ethics, then the answer is yes, you would be in the clear in reusing the old material (with citations and an appropriately clear disclosure, such as the use of quotation marks and/or an added explanatory remark).
Now, setting aside ethics, is it a good idea to do it? I don't think you've given us enough information to say. It's really a question of what style of presenting your ideas would result in the best-written piece of scholarly work and best serve your readers. But maybe one way of thinking about the issue is: if you are seriously considering including a lengthy excerpt from an old paper in your new paper, can you honestly say that the new paper is novel enough to be worth publishing? In other words, while I wouldn't rule out that there are situations where the idea of reusing the old material makes sense, I'd regard the idea as a bit of a warning sign - in a similar way to how there's a certain New York Times opinion columnist whose columns regularly include about 30% or more of block-quoted content; suffice it to say, I don't hold this person in high regard.

I understand the concern about novelty but I think my question provided enough background to address it. The new paper conducts a more robust evaluation that resolves some of the limitations of the prior paper. Also, aren't confirmation studies a critical component of good science? Are we not allowed to conduct our own confirmation studies because they aren't sufficiently novel?

@DavidMilne I don’t feel like you’ve provided enough background, or possibly I myself don’t have the necessary background to comment meaningfully about the novelty issue. I’m a pure mathematician, we don’t do confirmation studies. (And we don’t typically reuse language from old papers, except short and very formulaic things like definitions of technical terms.) But I hope I’ve at least partially answered your question.

@DavidMilne Another thought after reading some of your comments: regarding the new paper “not standing on its own”, in math it is quite common for papers to build heavily on earlier papers (by the same or other authors), to the extent that they explicitly say things like “we assume the reader has read section 4 of [citation]”. No one thinks this is strange, or “confusing and cryptic” as you said in your comment. And no thinks it would make sense to reproduce section 4 of the old paper in the new paper when it is readily available for anyone to look up.

"Copying an entire section of the old paper feels a bit like cheating, but rephrasing it just for the sake of avoiding self-plagiarism feels like pointless busy work."
How long is this section that you feel such hesitation towards rewriting it? I'd say just bite the bullet.

Once again, paraphrasing is not a guard against plagiarism or self-plagiarism.

@Buffy It is not, BUT this is a common workaround in experimental sciences where you draw a fine line between needing to explain a methodology for reproducibility, and also avoid direct copying from prior works. I have encountered this issue several times in my career where my group has developed several proprietary methodologies which we reuse over multiple studies. We cannot solely cite previous work because we made slight modifications which are important to note (again for reproducibility). I have had this discussion with editors and their advice is always do your best to differentiate.

I should probably have phrased that better and said I'd say just bite the bullet and REWRITE. I don't condone paraphrasing.