text:
What makes academic failure different from failure in another career?
It is my understanding that academia as a nebulous whole has its own culture and speaks its own language that makes it a very different environment to work in compared to other so-called "industry" jobs.
Indeed, my own supervisor once referred to a former student of his as "having a job", meaning that she now works outside of academia. It's clear that for him, like many other academics, academia (or maybe their own particular field of research) is a vocation or calling, rather than a job.
My question, therefore, is this: why, within the culture of academia, is failure seen or felt to be different from failure in another career? What is special about academia that makes missing out on a postdoc or permanent job so different from missing out on any other industry job?
The question that inspired this one: How to deal with unavoidable failure? which asks how to deal with not being selected for a tenure-track job.

"academia [...] is a vocation or calling, rather than a job": An unfortunate belief that in the academic history has made more damage than a nuclear bomb, and the mother of many burnouts among young PhD students.

@MassimoOrtolano Why is this an unfortunate belief? The "professionalisation" perspective  of academia has seeped in from the US to Europe after the war and the blessings of it are decidedly mixed: "publish or perish", "grants or grunts", "training" instead of "education", "customers" instead of "students", "scientific output gatekeeping through peer review"  and so on. Your cited PhD burnout owes not insignificantly to this, rather than the vocational interpretation of academic jobs. The characterisation as unfortunate belief is not at all well argued.

I'll introduce a bit of skepticism.  Do we actually know that failure in academia is seen or felt to be different to failure in another career?  If so how do we know?  What was measured?  How different were they?

@Massimo Ortolano and that's the answer to the question right there.

To the close-voters: what makes this question more opinion-based than e.g. our highest-voted question about how to deal with discouragement as a grad student? This question may not have a "definite" answer, but it has already attracted helpful and informative answers.

My two cents: anyone can work a job - its just a source of income.  A career is what youre passionate about. Universities by and large require doctorates for employment - implying the individual has enough interest to take it that far.  I dont know about you, but I wouldnt want a teacher who thought of it as their 9-5 and bailed when they could. An effective teacher is one who is passionate about the subject and about teaching. They make their subjects both fun and intriguing for the students too. Thats how a teacher should be.  They say, if you love what you do, you never "work a job".

@CaptainEmacs The non-professionalization of academia has fostered it's own negatives - a culture that doesn't believe in going home at the end of the day, the resistance to giving PIs any training in management, and, I suspect, a number of the cultural norms that allow abusive PIs to get away with it.
But I do know a number of my peers who essentially got off the academic treadmill, and one of the things oft cited were much better working conditions.

@Fomite "Doesn't believe in going home at the end of the day" [citation required] Of course, many passionate people do not just drop the pen at the end of the day, but the personality of creative people is very different. Some people work best according to strict schedules, others require freedom to do their best job. If a person tries to emulate a work style that does not fit them, that creates conflict. Abuse exists in professionalized as well as in non-professionalized contexts, and it is only relatively recent that this issue is tackled systematically. It's not a non-prof'd monopoly.

You might be interested: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05838-y

@CaptainEmacs But Massimo Ortolano was talking about the fact that people consider leaving academia for another job as failing, because they don't think academia is a job like any other, but something inherently better than that.

@sgf An artist who gives up on art will feel similarly to a scientist who has left academia. Sometimes, they can turn their specialty into an advantage, but usually, having to leave a field where one has invested a lot of heartblood into feels like a loss. I would argue that to some extent that's even the case for a professional who has spent a lot of time acquiring a particular type of skill to find out that he cannot find a market for that. An example would be OS wars or being expert with particular frameworks. So, it is not necessarily specific to academia, but to one's investment.

I think the reason is simply that a lot of people go into academia with the, often unrealistic, goal of becoming a professor. No matter the circumstances, if you don't get to the point where you want to be, well, you can call it a failure, can't you?
This is aggravated by the pyramid structure of academia, where there are fewer positions available for every stage of the career, and most early-career positions are temporary. So you are statistically unlikely to reach your goal in the first place, and if you don't manage to do it during the standard time period, well, going to e.g. industry is your best bet. Outside of academia, on the other hand, if you don't get that managerial promotion or raise this time, maybe there's another chance coming a couple of years down the line. And you can keep working on similar things in the meantime.
So, the 'failure' in industry is likely less permanent, causing less anxiety. On top of that, you have the survivorship bias due to those who got their permanent positions. It affects the academic atmosphere, and can influence what is seen as success and failure. This is also affected by the field: Compare say petroleum engineering and mathematics PhD candidates, and you'll likely see different attitudes about private jobs.

So you are statistically unlikely to reach your goal in the first place - Is this really true?  At least in my field, I don't think the picture is so bleak (say for a path from grad school to faculty member), if you're not too specific about goals and you realize some people change goals over time.

@Kimball I'm sure there are differences between fields, and I'm coming at this from a STEM perspective. My impression is also that a lot of people who change their goal do so in response to the odds, or the realization that industry offers more certain rewards for a reasonable level of effort.

FYI I am also in STEM (in math in the US) and my rough impressionistic sense is that math PhDs are less likely to be real "failures" than successes.  Cf. https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/44187/19607

@Kimball applied math or pure?

@SSimon Pure math.  Do you have a different experience with applied math?

@Kimball yes pure math is difficult to find,

@Kimball Ok, I'm in physics, which in my experience has a higher average number of PhD students per professor, but I don't necessarily disagree. Yes, people usually succeed in their own right, but my answer is about specifically failing to have, or giving up on, that academic research career.

~50% of my field goes on to a tenure-track position, and my field has an unusually high placement rate. "Statistically unlikely" is absolutely the appropriate term.

@Anyon: Do you mean "professor" in the US sense (a person who teaches at a University), or the UK sense (a rather senior academic).

@MartinBonner I mean it in the sense of a senior academic with a more or less permanent position (which, incidentally is also how my US university uses the title). I don't know if there's a better all-encompassing term.

But there are fair share of people in "industry" aiming for CEO, COO, CTO or other positions which there also aren't incredibly many spots for.

Just a follow up question  - do every body goes to grad school in the hope of joining academia .

@motiur Well, no. For example, at the beginning of grad school my cohort had an (unscientific) poll about it. A majority of us wanted to go into academia, but a sizable minority wanted to build skills for more specialized industry jobs. Still, while the jury's still out, I doubt that a majority of those who wanted to go into academia will find a permanent position there.

@mathreadler Right, there'll always be a limited number of spots at the top. The main point is that not getting that spot is less of a problem if you're not forced out of your current field/sector.

@Anyon: What would force you out of your position as a non-tenured professor/research engineer who is liked for your work at your local institution?

@mathreadler Non-tenure track positions, or research scientists in my field tend not to have the ticking clock problem, but they're also not very common, and may be on soft money. Anyway, I'm mainly thinking about people in the postdoc stage, or, more rarely, tenure track professors denied tenure (especially at lower ranked institutions).

@Anyon What is the ticking clock problem? That we are all going to die no matter our form of employment?

Many other careers are not structured around "success" and "failure" in the same way that academia is, and the jobs that are are acknowledged to be high stress. I agree strongly with what Anyon mentions about the pyramid structure of academia, as well as survivorship bias. Jack Aidley also nicely captures the difference that "In most careers you do not 'fail' you simply cease being promoted." Here are a few other ways that the idea of failure is omnipresent in academia. (This is from a U.S. perspective, and I do not know how widely it pertains elsewhere.)
First, success or failure is very personalized and visible in academia. Academics are not very interchangeable: like artists and few other professions, everyone does the job differently and produces creative output. It is often hard to separate yourself from your work (whether being critiqued or praised). Further, on the research side each person is essentially an entrepreneur who is their own publicity, branding, fundraising, management (if there's a lab or students to supervise), R&D, and administrative department. There's a lot of personal investment in this job, and failure cuts deeper into the sense of self than in other jobs.
Second, in other jobs, most people are rarely evaluated by strangers, and often the people evaluating them are invested in their success. Performance evaluations in offices are usually with co-workers and they are often two-way. Managers and HR folks often care about improving the workforce they have, rather than going through the hiring process again. In contrast, the entire tenure process seems designed to give people anxiety (which a professor complained to me about when I was a grad student--he was worried another professor was working against his tenure case). The tenure process is a years-long audition, after which you can be essentially told that you no longer have a job in whatever tiny college town you uprooted yourself to live in. In most industry or government jobs, there's much more flexibility to move between jobs (not just one big annual switch), less stigma about switching jobs, and often lots of small evaluations rather than a few huge hurdles.
Third, academics need to "hustle," constantly seeking new opportunities for funding, research materials, ideas, and labor. Both applying for funding and submitting papers are processes with routine failure built in, and it can be somewhat opaque what is being sought. (Not to mention that the content of research may turn out not to lead anywhere interesting, after all.) However, many jobs don't have such stark success and failure. Annual sales income is a continuous number, or the quality of a project is within a range of acceptability. In many occupations you can gain or lose clients, but usually no one client is crucial. In the industries where grants or contracts are key sources of funding, there are large teams devoted to the project, and often a lot of projects in the pipeline. In contrast, academics are often pretty much alone in their success or failure, and for someone "on the tenure clock," how a particular project turns out--which may have a large random component to it--may change their tenure case substantially.
Fourth, professors are hired not only for what they can do right now, but an entire track record of what they have done and how they are likely to adapt over time in the future. Especially in combination with the large number of people with PhDs competing for a small number of tenure track jobs, this rewards people who have very linear career paths, moving from success to success. Many people worry about deviations from the norm, as well as about failures.
Some of these components are present in other jobs. I mention these other jobs not to compare who has it better, but to point out that things like high-stakes evaluation based on partly random outcomes is not a universal trait of many jobs, while it characterizes investment banking and (I argue) academic research.

Investment bankers are often individually held responsible for their performance, a lot of which relies on investment markets, which have a large random component.
Writers face a lot of the same problems with submissions and rejections, but writing is very rarely their main job. (That has its own problems...)
Salespeople have to deal with a lot of rejection and often work on commission. Their job and their salary are contingent on their success. However, there are low hurdles to switch in and out of sales, and often people can hedge their bets by working part-time at another job. (The precarity that goes with sales and service jobs is also part of what adjunct instructors--aspiring academics--face.)
Doctors need to pass a lot of hurdles on the way to their profession, and not getting past a hurdle may mean that one is saddled with lots of debt without a lucrative career. Then, depending on which field of medicine, failure may mean a patient dies or has bad complications. These sorts of consequences have a legal and financial complications, on top of the large emotional toll. Doctors may also have to relocate nationally or internationally if/when they switch jobs.
Founders of start-up businesses will have many of the same pressures as professors (the same people must develop and execute ideas while securing funding, with large personal investment). However, failure is a celebrated part of the culture in, say, Silicon Valley, and the potential financial rewards are tremendous. (The restaurant industry also has serial entrepreneurs, though with less potential payoff.)

While each of those jobs mentioned above has a lot of judgment of and consequences around failure, those descriptions hopefully remind you that these extreme conditions around failure are largely NOT present in many other common jobs (service industry, teacher, programmer, manager, IT person, mechanic, engineer, nurse, technician, counselor, administrator, banker, accountant, office clerk, interpreter...).

Other jobs are frequently evaluated by strangers, and people are their own publicist, branding expert and fundraiser. To take the fairly common example of someone who wants to turn a 12 month contract into a permanent job, convincing your direct supervisor that, if they had the budget, they should spend it on you is the easy part. Getting them the information they need to get that budget is the hard part, and it cannot be done without convincing people you don't (or barely) know

@Scott You're right that contractors (and freelancers) share many of these stressors, but it is still a little surprising to me academia is seen as such a stable career given the uncertainty pre-tenure.

contracts are making up such a high proportion of work in my city, to the point where entering a permanent job without having a stint as a contractor is considered noteworthy. Regardless, even for those in permanent positions, if you want any sort of fair treatment around promotions and pay rises, you need to convince the top of the chain that the company would be best off paying you more money, not your direct supervisor.

"There's a lot of personal investment in this job" I think this is the most important one, as it seems present at all stages of a career in academia. Apart from failure having a larger impact, this also can lead to failing to create healthy work boundaries, which risks burn-outs or other problems.

Some of this answer ("tenure", "tiny college town", and doctors saddled with a lot of debt) is quite specific to the US (and possibly Canada).

Really excellent summary of academic life. This should be expanded into a detailed essay and handed out to everyone who is contemplating a life in academia. Or even contemplating a PhD.

What does "failure is a celebrated part of the culture [for founders of start-up businesses]" mean?

@user2768 many entrepreneurs who later become successful will have previously have in their past a number of businesses which failed. Often, if it's due to market conditions, etc, this isn't seen as a problem. People even celebrate "lessons learnt" in their previous projects. This just doesn't happen in academia. You are pretty much dropped like a stone at your first substantial failure. There's no "coming out of bankruptcy" in academia: that's it, change career.

@FaheemMitha Thanks! Please feel free to share the post, and/or expand on it. Also, before I applied to graduate school, I found it helpful to read Lovitts' [Leaving the Ivory Tower: The Causes and Consequences of Departure from Doctoral Study(http://www.worldcat.org/title/leaving-the-ivory-tower-the-causes-and-consequences-of-departure-from-doctoral-study/oclc/45393394) (AJS review here). It investigates common structural problems in U.S. doctoral education.

@gerrit Yes, you're entirely right, and the "tiny college town" need not be the case in the U.S./Canada. I edited to note the geographic specificity. (I do think some of the pressure around "failure" in academia arises from job structure and culture. Political factors like tenure or health care that isn't conditional on employment are important structural factors that change the dynamics. Other cultural factors, like whether doctors take on debt and whether teachers are respected and well-paid also change whether more risk-averse people interested in academia have other good options.)

@user6697063 I partly agree, but academics fail too, e.g., papers get rejected, papers fail to make the expected impact, ... Aren't these failures similar to the entrepreneur with a number of business ideas that failed?

@Scott: "it cannot be done without convincing people you don't (or barely) know" - that is true, but be aware that often, these people will in one way or another be "superiors" who have been and will be giving you tasks at some level of abstraction. At the very least, the evaluation is, to some extent, based upon how well you lived up to expectations that are usually more specific than "have an interesting idea and manage to 'sell' it to 'the community'". This reduces the random component to some extent.

@Scott try and have some faith. Quite some of the people who have the means to invest make really sure they are well informed about who can and who can't do stuff.

@user2768 You're right, and the paper-level rejections are small setbacks but are not the huge problems, until they add up. It's striking out on the job market a few years in a row, or being denied tenure that are the especially difficult kinds of failure. That's kind of like the bankruptcy point--no one is willing to fund your ideas. I'd tag this as failure for academics or entrepreneurs, but sometimes entrepreneurs can get further funding for a new startup after that point, whereas most universities will be extremely wary of hiring someone as an academic after that.

@O.R.Mapper - yes, you get given tasks by these people (abstracted up to make money, don't get angry customers, don't get angry regulators), then you get insufficient resourcing to achieve all three goals, then you get judged by someone who doesn't know you enough to know if you failed a possible task, or an impossible one.
I don't think it's random to any extent - just can you convince a stranger that it is worth them investing to allow you to meet the targets they have set for you. These people don't know you, and don't like giving away money.

@Scott: "yes, you get given tasks by these people (abstracted up to make money, don't get angry customers, don't get angry regulators)" - what kind of contractors are we talking about here? Are there really companies contracting people to "make money" in some open-ended way, and it's up to those contractors whether they end up opening a restaurant, offering a taxi service, or making fortunate choices at the stock market? And are these contractors really a significant portion of all the contractors "in [your] city", compared to contractors with much more narrowly defined tasks such as ...

... salespeople (who get contracted to market a specific set of products), drivers (who get contracted for specific tours, events, or vehicles), freelance programmers (who get contracted for a specific project), etc.?

I don't think anyone will be able to answer this question for certain. Here's my personal guess.
Many academics have never left academia before. Instead, they've gotten where they are by excelling in the traditional school system. They topped their high school class, their undergraduate class, and then their graduate class. At all stages they saw less-competent (for want of a better word) colleagues drop out and do something else. To fail to become a professor, then, is to acknowledge that one is also "less competent". For people who've always been the best among their peers, this is unacceptable. Hence they feel academic failure is different.
I suspect that people who have left academia before are much less concerned about academic failure. They have already left academia before, and are less afraid of doing it again.

@Science12345 Fascinating, I thought mostly this was an unspoken consensus, rather than something actually taught to the newcomers.

In most careers you do not "fail" you simply cease being promoted.
What makes the academic career structure different is that the middle part of the career is a mire of temporary contracts in which it is usually not possible to stay. I cannot simply carry on being a Postdoc for the next twenty years, whereas in my previous career as a programmer I could have simply continued working at the same level for the rest of my working life. This effect is worsened because academic careers are not only temporary but also usually require mobility so that you lose not only secure employment but also established roots in an area.
Academia is, of course, not alone in this, and some careers - e.g. acting - have even worse career progressions but it is distinct from, I would say, most careers where relative stasis is possible. It is still possible to fail in these careers by being fired, failing to get into them in the first place, etc. but this is different from the narrowing, insecure, structure of academia.

Many military tracks are like this. For example, commissioned officers in the US Navy are generally considered "up or out" tracks. You can spend a few years as a Lt. Officer of the Watch on some destroyer, but if that's all you want to do you will eventually be forced into retirement and replaced with some Lt. who has his eye on the Captain's chair.

But this is the case in academia too! You can stop "advancing" at PhD / post doc level, get a position as research engineer, assistant professor or lecturer in a group and if the full professor and department likes you you can likely stay for the next 20-30 years.

It seems then that the Peter Principle doesn't apply to Academia.

Exactly this: you can't keep doing postdocs forever because a) those contracts are usually temporary and B), and after a while staying a postdoc for too long makes it harder to get a permanent position. So it makes it impossible to "stagnate" at this point of your career. And I don't really see you can stop "advancing" without "failing" - research engineer positions are still often regarded as non-academic ( = "academic failure"), and lecturer is already a permanent position, and a big step up and achievement from PhD / postdoc.

Plus, unlike industry, in academia it is very hard if not impossible to "get back to it later". (As somebody who only spent a few months working in industry), my feeling is that it is much simpler to switch focus or topic in industry, acquire new expertise and keep moving between same-(middle)-level positions. As a postdoc ("middle" position between a PhD and a permanent post), if you decide to "do something different" (e.g. go to industry) for a few years, the gap left in your publication record makes it very difficult to restart that career.

I suspect that it is not generally true that failure is so different in academia and outside academia and that this depends (at least a little) on the academic system.
Here what I think why failure in the German academic system is different from failing in industry jobs (it is just a little exaggerated):
There are three kinds of jobs in the German academic system:

Jobs that have a specific education as a goal.
Jobs in projects.
Permanent positions.

The jobs in category 1 and 2 are always on a time limited contract. The jobs in category 3 are almost exclusively professorships. If you plan to stay in academia permanently in Germany, you have to get a professorship (with very few exceptions). There is no inherent promotion like there is in many other sectors. No matter how great you are doing as a postdoc, the university will never promote you to a professor (it just can't - there are some rare exceptions, which may look and feel like promotions, but in fact are not).
So, there is a bar and it is set quite high. If you can't jump over it, you'll have to leave eventually.
It would be nice to complement this answer by an answer from a country which has some possibilities of promotion and permanent jobs in academia (as far as I know, France and the UK qualify)…

Exists in Sweden too.  When I was a PhD student in Sweden, all group members apart from the PhD students were German, seeking a future in Sweden because chances at permanent positions are so much higher there.

The situation in the UK is no better, and Germany benefits from better science funding and better pay for the lower levels (Postdoc pay is considerably higher, for example).

@jackaidley I won't argue with that, but your remark seems off topic here. The question is not about different systems in different countries.

@Dirk I'm confused, I was replying to your question in the final paragraph. The UK does not have a better system than Germany for this (I did my PhD in the UK and am now doing a postdoc in Germany so I'm familiar with both)

"If you can jump over it, you'll have to leave eventually." I assume that should read "can't".

@JackAidley My remark was triggered by the general statement "no better". I do not think that the level ofpay is all that relevant, for example, but my point is, that the main factors for the feeling of dramatic failure are no possibilities for promotion and the very low number of permanent positions.

I'd like to add that what I've seen and experienced in Germany the failure is even worse from a research perspective: a professorship is basically an administrative position - professors in my experience are maybe research managers, but not researchers any more. Combined with the described climb or die, this boils down to the fact that it is almost impossible to stay in academia if you want to be a researcher in Germany.

Also, the fact that type 2 jobs are time contracts is certainly uncomfortable, but for this question I think an (even) worse aspect is that the extreme pyramid-shape of academic hierarchy basically means that at any level below professor, anyone not being ambitious for climbing this hierarchy is perceived as "blocking" the chances of some more junior researcher who wants/needs their try at climbing. Which still wouldn't be so bad, if the attitude were that moving into industry is a perfectly fine (and intended - see type 1) career move instead of branding this as "academic failure".

As somebody doing a postdoc and looking for permanent positions in the UK, as far as I am aware, there is no such thing as "internal promotions" to Lecturer positions (the lowest UK permanent). And more over, according to some of the German professors from my team, the permanent positions are "less permanent" in the UK as you can in fact be fired if you fail your consecutive yearly evaluations, while in Germany (I believe, and some other countries for sure), the permanent positions are really permanent and one can't be fired other than in extreme cases of gross misconduct.

I think it is not different than many other careers.  A couple, both medical doctors, feeling their son (who wants to be a rock musician) is wasting his life.  On the other hand, a talented musician who decides to go to medical school, so the other musicians are all saying, "What a waste!"  Many of us tend to think our own profession is the most noble, most gratifying, most valuable.  But is that not a form of "prejudice" when we consequently feel that others are somehow less?
Ph.D. advisors should prepare their charges not only for academic careers, but also for other careers.  But they may not always do that.

Many of us tend to think our own profession is the most noble, most gratifying, most valuable. Citation needed, I disagree. 37% of British workers think their job is meaningless. Higher in London. Indeed, when I've spoken people who work in insurance or in procurement for a large consultancy company, they usually think my work as a climate scientist (albeit near the bottom of the pyramid with no prospects for a permanent position any time soon) seems a lot more interesting or relevant than their own.

@gerrit It's true that a lot of jobs, particularly in service type industries, have little intrinsic interest. That's part of what draws people to academia/research. The chance at a life of meaningful work. Often, of course, it doesn't work out that way.

@FaheemMitha Ah, I read most of us as most people. If one reads it as most people working in academia, then I do agree (but still citation needed).

I did not say "most of us" I said "many of us".  I assert (without reference) that many (but not most) non-academics also have this attitude about their professions.  My examples (physicians and musicians) are only a few of the many possibilities.

@GEdgar Relatively high-powered "professionals" (for lack of a better term), might. Many people don't. I expect they comprise the numerical majority by far. Though, having said that "37% of working British adults say their job is not making a meaningful contribution to the world" seems high to me. That's a strong statement to make about one's own work.

It does not follow from the fact that many PhDs will not work in academia that advisors/programmes/whatever should prepare students for work outside academia, any more than a drama school should be preparing their students to work outside acting, or an accountancy course should teach people to be a footballer.

@JackAidley: but then, PhDs are increasingly treated as part of the professional training (chemistry, Germany). I suspect this is to offset the fact that actually fully trained and responsible (if junior) professionals are assigned to research projects (PhD) on half wage (and the freedom to choose and steer where your PhD project goes basically does not exist, so that doesn't balance the situation [any more]). In addition, I do have the impression that there's is often a rather arrogant attitude behind this. Looking at the quality of academic/industrial research, I don't think ths justified.

+1 for should prepare for careers outside academia. Just looked up some numbers: apparently in Germany, we have about twice as many people working in industrial research and development than in academia including non-university research (such as Max Planck, Helmholtz, Leibniz, Fraunhofer institutes).

Because failure is often unrelated to the skills or effort. If it turns out your research question is badly chosen, that a new approach is worse compared to existing ones, if others publish your idea a couple of months ahead of you, if you cannot do the experiment needed because your advisor started a beef with the head of the lab your experiment is conducted in, if you get no more grant money, etc.
Everybody knows that it could happen and do not judge failed academics that harshly. Usually people starting a PhD are smarter than the average.
The way out of failure is also kind of easy: go to industry or take a job in administration.

This is true and it is an important lesson to learn in life. Perseverance in the face of seemingly completely random stressful failures is king. Sooner or later one needs to learn that, (even if not on an academic path).

I found that there's an interesting discrepancy in the perceived risk of failure for projects: once, someone from the grant/funding agency who acted as external controller on one of our projects told us that this line of grant applications considers proposals only if they judge the risk of failure to be > 80%. Inside academia, failure of project is basically not contemplated...

There is no difference between failure per-se, but if you fail to get a follow-up position you are basically 'forced' to leave the academic world and find a job in the industry. Many people choose academia for a reason, and thus, switching to an industry job is basically not what they want, but academic jobs are often more rare than industry jobs.
No matter why a person prefers the academic world over an industry job, if they have to leave, because they cannot find another academic position this is entails a larger personal change than if you have to switch from industry job to industry job, because you did not get the one industry job, you wanted.

Yes, the one-attempt part of academia is very difficult. Maybe it's like having the opportunity to qualify for the Olympics, where people who might be able to make it don't want to miss out on that rare window of opportunity. (You're right to bring up this aspect of academia, and it's hard to describe or think of any other parallels in other parts of life.) (Then again, in fields where there are "professors of practice" or where people have research jobs at professional schools, there may be more openness to people coming back to academia after working in industry.)

In my field, career success is driven mostly by getting lucky at multiple important points where it is determined if you get promoted or not. These points include:

Acceptance to top PhD program
Acceptance by a good advisor, where good is defined by having the ability, time, and interest in training and promoting their student
Acceptance of early work by conferences or journals
Acceptance into a high-status tenure-track position upon completion of the PhD

At each step, a good deal of luck is required to get the promotion.
This means many high ability people get rejected at each step, and many low ability people get promoted at each step.
The reason failure is looked on so harshly by the successful is it allows them to ignore the role of luck in their own success. If failures can be dismissed as low ability, it means all the successful must be high ability.
Academics are generally elitists who believe in and promote the myth of meritocracy. Yet most of them want tenure, which by definition is a rejection of meritocracy.
This is a strong example of the fundamental attribution error and self-serving bias, two types of attribution bias.

"Academics are generally elitists who believe in and promote the myth of meritocracy." Absolutely.

Failure in academia - as someone who has worked in academia for over 15 years, I can assure you there is no such thing as failure in academia. The way tenure track positions are given to candidates often lacks any metric scheme or logic for that matter. This has nothing to do with publication records or number of citations. In fact, I would go as far as to say that in 90% of all tenure track positions given, it doesn't go to the strongest candidate, but to the one who poses the least threat (in terms of competition) to the folks in the department. No search committee hires a candidate who is making any of them look bad.
Now, at Harvard, ETH, Cambridge, or schools of this calibre, this is likely to be different. Junior Professors there may have been on "watch lists" for a while and their hiring is almost entirely based on "success", and positions there go to top-notch candidates. This is a reason as to why these top schools are where they are. But to all those who scored a tenure track position at a mediocre Uni I have to say: congrats, you were most likely perceived as the least threat to your new colleagues!
Then, I have seen folks making it to be full Professor with a publication record that is easily topped by many "top-dog" postdocs from those better schools. The problem in academia is that once someone reaches tenure, there is usually no way someone can fail. As one comment above said: "in industry you cease to get promoted", unfortunately, in academia, promotion does not cease and there is also no mechanism to reprimand low performance or to hold an academic accountable for anything really (unless for grabbing a student's butt or so).
I fully agree, working outside of academic is like having a 'real job', because there are consequences to your actions, there are promotions and demotions, or redundancy. None of this applies to tenured academics, so it is not like a real job. It is like the rich kid from next door, who can afford to pursue his/her art career with the backing of their parents' cash.
Academia turns a nightmare for most who attempt and a dream for those who managed to get tenured. Its not a calling, its not a job, its like being fortunate to get well paid (often through pubic funds) to pursue a passion.


text:
Will leaving a PhD program show on my transcript?
I just finished my 2nd year in a social science program and decided to stop. I received an MA at the end of this school year. I have decided to leave without finishing, however I do not want to leave the program without a job offer. So I hope to search for jobs (while completing an MS degree, which is over half way done now) in the next year and exit.
Here is my question. Although I will have two Master's degrees upon leaving the PhD program, will leaving the PhD program show on my transcript? Will that negatively affect my chance of getting a business-related job? You know, for people who recently graduated, companies will always look at their transcript.
Thanks a lot for the output!

Why does it matter? Deciding part way into a PhD that it is not the right thing for you, dropping out, and getting an industry job is quite common. It may even be the best explanation for two master's degrees.

What is the definition of 'a social science program' and 'the PhD program'?

I've seen people list on a CV things like "completed 2 years of PhD program." I've also heard speakers introduced as having completed two years in a PhD program (with the understanding that they did not continue).

Normal PhD attrition rates are anywhere between 50% to 66%, and at some institutions and in some fields is as high as 90%. It's common to decide not to finish a PhD, and I doubt anyone who cares will discredit you for it.

@David +1 for info. Could I get the source of these numbers?

@Coder These are called PhD Attrition/Completion data. Individual fields typically have their own organization that tracks their data specifically, but some sources do aggregate this data into a larger whole. For example, the Taulbee Survey (google it) tracks all of this data for computer science PhDs.  Individual departments also track this data, although I don't know if they consider it public knowledge or not. Here is a general survey I just found with a google search: http://www.phdcompletion.org/resources/cgsnsf2008_sowell.pdf

@David Thank you very much for the source and further information. It really helps in understanding the comp. sc. PhD rate.

Even if your transcript does not explicitly say "left a Ph.D. program," anyone who sees that you have two masters degrees in related areas can make a reasonable guess that you have left a Ph.D. program.  It's also the sort of things that's reasonably likely to come up in discussion of your academic background.
If you are applying for industry jobs at an appropriate level (i.e., Masters or equivalent), this should not inherently be a problem.  In some cases, it may even be a good thing---for example, if you left because you were more interested in focusing on implementation or real-world impact.
In short: if you have good reason for leaving your Ph.D. program and heading for a particular segment of industry, I would advise you to own that and embrace it as a positive part of why you are making a move towards the jobs that you are applying to.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Poor Master's grade but demonstrably passionate about the field- do I stand a chance of getting a funded PhD place?
I am graduating with a pass grade in my Master's degree from a good university in London.  I want to apply for a PhD scholarship at the University of Sheffield in non-communicable diseases.
I did public health undergraduate degree and became interested in non-communicable diseases in low income countries as it's a neglected area overshadowed by the high rate of infectious diseases. I wrote my undergraduate thesis in this area. I also have a personal interest in this field because I lost my mum to cancer within one year of her diagnosis. My pass grade in the Master's can partially be explained due to difficulties with illness.
Do I stand a chance of gaining my desired PhD place, taking into account the medical reasons for the low grade and my proven interest in the field?

I don't understand the question. "My question is do I stand a chance since I cannot think of any other PHD that is well suited to what I want to pursue?" - what is the reason why you wouldn't have a chance?

Thomas King, I am graduating with a pass masters  and ofcourse they need a distinction or high merit. But i am passionate about this field and my undergraduate and postgraduate thesis have all been on the subject of non communicable diseases in low income countries. can that suffice to make up for the poor grade.

Your sentences are somehow... too long. Use more "," characters. And "I" is always uppercase on English.

The obvious answers is: ask (University of Sheffield, not us) informally whether a (formal) application has any chances of success.
From my own experience in the UK, that answer depends (1) on which agency is funding the PhD studentship and (2) on any (additional) rules applied by the University/Department. AFAIK, research-council funded studentships in the UK require a minimum grade of 2.1 (upper second) in (any) undergraduate degree (but exceptions may be possible, I'm not sure). So if prior to said master course (where I assume you only obtained a 3) you managed that, this would be fine (I know a PhD student in a UK Physics Dept, who obtained only a 2.2 in UG Physics from Oxford, but has previously graduated with a first in architecture, which sufficied to satisfy the rule).

First of all, all you can do is apply, and as Walter said, you may be able to ask through informal channels what your chances are.
Second, it may depend on the program you're applying to, and how holistic their application evaluation process is.
Finally, really do consider whether going right into a Ph.D. program is the right choice for you.
I understand your lower grades are partially (or even mostly) due to external influences (believe me, I understand), and grades don't reflect the whole student, but they are one indication. Your grief about your mother will likely continue to complicate matters, so how are you doing in that area? How raw is it for you still? Under objective scrutiny, are your focus, decision-making, and emotional stability representative of the you that you want to expose to the rigors of a Ph.D. program? Or should you give yourself a little more space before you start?
Another question in this area is, are your low grades indicative at all that, maybe, you have a passion for public health but possibly not in this field? What changes do you want to effect in public health, and is your current field where that work happens or is it actually another field? (An extreme example would be if you're really more interested in public health policy where a law background would serve you better or public health infrastructure where you actually need engineering, or something along those lines.)
And I'm sure you've exhausted this question there and back again, but is this the right program for you? Of course, the right program is not the best one but rather the one that is in line with where you want to go. I can't say one way or the other about your grades, but you should at least be applying to a program that has a focus on public health and especially one that values your passion, even if they can't admit you in your current situation.
Just remember that a Ph.D. is an extraordinarily demanding thing, and that there are definitely people who regret the experience. If it is going to be a positive and productive step in your life and career, you need to be solid on the reasons you're there. It's especially worth evaluating a little extra if you're motivated at all by momentum, like if you stop, you won't be able to restart.
I may be completely off-base with my advice. I just had to say it just in case you're like me, because so much of what you describe is exactly where I was earlier in my life. Ultimately, if you want to apply, apply. If you're on the fence, explore your other options and then make your decision. There are likely many more than you imagine. And if you're just waiting on tenterhooks to hear back, best of luck!

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


text:
Do I need a mathematical background to study astrophysics?
I don't know where to ask this question and I have found this site. If this is not the right place to ask it, please tell me and I will delete it.
I've been a computer engineer for 20 years but my true vocation is astronomy and astrophysics.
This autumn I'm thinking to start an astrophysics degree but I don't know if I need to do a transition year because I don't remember a lot of the mathematics and physics that I studied 20 years ago.
I'm interested in studying mathematics at university also, so I thought that I could start off studying mathematics first and then physics.
What do you think?
I ask it because physics has a lot mathematics and I don't know if it is better to study mathematics first and then physics.
In a nutshell:

I'm a computer engineer that has ended his studies twenty years ago (I
  don't remember a lot of things about mathematics and physics) and I
  want to learn astrophysics. Do I need a transition year or maybe I can
  start studying mathematics (that is something that I want to do) first
  and then astrophysics?

Do you mean that you're interested in a Master's or PhD in Math or Physics?  Also, typically, you'd just do one or the other; physicists spend lots of time practicing the math relevant to their field, so you needn't get a degree in Math just to prep for a degree in Physics.

@Nat I want to study astrophysics at the university, maybe this is a degree. And after that, I can do a master's degree and then, if I have more time, the PhD.

So a Bachelor's degree first?

@Nat Yes. I think this is what I want to do.

It's a bit unusual to do a Bachelor's degree if you're already working on a Master's degree (as your profile states).  Do you plan to finish the Master's before enrolling in a Bachelor's?

@Nat I want to do the following: end the current master's degree, after that start the PhD in Artificial Intelligence. And, when I finish the PhD I will start my studies in astrophysics. I'm not sure, but probably I will need to do some subjects before the PhD, and I've thought that I can do these subjects from astrophysics degree.

It's particularly unusual to get a PhD before going back for a Bachelor's, especially with the intent of then getting another PhD after that.  Well, it'd help folks respond if you include these details in your question.  There's probably some risk of the question being closed due to being overly specific to your situation; this risk might be reduced if you can word the question to be more generally applicable to a situation others might encounter.

@Nat Well, you can forget what I'm doing now and keep to my question: I'm a computer engineer that has ended his studies twenty years ago (I don't remember a lot of things about mathematics and physics) and I want to learn astrophysics. Do I need a transition year or maybe I can start studying mathematics (that is something that I want to do) first and then astrophysics?

Speaking from my experience of doing an astrophysics degree in the UK, I would say that you don't need to do a transition year beforehand.
University lecturers are aware that students will be coming from a variety of backgrounds and structure the course to accommodate that. In particular, there will be at least one or two mathematics courses in the first year designed to get everyone on the same page mathematically. For example, in the first semester of my degree I had a module called "Algebra and Calculus" which covered things like set theory, matrices, differentiation, integration etc. Then we had "Further Algebra and Calculus" in the second semester and "Mathematical Physics" (this was about modelling heat transfer, waves on a string etc) in the second year.
Furthermore, if you've already been accepted by a university, then they clearly think you are mathematically prepared enough. If you're still not sure, get in touch with a lecturer or two there and ask about suitable preparation materials; for example, a textbook or old problem sheets you could work on over the summer. If you're in the UK, take a look at the A Level Maths syllabus. This will give you an idea of the typical maths knowledge a first year physics undergrad will be starting with.
Also note that unless you go into very theoretical parts of astrophysics, you won't need that much complex mathematics, and certainly hardly any pure maths, so I wouldn't recommend studying too much of that beforehand, it's not necessary. If you can differentiate, integrate and know what a Fourier transform is, you're basically set.
One caveat: don't go into an astrophysics degree expecting every lecture to have an astro angle. The first half of my degree was almost purely maths and "classical*" physics-- you need that solid foundation before moving on to the specialised topics. Having said that, it makes it all the more worth it when you get there.
*Thermodynamics, optics, lab work etc.


text:
How to deal with inconsistent advice from my advisor?
I've started writing my dissertation after a bit of a disaster with my field research.  I'm getting the type of degree where we collect our data and analyze only after, not during collection.
My advisor has me on a rigorous schedule which I agreed to because I knew she wouldn't accept anything else.  I had my first round of edits from her and then the second and the response to the two was night and day. First she said I did a great job and then she said my chapter was incomplete.  I explained to her (twice) that I wanted to wait to write one of the sections until later and she told me that she is concerned that my paper was late.
I showed her it was not late, and she said, no, she didn't actually mean late, she meant incomplete because of the section I had missed and because I hadn't written 2-3 paragraphs to cap off the end of my sections (which I consider does not render the chapter "incomplete" because I didn't even know I needed them and that's why students send their chapters to their advisors).
This is not the first time this has happened where she says one thing at one point and then another the next.  She's clearly a mircomanager, but I don't know how to deal with somebody who keeps changing their mind. For financial reasons, I can no longer live near my university and all of our communications are over email. I don't have an issue being assertive about my project, but she doesn't seem to respond to that like a lot of recommendations suggest.
I have about a year to go at this point. What do I do?

Mention of "bipolar" is not good here... Maybe "self-inconsistent"?

Have you considered changing supervisor?

When we work on a big project that requires precise thinking and language, it's easy to get into a mindset of wanting the same kind of precision from the people around us.
But sometimes people with sloppy self-expression do have a surprising amount of helpful feedback to offer.
The less defensive you can get the better.  Try to let go of peeves about contradictions and inconsistencies, and try to leverage her comments so as to keep progressing and improving your results and your writing.


text:
US/UK titles vs LATAM ones (Venezuela)
I'm from Venezuela, and of course I got all my education in that country. I need help with converting degree titles into their US/UK equivalents.
For example, in the US/UK you have the B.Sc. grade, and I understand it goes after high school (if I'm correct). Here, Bachelor means graduated from high school.
When you go to university, here we can become technicians (3 years post school), or get a "long scholarship title" (up to 7 years) like engineer, lawyer or surgeon.
After that you can get up to 3 different grades: Specialist (???), Magister (Master) and Doctor (PhD) (2 years each, and all require to do a thesis) or just get a Diploma (a short (1 year or less) course, without thesis).
What is the equivalent of the Specialist title in the US/UK?
I did specialization; I'm more than an engineer, but not a Master. What title should I add if I translate it into English nomenclature?
Thanks in advance for your answers :)
PS: I did the post-degree on informatic

I think there is a reasonable question in here asking about how academic progression works in the US and UK, but  I would suggest focusing on only one country. Asking about a general mapping from one country to another, however, is not a good question since in general the answer is don't convert titles (or grades).

The US is not a particularly heavy user of formal titles, especially compared to, for example, Germany.  Broadly speaking, education goes like this:

High school diploma (year 12, or about age 18)
Technical school, trade school, associates degree (HS +2 years)
Bachelor of Arts/Science (HS +4 years, a typical undergraduate degree)
Master of Arts/Science (BA/BS +2 years)
Juris Doctorate (BA/BS +3 years, law school)
PhD (BA/BS +4-8 years, depending on field)
MD (BA/BS +4 years, medical school, not including residency)

There are more, but these are some common ones.  However, very few of these translate into an actual title that someone would put before (or after) their name.  Generally just medical school and PhD, I think.  Although for specific use within your field, for example on a business card, you can get into all sorts of initials for niche things, like certifications.
Engineer is a big one that gets confusing, having spent some time in central Europe where "engineer" is a designation for anyone who has studied a technical subject beyond undergrad.  In the US, an engineer is someone who studied engineering, and nothing more.  Americans who don't have contact with foreign institutions and individuals would be quite confused at someone calling themselves a "Specialist" or "Magister", as well, since we have no commonly-used equivalent.
A lot of how you handle this will depend on your audience.  Just because "most" Americans won't be familiar with the myriad of possible titles/levels of education doesn't mean the one you want to communicate with isn't.  But very broadly speaking, anything after your undergraduate studies that isn't a PhD, MD or JD, should probably just be referred to as graduate school or a masters.

I am not sure "year 12" means much to someone not familiar with US education. It might be better to label it as "typically age 18" or something like that. Also law school in the US leads to a JD degree (which is not terminal in the way of the PhD or MD) and is typically 3 years.

@StrongBad You're right, I edited those in.  There's also graduate schooling beyond both JD and MD too, I know, but it seemed unnecessary to keep going.

There is an actual specialist degree in the US called Specialist degree
however you may also refere it as a postgraduate study in a particular area


text:
Transitioning from pure mathematics to artificial intelligence
I am studying for a Master's degree in pure mathematics, but still have one year to go with my studies. However, I'm interested in specialising in artificial intelligence and pursuing a PhD. I would also like to work for a start-up that deals with education or robotics. How can I gain the necessary skills to succeed in transitioning from mathematics to AI?

Hi and welcome to Academia SE. I edited your question to make it a bit easier to understand and focus on the details. If I made a mistake with the edit, you can change it by clicking the edit button.

If you already have a Master's degree, what are you studying for at the moment? PhD? By the way, your question may be off-topic on this site as you are asking about skills for a career outside academia.

Programming. 3D-Geometry, kinematics and dynamics (for robotics). Machine Learning methods (statisticial ML and friends), depending on what you are going to do.

@astronat : Hi ! Cheers ! I'm thrilled you've edited my question. I'm studying my master degree I only get the first year for the moment.
It's about choosing a university ! So it's not off topic. And yes I could do a phd if it fits my goals.

It's been a while since you asked this question. I wanted to ask, how did it go? I'm doing my bachelors right now in computer science and I'm thinking of doing masters in math and then phd in computer science with focus on ai,but not sure exactly yet. If you could provide some guidance I would be very thankful.

Congratulations on knowing what you want to do! This already puts you a step above many people who are still unsure.
There is good news and bad news for you, at least based on what you've written.

The good news is that familiarity with pure mathematics can be your biggest strength: formal concepts in AI will come easy to you, even when they may be difficult for others. For example, you likely already have the skills necessary to understand matrix algebra, derivatives of multivariable functions, probability and basic statistics, etc.

The bad news is that there are a lot of others like you -- AI is a very hot field, which draws a lot of interest from undergraduate and master's students in general. This makes getting into good programs more competitive.

Taking coursework, including online if you can't take relevant classes as part of your master's program, should put you in a position where you can get into master's programs as well as possibly weaker PhD programs. While you are still studying math, take classes in probability and statistics. If you want to get into good PhD programs, you will need research experience, so the route to take is to first get a master's (for example) in AI, and try to get to know a professor during that time and do some research in a lab.
Whatever your route, having a good mentor to advise you for your personal situation is critical (I would almost say strictly necessary). So keep this in mind as you look at programs. A large program or online program is less likely to give you a good mentor. Even a mentor in a related area like pure math statistics would be much better than nothing.

Cheers for the answer ! I've taken classes in probability and statistics. Okay so I will write that line "mentor" into a sign ! I'm going to talk with some reseachers in my university.

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


text:
How to approach my PhD advisor after failing a qualifiying exam?
I'm a first-year Ph.D. student in STEM who recently took their qualifying exams, in which we take two.  I absolutely failed one and passed the other with flying colors (according to a faculty member).  Luckily, in my department, I only have to take the one I did not pass. In terms of why I failed, it was a combination of choking and being deficient in one course which I thought could be remedied by self-studying, however, I did not put in the time. In that regard, I absolutely take the blame.
I am stressed about the future because I believe I embarrassed my advisor* by performing quite poorly. As such, he may have revaluated his opinion of me, which could lead to possible termination. After getting the results, he has not spoken to me about what happened.  Without trying to come off as a narcissist, I was recruited by him given my strong research background and graduate coursework from my bachelor's, which allowed me to start doing research the first semester of my doctoral program.  As such, from the very start, I believe there was a lot of pressure to pass the exams with ease.
Given that I am unsure what he is thinking, would it be appropriate to contact him to clear the air?  I assumed he would bring it up, but I can now see two things happening: We don't speak of it or he will approach me at a later time.  This summer interim it was planned I would continue with research.
TLDR: I failed one of two qualifying exams and am unsure of my future with my advisor given that I have already started research.  Should I approach him about it, and how should I continue forward?
*I apologize if this concern comes off as silly, however, I was raised in a household where honor, integrity, and face are extremely important.

Something you should learn for the future: never feel pressured to pass something with ease. You can always just put in the required time and let everyone think it was easy. Your wouldn't believe how many geniuses out there are really mostly very thorough learners instead of hand-wavy-pass-the-exam-with-ease.

which culture are we talking here?

@lalala Probably the US or Canada. Qualifying exams for a PhD aren't a thing in Europe, though I'm not so sure about the rest of the world.

@Crazymoomin well, I know also Singapore has QE. But if it is US or EU then I would say, althout the student cares about face, supervisors usually does not (except his own...). If it is a not US or EU one has to approach this differently.

Thank you everyone for the helpful response, it helps a lot.  My institution is in the US.

You should talk to your advisor.
It's completely natural to feel embarrassed if you have done badly in an exam where everyone was expecting you to do well. It's also natural to feel you have let your advisor down, especially as it sounds in your case they recruited you specifically.
However, from what you have written, I'd say you have more positives than negatives to take away from the situation: you have started a PhD during a global pandemic and passed half your exams with flying colours. You note yourself that you only failed the other exam because you did not study one topic enough -- that shows great maturity and awareness of what can be done to rectify the situation.
Furthermore, everyone fails exams (or does worse than they were hoping or expecting to). I'd wager you're not the first of your advisor's students to have failed an exam -- or even the tenth. Any advisor worth their salt will not take this personally -- instead, their reaction should be "how can I help my student to succeed when they retake the exam?". If their reaction is to drop you as a student due to one failed exam, I'd say you're better off without them, frankly.
So, I counsel you to talk to your advisor, stating what you have done here. You can write it in a email first if that feels more comfortable. State what you plan to do to ensure you pass the exam next time around and ask if they have any advice. You can also ask if you should continue to focus on research over the summer or switch to studying for the retake (this might depend on when you will resit the exam -- is it before the summer?).
The key to any successful collaboration in research, and especially a successful student-supervisor relationship, is communication. Keep an open dialogue from the beginning and you will hopefully not run into problems further down the line.
Don't be afraid to ask your advisor for help: that is what they are there for.

Thank you for the very helpful response.  The qualifiers are offered once a year, so I have some time.  When writing this email, would it be appropriate to keep it short and concise? Also, what sort of response should I expect?

I think the key thing here is talk to your advisor - you need to be more direct and get better feed back face to face (or at least via zoom or on a phone call)

@Chen1579 yes, try to be clear and concise. I don't know what sort of response you should expect as I've never interacted with your advisor. You need to bite the bullet and talk to them, otherwise this fear will continue to impede you if you ever have bigger problems to discuss with them in the future.

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


text:
When submitting a CV as part of my graduate school application, should I include hyperlinks?
I am currently in the process of applying to different PhD programs. As part of my application, I am required to upload a CV. On my CV, I have included hyperlinks to my GitHub home page, my Google Scholar page, and to other GitHub projects that I have worked on. More precisely, my CV was written in LaTeX and uses the hyperref package to create these hyperlinks. I submit these CV's in PDF format with the hyperlinks embedded in them.
Once I upload my CV and preview it, for some universities, the hyperlinks work fine after I upload my CV and preview it. However, for others, the preview seems to remove the hyperlinks from the CV. I use sentences like "see here for details." in my CV, where here is hyperlinked, so removing the hyperlink makes this sentence meaningless. Note that different universities have different methods of previewing the CV, such as opening the CV in the Adobe PDF viewer or in a non-Adobe PDF viewer in another window. Hyperlinks usually work if the CV is opened using the Adobe PDF viewer.
Are people on the graduate admissions committee able to see these hyperlinks and download my CV in PDF format regardless of what the preview looks like?

It's practically certain that someone, somewhere will want to convert your pdfs into dead-tree format. Hyperlinks do not work then...

The question in the title doesn't match that in the body. Which do you really want to know: whether to include the links, or whether the software of a specific university will preserve the links? (If the former, yes, extra information is always good. If the latter, we have no way of knowing.)

The safe, though ugly solution is to rewrite the sentence to say "see Github repository for details: " and type out the url.

@avid learned a new term: dead-tree format. Astronat yeah, I see no problem with this, but one needs to assure that the URL will not change in the future or vanish. I would not rely on URL shortening services.

Using meaningless link text is a terrible practice.

The issues you point to are real and good to pay attention to, but links are too useful to simply not use them in situations like this. Here is how I approach this issue:

Definitely use links (unless there is an explicit prohibition or a guideline discouraging their use), where appropriate. They add a lot and can be very useful to showcase your work and projects (and general tech savvy and resourcefulness).

Don’t use the “click here for blabla” format for links in a PDF document. This would be confusing to someone reading the document on paper or on a PDF from which the link has been stripped. Instead the link text should be equal to the URL it links to (although it’s okay, and may be preferable, to strip the “https://“ header). Example: “see academia. stackexchange.com for blabla”.

In general, don’t assume that any reader can or will visit the link. The document must stand on its own and make sense even if the links end up being stripped out. So, consider the links as extras that can add useful context but don’t use them to communicate any critically important information.

Link text should be styled (color, underlining, monospace font etc) so it’s easily seen and understood as a link.

Don’t point to web pages with very long URLs that clutter up the page and will lead to visually jarring line breaks (which LaTeX’s hyperref package doesn’t handle well). If the URL is somewhat long but not too long, consider putting it in a footnote and shrinking the font size.

Don’t use URL shorteners to get around the issue of long URLs. They obfuscate the link destination and require the reader to visit the link to find out where it points to, which is an annoyance and a security issue.

My university provides a link-shortening service (that ends in .edu). What would you think of using that?

@AzorAhai link shorteners are useful for some purposes, and it’s nice of your university to provide this option, but I still wouldn’t use it for a CV.

Thanks for the advice! I have decided to use citations marks such as "[1]" and "[2]" in place of URL's, and then created a references section at the end of my CV that lists the URL's associated with these citation marks. Sort of like the references section in a normal technical report. What do you think about this approach?

@mhdadk I guess it’s okay, but you’re making the reader click a PDF intralink to get to an external hyperlink? Sounds like an unnecessary inconvenience to me.

@DanRomik Yes that's what I'm doing. I think the problem with including the URL's directly in the text is that it makes it cluttered, as I am using several links, but thanks a lot for the advice!

It's obviously impossible for us to know whether the software used by certain universities preserves the hyperlinks in your pdf. However, if they're not shown in the preview, it's safer to assume that the hyperlinks will not be present in the final version seen by an admissions committee.
What can you do instead? The safest option is to rephrase your sentence to say something like "see Github repository for details: www.github.com/myrepo", including the url in full. You can use the \url{} command in LaTeX to hyperlink the url even when it's written out in full. This preserves the original functionality, while ensuring that the information is not lost with a hyperlink in the body of the text.
Furthermore, from an accessibility standpoint, it is generally considered better practice to write urls out in full, as those with visual impairments who use screen readers may not be able to properly interpret the sentence "more details available here" where "here" is a hyperlink.
As mentioned by @avid in the comments, inevitably someone who reads your documents will want to print them off and look at the hard copy. Again, a hyperlink in the text is useless to them, but the full url will at least let them know where to look.
Finally, as noted by @stephanmg in the comments, make sure that when you add these urls to your CV or other documents, they link to a stable site. For a CV it's not too much of a concern, as it will likely only be needed for a couple of months while the committee considers the application, but bear it in mind for future documents that may be updated less frequently. Hosting documents and other extra information about yourself on your own website could be a good workaround to this.

Thanks for the advice! I have decided to use citations marks such as "[1]" and "[2]" in place of URL's, and then created a references section at the end of my CV that lists the URL's associated with these citation marks. Sort of like the references section in a normal technical report. What do you think about this approach?


text:
Approaching a master's in humanities after STEM-focused undergrad
I graduated this past year from an Ivy League university with a double major in a STEM field and Asian studies (with a focus in literature). Throughout university I felt the desire to eventually pursue a graduate degree in the humanities, but for various reasons ended up focusing much more on my STEM work. In my final year, I took some courses in religious studies that reignited my long-held interest in that field. Since graduating, I've been constantly reading books and papers on religion while working in tech. I think I'd like to pursue a master's in religious studies, both as a way to see if the field is really right for me and as a way to beef up my admittedly anemic experience in the area for the sake of a potential PhD.
But to be honest, I'm not sure of my prospects of getting into a good master's program. I feel like my lack of background will hurt my chances significantly. Although there is a little bit of overlap with my Asian studies degree (the language skills would help if I wanted to pursue Buddhist studies, for example), I'm not confident there's enough there to demonstrate adequate knowledge and interest. Furthermore, I took more than a few of my humanities classes in undergrad pass/fail since I was being pushed so heavily down the path of STEM. Should I be doing something else before applying to programs? Do I even have a shot of getting into a good program? What's the expectation for applicants coming out of undergrad? Any and all advice would be deeply appreciated!

There is no reason not to try to do this and many reasons why you should. But the only valid advice will come from an admissions committee or a professor in the field who will look at your qualifications and goals.
Be sure to present yourself in the most positive light relative to the new field, of course.
There may even be advantages of your STEM background. Mathematics and CS, for example have applications in the humanities and the background can lead to many fruitful collaborations if you speak the language of both fields.
But until you apply somewhere you have no idea of the possible outcome.

As with any Master's program, your chances of getting in are highly dependent on a variety of factors, which generally include GRE scores for schools in the US, undergraduate transcripts, a high quality writing sample, letters of recommendation, and a statement of purpose. The application requirements vary by school, but generally include these things.
Many PhD programs require a Master's in a similar field, but generally Master's do not require undergraduate experience. Again, the requirements will vary depending on the school. Most schools regard your statement of purpose as one of the most important factors in determining admissions, so you should use this opportunity to explain your background and why you feel you would be a good candidate in their program (because of your varied background, work ethic, interest in the topics, etc.).
The first thing to do is identify potential schools and look at their application requirements. If you meet the minimum requirements, I imagine your statement of purpose and letters of recommendation will be able to negate any weaknesses.
If you are passionate about learning in this area, I would not let the fear of not getting into a program prevent you from trying.


text:
How might one find students interested in working on research projects remotely?
Often graduate students work with professors within their local University on research projects. However, I am aware of a few institutions that allow (or actually require) students to seek outside collaborations for research projects (e.g. capstone projects). Given that many people are still working remotely, this seems like a good time to capitalize on remote collaborations (although I understand some may be wary of such relationships).
Is anyone aware of such opportunities for collaboration? Perhaps there is a forum / board or other somewhere that connects students to research opportunities?

Frankly this is going to be very different for graduate students vs. undergrads, which one are you searching for? Are you attempting to recruit undergrads from another institution?

Thanks @AzorAhai-him- for this point. I've edited to include just graduate students in the text - I only meant to ask about graduate students, although I'd be interested to hear about opportunities for either.

Can't you just post a job advert in the usual place for your field? In physics we use AAS Jobs, mathjobs, inspire-hep jobs etc. I imagine most fields have similar websites.


text:
Is it possible to do a part time MRes alongside a PhD?
In my university you are allowed to work 20 hours part time alongside your PhD. My PhD is in engineering but my background is maths and physics and I find the PhD relatively light work due to my background. I am still interested in mathematical physics and would want to take my career in that direction. I thought that if I enrol in an MRes degree in mathematical physics alongside my PhD in engineering it could make me a more competitive applicant, especially if I get some publications from the MRes.
Does my PhD supervisor need to know about this plan of mine? If you get a part-time job along-side your PhD for example, you are not required to disclose this information to them.
When applying for the MRes degree, would I need to say that I am currently doing a PhD and could this affect the decision?
Finally, how does a typical MRes work in terms of the logistics of meeting your supervisor? At the moment my PhD supervision meetings are all online and I do not need to go to campus at all. Could it be the same for the MRes?
Note: an MRes is a Master's of Research most typically found in UK universities. It differs from an MA or MSc in that the emphasis is on the student doing their own research rather than taking taught courses. It is therefore referred to as a "Master's by research" as opposed to a "taught Master's". For more information, see here: https://career-advice.jobs.ac.uk/studentship-advice/which-masters-degree-mres-or-ma-msc/

Please explain, what does Mres mean?  Also, you should not assume people can understand the various TLA that you are using.  Some here do not have English as a first language so it is better to use standard capitalization, verbs and a lot fewer abreviations.

apologies edited, thought Mres stands for masters by research as apose to MSc say, ta

Perhaps Masters by Research is a British thing?

Why do you need to enroll in an MRes to do research in a related discipline to your PhD? Why not talk to your PhD supervisor to check they're on board and then find some collaborators (either at your own uni or elsewhere) to do some mathematical physics work with? I think you would almost certainly have to disclose that you're currently a PhD student when applying for an MRes and probably your current and prospective universities will have rules limiting or prohibiting dual enrolment. Bottom line: talk to your PhD supervisor before doing anything.

I also edited your post to make the questions clearer, please feel free to edit my edits if I got something wrong. I also added the UK tag, as I assume that is where you are studying.

if i do that, and they do not want to do any mathematical physics, what is the worst outcome that could be? just a harsh relationship? like they couldnt' take away the funding righttt?

@astronat , but if you're allowed to work part-time and the hours are within the limits of both the PhD and MRes, I can't see how they could really,

Working to earn money is not the same as performing research to earn a degree. When you submit your PhD thesis you will have to sign a declaration stating that you have not submitted the work for any other academic qualification. If your MRes is in a similar field to your PhD it may be very difficult to maintain that separation and hence honestly sign such a declaration. Lying could lead to one or both of your degrees being revoked later on.

No, your supervisor (if you are in the UK, are you?) cannot just "take away the funding", as your studentship is likely provided via the department, university or research council rather than controlled by the supervisor directly. There's nothing wrong with having diverse research interests and wanting to pursue them. I don't see any reason to expect a negative reaction or harsh relationship, but you know them better than we do.

I may speculate that instead of giving their blessing for you to go off and do some other research, your supervisor suggest or assign you more work in their discipline. (Your feeling that the workload is light is likely a function of how far through the PhD you are. I spent the first three months of mine mostly reading and feeling bored -- "is this it?" I thought. The workload increased steadily after that, until the final six months before submission where I was working on three projects plus writing my thesis. No time (or shred of desire) for a second degree then! You may find the same.)

hiyah many thanks for your reply. wel I'm in a year in, and when I say 'light' as I say i think its the difference between my maths/psysics background- alot of mathematical physics stuff comapated to fluid mechanics, within an enginnering department, which could only get heavy in terms of ' workload' . as far, telling them it's light work, no way do I plan to, if i want to do a mres, tht would be a very stupid move. as far potential overlap and declaration, no, none at all, different subjects completely.


text:
Post Undergraduate Research
I am currently an undergraduate student who has a strong interest in becoming a theoretical physicist. I have applied to 4 physics grad schools this year but it seems that my chances for going to grad school this fall 2021 is dismal; I got rejected from my safety school and a top physics grad school and the remaining ones are also quite tough to get into. I do not think I will be able to make it to the other grad schools. As of now, I have done well in undergrad but my major flaw is that I had zero undergrad physics research experience (I have done two self studies, one a graduate Quantum Mechanics course and another a Mathematical Analysis course, but that's about it). I was about to get a research experience (voluneer) during the summer 2020 but due to the COVID 19 pandemic that got cancelled. Basically, I didn't want to multitask during my undergrad years with courses + research because I didn't want to mess anything up.
Here is what I want to do in graduate school: I want to go into Mathematical Physics, with emphasis on String Theory Methods. My long term goal is to study the very early universe where quantum gravity is important and where all 4 fundamental forces are thought to be unified. For grad school, however, I want to focus on something more concrete, something people see (or can imagine) in their every day lives and so my focus for grad school is string theory methods for condensed matter physics.
What I Did during Undergrad: I am a Physics and Mathematics major (Bachelors of Science with Highest Honors) and I plan to graduate this May 2021 (since I will be finished with my requirements I will have to graduate this May as per my university policy). I have taken the Physics GRE during my junior year.
My Questions
(1) Should I work for a professor in experiment(from my school) (particle physics or condensed matter) from May 2021 - August 2022? I am willing to volunteer with no pay.
(2) Should I work for a professor in theory (from my school) from May 2021 - August 2022?
(3) Should I ask a mathematics professor (from my school) for informal mentorship from May 2021 - August 2022?
(4) Can I apply for an REU or is that too late?

Advice for the future: apply for more than four PhD places! Ten was the norm when I applied five years ago. I imagine it's now common to apply for even more, especially in the USA. Also, why not go straight into string theory and quantum gravity for your PhD? To be frank, the job market in theoretical physics is awful so you might as well spend your PhD doing the thing you're most interested in.

@Libor Thanks for the advice (especially the latter)

(1) Should I work for a professor in experiment(from my school) (particle physics or condensed matter) from May 2021 - August 2022? I am willing to volunteer with no pay.

(2) Should I work for a professor in theory (from my school) from May 2021 - August 2022?

(3) Should I ask a mathematics professor (from my school) for informal mentorship from May 2021 - August 2022?

It may not matter whether you want to volunteer without pay or not, for two reasons.
First, it may be illegal or at least against policy. There are often laws and rules to protect workers which may include a minimum wage. Students are sometimes an exception, but you are not a student. There are fields where there are job openings and funds to pay post-graduate employees, for example this is common in my own field of neuroscience and in biology more generally (though often people hired for these sorts of jobs already worked as a student in the places they are hired); I do not think the sort of physics you are talking about is one of those, but it's also not my area and others may know better.
Second, mentorship of someone at the undergrad level is a lot of work with little concrete reward. Many professors are willing to put this time and effort in, but they may feel a responsibility to reserve those efforts for students at their institution. It may be difficult to justify spending time on someone not a student when many students are looking for a spot.
I think your opportunities, if they exist, will be rare enough that you need to consider all of them and not narrow it down to one of these three categories.

(4) Can I apply for an REU or is that too late?

I don't know much about REUs but as far as what I do know they require you to be a student pursuing a degree. If you aren't a student anymore you are probably out of luck. They are also highly competitive from what I know.

You want to do research in a highly competitive field without a lot of financial backing. You have very specific and narrow plans, which might help with your motivation but may also close a lot of opportunities for you. I suspect your best bet will be to pursue a masters degree and get some research experience in the process, but this may be expensive. I think you've made an error by not pursuing research earlier if research is what you wanted to do; gathering some experience in research and getting good recommendation letters from advisors would be much more valuable in a grad school application than improved grades in courses by avoiding research entirely. Unfortunately, not much to do about what's in the past.


text:
What is the difference between PhDs in the US and Europe (in terms of employment)?
It is frequently mentioned that PhD students are employed in Europe (e.g. the Netherlands, Scandinavia, etc). I still don't understand how this affects a PhD program.
What is the difference when one enrols as a PhD student in the US or has a work contract in the Netherlands? Is there any specific difference in responsibilities, expectations, freedom, etc?
Please make a tangible comparison rather than listing various possibilities. If a student enrols in a PhD program in the US or in the Netherlands, how will their work and life be different?

Having been a grad student in the US, and a post-doc at a Dutch institute with grad students (albeit some time ago), I'm not sure there was much difference in work or life for a student at either place (over and above general differences in work/life in the respective countries). Your mileage may vary...

Workplace rights are generally afforded to employees but not students.

@NajibIdrissi not all the countries you quoted employ PhD students.

I'm voting to close as too broad. I have 2 suggestions on how to make this answerable: Firstly, clarify (if you are) that you're just interested in the differences that relate directly to whether somebody undertaking a PhD has student or staff status (ie whether they're employed or not). This might be differences in employment rights, working conditions and so forth; don't leave it so broad that it's "how is doing a PhD different in these countries", because that's a huge topic.
Secondly, as others have noted, Europe is heterogenous. You need to specify the country that you're interested in.

Geographically, the UK is between the Netherlands and the US. In many aspects, the system is something in-between. There has been a long debate in the UK for giving the status of full employment to PhD students or not. This is a brief list of pros and cons argued by both sides of the debate.
Note that these are not my opinion, and I am simply narrating what I recall. A quick search in the UK academic websites can provide sufficient resources.
Pros

An employed PhD has better work conditions and rights.
They have better reception in the society. For instance, when it
comes to renting a house, PhD students are considered students, and
most houses are not available to student tenants.

Cons

PhD stipend is tax-free, but upon employment, the salary is taxable.
The salary is lower than £32,000 (typical for postdocs), and
international students should pay around £15,000 tuition fee.
non-EEA students cannot get Tier 4 student visa and should apply for
a work visa.

In conclusion, there is not much difference in terms of academic experience.


text:
Can I do Part III of the Mathematics tripos as a part of my PhD in Cambridge University?
I am physics master's student in India. I wish to do my PhD in theoretical physics in the Applied Maths department at Cambridge (DAMTP). Can I apply for a PhD and do Part III as a part of it (akin to 1 year of coursework before PhD in India or Master's + PhD in US) or should I do Part III and apply for a PhD in DAMTP separately by the end of it?
Even though I have good grades in all my courses, I am not confident with my skills. My institute is one of the very best in India, however I am not satisfied with my understanding of most of the subjects (and mathematical rigour in general) and there are a few topics, e.g. Advanced QFT, Advanced GR/Cosmology, which are not offered here. I believe Part III would help me in fixing these holes and I want do this before my PhD (in Cambridge or elsewhere).
From the Cambridge website: "Part III is a 9 month taught masters course in mathematics.  It is an excellent preparation for mathematical research and it is also a valuable course in mathematics and in its applications for those who want further training before taking posts in industry, teaching, or research establishments."
See also the Cambridge website and Wikipedia.

I'm not sure how widely known your terminology is: You might get a better response if you spelled things out.

"tripos" sounds like tripe to me... please explain.

@Buffy Part III is a well-known, if not famous, degree course in the UK maths and physics community (and from the question it's clearly known further afield too). I sometimes despair at the US-centricity of this site!

@astronat, some of us in the US are getting an education here, actually. But I was worried that the vote to close was just someone not understanding. I know of one other question that got down voted for an abbreviation that wasn't explained: REU = Research Experience for Undergraduates an NSF (there I go again) thingy.

@astronat "Tripos" and "Part III" are terms that are unique to Cambridge. It doesn't require US-centricity for people to be baffled by words that are only used by one university in the world.

Part III of the natural sciences tripos is essentially a Master's degree: you take courses and exams and write an extended essay. The application process is completely separate to that for DAMPT PhDs (or PhDs in any other of the Cambridge physics departments).
The simplest option is to do Part III and then apply for PhDs while you are doing it. It's highly unlikely you will have time (and I'm not sure it's even allowed) for you to take Part III courses while registered for a PhD. You could contact someone in Part III admissions to ask them whether you can take courses alongside a PhD, but I suspect the answer would be no.
Personally, I wouldn't place too much weight on the importance of Part III. It has its fearsome reputation for a reason and many people I know who did it, hated it. If you go straight into a PhD, you will learn the relevant knowledge as you go along -- it's unlikely you'll need an in-depth grasp of every part of QFT, general relativity, group theory etc.  Anecdotally, of the other PhDs in my year group (not Cambridge but a similarly reputable cosmology institute), only one out of seven of us has Part III. You easily can succeed in a theoretical physics PhD without it.

Is the question about Part III NatSci or Part III Maths? It doesn't make much difference to the answer, but it may reduce confusion to clarify the point. Also, on attending Part III courses, I think that a PhD student pays University Composition Fees, and that would allow them to attend almost all undergrad and masters classes which don't have a practical component.

Yes, it does allow you to attend whatever provided there is space in the room. Time is one thing, allowed is another.


text:
What is the best way to add the results of the Master thesis in the Latex report
I am writing my Master thesis report. My thesis was research and development of a test data generator for a particular domain in an organization. The developed application will generate test data in XML and JSON format according to user requirements and design. These data can be very large.
For the demonstration of my results in Thesis report, I have designed a simple model and generating the test data for that design but still, the test data generated is pretty large so I have included them in the Appendix chapter of the result. It's taking around 20-30 pages, I have modelled the simplest design so there is no way for me to reduce the generated test data by simplifying the model further.
My professor has told me that this is not a good way of displaying the results. So I wanted to know what are the better ways of showing/visualizing your results/test data in the Master thesis report?
As I am writing the report in LaTeX format I have included them as listings in the Appendix section. Please provide me with some solution.

Do you have access to previous dissertations in your field (ideally supervised by the same professor)? You could ask your supervisor or at the university library.

Thanks for the response. Actually, I have one report from my senior who was supervised by the same professor but he only has some database query and table structure. He has not presented any output result screenshot within the Appendix section. Since my topic is very different and the result is completely different I have included the output in the Appendix section.

I don't think you have a LaTeX issue here, but a general issue if organizing your writing and thoughts.

The full data is the main outcome for the organization, but it's not an important part for your report. Of course you can show examples/samples, but what matters in your report is to explain clearly:

The motivations: why is this data generator needed? What can be done with it that couldn't be done before? This probably requires explainining the context of the work: what this organization does, what is this domain, why does it matter, etc.
The state of the art: which existing methods are used for this kind of problems in general? What are their advantages and disadvantages?
The method/process: how does it work? Provide all the details necessary the system. If you made particular implementation choices, explain why this choices and not another option. Is it related to existing methods? If yes compare to these methods.
The outcome: analyze the results in detail with statistics, graphs or whatever means helps the reader understand the characteristics of the data. It should be a synthetic overview, not a dump of the full dataset. Prove that the obtained data satisfies the requirements, for instance by comparing to other datasets. If relevant show the impact of your implementation choices through some examples.

The point of the report is to explain your work to somebody who is not an expert in this particular problem. Presenting the reasoning that you followed is much more important and interesting than the data itself.

I think this is the right answer. Perhaps the raw data can be made available in some repository maintained by the university, should anyone need to look at it.

Thanks a lot for the response. I completely understand your answer and agree with it. However, the main goal of the research was to generate the test data in XML and JSON format so I am not exactly sure how can I visualize that in the form of graph or chart. If possible can you please provide me with some suggestions or example on achieving this.

XML/JSON is just a technical format. You should explain why this format is used (e.g. a standard compatible with many software tools, etc.), but I assume that the main point is about what this data represents. For instance if the data represents customers you could demonstrate that the data correctly represents the distribution of male/female among customers, or the average amount a customer spends, etc. This kind of characteristics can be represented with graphs, tables, etc.