text:
US Assistant Prof salary negotiation with counter offer before going up for tenure
I'm an assistant prof. in a public US university. I have to go up for tenure this year. The department I'm in is somewhat mismanaged, with lots of politics and favoritism. Many have left the department in recent years, and I don't see any motivation for the chair or the dean to improve the situation. Hoping for a better position, I've searched for other TT positions this year and received an official offer from a private higher-rank university with a much higher salary than what I earn now (a dream position for me). However, unfortunately due to personal problems, I cannot accept that offer and have to stay where I am.
My question is: can/should I use this new offer to negotiate my salary in my current department?
Given that I have to go up for tenure, I'm afraid that showing that I have an offer harms my tenure and evaluation. I'm afraid that the chair, dean, and my colleagues see this as an "unfaithful" act or, thinking that I may leave sooner or later, don't advocate for my tenure as much as they can.
Additionally, since the department knows about my personal problems, they can easily call on my "bluff" and be pretty sure that I won't be able to accept this new offer and leave the department this year. So, it could be an easy "no, we can't give you a raise" for them.
On the other hand, I don't want to take this chance of having a better salary from myself, if there is not much harm in asking for it. Plus, I think, this could potentially show my worth to my current department.
In this situation, would it be wise to ask for a salary raise? If yes, how should I approach it?
Thank you!

Why did you apply to a job you knew you could not accept? That is likely to be seen as unethical behavior, and as such, is unlikely to improve your tenure prospects. Similarly, trying to use a job offer people know you have no intention of accepting to negotiate a raise is also likely to be seen as shady/ethically questionable behavior.

Hi Dan. I didn't know I could not accept the offer when I applied for it and during the whole negotiation process. I was trying to find a way to accept the offer and join the new department until now. But, sometimes unexpected things happen and everything doesn't go as planned. It is a dream position for me. But, unfortunately, I don't have the option to accept it.
As for being an ethically questionable behavior, I'm wondering why it should be unethical? It's a salary I'd seemed to be worthy of. I'm showing that an external entity has approved this worth. Why unethical?

In a negotiation, never use a threat if you can't make hard. Certainly if you have much to lose.

Since personality seems to be dominant here, take any advice with a grain of salt (or a pound).
But reading what you have written, it sounds like you are trapped and it might be a mistake to advertise that. Certainly ask for a raise at granting of tenure.
But it is likely a mistake to "bluff". It sometimes works in poker, but calling it is also pretty common. "Why should we do anything extra for you if you are trapped????"


text:
Student requests my presence while doing evaluation without grades
As a private tutor, a student has requested my presence during an evaluation that does not involve assigning grades. I'm unsure about the ethical implications of this. Could the community provide guidance on whether it's ethically appropriate for me to be present during such an evaluation, and if so, how should I approach it to maintain academic integrity and fairness?
The student has to complete and answer several points and submit it to online campus. I guess he wants clarifications on the requests because he is studying a functional programming language for the first time, but I am unsure because the task says that he can look up google, search on his books, but do not ask classmates.
Any guidance would be appreciated.

If they cannot ask for help from classmates, I think that also rules out asking a private tutor. This is an evaluation of what the student is capable of, not what you are capable of.

Being present is not the same as providing clarifications. You need to be very explicit as to what the student expects you to do, and what the examining body is comfortable with. Probably easiest to have your student ask the institution, with you in cc, and asking the institution to reply-all, so you are all on the same page. I would expect that a request for you to be present and provide "clarifications" will be denied.

What's the purpose of an evaluation that does not involve assigning grades? I would assume it would involve the instructor needing to gauge where students are at to inform the pedagogy of the course. In that case, it would be extremely detrimental for a student who relies on a tutor to give an impression that they have more mastery of the subject than they actually do.

Does "that does not involve assigning grades" modify "my presence" or "an evaluation"? Is it possible he needs you to act as a proctor?

Thank you all of you ! I'll provide some clarifications. I think the purpose, as @Brian Krause guesses is the need to gauge where students are. Then, Iregarding proctoring, that's not the case. He wants me there, and now thank to your insights, I should ask him why he needs me there.

If they simply want you to observe and then to advise them later it would be fine. However, if they want your help in this exercise it would almost certainly cross ethical boundaries.
The issue isn't so much whether it is graded or not, but rather how the situation helps or hinders their learning. Helping them in that situation wouldn't help them learn.
You might also ask whether the student would object you you speaking with the instructor and getting advice from them about what you can and should do.
But, observing a student working on problems is a good way to help structure your tutoring. Especially if it gives you insight into any learning issues they might have that you are qualified to address.

Edited to add, from comments:
One thing that the student may need, actually, is self confidence. And that comes from solving problems on their own without suggestions. They also need to learn how to properly interpret questions/exercises as stated by the professor. In tutorial you can help with that, but not in a situation like this. Eventually they will be expected to do it for "credit" and this is an excellent time for them to practice so that they can be successful then.
If you tell them, as you should, that you can't "help" them in this, you might also want to explain why. It is to help them with their learning, not hurt them.

Thank you Buffy ! I told the student that I would like to observe him while doing the evaluation; that would be useful information for our lessons. But he said: "I don't want you to just observe; I want you to help me with the exercises as you do in the lessons". Also, he clarified that he get marks but as a diagnose. They do not count towards the subject. The professor just wants to know where his students are right now.

I advise skipping it. Strongly. If they can't handle it in this situation, how will they get through it when it really counts?

Thank you for the advice Buffy !

I just saw your edit. Great point, I think. If I am always solving things with him, he wouldn't know which steps he would have to take in order to improve. We would miss feedback reality gives us.

@F. Zer The most helpful thing would be to explain to the student why his attitude (trying to appear better than he actually is on a "diagnostic" test) is non-sensical and counter-productive. The best thing would be if he understands that the idea that he should at all times appear as if he understands things even if he doesn't is completely counter-productive when it comes to actually improving his knowledge. These students sometimes have the implicit belief that there is something wrong or shameful about not understanding things, which then prevents them from actually improving.

That is absolutely spot on, @Adam Přenosil. Thank you.

The accepted answer contains the only right answer: "helping" a student during a test is unethical. In fact, it's just cheating.
However, you should be aware of the market you are working in. In a world where online tests are getting common, providing such help has become an industry on itself. You just need to google "help online exams" to found plenty of services that "help" students during tests or simply take the tests for them.
Therefore, in the minds of some students, the line between helping them to learn and telling them the answers to the tests may be becoming a very blurred line.
In summary, please do the right thing - and I think you knew what the right thing was even before asking here - but be aware that you are competing with a lot of private tutors who disregard ethics. Being ethical has never been very easy, but online tests make it harder. I hope it will be fixed at some point when employers discover that some diplomas can't be taken at face value.

Thank you so much and +1 for such an amazing answer.

Could you elaborate a bit on this: “some diplomas can't be taken at face value” ?

@F.Zer - When students graduate they get a diploma which is assumed to be a proof that they have learned something, and employers can rely on them to select employees. If cheating in online exams become widespread enough, some students will get diplomas without having learned anything and when employers realize, such diplomas will lose their value as a tool to get a job. Hopefully, universities will react and  make sure their assessment methods are reliable and secure.

Thank you so much. That is a great answer. Do you have any theory about why a student would like to get a diploma which certified he/she possesses skills that they don’t really have ? Why would someone want that? How are they going to deal with the actual job?

You are asking about why cheating exists. If all students wanted diplomas and grades which certify the knowledge they actually have, cheating wouldn't exist, but it exists. If you want to know about why cheating exists, you can post another question, and I'm sure there are people more qualified than me to answer.

Thank you Pere for you input. My specific concern is cheating in this case doesn’t give them any benefits at all. That’s what I think, unless I am missing something. Why anyone would get into the trouble of cheating to get no benefit at all? In the end, they wouls have to do the job with the skills the diploma certifies they had, aren’t they ?

As I said, if you want to ask why some students cheat in university, you can post another question. However, if you want to get somebody to say to you that it's OK end ethical for you to help your student cheating in a test because it doesn't provide any undue benefit to the student, I'm afraid you are unlikely to get it here.

I am so sorry Pere ! Perhaps I explained badly myself ! No, of course I don’t want someone to say that it’s ethical to do it. And I do think that your answer is excellent. Thinking again, yes there is a benefit. He/she passes the exam without doing effort. But, my specific concern is that I can’t see any benefit in the long run. In the end, when the student gets a job, he will have to prove (and use) the skills certified by the diploma. So, the student is in fact doing a bad thing to himself in the long run. I hope I could explain better and my apologies again.

And that’s why I see the student is actually buying himself/herself a problem in the long run. That’s certainly not a benefit (in the long run).

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
My professor send me an email that said I plagiarized and cheat
I am doing a closed and open book exam recently. I was working so hard on it and hoping to pass the exam. However, I received an email that said there’s an evidence that I plagiarized. I was crying for days and couldn’t do anything. I can’t even concentrate on reading and understanding the link they send to me. In the meeting, they shown me an evidence and what surprising to me was, one sentence that I wrote almost 99% identical to a paper that I might read in the past. I have done some exercise question that is related to the subject/theme in the exam as well as listen to zoom classes audio. I’m not a native English speaker and I used grammarly to help with my grammar and the program most of the time suggest me to rewrite what I wrote, concisely. I also grew up in a country that used ‘memorizing’ as a way to study and answers exam. The evidence clearly not on my side but I am not cheating. I state that I am not guilty although it’s highly unlikely that’s going to be the outcome. Am I doing the wrong thing?

Only one sentence??

What is a "closed and open book exam"?

@Part-timeEngineer yes only one sentence from the whole paper I assume

@FedericoPoloni the exam has a closed book section and open book section. We need to answer the closed book first before we can access the open book one

Did you write that sentence in the closed or open book part of the exam?

Isn't the goal of an exam to see if you have mastered a subject that was developed by people before you? Is one supposed to give references to previous work in an exam?  How can you not plagiarise during an exam? As written by the OP that seems like a strange accusation. There must be more to it.

@silvado in the closed book one

@Oбжорoв I do wrote a name of the author I remember (not only one but I guess total like 5 or 6) doing an important research in other questions. But I don’t usually remember the date just the name because they always comes up in classes and consider really important. In the closed book I never wrote a reference because I don’t know what paper or textbook my answer comes out from specifically. We do summarizing one or two book chapter every week for reading material.

Did you use Grammarly during the closed book part of the exam? Does your professor allow you to use Grammarly during the closed book part of the exam? Is the sentence one that Grammarly rewrote for you?

@Oбжорoв " How can you not plagiarise during an exam" This does not make sense

@shoover Grammarly wasn’t prohibited although they didn’t state it.  I clarify that and they said it was ok. On the last part, I run all of my paragraphs in grammarly. However, I don’t have the document anymore (on the grammarly) and my raw draft some in my native language and they say I can just translate it from English.

@AzorAhai-him- you mean every exam you did was original work or if you used known results you always give a full citation? Wow, I am truly impressed.

No, that's not what plagiarism means.

To be clear, was this exam taken by distance/online/at home (as opposed to proctored in-person at the school)?

@DanielR.Collins it is taking home tests. Which is why I am in the disadvantage situation. I wish it’s proctored.

Am I doing the wrong thing?

Assuming your characterisation is honest and complete, it would seem that the university is overreacting.  If you have studied by reading books and papers, and then in a closed-book exam write a sentence that is almost identical to a sentence from those books or papers, I wouldn't consider that cheating or plagiarism.  I've never seen an exam where one is required to cite sources, and exam answers are not a publication, so I'm not sure if one even can plagiarise when answering questions on an exam.
If their evidence of cheating relies on one sentence that is very similar to a sentence from a book or paper, defend yourself.  One sentence is not much.  It is reasonably possible that you have read the sentence, that it is an obvious way of formulating it, and that you subconsciously came up with the formulation you had already read, during the exam.  Bring that up as your defence.
I hope that the university will not bring serious consequences based on what seems to be rather thin evidence.  Defend yourself, because a "conviction" of plagiarism or cheating may impact you negatively for a long time to come.

I am not sure when is the follow up information or any meeting going to happen. I probably need an obudsman  ? I don’t really know who’s to contact before and after the talk with my advisor I feel like he think I did cheat which makes me really sad. At that time (we talk) neither me and my advisor know which questions are the prof accused me for. I do bring my scramble notes and draft in words that I used during my exam to the meeting. I do have another one in one note as well but I didn’t shown that one.

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


text:
Will two unpublished research papers boost the chances of my scholarship application being reconsidered?
The scholarship committee denied my application yesterday. Fortunately, the committee gave me five months, to produce new credentials that would merit its reconsideration of its decision.
Thus far, I have found two additional unpublished research papers that I co-authored with two other people. The problem is that  these research papers are more related to my line of work than to the graduate program I applied to.
Will these two research papers boost the chances of my application being reconsidered?

That is up to the committee. It can't hurt, but I doubt that it will count for a lot.

Since you have been encouraged to submit more material, these papers can only help. With the limited data you have it's impossible to estimate how much.
Five months sounds to me as if they expect (or would welcome) some new work, not just old work you found in your records.


text:
Grad School Program Recommendations & How to Narrow Down My List of Programs
I'm hoping to apply to graduate (MS) programs in statistics or applied math later this year, but frankly I'm having a hard time narrowing my list down and was hoping for some advice from people here. A bit about me, I have taken and done quite well in Calc II and III, Linear Algebra. I am taking Real Analysis and Probability in the Fall. I'm interested in Differential Equations and would love to take both ODE/PDE courses at some point. From a theoretical perspective I'm interested in Probability Theory and Stochastic Processes. I'd also like to dip my toes into Bayesian methodologies a la MCMC.
I'm currently working as a data consultant, so I'm very comfortable in SQL, decently comfortable in Python, and am learning/practicing R such that I'll be comfortable by the time I matriculate into a program.
As far as programs, I'd prefer to find a lower cost program or a funded program, and would love to find a research-centric program (or at least one with a thesis requirement) as well as I have multiple years of undergraduate research experience (albeit in Quantitative Psychology.)
I'm in the United States, so I've been looking at larger State/Research schools like Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, etc. but am pretty open to programs abroad as well (i.e. Canada, Switzerland, Germany, France.)
Thanks everyone!

Welcome to Academia.SE. We do not recommend particular programs (see here for an explanation). Is there some aspect of the process of choosing a program that we might be able to help with?

Thank you! Happy to be here. I think I'm looking less for specific programs and more for what variables to consider (funding, curriculum, thesis/non-thesis, etc.) as I am currently a post-bacc student and thusly don't have an advisor. I'm looking at a large (~30) list of programs and could use some help on factors to help pare my list down.

So I think this is our "canonical" Q&A on this topic; it's hard to give more personalized advice since we don't know you. For example: I usually advice prioritizing funding over almost everything else; the small differences in program quality is rarely worth the huge differences in cost. But maybe you are rich, who knows. Only other thing I would mention is to consider doing a PhD instead. It's a longer time sink, but PhD offers usually come with funding, and you can often leave with a master's if you decide not to pursue a research career.

At the MS level, pretty much any R1 university such as those you mentioned will serve you well. Most have large math faculties and offer a lot of course options. The one difference might be whether a thesis is required or only coursework. You can decide which is better for you, but think also about what your further goals might be. If you contemplate eventually earning a doctorate then you might as well apply for that now, rather than get an MS first.
Funding is normally available for doctoral students as a TA, but it is pretty rare for masters education. Cost at state universities depends on whether you are a resident or not. There can be quite a difference. Doctoral students generally pay no fees and residency isn't an issue.
Beyond that, think about where you want to live for a couple of years. Urban or rural? That affects your costs if you aren't funded properly.
There are some universities that have a statistics department separate from mathematics, so you might look at that after making some decision.


text:
Is it common for universities to accept graduate students who do not speak the local language?
Is it common for universities to admit graduate students who speak the language of instruction but not the local language?  For instance,the program might be taught in French, but everyone in the community speaks Arabic on a daily basis.
This question is sort of the opposite of this post.
For context, I am a foreign researcher living in a house with some other foreign students including "Bob", a recent arrival who does not know a single word of the local language.  Bob's program is taught in English, but almost no one (including most people at the university) speaks English here, and knowing the local language is essential to pretty much every interaction and task you could think of.  Due to this language barrier, Bob is basically nonfunctional without the help of me or the other English speaking student at our house.
Our university requires proof of local language proficiency for international undergraduate students and graduate students whose programs are taught in the local language.  However, they did not require any proof of proficiency in Bob's case or even suggest local language training.
So, is this sort of situation common?  Do universities assume that a graduate student in Bob's situation would take the initiative and start learning the local language before arriving?

I don't know what the university assumes, but when I moved to the Netherlands for a post-doc I started learning the language as best I could before moving, then took intensive language courses while there. Bob is missing out on a golden opportunity to learn a new language.

The question is very specific to the country and the locality. For example, I studied for five years in Indian Institute of Science, which is in Bengaluru, Karnataka. Bengaluru being a metropolitan city, I managed with English and Hindi, without ever requiring to learn the local language, Kannada. Whereas, if one studies in a small town in India, it may be essential to learn the local language to get non-academic things done (e.g., to buy things from a grocery store). Usually, all the major universities will accept any student who can speak English.

I'm afraid that adding arbitrary admission requirements that have nothing to do with the study program would be seen as discriminatory at least here in the EU. Trying to regulate Bob's life outside of school could perhaps be reasonable for a secondary school student. However, a graduate student is presumably an adult, so why should the university care how they get their groceries? Bob is fully capable of deciding between learning the language, hiring an interpreter, or having all his groceries shipped in from overseas.

@TooTea - Shipping all groceries in from overseas or hiring an interpreter to do everyday tasks may be an option if Bob is wealthy. Those costs would be significant (probably tens of thousands of US dollars per year, although the interpreter fee could vary significantly depending on the country).

@Obie2.0 Exactly, so choosing between the three options I listed should be easy enough for the average adult without requiring any hand-holding from the university.

From what I have seen in different places at least throughout Europe, the standard is indeed that the only language requirements are those for the language of instruction. However if the program is offered e.g. in English then at least everything directly related to it can normally be done in English as well. Even if there is some ancient part of university bureaucracy that is not able to do so, there is usually some department for international students to counter that. There is also commonly some way of taking language classes before or parallel to the program and a recommendation to do so.
That being said, the general idea is that everything else is your private problem and while sometimes that could be said a bit more directly, I think a university student should also be mature enough to realize that living in a foreign country without knowing the local language can be hard.

This is the right answer. It's not the university's business to tell someone that living in a place can be hard if they don't speak the local language. Besides, it might also be interesting: I've spent several months of my life (over many trips) in East Asia without speaking any of the languages, and I've always enjoyed myself tremendously. If I were to live there, I would want to learn the local language, but I wouldn't consider that a prerequisite to moving there.

Yes, it's common. Graduate students generally need to know English because that's the language of academia, but the local language is not necessary even if it is highly advantageous. Source: personal experience and also the fact that student exchange programs exist.
On the other hand, going to a foreign country without knowing the language is risky, as Bob is discovering. So to actually go to the foreign country and to not attempt to learn the language is not common. It's more common to at least try to learn something.
That said, it's easier to manage a lack of language skills in the modern world with Google Translate. For example, I know someone who went to Japan and relied on Google Translate to communicate with the locals.

+1 for "more common to at least try to learn something", maybe you could go further and say "more sensible". I know about 500 words of the local language, which is really not a lot, but with some creative use it's enough to communicate quite a diversity of things. Things like colours, numbers and basic nouns are a good idea. People are very tollarent of my limited vocabulary, if anything they find the attempt rephrase things with limited words amusing. A minimal set of words is a really good idea.

I definitely think your mileage may vary. My Norwegian physics class had a few foreign students. The professor's English wasn't strong, so he said he'd do it in Norwegian and explain in English along the way. He spent an hour explaining and writing out the Laplace transform, realized he neglected the foreign students, looked at them, pointed to the formula, and in English said "Integral." He then did the remaining hour in Norwegian. I never saw the foreign students in that class again.

As others have stated, universities will frequently accept students who don't speak the local language (at least, I've seen this in much of Europe).
What I'll add is that there may be some requirements for graduation that require the local language in some way. In the Netherlands (at least at the University of Amsterdam), your PhD dissertation must have an Dutch-language abstract. (I believe the dissertation itself can be written in either English or Dutch; almost everyone I knew wrote in English.)
Of course, by the end of your PhD, hopefully you've either learned the local language or found someone who can help you translate the abstract!

Indeed, I think most Dutch universities require an abstract in Dutch. I've translated one for a fellow PhD student from Italy. However, at least in mathematics (and I think all STEM fields), literally all PhD theses are written in English.


text:
I have a supervisor for an individual Phd in germany. What now?
I applied for a scholarship waiting for its result. I also found a part-time teaching job. I am a bit confused about this process because all the other Ph.D. programs I applied for required me to submit an application that could either be rejected or accepted.
I will need a document certifying my acceptance into a university if I get its scholarship. But I can't figure out whether having a supervisor by itself guarantees admission and the application I will submit is just a bureaucratic process, or I might be rejected for some reason. I need to know this since I have to either sign a contract for my part-time job or accept offers from other universities.

Yes, somewhat! It certainly explains my experience. I did talk to the supervisor many times and wrote a prohect with time lines and so on. He told me that when I need the document for the scholarship they will emit it. I am just stressing that this will take long enough that when I get it I can't reclaim the scholarship anymore.

There are some formal requirements you need to fulfill, e.g. you commonly need to have a master's or similar degree, have the right to study in that country (i.e. citizenship or the right visa) and in theory the university could decline you if you are "unworthy" of having an academic title by e.g. having committed serious academic fraud (think faking data for published papers, accepting large bribes as a TA and so on, the stuff that would get a PhD revoked if found out later). Otherwise, if you get a professor to sign the paperwork for supervising, you are in.

@mlk: however, (the supervisor will want  to know that OP has a MSc in a sufficiently close field), but formal requirement like "not being unworthy" or even having a supervisor will in my experience be checked with the paperwork for submitting the thesis. Before that, the university often doesn't care much about who's attempting a PhD. More things are checked if OP wants to sign up as student, though - but there may not be any requirement to do so if they don't want to. There's often not even a strict requirement to have a professor until you want to hand in.

If I want to sign up as a student will this work as a regular application process then? Because I already sent my grades and certificates and cv to my supervisor. I just want to make sure I can have the required paperwork before moving and starting my job.

@user867078 Think of it less as an application and more like a registration with the university. There shouldn't be any deadlines or decision periods, only some forms and paperwork to fill out, possibly some minor fees to pay and then maybe a few day wait until they mail you a student id. Also, knowing German universities, they might ask for every academic certificate, including your high-school degree.

@mlk: I'd be a bit careful with the claim that there are no deadlines. When I recently started a position at university of Wuppertal and took a PhD student, I had to learn that they will only accept enrollment of PhD students at the beginning of each semester.

@JochenGlueck You might be right about that. It was not a problem for me, but every university's bureaucracy is different and in my case it might have also been no problem because I was already enrolled as a master's student in the same place. But you bring up another good point, this is something the supervisor has an interest in happening correctly and possibly an ability to help with.

Is there anything which speaks against doing the admission process before you get the scholarship? AFAIK in Germany there is no need to prove funding if you enroll for a PhD - it is entirely up to you how you fund your PhD.

The only thing is that I am still enrolled at another university, finishing in a month or so. At the university they told It's a very simple process and that when I want to start I just have to fill in the form. Maybe Im just overthinking this but my main problem is that I have other offers, though this phd and the project for it is absolutely my prefered one from all the offers I have. Because this is very new to me Im afraid that when the time comes  to go there there will be an admissions process I was not notified about and then they reject me and I lost my other offers.

From what I understand when I fill in the paperwork it is to enroll at the university. And I will only start in september, so I still have plenty of time.

But soon I will have to accept or reject the other offers. And I would reject them if I knew this is something that is already definitive.

The advisor can, and probably will, tell you of any required steps or put you in touch with someone who can, and who can also give you timeframes and deadlines. Ask. Only the institution can give you a definitive answer.


text:
How severe do issues with a US grad school application have to be in order to cause degree revocation?
I completed graduate school and found that I had made several mistakes in my application. Though none of them were fraudulent, my application was sloppy. I was intentionally vague and omitted some requested information.
For example, the school asked if I was enrolled anywhere else at the time of the application. I had signed up to take a summer course but did not mention this because I thought that enrollment meant degree seeking. I did not want to put it on my application, because I had an issue with panic attacks during this course and I was worried I would drop it under the increased pressure of having the school be aware of this.
Most of my other mistakes are of this caliber such as embellishment by choosing careful wording and omitting dates to be ambiguous and vague. This was because I did not have a great work history and did not have a job at the time. While this is not lying, I still feel bad about it.
I do not have a formal academic integrity record with the school, but I was warned for using resources that I should not have. I suffer from an anxiety disorder, but I learned to overcome it. Unfortunately, my character was not perfect during this time. I grew a lot over the program and if I were to reapply, I would write a different application. I regret what I did, but I cannot change it.
Is this something to be concerned about? It has been bothering me.

I suppose, it is an open-ended question

I would say: mistakes in your application will not cause revocation of your degree.  Fraudulent application may, at worst, cause you to be kicked out of the graduate program; but not after you receive the degree.

That's good to know, I won't bother them then. If there is an issue, I'm sure they will contact me and worst case, I already have the skills.

You've graduated without actively defrauding anyone. Everyone has moved on. I would suggest you do the same.

Yes. My university has only revoked degrees from people who commit serious fraud obtaining the degree, so I am fine. I don't like that my app was poor, but I cannot bother people about it and not be a productive member of society myself.


text:
I feel humiliated and upset after a meeting with a collaborator, and I'm unsure how to proceed
Background: I am a junior postdoc who has been working for some years with an overseas collaborator who is much more senior. I have previously had no issues at all with this collaborator. For the last few months, I've been working on project A. I came up with the idea for project A on my own, and have been leading the analysis - my collaborator has only been involved in giving me feedback during meetings. Meanwhile, this collaborator has a PhD student at her institution who has been working on project B. They are under a lot of pressure to publish project B, as the data on which it is based becomes public in a few weeks. Projects A and B are similar in terms of the methods and the type of data involved, but use entirely different data sets, and are focused on entirely different systems which are in themselves not similar at all.

A few days ago, I gave an update on project A during an online meeting. In attendance were myself, my collaborator, and some other collaborators, including a couple of people I'd only met once or twice.
As soon as I finished giving my update, my collaborator became quite upset, seemingly out of nowhere. She said she didn't like how similar project A is to project B, and sort of implied that I'd piggy-backed off her PhD student's research, and said that I needed to add her student to the paper. She said we need to protect grad students in the current environment of fast-paced research (which I 100% agree with), and that she did the same for me when I was a student (which is completely true). As all of this was happening my body kind of kicked into fight-or-flight mode, so I can't actually recall anything she said exactly, but the way she was talking, she was clearly very exasperated. It got so heated that one of my other collaborators interjected to defend me at one point.
In the moment, I apologised profusely and said it wasn't my intention to "scoop" her student, and that I'd add them to the paper (which honestly doesn't bother me).
After the meeting I was extremely shaken and upset. The things she said really hurt, because project A is really the first project I conceived on my own, and I had been feeling positive about the work I'd done. I also felt like she'd humiliated me in front of my other collaborators, and that she'd possibly tarnished my reputation in their eyes, particularly those I don't know very well.
The thing is, I don't really understand where she is coming from. I only became aware of the details of project B about a month ago, after I'd already completed most of the analysis for project A. I absolutely did not take any ideas from her student to use in my own work. In fact, the analysis I've done for project A is similar to previous projects I've worked on with this same collaborator, and are not anything particularly novel. Also, she's been aware of project A for quite some time, and has never mentioned getting her student involved up until this point. Finally, in my opinion, project A and project B do not really compete - they focus on entirely different systems and use different data, so I don't understand why she thinks my work is threatening that of her student. If anything, they complement each other. I suspect she is feeling a lot of pressure to publish project B, and I wonder whether I might have just caught her on a bad day.

My question is, should I say something to her about how I feel, or should I just let it go? I've been turning it over so much in my head that I really need an external opinion.
I want to clarify why exactly she is upset with me, to explain my perspective, and to let her know how she made me feel. However, I'm afraid that if I talk to her about it, it will only make matters worse. What should I do?

I think this is very difficult to answer without knowing the involved people and their personalities. Maybe, was there somebody experienced present during the meeting whom you trust and who you could ask for advice?

@hanktheshank, You wrote "She said we need to protect grad students... and that she did the same for me when I was a student (which is completely true)". Does it mean you were her student in the past, and she protected you during that time ?

@JochenGlueck that's a good idea, there was another colleague present with whom I've worked with for a long time (he was the one who jumped in to defend me, actually) - I'll talk to him about it. Thanks!

@Job_September_2020 she was one of my secondary advisors during my PhD, although I can't recall any specific instances where she "protected" me as such. Still, she helped me a great deal during that time with my work.

@hanktheshank maybe it's just me but I'm having trouble understanding why they would have "became quite upset, seemingly out of nowhere." Did you present something surprising with some combination of newness, goodness and similarity that they could not have anticipated by extrapolating from previous discussions? If not, is there a chance that the "upset, seemingly out of nowhere" was staged for maximum impact in a setting where you might feel particularly restricted and unable to respond? This kind of thing does happen and some people do find it effective in the short run.

@uhoh I honestly have no idea. I was completely blindsided by it. I didn't present anything particularly unusual or unexpected, I thought it was all pretty standard analysis actually! I like to think she wouldn't knowingly and cynically put me on the spot like that, but I really don't know :/ The more I think about it, the more I think she might have just been really stressed about her student, and let it out on me.

@hanktheshank if that's the case then probably what JochenGlueck's suggests above is a good idea; get some assistance in "decoding" or adding context or subtext. Being an academic researcher can be really stressful for some; just the intellectual skills and passion is not enough; the challenges and even threats to funding, publishing, standing, and a steady supply of new good students are many. If apologizing on the spot can be seen as an error on your part, and I am not sure that it can, it certainly was on the side of caution, prudence and grace, and probably other folks picked up on that.

My question is, should I say something to her...

It sounds like you have an ongoing collaboration with this person, and there is still some work to do before these get published. So, a private follow-up conversation would be appropriate.

...about how I feel...? ...I want to clarify why exactly she is upset with me, to explain my perspective, and to let her know how she made me feel.

I would suggest that the purpose of this follow-up conversation should be to (1) resolve any misunderstandings and (2) clarify the path forward. Try to minimize the discussion of feelings and grievances.
Beyond that, I would "follow your nose" a bit here. Hopefully the conversation will be amicable and it will go without saying that you hope situations like this could be avoided in future. But it may be necessary to mention that you didn't appreciate her conduct in the meeting and hope that this will not happen again.

I apologised profusely and said it wasn't my intention to "scoop" her student, and that I'd add them to the paper. ... project A and project B...focus on entirely different systems and use different data

It is understandable that you panicked in the moment, and now that you have agreed to add the student as a co-author, you may have more limited options. Still, normally adding an author who has not made an intellectual contribution would be considered misconduct. So, you may want to think carefully about whether this is appropriate. Maybe the student could make some contribution to your paper so that they could honestly earn authorship.
Moving forward, of course, you may want to practice the (difficult) skill of not panicking, speaking slowly, and not committing yourself to things in the moment. "I see things a bit differently [or, think there might be a misunderstanding], but why don't we table this for now and discuss offline" is a good go-to phrase.

Thank you for the advice. I will certainly give the student an opportunity to contribute to the paper, even if only in a minor way (in my field, it's pretty common for students to be tacked on to papers in this way, for better or worse...). I will have a chat with another of my collaborators to get his opinion on the situation, and approach her if I still feel it is necessary after that. Unfortunately I tend to freeze up in conflict situations due to childhood trauma, but you're right, I really need to work on my skills in this area.

First, my advice is to let it go and see if if simmers down. If not, then you may need to speak up.
It is hard to diagnose the problem with little information, but some people just behave badly under pressure. I think that is what happened to her. She is a bit lost on some issues and let her frustration spill onto you. I don't think it was fair, but things happen.
FWIW, I think you have behave generously up to now. I'd suggest letting that continue as long as it is a viable path. You see more than I can, of course.

Thanks Buffy - yes, having thought about it more, I suspect I walked unknowingly into the firing line of her pent-up stress about her student...


text:
How can I go back to a PhD program I left for another?
TL;DR: First, all of this is happening in the US. I was a PhD student in X, in good standing, but had a shift of interest towards field Y, so I switched programs and universities to study Y. A year is passed since I switched, I'm currently in good standing in Y, but have come to the understanding that I really don't want to build my career in Y, and want to go back to X in my previous university. My request to go back was declined shortly after switching, but that was in different circumstances. I'm hoping there might be a chance now, but I don't know if there is any chance for a PhD student leaving a program for another to go back to the previous program by just saying "I made a mistake, I am sorry". Am I, in principle, qualified to return? What's the best way to go about this? Should I first make arrangements with potential advisors in my previous department, or should I first contact the department?
Full story:
I was enrolled in a top-tier PhD program in field X, but I left it for another top-tier program at another university in field Y, sufficiently distant from X that switching post PhD would be practically impossible.
When I left my previous program, I hadn't yet started my dissertation yet and hadn't advanced to candidacy, but I had a couple of (unsubstantial) publications, and was past my exams, and was overall in good standing with a high GPA and the department seemed overall satisfied with me at that point. But I had been experiencing a shift of interests, which I explored quite a bit, studied on Y, collaborated with researchers on Y, talked to a lot of people, and eventually decided I like to switch my field, despite the fact that all of my undergrad education and post-undergrad background was in X.
It's been a year since I left X and joined Y (immediately). I realized this change was a mistake for non-academic reasons quite early on, asked my previous department if I can go back after a semester, and they said no. Now, I'm past my core courses in Y, have a couple of papers going on, am in good standing again, but besides the personal reasons, I actually realize I'm not "compatible" with this field. I am interested in questions researchers ask in Y, but, coming from a background in X, the process of research in Y is fundamentally different from how I think about problems. The non-academic aspects are hopefully going to be fine in long-term, but in 5-10 years, I can't see myself doing Y for a living or even identifying my professional character with this field.
Now I want to go back to X, I don't know if I'm at all at a position to even try, and if I do, I don't know how to do it to maximize my chance. I am afraid of receiving a negative answer right away if I contact our department. I thought about first making arrangements with a prospective advisor, but I also don't want the department (i.e. chair and DGS) to think I'm going around them or trying to manipulate the system.
Does a person in my situation typically qualify for getting back to my previous program and continuing from where I left? If so, what is the best way to do this?
Keep in mind:

Most PhD students in both departments are funded centrally, by the department. Occasionally some advisors might have their own funding in X, but I'd guess department typically tends to accept a student only if they can afford them disregarding advisor's funding.
At least one current PhD student at my previous department dropped out recently, so I'm guessing they might have vacancies, but can't be sure about that, and don't know if they already filled that in in the regular admission cycle.
This is in the US, and clearly past the regular admission cycle by a few months, and I want to ask if I can go back from this upcoming fall.
I had some (completely unrelated) personal complications when I was a student  in X, and my previous department was incredibly helpful and considerate, but that makes me think I've already bothered them enough and "used my tickets".

Review of other questions:
I looked at this, and this, but they are not asking about going back to a program after leaving it for another program, but rather going back to PhD after leaving the PhD and being out of academia for a while.

OK, I think this question has run its course. Some discussion has been moved to chat. Please see this FAQ before adding a comment below this one.

You probably can't.
Good PhD programs get lots of good applicants, and the program can only accept a fraction of the number they can accept.
Your history now has you wanting to leave not one, but two programs before you have finished. You may have been a good candidate to start (where good candidate = someone capable of and likely to obtain a PhD degree), but now you've shown, twice, that you don't have the follow-through to be successful.
Why should they take you back? Why should they keep a spot for you when they have a fresh applicant who looks as good as you did a couple years ago, except hasn't decided twice that they didn't want to continue? It's very, very difficult for admissions committees to identify candidates who they are sure will succeed; for ordinary candidates, the signal between someone who will be successful and someone who will not may not be very clear. Your history, on the other hand, now has two very strong indicators that you will not be successful (=complete a PhD degree), specifically that you have twice decided you wanted to leave your current program.
I don't know you at all, I've only read this post, but my honest assessment from reading this briefly is that I would probably not take you back as a student. Finishing a PhD is not about briefly staying in "good standing", it's about gritting it out through a multi-year research project, which is hard.
It sounds like X has already said you are not welcome back. You could try further to convince them, but I suspect you'll be mostly wasting their time and yours. It's very reasonable for them to determine that no matter what you demonstrate to them, under no circumstances will they take you back.
For the specific points you mention:

This seems to mean that you ultimately need to convince the department; I think this decreases your chances, because if funding was typically from professors directly, it would be more likely that some individual professor would be willing to take you on to fill a specific need they have or otherwise be convinced that you are worth taking a special chance on.

Maybe this helps you modestly, but probably not.

Though I don't think it particularly matters when in the year you try to go back, I think this probably counts against you; you've exited the system and are now wanting to cut back in out of schedule. That comes off to me as a bit entitled.

I don't think this is relevant at all.

It has become common for people to change careers multiple times, sometimes using few of the domain-specific skills from their previous careers and instead relying on "soft" skills (which might include how to work with other people, how generally to find information and understand papers, etc). You seem to think that once you get a degree in Y, you will be stuck in that area forever, but that's probably not true. Most likely you will not continue in that field in academia, simply because most PhD graduates do not: there are simply not enough jobs. That means that, more likely than not, you're going to be taking what skills you have to the private sector or to public service outside of academia. I would think broadly about what career options you have, what skills you've developed in the broadest sense, and determine whether it makes more sense to leave your PhD entirely and apply to jobs outside academia, or to stick it out with your current program to get the degree.

That's very reasonable. I also don't think they have many reasons to give me a spot instead of a new applicant without my red flag, but isn't maintaining a satisfying status and producing decent publications an advantage over a fresh undergrad? Program X is one of those that's believed to make first year intentionally extremely tough to weed out those who can't handle it.

Also, most students learn how to (1st) author a paper in the program, with no prior serious publication experience. I already showed I could survive the filters (tough core courses + exams), and first authored papers in respectable journals and conferences. And my time there would be 1-2 years shorter than a new student (i.e. less spending for them). Do you think these could be good-enough reasons for them to at least consider taking me back by any chance?

@user314159 "isn't maintaining a satisfying status and producing decent publications an advantage over a fresh undergrad" Satisfying status? No, that's the bare minimum, not something to wear with pride. Publications will depend on how they compare to others - if you've produced similarly in quality to other students, it's not special. If it's a little better than average, still not special. I think maybe you are underestimating how unusual it is to quit and try to return: that's a huge waving red flag dripping of flammable substances.

And sure, maybe they'd see it as a benefit that you're more experienced/closer to being ready to graduate, but given your history I don't think they believe you will, ever. You quit on them, you're now telling them you want to quit on your second option. What about that history says you're ever going to finish?

Imagine someone promised to build your house, and then after they had put together the foundation, said actually nevermind, I'd like to build your neighbor a house instead. So, now you have a half-finished house and have to start over looking for a new contractor. You see them building a foundation next door, and it's a good enough foundation, but then they come knocking on your door saying they're bored and ask if you'd now let them finish your house. All you know is they can build foundations, you've never actually seen them finish a house, why go with that option?

I think this answer is accurate, but you might add that there is a certain amount of harm a student that leaves does to a program.  It's not just about the student's ability to follow through and how that looks in the application package.  The program (well, two programs) wasted a slot.  If the student REALLY wants to go back to program 1, my recommendation would be to include "I don't need, want, or expect any tuition or salary support".

I agree with Bryans assessment: you very likely can't.
The only situation in which I could see myself taking back a PhD student would be a circumstance that is drastic and was out of the student's control: for example, you had to move states for a cancer treatment. But in your case, you conciously made that decision- whether you suffered from a grass-is-greener syndrome really doesn't play into the situation here. A PhD is a long-term investment; it is high stakes, lots of money and effort involved- and you are flip-flopping as if this the choice between which books to read.
I answer here because my Bachelor and Master degrees are also in X, and now I am in Y. There is, as you say, very little overlap (read: none) between the two fields, and soft skills can only get me this far. When I chose my PhD program, I elected to take on a subject that would at least give me training in the methods of field Y. There was no option to leave X, because no-one in Y would have taken me with my credentials from X.
So, I can relate to the feeling of doing a PhD in a field of which you know that you won't stay in. So my advice is to make the best of what you have:

Consider all options. How much leeway do you have with the topics and/or methods? Are there cross-disciplinary approaches in the field that connects you back to X?

Cross-disciplinary skills: A PhD is not just for showing proficiency in some field, it is also about proficiency to carry out and write research. I wouldn't discard the ability to return to X with a PhD in Y, given your previous background in X. You also show ability to work in different disciplines- this takes commitment and makes you more of a generalist than a specialist. This can be an advantage especially in cross-disciplinary work environments. I am currently doing research in Z, actually. What I believed to be a weakness, in that I never had just one thing that I found worth pursuing, I turned into my USP. Of course, I am not a tenure track professor and likely never will be.

Lower your expectations: what are you afraid of missing out when continuing your current PhD? Were you expecting to become the upcoming rising star in X? Statistically speaking, you are lucky to get a postdoc and unbelievably lucky to get anything beyond that. Once you realise that, you may find that you actually could qualify for (research) work in X after finishing the PhD.

These considerations seem like the only solutions at this point. I should clarify a few points. 1. I really didn't treat it like choosing a book. I did due diligence. I had thoughts of studying Y since I undergrad, but a bit too late. So I read papers on subjects I was interested in, I collaborated with researchers in Y, while a grad student in X, spoke to many people, and made a decision over the course of a couple of years. I realize now that I was still ill-informed, because my exposure was only to a part of the field that shared a mindset with me, which turned out to be a very small part.

My interest in X never changed. I tried, and did, cross-disciplinary work as much as possible, I thoroughly considered the option of staying in X, and I'd prefer to finish my PhD in X and continue my career in Y after my PhD if that was an option. Every professor I spoke to unanimously advised me against that arguing that just can't happen (due to conventions/politics/etc). This is something that I explained quite clearly to the department X, and also my prospective advisors (then professors) there. So, a switch was a strategic move really, rather than a sudden "heat of the moment" thing.

A cross-disciplinary work is not completely impossible, but the only option would be similar to what you described as working in Z, rather than either of X or Y, after my PhD. This is mostly because the fundamental difference in practices of X and Y. It's like doing cross-disciplinary work between mechanical engineering and sociology. And also the communities of academics in the two fields tend to be quite biased against each other, which is a main reason the number of people who were trained in one and worked in the other (at least in academia) probably doesn't exceed 3.

The best way to do that would be to provide strong evidence that you have stopped being the kind of person who discontinues their Ph.D. program due to sudden "shifts of interest" or due to suddenly "coming to the understanding that [you] really don't want to build [your] career in" some field or another.
To obtain such evidence, you need to first critically ask yourself what makes you think that "this time it's different". If the answer is just that you're really, really sure this time, then not only will that most likely not convince anyone else, but you should honestly ask yourself whether your inner feeling of being really sure about your choice this time is something that the future you can be expected to adhere to. I suggest you think of it less as "how do I convince my old department" and more as "is it really true that I am going to stick around this time, and if so, how do I know this". After you have cleared that hurdle to your own satisfaction, only then does it make sense to get in touch with your old department.
If you don't have that kind of evidence (and I will venture a guess that you don't, since nothing in your post indicates this), or if the evidence is of such nature that it cannot be subjected to scrutiny by others (your own inscrutable inner feeling of certainty), then coming back may be nigh impossible, and rightly so.
Of course, if you are planning to quit your current program anyway, then there is probably no harm in trying to come back to your old department, just for the sake of your own peace of mind.
[Note that I have never been on any admissions committee, so take the above with a grain of salt. I am submitting this as an answer because it is too long for a comment.]

This definitely is an important step, and the main reason between a long gap between the previous time I asked the department to return and now. I understand my post doesn't reflect this, and a few other points that I realize from the answers here maybe I should have clarified, but the point was already too long. Please refer to my comments on @FLonLon's answer, point 1 for the "sudden shift" (it was not at all sudden; it took a couple of years and I was very cautious about it), and point 2 for one reason why I think if I'm back in X I'll stick around.

But the main reason I think "this time is different", is: A. As I explained in other comments, I never lost my interest in X. In fact, I started cross-disciplinary projects between X and Y, to satisfy my interest in Y, then I realize I like asking questions in Y (while from X, I could only be in the position of helping researchers in Y with answering questions they ask). Experienced academics in both fields unanimously told me continuing cross-disciplinary would deprive me of a reliable career in either of X and Y, and switching post PhD wasn't an option, otherwise I strongly preferred that.

B. Things went wrong with Y because of my partial information. It's like thinking "Ford is a cool car" after driving a Mustang. I (subconsciously) had selective exposure to Y. I was never systematically trained in it and only read papers and interacted with researchers so like-minded that I happened to find. It turned out, this is a relatively isolated and small community, and working with the rest of the field is unavoidable while you're in it. My guess is, this was so obvious to those Y profs I sought advice from before switching, that they didn't think someone from outside might miss it.

C. The reason I think going back to X is different is that I am well familiar with the field, I always remained strongly interested in X, and as I said, if it was an option, I'd rather finish my PhD in X and only pivot into Y after PhD. This is something I also told the X department when I was deciding whether to switch. If return to X, I'd have no temptation to leave because of an interest in a new field after this experience, and I've studied X for most of my adult life, know a wide range of communities in the field, and have a very good idea what I'm getting into with all the pros and cons.

@user314159 When you agreed to join a program, you were making a commitment to complete that program, not to take further time to decide to go somewhere else. If you were unsure, you could have taken more time before applying. Program Y took a chance on you and believed that you were so sure you needed to make a change that they would take you on. Now, it's clear to them and X that when you make this sure commitment you aren't fully serious, because here you are going back.

@BryanKrause I wasn't unsure when I started X, I thought being an interdisciplinary researcher between the two fields is possible, but of course prematurely, as an undergrad deciding on grad school. But I understand this is irrelevant, because at the end of the day, it's my lack of commitment and their wasted investment that matters to them and makes them not consider me instead of a new, presumably committed, applicant.

@user314159 "I wasn't unsure when I started X" – exactly. This means that at least historically, not being unsure has not turned out to be a great predictor of whether or not you will stay in a program. I don't think you did anything particularly unethical, changes of heart happen, but all anyone else has to go on is your track record. Secondly, you still say: "if it was an option, I'd rather finish my PhD in X and only pivot into Y after PhD". Surely you see how a student who really wants to do X is preferable to one who would really like to do Y instead of X but cannot because [reasons].

@user314159 Besides, I don't understand your reasoning. What exactly does before Ph.D. vs. after Ph.D. have to do with anything? How would a hypothetical (you say impossible) situation where you switch from X to Y after receiving your Ph.D. in X solve the problem that you have with Y (" I actually realize I'm not "compatible" with [Y]")? It really doesn't seem like your preference for X is very clear from what you right, which is likely to make any potential supervisor wary.

@AdamPřenosil Pivoting into Y after a PhD in X was what I had in mind before switching to Y, i.e. before I learn what I now know about the field and my incompatibility with it. That being said, it'd still be a hypothetical path in the way I had in mind, even with what I know now, as an X-trained researcher addressing problems in Y, in an interdisciplinary manner, and because of the specifics of the fields (beyond the scope here), the "incompatibility" would be irrelevant in that case. But as I said, that's only hypothetical, and practically never leads to a meaningful career as far as I know.

If I understand you correctly you did not have a supervisor or a faculty member you worked with closely before you left. In that case I think your best chance is to contact the department, explain your situation and ask them if you could either join the program again off cycle or if they would consider your application, if you applied again next cycle. If they accept you again immediately that’s great. However, most likely they won't but they will allow you to apply again. In that case I think that you can immediately get in touch with faculty members (ideally people, you have talked to before) and discuss potential dissertation topics. That way you would not lose too much time and you have strong support in the faculty once the next application cycle starts. You may want to stay in your current PhD program until the next cycle for funding reasons and do the minimum work required for that. Alternatively, there may be someone who would hire you as RA at your old department.
During the next cycle I would do a full round of applications to all interesting schools because there is no guarantee you will be allowed back into the same program. However, even if you have to settle for a lower ranked school, you will still have connections in your old department and may be able to go there for a visit during your PhD or Co-Author with people (if field X does not require Co-Authors to be in the same place because they need to share a lab or other physical resources).

It sounds like you are ignoring the harm caused - by you - to department X."

I really didn't treat it like choosing a book. I did due diligence.

Yeah, sure...  you probably did.
To you that matters - but why would that matter to department X?
Bryan Krause put it best:

You quit on them, you're now telling them you want to quit on your second option.

Try this answer - I don't think you'll do it - but here it is
If you ever want a chance to get a PhD in X:

Finish your PhD in Y
Work a while.
Save enough to fund your PhD in X (with no stipend, and with no tuition assistance)
Reapply to X with the condition that you will not accept financial assistance to finish your PhD in X.
If some payment from them to you is required in this program (for some reason), promise to return the full payment as a donation back to the department (as unrestricted funds) as you receive the payments.

Does this seem like absurd or unreasonable advice?
Pretend that the person who quit isn't you.

Reread and think about the first sentence in this post.

Think about being in department X when a student did this to you.

Think about the person who didn't get in, because you picked the one who quit.

Think about all the time your department spent training that student who - instead of being there now and writing good papers which increase the value of department X - left you.

Think about the embarrassment - to you - because that student quit.

Think about how the student wasn't even gone a semester, and wanted to come back.

Now think about the person who quit, who was already told they couldn't return, asking again, to return.

Does those steps still seem absurd or unreasonable?
Honestly, I don't really see a path for you to return to department X.
However - if there is a return path - I would bet that it involves proving that you can follow through on a PhD commitment before you're seriously considered.
It wouldn't hurt to make financial donations to that department, but I don't know that it would help.
(If you donate a million plus, different story. The amount shouldn't matter, but reality is what it is.)


text:
Advisor uses student's work unethically
Alice's ex-advisor accused Alice of plagiarism. It wasn't plagiarism in any way and Alice tried to reason with her ex-advisor. It seemed at the time that they reached an understanding.
Alice's ex-advisor continued funding her over the next semester and made her finish the development of a technology. As soon as Alice finished developing it and handed over the code, her ex-advisor officially reported her for academic misconduct. Alice changed advisors right away, but now her ex-advisor is not letting her use the technology as part of her dissertation. So essentially, the ex-advisor made Alice finish the development of the tech without informing her that he is going to report her eventually. This seems unethical. Isn't this a violation of research integrity? If not, what kind of violation is this?
In the process, ex-advisor also violated university policy of reporting a misconduct with 14 calendar days. Under the above circumstances, what should Alice do? With the policy violation Alice can only fight the misconduct allegation, but still not get her work back. So how can Alice argue to get access to the tech that she developed?

You may want to name the country, so that readers familiar with a country's system may provide more targeted/useful feedback.    I see two separate issues: (i) plagiarism, and (ii) theft of technology.  The first issue involves Alice, and the second, involves the ex-advisor.  They should be handled separately by a university.  Alice should check her university's policy regarding intellectual property rights.

Plagiarism of what, and how? Is the plagiarism accusation related to the "technology" that Alice developed? The title says the advisor is using work unethically - what work are they using?

Your previous posts already cover most of this ground, and you received some good advice there. If there is something new, you can [edit] your post(s) to make it clear what the differences between these question are. A good starting place is to put the actual question (including a question mark!) in the title -- this will help you crystallize the question a bit beyond "what should I do?"


text:
Ex-advisor stopping work
Alice developed a technology and the development of the tech was funded by her ex-advisor. No user study has been done yet and there is no publication in the picture. Only the tech has been developed so far, which is entirely Alice's code. Recently Alice changed her advisor. Ex-advisor is not allowing Alice to use the tech as part of her dissertation. What do you suggest Alice should do here? Do you think the ex-advisor has the right to stop Alice from using the tech despite Alice developing it entirely on her own?

Was the funding through a grant and if so, what type? That is, government agency, industry, etc.

Sorry I should have mentioned this. The grant was through a university-funded center for research on a certain demographic. The grant was not specific to this technology and was meant for an entirely different technology. There was some fund left to fund this tech as well that I developed.

It may be that "Alice" signed away all IP to the university.

Did Alice change institutions? Does the new advisor know about this, and if so, what do they say?

Alice did not change institution or the department. Alice only changed advisor. New advisor is not too keen on going into conflict but realizes it is an important part of Alice's dissertation.

It doesn't matter if a grant was for a specific thing, if Alice was paid on that grant then she did not develop anything entirely on her own, she developed something with support from the grant. Even if Alice wrote all the actual code, if the previous advisor gave guidance and direction in any way they may have some partial claim on the product. Who specifically owns the work depends entirely on the terms of that grant/Alice's employment, and possibly also the laws that pertain to Alice and her institution: it might be Alice, it might be shared between Alice and her ex-advisor, it might be the university, it might be the government/granting agency.
However, the issue of "not allowing Alice to use the tech as part of her dissertation" seems to entirely be a department/graduate program issue. Primarily, I would recommend Alice see what the advice of her current/new supervisor is on this issue. Is this work necessary for Alice to graduate? Is her other work sufficient without it? What is the position of other people who decide whether Alice graduates, like members of a thesis committee? It may be necessary to escalate things to department/graduate school leadership to put pressure or make a decision, but hopefully even before it gets there some agreement can be arranged between Alice and her advisors.
It's pretty important to know what the ex-advisor's motivations are; some of those motivations, like some sort of revenge, are clearly unethical. Other motivations may be more reasonable - if disclosure of this technology in a dissertation will imperil a patent, for example, it may be in both the advisor and Alice's best interests to move forward with patent protection in mind. It's not clear from the question whether that's the case.

Thank you so much for the response. Ex-advisor's motivation is purely revenge. There is no patent issue. This work is a necessary part of Alice's dissertation. When it comes to intellectual property, do you think this tech can be considered Alice's intellectual property?

@Puja Even if there's no patent issue, I'd be cautious in leaping to "pure revenge" as a motive. "Intellectual property" is an umbrella term for a collection of legal concepts, so whether it's "Alice's IP" depends very much on whose laws Alice's work is governed by, and bunch of other specifics. That said, I highly doubt this work is solely Alice's property.

When I was completing my masters, I had to move out of the lab I had been in and lost access to the compiler I needed for my project.  I rewrote the code from scratch using a compiler I did have access to. Turned out the code was better, and more versatile and helped with my thesis. YMMV.

@Puja As per Bryan's answer, that depends on the terms of the grant/Alice's employment. But I would be surprised if funded work came without conditions on the IP generated in that work.

Thank you everyone for your responses. There is also another perspective on this and I shared it here - https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/186809/advisor-uses-students-work-unethically. I would really appreciate if you can share your thoughts on this. Thanks once again.
Please note, I have changed my display name from Puja to PB09.


text:
Resubmitting a paper after rejection with changed data
I submitted a paper last month in a reputable high ranking journal, the paper was rejected with a chance of resubmission, the reviewer pointed out some anomalies in my data analysis and stated that my work can't be considered for publication. I run the experiments all over, and plotted new graphs. Do you think I should resubmit to the same journal? Are the reviewers going to question my new data? Is there anyone here who went through running the experiment again, finding new data and resubmitting to the same journal and got accepted for publication?

Well, have you questioned your new (and old) data to understand what the differences are? Always be the worst critic of your work.

Well, have you carefully read and addressed all the reviewer comments?

This is going to depend on what the problems were with the old data set, why you needed to repeat it, and what changes you made to the protocol.  Were there actual mistakes that you made?  Did you add controls?  Do you have a larger data set?
I'd go so far as to say that if you don't understand why the original data wasn't publishable and don't have valid reasons why the second data set is better, maybe you should consider not publishing.
Another way to think about it is would you feel OK about presenting BOTH data sets in a publication, and defending the results you got for each.

If you are sure you've improved the paper and its underlying data, you should probably resubmit, since they permit it. That would probably be the quickest way to get feedback on whether you have something worth publishing. Even if it is again rejected, the reasons may change which will give you further advice on how to proceed. Submitting to a different journal would start you at the beginning again and take longer in most cases.
Provide a note along with the resubmission explaining what you have done and why it correctly responds to the earlier review.
But don't waste people's efforts. Make careful evaluation yourself or within your working group.

Can it happen that the reviewers of a journal deny further re-submissions if they feel that someone has not put enough effort in working on the changes they requested? Guess it depends on the reviewer but do you know if it has already happened?

@sam Reviewers don't have that sort of power. They give advice to the editor. And it is hard to judge "effort" in any case. The question for the reviewer is to recommend publishing or not to the editor and to give advice to the authors for improvement. Authors are also often expected to detail changes to the paper making the reviewers job a bit easier.


text:
My supervisor has different standards for different topics and students when it comes to a thesis. How should I approach this?
I've been given a master's topic that is quite complicated and feel it was not really well thought out to begin with nor communicated to me how difficult it would be when I asked. So naturally I'm having difficulties and am even questioning if the topic is appropriate in the first place.
The level of detail and expectations are quite fine and high (presumably because this is for the supervisors commercial gain), and I am not really able to make my own decisions because the supervisor will later say my decision was inappropriate because of something I couldn't have known or because of personal preference. The work in many aspects is also something that is not discussed anywhere really in books or texts so I cannot quite learn the methods on my own. The supervisor has stated that other students have had no issues doing this on their own, but I saw that this is not true, because their topics were so much easier in scope, complexity, and topic to begin with, they didn't require the type of work I'm being told to do. Their topic (not for supervisors gain) was set up simplistically to begin with, and basically did not involve any detailed analysis. The supervisor has told me that what I'm doing is not their requirement, but rather the program's requirement, which seems obviously false to me. I would think that I should at the very least be able to approach the problem equally simplistically if unable to meet the current level of complexity.
Since I have already spoken with the supervisor many times, and my situation is not improving, I do not know what to do. I do not want to continue working if I'm going to fail.
I understand that there's a gray area for various reasons, but is it ethical/legal for some students to be given much more difficult (in complexity) and time consuming topics than other students? If a student with the harder topic is having difficulty (which seems natural to me), it seems to me they will have a much more difficult time passing and could even be forced to drop out of their program because of this.
I'm not sure if I should bring up the fact to my supervisor that other students clearly did not do the type of work that I'm doing (for fear that the supervisor will be upset and quit or fail me). I'm also not sure if I should simply continue working on the topic and possibly file a complaint if I don't pass.
How do you think I should approach this? I am not quite familiar with academic regulations.

How is it for the supervisor's personal gain?

it's for their personal work at their job in industry.


text:
How frequently should you cite a paper in a section that summarizes the paper?
If you are writing a summary or analysis of a paper in a section specifically devoted to it, and make it clear you are referring to that paper throughout the section, where and how frequently should you cite the paper? Should you cite only when presenting key results despite making it clear that that paper is being referenced or also when presenting more general information?


text:
Seeking a Reference from an Instructor
I took a course with Professor X some semesters ago and enjoyed their teaching. I interacted with them outside of class but after that did not reach out to them. I am applying for a scholarship that requires a reference letter. I am hoping Professor X would be willing to write a letter speaking to my academic abilities that they observed in their course. I don't want to come across as self-centered and only reaching out when I need something, especially since I haven't initiated casual conversations before or initiated any interaction in general, and all interactions have always been work-related. Does anyone have any advice on how I can appropriately and respectfully ask them to consider writing a reference letter?

Can you arrange for an in-person visit?

Have you searched this question on this site?


text:
How are exercises in Senior Year Undergraduate Textbooks meant to be treated?
I am studying Averill M Law's "Simulation Modeling and Analysis". It has 30 questions as exercises for Chapter 1. But our exams never ask for such things. They used to ask "exercises/problems/Numericals" in junior years. I personally love exercises and learn a lot by doing them. But the thing is if I start doing even 15 questions, it'd take me 1 week just to solve them(studying full day). So I don't think that's how they're supposed to be treated.
What should I do? I want to use these exercises to further my understanding of concept, but I don't know how do I do it? And yes, I love unsolved exercises. When I was in 11,12 class, I had the time and I solved >2000 unsolved and >1000 solved examples in those 2 years of physics and only I know how much better that made me a physics student.

Having taught courses using this particular book, I can tell you that some of the exercises have very short solutions (and should take no more than 5-10 minutes) while others involve a significant amount of computer programming or statistical analysis that will take more time (multiple hours.)  There are far more exercises in the book than any student could reasonably be expected to solve.

In general, the purpose of exercises in textbooks (at any level) are to firm up the ideas in the book, give you practice in actually applying the ideas, and, hopefully, leading you to insights that a more passive approach likely won't.
Think of learning as an active sport, not a spectator sport. If you wanna win, you gotta get in the game. See, for example, the book The Art of Changing the Brain by James E Zull
You have been wise to focus on exercises in your past. I suggest that you keep it up. If the exercises/problems are now more challenging then that is a good thing. Do as many as you can manage, even if you can't do them all. In some books there is a progression in difficulty through the exercises. In some, adjacent problems are similar. Try to figure out if having done one, which one is best to next spend time on.
You can also ask a professor which exercises they think will benefit you most if you don't have time for all of them. This is especially valuable if they know you and your work already.

Traditional publishers do tend to push textbook authors to include more-and-more exercises... especially in second and subsequent editions.
This and other mechanisms tend to cause textbook authors to be sure to include every known related exercise. Sure, it would be ideal to know how to address all of them... but it would take a lot of time, as you note. And, I claim, it is not necessary to have done all of them to claim a modest grasp of the ideas. Here we might come to asking whether we want a "perfect (if naive) understanding of chapter one", or, rather, a "fairly good idea about chapters one through five". These are different approaches.
And, in my own experience, I have seen over and over that (even just partially-informed) hindsight makes lots of things completely clear in chapter one, not by directly addressing the formalism, but by finding out later what the point was. :)


text:
Potential problems with a research advisors with whom you have never taken a course
There is a particular professor who I would like to supervise a summer research project (summer 2023), which is a necessary component of my MA program, since we share similar research interests. I have also heard from friends who have taken their undergraduate degrees at this school, that they really enjoyed his courses.
While this professor will being supervising MA projects next summer, he is only teaching undergraduate courses and a PhD research seminar this upcoming year, meaning that I will not be able to take a course with him.
I was planning to send him an email during the term with my topic proposal, and ask if we could meet to discuss things further. I was wondering about potential problems with working with an advisor whom you have never taken a course with before and who does not know who you are.
Perhaps I am overthinking things, although I realize the importance of choosing a good advisor.

why would that be an issue for you?  This professor might not be interested (that would be highly dependent on the individual) but if you meet the technical prerequisites it’s presumably not a barrier.

You have some positive information about him, so it is probably worth exploring. But don't try to do things by email if at all possible. A sit down for a half hour or so while you get acquainted and let one another get a feel for strengths and weaknesses would be strongly advised.
Send him the proposal if you like, but propose a meeting where you can discuss all of the options. You can both make decisions after a meet up.
Advisement and course teaching are a bit different, so not necessarily equivalent for your purposes, but getting to know them and how they interact one-on-one would be valuable.


text:
Why should we always aim for the highest Impact Factor (IF) journal? The "IF first culture"
Dear Academia Community,
I would like to ask the following question:
In my department, there is the culture of "IF first", which implies that the IF is the most important (and often sole) criteria when submitting an article to a journal. My supervisor insists on a list with 5 journal suggestions for a ready-to-submit paper. Then again, he would just order the suggestions by IF and direct the submission to the journal with the highest IF. I am working in medicine / lifestyle medicine - which is at the intersection of medical science, social science and economics. Thus, when presenting him journal suggestions, he always insists on submitting to the same journal (a 6.8 IF MDPI journal). More recently, I asked him about an alternative option that would fit very well with my latest work. The journal has 1.6 impact points and he immediately dismissed the idea.
Is this department-specific or also the case in your departments?
Sincerely
M

Not a real answer, but probably still relevant: at least, it seems to be field-dependent to some extent. As a mathematician, I hardly hear other mathematicians discussing impact factors of journals - which doesn't mean that mathematicians wouldn't care about "prestige" of journals, though; they just seem to infer it by other means than impact factors. (For instance, I would definitely refuse to submit any of my articles to an MDPI journal, no matter what any metrics say about the journal.)

By the way, does your supervisor specify from which database the impact factor for the short listed journals have to be taken?

Dear Jochen Glueck, my supervisor asks me to make a list based on Clarivate IF list. I am based in Germany.

@JochenGlueck, I was just about to say the same about MDPI. BTW, many so-called predatory publishers use made-up IF or ones purchased from particular services, so it is indeed important which database is being used. As for Clarivate: "Clarivate has been criticized for its anti-competitive practices in a highly oligopolistic academic database market [...]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarivate&oldid=1100225287)

The IF of MDPI journal is inflated.  Not to be trusted.

Focusing on high Impact Factor, or believing that the IF of a journal is a useful proxy for the quality of a paper published in that journal is an toxic behaviour that has a negative impact on Academic research.
Unfortunately the IF of published papers is often used in recruitment and promotion assessments, as well as proof of researcher capability in grant applications therefore Academics who want to progress and achieve success in their career are effectively forced to game the publication of their papers by choosing journals to target on the basis of the IF of those journals.

Note that the use of Journal Impact Factors for the assessment of outputs is not allowed in the REF. See REF Panel Criteria and Working Methods paragraph 207.

@atom44 Glad they've changed that.

Like the other posters, I would not aim for the highest impact factor journal.  My process is:

Exclude journals with mandatory publication charges.  I can and do use ArXiv for free.
Identify the set of journals that are likely to accept the manuscript.
Select those journals that fit my professional brand.  For example, if the paper could be published in a biology journal or a physics journal, I would choose the physics journal.
Select the most prestigious journal.
Use impact factor to break the ties and admit that is arbitrary.

Since I am biased towards physics-branded journals, I tend to end up somewhere with a bit lower impact factor than some of my other options.

"Exclude journals with mandatory publication charges." Watson (metacitation Watson & Crick, 1957) disagrees.
WATSON, J., CRICK, F. Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid. Nature 171, 737–738 (1953). https://doi.org/10.1038/171737a0

@EarlGrey Choice of journal was not their area of expertise.

IF is just another case of a generally useful, easy to understand metric that is vulnerable to  being gamed (or manipulated). Somewhat similar is the h-index.
It is widely known and recognized, despite debates about its merits/relevance. Therefore, in the absence of other criteria, IF is one way (arguably the most objective) to select a suitable journal. The issue is that the 'other criteria' almost always exist.
Researchers are as subjective as anyone else; we make value judgements based on our perception of status. Respect for members on the editorial board plays a role, as does a vaguely defined but strongly motivating sense of prestige.We also consider historical precedents (certain journals have traditionally carried important papers from some field). We worry that a senior interview panel may not quite appreciate a young journal with skyrocketing IF as much as a classical journal with low IF.
The conflict between this inherent subjectivity and the cold objectivity provided by a single-numbered metric (IF) is one that we often don't acknowledge.

Depends on the system / country you are in.  Some countries provide a list of recognized journals or conferences -- usually they are based on IF.   Hence, if your supervisor is going for promotion or/and funding, he/she must have recognized publications as per the system.  Any journals/conferences not on the list are basically useless, despite their corresponding community holding them in high regard.
Note also that the IF of a journal can be manipulated.
The IF of journals can act as a signal as to what is currently hot.  In my areas, journals for old, established, areas have low IF despite having top quality journal articles.  Hence, if you publish in journals with a high IF, that indicates that your research is current.
I'm with some readers -- MDPI is a dodgy publisher.

Why do you think those journal lists are based on impact factor?  Did you have a specific country in mind?
Usually those lists are pretty broad.

@AnonymousPhysicist I do.  I have collaborators who are purely driven by the list of journals as recommended by their university or education ministry.

Why would you not submit to the highest impact factor journal? Impact factor acts as a proxy for prestige and visibility. They are harder to publish in, ergo, if you successfully publish there then it's a mark that your paper meets some high standard. Furthermore, when you publish in a high impact factor journal, more people see your results.
There's basically no non-personal reason not to publish in the highest impact factor journal possible. You could have ideological reasons against it (e.g. Jochen Glueck's comment about publishing with MDPI), or maybe financial reasons (if you can't afford to pay any publication charges then you certainly cannot publish there), but absent these things, there's no downside.

Hmm, I'm not sure whether my reasons to avoid MDPI are ideological. Most articles that I've seen there had an extremely short (for mathematical standards) time between submission and acceptance, which makes me doubt their standards. So I avoid them since (i) I believe publishing with MDPI could harm my reputation among collegues and make it likely that my article is not considered a serious contribution (even if this specific journal had longer review times) and (ii) I do not want to support a publisher who follows this practice. I don't think (i) is ideological, but I'm not sure about (ii).

Dear Allure, thank you so much for your comment. My field is Nutrition / Lifestyle Medicine and thus the options with the highest IF are "Nutrients" (MDPI) or "Frontiers in Nutrition", both OA journals. Financial reasons are not a topic in this case, it is just "preference" vs "recommendation".

@JochenGlueck (ii) sure sounds like an ideological objection to me.

You might not submit to the highest impact factor journal because they have manipulated their impact factor.  "when you publish in a high impact factor journal, more people see your results."  I do not believe you.  I am quite convinced that Google Scholar decides who sees your results.

@AnonymousPhysicist every impac factor is manipulated, because it is just an index. I do not have a solution, but Google Scholar is smart enough to have a variable impact factor with a secret formulation, which is even worse: it cannot be gamed, because research itself is the game.
I am quite sure even "google scholar impact factor" is not an advancement of research.

I was not referring to Google's journal rankings.

Unfortunately, I doubt that any reputable supervisor would recommend an MDPI journal, which are considered by some as a predatory publisher.
On the other hand, this is a good example why we shouldn't (and indeed most academic don't) care for IFs: they tend not to represent accurately the prestige of a journal.
Indeed, while prestige and importance of the journals in which one publishes in is crucial for one's career, it is not the impact factor but other factors that normally determines the prestige of a journal.

There is one more consideration I don't see discussed in any other answers: time.
Often (but not always), the higher IF journals have a longer "time to first decision". Even if they do not, the higher you aim, the lowers your chances of acceptance, and if your paper gets rejected, resubmitting to a different journal takes time. So, given infinite time, I agree that the best strategy is to start with the highest IF journal which matches the topic of your work (and a good match is essential), however, most researchers do not have infinite time.
There is definitely something to be said about aiming high enough: if all your papers are getting accepted with minor to no revisions, you are likely aiming too low. If most of your papers are getting rejected, you are likely aiming too high. And striking the right balance needs to take time available into account.
We recently had to decide on a publishing strategy with a postdoc nearing the end of their contract. Their publication output in the first part of the postdoc was a bit on the low side, especially because of "aiming high" (not "too high" mind you -- then, they still had plenty of time to shoot that high). So when discussing targets, we ordered the journals according to IF, as well as time to first decision (as much as we could find that information online), and discussed how likely we consider the acceptance to each of those (both according to the topic, and the level of novelty). The final decision was made to maximise (in our opinion) the chances of their work getting published before the end of their contract in good, but not the best, journals and conferences.
So, my own personal strategy is highest-IF-given-available-time (and given a good topic fit), which often does not mean only my time (I'm in a permanent post, so have plenty) but also the time of everybody on the author list.
Note that most of these considerations don't really hold for MDPI journals -- they have a suspiciously short turnaround time. I also echo what many others voiced about MDPI -- I do not like their practices, and while some of their journals are better than others, I would not consider submitting there any longer.