text:
What can professors do to encourage properly written email messages from students?
(Motivated by https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/55082/hey-i-was-wondering-of-your-students-write-like-this)

The writing style probably [stems] from the electronic age of text
messaging. In any case, an email between an a student and professor is
a professional communication (not a social text message).
[Example:] "hey. i was wondering if your students write like this when they send you emails or ask for your help in an email and weather or not your willing to respond when such little effort is put forth when writing."

What can professors do to encourage properly written email messages from students?
(Other than being a positive role model.)

Slightly related: Dealing with students who sent email with empty body but the homework attached

That students write sloppily can probably traced back to Thales, don't blame current technology.

Relevant comic #1. Relevant comic #2. The incongruity is irreconcilable by logic.

@Chris: "too much time on my hands". This assumption always confused me, I don't type emails correctly because I spend a long time on them. I type them correctly because many years ago I had enough time on my hands to learn to freaking type (and spell, and punctuate). Therefore it's not the big job for me that it is for illiterates (and arguably mobile phone use is a separate issue due to the UI being necessarily so poor). But then some people who can spell perfectly well say they find it quicker and easier to spell incorrectly. I believe them but it still baffles me.

During my first week as an undergraduate (applied Physics), I asked a question to the lecturer teaching Calculus I.  The reply I received lacked punctuation and was written in all capitals.

Please keep in mind that your students will soon be leaving the world of academia and entering the work force. If you really want to prepare them for something, try using that discourse community's standards, not the soon to be irrelevant expectations of academics.

Buy a bag of spare Shift keys and give out a weekly award in class for the email most in need of one [redact name and personal details]!

What Dave said, with emphasis. I work as a software engineer. Normal email discourse in my workplace begins with "Hi Joe, " or no salutation at all. The high proportion of ESL engineers has led to a very relaxed attitude to several grammatical niceties. And constant reading of ESL-english has affected me to the point where it looks like dialect, not error, to me - when I notice at all. Moreover, I find myself making the same omissions myself, having unconsciously learned the local dialect.

How about penalizing "unpropper written" emails? Like deleting/ignoring/low prioritizing them.

@Moriarty PhD comics are good, but I prefer these instructions.

My own pet peeve is the frequent misuse of the word like.  Now that's something I would really like to find a way of training someone out of.  But I don't see how to write an acceptable Question about that.

Don't bother, you'll risk ending up like Brian Stimpson.

@Moriarty But ... but .... but my name is YO! :D

The best way to deal with this is on a broader level and explain the rules during an introductory or preparatory course to all incoming students. For example, at our department, first year students have to follow a course on academic skills, and there they also talk about emailing professors. It also has the advantage that students don't have to deal with different expectations by each professor. One sign that it works at least to a certain extent: Students seem to learn in that course that they should sign with their name and their student number (something which I never expected and definitly did not ask for), but most of them actually do sign this way (at least when contacting me first).

Maybe this is culture-specific, but I would not consider writing an e-mail to someone who is not a friend or a relative an "academic skill". (At the same time, though, I do not associate any different writing style, degree of politeness, or formality depending on whether the recipient is a professor, a customer service agent, a HR representative of a company I apply to, an official at some municipal or state agency, or a neighbour I do not know - in short, a stranger.)

Good point. I did not want to suggest it is an academic skill, I just wanted to say that this particular skill (writing professional emails) is taught to everyone who has to follow the "academic skills"-course in our department.

I see. That is at least a good way to ensure no-one has an excuse for not being aware of the basic expected forms of communication.

I do consider email etiquette to be an academic skill, actually.  (Which is not to say that other areas do not have email etiquette, or that there isn't a great deal of overlap.)

@O.R.Mapper:  If the student is sending such an e-mail, s/he is hoping to get a helpful response.  It is a(n academic) skill to craft an e-mail that has a good chance of getting a helpful response.  Instruction in how to get a helpful response should be appreciated.  We can then argue about whether the responder is too restrictive, but if you want help you should make it easy for people to help you and the targets of your requests will have a varying level of helpfulness.

@RossMillikan: I was trying to point out that there is nothing fundamentally different about communication with a professor than about communication with any other stranger that you hope to get a helpful response from. I concede academics might on average be slightly better at crafting an e-mail that has a good chance of getting a helpful response than non-academics, because maybe they are slightly more affine to writing texts. Or maybe not. I don't know. I'm reluctant to call something everyone needs in their daily lives and should have at least to some extent an "academic skill".

hey. i was wondering of your students write like this

Alas, yes, they do (however, I'm a non-native English speaker who teaches international students whose level of English is extremely varied, and there's not much I can do about grammar).
Anyway, during the first lesson I give the following pieces of advice (which are frequently ignored, though):

Sender address: please, use your institutional email address and avoid personal fancy addresses like "dirtydeedsdonedirtcheap@hardrock.com". But if you really want to use such an email address, at least configure the email client to show your real name and surname.
Subject: write a meaningful subject: if you don't put a subject and respect point 1, I'll surely delete your email without even reading it, thinking that it is spam.
Course information: please specify which course you are attending or have attended: I teach several courses and if you don't specify this I may not be able to answer (this piece of information is the most frequently missed).
Express your issues clearly: if you have long questions or complicated issues, just ask for an appointment instead.

+1 (To all three answers here, in fact). On your 2nd and 3rd points, I have my students "tag" the course number in the email subject, e.g., for the course ECE 290, I tell students to tag the course in the subject line as [ECE 290], followed by a proper subject.

I would argue against even suggesting the option of using a non-institutional email address. Aside from opening you up to all sorts of bogus claims about the spam filter eating the assignment it also puts the burden of identification on you when it shouldn't be.

I wonder though, have you ever considered just replying to people who ignore one of the first three points with a form letter asking them to adhere to them and resend their e-mail, Pavlovian-style?

@Lilienthal: for what concerns the spam filter eating the assignment, I don't have this issue because, in case, there is an electronic board from which students can transmit their assignments without passing through the email; in addition, my homework policy doesn't require strict verification. For the second point, it's good advice, I'll consider it from this year ;-)

+1 for focusing on the points that really matter for effective communication (giving sufficient information, organising it well, …) rather than capitalisation, punctuation, etc, which correlate with the rest but aren’t in themselves so essential.

I'd like to chime in as a student here.  I tend to write my (initial) e-mails formally, however, many professors tend to reply in the most informal way possible. I often get replies like [sic]

Sure, can you b ethere 29/8 at 10am?
James

to my well-crafted "Dear Dr. Jamesson" e-mails. For students, this can be confusing: if I reply, should I go for "Dear James, I guess I can make it the 31st at 2pm" or still reply with "Dear Dr. Jamesson, I have a class the 29th. Could we arrange a meeting 31/8, for example at 2pm?" In my experience, many professors write their e-mails in an informal way (note that this may be specific for Dutch culture which is very informal to begin with). For students, this means that they'll continuously have to consider whether to continue writing formally, or whether the professor feels that that's highly necessary. For that reason, I don't think plainly ignoring students who don't write their e-mails in a formal manner is a good idea. Therefore:

Assume good intent. There are many reasons for students not writing their e-mails formally. This could include coming from a different social background (do you really want to ignore students who managed to make it from a disadvantaged position to university?!), an attempt to appeal to the 'personal' side of you as a professor (some of my friends write e-mails like that because they feel that professors will answer them more readily if addressed in an informal manner), or even being nervous about writing a professor. Don't assume all students are lazy - be that person who is happy if he can make the difference for one student in your class.
Reply as you would to a formal e-mail, and notify the student that you would like a more formal inquiry next time. Informal e-mails are usually perfectly understandable - there's no need to be condescending and pretend you don't understand informal e-mails. However, simply include a note at the start of your e-mail if you feel that the inquiry could have been more formal. Direct feedback is in my opinion one of the most important things in the academic world, so don't be afraid to simply (but politely) state that you want to be addressed more formally next time, and that other professors might appreciate that too.
Students talk. Believe it or not, but students sometimes talk about other things than alcohol and potential partners. It won't take long before the vast majority of students know that you prefer to be addressed formally. If more professors indicate this preference (since I imagine professors also talk about other things than research grants and potential partners), it won't take long before all students start writing all their e-mails formally. Of course, this process will have to be repeated with the new batch of first-year students. Keep in mind that the scope of being a professor goes beyond teaching the course contents, but that you are there to train students to be professional members of the academic community (otherwise, we could just get rid of all professors and only read the book instead).

I'd like to add the following, which I posted as a comment but I think it will help in understanding this answer (especially why I use 'informal' instead of 'sloppy' throughout this answer):

Informality displayed by professors can be confusing to students. This,
  combined with students' ill-conceived ideas of how much effort should
  be put into writing even informal e-mails, makes for the sloppy e-mails
  described by the OP. Key point: don't assume a student is lazy if that
  could potentially disadvantage a motivated but 'uneducated' student.

The general convention that I stick to is to begin an email chain with "Dear..." or "Hi...". I guess it's up to the professor's individual demeanor, and the department culture, as to whether it's "Dear Professor Smith" or "Hi John". If replies are sent and received rapidly, or as one-liners (such as "Sure, see you then"), then I usually omit the greeting at the start for brevity. A protracted or lengthy reply will start with a greeting again. I always sign off as "Cheers, Steve" or "Thanks, Steve". As a postgrad, I generally treat professors and students the same. We're all just humans.

@Moriarty Note that I'm not saying professors should do a better job (hell, as far as I can see they work for two fte's, and I'm surprised they even get to my e-mails within a week), but that the informality displayed by professors can be confusing to students. This combined with students ill-conceived ideas of how much effort should be put into writing even informal e-mails makes for the sloppy e-mails described by the OP. Key point: don't assume a student is lazy if that could potentially disadvantage a motivated but 'uneducated' student.

Very good answer. I still remember that it was sometimes hard for me to properly address specific professors. I encountered lecturers which signed their E-Mails with their first Name and others which signed like: Prof. Dr. Lastname. I normally took the more formal route though.

In many cases, this goes toward expedient communications.  There was a time when the quickest way to deal with a printed memo was to scrawl a reply right on the print and send it back.

Stick with the formal greeting and you'll be safe.

"to my well-crafted "Dear dr. Jamesson" e-mails" Perhaps Dr. Jamesson is reacting to his title having been demoted to lower case.

@T.J.Crowder Probably not, since lowercase is the correct capitalization in Dutch. I'll edit it though since this answer should of course adhere to English standards.

What can professors do to encourage properly written email messages from students?

A rather straightforward option, that I have seen various professors follow, is to either delay answers to non-properly written e-mail messages, or to outright ignore the respective e-mails.
One precondition that I see for this is that it needs to be clearly communicated to the respective students that this is what is going to happen (i.e., to be on the safe side, it should at least be clearly stated next to the professor's e-mail address on their website).
Advantages:

The reaction (or lack thereof) has a direct effect. Some less motivated students might have a stance like "I don't care whether Professor XYZ complains about my writing style; as long as I get an answer to my request, everything is fine.", and with the (non-)reaction outlined in this answer, the point is that they do not get an answer to their request unless they send their request in an acceptable way.

Disadvantages:

This is implicit feedback. A student might be genuinely unaware of the degree at which they are breaching professional protocol by writing all e-mails like text messages to their best friend. I consider this a weak disadvantage, given that

students are young adults who should have had plenty of opportunity (including respective lessons at school ...) to learn how to properly write letters and
a university is generally a "pull" system; if the attempt to communicate was inappropriate, it is the student's responsibility to find out why, not the university's to readily deliver a step-by-step tutorial for something that should already be known and that can realistically be found out rather easily. Of course, it might be easy for the professor to provide instructions on how to properly write an e-mail, or even specifically point out the issues with a particular student's e-mail. However, teaching such basic text editing skills is not the purpose of a university, it should be known at least from highschool. Moreover, readily serving a correction seems detrimental, given that it does not help students develop into autonomous people who fix their own problems instead of waiting for someone else to fix them.

+1 for noting a university is a "pull" system. A lot of people these days seem to view it as a push system...

That doesn't leave much sympathy for the poor student who spends 20 minutes crafting the perfect email and the professor forgets to put up the out-of-office reply. The email gets ignored for days and the student is left panicking through no fault of their own.

A better solution might be the one we use here -- "close as unclear". Return with a note saying "I'm not sure I'm understanding your question. Could you resubmit it as readable sentences? Of catch me at office hours." Or something of that sort. Better than ignoring since it indicates what the problem was and how to fix it. File it away so you can pull it into a reply with just a few keystrokes (along with other useful form answers), and refine them as needed over time.

@keshlam: "since it indicates what the problem was and how to fix it" - that's what the indicated disadvantage refers to. That is also why I pointed out the interpretation as a '"pull" system', as it can be argued that one of the skills a university degree certifies is that the graduate is able to get along without being spoon-fed "what the problem was and how to fix it" (as no-one will be that forthcoming in their professional life later on, either).

I don't see this as spoon-feeding but as education in professional conduct, which I believe is part of what college is for. But I'm an engineer by philosophy; I believe in fixing the problem first, then considering its implications for theory.

@keshlam: Ok, we may have different opinions on that issue. I see "how to write a letter" as a skill that should be mastered at latest by the end of highschool. Part of what university is for in my opinion is to train students to be atonomous individuals who proactively find solutions to problems on their own. I think putting bite-sized bits in front of them fails to fix the problem that some students expect everything will come to them, no matter what they do. As I've remarked elsewhere around here, writing a request properly is not a skill that only university graduates need to master.

@ormapper: I agree. I just don't agree with needlessly penalizing folks who need a bit of remedial education when it's so easy instead to provide that feedback.

@keshlam: I disagree with the claim that it is "needless" or "penalizing" rather than a good opportunity for the student to practice what would happen in "real life", just without the permanent consequences, but our mileages may differ on that.

I have a colleague whose signature looks like:
Dr. John Doe
Thing I Like to Study Department
University of this Country

(123) 456-7890
doej@countryu.edu

Hello students: let's communicate formally. Let's start our e-mails with a greeting,
make use of a meaningful subject line, and write in complete sentences. I think this
will make our collaboration deeper and richer. Join me. -Dr. D

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

This commits the cardinal sin of assuming people will read your bloated, junky email sig ;-)

Need an emoticon. You really need one to communicate effectively to students :D

+1 for long signature complaint! Furthermore, some e-mail clients may even automatically hide overly long signatures! I know that this happens to me in Gmail for example quite often.

A professor should present a "Code of Conduct" to the students, along with the agenda, that explains expectations for all things like homework submission, communication, testing, labs, etc.  If email is something that you expect students to treat at a formal level, they need to be told that explicitly.  Some professors are very sloppy in there own style of presentation and communication.  So, it is helpful for students to know all the expectations and acceptable class culture. Make sure they know that unsatisfactory attempts will not be given complete review, and will be given a generic response.

My favorite so far. You could answer the sloppy writen ones with only a link to the code so they will know what to do. You could tell them this is part of the teaching since they haven't learned it yet and sloppy written answers show lack of respect (this goes both ways). But don't answer the question till you got a better one.

"If email is something that you expect students to treat at a formal level, they need to be told that explicitly." - sorry, downvoted for this statement. I reject the assumption that everything needs to be spelled out like this; that gives rise to a culture among students to look for every tiny loophole in everything said and written instead of using some common sense. I cannot give someone a mark that allows them to graduate from a university when I have to expect they will write to their future employer's customers in chatspeak because the customers didn't explicitly say otherwise.

every professor has different expectations.  I get very informal emails from some professors.  Some professors only know how to use the subject line.  Some professors don't even check their email.  So, it is unreasonable to expect students to know your expectations for correspondence without you telling them what it is.

@farrenthorpe: It is absolutely reasonable to expect young adults to be familiar with basic social protocols that they should have picked up at latest during highschool. Of course, different professors might have different preferences, and these things change significantly over time - but currently, assuming all-lower-case-no-orthography-chatspeak as a default for written communication unless told to do otherwise is still not a valid assumption in many parts of the world.

your assumption of basic social protocols and its inclusion of email is highly biased and I completely disagree.  As soon as you assume what students know about technology and writing, or hold it against them if they don't, you are no longer acting as a teacher but a judge.

@farrenthorpe: I maintain my stance that writing overly informal e-mails to customers will most probably not be seen as acceptable by future employers. Likewise, I think that job applications whose authors have paid little attention to formatting and orthography will have less chances than those that are properly done. Like it or not, a university degree is meant to certify someone has the skills to work in a particular field. I can see nothing wrong with the situation that those who do not fulfil that requirement do not get the degree.

The question is "What can professors do to encourage properly written email messages from students?".  Perhaps you are answering a different question?  I never said writing informal emails is a good thing.  I said giving your students a code of conduct that explains your expectations for communication is helpful.

@farrenthorpe: Ok, I think I am seeing some overlap between our opinions. Yes, communicating expectations is helpful; my above statements are based upon my conviction though that anyone who follows school for long enough to reach university should have had ample time to learn basic skills such as "how to write a letter". If they still do not know by the time they reach university, explanations are apparently not fruitful and the only remedy that still has a slight chance of causing a change in behaviour is actually suffering some slight consequences for failing at writing a proper letter.

An email is not a letter, half of american culture now have their text messaging linked to email.

@O.R.Mapper - Were you trained in the fine art of email in high school?  Just curious.  My twenty-year-old was not, unfortunately.

@farrenthorpe: Personally and culturally, opinions on how closely e-mails and letters are related differ. Also as an answer to the OP's comment, letters were indeed one of the kinds of text I had to practice to write since elementary school (beside other types that were gradually introduced over the years of schooling, such as stories, discussions, poem interpretations, ...). The point is: Not everyone goes to university after highschool; most of the students will get into situations after secondary education where they have to apply for something (a job, an internship, an ...

... apprenticeship, etc.), which usually involves writing a letter and/or e-mail of some sort. Explicitly trained or not, those students must know how to write a letter/e-mail properly enough for an application to work by the end of secondary education. I find it rather unlikely that of all people, exactly those who go on to study at a university wouldn't have that skill. (With that said: In my place, e-mails are considered roughly equivalent to letters. Where this is not the case, the aforementioned skill would have to include knowing what different conventions apply to e-mails.)

We now offer a 2 credit required course in professional communication, but it doesn't happen early enough.
The best solution I've found is that if I don't find a student's communications to be suitable, I respond to whatever their inquiry is as best I can, and include some statement telling them that I expect them to communicate with me at a professional level.
Meeting requests are a source of frequent problems.

Student: I hope you had a nice weekend.  Can we meet?
Me:  Sure.  What would you like to meet about.
S: I'd like to drop a course
M: What course would you like to drop?

Now, we've just had four emails instead of two, and I still have no concept of whether a meeting is really necessary or if any prep work on my part is required.  If our timing is off, and the student and I are out of sync with respect to working hours, this can delay a meeting (which usually doesn't need to happen in the first place) by days.
For meeting requests in particular, I demand all the info up front, because I don't like being surprised at a meeting by needing to run down information and then have another meeting.  I explain to the student that there are rarely meetings that I don't put 15 minutes of preparation into, and that if they tell me all those details, we could save a whole lot of time.
Lately, during orientation, our undergrad committee chair offers a bit of coaching on effective email communication with advisers.  I hope it helps.

I'm a PhD student, so my emails are usually to superiors; I do expect, though, to receive quite a few emails when the TA-ing season starts. I also expect that a few emails will be at a similar level to your example.
This question raises a bit of a conundrum for me. I have two options (although many more would arise if I let common courtesy slide).

I could ignore their lack of effort and just answer their question to my own standards. I am there to help them with physics, not language; my authority is negligible anyway, and I'm certainly not going to try and assert any such authority by telling them how they can or can not communicate with me. Heck, Im getting paid to help them, so I should probably stick to that.
Whilst formalities are a fairly strange construct, they do exist and they do signify a level of respect (one could argue that this is equivalent to a piece of arbitrary cloth tied in a certain way around one's neck signifies professionalism - it's just something that we kind of stick with). And, as advanced as our species likes to think it is, we want to feel respected. If I were to neglect my duty to inform the student that, whilst undergraduate learning is a nice sandbox where they're free to make mistakes, contacting more important people (future PhD supervisors, potential employers, authors of relevant papers, etc) in a manner which could be deemed inappropriate can, plausibly, have some pretty harsh consequences.

This does go on the assumption that their email is actually legible and they arent actually being offensive. If it isn't, or if there are possible ambiguities in any questions, that's a great opportunity: reply, with the appropriate level of formality, and point out any interpretation issues and request that their email be reworded more explicitly.

A colleague of mine, in the classes she teaches, allocates a certain percentage of the grade for "professionalism". Students who send poorly written emails like your example will have points deducted in that category, on the grounds that it is unprofessional.
(Other possible deductions: asking questions that are clearly answered in the syllabus, having a phone ring in class, etc.)

Isn't this basically punishing students for asking questions? I think a student might ask a question that appears to be clearly answered, but just isn't clear to them? If they are bad at articulating what they don't understand, this means their grade drops (and the feedback they see isn't "you need to learn to articulate this better" but "don't ask 'stupid' questions"). On the phone ringing, there needs to be some leeway. You might have a member of emergency management in class, who needs to leave his phone on in case of emergency. I guess you might check this kind of thing in the first class.

@JeromeBaum: If this answer refers to the situation described in the question (that is, the issue with the message is poor writing style rather than the complexity of the questions), it's not punishing students for asking questions (which is what I upvoted the answer for). However, if the method described here actually penalizes the contents (beside the mere "can be found literally in the syllabus" part), I agree with you. Even then, though, not the professor has to check exceptions for the rules, but the respective students have to point out their duties.

@O.R.Mapper I was purely referring to the parenthesized part of the answer. I agree that the students should point out their duties, if they are made aware of the rule up-front - at which point it would not hurt to say "if you need an exception, speak with me after class." But yes, it is the student's responsibility to make sure they bring up any possible exceptions. I think in general it is best if everyone does their best to cooperate and give people benefit of the doubt. :)

This can potentially silence non-vocal students and create a bad atmosphere where people tend to engage less since they can be actively punished for it.

Other than introducing a course on Academic communication, as some of answers mention, you could recommend a book on Academic communication to students, such as this one. From my perspective, it has a lot of advice that your students may find relevant.
Next, there are parts of the netiquette that everyone shares, and there are parts that differ from professor to professor. Your personal preferences on email communication with students should go in the syllabus of your course.

Your email communicates to me that you're still living in high school.
Please try to communicate to your professors more formally.  This
exercises not only your ability to form well-crafted sentences, but conveys knowledge to your professors
that you respect their time and their craft.
If the latter is not the case, then you won't
be able to depend on timely (or perhaps even proper) answers in
return.

[Edit:  Sorry I can't but help keep that first sentence.  Rewrite as proper.]

I think passively-aggressively insulting the students is not a good idea.

I also think high school students should know not to write e-mails like that.

authors: 2021年最新中文字幕在线电影_免费播看生活片高清大片hd


text:
Should I list my work as a frequent journal reviewer as a volunteer work in LinkedIn?
I am a frequent reviewer for a particular (computer science) journal, and I wonder if the review work I do counts as a "volunteer" work?
I do already list this work in my CV under (PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES) section. Should I also add it to my LinkedIn profile under (volunteer experience) section?

My impression is that LinkedIn is not widely used by academics, and as such, there may not be clear conventions or expectations among academics as to how to fit such things into LinkedIn sections.

I've seen people do it.  However, we expect anyone who has published to review some papers.  There is no prestige in that, especially when the invitation process is mostly automated.  There are some publishers or journals who award 'best reviewer for the year' type recognition.  That is better and says that you take your job seriously.

Does this answer your question? What is the academic value of posts on LinkedIn?

I suggest this be closed as off-topic or duplicate because the linked question indicates academics don't use LinkedIn for academic purposes.

I think you should take advantage of being a peer reviewer. You can add it to your LinkedIn account, and create a profile on Publons and ReviewerCredits to be registered as a peer reviewer.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Google Scholar has lumped two publications into one
How do I correct a google scholar error or omission or duplication?

Contact them, they should have a help point.

Not sure why this is closed. We have many questions on Google Scholar that are not considered off-topic. What makes this one different? https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=Google+scholar

You can edit it manually.
If you log in to your profile, there are several options to combine/separate articles.  You can also edit specific article details: click on the article title, then click on the pen icon in the top-right:

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


text:
How many research interests should be included in a statement of purpose/objective
I am wondering how many research interest should be included in a statement of purpose. Is it better to include just one core interest or to include up to three as in my case?

three is fine. one hundred spells trouble.

Be as specific as possible.  Do not bluff.
Remember that admissions committees are looking for strong evidence of research potential.  One of the markers of that potential is a deep interest in your intended research area.  For that reason, it's important to describe your potential research interests in specific and credible detail.  Why are you interested in field X?  What specific problems are you interested in working on?  What projects have you done?  What papers have you read (or written)?
It doesn't matter all that much what you write about.  We know that your interests will change over time.  Nobody is going to limit you to the specific research topics you describe in your statement.  Your statement is at least as much a demonstration of intellectual maturity as it is a description of research interests.
Eykanal's observations are correct.  Most graduate school applicants "barely know what's being researched".  A list of buzzwords mined from faculty web pages is not credible.  You can't effectively describe what your interests are when you aren't familiar with the field.  But I disagree with his conclusion; just because it's hard doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.  Don't be most applicants.  Know what's being researched.  Don't be vague, and don't just list buzzwords.  Make yourself familiar with the field.
After you've done that, writing about your research interests is easy, because you actually have some.

"Don't be most applicants. Know what's being researched." +1 for that; this answer is better than mine.

This is a great answer.  One caveat I'd add is that in mathematics, there are some fields in which it is more difficult to frame a suitable research question that is both interesting and doable (because the fields are older, more technical, or more elaborately developed already - think algebraic geometry vs. combinatorics).  In that case, there's no need to pose specific problems you would like to work on in graduate school.  However, all the other advice is still relevant: be specific about what you know, have done, like/admire, etc.  Show that you know what you are getting yourself into.

One big problem with writing research interests for graduate school is that you barely know what's being researched. How could you state definitively what your interests are when you aren't familiar with the field?
With that in mind, if you're a member of the minority of undergrads who actually performed undergraduate research and knows what you want to research, feel free to list a single field of interest. If you can list specifics (e.g., "Following up on both the research I did in last summer, as well as the research from the Smith lab in Princeton, I would like to examine...") that would be even better, as it would demonstrate that you know what you're talking about. (Pro tip: make sure you know what you're talking about when writing it.)
If you're like the rest, though, you don't know the field, and that's OK. It would probably be better to give a really vague statement than to list a few things. Compare the following:

I'm interested in furthering my knowledge of the biomedical engineering field.

vs.

I'm interested in the fields of brain-computer interfaces, tissue engineering, and medical device design.

This is subjective, but to me both statements say the same thing, with the first one being concise and the second one sounding like buzzword soup.

...but neither sounds particularly compelling.

@JeffE - :) I completely agree! Knowing what you're talking about > making broad generalizations, any day of the week.

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


text:
Why are degrees revoked due to data fabrication/manipulation only in specific fields?
I read on the Internet that most degrees in psychology and medicine are revoked because of data manipulation/fabrication. In other areas like engineering, degree revocations only happen due to plagiarism.
How can data manipulation misconduct only be detected in medicine or psychology, but not in the other fields of investigation?

Most is not all.

Is this for an essay you have to do - this post is around the same topic : https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/124200/72855

Data fabrication is fairly rare as it is (though not rare enough), so maybe you need a more systematic data collection approach. For example, the Schön scandal ("biggest fraud in physics in the last 50 years") was a really high-profile data fabrication case from the hard sciences. It led to Schön's PhD degree being revoked.
However, what you observe may be because of a variation in the incidence of data fabrication between fields (e.g. due to the financial interests involved, "fuzzier" data making people think they can get away with it), or because of a variation in willingness to report misconduct. This has already been discussed on this site in this question. For example, there is some evidence that misconduct is reported more often in medical fields than in other fields.

Once methodological differences were controlled for, cross-study comparisons indicated that samples drawn exclusively from medical (including clinical and pharmacological) research reported misconduct more frequently than respondents in other fields or in mixed samples. To the author's knowledge, this is the first cross-disciplinary evidence of this kind, and it suggests that misconduct in clinical, pharmacological and medical research is more widespread than in other fields. This would support growing fears that the large financial interests that often drive medical research are severely biasing it [50], [51], [52]. However, as all survey-based data, this finding is open to the alternative interpretation that respondents in the medical profession are simply more aware of the problem and more willing to report it. This could indeed be the case, because medical research is a preferred target of research and training programs in scientific integrity, and because the severe social and legal consequences of misconduct in medical research might motivate respondents to report it.

I think that part of what you see is due to the fact that in some fields it is more necessary to actually look for problems than in others. Thus, in medicine, for example, people's lives may depend on the accuracy of results, so people are more inclined to want to either investigate the accuracy of the claims or to replicate the studies. Faked data becomes obvious only if you look. If opioid research is faked, for example, bad things happen to a lot of people. When bad things happen, other people want to know why.
In other fields, where the consequences may not be so dire, there is (a bit) less incentive to go looking for trouble. If few are looking, not much will be found. On the other hand, people who find themselves plagiarized are generally happy to raise the issue, but I think that happens in all fields, but is also fairly rare.


text:
Project guide asks for authorship without any contributions – how to proceed?
Our computer-science curriculum mandates that we produce a paper about a research project:

We set the topic.
We get a professor assigned as a project guide.
The paper has to be published at a peer-reviewed venue.
The paper is also reviewed and marked by some professors.

For us the project guide was assigned at random and not according to our wishes. Her domain is completely different from what our paper is about.
Our project guide never reviewed our project, helped write the paper, or contributed anything else to the project.
She did not show any interest in our project and kept putting us down.
She was only interested in the publication scope of the project.
We sent our paper to the project guide multiple times for review and she didn’t notice her name was not among the authors then.
The paper has already been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Now, our project guide asked me why her name wasn’t included, and the college is saying they wouldn’t award marks because of her name not being included.
I don't believe my college has specific rules for authorship.
What would my next action be?

I would say no : no input then not included... See : https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/54156/72855

@user282909 if that teacher reviewed the paper and did not point out her name was missing, then she set you up for a fail ; perhaps just to make an example... Mean though...

I tried to include all the information from the comments. Please check again whether everything is correct and [edit] if necessary.

Let’s start with what is going wrong here:

Requiring you to publish something peer-reviewed on the level of coursework is at least dubious. For more details, see Is it ethical for departments to have publication requirements for students
Putting somebody as an author of a paper who made no contribution at all goes against all standards of academic authorship. However, violating this is so common in some countries and fields that many professors may not even be aware of it.
The project guide is abusing her power when she pushes you into giving somebody authorship (who doesn’t deserve it).
If your institution via rules or coercion makes you give somebody authorship (who doesn’t deserve it), this is also an abuse of power.

Now, you have to evaluate the situation to pick your enemies and allies, if any:

If the curriculum has any written rules that you should make somebody a co-author, you can fight those rules – if any professors or a higher power cares about this. In my country, I don’t see much of a problem of turning this into a public scandal, but yours is probably different.
If there are no written rules about authorship, and one of the other professors evaluating your project or a dean of students or similar are trustworthy, you can present the situation to them and try getting them onto your side. At the very least, you may score some points if you can provide evidence that your project guide did not tell you about any authorship aspirations or rules earlier and also did not do her job properly.
The journal (if reputable) will not be very happy if not completely refusing to change authorship retroactively. You could find an ally here (just tell them what happened), but whether the journal has sufficient power over your department is hard to say.
It could sadly be that your institution is full of power-abusing professors and in a position that allows them do this. In this case, the only thing you can do about it is to leave.

I agree with you, I've been here for 7 semesters this is my last one and they're making us implement and submit a "novel" idea so the college has publication under their name idk? I'm still doing my undergrad. I published my paper in an international journal, I don't think they're cool with changing author names. I told my project guide that I wouldn't add her name; hopefully it doesn't fail me after spending 3.5 years and it actually being a reputed school here. I wanna keep my ego aside and do it but I can't bring myself to do it when I feel used. Thank you for the advice, helps a lot. :)

It is a common experience (for me at least) to have researchers maneuvering into the rank of co-authors, just because they can -- given the circumstances -- not because they deserve it. Your reaction should be to accept it (swear under your breath!) and then never again co-publish with that same person (or those same persons, they may form bands!). I am writing from Denmark but have observed this behaviour from researchers originating from Europe, USA, Asia and Africa.

Sadly, your next step is probably to submit to the all powerful Psychlos. Not that it is fair or logical, but only that they have power over you and you have little countering power.
There are some situations in which you need to act for self preservation, not to achieve fairness. Sad commentary on the world, but too often true.
In computer science, adding anyone but the authors is very unusual. Giving an acknowledgement to people who should have helped, but didn't sometimes happens, but not authorship.
If it is open to you to do the following, do it and move on. Add the person as a co-author. Apologize for not sufficiently understanding the local culture and expected practice.
You don't need to add that the local culture and expected practice is abominable, even if it is. Yes, it is false humility, but the powers that be will probably accept it and stop punishing you unfairly.
What is fair and what is necessary may be impossible to resolve. Recognize that and act in your own interest. Don't let your ego get in the way of self preservation even when their ego is forcing an unfair practice.
But, get away as soon as you can and work for a fairer resolution of such things when you get the chance.

Fair enough, I'm trying to figure out a way to remain calm through this like very selfish act :p


text:
How can I handle publication jealousy among peers in my research lab?
I have been involved in a research lab for a while now. I have a set of peers who work on related, yet non-overlapping fields.
I find myself uncomfortable when other's works get accepted in some research venue (journal or conferences). And, so do I believe that others feel the same when my work gets accepted.
However, though it might be common in the research labs, I feel it is not a good sign and it, in some way, restricts me to open up my discussion on my ideas on any problems. Further, others also do not discuss much on their own ideas and their working problems. It is obvious that discussion among peers could lead to better research and outcomes.

Is it common for others who have experienced such behavior during their graduate studies? Or, is it a paranoia?
How to handle such uncomfortable feeling inside the lab and feel positive?

I did speak with some of my professors and still, I can not let this useless feeling go away from my brain.

Just start collaborating.  It will be uncomfortable for a while, but eventually everyone else will notice that you're getting more papers as a result.

It depends how such publications are communicated to the peers. If grad students show off with accepted papers, peers start to get annoyed by such a behaviour (although it is great for the persons who can publish that earlier in their career). So, perhaps start communicating earlier about your ideas and the long way from getting an idea, to data analysis and writing to rejections, R&R and the final publication - make transparent that getting published is not an easy thing?!

@Stefan_W +1. it's true. More the show up, more is the jealousness and unpleasant behavior. It's better to start discussing over coffee to get started with what you said. Thanks.

Additionally, talking about 'failed ideas', problems on writing or so is part of it, I would say. Talking about successful publishing is great and good for the ego ;) but mentioning that paper X got a fair rejection or that idea 2 wasn't actually a good one, is also okay and should be communicated as well.

Could it be that you are a little too competitive in this? Where I work, other people's publications result in cake and a little "release party" at the group meeting.

What the hell is wrong with this generation?

@ShakeBaby I don't think there is anything wrong. But, it would take some time to make every human object in the lab 'open', which is only possible once each of the objects changes their mentality.

I share an office with several grad students in a similar situation of non-overlapping fields. The problem extended to the PhD students of the program in general.
Is it common for others who have experienced such behavior during their graduate studies? Or, is it a paranoia?
In my experience, it is completely normal, but as you say, not desirable. I have heard that programs with less pressure to publish experience it less. I remember learning that a Masters student had entered the PhD program with a publication and felt like I had been punched in the gut.
How to handle such uncomfortable feeling inside the lab and feel positive?
To echo some of the comments, a lot of it seems to boil down to openness and collaboration. Here are some options that have helped me and my fellow grad students reduce negativity and increase the quality of our research:

Reading about the publishing process and ways to get better at it, like with How to Write a Lot.
Start or join a weekly writing group with your lab mates to mutually support one another. For me, this was the game changer. We talk about the good and the bad, as @Stefan_W mentioned.
Find a supportive community outside the lab where you can discuss your feelings. For example, in Barcelona, we have several city-wide communities of early career researchers from every discipline.
Similar to Point 3, participate in the associations of your field. For example, I attend events for the British Academy of Management. Not only do they hold seminars for grad students, but they generally require me to bring a work in progress, which has a motivating effect.

At my university, we went so far as to start a student association. We hold regular social events, mock conferences, organize writing groups, and participate in community events. These have started us in the direction of a feeling of shared victory (instead of resentment) when one of us manages to publish, and of course it gives us a place to turn for support in the case of rejection. In the beginning there were just a few of us in a weekly writing group, but eventually we got more organized.

Firstly, congratulations for being able to openly express your feelings, being so honest, and asking for advice.
Very important: understand that those feelings of jealousy are totally normal in that environment and at that stage, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with you.
No matter what people try to sell you, particularly the ones who already have a position where they don't need to compete, a research lab is a highly competitive environment and you are constantly being evaluated. There is constant pressure. People work there to accumulate merits and build a CV, so it is normal that you believe, at first glance, that this is a zero-sum-game and when someone accumulates a merit, they have moved a position in the game and you haven't.
Many people will try to make you feel bad about those feelings, but that's how it is and most of us have experimented it, particularly at the beginning of our careers and in very competitive areas.  It's just that most people will never reveal those feelings, or only do it with people they really trust, because people immediately tag them as "negative", "jealous", etc... and no one wants to be called that.
Jealousy is the basis of competition and free market and it leads to great things, like better ideas and products, when managed properly. There would be no great thinkers, companies, or products, without jealousy.
So, the key is to learn how and where to focus that energy.
My advice would be the following:

Try to forget about what others are doing and focus on things that you like / think are worth researching. Are you really jealous about that guy that published something about a topic you couldn't care less about? I don't think so.
Be very careful about collaborations. Particularly at the very beginning of your career and when you are under constant evaluation, it is frequent that misunderstandings occur. You still don't know the rules of the game, so only collaborate with people you trust and try to clarify everything since the very beginning (responsibilities, authors, order, etc). This is one of the biggest points of resentment at the beginning of a competitive career.
Focus your energy on becoming a good researcher. As suggested above, read books on how to research, how to write, do a god job, and be proud about it. The number of publications a person has, their length, or even the journal or venue, is not automatically a guarantee of quality and hard work. Sometimes, it turns out to be the opposite. You will get that pretty quickly.
Surround yourself by the people that you truly "envy" because of their capacity and hard work, ask them questions, etc... good researchers are usually willing to help and teach others.
Run away from those who you feel are getting merits unfairly or have dubious ethics, or you will either become like them or have a hard time. You know: groups where one person does all the work but others are automatically added as co-authors, etc, etc.

In any case, congratulations again for your honesty, and good luck!


text:
What should I do if I hate engineering, but my parents want me to become an engineer?
I really love physics, and I told my parents about my interest. They want me to become an engineer, but I hate engineering (too practical, too far from physics), and I don't enjoy fixing things. What should I do?

This has cultural implications, of course. Some places you just do what they want. Others you just do what you want. Which makes you happier in the long run depends partly on the culture and your relationships.

There are so many flavors of engineer, right from those who get a buzz from the creation aspect or repairing  or those who get a buzz from the design and application... And design can be design a new apparatus to prove this theory so completely new. Don't knock engineering - you may find it has the doors you want - just got to find them... and yes, like Massimo below I am an engineer... But I started with an apprenticeship on cars...

I'll note that the more general question is "What should I do? I want to study X, but my parents want me to study Y". I've seen many students with this dilemma, mostly when the parents will only pay for study of Y. But usually also with the implication that parents are to be obeyed, even by their adult children.  A more extreme version is "I want to study Russian Literature but my parents want me to study Medicine." It is probably also more common.

But the thing with engineering is that,I terribly hate it. The whole field of engineering developed from people being able to fix some machines at a basic level.

As it stands, the answer to this half depends on how much you value your relationship with your parents (which only you can know) and half is a shopping question on the field of engineering. Neither is a good fit for this site.

Well,then where should I ask this? And by the way,the relationship with my parents,is balanced and really good,but I just disagree with them this time.

Try https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/

The field of medicine came from bleeding people, applying leeches, and tasting their pee.

Even medicine has a better history in my opinion. Engineering was just basic fixing. No kind of real knowledge needed. Can someone prove me that engineers don't hate physics,and engineering jobs are interesting?

And by the way engineers generally don't fix things, they design new things (using physical principles they are taught). I'd say it originated more from the inventors of the past.

No,engineer was a term that meant,that someone could fix machines. And by the way,inventors didn't use principles,they were only experimenting.

@HorváthÁrmin most of our knowledge came from people who understood the physical real world and attempted to find ways to express that in terms of mathematics and equations... In fact we have equations that while so complicated cannot describe perfectly the real world - try predicting how each molecule of smoke will move...

@HorváthÁrmin "No,engineer was a term that meant,that someone could fix machines" says who? Google says:"Middle English (denoting a designer and constructor of fortifications and weapons; formerly also as ingineer ): in early use from Old French engigneor, from medieval Latin ingeniator, from ingeniare ‘contrive, devise’, from Latin ingenium (see engine); in later use from French ingénieur or Italian ingegnere, also based on Latin ingenium, with the ending influenced by -eer."

@HorváthÁrmin perhaps your parents have a better understanding of the term engineer...

@HorváthÁrmin as for this part: "inventors didn't use principles,they were only experimenting". I'd agree with that. The scientific principles which became needed as technology advanced and become too sophisticated for the intuition alone of clever "craftsmen" anymore, is why engineering is taught. Similar story for doctors and other science-based professions.

Still,no one can prove me,that engineering is actually close to physics and isn't a terribly boring fixing job.

Really can't answer without more information.  Most importantly, do you depend on your parents for support, or to pay for your education?

It's not about money. They would pay,for anything. But they only see sense in engineering. But I HATE engineering.(for the reasons I have written down before)

Change parents. Remember, up until about 25 you need them more than they need you but after that, it is the other way around. Ask them if they want you to come and visit them at the elderly home. If necessary, also refer to the UN declaration of human rights, article 20, second paragraph. They have most likely violated your basic human rights.

Please,it's not about human rights. I love them terribly,but I don't think they are right about engineers being close to physics. No one could prove me wrong,so I am still not willing to accept that engineering is interesting and related to physics.

Take Engineering Physics.

There's no such thing here in my country.

I am closing this question because it has turned into engineering vs. physics (which is one of the reasons why we disallow shopping questions) and solving interpersonal issue with your parents (which is not this site’s area of expertise). If you can formulate a specific goal and provide more detail, a question about how to solve your dispute with your parents might fit on [interpersonal.se].

Seeing as you are a 15 year old, i understand why your hardline stance and use of the word hate, but you really should do some further research. Engineering is an umbrella term that means a LOT of things. You're basically saying "I don't want to be a teacher because I don't like teaching math" ok, well do one of the other teaching (engineering) fields. Not all of them just teach math (repair things)

Perhaps it would be useful,@HorváthÁrmin, for you to look at some engineering degree module descriptions. Choosing a university almost at random, I've looked at the modules offered on an engineering degree, and there are a lot of physics concepts mentioned, learnt about, and used. Also, I used to work as a postdoc in an engineering department, and I come from a physics background. There's more overlap than you seem to think.

too practical, too far from physics --- Doesn't have to be . . . Scientific and Engineering Applications of Algebraic Topology (postdoctorial program at University of Minnesota), "... category theory as a tool for applied scientists and engineers", Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications, Introduction to Differential Geometry for Engineers, Random Processes for Engineers.

Well,it might be true that engineers learn physics,but they don't use it at all at their workplaces in my opinion.

Good news! In my experience, engineers spend more time breaking things than fixing them ;)

That is even more boring.

@HorváthÁrmin out of curiosity, what do you think a physicist does?

More interesting things. Researching,teaching,making measurments. Not just fixing some machines,like engineers.

Horváth, I research, teach and I make measurements. Since 20 years. And, as I said in the answer below, I'm an engineer. You really have the wrong idea on what engineers and physicists do.

@HorváthÁrmin you have to realize that your opinion is based on preconceptions, probably from television or movies. Those preconceptions, simply, are wrong (no offense). I really recommend asking a real engineer about what their day to day is like, i guarentee you will be surprised. I believe you would be surprised by what a physicist would be doing too..

I'm a PhD physicist. One one hand, I agree with you and disagree with your parents -- physics is more interesting than engineering, and it's far easier than I would have thought to find a career with a physics degree (and harder than I would have thought to find one with an engineering degree -- though YMMV). Further, making one's own decisions is important. On the other hand, I agree with the others that you don't seem to have a great understanding of either field. In particularly, physicists (after school) spend a lot of time fixing (and breaking) things, whether it's code or apparatuses.

But I can't ask any engineer! Also I hate that engineers always simplify things,and use easier formulas,that a high-schooler knows.

I hate engineering (too practical, too far from physics)

This in an unfortunately common misconception, which can bring nonsense answers like this one on Meta Physics SE, where it is said:

If I pose this question to an electrical engineer, I will likely get design rules, possibly in the form of immediately useful formulae. If I pose it to a physicist, I may learn something about the physics of electromagnetic fields near dielectric boundaries, diverging fields at conductor corners, and maybe even something about conformal mapping.

As an electronic engineer who specialized a long time ago in engineering electromagnetics, I can tell you that, yes, I've studied all of the theory above and much more than design rules. And I have also studied Langrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics, chaotic dynamical systems, quantum mechanics, quantum optics, statistical mechanics, relativity. Indeed, with an engineering flavour, which I have actually come to appreciate along the years.
Said another way, engineering can be as theoretical as you wish it to be.

I don't enjoy fixing things

Most engineers don't fix things.

What should I do?

Some thirty-odd years ago I was somehow in your exact situation: I wanted to study physics, but my parents wanted me to do engineering because they felt that there were more job opportunities.
I studied engineering, but I chose my curriculum to have a good blend of electronics and physics and, now, I cannot be happier than this about my education.

Just spot on, plus 1...

Fix things, not necessarily. Design things, yes, by definition of what an engineer is. But if you don't have a grasp of how to make it, you can't design it, so you do also have to know to make it in order to be a good engineer. I don't trust an engineer, of any discipline, who can't get out a screwdriver.

I come from an engineering family and chose to study physics as an undergrad, I ended up getting a graduate degree in mechanical engineering, and now primarily work as a software engineer. In hindsight, it likely would have made more sense to study computer science.
One of my big draws to physics was that it was theoretical, basal to everything else (mathematicians would dispute that), and that I felt like physicists were some sort of supernatural superior being. To this last point, I can now assure that they are not but that at least some of them think they are.
If you choose to study physics, plan on getting a PhD as you will struggle (relative to an engineer) to get a good professional job (I only got my first job out of college because of a CS minor).
This is (or should) be your decision to make. If you really want to study physics, do it! Just make sure you do it for the right reasons. I did not.

But engineering for me is too practical. I hate machinery etc. I HATE engineering. Engineering for me is too far from physics.

@HorváthÁrmin - perhaps your view of engineering is too narrow. My degrees are in engineering and I run a research group.

@Jon Custer Could you please prove to me,that you use physics?

How does one not use physics in engineering? Semiconductor/solid state physics, ion beam physics, nuclear reactions, relativistic electrons, quantum cryptography, and others are topics that my people do. Is that sufficient?

@HorváthÁrmin, a few more details about me. As an undergrad I did nanotube research in a physics lab. It was awful. A trained chimp could have done my job. I was doing what you seem to think engineers do. I am actually going to be starting a new job where I will still primarily do software engineering but will also do some materials science (that is, engineering). I will regularly need to think about how atoms interact with each other, use state diagrams, and apply theoretical materials science to real world problems. Does the physics job or engineer job sound better to you? ;)

I'm going to share a bit of my own story which hopefully can give you a different perspective on physics and engineering and the fact that there is no strict dichotomy between the two. I think, from the little you wrote, that I used to have a very similar mentality to yours, and so perhaps it will be useful to you if I share how my mentality changed.
I am currently working on a Ph.D. in theoretical condensed matter physics. I, like you, used to hold disdain for the "applied sciences" like engineering, preferring the "purity" of theoretical physics, particularly because physics really does undergird all of the natural sciences. I thought that I would pursue quantum gravity research (how much more fundamental can you get than that?), and in my undergrad I did some research in that direction (insomuch as an undergrad is capable of doing any meaningful research in a field as advanced as quantum gravity, I primarily did some simple stuff with black holes and general relativity). After that I went to do my master's and I did research in Lattice QCD (i.e. quantum field theory). In my last year of my master's, I opted to take a course in low-temperature physics instead of general relativity since I already had experience with GR, and I have to say I absolutely do not regret it. I learned so many things about superconductivity and superfluidity and the actual details of how low-temperature physics is performed which I had never previously had experience with, and it was my first real introduction to the field of condensed matter physics.
This is the point where I had to make a decision, whether I wanted to pursue the "pure", mathematical physics which is known as High Energy Physics (HEP, i.e. Lattice QCD and String Theory primarily), or take a different tack. I sat down with a string theorist in my department, a young guy who was recently hired and incredibly smart. After a long discussion, he laid out for me the reality of being a physicist in HEP: very few full time, tenure track positions in an extremely competitive field of extremely talented aspiring physicists.
This is my first point that I think you should be aware of: being a "physicist" primarily means getting a tenure track position as a professor at a university. This means getting a Ph.D. (if you start college at 18, you're looking at 4 years for your bachelors + 6 years for a Ph.D.), then getting probably at least two postdoctoral positions (1-3 years each) before getting hired, if you can get a tenure track position. These are increasingly difficult to come by, with more students pursuing higher education than ever before and more universities reducing the number of tenure track professors on faculty. So know what you're in for. Depending on what you want to work on, it may be easier or harder to find a job as a professor. Granted, the Ph.D. will count for plenty if you seek an industry job instead, but if that's what you want then it may be better to get industry experience instead of further advanced education.
Finally, to catch up to the present, I am now working in theoretical condensed matter physics, and I'm having a blast. Condensed Matter as a field is far more closely tied to real experiment than HEP, my research is motivated by experimental findings, guided by potential experimental studies of the theory, and deeply in collaboration with actual experimentalists (who are also physicists!!). I find the work far more interesting and rewarding specifically because of the close connection to something tangible, whereas the work I did in LQCD was interesting but difficult to tie to something really meaningful or impactful. And best of all for me, I get all of that plus as a theorist I still use all the skills I learned in my work in Lattice QCD, quantum field theory is extremely relevant to condensed matter systems.
And lastly, I want to really stress this point: The boundary between engineering and physics is not distinct. One of my close friends is an experimental physicist who designs sensors for detecting B-mode photons from the Cosmic Microwave Background. Judged by what he actually does day-to-day, you might think he was an electrical engineer, and in some sense he is an engineer who is also a physicist. The circuits he designs (and often fabricates himself) involve superconducting Josephson Junctions and SQUIDS (superconducting quantum interference devices) and much more complex devices that require a deep understanding of quantum mechanics to utilize properly, but also require a deep understanding of electrical circuitry in order to maximize the sensitivity and signal-to-noise ratio of these sensors. Remember: behind every great physics experiment is a team of engineers who built it. Do you think theoretical physicists built the LHC that discovered the Higgs Boson? Someone has to build all the synchrotrons and telescopes and high energy colliders etc., and those people need to understand the physics to do their job right.
So perhaps as a middle ground, check out programs that have dual engineering-physics degrees (many universities offer this now), that way you can experience both. See if you can do some work with some professors in condensed matter physics, and I would definitely check out doing experimental work, even if you think you won't like it. I have a friend who transitioned into experimental work after doing computational physics and he feels like he has found his true calling and passion. Don't discount things that you haven't tried yet. If you are just starting a Bachelor's degree, you have plenty of time to try different things and find what you really enjoy. If you enjoy engineering (again, a huge field which can't be boiled down to "fixing things") then you can pursue a job in that straight out of undergrad (my engineering friends suggest getting a master's for the extra pay bump though, some universities have one year engineering master's programs). If you find you enjoy physics, you can put two years into a master's degree and then get a job (I know many people who did this) or if you are extremely passionate then you can pursue a Ph.D. In the end, even you devote all those years to a Ph.D., although you will not be earning income like you would if you had gone straight into a job, you will still be able to find a nice job afterwards if you don't decide to be a professor. So in the end, try everything, don't limit yourself, see what there is to see and find what you enjoy. I assume you are just starting a Bachelor's, in which case you have plenty of time to figure out what you ultimately want to do. And again I highly recommend looking into some sort of dual physics-engineering degree, and most universities allow you to be "exploratory" in the beginning anyway, so you can try some physics and engineering classes and see if you like them.

There are nowadays many engineering study courses, where the bachelor degree is more or less a set of physics courses (e.g. nanostructure engineering, quantum sensing,... to name some from german universities). A real specialization of the students can happen then in the master courses, if the students chooses strong enginnering/economics-oriented courses, which a physics student is unlikely to want and be able to choose.
Also, you can explain to your parents that the difference from a later job perspective point of view is small if you wait until the bachelor degree, if they don't want you to become exacly an engineer for developing hydrogen-driven cars from the first semester on. Of course, an engineer is normally much more specialized than an physicist and has often a higher job-security and salary when entering the job market after graduation, but long-term this mantra doesn't hold true anymore because we are now in the age of exponential technological progress where the ability to self-teach new things will become the new mantra, life-long learning. And a physicist is often much better educated for this due to broader and more fundamental science study courses. At least in academia you can spot many PhD physicists being a professor at an engineering institute.
But, if not many of the old-fashioned engineering jobs (electrical/machine) are overtaken by machines/machine-learning/industry 4.0 processes in some years/decades is an open question. You can have a long discussion with your parents to analyse their risk vs. return of invest in financing you and this is of course a legitimate question/concern they have, when attending an university costs them ten's to hundred's of thousands living cost and study fees for you.
My argument would be that only after the bachelor degree the decisision can and is to be made if you like more engineering/physics and if you would be a better engineer/physicist. You only become personally and financially successful in your job if you like it. Honestly, I think even you cannot know this now for sure as an initial interest in fundamental questions/physics can turn around during your studies in the direction of applied physics due to bad/very competitive job perspectives in fundamental phyiscs you weren't aware of or loosing totally interest in e.g. particle physics/astrophysics which happened for many of my colleagues who studied with me and work now in programming/finance.

This situation is kind of what I experienced the year I was about to enter the university, and your words strike a chord in my heart.
I used to hold opinions very similar to what you expressed regarding physics and engineering.
However, I believe you are somehow mistaken.
The short answers is that your picture of what engineering and physics are about, is at best exaggerated and depends on fields.
You are right to remark that engineering is impossible were it not for our knowledge of physics.
The microwave engineering is based on Maxwell equations.
The circuit theory is built on Kirchhoff laws of current and voltage.
The semiconductor device fabrication depends on semiconductor physics.
And the list need not go on, and you can supply yourself.
But conversely, physics research is also impossible without resolving practical concerns, and without fixing things, to quote your phrase.
You may think you want to learn the purest things only, and the most basic law of nature, but they only make up a small portion of the vast knowledge of physical science.
The study of EM waves does not finish the moment Maxwell equations are written down.
The models of EM wave in the outdoors, in the sea, or in the rain, are different.
And that provides model of communication channel, and help you receiving signal with better quality when you browse Stack Exchange.
Similarly, chemistry does not stop with Schrödinger's Equation.
Beyond Lithium, the wave function of electron has no closed form.
They are approximated by molecular orbital, and even that is resorted to numerical simulation.
By simulation we mean programming and debugging, another example of practical matters.
Take the magnificent example of the photo of black hole M87 shot recently by the event horizon telescope.
Now you may think that to be the pinnacle of the purest physical science: We know something new about the universe, not being utilitarian, not doing engineering, not involving any boring, dirty work.
But it is not.
The research team has to deal with circuits of the telescope, signal processing of the noise, complexity of the algorithm used, not to mention working within the restriction of budget.
All of these are engineering.
Your picture of physics and engineering are not mutually exclusive, but are largely overlapping and inseparable.
The deeper you learn, the harder to divide the fields by simple terms.
Perhaps it is best to call them only by the one old noun, science.
Science is the study of the real world, and that need not only theory, but also practice.
As theory and practice work in tandem, human knowledge makes progess, however small, however time consuming and laborously.
Now there are surely consequences of finance and of family relationships if you study physics anyway, for which there is very little we people on S.E. can do.
We are in no position to "recommend" which department you had better enroll in.
We can only provide you a wider perspective of what physics and engineering are like, and you must trade off the two options by yourself.
Nevertheless, I have some words to remind you.
If you are determined to study physics, having supposedly conquered difficulties as above, you are likely still have to learn, and do "engineering" in the end.
Or if you, unfortunately, relent and end up getting the engineering degree, you might not be as far from the "physics" as you now think.
No matter what you study, learn the subjects thoroughly, make friends in that area, and constantly reassess the present view of yours.
In the end, if you keep working diligently, keep being honest to your heart, and keep revising your picture, you will most certainly find the career suitable to you, regardless where you have started.
You may think of the path integral as an analogy: You take any reasonable path, and end up in the predetermined finish point, which you shall not know (nor we) by now, but here, I do wish you all the best luck.

Thank you! But still,I see engineering as terribly boring,and I can't be relaxed,knowing that a boring path waits for me. Applying physics is not really doing physics at all,in my opinion. Machines and all that,is what I see as something,that crashes my motivation.

@HorváthÁrmin all of the most famous physicists who discovered the foundational equations like Maxwell, Newton, Faraday, Kelvin, etc. also "applied" their work and did experiments themselves. The distinction between theory and application is artificial, you should not strive to be one or the other but to both have theoretical and practical knowledge. You should look into experimental physics work or condensed matter physics. If a theoretical physicist doesn't understand how to test or apply their theory then it's a rather useless theory.

Still,I haven't seen a good proof which shows me that an engineer actually uses physics. People want me to believe it,but are not presenting proofs.

"I can't be relaxed,knowing that a boring path waits for me" Then make it not boring by working on projects and doing research that excites you.

Do some more theoretical or mathematical engineering.  But still do the engineering. It gives you job/industry options but you can also do research.  Even the academic salaries and competition are more reasonable in engineering, because they have to compete with industry.
Else we will see a thread from you a few years from now talking about postdoc hell. Father knows best.

There's no such thing as theoretical engineering. Only different forms of fixing machines.

@HorváthÁrmin That is extremely untrue. Consider, for instance, control theory, or information theory, or operations research. These are more maths focused than physics, but there's plenty of basic physics research going on in most engg. departments as well - fluids in ME/ChE, semiconductors and classical emag in EE, lots of solid state stuff in material science, lots of nuke stuff, fundamental study of QMech in Quantum information etc etc. Take a more informed, less narrow view of things, and be pragmatic towards your situation instead of only being frustrated with it.

@Horváth Ármin Look, it might be difficult to digest this, but it really seems like you have no idea what engineering is. Instead, you have prejudices, and you've come here asking for confirmation of your prejudices, one of which seems to be that engineers are repair technicians.

Because no could prove to me,that engineers indeed use physics!

@HorváthÁrmin What whould that proof look like? What would it take to convince you?

@wwarnier  Jobs that are physics connected. Engineers with an attitude of perfection,not short-cuts and using the least amount of physics.


text:
Why does my PhD admission letter include a line about being contingent on satisfying laws?
My PhD letter includes the follow line:

Note that your offer of admission is contingent upon your satisfaction of all local, state and federal laws.

My question is: I don't have an issue with this contingency per se, but is that standard language to include, or am I being singled out with this line? How can I check whether I was the only one to receive this type of letter.
My concern is that I am being discriminated against. For example, why am I being held in suspicion of possibly breaking any laws, and then my admission should be contingent upon those laws not being broken.

I am sure this is just a sign that the university's general counsel is a bit keen. I wonder how enforceable this provision actually is - taken literally, this would allow the university to rescind your place for jaywalking or parking in the wrong place. This would seem disproportionate. Maybe one for Law.SE?

I am perplexed that upon reading that statement, you jump to the conclusion that you might be discriminated against.

My reading of your question is that you assume they want you to  follow all local laws to the letter. No incorrect parking, no speeding, no misdemeanors, no crimes, in your future or past study. Such reading of that paragraph would be incorrect, they just say you must be legally eligible to study in their country.

If you are a foreign student, your ability to come study in the US depends on your ability to get a visa. If the university makes an admission offer and you later end up being unable to come because of visa (or other immigration-related) issues, you could claim that you were misled by being given an unconditional offer that in the end had to be rescinded because you were unable to physically attend the program. You could even sue the university and ask for damages (people in the US are somewhat fond of suing each other, compared to people in most other countries).
To avoid this situation, universities add language to their offer letters to indicate that the offer is conditioned on applicable laws being satisfied. Immigration issues are the most common type of legal problem that could come up, but the language is a bit more general to make allowance for other sorts of legal obstacles the university has no control over and which could prevent an accepted student from attending.
Bottom line: you are not being discriminated against. This line in admission letters is standard and does not indicate that you (or anyone else whose letter says the same thing) are suspected of having done anything wrong or being in any sort of legal trouble.

I agree, but also find it a bit sad that universities don't/can't work with applicants to resolve these visa issues early on.

@Buffy my university has a large office dedicated to helping visiting scholars and students navigate the immigration system. They spend large amounts of resources and attention (at all levels up to and including the university chancellor) on these issues, particularly in special situations that affect large numbers of people (e.g., Trump’s ban on travelers from Muslim countries in 2017, and the pandemic in 2020-21). So I’m not sure what you’re referring to exactly.

If a legal statement is required to guard against visa issues, the someone, somewhere, has failed to do their job, I think. Not every university is, apparently, as vigilant as the UC system. It is hard to guard against fraud, of course.

An awful lot of legal statements are written in hopes of never being necessary.  (And perhaps more are written in response to a single incident where such a statement would have come in handy, had it existed at the time...)

@Buffy I think you are underestimating the extent to which even the most powerful US universities are powerless against national governments. Even with the best of intentions and everyone “doing their job”, it will occasionally happen that someone who is admitted to a US program is refused a visa, or worse, is unjustly jailed in their home country. It’s strange to me that you are interpreting a simple informative statement in an acceptance letter as evidence of negligence.

@DanRomik I agree in general, but with respect to someone jailed (whether justly or not) in their home country - the boilerplate language does not address that situation at all.  Without further guidance, we can assume that the offer is not contingent upon satisfaction of home country laws.

@emory sure, good point. I was addressing Buffy’s “sad” sentiment, but you are correct that this is drifting a bit off-topic…

I don't know what the situation in the US is but in many countries the visa sponsor (i.e. university) have legal liabilities if their sponsee does not comply with the conditions of their visa. I can imagine this sort of language is an attempt to wriggle out of any responsibility.

@Buffy not even being granted a visa and having the visa sticker in your passport ensures that you will be able to enter the country - the final determination is made by the immigration officer at the port of entry. There is not much the university can do if this immigration officer decides that you are not permitted to enter for whatever reason.

Somehow you got the idea that I was disagreeing with your answer. I wasn't, in fact. I don't object to the "simple informative statement". Only to the need to write it. And the "objection" is just literally sadness, as I said. Please interpret my first comment here literally, as I wrote it.

I'm also with Dan Romik here initially, but after your latest comment, now I see that what you meant was "It's a bit sad that the reality of this world makes it a possible reality that universities might not be able to work with the candidates to resolve visa issue." Initially I (and I believe Dan Romik too) saw it as "It's a bit sad that universities are bad, they don't want to work with applicants to resolve visa issues." (hence Dan's later reply to yours, about the underestimation) Thanks for clarifying, Buffy!

@Buffy well okay, thanks for clarifying, but I must admit I still don’t understand who exactly you say is not doing their job, or what is the reason to be sad.

You aren't being discriminated against. It is boilerplate given to all potential students at this university. There is no suspicion involved, and no singling out.
But the implication is that you agree that if you have lied or misrepresented things in application materials or if, in future, you break some law, then you can be dismissed. It is a kind of "safety clause" that lets the institution easily disassociate itself from any illegal acts.
I don't know how common this is, but it may be increasingly common, perhaps driven by such things as the admissions scandal 2019. If this is the US, there may even be some state law that requires the formulation.

When I was a grad student (long ago) we were required to sign "loyalty oaths".

In addition to Buffy's general answer, i.e. law-breaking can get you dismissed, state universities in the United States may be concerned that you are a bona fide resident of the state, and some U.S. universities may be concerned that your presence in the U.S. is lawful.

@BobBrown -indeed, just like a job offer is contingent on having the right to work in the US, international students will need the right visa, and abide by the terms of it.

I assume the "admissions scandal of a year or so ago" refers to the Varsity Blues scandal, which was on the news in March 2019, more than two years ago now.

@Max, yes, that one. Updated. Thanks. Time flies.

I don't believe this means that you must be in compliance with all laws, just that you've satisfied those relevant to your participation in a graduate program.  Most likely, it's probably an out for visa issues.  Of course, it's vague language, probably intentionally so, to allow the most flexibility when surprises come up.  Picture someone arrested for illegal assembly during a peaceful protest vs someone charged with a hate crime for hanging a noose in a high school.  A univ. might choose to withdraw admission based on the latter and not the former.

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава