text:
Should I complain about an academic purposefully perverting statistics on Covid vaccinations on Twitter?
As a disclaimer, I have to say I am against any kind of censorship. That being said, academics also have a responsibility to their audience.
An academic with a few thousand citations purposefully perverts statistics on covid vaccinations. His statements are all "technically true, but what is the point" kind of statements which might mislead the population gravely.
Had it not been the case that he has a good track record, I wouldn't take any action. It is impossible to reply to everyone who doesn't understand statistics. But having a good track record and a good affiliation, his impact might cause confusion in public. Moreover, he uses twitter in his native tongue, while his affiliation is at a different country, so there is a good chance that his supervisors have no idea what is going on.
If he published these thoughts on a journal, anyone could have make a counter publication, or simply write to the editor after which the editor would request an errata. Yet, these statements are published on Twitter.
I personally feel responsible due to the dissemination of such misleading information. I mean, I am not disseminating them but I might stop this hurtful process. So, what is the correct way to approach here? My options are:

Mind my own business. Maybe block him for a peace of mind and let him cast doubt in people without scientific reasoning.
Write an anonymous email to his institution stating my concerns, as he flaunts his affiliation on his twitter bio.
Write an email with my name on it. I seriously don't want this as it might affect me getting a job after my PhD.

Thanks in advance!
PS: I know that some of you will want to know how he perverts statistics. Here is a few of statements:

If you are vaccinated, have covid and pass it without complications, it means that vaccination was 0% effective against infection but 100% effective against hospitalisation. (Technically true, but who uses statistics when sample space is 1?)

We can't know if an unvaccinated person admitted to ICU due to Covid wouldn't be admitted if he were vaccinated. (Again, technically true. Either he wants to tell correlation does not mean causation, which is not obvious from the rest of the thread, or he wants to apply statistics to an individual case for a definitive answer, like he did above.)

Edit: Actually there is a bigger question here: "Are academics responsible for their statements in public domain pertaining to their field of expertise other than their publications?".

What kind of academic? Someone in medical or related fields?

@GoodDeeds Yes, related. I don't want to give much information (I already told too much), but it is very related.

Not that it matters much for the underlying issue here, but besides having a sample space of 1, neither of these is specific to COVID -- you could say the same thing about any disease, or with appropriate rewording, even about things like wearing seatbelts when in a car, smoking, shark diving, bull running, selfie on a tall building ledge, playing Russian roulette, etc.

@DaveLRenfro This particular academic works in a field that is very related to Covid, which makes him an expert. It is not a random individual failing at Monty Hall problem, this is an expert who is either unethical (doesn't mind perverting statistics), or undeserved of his reputation (doesn't know enough statistics).

I assumed as much from what you originally wrote. My comment was simply to indicate that the level of "unethicalness" or "lack of understanding" is even greater than just that of using sample spaces of 1. There are also some major flaws in basic logical reasoning.

You are right. I specifically mentioned Covid, because I feel a greater responsibility on me due to the immediate public health issue.

Your bolded edit, which is different from the rest of the Q has a plain answer, yes of course, everyone is responsible for every statement they make.

I’m voting to close this question because it is not in scope.  The answer would be the same if the person posting on twitter was not an academic and was employed by a private company.

@AnonymousPhysicist None of the anti vaxxers (or vaccine sceptics, whatever) understand Bayesian statistics. Why would I call a textile company to tell them that one of their night shift workers doesn't know Bayesian statistics? This is obviously a different case as being an academic with a good track record on a very related field, he is supposed to know enough statistics to know he is misusing them. As a result, his institution might like to know if he is unethical enough to pervert statistics or ignorant enough not to know them.

@repbash2227 Private companies employ experts in statistics and also experts in COVID.  Just because a textile company does not employ statisticians does not make your question on topic.

@AnonymousPhysicist Firstly, he is not a statistician, yet his expertise demands good command of statistics. Secondly, private companies do not necessarily aim to disseminate  "correct" information. If I am paid by a sugar company, I'd look deep into numbers and find a way to exonerate sugar in diabetes studies and complaining to the private company about me would only get laughs. In contrast, universities are supposed to uphold certain research standards. Playing with numbers to present what you like to present is called Tuesday in an accounting firm, but it doesn't hold well in a university.

@AnonymousPhysicist Finally, if there were a chamber of statisticians (and if he were a statistician), I could have complained there to get his license revoked. MDs who perverts studies and statistics usually suffer this fate. Yet, there is no "chamber for academicians working in medical fields". Whatever your approach is, this question would be migrated from workplace SE in split of a second if I originally posted it there. Of course, you have your right to VTC, but in this case, you have misused it.

The practices on Workplace SE are not relevant to this site's scope.  Twitter posts are not research activity.  "Research standards" do not actually exist, and for a good reason.

You can complain to his institution, and it might a good idea if only to make his colleagues aware of what he is doing, in case they are not already aware.
However, based on your description I don’t think you should seriously expect that the institution will take any steps to tamp down or suppress this person’s speech. People say technically true but misleading things all the time. Whether something is true or not is a factual question that can be resolved, but whether something is misleading is usually a subjective matter. So it sounds to me like this person is exercising the freedom of speech and academic freedom that are traditionally available to academics and to citizens of a free country. Even if I might disapprove of the way he is using those freedoms and think he might be causing harm, ultimately academia tries to encourage free inquiry in the pursuit of knowledge and truth. That requires giving academics the freedom to say stupid or misleading things.
If he crosses the line into spreading clearly false information, particularly in a way that’s clearly intentional or motivated by bad faith, then there’s a chance that some action may be taken.
This addresses the academic context. Beyond that, you can also complain to Twitter if you feel this person may be violating their vaccine misinformation policies. Twitter is not by bound by academic norms and is free to take action.
If this person is a member of a profession that has a licensing requirement, for example a physician, you can complain to the licensing organization or authority. They might have their own ethics standards to deal with these sorts of issues, which again might differ from the general academic norms.

Reporting to twitter is actually be a great idea. But apparently twitter handles it with NGOs rather than individuals and they probably direct their resources to government individuals. To quote the famous philosopher "sounds good doesn't work." :)

@repbash2227 This is not to mention there exist respectable experts doubting whether the vaccine should be taken universally and this could be perfectly ethical. As a more well-established example, consider climate change. There is a small, but existing number of dissent climate scientists and it does not make them unethical; moreover, science needs that kind of thing. Unethical/bad part of the equation is the journalists making these 3% look like 50%+.

You can bring it up with their department. However, there's a good chance what they're doing is protected either by free speech and/or academic freedom, so nothing might happen.
The department could, however, make something like this webpage:

The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

I imagine what led to this was a lot of complaints to the department about Prof. Michael Behe "purposefully perverting information on evolution/intelligent design", to the point that the department felt they had to say something to distance themselves from the actions of one faculty member. Nonetheless, they are not censoring Prof. Michael Behe.

Frankly, I am not expecting them to do anything. If I do it, it would more of a "name and shame" kind of thing. I believe he either found himself a niche area for social media (scientist fueling antivaxxers without saying he is an antivaxxer) and promotes himself, or he is too narcissistic to the point that he wants to prove he is different than all his peers. Whatever it is, I am not looking for him to be sacked, I just want to him to know that there are consequences.

I note from your description that this academic's statements are correct, but you regard them as not being on point and misleading people somehow.  (You don't say how, but presumably you are being vague about the facts so as to preserve anonymity.)  In view of that, it sounds like your position is a counter-argument seeking some kind of other contextual facts to be brought in so as not to mislead.  That is unlikely to be a sound basis for any kind of academic complaint.
In such a situation, you might have more success by contacting this academic to calmly and politely explain your concerns.  You could explain why you think his posts might be misleading to some people, and give your own view on what other information you think it might be useful to note.  Assume good faith and see if you can start a dialogue where you both seek a good way to present the technical facts on the matter in a way that is clear to a general public audience.  If you can convince him of the merits of your view, it might change how he presents those issues.  (And if he can convince you of the merits of his views, it might allay your concerns about his posts.)

There is certainly a need for proper communication of facts, but the twitter examples provided in the question are not egregious misrepresenations of fact.  Even the OP agrees that they are technically correct.
To make a legitimate and effective complaint against an academic or expert--or anyone, for that matter--one must be careful to not appear biased or vendetta-driven in the process.  If a complaint is made in which the arguments appear petty or open to interpretation, the complainant may injure his or her own influence.
With respect to COVID-19 information and policies, there is a wide spectrum within the expert community and knowledgebase in terms of best practices in handling it.  Statistics can easily support an opinion from any side, depending on how the numbers are presented.  On one side, adverse effects from the disease and numbers of fatalities are regularly reported.  On the other side, VAERS data show a decided uptick in reports of vaccine-related mortality since the COVID vaccines were first administered--so much so that more deaths have been reported to VAERS this year than in all previous years on record, and for all other vaccines combined.  This is publicly accessible information.  Anyone with an internet connection can find it.
With considerable disagreement within the medical and scientific community, reporting someone merely because one's own view differs, however strongly, is problematic.  The best option, really, is to talk to the individual personally and address, in a respectful manner, your concerns with him or her.  It may be that you will persuade him or her to be more professional in supporting his or her facts.  It may also be that the individual will clarify things for you regarding his or her position which you may have not fully grasped.  In any case, it is the right thing to first address your concerns with the individual yourself.  If you were to put yourself in his or her place, is this not what you would feel was most appropriate?
If, after communicating directly, you still feel the situation is unresolved, proceed very cautiously with making a report of any kind.  Make sure that you do not make the same mistake you accuse him or her of--of not having sufficient support for the facts of your case.  You might need to verify, for example, that his or her statements were in some way a clear falsification or misrepresentation of the facts.  If all you have to go on are "technically correct" statements, your own perception of them as misleading may be seen as subjective.  It will not help your case to appear at all vindictive; you must be sure to model the same professionalism you desire to see in your colleague.


text:
Is there a website for academic computer science jobs in the US like mathjobs.org?
I know there is a mathjobs website in the US called mathjobs.org, which is the main website for posting math jobs in the US universities. But is there a similar one for the computer science jobs? I'm asking because I searched for csjobs.org and computersciencejobs.org, but I couldn't find a relevant match.
Thanks in advance!

If you're open to adjacent fields, you also have http://www.bioinformatics.org/jobs/ .

Thanks for the comment, I'm actually trained in mathematics wanting to switch t some interdisciplinary areas.

There's some hardcore math work in bioinformatics, look into networks and modelling. Can't give you more pointers than that, I'm the bio guy the math people collaborate with :).

There is this web site https://academicjobsonline.org/ajo (which is built on the same platform as mathjobs.org), but only a few universities use it.

Terdon: Sure, I'm a differential geometer/complex analyst/Riemann surface theoristwith basic backgrounds in algebraic topology etc. wanting to work in somewhat applied areas like medical imaging, shape analysis etc., but I guess if bioinformatics use pure mathematics related ot my backgrounds, I'd love to know what are those areas and who study them. I'd await your follow up comment :)

The best source for CS jobs in the US is the Computing Research Association (CRA). They maintain a jobs site that AFAIK most departments post to.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
New regulation in France and/or in ERC grant for hiring only the postdocs who finished their PhD 3 or less years ago - what does it really say? Link?
In a recent exchange with a faculty member based in France, whose ERC-funded postdoc I had applied to earlier, I was told: "a new local regulation makes it impossible to recruit under the status of 'post-doctoral fellow' someone with a PhD older than 3 years. Such a person could only be recruited as 'non-permanent researcher' with quite different conditions, and will require further negotiations with the ERC grant for faculty members."
I didn't further enquire about this to the faculty since she's busy and has no obligation of clarifying it to me. So I ask here - do you know what exactly does the new rule say? And is it true only in France or for any ERC grant, or in Europe? Some contexts and links will be appreciated!
If true, then this is indeed a bad news for me, since I'm trying to come back to academic research after a long hiatus from it. I'm of course quite active research wise (geometric statistics/statistical shape analysis) but a series of unfortunate circumstances and working in industry led me to fall out of academia for about five years (since January 2018), and I'm hoping that there's some hope for me, as I don't see myself getting a permanent position without doing a postdoc, which I'm perfectly fine with doing.
Thank you very much in advance!!!

I am not sure if I understand your statement "What does it say?". If you are looking for some hidden message from your regulators, I would read that regulation or preparation documents for that regulation. Your Ministry of Education should provide it to you and if not you may get it via the "freedom of information law". Without knowing that I couldn't decide, what is the message. If you just wanted to know, what this regulation includes, the process of getting it will be the same.

@Juandev: I'm having difficulties to follow your comment. It seems to me that OP simply wasn't told what regulation precisely the faculty member was referring to. So OP is asking here what kind of regulation exists either in France or within the European Research Council which says that postdoc positions can only be offered to people who got there PhD no longer than three years ago.

@JochenGlueck Yes exactly, there was no more detail in the faculty's answer, so I was further enquiring here, with the hope that some users here could be academic faculty somewhere in Europe and would pinpoint the regulation exactly, as often there could be conditions in such regulations.

@JochenGlueck so If you understand that way, I would try to find that documentation first.

In France, the law requires a contract for a postdoctoral researcher be established at latest 3 years after obtaining the doctoral degree, for a minimum duration of one year and a maximum of 3 years, and renewable once within the limit of a total duration of 4 years.
A contract for a postdoctoral researcher is a special contract that notably derogates from the general expectation under French law that employment should be on a permanent basis. It also provides additional requirements on the part of employer on the support and training of the postdoctoral researcher. It is subject to special rules from the government, and a postdoc employed by a public institution may have different rights than other employees of the state.
The law does not prevent you from doing what postdocs do (like she mentioned, as a non-permanent researcher), but your contract cannot be administered under special rules for postdocs, which may be a negative factor for your employer.
ERC grants in general do not prohibit hiring non-permanent scientific staff, but depending on the institution, your non-postdoc status may result in additional accounting or other bureucratic work.

In general, such restrictions are not uncommon in Europe. The rule on who qualifies as a postdoc, with associated rights (or lack thereof), can come from many sources. For example, a postdoc grant or fellowship may impose the restriction to support young researchers. Postdocs also often benefit from exemption from normal immigration rules (quotas, proof of inability to find domestic workers etc.), so a country may impose requirements to prevent abuse. For example, in Switzerland, a postdoc usually has to start within two years of graduation and usually cannot be more than four years, as a postdoc work permit is not subject to normal immigration procedure and should not be used to circumvent the law.
Similarly, the working conditions of many postdocs (like graduate assistants) are in violation of the labour laws in effect, or would be if not for their special status. Labour unions also have an interest in protecting interests of workers and (if you are cynical) receiving dues from more members. Collective agreements often set minimum salary depending on the experience of workers, and may require the classification of certain employees not as a postdoc, which has a consequent effect on the compensation and protection afforded to them.
The goal of these rules are to prevent the abuse of permanent non-permanent positions widespread in academia, although it may have an unfortunate effect for cases like yours. You may also point out the conflicting stance of the government who does not fund well enough to support more permanent positions, but that would be a separate discussion.

Thank you for the answer with the link! Few follow up questions if you don't mind:

So is the law passed in 2020 only?

What if the postdoc comes with an external funding, say Marie Curie from another country? In this case will (s)he be allowed to pursue her/his postdoc or no?

About "your contract cannot be administered under special rules for postdocs, which may be a negative factor for your employer", what negative effects for example?

Are there such laws in other EU country, e.g. UK, Germany too? I did take note of the one in Switzerland. How about the US?

@ScienceMan (1) Yes, although local regulations may already exist before. (2) it should be better. (3) they may be required to pay you more or have to be careful so you cannot claim a permanent position under the law, they may also just want to avoid extra administrative work. (4) this really depends on the institution even if there is no law. I don't see often UK and US inst. with this type of requirement but you should check with individual departments.

@ScienceMan e.g. in Sweden, if the university if part of collective agreement with SULF, a postdoc contract usually must be established no later than three years after PhD, although exemptions are possible. Like I mentioned, the requirement may also come from collective agreements, https://sulf.se/en/work-salary-and-benefits/fixed-period-employment/postdoc-an-employment-position-based-on-collective-agreement/

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


text:
Do I need to write a cover letter or something specific in my présentation analytique to the math department for MCF position application?
This question is a continuation of my earlier question related to the job applications for French Maître de Conférences position for mathematics (CNU section 25) and applied mathematics (CNU section 26).
My question is: While I understand that the "présentation analytique" (in English: analytical presentation) will have three main parts: i) CV, ii) research experience and future research projects, and iii) teaching experience and teaching philosophy, what's not clear to me is: do I need to tailor my "présentation analytique" according to each department I apply to? So in essence, should the "présentation analytique" vary from department to department? Or perhaps will there be a fourth section where I'm supposed to write a cover letter directed to the department explaining why I'd like to work in that department?
Thank you in advance!

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


text:
Am I eligible for a Marie Curie (MSCA) postdoc fellowship, given my details?
I'm a non EU citizen and a long term resident of France (holder of a ten year carte séjour = residence permit)), who received his PhD in mathematics from an American university in October 2013, and subsequently worked as a postdoctoral researcher for four years (three years in France, one in the US). This was followed by a few years (2018-2020) spent in industry, and since September 2021, I've been working as a teaching-only lecturer in mathematics at a French engineering school.
Being very passionate about research and looking to get back to mainstream academic research, I'm planning to apply for an MSCA postdoc fellowship with a EU based institution outside France, but before I'm just checking to make sure that I'm eligible to apply. It seems from the MSCA postdoctoral eligibility page that the eligible applicants must have at most eight years of experience in the EU (look at the sentence about 'third countries' in the screenshot).

So strictly speaking, it seems I've only three years of post - doctoral research experience in the EU, so I should be eligible to apply. Could someone please verify this? Thank you!
ADDENDUM: The reason I've asked this question here is that I've already tried to look for contact information for Marie Curie postdocs, and there doesn't seem be a clearly written email address that'd answer such questions. If you go to the link, it'll ask you to go to the site of European Research Executive Agency, which gives you a bunch of irrelevant information, nothing to do with contact emails. It's confusing that they put up so much info to skip through in order to just get a hold of the contact info.
Next, I googled "marie curie postdoc 2023 contact email", and from these search results, I see that

So I emailed them at this address, but no reply yet! Hence I'm asking here.

Have you asked the MSCA?

I sent them an email today!

@user438383 The problem is that there doesn't seem to be a dedicated email address to ask questions, as I'm going to put in an edit now.

In your case, I think the only real thing to worry about is the number of years post your PhD. One of the eligibility criteria is a maximum of 8 years post PhD. But in your case, if I understand correctly you finished your PhD in 2013, which seems to make you 10 years post PhD.
I don’t know whether they have anything for returning scholars. My best advice will be to write to your intended host institution and they will probably have someone there to answer your query.
Alternatively you could join the Master Class at TU Dreseden that holds next week and someone there will hopefully give you a better answer
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7048975828939853824/

Thnaks, but it's "maximum 8 years of research post-PhD", it isn't "maximum 8 years of research post-PhD". This means that teaching or industrial positions not related to academic research won't count. I've gone through their website and they've a self-assessment tool to evaluate oneself, and I qualify so far, since I've only done four years of post PhD research.

Oh that’s great. I will definitely encourage you to apply. You should definitely begin now because writing the proposal actually takes a fair bit of time.


text:
Searching for articles containing a phrase in the full-text body but are absent from the title and abstract
I have just started work on a systematic review, and this will be my first one! I am currently a bit stumped because I've been told to "search pubmed", however from past experience I worry about this because I am particularly interested in certain phrases or mostly 2 and 3 words which apper in the body of the paper but are absent from the title and abstract.
Is there any workaround in pubmed? If not is there another similar searchable database? If not, then how do people go about this?

Go find your local friendly research librarian who can introduce you to many search techniques on the various databases available.

PubMed contains only abstracts. It does not contain the full text of the paper. So you cannot accomplish this by searching PubMed.
PubMed Central contains full text, so you can perform the search there. You can construct it quite easily using the advanced search. For example, you can find papers which have 'mouse' in the body but not the title or abstract with the following query
mouse[Body - All Words] NOT mouse[Title] NOT mouse[Abstract]
However, PubMed Central only contains a subset of the papers in PubMed. For a systematic review, this may by problematic. I concur with the other comments that discussing this with a librarian at your institution may help you identify commercial resources you might have access to that can help, or an alternative approach that may be workable.

I recommend to consult a local librarian to help you. There are several studies[1, 2, 3 ] showing that when librarians or information experts are involved in systematic reviews it results in higher quality studies compared to studies without librarians.
With regards to your question, I think PubMed only indexes title, abstract and  metadata, not the full text of the papers. So it is probably not possible to search only by the main text via PubMed.

❤ librarians! And if access to a local library with a reference desk is challenging, then an email to the reference desk of a bigger library further away (or even on the other side of the planet) will often get a wonderfully helpful response. They are there, waiting to help. All we need to do is ask, nicely, and clearly, then give them a few days to reply.

"There are several studies" Did you consult a librarian to find those studies? ;)


text:
Should I correct my previous statement to a stranger after several years?
A stranger sent me an email asking for a solution and advice on a technical problem years ago. I gave him my personal opinon and solution at that time. Now, several years later, I found that some of my previous points were wrong and misleading. Should I send another email to correct my points after all those years? He is a stranger and we haven't been in communication since then.

Would it be much of a burden to you to write it?

@user111388 Not at all, I'm willing to provide better and more accurate solutions for him, but I don't know whether it will feel strange for him, because it's a topic alost 5 years ago, I don't even know if he is still using that email address.

Maybe you start with an email asking whether he would be interested in some updates given that in the meantime you found that your old answers were not optimal.

@konchy: I doubt anyone will find this strange. If it is much work for you, ask beforehand if they still need it..otherwise, just write!


text:
Do I have to re-cite sources in the conclusion that I already cited in the main part of my masters thesis?
I am currently writing the conclusion of my master's thesis. In the main part I have mostly explained an economic model and tried to make it more understandable. If I now summarize the findings in the conclusion, that is trivially the findings that the author of the model has already made. Do I have to quote the author again in the conclusion or is it sufficient to state the source in the main part?

You get the best advice from your advisor, but I think it depends on how you write. You have to be clear about the source of things, but not everything requires a formal citation. If you quote something again, you probably need to be more formal, but if you paraphrase something you quoted and cited earlier you might do with something like "As Smith and Quine, quoted earlier, have shown, mumble grumble tumble..."
Re-read what you write and assure yourself that ideas have the proper attribution. Avoid plagiarism and make the writing clear, especially the source of ideas.


text:
How old should the "recent" published works of a potential supervisor be exactly?
What if "recently" published works of a potential supervisor are 9 or 10 years old but relevant to the research work one wants to pursue? Should one only go by the recent publications or the "Current Research Interests" stated on the potential supervisor's university profile page (also a bit old!) when emailing them?

Look at their recent papers on arxiv or Google Scholar. If they haven't published in many years, they are likely not a good option.

@David Raveh do publications as second author count too?

It's not so simple; often being a second author simply means their student was first author. Or sometimes it is alphabetical. I would error on the side of counting it as a publication

“Recently” according to what? If their department web page that may just indicate that the last administrative push to update all pages (with some spiffy new formatting someone chose) was 10 years ago.

@DavidRaveh yes in my discipline that is Engineering I think most of the times the first  author is the student!

9-10 years is quite a long time to be inactive on a field. Certainly it suggests that they are no longer interested in that topic. However, it's not conclusive. One possibility is that the topic is not very "hot", so they've set it aside, but they're open to continuing work on it. Another possibility is that they got a grant to work on a different topic, so they've not worked on this one for a while, even though they would like to.
Especially if the topic is adjacent (i.e., within the same general field) as their more recent works, you can certainly ask. Saying you noticed that they have not published in that topic for a while, and asking if they're open to continuing work on it, would indicate you've done due diligence before contacting them, and therefore reflect well on you.


text:
Received a verbal offer via videoconferencing - how long to wait for initial written offer?
I received a verbal offer via video call with the Dean of the institution (East Coast university) They indicated they would send an email the next day.
It has been around 10 days with no email - I'm not sure, looking back if the email meant they would send an internal email e.g. to HR in order to set up an initial written offer, or if I should have expected a written initial offer immediately. I'm sure the Dean would not be sitting down to write a term sheet etc.
Is this just standard practice and I should just hold on and wait? I have been advised to possibly contact the university to ask for a soft indication of when an initial written offer might be received. For context I am not well versed with the US academic system as I am coming from a European system.

I would immediately follow up with the Dean to ask when the offer will be extended. There should not be a 10 day delay at this point in the academic year.

@JonCuster: please avoid writing answers in the comments. Short answers are allowed, and the answer box is mere inches away :-)

Aside - check your spam folder carefully first.  Do that now.

I think enough time is passed, you can send a friendly email stating that you haven't received a formal offer yet and asking when you can expect it. I would have waited a day or two after the original promise.
Do some checking on your own end to be sure it hasn't gone to a spam folder or anything first.

@BryanKrause’s answer is correct, please do not wait any longer before contacting the university.
Moreover, in the US, “verbal offer” is not a meaningful concept except when used as an informal figure of speech. In other words, until you have a written offer, you should not assume that you have an “offer”, verbal or otherwise. This makes it all the more important to communicate promptly and clearly with the university. Don’t be too polite. Don’t ask for “soft indications”. Don’t mince words or use overly tactful phrasings that leave room for ambiguity or misunderstandings. You need your offer letter, just ask in plain language when they will be sending it.
I’ve had to wait longer than expected for offer letters in my past, it’s not fun. Things turned out well in my case, I hope they will for you as well. Good luck!

To be clear: In the US, a legally valid contract can indeed be made verbally. Practically speaking though, in-writing is the way to go — as you indicated.

@BasilBourque maybe so, but an offer is not a contract. Unless the video conversation ended with a mutual understanding that an offer was made and OP accepted it, I very much doubt that anyone can claim this as the basis for a contract, not just practically speaking but even in a purely theoretical sense. Disclaimer: IANAL.


text:
Has it become harder for Chinese students to be accepted into graduate programs in the US?
There've been ominous news articles recently about the prospects of Chinese students (here meaning students from the People's Republic of China, as opposed to ethnic Chinese students from other countries such as Singapore) in the US, e.g.

Survey: US Public Opinion of China, Xi Drops Decisively
US blocking visas of some Chinese graduate students and researchers: DHS
Chinese grad students at US universities may soon be expelled

I am wondering how things are on the ground. I'm also interested in whether fewer Chinese students are applying to US graduate programs, if available. I know some parents are worried, but I don't know if that has translated into fewer applications.
Edit: rephrased in concrete terms, are US universities now taking the applicant's country of origin into account in graduate admissions?

Seeing as it has long been very difficult for Chinese students to get into top-ranked graduate programs in the US due to the high number of applicants from China, it's hard to see how "becoming harder" would make much difference to applicants.

@AnonymousPhysicist I can't see the content of your objection. It's already hard for them, so it doesn't matter if it becomes much harder? Is that supposed to be a real argument?

@knzhou I was referring to applicant strategy, not outcomes.  When making a decision to try something, a 1% chance of success and a 0.1% chance of success are not meaningfully different.

@AnonymousPhysicist I see that you've never had to try for a 1% chance in your life!

I think this is an interesting question, and (in response to now-deleted comments) I'm sure there is no intention of sparking a political debate. I am struggling a bit with whether this is answerable -- "whether it's less worthwhile" is probably a matter of opinion, and "how things are on the ground" will vary widely. On the other hand, a US-based professor involved with admissions (for example) might be able to share some relevant observations. The last part is answerable for sure, though it's probably too early for statistics to be available.

The question makes less sense now; I'm not aware of any admissions process that ever did not consider country of origin.  Though I might have heard German universities don't?

Funding may further shift towards classified/national interest projects, looking at my own university the extremely high number of non US citizens in graduate school has pretty much prevented professors from doing classified work. Many of the professors themselves can't pass security clearance because many are foreign. The US government is at a massive shortage of americans and I wouldn't be surprised depending upon 2020 outcome if restrictions are greatly tightened to force more US citizens to be selected. I don't think the issue is china really but noncitizen.


text:
Advisor's Move to Another University: Should I Identify as a Visiting Student or Visiting Researcher?
I've recently transitioned to university B to continue my research following my advisor's move from University A. However, my enrollment and degree completion remain at university A.
This situation has led to some confusion regarding the appropriate designation of my current role. Should I refer to myself as a "Visiting Student" or a "Visiting Researcher"? My primary engagement is conducting research under the supervision of my advisor at the new institution. Additionally, I have completed my Ph.D. coursework at university A and am expected to graduate within a year.
I'm seeking clarity on how to accurately represent my position for both academic records and professional networking purposes. Insights from those with experience in similar academic or research positions would be invaluable.
Is it common to add the "Visiting Student" experience to my CV? For platforms like LinkedIn, should I retain my affiliation with the previous university A or is it more appropriate to update it to my current research location at university B?

This is a question for your advisor, since there likely was some agreement made with their new and old universities about you and your role. The people I know who are in your position were just students at university A, performing some work at B.

Are there any legal or institutional implications of the choice or is this just informal? Are you using (or providing) resources at B other than the professor's time and effort?

@Buffy I have an unofficial position at University B. For example, I don't have an official email from University B. However, my advisor is giving me all his time and effort.
Also, under special circumstances in Korea, I am serving in a military alternative service program for my doctorate program. There was a formal paperwork process to get approval for deployment to University B.

The mere fact that your advisor is now at University B and that you are hanging out at their campus does not make you affiliated with University B. So the first question to determine is whether you have any formal status with University B at all. Obtaining such a formal status would probably have involved some interaction with their administration, although there is a chance that your advisor was able to make arrangements for you. If this did happen, then the appropriate phrase to use is whatever phrase University B uses to describe your status with them.

In many universities in the US, visiting positions (researcher/student/fellow) are honorary positions that come with a formal affiliation with the university being visited, and other standard benefits such as having a school email account, designated office space etc.
My personal rule is to never put something on my CV that can not be verified via some formal procedure. Discuss with your advisor to find out if that can be arranged for you, it would make any such claim official and you will not have to wonder whether you are a Visiting Student or a Visiting Researcher, as it will be specified in the paperwork.

This is a matter for University B to decide not you. From what you've written it sounds like you have no formal relationship with University B. Yes your advisor now works there but by your own admission your enrollment is at University A. If you have no formal relationship with University B you have no right to describe yourself as holding a 'visiting' position. You need to sort this out with University B.


text:
References or Citations in Personal Statement to Papers/Research
I have a paragraph in my personal statement where I describe potentials areas in a subfield of computer science that I'm most interested in contributing research in. For US applicants, especially to the top 10 schools,

Would I list references/citations to papers in the SOP/PS
If so, where/how do I do that/what format should I use
How about footnotes for citing a paper or two?

Yes, but I am looking for a suggested format I could use to cite a paper or two.

If these are your own papers, they belong in your list of publications in your CV.  If they're not your papers, there's probably not a lot of point in citing them.  I think it's enough to focus your SOP and personal statement on answering the questions, "Why are you applying?
What will you do if they admit you?  What are your goals and how does this fit into them?"  You don't need a lot of citations to answer those questions.
(I've been asked for lots of LORs and on only one occasion has anyone ever given me an SOP or personal statement that had even a single citation.  That one exception was a four-page SOP in two columns of small font with half-inch margins and a page and a half of citations at the end.  I glazed over instantly and did not read it.  I advised the student that in my opinion, no one else would read it either.  The same student also wanted LORs for 17 schools.)

What if the citation is to a paper that is a general review of the subfield as a footnote, that points to some upcoming new directions I would encounter as a prospective PhD student?

and if that is the case, it's a review paper, what sort of a citation format would you recommend? Footnote? (saves trees) or a list of references in the new last page?

@spaceghost I don't think it makes much difference which format you choose.  It won't help you very much either way.


text:
Getting into grad school with a low gpa
I'm new to these forums, but I thought I'd take a stab at asking about my situation. I have two BS degrees, one in electrical engineering and the other in physics. I'm wanting to go to grad school in either physics, engineering, or something in between. My problem is that I have a 2.3 cumulative gpa, however I do have a slew of other things going for me that I was wanting to get opinions on how much they would help with admissions.
I've done research in plasma physics for over 2 years. It was due to that project that I was place into the McNair Scholars program and was given the opportunity to travel overseas to perform research at a European fusion energy lab last year. I've graduated, but was hired by the same research group to perform data analysis work for the project. I learned alot about experimental physics: solid state particle detectors, vacuum chambers, spectrum analysis, linux operation systems, and so on.
In my engineering major I become involved with a team that built, tested, programmed and will be launching an amateur radio satellite. I worked on the power systems of the craft, and learned alot about surface mount soldering, solar cells and battery charging power circuits, etc. I'm also planning the building and programming of a rotating machinery for our ground antennas. Out of this might come the chance to work with a mechanical engineering group launching their own satellite.
I also work in the power industry, currently as an intern, where I've done a few projects related to internet monitoring of devices attached to power lines, learned pcb design skills here. My job also had me write a paper (so I'd be first author there) related to cyber security that will be going to a conference later this year. Not sure if this will help specifically since that work isn't necessarily what I want to do graduate research in.
I'm currently taking a year off to work, pay off debts, and study for good scores on the general and subject GRE's. I was also plannig on taking 1 or 2 grad courses and planning to ace them. My bad grades came from my first year courses, not from my junior and senior in-major courses. Come application time I can get plenty of good recommendation letters from various sources (not just in my university). I know my gpa is going to hurt me, but I was wondering if anyone has any experience about how much things I've done outside the classroom would offset that. Thanks for any opinions that might be helpful. Sorry for the wall of text.

JeffE is a full professor with a 2.4. Emphasize your research skills, and find the right supervisor who cares more about your research than your grades.

I read that post before I posted mine, the thing is I have alot more research experience than that poster (he had mostly teaching experience if I remember correctly). I figured my situation was different enough to warrant my own thread.

Hi clope023, it's great that you have research experience and it will certainly help for graduate admissions! But the advice in the linked post applies to your situation as well.

See especially the answer by TCSGrad :)

My bad grades came from my first year courses — Sorry, but that doesn't scan.  With a first-year GPA of 1.0 (which would have led to your immediate suspension) your last-three-years GPA would be 2.7.  Even if your first-year GPA was a perfect 0.0, your last-three-years GPA would be 3.0, barely above the minimum for graduate admission at most universities.

It wasn't that simple for me.

It sounds to me as if you definitely have a chance, though the GPA is somewhat low.
The fact that you became better over time with regard to GPA is a very good sign. You may want to calculate your GPA by year so you can cite some figures if asked. Be prepared to explain why your GPA was low, or at least what you did to improve it. While interviewing, do not be late for an interview with faculty - study the campus maps and be sure to let any prior meetings to end soon enough to give you ample time to get to your next meeting! Being late may give professors time to look at your transcript and possibly ask some awkward questions that you otherwise likely need not worry much about if you have already gotten to this stage in the application process. Not to mention being late is not a good thing in general.
Make sure you can secure some good letters of recommendation from your research projects. This is absolutely critical.
Hopefully, the job you get over the next year is also somewhat research related. If it is not too late, I would try to find such a job. Also, I don't know if it will suit you, but if you can find such a job, then you may even want to keep it longer than a year depending on how things go. If you can finish a good project, that will boost your chances even more.
Finally, I think your plan for the subject GREs may be alright, if it does not interfere too much with my suggestions above. Taking tests is not a big part of most PhD programs, and even those where it is, only a few of the most selective programs require the subject GREs last I checked (which was a while ago).

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


text:
Why does art history exist as a distinct discipline separate from the discipline of history?
Art history is an established academic discipline and you can do degrees at all levels in it.
Why is this the case?
Why isn't it considered a sub-discipline of history?  It seems to stand separately as its own subject.
Why don't you get a BA in Music History, for example?  I am sure people study music history, but its much less well known as a discipline than art history.

Statistics is a sub-discipline of mathematics but you can get degrees at any level in it. There is no real answer to your question.

Statistics is not a sub-discipline of mathematics. That statement is incorrect.

It's important to keep in mind that academic disciplines are largely political constructs, not natural phenomena.  They form a bizarre patchwork full of ambiguity, overlap, gaps, and contested areas.  Anyone can declare something its own field or discipline, and there are lots of small disciplines with tens, hundreds, or thousands of adherents.  Sometimes these disciplines compete fruitlessly with each other and have little influence, but if one gets enough backing it can start to reshape universities.  (But I don't know the history of art history, so I can't really answer this question.)

@AnonymousMathematician: Gee, if only you could have taken a degree in art history history!

@FaheemMitha How so?

The example you choose is interesting. From my limited personal experience, Art History has (other than the name) very little overlap with actual History. I think my friends who studied Art History would be really confused why you would ever consider their field as part of History.

@NewWorld I'm not sure what you are asking. Can you be more explicit?

@xLeitix I am a novice in the humanities and the only reason why I conflated the two disciplines is the name.  Perhaps a better way to phrase the question might be why are there not well established and popular disciplines studying the history of humanities subjects other than art?  I know that you get music history, history of literature etc, but I've not seen degrees in these subjects which have as much prominence as art history

@FaheemMitha I mean you made the claim that statistics is not a sub-disciple of mathematics, but you didn't elaborate. Could you please explain how it's not? Or maybe you know a link that explains this?

@NewWorld Well, I guess it depends on your definition of mathematics. Mathematics is about proving mathematical statements/results, but statistics is not. Statistics does use mathematical results, but that is not the same thing. For example, probability is a branch of mathematics. Statistics uses probability. if you don't agree that mathematics is about proving mathematical statements/results, you won't agree with my statement either, but I think it is obvious.

While it is true that a statistician may prove mathematical statements/results are part of what he does, his overarching goal is never a mathematics proof. Typically it is data analysis. If not the analysis of a particular piece (or pieces) of data, then the creation of methods of data analysis. If his main goal is a proof, then typically the result belongs to probability; possibly applied probability.

Random link - http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=3169 You can find plenty others, both agreeing and disagreeing with the statement.

The stats.sx take on it.

Coming at this far after the OP, but as an art historian I felt compelled to reply.
The reasons for the Art History's separation from History are myriad (political, pedagogical, philosophical, etc. etc. etc.). In general, art history is rooted in objects/visual materials, and requires training in the methodologies and historiography of visual analysis. Many of the tools of art historical work overlap with those of historians––we are informed by broader methodological shifts (psychoanalytical theory, feminism, postcolonial debates, etc.) and have our own set of theoretical paradigms that have extended beyond the realm of art history (Bildwissenshaft, formalism, iconology, etc.). It's a vast field that in recent decades has splintered into related disciplines (visual culture, visual studies). Depending on his or her methodology, an art historian could likely be as well-versed in the "historical" literature as the "art historical" literature in any particular area. Art historians are, I believe, departmentally separate (or often groups with studio art programs) due to the emphasis on object-based research and teaching. That said, art historical research requires the same level of rigor and sophistication as any other form of historical research.
While many art historians choose to go the curatorial route, many who pursue advanced degrees stay in academia. Working in a cultural institution like an art museum requires a distinct set of skills from that of an academic. Some graduate programs in art history gear themselves more toward the curatorial route, while others are more focused on academic research.
One element of art history that can, I think, be a bit confusing to the outsider is the interpretative element. Any strong analysis will be rooted in historical "facts," but when examining a work of art, there's always going to be some measure of interpretation or speculation. Again, if a conclusion is not borne out by strong research, it will generally not be widely accepted. But the extent to which art historians think creatively about their objects of inquiry is one of the many reasons the field can, to me, be so invigorating.

Welcome to AC.SE. It is always nice to see a non scientist.

It is interesting that you assume Art History as a sub-discipline of History. I am aware of many joint Art and Art History departments (either formally in the name or where the courses are taught) and also joint Art History and Anthropology departments, but I am not aware of any universities where Art Hisotry is taught as a sub-discipline of History. This is probably rooted in the fact that the visual analysis techiques used by Art Historians is essentially completely unrelated to the techniques used by Historians.

I didn't assume that @StrongBad... it was one of my questions

My mother studied Art History, that at the time was an specialisation of History, as Theoretical Physics is of Physics. Now it is a degree on its own, but belonging to History.

Music History as an area of study certainly exists. Whether under that name or not will depend on how a particular school arranges its departments. Your not having heard of it says more about your areas of interest than about academia.
Other than that: as @StrongBad said, different tools and different techniques and different priorities, hence different departments. History of science, if someone specialized in that, would probably also be different from a normal History degree.

It's hard to make the case for "music history" as a discipline equivalent to "music." There are very few places outside of conservatories where you'd find "music history" (or musicology) departments.

None the less, musicology exists -- the fact that it's less common doesn't make the "I've never heard of it" objection valid.

@keshlam A quick search at UK universities reveals dozens of BA degrees in art history that are available.  There are none in music history; its obviously a much more specialist or less well known discipline.

I found a definition of musicology:
"noun
the study of music as an academic subject, as distinct from training in performance or composition; scholarly research into music."
So musicology isn't specifically about the history of music.

@PaulRichards: Musicology may not be the correct word, but such majors seem to exist. To name some examples, here and here are two German universities that offer a Master's degree in "Historical Music Research" (descriptions only in German).

@aeismail The discipline of Musikwissenschaft was founded by Guido Adler in Vienna in the late 19th century, and pioneered as "musicology" in the US by Charles Seeger in the early 20th century. At many institutions, musicologists are simply part of the department or faculty of music (Yale, Harvard, Chicago, Oxford); others have a specified musicology department (Princeton, UCLA, Indiana). The main professional societies are the American Musicological Society (www.ams-net.org), the Society for Music Theory, and the Society for Ethnomusicology, each of which publishes its own journal.

"Music history" is AKA "historical musicology" and is a subfield of musicology. It's rare to find a Bachelor degree in Music History, but they do exist.

As a complete outsider to this field, I might be completeley wrong, but I can guess one compelling reason: art history is the field one has to study to become a museum curator (other related jobs certainly exist): if one wants well curated collections in museums, then one needs to form curators and for this, specific research is certainly also needed.

This was my suspicion as well—there's a "cottage industry" that demands it.

A science museum probably will prefer a science history degree, and other specialized museums will have corresponding preferences, but most museums indeed are art museums.

As someone who is studying for a MA in History, but also taking classes and having a minor in Museum and Curatorial Studies (mainly focused on critical theory and art history), there is a difference in the two disciplines. As one of the above commenters said, there are many overlapping methods in research. But the historiography is very different. In the discipline of history, there is more of a focus on the social, cultural, political impacts. Visual art can be used to help understand and dissect the event more closely, but history is a study of causes that led up to the event. Art history is very different in the sense that art history can get very specific to the artist and the art movement. Art history also has a focus on aestheticism. Just as history can use visuals such as art works and the artist's life as a tool to understanding the period, an art historian can use the historical event and time period, the historical facts to understanding the piece as well as the artist or the art movement. In a way it's flipped. I believe that these two disciplines are very important in the field of humanities, but in a sense, it is important to distinguish between the two disciplines. But I am also a firm believer in learning both fields in order to enrich the study of history.

Art history is about art and its history, just like Musicology is about music and its history. The only difference is that one has history in its name and the other doesn't.
(As another example of the same thing, for a long time in my country biology ran under the name of "natural history". Nobody considered it a subfield of history.)


text:
Postdoctoral funding for scientists with career breaks
I've finished my PhD in pure math in October 2013, did four years of postdocs in applied math/machine learning applied to computational neuroimaging. Following that, I've worked in industry in 2018-2020 (where I got fired several times and went through periods of unemployment, including one from June 2020 to August 2021) and then from September 2021, I'm in a teaching only position, but as a freelancer, not with an employee contract.
I'm based in Western Europe, and I'm looking for postdoctoral fundings the EU) in Europe (including the UK and Ireland as well as  geared towards people with a career break like myself, ideally in applied math/computational neuroimaging/computer vision/geometric statistics or machine learning.
I looked for this online, and so far, have found this and this, but the problem is to find postdoc funding that are a bit more specialaized towards an applied mathematician like myself. Are there possibly any such designated funding/fellowships the links don't cover or should I know about in general?

Two points - firstly, you may be hoping for too close a match, fellowships with a very narrow discipline focus and a career re-entry focus are going to be rare or non-existent. Secondly, from your description above I wouldn't describe you as having had a career break - you've been working in different areas, but 'career break' usually implies not working at all professionally for personal reasons. There may be some fellowships which use a broader definition, but from your description above you wouldn't be eligible for most career re-entry fellowships that I'm aware of.

@StephenMcMahon Thank you for the pointers - appreciate them! In fact I did have several unemployments between January 2018 and August 2021, one of them lasting from June 2020-August 2021, so these can be proven. Next, in my current teaching only position, I'm working as a freelancer (so not with an employee contract), so I think this can viewed as a break, no? Thirdly, I was fired several times when I worked in industry. So given all these facts, will I still not be eligible for a career re-entry fellowship, and if not, then what fellowship can I apply to?

The problem is not that your unemployement was documented. The thing is that you were working all the time (consider being unemployed as a job, the job of finding a job, a job that in civil countries is funded by public money for obvious reasons).
If you had other breaks, for example because of providing support to some family member or to take care of your own health, then it is a different matter and re-entry fellowship are thoughts for these cases, in general.

Being unemployed (or underemployed) is not the same as a career break. It sounds like you were able to work and actively seeking employment for this period, so I wouldn't consider those career breaks. On the 'what fellowship' question - Do you think there should be fellowship schemes tailored to your position? You can apply for general fellowship calls, but these are highly competitive and, to be frank, you may struggle with your CV as described (out of research for a long time, fired from multiple roles). I wouldn't say it's impossible, but you should carefully consider your goals here.

Unemployment may count as a career break. It depends on the funder.
E.g. the UK social sciences funding body says that "Career breaks include periods of maternity, sick leave, or unemployment" (https://social.sgsss.ac.uk/files/documents/fellowships/02.-esrc-pdf-faqs-2021-22.pdf).
But the Royal Society talks about "time away due to personal reasons such as... caring responsibilities; ill-health or working in a non-research environment/role, such as industry". (https://royalsociety.org/-/media/grants-schemes-awards/grants/dorothy-hodgkin/Dorothy_Hodgkin_Fellowship_Scheme_Notes_2024.pdf)


text:
How does writing and submission of a joint proposal process work in the CNRS Chargé des Recherche (CR) competition in France?
I'm looking at the CNRS CR (=charge de recherche - a research only academic position with no teaching duties)
recruitment process, and in the booklet that walks candidates through the application process, it says :
"You will need to provide a clear, structured presentation of your research project and its scientific interest. You are free to choose the way in which you present your project. There is no limit to the number of pages. Your research proposal should be aimed at one
CNRS unit. You will need to indicate the laboratory or laboratories where your project could be conducted and make at least 2 wishes."
I talked to a few French academics, and I got the idea that it's instructive to network with the team, by contacting them, giving a talk etc, and if they belive in your ability, they'll accept to write a joint proposal with you. Is this correct at all? And if yes, who writes most of the proposal - the candidate or the team melbers?
Timeline: What's also not clear to me is when the candidate/applicant is supposed to do so? For example, it's December now, and the competition has been announced on the CNRS website, so does this mean the potential candidates are supposed to have already contacted a team and developed a joint research project? So if I were to be an applicant, is it already late to contact a team and develop a research project? Am I supposed to have done this already?
Some general lesser known insights on writing this joint proposal would be appreciated too!
Thank you in advance!

You are writing 95%+ of the proposal, some of your future potential colleagues in the lab of your choice will help you figure out how you and your project integrate in the lab and will help you write that one specific section, but writing the project is on you.
Yes you are supposed to get in touch and get to know them, researchers will want to discuss how your research will make the lab better and will also want to know you as a person since you will be there for many years. If you still haven't contacted a lab it's very likely too late to apply for the next deadline, also consider the holiday break. It's not like a regular tenure application in which you send your CV and then they decide if they call you for an interview.
If your PhD diploma is not in French you will also need to get it translated.

Thank you for your detailed answer, and sorry for the belated acknowledgement! Indeed it's almost impossible to know about the full application process when you're an outsider.
I understand I'm late and I guess I'll give up hope for applying for CNRS CR positions then. How about INRIA CR positions? I see that they start in January, so I guess I'm late for this too, considering the winter break?
Also, is now a good time to contact several universities regarding giving a talk?

"If your PhD is not in French you will also need to get it translated." this is not true, an english thesis is fine. You are indeed too late for CNRS (you start in August or September if you're doing it "right") but not too late for inria positions, good luck.

@mordecaiiwazuki you are correct, the thesis can stay in English, what I meant was the diploma.

I speak from the applied math side (section 26 or 61)

I talked to a few French academics, and I got the idea that it's instructive to network with the team, by contacting them, giving a talk etc, and if they belive in your ability, they'll accept to write a joint proposal with you. Is this correct at all?

Yes, you should contact various teams you're interested in (at least 2) and give a seminar talk, visit them to see if you're a "good fit", etc. This takes place before December, usually a successful applicant will start this process in August or September.

And if yes, who writes most of the proposal - the candidate or the team melbers?

The proposal should be all you, the candidate. You might discuss it with the lab members and get ideas from them but you should be the one touching the keys to make the documents.

Timeline: What's also not clear to me is when the candidate/applicant is supposed to do so? For example, it's December now, and the competition has been announced on the CNRS website, so does this mean the potential candidates are supposed to have already contacted a team and developed a joint research project?

Yes, and it's unfortunate that it's not advertised this way. The process starts sooner than you think and by the time you find this out it's probably too late.

So if I were to be an applicant, is it already late to contact a team and develop a research project? Am I supposed to have done this already?

Yes it's effectively too late unless you're a VERY strong applicant.
If you remain interested, you will want to contact past winners of the concours for the positions in your section and see if they're willing to let you look at their proposals to gain insights. There is also http://postes.smai.emath.fr/current/index.php for the general positions in france, I can't remember if CNRS gets posted there too.


text:
I've been called for an audition for MCF position at a place in France that has nothing to do with my research - what could be the motive behind this?
I've a PhD in pure math, with postdoctoral experience in theoretical/statistical aspects of machine learning, with over seven years of teaching experience in math in English, and currently a part time lecturer of math in an engineering school in France. This year I applied to 44 full time MCF positions (assistant professor) in France, and all the places that I thought had something to do with my research, didn't call me even for an audition. However, only a French engineering school specialized in mechanical engineering called me to audition - to my (somewhat pleasant) surprise. For reference, MCF comes with mixed teaching and research responsibilities.
I had applied to this school of engineering (this is one of the "Ecole Supérieures") in the CNU Section 26, just to take a chance. I also communicated with the people in charge and specified that my French was only intermediate and they replied by saying that nearly 100% of the teaching would be in French, and thus not being able to provide the lectures in French will be a unfavorable point of any application. I cannot obviously ask the school why they selected me, because that'd obviously negatively affect my application.
I looked the faculty research interests, that got nothing to do with mine, and on top of that the language would be a barrier at this point (not that I don't want to improve my French, but I'm just not there at this point...).
So my question is: why am I being called for an audition? I'd hazard a guess that they didn't get a lot of applications OR that they're planning to give me a lot of teaching load, having seen my teaching experience; both would be a point of serious concern, considering my professional goals and my passions related to it - which is research in theoretical machine learning, and not a lot of teaching (no more than 200 hours a year). I emailed the selection committee  asking if I could audition in English, and the answer was no. Also, anyone looking at my CV would figure out that I'm not a statistician (although I do know a fair bit), and yet they asked me to present a teaching demo of inferential statistics, something where I've not published nor taught in a classroom setting!!! So I don't understand why the school is trying to have it their way and yet asking me for audition - seems genuinely confusing to me. I can't obviously ask the school why they selected me to audition, as that'd negatively affect my application (although in case, I'm certain that I'd not be offered this position anyway, perhaps for the better).
I'd appreciate responses, especially from people who were in the same situations so that I know how some assistant professor selection process goes - this is one of my goals to know, or those familiar with French higher academic system. Thank you in advance!

Seems impossible to answer. Only they know.

@Buffy Probably, but I'm trying to see if there are few people how may have faced such an undesired invite to an undesired place and what the selection commitee thought of their applications to give them chances.

It isn't the question you asked, but I'd advise listening to what they have to offer and then decide.

@Buffy will certainly do. Just thinking how to rephrase my question to the committee to know what they want from me. I rephrased my question here as well so that it doesn't get closed.

As Buffy says, nobody will really be able to tell. However, given my experience with EU faculty search processes, my first tip would be that they have simply not noticed that you don't speak French fluently.

@xLeitix That may not be true that they didn't notice it, as my dossier was submitted completely in English and also I emailed them about this, as I wrote in my post.

If I'm not mistaken, MCF teaching loads are completely specified by regulation, so they don't have the option of giving you more or less.  (And iirc, it's 192 classroom hours a year, with certain kinds of teaching counting as more or less than the actual time.)

I don't know the French recruitment system well, but in some systems an institution can have an incentive to interview some candidates they are sure are a bad match, in order to be able to hire their desired choice.

Sometimes the hiring decision is made before the interviews.  Go for the learning experience.

@ScienceMan Application in English does not mean that you don't speak French as well. And, believe me, just because you called somebody does not mean that whoever made the final shortlist got the message. Committee work can be messy.

@xLeitix Thanks, I didn't call but email a member of the committee, who checked with the dean of the school, and wrote back to me that without French knowledge, I'd face unfavorable decision on my application. Next they've invited me to attend the audition; I wrote back again asking if I could audition in English, and the answer was no. I don't understand why they want me to audition and that too in a subject that I'm not a master of: statistical inference (I've a math PhD and some statistical ML work, but not statistical inference). It's very very strange to me!!

First, it's worth noting that to my knowledge most of the "Grandes Ecoles" do not belong to the same system as regular universities. They use the same job titles and similar procedures, but they have more flexibility in various aspects, in particular the hiring procedure. I don't know if this information is relevant here, but I assume that most of your rejected applications were for regular universities positions, so this might not be a coincidence.
About their motives, one can only speculate:

They might need to fill a teaching position which fits your profile, for example in pure maths. Especially for "Grandes Ecoles", the teaching part of the position may be given high priority compared to the research part.
The chance factor: one of the reviewers may simply have found your profile interesting enough to give you an interview, and convinced the panel.
A more unpleasant reason: some political move is at play, for example if they already have a favourite candidate that they want to select. This is not supposed to happen, but it could happen that they would purposefully fill the interview slots with plausible but inappropriate candidates to justify the final decision.
...

Note that they could have decided to ignore the language issue for now in order to assess your French level at the interview.
In general there's simply no way to guess their reasons. When I was applying for MdC positions in France, whether I would get an interview or not seemed almost random to me. In fact, my guess was more often wrong than right about which universities would give me the interview, even though I was fairly well informed of the process and sometimes even had a bit of information about the places where I was applying.
If you're really interested to discover how the French selection process works, there's no harm going to the interview. People often say that it's worth doing it, if only for the experience (personally I question this point, to be honest). Of course, you probably know that the expenses are not reimbursed (unless this changed since I was doing it, but I doubt it). If you're not even interested in the interview, you can make up an excuse and withdraw your application (don't do this if you want to have any chance in the same institution in the future, obviously).

Theoretical aspects of machine learning might just be in high demand. Machine Learning in general is now very attractive, students and industry demands it, and apparently, there is no-one else there with your knowledge.
You should go and see what they have.
They will want to know whether you can teach in French. If your French is truly terrible, then you should beg out. Presumably, they will just want it to be passable.


text:
Ways to conduct complete, effective research?
Let's say you are conducting research in a given field. You want to extend or gain knowledge about concepts in the research field and search for literature that explains these concepts, e.g. by typing in some keywords into Search Engines like Google Scholar or digital libraries.
Now some questions appear:

How do you know that you have completed (most likely) the search for knowledge about a given concept?
What is the most efficient way to find knowledge about a subject?

For 2, my methodology so far is searching a keyword in Google Scholar, reading the first X most cited papers or papers with relevant titles. Then reading citations that further explain an unclear or abstract concept in more detail. Afterwards, I look for articles that cite the most descriptive articles I've already read and have a closer look at citations in these articles etc. This is a similar process as described in this paper.
As to 1, I think the answer is when you don't find more information about a given concept.
Am I missing something? Is there a better way or answer?
Note: If you think I can phrase the title of this question in a better way (e.g. more descriptive keywords), please edit or comment.

People write whole books about this. I think the concept you're struggling towards is the systematic review


text:
Should GitHub repositories be included in a resume or statement of purpose?
I am applying to a MS in information technology program coming from a BS in computer science and have worked on several projects over the last couple of years. I have 3 projects on my GitHub account that I think are interesting, two are cryptography related, and one is a lightweight Json library for Java. None of my projects are "finished" ranging from some cosmetics and nice to have, to containing major bugs because I wrote it in a day and thought it was cool and a good idea.
Should GitHub projects be included in a resume or statement of purpose when applying to a technical MS program? Bonus question- if it should be included, should it be included in my contact information or somewhere else?

I would definitely include the links in your resume. Even if they're not finished, as long as they have clear documentation and everything makes sense, go for it. Before including it, I would go through as thoroughly as you can and try to read it as a third party: what does this mean, what's its purpose, how could this be done differently? Even if you don't actually change anything, it would be good to have comments and notes throughout the code that are understandable to a third party, explaining things like those 'major bugs' you mentioned.
As for where, I have a section in my CV for personal projects: I would suggest you do the same. Alternatively, anywhere where you are describing relevant interests, you can casually drop the link in. However you decide to do it, I think it would be good to give links to specific projects with a little description of what it is and why it exists. The alternative is to just put a link to your GitHub account in your contact, like you said, but I feel that sometimes that can not be very helpful. Sure, it's there for them to look at, but if you can engage them with a description of a project you've worked on and then give them a direct link to the source code, I think that has more impact than them having to look for it themselves.


text:
Master's in computer science vs Master's in information technology
I have a BS in computer science and have been working as a developer for the last 6 months after my graduation. I am interested in pursuing a master's degree and I'm not sure which program, computer science or information technology, would open more academic and professional doors.
I will have ~3 years of relevant experience after completing any program and my job will pay for ~80% of my education.
What program have you taken, what doors has it opened? Has it gotten you interviews, or moved you up the ladder faster?

Take a look at the courses in the two programs at your selected institution.  You will likely find that the CS master's is more theoretical and the IT master's is more applied.
Then decide your own path.  Do you want to continue as a developer, do systems integration, or something else.  Map your proposed path to the program.

I haven't had a job in IT for long, but I do have a good knowledge of academia. Simple answer is in the program names. One is science, the other is technology. If you want to do more research (or, at least, have the option to do more research) go with Comp Sci. Otherwise go with IT. From what I know, IT has fewer academic options than Comp Sci does.

As far as being a professor (something I might be interested in later in the future), I know for most things a master's is the minimum. In your experience, does it matter which path? Or would it be more dependent on the courses you teach?

Just to teach, no, doesn't matter. To do research, yes. And, yes, entirely dependent on courses. Like Rob said, look at the courses. If you have not taken it, probably you will not teach it :).

Short answer : Stick to MCS.
I have a BS CIS degree from over a decade ago and always worked in tech field. While many employers consider Information Systems / Information Technology (these 2 are quite different but let's group 'em together vs CS degree for this arg's sake), as CS equivalent, but also, many will still favor CS over other tech degrees - because CS degree holders are the past/current/future senior & mgmt position engineers and leads at-large.
Plus, those petty no-name for-profit low-quality schools have damaged the reputation of these fairly new IT degrees and even well-known schools are still not 100% sure about the degree (constantly changing the degree name and curriculum like mine).
Adding to the damage, non-IT people (eg HR managers) think of CS as core engineers vs IT as some sort of secondary engineers. Unfortunately, other people's perceptions do matter in your life.
Back when I was working on getting CIS, I had high hopes in seeking a position that will promote both business and science mind (money and knowledge), but in real world, there are only a few ideal openings for such. World doesn't seem ready still.
You'll likely shoot for project/product managers or business/data analysts, heavily relying on engineers for information and outcomes. And yes, most PMs make less than engineers (unless you work at top tech companies), and PMs cannot exist without engineers but not vice-versa.
If you want business-side of things, perhaps MBA is the better option.

Your experience is based on your bachelor's degree, and most would agree that for a bachelor's degree, CS is more valuable because of the theoretical foundation - no one is contesting that. However, this question is about a master's degree, and the person asking already has their bachelor's in CS, so your comments are mostly irrelevant. Assuming one has their bachelor's degree in CS, both a master's in IT or master's in CS are equally beneficial, since the person already has a solid CS foundation. If you want to continue in theoretical computation, choose CS; otherwise, choose IT.


text:
Master's degree without research?
I am a new graduate student pursuing a master's degree in computer science. I currently am working in industry as a developer while in school. I see many posts on here and elsewhere about master's research. The university I'm attending doesn't require research (although there is a research path for the degree) but I'm on the course track. Is this a downside? I would like to get the most out of my degree but I am working 40 hours a week and can't really squeeze another 20+ hours working on research, plus my classes.
What are some (if any) of the downsides of not doing research for a master's degree when you plan on working in industry?
Edit: By research I mean writing a master's thesis or a paper on a subject, not research for classes on topics I'm not familiar with.

If the program meets your needs, why worry about it? Your work in industry satisfies many of the purposes of master's level research (showing that the student has the ability to move beyond mere book knowledge).

I guess because I've read so many different stories about master's level research that I worried about what I'm learning to be "lacking" even though it covers all areas interesting to me at a challenging level.

You can't do everything in life. Time permitting, you could perhaps do some light research on the side -- maybe create a git-hub account (if you don't already have one) and do things like create projects which e.g. implement various machine learning algorithms for interesting problems (if this is the sort of thing you are studying in your program).

Realistically, I guess many universities have non-research masters (I'm sure my home university does).
Course work is about learning well existing knowledge that was selected as important by your professors.
Doing research is about inventing new knowledge, which might or might not end up being "useful" in industry or "interesting" in research—it's hard to tell in advance even for experienced scientists; for master theses a good supervisor will pick a good problem.
Research experience matters for research-level industry jobs, but those are few.

If you're planning to go on and apply for a PhD after getting the master's, having a research degree will probably increase your chances of admission to a good program. Otherwise, I don't think it makes much difference.

Yes. The simple answer is that a research master's degree is, all being equal, a higher degree than a taught master's degree. Just like a PhD is higher than a research master's degree, and a taught master's degree is higher than a (implicitly taught) bachelor degree.
I don't think we can comment on "downsides" in having a higher or lower degree. It depends on ones preferences in life.

EDIT: This is an answer to the original question: "Is a master's with research "better" than a taught one?".

Is it? In Germany you get a M.Sc. degree for them which you can also get from very many taught master programs. (Research master programms are not common at all here. Most people I asked don´t even know they exist.)

@JayFromA, can you explain what you're saying more precisely please?

What I mean is that in the German context there is no practical distinction between taught master and research master. Both (can) give you a "Master of Science" degree. An the second point that reenforces the this is that in Germany practically no one knows that something like a "research master" even exists so people don´t really look out for this. (Even in academia. I had to explain to a professor that I do a research master program and he didn´t even know what that was.)

I see. But still, the fact that people don't know that one degree is higher than the other doesn't mean it isn't.


text:
Google scholar doesn't index the peer reviewed version of my publication, but only the ArXiv version
I have submitted a version of my manuscript to the arXiv (https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.02340) and it was indexed within days on Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=PsyBqUAAAAAJ&sortby=pubdate&citation_for_view=PsyBqUAAAAAJ:hMod-77fHWUC).
After a few months, the manuscript was peer-reviewed and published in ACS Applied Electronic Materials (https://doi.org/10.1021/acsaelm.1c00491). However, the peer-reviewed version of my publication is not being indexed in Google Scholar. It appears at the top of the list when I do a "normal" Google search, but it doesn't appear when I do a Google Scholar search.
I have encountered the exact same issue with another paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.00364) which was published in Wiley Advanced Electronic Materials (https://doi.org/10.1002/aelm.202100419) and is not being indexed in Google Scholar.
I have thought about adding the paper manually to my profile with the correct publisher name, but the citations for that paper will continue to appear on the ArXiv version in Google Scholar, even though the references are addressing the peer-reviewed version.
Disclaimer: I am aware of the following question, but it is related to a different issue. The question hasn't been resolved anyways.
Updated title of arxiv not recognised by Google Scholar?

Thanks Sursula for your response. Unfortunately, this does not answer my question because the published version (in ACS Applied Electronic Materials) is not being indexed in my case.

This question has been incorrectly flagged as duplicate. The flagged duplicate is an entirely different question. (Also, the accepted answer to that question was to change the title of the referenced paper)