text:
Conflict with conference Program Committee
I was reviewing a paper for a conference. As I wrote in the review, it was IMO a completely average paper (boring problem, boring techniques, average write-up). I gave a scoring of "0" (ranging from -3 to +3) noting that it could, potentially, deserve publication if there is any space.
After submitting my review, I received a message from the program chair saying roughly the following:

as you can check there are some rather different reviews regarding this submission. Please feel free to comment on it or change your score in case you think it is appropriate.

There were 2 other reviews: The 1st liked the paper and gave a +2. The 2nd however had virtually the same review as mine but felt probably slightly more generous and gave a score of +1.
1st minor Question: Is it normal PC members to ask you change the review score when the review does not vary significantly from the others? I never heard such a thing, even in personal cases where was a large deviation between reviewers.
I was trying to understand the logic behind the PC message. My Theory:

I think the PC members wanted to accept the paper but because they did not have an overwhelming argument and because the average review score was lower than the acceptance threshold they were unable to justify the acceptance. Instead of altering my score at their own will, they asked me gently if I am willing to do that.

Is my theory plausible?
2nd minor Question: Since my review was virtually the same to the one of the 3rd reviewer, wouldn't it be more fair if all other parties were involved in that exchange? Maybe the 3rd reviewer would have change the score to "0" after reading my response. Why this process should involve only me?
I responded by noting the above and by standing by my initial decision and score because I really felt it did not deserve anything more than "0".
3rd Minor Question: Do you think my response was appropriate, given the circumstances? Was there any other way that I could have handled the issue?
Now, this is my final (conditional) main question:

Given the fact that my "theory" is correct and given the particular circumstances (slight variation on reviewer opinion), is it common to ask the reviewer to do their (the PC's) job of accepting/rejecting manuscripts when the reviewer's job is to provide an honest opinion? If yes, shouldn't all reviewers be aware (in case there is not some terrible misunderstanding/mistake in any of the reviews, just a matter of opinion).

Note: I was told after the event, that I was the only one that received that message. My guess is that the paper was close to acceptance but my score prevented it from being a clear accept (so they felt I was somewhat "harsh"). I guess that also explains why they did not contacted the +1 reviewer B (also to avoid situations that I change to +1 and B change to 0 after reading my justification, and we are at square 1). Any thoughts on that? Is this common?

It's quite common in many expert estimation tasks to ask outliers if they want to change their opinion. The PC might also have asked the +2 reviewer whether he'd like to revise his score downwards. Did you overlook a reason that made the paper valuable, or did the other reviewer overlook prior research that made the paper redundant? That's not for the PC to decide.

@MSalters As I wrote, my review was not an outlier. It might be stricter, but that's subjective and debatable. Imagine the case where I would increase the score, and the +2 decrease it. I am fairly certain that I was the only one to be asked.

I'm reading three scores, +0, +1, +2. That's an average of +1, but no consensus. +0 and +2 are both non-average, or outliers. As PC I'd be happy if the subject matter experts can agree on a consensus of +1. When both extremes stick to their original score, I either have to take a deeper look or just make an executive decision and use the average. (This technique is commonly used for financial and time estimates in business, where you have similar expertise challenges). So what makes you think the PC is biased?

@MSalters I did not imply the PC is biased. I provided a theory (they wanted to accept the paper because the paper was subsequently was accepted) and under this theory it would make sense to ask me (the lower score) to increase it. Does that make sense?

Given that there's a reasonable explanation consistent with the partial observations (ask both sides), your theory seems a bit far-fetched. For all we know, the +2 reviewer was asked the same as you, but backed up his opinion with arguments, instead of arguing against the process. Were I PC, I might then consider it a "weak +0, strong +2, take in preference over other +1's". As lawyers say: "when the facts are against you, argue the law". By arguing the process, you may have unwittingly argued against your review.

@MSalters I did not argue the process. Another PC member told me in confidence that I was the only one asked to reconsider the score. But that was in confidence and I did not really want to use it in my question above.

First of all, I don't think there is a "conflict" as long as you don't make this one - and you really shouldn't, as there really is no indication of unethical behavior on their side.
Let's go over your questions.

Is it normal PC members to ask you change the review score when the review does not vary significantly from the others? I never heard such a thing, even in personal cases where was a large deviation between reviewers.

In many conferences, there is a PC or reviewer discussion phase wherein, after everybody has formed her or his independent impression, these impressions are compared and discussed in one way or another. Optimally, there is physical PC meeting where borderline papers are discussed, but often a mail or forum discussion will do. "Amount of deviation" is not really the right metric to decide whether a reviewer discussion will make sense, but rather whether the paper is borderline or not. There is no point in discussing whether a "Weak Accept" should be a "Strong Accept" if everybody else voted for "Strong Accept", given that the paper will likely be accepted anyway. Similarly, there is little incentive to discuss a "Weak Accept" if everybody else voted "Reject" - the paper is likely dead. For a good conference, "Borderline", "Weak Accept", and "Accept" may just put the paper on the brink where it's not entirely clear on which side it will fall.

Since my review was virtually the same to the one of the 3rd reviewer, wouldn't it be more fair if all other parties were involved in that exchange? Maybe the 3rd reviewer would have change the score to "0" after reading my response. Why this process should involve only me?

This is a good question, and in fact I think that the model of chairs communicating 1-on-1 with the reviewers is fairly ineffective (as compared to a reviewer forum, for example), although I know a few conferences that handle things like that. That being said, it makes sense to contact the person with the "lowest" rating first. Also, you don't know whether they have also contacted the other reviewers to take your review into account.

I responded by noting the above and by standing by my initial decision and score because I really felt it did not deserve anything more than "0".
  Do you think my response was appropriate, given the circumstances? Was there any other way that I could have handled the issue?

Sure, your answer was completely ok. Note that, as said initially, you don't have a "conflict" now with the chairs - they asked whether you think your review was too negative given the additional information of the other reviews, and you said no. That's a completely valid discussion to have, and no side acted in bad faith here. From my point of view, there is no "issue to handle", just a conversation that you will have many times over as part of the peer review process.
The only thing that might be inappropriate (depending on phrasing) was noting that it was unfair that they contacted you rather than the 3rd reviewer. As said, this is probably a mail that they also sent in similar form to 2 dozen other reviewers, and they may not quite understand what the problem is. It's not like being asked whether you want to change your rating is a personal insult.

I think it's responsibility of the PC to have valid arguments for acceptance. Is it ethical to put mild pressure on the reviewer to do their (the PC's) job of accepting/rejecting manuscripts? My job was to provide an honest opinion, which I did. My job is not to push a paper for acceptance because the PC run out of valid arguments.

I think you are overthinking this. I don't ready any pressure at all from the mailing you copied, and I have received similar mails many times over. Sometimes I changed my mind, sometimes I didn't. You provided an honest opinion, and they gave you some more info and asked whether your opinion still stands. I really don't see much agenda behind this.

Thank you for the detailed answer. Just a minor initial point: I did not imply it was a direct pressure from the PC to myself, but I felt a kind of pressure since this is the first time something like this happen to me (and I have reviewed > 20-30 times for conferences). But you are probably right that there was no pressure intended from their side.

@PsySp I assume that there is some difference in field culture then, because in the conferences that I review for, there is some form of reviewer discussion after the normal review phase approximately for every second paper.

I never heard any "reviewer discussion" in my field (Theoretical CS). The process is as follows: reviewer submits review and that's all. It's up to the PC to make any discussion/decision etc.

It wasn't  clear to me how the reviewing was done.  It sounds like @PsySp was not a PC member but an external reviewer? ... In my experience  PC members will have discussion on-line and/or in person to reconcile reviews and reach consensus.  It is definitely appropriate IMHO for the chair to say "there is some variance, please discuss".  The suggestion that a reviewer might change their score is quite fair as well.  Sometimes once you see other reviews you realize your own negative or positive sentiment didn't have all the  facts. Don't see your neutral score as reason not to accept.

@FredDouglis I was just an external reviewer, as indicated in the first line of my question. I completely agree that in some cases a change of the scoring is necessary if some real mistake was made and it's good if the chair takes fast action. But I fail to see how this can be applied in my case for the reasons I listed above. Also note that I said that the paper could be accepted, subject to the relevant quality of the other papers. I was never against that.

@PsySp, saying "I was reviewing a paper for a conference" can mean a program committee member or an external reviewer.  In fact, in my experience a program chair doesn't deal with external reviewers, only the PC members who solicit reviews from external reviewers. ... That being said, we're in violent agreement here: you said it could be accepted, but you seem somehow surprised it was, or feel like they needed you to raise your score to do so.  I think the comment about considering other reviews and maybe changing your score is boilerplate.  Nothing unethical, or to worry about here.

@FredDouglis Violent disagreement I think it's an overstatement :) I have no problem with PC contacting me to "correct" my review, I was interested to see if my reply was appropriate and to understand why they contacted only me.

I said we were in agreement!

Also, I would not assume they contacted only you, even if the email was 1:1 for instance to preserve the anonymity of other reviewers.

@FredDouglis Sorry for that! I see now :) As I wrote in another comment above, another PC member told me in confidence that they contacted only me.

Ah, I missed that one.  I agree with the other person who said if you have 0/1/2 then asking the 2 if they still are as enthusiastic makes just as much sense.

@FredDouglis In general yes. In this particular case I think it would make much more sense if the 2nd reviewer was also contacted (since the 3rd was enthusiastic and there was no technical problem with the paper).

@PsySp, my experience is that all reviewers, from the positive to the negative, get to reevaluate in the context of the full set of reviews.  Sometimes it's the positive reviewer who feels less positive.

@FredDouglis I get your point. I was wondering if all reviewers were notified and, let's say, I give +2 but the +2 reviewer gives a 0, what would happen? An extra round? In this case I think (and I somewhat agree with the PC) to contact the "outlier" one: if they want to accept it, contact the one with the lowest score. If they want to reject it, contact the one with the highest score.

@PsySp, as someone noted above, they could definitely accept a paper with 0/1/2 scores.  All depends on the overall scores across the different papers.  They were just looking for consensus.  I imagine the message was 90% "discuss and come to consensus" and 10% "change the score if this causes you to rethink".  Maybe 99-1.  This assumes of course that "comment on it" is something you do in, say, easychair, where other reviewers see it and can comment too.


text:
Scholarships in UK _only_ for UK/EU nationals
It came to my attention the following advertisement (for a UK institution):

PhD studentships for UK and EU nationals are available.

For UK and EU exclusively? So all other nationals are excluded even to apply for such positions?
What about other nationals that legally work/study in UK/EU?
Is this even legal (not to say ethical) to exclude possible PhD applicants based solely on their citizenship?

It is not country of origin, but country of citizenship.

@PatriciaShanahan Right! But this doesn't change the core of my question.

@PatriciaShanahan Well, it is not country of citizenship either, it is the country of residence.

@101010111100 I got the same interpretation as Najib. If your are American national you can't apply even if you currently reside in the UK (i.e., have residence permit).

@NajibIdrissi Postgrad funding in the UK is most often tied to one of seven research councils. These councils all have similar (if not the same) eligibility criteria, and require residency, not nationality. See here, for example.

@PsySp Yes, it is about UK/EEA residency. UK residency allows you to receive the full award (fees + maintenance), while just an EEA residency allows you to receive only the fees part of the award.

@101010111100 I'm confused. The advertisement clearly says about nationals, not residents and there is a clear distinctions between the two of them.  Is it just the description that is sloppy, or it is indeed only about nationals?

@PsySp "PhD studentships" and "UK and EU" indicate to me that they are probably talking about residency. But I cannot be certain without any more information (link to the advert, perhaps?).

I think it is no different from studentships which only women can apply for, or only young researchers can apply for, or only refugees can apply for.

We had this exact question before. It was not particularly productive last time, and it won't be this time.

@xLeitix Thanks! I just saw the other question. Shall I delete this one?

@PsySp I don't think you can delete questions that have answers. I guess it will remain as a closed question, not much harm in that.

Funding bodies in the UK and EU, and elsewhere, have a fairly wide latitude on who they can restrict funding to. There are some protected characteristics (e.g., age) that cannot be used in the determination, but I am not aware of any country that classifies nationality as a protected characteristic.
The Leverhulme guidelines say:

While the scholarships may be held by students of all nationalities, the Trust has a particular interest in supporting UK or EU students.

The RCUK guidelines say:

Normally to be eligible for a full award a student must have no restrictions on how long they can stay in the UK and have been ordinarily resident in the UK for at least 3 years prior to the start of the studentship (with some further constraint regarding residence for education).

This is in essence UK/EU citizens and individuals with ILR. So in summary, I believe UK funders can limit the funding to UK/EU nationals.
It is also worth noting that there are also substantially different fees for UK/EU nationals and citizens of other countries, so from a practical standpoint the studentship may not be able to support an international student.
Studentships is only part of the admissions process. There is no reason you cannot apply to these programs as a self funded student.

If so, why it was not mentioned explicitly? As it is written it clearly indicates that all other nationals are excluded. (I am not aware about the UK system, but what kind of fees are required for a PhD student?)

@PsySp applying for a studentship is NOT the same as applying for admission. A studentship is the funding, but in the UK self-funded students are quite common.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to salvage a paper when the lead author gave up publishing it and refuses to communicate
I am a postdoc, and some time ago a professor in my department introduced me to her research assistant to work together on something related to their project I was not part of. I was interested because it had high chances to result in a paper and I wanted to work a bit on something different.
The researcher is not pursuing a degree and doesn't really need to write papers, but he was interested in writing one, mostly to build up his publication list in case he decides to apply for graduate positions in future.
So we wrote a paper in which he was the lead author (he did most of the work and the writing), and we submitted it to a journal, together with his professor. The collaboration was pleasant, and there were no issues at all. After we submitted the paper I went back to my project and we didn't communicate.
Only when I contacted him after a few months to ask about the status of the paper he said that the reports arrived some time ago. Not only he did not inform me about it, he was also reluctant to forward them to me, and did so after a few reminders. The outcome was major revision, and the reviews were not bad at all. But because he was inexperienced with academia he probably misinterpreted them as terrible and seemed embarrassed (I think this may also be a cultural issue as he is from Asia and might be concerned about saving face). After I explained that this is a positive outcome, a great start for his first paper submission, and that I had worse reviews on papers that ended up being accepted after one or two undemanding revisions, he seemed fine with working on the revision.
In the meantime, the researcher moved to another department at the same university, working with another professor and on a different project.
After a few months I sent an email to him to ask about the progress and offered help. I haven't received a response.
Then I bumped into him in the campus and he said that the deadline to revise the paper has passed so he gave up from it.
Now... I totally understand that his job is not writing papers, I am aware that he is not paid anymore to work on that project and I respect that he maybe lost interest in the paper. To avoid having our work unpublished, I told him that I will work on the revision, and alternatively if it does not go well take care of submitting it to another journal. I made it clear that he will still be the lead author and that his further work will be minimum if any, but I only received an indifferent reaction.
I went to talk to his former professor who agreed that we should try to get that paper published and that it would be silly to just give up from it, but that's all. She is tenured and doesn't seem to care about publishing papers, and also doesn't seem to have contact and authority over him anymore (which is expected given the end of the contract and his transfer to another professor).
Seeing that the only solution to get that paper published is that I work on the revision or submit it elsewhere, I sent another email to the research assistant making it again clear that no work is required from him, I just need him to send me the manuscript files so I can work on them, and that he will still be the lead author and he will get to check the paper before submission. I was again ignored.
This puts me in a difficult situation: I invested time in this paper that has pretty good chances to get published after minimum additional work, and I feel bad for just leaving it. I am not the lead author so I cannot make decisions about it. I am also the only co-author who seems to care, and I feel I have some rights about my work.
I understand that some collaborations don't end up with anything and that sometimes we should just let it go and accept the lost time, but this is far from it: the collaboration resulted in a solid manuscript that will almost surely get accepted in a good journal after a slight revision.
Is there any way to salvage this situation?
It's not possible to take my part out and submit it somewhere as a separate paper.
While all my communication has been polite and reasonable, it was futile.
I cannot think of a reason why the researcher would just give up now that there is no work required from him.
In absence of a better explanation, I am also starting to think that in the meantime the paper was submitted elsewhere without my name on it.

Do you know who his new boss is, now that his old boss has moved onto bigger and better things?

If they still work on the same campus, I'd suggest trying to reach them in person, ideally in their official office hours if they have them. Or call by phone. Firstly, it is much more difficult to ignore a request delivered personally; it is also much less likely to be forgotten under the load of other work. It's also easier to avoid misunderstanding in the emotional realm when you directly see or at least hear each other.

I suggest that you try to get the professor to arrange a three way meeting to resolve the issues. I'd also suggest that you be generous about who is a co-author and even who is first. Any forward movement is probably better for you than letting it go. There will always be other papers and you might be able to use this as a basis for future work if you can get it out the door somehow. But the prof has a bit of leverage, just from position. Moral authority if nothing else. The other shouldn't be in a position to hold you back, but need not participate in the future.
I think the professor owes you this much if she got you into the project in the first place.
If you wind up doing the rest of the work on your own, but others are co-author, you still need their permission to publish it, of course. Hopefully this won't be a block. But the professor may have a role here, as well.

Possibly not related to your case, but I have had somewhat similar experience before. One aspect you maybe haven't considered, and maybe more or less likely depending on the field, is if there was some underlying issue with the paper or results themselves.
I have had a case or two, most often when working with newer students, that a seemingly great paper and something that we can publish ended up having mistakes that were missed. It may be that some of the reviews, unless they were purely grammar issues of the paper,  hit upon something the student didn't realize or had not considered important when first doing the work. For example, I recently had a student have some really interesting and unexpected results analyzing a dataset. They were writing the paper and explaining the results of why this would happen.  It was a matter of happenstance that I had known the dataset very well, and eventually figured out they had duplicate data that should have been processed and removed. The student never realized this until I mentioned it.  When we walked through each step together, they started finding more issues.
It may not be your collaborator losing face over the reviews, but possibly losing face over a mistake they made that they didn't originally notice.
Again, maybe this doesn't apply to your situation, but as an answer to the general question it may be something for others to consider, which is in generally a tricky situation and what requires trust with people you collaborate with.
So with that in mind, to actually use this as an answer, I would first go through the paper and any results that the first author did to make sure there are no problems with the paper. Then I would do a first draft to make any changes to the document and send to the student just asking 'do these look okay with you to submit?'.
On the other hand, I would take into account how much work you spent on the paper and how much effort it is taking to get a response.  It is a little strange to me that you don't even have the manuscript. I am not clear by your post what your contribution on the paper is if the student did most of the work and writing, but you not having the manuscript sounds like they did all of the writing. With so many unknowns, it may not be worth salvaging.

Unfortunately, there is nothing you can do if the first author does not want to submit the paper. This is the risk of being a co-author, you always rely on the first author. If the researcher does not want to continue on this paper anymore it's pointless and disrespectful to push. What I can suggest is to take only your contribution and prepare your own paper with your professor. I don't think that the paper has been submitted without your permission because the professor will lose credibility.

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


text:
Should marker TA discuss marks with students?
As a marker, there are always some students who will email requesting to meet  as they disagree with the marking. According to the professor, the marker should solve students' marking issues but I am uncomfortable with those students who insist that marks should be given in their way. Some of them are disrespectful. If I refuse to meet them, they will complain to the professor about me not engaging with students and the professor will criticize me. Should I engage with these students?

I notice you asked a very similar question two years ago (and got some excellent responses). And another. And another. Hmm....

Which country? This is heavily country-dependant.

According to the professor, the marker should solve students' marking issues

There you have it. Yes, meeting with students and explaining your reasoning is one of your job duties. Even good graders make mistakes, and even good students sometimes don't understand where they went wrong.

I am uncomfortable with those students who insist that marks should be given in their way.

You do not need to negotiate with students. You need to explain why they were incorrect, and explain how the point deduction was calculated. (Hopefully you've been using a rubric so that students are consistently docked the same number of points for each offense -- if not, you should start.)
When students try to "insist," you can explain that it wouldn't be fair to adjust penalties on a case-by-case basis. You can be pretty blunt here: "I provide these meetings so I can answer your questions. I've already explained why you lost points; I am not going to debate with you on every question."

Some of them are disrespectful.

You certainly don't need to tolerate this. "I find that statement very disrespectful. If you continue to be disrespectful, I will ask you to leave." If you do in fact ask a student to leave, or not to return, you should pre-emptively send the professor a note concisely explaining what happened (e.g., "FYI, I told John he was not welcome in my office after he called me a _.").

That rubric is your most important tool.  Not only will it help assure correct marking, it will help prevent you from making mistakes in marking.  And, of course, if you do make such a mistake, you must correct it.

+more for rubrics. A good rubric w/ appropriate comments can actually eliminate the questions of "why did i score X on this"

@Bob Brown: I totally agree, and here's a description of what worked for me.

There are some guys who just refuse to leave before they are satisfied. What to do with them? Call security?

I have never had that problem. A simple statement of "I understand that you disagree but my decision is final. We're done here" has always been sufficient for me. Calling security would be a bit extreme unless there is a safety issue or you have asked them several times to leave with no avail. Moreover -- you seem to have been struggling with this issue for several years now; it may be time to schedule an appointment either with an experienced teacher or a therapist, depending on where the issue lies.

Almost everyone is uncomfortable with confrontation.  Being an adult means being uncomfortable when you have to.
My announced policy was that if I had made a mistake, I'm happy to change it.  If not, we're not going to have a discussion about harshness.  They love the word "harsh," and no matter how little you deduct for an error, you're still "too harsh" for their taste.
Nope, the sentence I used was, "Everyone gets screwed the same.  That's fair."  You get better grades by being a better student, not because you're a tenacious negotiator.   In extreme cases, I would eventually say, "OK, at this point you're cheating and I'm about to turn you in to the Student Judiciary."  What?  "It's academically dishonest to try to get an unfair advantage over your fellow students.  So it's cheating."  Game over.

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


text:
Is it ethical to refuse enrollment of a previously dishonest student if you are the sole instructor for a required course?
I am currently teaching an upper level course, and have caught a student plagiarizing this semester.  This course is required by our department for a degree.  I have strict policy on my syllabus that states plagiarism will result in failing the course, a judicial review incident report, and refusing to accept them as part of future cohorts.  Next semester however, I am the only instructor for this course, and possibly again for the following Spring.
I've been pushing my department to add more instructors, as I don't like being in a position where students who are incompatible with my teaching style are forced to take me over and over again, but they are having a difficult time finding someone.
Personally I do not want the student in my class again.  They have been nothing but trouble the entire semester.  From my interactions with the student, they don't have the required prerequisites at anywhere near a passable level, they are disruptive during class, and I had an inkling that they were trying to cheat off their neighbor during examinations.  (I had ensured that every other test was different so I didn't pursue this)
Should I just grit my teeth and waive this policy since they have no other path to graduation?

Is it even in your power to refuse them as part of future cohorts? Was this ever confirmed / challenged by your department?

Very interesting question.  How did you come to have this policy?

Since there are a bunch of answers here telling you your policy is invalid, maybe you should edit the question to let us know what your university thinks about that?

In brief, for the U.S. system at least, "no". The idea here is that there should be no permanent "outlawry". I understand that you could not want the student in your class again, but it is your responsibility (in the U.S.) to surmount your (reasonable) reaction. Yes, possibly an unpleasant class to teach, I understand... but part of one's duty.

Is it in your power to actually block the registration? Or can the student use the standard university registration mechanism, outside your control, and show up on your course roster next semester?

they don't have the required prerequisites at anywhere near a passable level — This seems like a much more actionable attribute than their past dishonesty. Allowing a student to take a class that they are certain to fail (on the merits, not because of dishonesty) is arguably unethical.  I strongly recommend a conversation with the department chair; bring your evidence that the student is unprepared.

It looks like the general consensus is that my policy is not within my power as an instructor, so I'll remove it from future syllabii. In previous semesters, there were other instructors to take the course with, so after a student was caught and reported, they most likely took it with another instructor without any action on my part. @AnonymousPhysicist I was optimizing to minimize percentage of plagarism incidents each semester. Beyond adjusting assignment weights and penalities with getting caught, I looked into options to further dissuade students from plagarism which I've been testing.

@JeffE It seems to me that the opposite is unethical. If a student is likely to fail, then surely they need to take the class to improve to the point where they can pass? Excluding them locks them into a vicious cycle where they need to be able to pass to take the class, and they need the class to be able to pass.

@JBentley Not really. If a student that doesn't understand functions, can't work with basic polynomials and never saw a limit comes take a functional analysis course the fact they fail has little to do with the course. I personally think it's the students problem and not the instructors but that's not the general approach in the US. Generally students are viewed as children in most ways instead of adults. A thing I've always felt incredibly weird considering that at the same time the same society has no trouble sending them do die in wars on foreign soil.

@DRF The point is, that decision shouldn't be a subjective one made by the professor. Courses are structured such that you (a) need to meet the prerequisites to get onto the programme, and (b) need to meet the prerequisites to progress through courses. If you've passed those prerequisites, then you've satisfied the course requirements and a professor should not override that. Telling a student not to take your course is treating them like a child. Allowing them to decide for themselves and attempt the course, even if it means they fail, is treating them like an adult.

@JBentley Oh I agree with you regarding the fact the student should get to decide. Student's knowledge student's problem. The US system in general does not though. Also if a student is disruptive to the class he should be removed. If he can't behave he has no business being in the class. This encompasses situations like asking trivial questions about things he should know from prerequisites.

RE: " From my interactions with the student, they don't have the required prerequisites at anywhere near a passable level," are there listed prerequisites for the course which the student doesn't have? // If the student claims to have equivalent knowledge for some prerequisite how does the department/university verify that? // When I enrolled in college I took some tests and exempted some math and chemistry courses.

So, the course is "required by our department for a degree" and you, the single tutor of that course, unilaterally decide to not allow certain students to take it? In other words, you are excluding some students from ever getting a degree? This is not normally within the powers of a single tutor...

I would argue that, as posed, this is not a question of ethics at all, and would argue that the title should be changed. Unless we assume that there exists an absolute system of morality that we all agree on (unlikely), then we must first specify the ethical perspective we're adopting to answer the question. In response to your question, an ethical nihlist might say "pssh, ethics are absurd".  Aristotle might have said, "Yes, totally ethical, other students are more deserving." But the point is, you need to assume a perspective before answering the question, and no perspective is specified.

@JBentley: "Courses are structured such that you (a) need to meet the prerequisites to get onto the programme..." That's not necessarily true, e.g., for the case of open-admissions community colleges (which enroll about one-third of U.S. undergraduates).

@DanielR.Collins That doesn't really change my point. In those cases, by definition for those programmes there are no prerequisites as a matter of policy for the initial courses, so a professor should not impose any. Presumably for subsequent courses there are either prerequisites or if not, my point holds.

If they don't have the required prerequisites at anywhere near a passable level, then you're criticizing the other instructors, exams and/or the transfer system. Do other instructors also have this same issue? If yes then that's a wider issue and it's not with this one student. If no then you're being unreasonable, unless the rest of the department has thrown standards out the window.

It's not up to you
It's reasonable for an instructor and syllabus to specify what happens in that course in certain circumstances. However, going beyond your particular course (including future semesters of it), any further academic punishments for plagiarism or cheating, including being restricted from taking or retaking certain courses, are up to the wider department, faculty, study program, or however your institution organizes things. There should be a universal (not made by and for a single course and instructor) policy on what are the wider consequences for certain acts of plagiarism. Perhaps that policy prescribes that being forbidden to retake that course (or some time limit) is an appropriate punishment, in which case your actions are valid. But if it does not prescribe that students will be prevented from taking future courses, then it's not up to the course syllabus or the instructor to unilaterally decide whether the student is eligible or not.
Note that I'm not saying that you should waive the policy just because it disrupts the path to graduation - there certainly can be academic dishonesty policies that may prevent students from graduating in case of plagiarism. But the question does not mention any specific wider policies, and if it eventually does come to a ad-hoc decision regarding a particular student, that still would not be your decision to make, this should be escalated to your superiors.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Maybe it’s worth remembering that “your class” is not actually “your” class. It is a university class that you were assigned to teach, and it is your job to teach it to whoever the university decided is authorized to enroll in it.
Professors sometimes have discretion to let people into a class when they lack some of the formal prerequisites. But there isn’t a university on Earth where a professor has blanket authority to prevent a student in good standing (assuming they have the formal prerequisites) from taking “their” class. A university could not function if it allowed professors such freedom.

I have strict policy on my syllabus that states plagiarism will result in failing the course, a judicial review incident report, and refusing to accept them as part of future cohorts.

This policy is not enforceable. You are overstepping your authority.

Personally I do not want the student in my class again.

We all have things that we “personally do not want”. That is completely reasonable. But having a job means you sometimes have to do things that you don’t want to.

Should I just grit my teeth ...

Probably. That is a good way to vent frustration about something you’re unhappy about.

... and waive this policy ...

Since the policy is not enforceable, it is meaningless to ask whether you should waive it. You not only should let the student into the class; you simply have no choice in the matter.

Is it ethical to refuse enrollment of a previously dishonest student if you are the sole instructor for a required course?

The ethics question is a red herring. Since you’re not allowed to refuse the student’s enrollment, it is meaningless to ask whether such an action is ethical.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

“student in good standing” — but the student is allegedly not in good standing. They are apparently guilty of serious academic misconduct. Does this fact not negate this entire part of your answer?

Cleared more comments due to flags.

To not allow a student to take a course (specially if it is a required course) is the same as not allowing to graduate. And that is definitely a decision reserved for higher powers, as it is the same as expulsion.

Required courses can be overturned themselves.

I don't think this argument is sound. There are cases where giving a student an F is the same as not allowing the student to graduate, but I don't think you would say that the decision to give an F is "reserved for higher powers".

@ruakh But that's not his decision; it's fundamentally up to the student (or at least down to how able he is) rather than his personal choice as a lecturer. So at least it's meritocratic, in theory. I mean, with one student, the he the lecturer could set the grade boundaries somewhat arbitrarily (assuming the marking is objective), but then it's pretty clear in most cases whether the lecturer is being spiteful in his choice of grade boundaries. So that analogy doesn't really work, for me.

@Noldorin: The OP's course has a "strict policy", noted in the syllabus, whereby plagiarism results in both an F and a ban on taking further courses from this instructor. So in that respect they are both the result of applying the instructor's rules to the student's actions. (To be clear: I'm not arguing that the OP has a right to ban this student, either ethically or officially or in practice. But the OP is asking whether (s)he has this right, and this answer's argument to the contrary only works if you think that the OP doesn't even have the right to fail this student.)

@ruakh That's the policy he sets though. It's not university policy, so at the end of the day (and rightly) he has to do what the university says -- it's not enforceable. Anyway, I still think you're missing the point that grading is meant to be done according to the student's answers, which is within the student's control, whereas refusing to admit the student to his course would be outside of the student's control.

I'm just elaborating on the likely reasoning behind this answer, and trying to show how the analogy you've suggested (while I see where you're coming from) is not the most apt... that is, there's only a surface parallel between failing a student and not allowing a student to take a course to begin with. Unless, of course, the motivation is spite, which I think is another matter entirely. We can all likely agree that whether you like a student taking your course or not, once he's on it, failing him on the basis of past transgressions would be unethical. Anyway, agree to disagree on the above.

It's a very different situation... this is a false analogy, that's my whole point. (I'm finished talking here too, for that matter. Not worth it if people can't already see from the above comments.)

ruakh's very first comment here is clearly an analogy. If you can't see that, this debate is beyond hope. I don't appreciate that condescending tone, and please don't tag me again here.

In my view, preventing a student from graduating is not ethical when done by yourself (instead of when mandated by the university administration, dean etc.)
If you do believe that the student should not take your course, talk to your superior (dean etc). Maybe they find a solution (like the student taking another course), maybe they tell you that you have to take the student, maybe they are allowed to remove the student from the programm alltogether, maybe they pay a mediator who mediates between the two of you.
While I do understand your policy, it seens slighly unreasonable to me for exactly this reason (and the case that more profs have this policy and students could take no course). Have you talked to your superiours if this polciy is allowed?

If your student had got caught stealing money from a neighbour, had been sent to jail, served their sentence, and now returned to take the course again, would you accept them? Or would you say that a convicted criminal has no right to finish a university course?
And if you had been that neighbour, that obviously might affect your decision, but should it? Would it be ethical?
That’s basically your decision. Do you think this person should never, ever be allowed to get a degree? The fact that they were caught in your course earlier should not make a difference.

Rhetorical questions are not answers.  Also, a better metaphor would be:  I lent someone money and they did not pay me back as agreed.  Now they need money for an important purpose.  I must decide if I will lend money to them again.

@AnonymousPhysicist: your metaphor would be accurate if you were the teller at the bank. And no, it's not up to the teller to decide not to give money or not to a client in good standing.

@AnonymousPhysicist Since we're bringing money into the equation, keep in mind that the student has likely already spent a considerable sum of it for their education, even if they're going about receiving that education in an extremely poor way. The student is, of course, not buying a diploma unless they earn it, but the student is buying a fair chance at one, and denying that chance requires more fairness than this decision implies. If the student is going to have no real path to graduation, there's a university process to follow to produce that outcome.

No, holding a grudge against a student isn't ethical. The job is to help the students. Much of that is collective -- avoiding disruptions of class time, and making an example out of students who break the rules -- but it's also individual. The student failed the class, and that's that. If they retake, it's your job to see how they can pass this time.
You don't think the student has the background to pass? Check on that. Maybe they got a D- on some earlier crucial class and should retake it. Talk to the advisor (or other instructors, depending on how large the program is). Otherwise, the student may be happy to have a conversation about how they can keep their head down the next time and pass with a C-. They may be just as apprehensive that you're the only person teaching it. Maybe encourage them to get a study partner. Any way it goes, it's not a contest -- you're an instructor doing your job, and they're a student.
The rule about not allowing plagiarists(?) to take the class from you again --  that's showmanship, "plagiarism is so bad I can't even stand to look at you any more!" But lesser things can get the job done -- often being written up and going to the Dean is scary enough.

There's nothing in the question about a grudge or the student's background.

"Personally I do not want the student in my class again" -- grudge seems like a good word for making it personal, carrying over feelings over something which has been resolved. And "they don't have the required prerequisites". They probably have the prereq courses, but don't understand them. The phrase for that is "lacking background", right?

Not wanting a student because they're disruptive is not having a grudge. It can be a sign of a grudge (if that disruptiveness exists just in the professor's mind), obviously; I see some signs of that, but then the one sign against that assumption is that the professor asked here.

+1 for mentioning the obligation to students individually.

To add to a somewhat full discussion, my experience on Academic Honesty Boards has taught me that the process of  sanction for academic dishonesty is, in part, to encourage students to learn from their mistakes.
There are, of course, situations where we find, after repeated offenses, that there are students who don't learn from such mistakes, and these students are usually separated from the university to keep our academic playing field level and to maintain the integrity and reputation of our degree.
As a professor who taught a student in one previous course, you are not in a situation where you can make that determination, so you should not be allowed to.  A panel with access to that student's full history on dishonesty findings is.  Further, the current situation is such that you are (or at least consider yourself to be) in a situation where, by denying the student access to your course, you can separate that student (or delay the student) from a degree.  You don't have the knowledge you need to justify this, and you should not do this.
Now, you'll be getting a second look at that student.  This is awkward for you, and awkward for the student.  There's no reason to make believe the student has no history with you, but also no reason to carry over the previous incident as a negative grade for the student on entering the course.  I suggest a very early meeting with the student, with as friendly a tone as you can manage, to help lay out expectations for the coming course, and to encourage the student to come to you for clarification on honesty before handing in assignments, if the student remains unclear.  I suspect that if you don't do this, you will later wish you did.

Just to introduce a twist in the scenario: Suppose the student, instead of plagiarism, had commited repeated unwanted sexual advances on you (the teacher); wouldn't you be justified in not wanting that student anywhere near you again? You essentially say that, for you, plagiarism is a grave enough offence that you also don't want anything to do with the student again, and you even state so explicitly in your course syllabus which is available for every student's perusal from before classes start.
The way i see it, you're fully entitled to make that qualification (regarding the severity of plagiarism, with which i agree), and you shouldn't let the university override you on this, much as you wouldn't if they tried to force you to accept a sexual harasser into your class. Regarding the lack of alternatives for the student, that's not your problem: What if you fell ill and couldn't teach? Would the university not have to provide accordingly? As you put it, there should be 'redundant' faculty in any case, for various reasons, and your present issue is not a minor one.

The problem with this analogy is that the university as the professor’s employer is required by law to protect the professor from sexual harassment. But it is not required, either by law or ethically, to protect him from the supposed mental stress of contact with plagiarizing students. So while the professor would indeed be justified in refusing to teach someone who sexually harassed them, that doesn’t mean what you claim it means for the current situation.

I have strict policy on my syllabus that states plagiarism will result in ... refusing to accept them as part of future cohorts.

The other answers seem to mostly comment on the ethics of this policy.  But my interpretation of the question is, what is the ethical thing to do assuming you have established the policy in your syllabus?  I also assume you are not breaking any other rules or laws, because I don't know where you are located.
The most common advice in recent years is that the syllabus is a contract between all the students and the instructor.  Therefore, you must follow the syllabus and refuse the student future enrollment.  The syllabus could be overridden by university policy, but not by your discretion.  We do not know that policy.  Any time you use discretion, instead of following the syllabus, it could create the appearance of discrimination or unfairness.
That said, this is a weird policy to have in your syllabus, and you should definitely discuss the situation with your chair or dean.

Some contracts are actually illegal. "Enforcing" an illegal contract is also illegal. This is poor advice that could get the OP in trouble. A professor isn't a king. "L'course, c'est moi".

@Buffy Question isn't about the validity of the policy.  It's about the validity of violating the policy.  See my edit.

Also, I'd guess the OP is potentially in trouble no matter what they do.

"A review of the legal precedents reveals that syllabi are not considered contracts because the courts refuse thus far to recognize educational malpractice or breach of contract as a cause of action." Rumore, et. al.  2016: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5289733/

@DanielR.Collins Your own reference says "For several decades the literature has referred to syllabi as legal documents and/or contracts between students and professors" and "Syllabi do, however, represent a triggering agent for instructional dissent and grade appeals, may be binding in student appeal proceedings, and are used in judicial hearings."  My answers are based on my understanding of academia, not my understanding of law.  What courts think isn't necessarily most important.

That's a non sequitur: "contract" is inherently a legal term, and if courts don't think syllabi are contracts, then they're not. Those who claim otherwise are simply wrong.


text:
Google Scholar - how to make English profile name show same citations as Cyrillic alphabet search results?
I am helping an academic client from Russia with his publications in English language and have created a profile for him in Google Scholar. He already has pages and pages of citations when you look for his name in Russian. I would like the citations to be the same for searches in both Russian (Cyrillic) and English spelling of his name.
I've created Google Profile in English and manually added some of his Russian articles there, two weeks later nothing changed. He now has existing profile on Google Scholar - Oleg Matveychev, but the results for English spelling name are the same as a month ago, no matter what I do. Russian spelling results change all the time, as he is cited often. Any advice?

I am really happy to be earning all these points :D, but anybody has any idea what to do? My only option left now is to make sure his English name and English language excerpts are inserted in all future articles and possibly some already existing online documents that we have control over - such as some at his university and some on his personal website.

Many scholarly databases have a "merge profiles" function, mostly useful for people who published using different names (or different spellings of the same name). As far as I know Google Scholar doesn't, but it would be a good idea to add one (in my view, at least). Have you tried contacting Google?

just saw this question on Twitter by chance, and I think I can answer it. At the moment, Google Scholar search results are not affected by the fact the person you're searching has created a Google Scholar Citations account. The correct way to search for this Russian researcher on Google Scholar would be:
author:"[cyrillic spelling]" OR author:"[latin spelling]"
That way you would get both sets of citations.

Thank you. "At the moment, Google Scholar search results are not affected by the fact the person you're searching has created a Google Scholar Citations account. " - is there an official help page from Scholar about this? I thought that what you would have to do if you had, say, a married name or a different spelling and you wanted to merge the results for two names.

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


text:
How to prepare for a graduate school fair?
My school is offering a graduate school fair in one week, and I am interested in graduate school. I am already planning to take my Biology GRE as soon as possible, but not soon enough to bring the results to the fair. So, how should I prepare myself for this event, this being my first time at one?
Background info:
They state that there will be recruiters there, so I assume formal/semi-formal attire. But do schools really even bother recruiting for graduate programs at these events or is it more of a general advertisement/ tour? I also assume bringing my CV would be smart, but my GPA is not stellar ( 3.0ish at lower-end school), so would that leave a bad impression or no?
The "nail in the coffin" for me is my indecisiveness in what to actually study in biology. My advisors often tell me to only consider graduate school if you have something you are really "passionate" about. I never really felt "passionate" about biology or any subject though, I simply liked it better than others and found it cool. I have done so much in my undergraduate studies that I have liked, such as working in a greenhouse, to doing undergrad reserch in genetics, it is hard for me to set my heart to something.
This is all assuming I could afford to attend grad school without sinking myself further into debt, given I have no more financial aid or federal loans left to my disposal. I have read that some people get "free rides", but those are few, far between, and for the very gifted/focused students I assume. Thanks for your time.

The schools, will inevitably be trying to sell themselves and attract applicants. However, I would mainly look at this as an opportunity to answer your questions which seem to be

Do I actually want to go to grad school?
What are the costs/funding situation?

Personally, I would view it entirely as a fact finding exercise, rather than trying to sell yourself and wouldn't even bother bringing a CV, although I suppose it doesn't really hurt.

A grad school fair is not quite like a job fair, where many people bring CVs and hope to get interviews---no one is expecting you to apply to a grad school at a fair.  It is a place for you to go to learn about grad schools: what programs are out there, what they are like.
As for how you should prepare: think some about what you might like to study and what things would be important to you in choosing a grad school.  For this, it may be helpful to first try to find general advice on choosing grad schools.  Then you can ask appropriate questions to each program.

Good answers already provided.  Additional remarks:
You don't need to make a final choice yet.  Try to think of two or three things you like a lot to talk about in your application.  No one is going to ask for their money back if you change your mind and move over to a different area of biology after one or two semesters.
Try to get a teaching assistantship.  That is a great way of supporting yourself during graduate studies.
You may want to consider working for a year or two before starting grad school.  That could help you narrow your focus and could also reduce your undergraduate debt.  It's also good self-protection for when a professor tries to tell you you know nothing about the real world out there.
Edited to add
"Free ride" is a term that would make more sense to me in the context of undergraduate studies.
The two most common ways for an institution in the U.S. to support a student's graduate studies are

Research Assistant (RA): Here, you are funded by a specific professor's grant.  This is more competitive than the next one.
Teaching Assistant (TA): If you are in a department that services large numbers of undergraduates, there will be a large number of TAs.  I would imagine that Biology would be such a field.

A note about mentors: It is very important to choose as your mentor someone who believes in you.  Don't waste your time asking for advice, guidance or recommendations of a professor who has any lukewarm feelings about you as a student.
Once you find the right mentor, your mentor can help you choose grad schools to apply for, give you feedback about your application, and write a strong letter of recommendation.  Certainly, a strong showing on the GRE would be a big plus.  However, a strong statement of purpose, together with a strong recommendation, would also help counter a so-so transcript.
(I would limit myself to seeking advice from professors who have a strong belief in my academic potential.  Anyone else might drag me down and have a detrimental effect on my academic self-esteem.)
Just to mention another option for you: some people find that working in a related field for 1-3 years helps them find out what sub-field(s) they are most interested in.  And sometimes the employer will fund part-time graduate study.  So that's another option you might want to consider.

I would get a job, buti doubti could land one in which I could support myself and start paying back loans. I was told the best time to apply is right out of school, since that's when you have the least commitments. I was hoping my in school interships would count towards narrowing my focus, but I don't really see iT happening. I think genetics is cool, but when I ask myself if I understand it well enough to be good at  It don't know. The same goes for genomics, as I have a week comp. Sci background. I have enjoyed plant work, but I lack money to take more plant classes.

Student loans typically do not need to be paid back as long as you are at least a half-time student.  See https://studentloans.gov/myDirectLoan/entranceCounseling.action?execution=e1s1  //  It sounds like you need a mentor.  If you ask about how to find one, write a Question!

Well I cant really afford anymore school to a useful point. And being a part time student would mean that I have the job to support me & schooling, which is unlikely. I want to avoid private loans, as they are viscous, so my hope was to get good GRE biology scores, & use my undergrad research and "work" experience to make grad schools want to fund me.  I also am not sure on what a "mentor" would do for me; the term seems kind of vague. My professors give me plenty of advice given my small college size. This is not to sound ungrateful though, thank you.


text:
Should I reply to emails for grad school that appear to be non specific?
I am getting emails from schools about their grad school programs, most likely due to attending a grad school fair and clicking certain check-boxes after taking my Biology GRE.
I have not taken my regular GRE exams and will not get to take them until the spring of 2016, when there deadlines for the programs they are "advertising" are December.
Should I respond to these replies in anyway?

Meta is for questions about using the main site (e.g. "Is this question too narrow for the main site?") - a completely different subject matter- not for answers to questions that are about the same subject matter as the main site, but too narrow or broad. I am migrating this back to main.

There is one situation in which you might want to respond.  If there are a few basic questions (e.g. regarding support) that you would like to have an answer to for a large variety of institutions, then you could send the same paragraph to each institution that contacts you.


text:
As a PhD student in Germany, would I retain student status for tax purposes?
I am currently pursuing my masters degree in computer science from TU Munich, and I would love to pursue my PhD soon after my graduation, but I am worried about the finances at the same time.
What I gather is I should be able to make a decent enough salary but what I do not understand clearly, is whether I would retain my student status during my PhD and enjoy reduced taxation?
With reduced taxation and few other student benefits, it could possibly mean I have a more stable financial situation.

I don't know specifically about Germany but in other European countries you would retain your student status. That will most likely be the case for Germany as well.

I don't think many people do a PhD for reasons. You may avoid taxes but you get paid significantly less than equivalent jobs in industry.

Look at it this way: If you don't do a PhD right after finishing your Masters, then what are the chances of you ever doing one?
If you love your subject and want to do the PhD, then will you be able to look back in 50 years and say you don't regret not taking the chance when you had it?

refer to the posts in here: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/26487/in-which-countries-are-academic-salaries-published/26497#26497 http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/18950/safely-negotiate-a-salary-for-a-phd-offer-germany

The question about compensation in a non-academic career (I gather you were asking about salary in industry in the first part of the post, not the PhD salary, though it's not completely clear) is off-topic here, so I have removed that part from the post. (For future reference: please include only one question per post, anyways)

Google for "Ausbildung in einem nicht ausgeübten Beruf" for tax advantages if what you are studying is not your current profession (for example if you are a highly paid taxi driver financing his studies).

For what it's worth I'm doing a PhD at lmu and decided not to enrolled as a student. As others have said there are no tax/insurance benefits (nobody seems to care if you are "technically a student") and for me the cost of enrolling is higher than my savings (cafeteria, semester ticket) would be.

Yes and no. Student status does not lead to reduced taxation in Germany (that should hold for non-locals, too). Instead, low incomes and scholarships are not subject to tax, which is probably what you are referring to. The maximum amount for scholarships before they are subject to taxation is said to be higher for non-Germans, though. As a student, health insurance is also cheaper.
You are unlikely to get the cheaper health insurance as a PhD student as well. Depending on the state in which you do your PhD, you may or may not be allowed to enroll as a PhD student, so you may lose benefits such as cheaper food in the student canteen. Other than that, see the links provided in the comments to your question by Wolfgang Kuehne, as the taxation situation is very much dependent on how your PhD studies are funded.
However, being subject to taxation and full-fee health insurance is not necessarily bad, as if you manage to find a 100% paid scientific employee position (which is not uncommon for CS), you will see that the net income is actually quite ok - even if you take the higher accommodation cost in Munich into account.

It may make sense to move the question to the expats stackexchange site, though.

Some Universities (e.g. Potsdam) actually require that all PhD students are enrolled.

Also, most student discounts are bound to you being primarily a student, i.e. spending most of your 40h/week time on studying/researching instead of outside work. That means, that in order to be eligible to e.g. the public student health insurance, you can only work at most 20h/week (and be below a certain age).

The problem with student health insurance is that it requires you not to have completed your education-for-the-job. A Master counts as such. While many health insurance in the past weren't so precise about these rules, the legal situation is that the cheap student rate is not available for PhD students if they have a Master's degree already - even if you are on a scholarship. For non-scholarship holders (i.e., scientific employees at universities), this is a non-issue anyway as the "regular" rate is mandatory for public service employees. However, the university pays ~%50% of it.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that a CS grad student in the US makes more than a CS student in Germany. If you get a full TV-L position (100%), which many CS positions are, then your net pay after deductions starts at 25,000 € per year (roughly $34,000), and goes up from there. I know of very few US graduate students whose net income is that large—most of them may get that much as a gross salary, and are then responsible for paying taxes and health insurance out of that sum.
If you aren't trying to raise a family, or have exceptional financial circumstances, the graduate salary (it's a salary, not a stipend—as it usually is in the US) is probably more than sufficient to live anywhere in Germany. (Also, you receive full social benefits, including retirement and health insurance.)
So, salary considerations shouldn't be a significant part of your decision-making process—at least not in the sense of "can I afford to be a graduate student?" You can ask if that's a lifestyle you want to be living, compared to what's possible if you go into industry.


text:
How can I tell if I have simplified my talk too much?
My experience listening to talks (of all kinds - seminars, conference talks, even Masters/PhD defenses) is that they tend to be very difficult to understand. This happens even if they're within my own field or even subfield. Occasionally there are conceptually simple talks (projects that use machine learning are an example) that can be easily grasped, but most of the time the talks are too technical, or are the "blink and you will never understand the rest" kind. I estimate I rarely get more than 30% of what was said, even when I'm in the same field.
I certainly don't feel like I'm the only one who don't understand the talks, since I notice other listeners often get distracted by their laptops & mobile phones.
I personally think this is ridiculous, so when I give talks I try to simplify them to the point where someone with an undergraduate degree can understand it. For example one talk went:

We're dealing with [technical term], which is analogous to [much-less technical term]
This is what we want to measure, why we want to measure it, and what we expect to see
After some very complicated mathematics (I literally used this phrase and skipped the details), this is what we get

I especially liked this talk since my family were able to grasp the gist of the work. However, the danger is that the talk might become too simplified. An actual expert would likely gain more by reading the paper during the talk instead of listening to it. Also, it seems some people think complicated language is the "industry standard".
How can I tell if a talk has been simplified too much?

First, your attitude is great! Far too less people think about this. One caveat: When talking with serious mathematicians, I often heard them thinking less of a collegue because they gave an understandable talk:(

"An actual expert would likely gain more by reading the paper instead of listening to the talk" I think its unrealistic anyway to think that you can transfer all the information of your paper during your talk. But if afterwards the audience reads the paper, then it's a win.

The answer depends entirely on the audience.

Also consider that an audience will often zoom out of a talk not because it is too complex, but because it is too boring.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." :(attributed to) Albert Einstein. Not a joke. A recommendation.

A talk is a showcase. A paper is a shop. A showcase does not pack in everything the shop has, but shows why you should go in and browse it.

“We're dealing with [technical term], which is analogous to [much-less technical term]” Please don’t overdo this. I read way too many bad car/highway analogies on the internet which just make it harder and more confusing to understand stuff.

@David I meant that the expert gets more in the same amount of time by reading the paper instead of listening to the talk, since so much of it is elementary. For example if the talk is 20 minutes, then reading the paper for 20 minutes, even if one does not understand everything, is likely to be more productive than listening to the talk for 20 minutes. Will edit the question.

Are there going to be questions at the end ? If so, then you can simplify so that everyone learns something and members of the audience that want to get into nitty gritty details can do that during questions.

I've been a high school teacher for a short time, and even in that time my sensitivity to long stretches of direct teaching, poor delivery (e.g. lack of repetition), and unnecessarily complex wording has greatly increased. Like you, I'm wondering if I've been oversensitized to anything slightly difficult to understand thanks to my own goal of being easier to understand :p

@usernumber: in my experience, this does not work. Experts would rather look embarassed after an "easy" talk and not asking "difficult" questions.

What kind of feedback are you getting?

I definitely hear where you are coming from.
In my modest opinion, a good conference talk is not necessarily the one that lets me understand the technical contribution (I can read the paper for that), but the one that lets me understand

The importance and/or hardness of the problem studied
What were the key new ideas
Why they worked and when can I expect them to work

If I got this from the talk, I may be able to recall the result or the technique in the future when I have a need for it.
Of course I am not saying there should be no technical detail, the key idea may be the way a theorem was proved, but I believe any technical content should not be gratuitous.

It's also important to mention that important mathematicians do often not want to hear a talk that everyone can follow and judge that you do not do things difficult enough. (Except you are on a Donals Knuth level, then easy talks are allowed again.)

But in an ideal and ethical world, this answer is totally correct.

@Thomas Wow, that's quite rude of these "important mathematicians". I want to add that no mathematician I had ever talked to thought this way. Maybe they weren't just important enough?

@Dirk: Yes, that's rude, and most of them are really important in their respective subfields. Maybe our different ecperiences come from different subfields?

It's important to keep in mind that different talks have different audiences and goals. How much you should simplify depends heavily on what kind of talk it is:

For a job talk, part of the goal is to convince the audience that your research is advanced and hard. Oversimplifying is very dangerous in this context - frankly, it's better if parts of the audience does not understand your talk than if everybody understands it and some people think it's very easy. Simplify the problem and the conclusions (this is the part that everybody should get - why do you do this and why does it matter?), but don't simplify the actual technical content.
For a public outreach talk, i.e., any talk directed at a general audience, it's important that everybody can follow the talk, while they won't care in the slightest if your methods are really complicated. Simplify as much as you have to for your audience to follow (how much this is clearly depends on who exactly the audience is - at a developer conference not much simplification may be necessary, when you are talking at a "Science for Kids" event you will need to break it down considerably).
For a conference talk, opinions vary. I have come to the same conclusion as Pronte (that a conference talk is ultimately more an advertisement for reading the paper), but not everybody shares this sentiment. Decide what you want to do with your talk, and simplify enough to achieve this goal.

Another angle of this discussion is also which parts you should simplify for which audiences. For instance, I do a lot of empirical work nowadays (e.g., interview or survey studies). Oftentimes, the subject of my studies are technically deep topics (so the subject itself is rather complex), and the methods are, well, not exactly complex, but they are often lengthy to explain properly and somewhat intricate. How much I go into the details of either of these two aspects strongly depends on who I give the talk to. A scientific audience may appreciate me talking for 5 full minutes about how subjects were sampled and how results were coded etc, but an industrial audience will not care - "we did a study and interviewed X developers" is all the detail they need to hear. Conversely, the scientific audience is often not particularly interested in the technical complexities of the study subject, but an industrial audience almost certainly is.

Under-simplifying a job talk is just as dangerous. One of the objectives of asking for a job talk is to determine whether the applicant can explain complicated ideas effectively. If we can't follow the content, we won't be wowed by the applicant's genius; we'll be annoyed that they're wasting our time.

@Sneftel when it comes to research talks I tend to agree with xLeitix that it is worse to lose respect for appearing to be doing trivial work, versus just not being as good of a communicator as you could. And specifically in academic job talks, there will probably be at least one expert in your niche in the room, and you need to devote a portion of your talk to only them. They will be asked their opinion.

Different audiences also require different tones. I feel like something in the vein of “I am skipping straight to the result, but all the details are in the paper” would go over better than “After some very complicated mathematics” in almost all settings.

@Sneftel People keep saying that, and yet I can't recall a single job talk at my research university where the presenter got into trouble because their talk was too complicated. But I do recall some people exiting the application process because somebody got it in their head that this work really was very "simple". Let me say I am unconvinced that the realities of the application process follow the theory here.

Not too complicated, but too opaque. I've been in several talks where the takeaway was "this person is doing interesting stuff, but they'll be useless in front of undergrads." I admit there can be quite an Emperor's New Clothes effect, though, and that it does generally work in the applicant's favor.

I think that in almost all cases, people go to talks for insight not for details. If there is a reference/citation of a paper (or several) that provide the details, then the details needn't be in the talk itself. If you are at a conference with 300 listeners for your talk, then only half a dozen or so are likely to be interested in the pedantic details. But all are looking for the essential insights.
Some are also looking for ideas that they can expand themselves, of course. Students looking for important trends and interesting research possibilities. Even they don't need a complete, finished, product to make an informed decision. Insight triumphs.
But even in a formal lecture to students, which is expected to be quite detailed, you still expect the students to either have read the material before the lecture or to follow it up with readings and exercises afterwards.
The talk should say something about why the issues are important and about what the key, insight expanding, results were. It doesn't need to recapitulate the entire research process to do that.
If everyone understands it at some level it is a good thing. If a few want to follow up and go deeper it is also a good thing. Exhaust the audience with insight, not details.
As simple as possible, but not simpler.

The other answers are excellent, especially Buffy's.
One aspect that hasn't really been mentioned that I'd like to explore is the difference between how simplified something is, and how much detail is given. These are different concepts.
One of the common problems from many scientific presenters is not one of presenting ideas that are too difficult or complex, but rather an inability to reduce the level of detail. Don't think about "what would a reviewer ask on my paper", but rather "what is needed to tell the story that my audience cares about?". Unlike writing a journal article, you do not have to justify every single thing. As others have said, if people want more detail they will ask.

Lots of good stuff in the responses here. As a (former) mathematician, I would add that a (colloquium | conference | job) talk can have a focus/understandability trajectory over its duration. Some of the best talks I have heard:

Started with an engaging but oversimplified example - of the question being posed and/or the answer, not necessarily just the latter.
Then they gave a framing of the relevance of the problem and its linkage to adjacent fields
Followed by an overview of the approach taken and insights gleaned
and finished with a few of the more gnarly but crucial details

Without trying to be overprecise about it, a (say) 40 min talk with 10 mins in each of these buckets should hit the sweet spot of everyone in the audience at one time or other, as well as then go (at least a bit) over their heads for the "knock their socks off" factor. You'll gradually lose everyone in the room except 2-3 people for the final 10 mins, but that's OK.
Don't be afraid to be understandable, as long as you also give a hint of depth. So few talks take the time to be accessible as well as grounded in the broader context that most audience members will be thankful you took the time rather than assume that your work is shallow!

I wouldn't go so far as only keeping 2-3 people, but in a longer talk, increasing the level of detail as you go is a good idea. Maybe state up-front that you're going to do that, so that the experts don't lose interest early on and the non-experts realise what's happening.

How can I tell if a talk has been simplified too much?

When everyone understands everything!
Ultimately, to engage everyone, a talk (typically) needs to be too complicated for everyone to follow (otherwise some will understand everything), whilst being simple enough for everyone to learn something.
You need to know your audience and you need to make a judgement call on how much each will learn. E.g., everyone should understand the problem, most should understand why it is important, many should  understand what you achieve, some should understand how you achieve it, and perhaps several should be able to replicate your results.
You need to ensure experts don't get distracted (with email, their thoughts, ...), so make sure they are listening when you are telling them something new, perhaps even explain this upfront. E.g., I see the room is half full of experts in  [technical term]. Parts of my talk will be uninteresting to them, but the other half need some background. So, I'll tell you when to disengage and I'll clap my hands when I need your attention.

Doing it like that would be patronizing. The canonical way is to outline the talk at the start so people can decide what's in it for them and at which points to pay special attention.

@reinierpost Your comment is patronizing: This is a tried and tested method, for which I have received excellent feedback. By comparison, the canonical way is known not to work: It bores the audience -- who want to hear your talk, rather than your talk's metadata -- and bored members disengage.

Interesting, thank you! Do you literally clap your hands or do you use some other sort of signal?  E.g. inserting a weird slide as a service announcement.

@reinierpost You need to assume some aren't paying attention. (Perhaps they're doing email, working on something, or sleeping.) So, visual cues aren't going to work. A verbal cue is needed and that cue needs to be distinguishable, e.g., a clap or your announcement voice or ... The cue will be more effective if you brief the audience in advance (disengaged members are awaiting their cue) and can be amusing, e.g., when a distinguished professor loudly thanks you for allowing them to write a few emails before the important bit. (It's impressive how some can gain so much from so little of a talk.)

Your talk needs to be pitched at the demographic makeup of your audience. A talk needs a completely different based on who will be attending.

A general-audience talk for the public must explain everything, try to use everyday-life analogies, assume no mathematical background, avoid equations and gloss over technical details. Try to use images but avoid graphs unless they're very simple. It usually must spend a lot of time motivating why the subject is interesting at all.
A student talk can usually assume the audience cares about the subject and knows some basic maths. You still need to explain all the jargon, use analogies to very well known problems and gloss over difficult details. Graphs and images are good for this audience. You probably still want to motivate why your specific topic is interesting.
A broader-topic expert talk (say, a selection of professionals from an entire department) will still need explanations of jargon from your specific subfield. They will need to be told the context of your contribution, but will probably understand the need for your subfield generally. Now is the time to add the difficult technical details, which will be understood only by a few people, so expect to spend time on them. Now you can add in the equations and difficult graphs.
A subfield expert talk (say, for a conference on your subfield) should omit almost all the background or just include enough to establish which notation you're using. Emphasize things like why your method is superior to previously understood methods and be prepared to field hostile questions from competitors.

You should always know the demographics of your audience before you write the talk. If you are unsure, ask the organizers. A talk written for the wrong audience is going to bomb regardless of whether it would have been a good talk for a different audience.
Don't worry too much about how bad your colleagues' talks are. Academic communication is really difficult, and a lot of academics are just terrible at it.
Also don't worry about who's using their phone or laptop. Allocation of attention is a personal problem, and you're not their mother. (If you are their mother, simply end the talk early and send them to bed.)

I can definitely feel your point of view, I had the same concerns while I was preparing my bachelor and master thesis presentations.
My main approach was to keep simple the aspects that could be interesting to a more broad audience, like the explanation of the problem and qualities of the solution ( it is manageable, it is cheap, etc.).
Other aspects, like technologies involved, mathematical aspects of the solution and such, cannot really be simplified much but it should not matter because the information they convey is usually interesting only for the people able to understand it.
Also, if you have an experimental part (actual experiments, simulations etc), it is more useful to show them than to provide only cold numbers: show video of the experiments, create an animated version of the simulations and so on.


text:
Chances of being accepted into Canadian PhD program with Masters from Germany
I will be starting my Masters in Mathematics in University of Würzburg, Germany from this coming winter semester. I completed my Bachelors from University of Calgary, Canada but because of my low GPA (2.8) and a personal issue, I did not apply for Masters in Canada. Tuition fees being an another issue and my dedication to pursue a PhD in Mathematics I applied to several English taught Masters program in Germany and I got in to most of them.
The reason why I chose Würzburg is because it has produced notable Nobel laureates in the past and has a good international ranking so it'll look good on my resume when I apply for a PhD school. Another reason is that the masters course has a research component by which I will be able to get some research experience (30CP) that is needed for PhD.
With all these factors, do you  think my Masters degree will be acceptable in different universities in Canada like in Waterloo, McGill etc.? What do the professors look in the candidate when they contact them for the first time? Applying to PhD school when the professor is not that interested in student would be useless.
What are the factors that the admission committee looks upon for such student like me? The only thing I know is grade, recommendation letters and research experience.
Will my Bachelors degree play an important role in the admission process? I am not sure if I can get a really good recommendation letter but I can get one from my Bachelors university.

I don't have personal experience with the Mathematics department, but in Engineering and Computer Science, large fraction of PhD students in Canada have a Master's degree from a non-Canadian university.  You need not worry about that

Possible duplicate of How does the admissions process work for Ph.D. programs in the US, particularly for weak or borderline students?

I've marked as possible duplicate of the US question because there is a lot of similarity between US and Canadian PhD admissions.

@jakebeal: US and Canadian PhD admissions in mathematics are different enough that separate advice would be useful.  I have voted to reopen.

@PeteL.Clark Even if so, there's a number of other problems with this question that also need to be addressed before it can be effectively answered.

@jakebeal: As I was in the process of answering the question when it is closed, I don't really agree.

@PeteL.Clark Fair enough; I've added my vote to reopen, and will be interested to see what you have to say.


text:
is it normal to work as an university professor in engineering but have no real professional experience (in the industry)?
I work as a university assistant professor, I teach engineering-related subjects.
However, I have no real professional experience in engineering (in the industry), I've never worked as an engineer or something, and in my country, you can't work in 2 positions obviously (you can't have 2 salaries) even if you are teaching at university, the only option is to start your own firm! and I don't think it's a good idea to start my own firm (my own business) without professional experience in the field.
BUT, sometimes students ask questions about the real world, about real problems and I find it sometimes "awkward" not to answer their questions because I don't have professional experience (in the industry).

so is it normal to work at university without experience in the industry? does not this make me look less compared to the rest of my colleagues?
if so, what are my best options to get some professional experience in the field?
finally, how should I answer students' questions if I stayed without experience in the industry?

Which question are you asking? The title question and the last paragraph are two completely different questions.

hmmm, you are right, I will edit it.

"you can't have 2 salaries": Why? I know a lot of (rich) people who has even more than two salaries.

@onurcanbektas: The OP states this is not possible in her country. Is the country of the OP and the people you know the same?

Are you less compares to your collegues? If so, how did they get the experience from?

Could you maybe invite once a real world expert to your class (either a professional or one of your collegues) and tell your students they should direct all questions to the expert?

@user111388 can't be done each time a student has a question !

@David: I mean you say "please write down your questions, the expert will come the lesson after Christmas" or similar

Allure asked you to clarify which question you were asking, and instead you added more questions.  One question per post, please.

For the most part the answers are "it depends..." so these are not suitable questions for this site.

As pointed out in another comment, the following: (quote) "you can't work in 2 positions obviously (you can't have 2 salaries)" is (as an absolute) wrong. However your specific contract (or laws on working hours) may prevent you from having more than 1 job and thus more than 1 salary. - As to your question: A lot of academics don't have industry experience at all. Some people went to work in industry and came back to teach. - Especially academia can be accommodating with part time positions to allow staff to hold another position - e.g. in industry (also for the connection). Some do consulting

It is even desirable to not have industrial experience

@SSimon why is that?

@David because as young tenure track stuff you are expected to do research in R1 and R2, consulting and industry is usually reserved for seniors

What are my best options to get some professional experience in the field?

You could get a secondment to a company to do specific (applied) research for example.
When I was a student, some of the best professors had spent time in both industry and academia. One I remember had used temperature sensors to record brake disk temperatures on a testing rig - they were glowing... So he was slightly amused at how we were finding it difficult to calibrate a temperature sensor for use between ambient and 100 deg C... He got us sorted though.

So many "experts", sorry downvoters, who know about my professors...

Perhaps it is downvoted for suggesting an academic professor should do some "real" work :)

I didn't downvote, but I suspect the downvotes are because you didn't really address OP's specific question...perhaps this should be a comment?

@cag51 it was offering a suggestion for "what are my best options to get some professional experience" as per the op's post. So I offered a suggestion to what the OP wrote - did the downvoters read though?

Ah, I see what you mean. I proposed an edit that will hopefully make the relevance clearer (feel free to revert if you disagree) -- perhaps that will help.

@cag51 the edit is fine with me - you kept the spirit of the post, thanks.

@SolarMike Perhaps the downvotes are for telling personal anecdotes rather than answering the question?

@user151413 they come from experience...

This is a question-and-answer site, not a question-and-I-tell-some-anecdotes-from-my-experience site.  These should be comments or go to chat.

@user151413 most of the answers on this stack are about academia and experience, such as how to cope in a given situation, teaching etc

... though the substance of the answer should be on facts and recommendations, not on anecdotes.  Omitting the anecdote, this is a one-line answer, which are rarely the best (but common with some users).

@user151413 it was a fact.