text:
Can I transfer during the last year of a 5 year Master's program?
I'm planning on attending a university that offers a 5 year program that would allow me to receive my Master's degree in history education, however, my mom (who has the first 4 years covered) is completely unwilling to pay for the final one because she wants me to be back home and working. I don't like this for multiple reasons:

The first few years of teaching are extremely time consuming and I would have practically no time to finish my degree.
An employer might be suspicious about transferring colleges during the last year.
This could go over poorly with the university I transfer to, especially because not all credits would transfer, making my time much more difficult. The college doesn't even have a 5 year school, meaning I'd have to apply for grad school, making the process much more difficult.
The college she wants me to attend doesn't offer the same degree I would be working towards, only a similar one.
In the area I live in, it's harder to get a good job with a Bachelor's because you'll typically just be thrown in wherever someone is needed, rather than with a Master's where a choice is given.

Is it plausible for me to transfer during this last year, or should I convince her that I have to stay at the first school? Yearly tuition is about $20,000 so I'd have to figure out how to attain the money if I decided to stay.
(The college she wants me to go to is George Mason University -- if that information is needed.)

I think there's not much reason to worry about it (except saving your money) until year 3 at least. You may end up in a completely different major by that point.

Ah okay thank you. I'll try to focus on studies first :)

Have you considered a shorter or less expensive program that you could either finance yourself by some combination of work and student loans, or that your mother might be willing to fully finance?

Another issue--are the starting salaries different if you have a master's versus a bachelor's? You could point out to your mother that you'll make up the cost of the 5th year in X years.

In general, most universities in the United States have a residency requirement (total number of credits that must be completed at the school that grants the degree) and/or a limit on the number of credits that can be transferred towards a particular degree.
So while you can in theory transfer at any time, you will not necessarily be able to bring all your credits with you  Similarly, if the new program has different requirements than the previous program, you may end up taking more courses in total (to satisfy these requirements) than you would have had you stayed in one program for the entire duration. (Joint B.S./M.S. programs in particular often have very inflexible timelines that make it difficult to transfer in middle without losing time and credits.)
You will have to check the policies of the school you plan to transfer to for more details, to see what this will mean for your plans. But be warned that the policies that will apply to you are those that are in effect when you first enroll - so even if you have it all figured out when you start your degree at University X, by the time you transfer to University Y, their policies may have changed.
TL;DR; while you may be able to transfer, the later in the program you transfer, the greater the likelihood of "losing" some of your past work and extending your graduation date (i.e. taking more than five years total to finish).


text:
Why ask both for CV and publication list?
Some academic job posts and grant applications require submitting both a CV and a publication list. I would have thought that it is a standard to put the publication list in the CV, hence it is not necessary to have the publication list again. What is the purpose of requiring both of them?

On mathjobs, my workflow when glancing through files from candidates is to look at the publication list instead of the CV.  This is for two main reasons:

CVs typically frontload a bunch of information which I already have from the mathjobs cover sheet (education, postdoc, advisors, etc).
CVs are longer than one page, so finding the publications takes some time.  Publication lists have the info I'm looking for right at the beginning.

Do you really find looking at a raw publication list all that helpful?  Anyways, in the particular case of mathjobs, I think the answer is actually that "asking for a publication list is the default when you set up a position and no one bothers to uncheck the box."

@BenWebster: I like that it's information dense. With hundreds of applications I like something that at a glance quickly says whether the file is worth looking at in depth.

A CV is generally a short account of your employment history and skills, often squeezed (or stretched) into 4 pages.
Publication lists can span many many pages. 100 complete publication entries (including technical reports and invited contributions etc etc) could easily span 10 pages.
In short, CV contains the summary from a global perspective, whereas the publication list contains all details of one particular aspect of a person.

My understanding is that a CV is supposed to be comprehensive, not short.  When e.g. grant agencies want a much shorter cv they ask for a biographical sketch (two pages).

CV should be short (never more than 2 pages), while the list of publications can be pretty long. You usually mention some publications in the CV (well, if you have an article in Science, you surely do!), but surely not all of them.
The list of publications is valuable for different reasons: How many collaborators does he have? How many solo publications? What is the variety of topics? etc. CVs and motivation letters are easy-to-manipulate things. You can manipulate your publications, but that is something completely different (and soft-of more dangerous IMHO).

Unless this varies hugely by region, I think you're just wrong here about math (which from your user page is your field).  A 2 page CV on a job application in math would be highly highly unusual in the US.

@NoahSnyder Maybe the habits differ in what goes where (CV, motivation letter, ...). Still, you rarely make a long "shopping list" of your publications in the CV.

Every CV I've seen from someone applying for a math job has had their full list of publications.  (That said I haven't seen many applications from senior established candidates, so it's possible that they are more abbreviated.)

"CV should be short (never more than 2 pages)," This is dead wrong for US cvs: rather they are expected to be comprehensive documents.  See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curriculum_vitae for more explanation on cultural differences.  I would expect to see a full publication list on a CV.  In my field -- mathematics -- people who are not very senior rarely have more than 40 or so publications.  I'm not sure what people who have hundreds of publications do; that's an unusual situation.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it ethical to buy noise canceling headphones with research funds?
Noise canceling headphones are quite expensive (up to 300 USD) compared to normal headphones, but can boost productivity by creating a sound isolation in noisy environments. Would it be ethically justifiable to buy those for non-research purpose (i.e., it's not needed for experiments)?
On one hand, I feel like good office furniture like chairs and desks are fully justifiable for the well-being and productivity of the research team members. But, this argument seems like a slippery slope, since I could also say that having a high-end espresso machine or special dark chocolate bars also could boost research productivity. In a corperate environment, I would have no problem in purchasing some of these, and I would consider them to be ethical, but in an academic environment, I find it difficult to find the ethical boundary since the funds are intended for research.
The fact that noise canceling headphones will likely be used for listening to music both while working on research and not, especially during travel, also adds to my ambivalence. But then research purpose laptops are also used this way often, and I don't have a problem with that.
EDIT: I'm not looking for alternate solutions. Just an ethical evaluation. It seems there's no real answer to this question. I appreciate everybody's response. I will choose the most balanced response as an answer but you should really read all the answers.

Is it possible to buy noise-cancelling earmuffs? (as opposed to the noise-isolating types that physically block sound, and can be rather uncomfortable) What is the cost and efficacy of them in comparison to the headphones? If they are actually cheaper, just pay the difference yourself.

I think you have many other options that don't cost $300, look around. i bought in-ear monitors for example.

Thanks for the comments on suggesting cheaper options, but I'm looking for an ethical answer. :)

There are plenty of employers offering unlimited coffee and perhaps chocolate bars too.

@gerrit In academia?

@Moriarty If I understand correctly, all these "noise-cancelling" earmuffs do is filtering out noise exceeding 85 dB, so they are basically useless for OP's purpose. I am not an audio expert, but to me it looks like the ability of emitting sound is necessary to implement real environment noise cancellation, so it would not be significantly cheaper to make noise-cancelling headphones without the possibility to listen to music.

For what is worth, espresso machines and, at the very least, free coffee, tea, and chocolate are pretty much standard equipment in research labs in Sweden. Coffee is important here.

Is it a necessity or a convenience?

@FábioDias I don't think there's a hard boundary. How about "It is necessary to improve productivity by 3%". (numbers arbitrary)

@FedericoPoloni indeed, the sort of "electronic earmuff" I am speaking of still require speakers. They could be made more cheaply if they didn't need also to play music. However, such things probably don't even exist, and if they did they might be expensive and specialized equipment. So if a good pair of NC headphones provides the best solution – and results in a 1% gain in productivity – then it's probably money well spent.

@Memming Every place is different, but I wouldn't accept that if I was judging the expense report. Mostly because the agencies I consult for assume that the institution will provide basic infra-structure and I'd consider a proper working environment part of that. Personally, I don't put laptops in such budgets, because I don't use them only for work. I wouldn't charge headphones either, for me they are a personal item. Who gets it you leave the lab, for instance?

for us, this is from overhead

I cannot see anything wrong with buying any justifiable item for "in the office/lab" use from research funds. The only case where it could be problematic is where "dual use" can occur - i.e. where the item can be used for personal use too - and most likely will be used personally too. In such a case, it might be possible to split costs - i.e. the user pays 50% & the grant another 50% or similar.

if "a math department is a machine that turns coffee into papers", seems like you'd want the best coffee possible.

Wouldn't the PI be the one to make this judgement call? And if you are the PI, I suppose it's a question of whether you honestly believe that having the headphones will boost your productivity enough to offset the price (and that no funding restrictions are thus violated), and you are not just buying them for comfort. Although I think these days it is considered an employer's responsibility to provide work environments that are not unnecessarily unhealthy, and you could easily claim that noise contributes to stress and poor health.

As a practical (not ethical) issue, I would probably check with my grants office to see if they have any input.

I once visited a lab in France that had a $4,000 three-group espresso machine. I'm pretty sure they didn't buy it with personal funds.

This must depend on the rules of your institution, department, and funded. As a research funder, this wouldn't be viewed as a valid expense for research we funded. As someone else said, this is (possibly) part of providing a viable work environment and should be covered out of institutional funds.

I use the silicone type earbuds, they cost like $12 and basically act like earplugs, blocking out external sound, without the expensive noise-cancelling electronics.

I work in a research environment. In my case, these would not be considered chargeable to the project, simply because these are an extravagant solution compared to a much cheaper alternative, which many of us here use - ear defenders. We use the ones rated for air-traffic controllers which are extremely effective to block out background noise. What's more, the space beneath the ear cups is also sufficient to wear in-ear headphones at the same time.

I should add that the ear defenders we use are 3M Optime 3. They cost approx £18, roughly equivalent to around $26. One can assume that most people already own a pair of ordinary in-ear headphones to accompany them.

There's most certainly laws (if you are in a publicly funded place) or rules (if it's a privately funded place) that govern what's okay and what is not. Ethics probably play a minor role. (For instance, in German public service it's not even allowed to buy food or drinks for employee, despite everybody agreeing it may be a good idea. There's also a minimum standard for workplace furnishing, and afaik anything more is general not accepted.)

Anazon in the UK is selling some excellent Sony noise cancelling headphones for £31 incl. 20% VAT. Is it ethical to spend $300 for a pair from research funds? I don't think so.

Not sure if the other comments mention this but would a less expensive set ($70) help you sleep at night and avoid criticism?

No one pointed out that it's "corporate" rather than "cooperate"?

Is it ethical to buy noise canceling headphones with research funds?

In an ideal world: yes. In the world we actually live in: in my opinion, no.
Here's my rationale. In an ideal world, people are honest and never abuse grant funds to purchase something that is not strictly needed for research, or make rationalizations for using grant money to buy something that could arguably improve productivity but also happens to be a cool electronic gadget that is fun to play with even when not working on research. In such a world, when a PI decides he/she needs to purchase noise-canceling headphones based on rational considerations that this is an effective use of grant money, this is a reasonable and ethical thing to do.
In our world, sadly, people do act out of dubious, self-deceiving and outright dishonest motivations all the time. Even the best among us are not completely immune from having our brains play tricks on us, telling us that some action we are considering taking can be justified on some ethical grounds X, when actually the real reason we want to take said action is Y, such that if Y rather than X were the stated motivation then the action would become pretty clearly unethical.
The bottom line: even if your contemplated purchase makes perfect sense for your students and lab, and even if you swear on your mother's soul that your motivation is pure as snow and you will never use the noise-canceling headphones for any recreational purpose, if we allow one PI to purchase $300 headphones we have to allow it for every PI, and I suspect 99% of the people who end up using that allowance will be doing so for the wrong reasons and with less-than-pure motivation in mind. In other words, allowing this will push the system in a harmful and possibly unsustainable direction (if we allow headphones, what about fancy stereos? Smart watches? Etc.). So, in the overall interest of encouraging an ethical use of taxpayer money, I think it makes sense to ask you to "sacrifice" the hypothetical "3%" productivity gains that you are citing as the justification for your purchase request. Personally, having myself managed to somehow be productive despite never owning noise-canceling headphones, I have a feeling you and your students will be just fine and will find a good alternative use for the $300.

Thank you for taking the time to write this response. :)

Despite being the accepted answer, I actually feel this does not answer the question that has been asked. The question was "should I as an individual PI consider it ethical to buy X", while you focus very strongly on "should a funding agency fund X". Those are to me very different questions. If I am your one PI who "with motivation pure as snow" can say that he would buy X for research purposes only (and the agency has allowed the purchase), then why does the fact that my motivation is not true for other people make my purchase unethical?

@xLeitix interesting point, but should the ethical question depend on one's point of view (i.e., PI versus funding agency)? My answer doesn't draw that distinction, it simply argues that the action of buying $300 headphones is unethical, for the reasons I mentioned. Therefore the funding agency should not allow it, and the PI should not do it even if it were allowed. (Also note that my comment about "push the system in a harmful and possibly unsustainable direction" addresses some of the reasons why even a PI acting out of pure motivation is stiill potentially causing harm.)

If your only motivation is to block noise, then why wouldn't a simple pair of ear plugs suffice? They are just as effective and cost literally pennies. It would be hard to justify the cost of an expensive and ultimately luxury item when there is a simple cheap alternative.

You don't necessarily have to allow them to have $300 headphones because one needs it. Instead, you would (and should) have non-research equipment like this as part of a dedicated budget for these kinds of purchases. This way, when you do your budget, you can say that yes, we're allocating 0.5% of our budget to upgrading non-experiment technology like computers and peripherals. That's just responsible business.

@corsiKa the ethical question has nothing to do with how the expense is budgeted for. Certain purchases are ethical regardless of whether they are directly research-related or not, others aren't. For example, a $1,000 laptop is okay; a $50,000 diamond-encrusted laptop is not. Similarly, purchasing $20 headphones would seem ethical to me, but $300 headphones, in my opinion (which you are free to disagree with) would not.

@DanRomik So it would be okay to buy $5 noise-canceling headphones, but not $300 ones? Because I don't think there are any $5 noise-canceling headphones...

@immibis yes, that's precisely right. If you could find noise-canceling headphones for $5 (not an impossible scenario, for example you might find them in a garage sale or at an estate auction), then I think it would be ethical to buy them and charge them to your research funds, assuming that you think they have a legitimate work-related use. If you are suggesting (as it seems like you may be) that this is a problematic or logically inconsistent view to have, I'd be curious to understand where you see the problem with what I'm saying.

@DanRomik Why do different devices have different cutoffs? Why is it not unethical to buy a $300 laptop? (If your answer is that $1000 might be the minimum amount that a decent laptop can be bought for, I counter that $300 might be the minimum amount that decent noise-canceling headphones can be bought for)

@immibis come on, and what about a $300 pencil? Do you really need an explanation why different products have different prices and the ethical implications of buying each of them for $300 are not identical? And yes, even if you can't get noise-canceling headphones for cheaper than $300, the point of my answer is that noise-canceling headphones are not a justifiable purchase at that price, whether you can get them cheaper or not. As I said, you're free to disagree (and it's indeed not a black and white issue), but the points you raise do nothing to support an opposite view, in my opinion.

I think Dan's point stands - even if his threshold is different, we're on the same page I think. If you would feel comfortable explaining this purchase to your superiors, the funders of your project, etc, then you're probably on the right side of ethics. We can debate the numbers but I think we agree on the general principle.

@DanRomik $300 noise-cancelling headphones are not justifiable because they are not justifiable?

@immibis no, rather they are not justifiable (in my opinion -- this is hardly an exact science) for the reasons explained in my answer.

I agree and think you could make your point clearer by emphasizing your comment that your comment about "pushing the system in a harmful and possibly unsustainable direction" addresses some of the reasons why even a PI acting out of pure motivation is stiill potentially causing harm. Specifically, you have correctly pointed out that it is not enough to consider purely personal motives but we should also consider the larger consequences (just like freedom of speech has an ethical limit even if that limit is subjective).

Disclosure: we actually bought pretty expensive Bose Noise Cancelling headphones for our students recently, for the reasons you mentioned.
I think there is a very easy answer to this - will your funds cover the expenses if the purpose is reported truthfully, or will some "creative" cost reporting be required?
In the first case, I have a hard time seeing an ethical issue - as you say, equipment is equipment, and if whoever funds your research is ok with spending some of it on "potentially productivity-increasing even if ultimately not absolutely necessary" equipment, then why should you be ethically required to not make use of this option? The only case I would see where this would become an issue if you, for instance, would not actually be planning to be using the headphones much at all in the office, and are mainly looking to use them for a private purpose (but then again, if you wrote this in your expense report, whoever funds your research would probably not be ok with this expense anyway, making this more similar to the second case).
In the second case, it is pretty clearly not ethical to hack around whatever the criteria given out by your funding agency (e.g., pretending like you will need noise cancelling for a specific experiment so that it counts as costs for conducting a specific experiment rather than equipment costs, etc.).

A slightly different way of looking at roughly the same argument:  “relevance to research” is a spectrum, not a binary distinction.  The good headphones fall somewhere in the middle of this spectrum.  Where your budget controller wants to draw the cutoff point will depend on how well-funded you are (and other aspects of institutional culture).  So ask them honestly So the way to know whether this falls on the acceptable side is to ask them honestly.

Additionally, atleast at my institution, the professors have some of the funds in a fund that they have much more control over for more general purchases (such as desktops/labptops that will be used for a student's entire career).  Putting headphones on a grant directly may be hard, but putting it into this account would be much easier.

@GodricSeer Yes, some sources are more flexible than others. But ultimately it is all the same: if your funding source (whatever it is) says whatever you want is reasonable use of money, I would consider it fair game.

This is a very good answer, but there's still a subtle flaw in your logic: you say "if your funding source [...] says whatever you want is reasonable use of money, I would consider it fair game." But what if the funding source is itself unethical? What if OP is in a corrupt country where grant officers would approve all kinds of questionable expenses without batting an eye? Or what if the OP's grant officer happens to be a person with questionable judgment? Etc. So, I agree the funding agency's view makes some difference, but that isn't necessarily a perfect way to decide this question.

Regardless of how they came by the funds, they are the party providing them. If you're getting the funds from them, this means you have entered into an agreement with them already, meaning it would be odd to suddenly start objecting to where the funds came from. Ethical in this case should be assessed solely in the applicable context in this case, which means whatever the funding source says is ok is ethical. Whether it's ethical in the grand scheme of things is a different question but ultimately less relevant.

I am aware of someone doing precisely this. Their office was quite open to a fairly active space, and being able to concentrate through the noise became a real issue. When this was bought up with the Administration, the solution proposed was to buy noise cancelling headphones for those affected.
They remain property of the university, the same as if they'd bought a computer, or anything else that enables them to do their research. There's not a lot of difference, in my opinion.

Except that you most definitely want clean pads when headphones change owners. To be honest you want a new keyboard and mouse too for permanent users - and these often aren't provided - but in a usage context headphones are more personal than a computer.

If you're talking about a noisy/boisterous office environment...then I think that's a very difficult "sell."  If you're talking about a researcher being in a research environment where there is sustained ambient noise above 85dB (for example, from the equipment being used or studied) then you have a fair measure of justification, especially if it's also required that the researcher needs to be able to hear things...skype calls, etc.

Anything could be ethically justified in the right situation.  If the only research scientist that has the ability to unlock the science that provides a way to defeat the evil empire from destroying the universe is rendered incompetent unless availed of free prostitution services to liberate his imagination through sexual release, then free prostitutes would be a legitimate expense item in the budget.  If saving the universe wasn't a legitimate goal of the research, providing free prostitutes would likely be construed as defrauding the funds provider and, depending upon the prevailing law, subject the funds administrator to criminal prosecution for violation of the funding terms or other laws.
So, when attempting to determine whether to buy something with earmarked funds, one should first run the purchase through a series of exclusionary gates:

Determine what is formally approved in writing.  If the funds are acquired through a grant directly from a federal government agency granter, the applicable rules regarding expenditures might be found in the terms attending the offering, the administrative code of the granter agency, and the Office of Management and Budget.  If you want a horse's mouth answer, contact the entity that will audit the grant.  Grant offerings can provide wide latitude in making expenses but take it from someone who has been there, the auditors, post expense, can deny the expense and backcharge the expense even when it appears to have been totally in compliance with the goals of the grant.  Auditors, probably moreso when acting as a third party contractor for the granter agency, are likely to find at least one thing wrong with everything they audit so that it looks like they're doing their job. In other words, government auditors sometimes function like cops with a quota.  The more an expense formally adheres to written guidelines, the less likely they'll declare it inappropriate.  Novel interpretations of the rules that seem legitimate in light of the overall goal might be logically interpreted as appropriate by most everyone but are still more likely to be denied.  Auditors don't enjoy much imagination when it comes to entertaining unique ways of interpretation, even when same is done in perfectly good faith and in the best interest of obtaining the outcome envisioned by the granter.

If the funds are from a government agency but funneled through another such as a state agency, then the state laws and administrative codes might have to be referenced as well.  If the state law conflicts with the federal law, their exists potential for denying expenses as a result.  Chargebacks are chargebacks regardless of whether your right or wrong in discharging your administrative duties.

If the funds are provided in-house, consult up the chain of command for formal written guidelines and other guidance.  There may be formal guidelines already in place and available to the institution's employees, contractors, and/or others who spend, administer, or invoice the institution's funds or those of it's funding sources. Once again, the auditors will likely be the final authority on what is considered appropriate.  If they're guidance is available without rustling any feathers in the chain of command, it would likely provide the best source of information about how to make a decision.  If you do contact them, you might be the first to ever take the time to do so so don't be surprised if they're surprised at your call.  Also, if you discover that NOBODY really has an idea about the policy, including the auditors, then document that as well so that you can show that you made a good faith effort to discover the truth.  The risk is that if you dig too deeply and find that NOBODY is doing it right, you might make some of the higher up incompetents uncomfortable with your questions. You'll have to use your own judgment about whether it's safe to poke around the place with questions that could make somebody look bad.
Take it from someone who knows, any item that has utility outside the work environment is more likely to eventually come up missing. Employees tend to take things home with them to work after hours, an admirable behavior when done in compliance with the rules.  Same tend to forget to bring things back to work sometimes, a less admirable behavior.  The more utility the item has outside the workplace, and the more expensive the item is, the more likely it is to become lost in the name of enhancing productivity.
When in doubt, err on the side of caution, or not.  I remember Bill Gates missing an important speaking engagement because he got stuck in a traffic jam.  The blame was rolled downhill to those attending to the details of delivering him to same on time.  They were chastised by the higher ups for not renting a jet helicopter to fetch him out of the traffic jam and ensure his timely arrival at the speaking engagement.  Likely, had Gates managed to barely arrive on time by ground transportation, anyone suggesting wild spending on a helicopter to avert a potential disaster would have been chastised as financially irresponsible.  If the research is successful, expenses will more likely be viewed as appropriate.  If unsuccessful, you might be called onto the carpet for buying rubber bands.
Only you have a feel for the terrain in your particular situation so you might have to go on instinct, but then again, that's why you make the big bucks, right?  Just remember to document your good logic for the expenditure so that your ready for a fight if it is called into question.  If your prepared to defend it, any expenditure has a better chance of approval than one that you are at a loss for words to explain.  If you rely on the assertions of others to justify the expenditure, document who they are, what they said, and when.  If it's a career life or death, you might even tape record it, if and when legal to do so.  When it hits the fan, people that told you it was ok to do it the wrong way will forget they ever had a conversation with you, assuming they remember you at all.

There may be formal guidelines already in place and available to the companies employees. The OP specificly asked about in an academic environment.

you might even tape record it, if and when legal to do so The question is Is it ethical ... Why would you need to use a tape recorder?

If you rely on the oral representations of others in lieu of signed written representations, it's your word against their word if they later deny having said what they said to avoid blame.  Granted, tape recording provides the appearance of paranoia but better to be perceived as paranoid than unemployed because your boss told you to do it wrong and then denies it during the inquisition.

Whether it is ethical relies on your consciousness, not your boss' words.

My assumption is that the author wasn't requesting an absolute yes|no response to a question regarding ethics.  I interpreted his question as eliciting opinions about whether the purchase would be perceived as ethical or not and why.  Absent an absolute moral authority with whom everyone agrees is the absolute authority, answering questions of ethics with absolute yes|no responses is impossible, imho.  Those with deeply held religious convictions might feel differently.

@EdWould Thanks for sharing your perspective.

I dont really see people addressing a simple answer, ask your administration.  Most often your funding has some rules and your administration has their own rules.
It seems the justification of buying headphones is because it helps do the research.  In that case, buying comfortable chairs also helps do the research.  However, chairs are not allowed to be bought on research funding (in many cases) and must be purchased through the overhead funds the university keeps, which is exactly why they do that.
Similarly, there are posts on SE that discuss how even full computers can not be purchased on funding, and you must buy processors and components separately.

Let me answer this question by asking you another question.

Is it ethical to pay for a much more expensive private office with research funds because you're much more efficient in such a private and more quiet office environment?

Of course, it is. As long as your budget is large enough, and there is no fine print that explicitly forbids it, there shouldn't be a problem with that.
In fact, these kinds of decisions are made all the time in academia.

Really, are you saying that any behavior that is not expressly forbidden by the "fine print" is ethical? If that's what you're saying, you're conflating ethics with legality. And if that's not what you're saying, then you need to explain why in this particular case the two notions do equate with each other.

Where did that quantifier "any" come from? How can "any" major expense improve efficiency? Is that what you're implying I said? As to the fine print and the budget size, those are not necessarily legal requirements.  In my mind, if a research project fails because you weren't careful with expenses. That has to enter into consideration as well. Or if the donating agency has multiple goals and specifies that you should spend the money only in a certain way while conducting your research. I believe that should play a factor into the decision as well, whether it's a legal requirement or not.

Noise canceling headphones do not work well in all circumstances. The active noise cancelling mostly works well with low frequencies like various engines or compressors running nearby. If you are doing a complex experiment in such environment, they are definitely worth buying as distraction from such noise may be very significant. I have carried some experiments with the cooling systems nearby being so loud I could barely talk to my partner. Using protection is such cases is unlikely to be unethical.
In a normal laboratory or office environment too big part of the distracting noise comes from the higher frequencies and the headphones will not help much. I have tried to use such headphones in an office environment with just too many people talking around, they were near useless. Hence buying them will not make any sense.

Does the effectiveness of the product have an impact on the ethics of the purchase?

I think yes, it does have the major impact. The headphones are ethical where, as I said, they are useful.

Let me answer your question in an extreme case:
Some labs purchase this type of headphones, at high prices probably. Because they can't do work without it.
Their experiments require a step of long time sonication which is really harmful to human ears. Therefore, researchers in order to protect themselves have to wear these headphones just like how people wear gloves.
I guess my example can avoid the ethical controversies, even if some people do use it to concentrate on work while they propose to buy it for the sake of protection against sonication noise.
And that's how some labs use their money, whether you like it or not.
Current situation is that a lot of labs and institutes can find a lot of reasonable proposals to get what they need, though, for another project.
And, sadly, that's how labs run sometimes: you use your current excuses/publications to ask for what you need for another unrelated project, the result of which will in turn be used to get funding for another one.
If someone else were standing in your shoes, they could probably get the headphone in the name of sonication, and do good work, and produce more scientific values than the headphone they asked for.

I'd say, people have different sensory sensitivity.
I for one have sensory over-stimulation and am very sensitive on hearing or handle large open areas with people for very long. So I always use noise-cancelling headphones - it makes work and life more manageable.
What I mean is, what does it matter if you use it only at work or also for recreation? If you have nothing for recreation then you won't be very enthusiastic at work either in the long run (I know what lack of spare-time for recreation leads to). So, in my opinion is is great that one device (noise-cancelling headphones) can help with both noise at work and for recreation.
A happy employee is probably a more productive and creative employee.
Should the money be spent on this or that is always the question, but as always it is also a matter of prioritization. If you feel that such headphones are what feels like it will really make a difference for your research then yes that is probably what you should try to get hold of next.
Perhaps you can make a deal such that you pay half and employer pays half and then you will use them for work but you can also use them at home for recreation.

A happy employee is probably a more productive and creative employee. This argument (mentioned in many of the answers) opens the way to using research funds for all sorts of things, e.g., tropical vacations, going to the movies, eating out at fancy restaurants, etc. A good answer claiming that noise-canceling headphones are okay must therefore explain what is it about this particular $300 item that makes it different from all the above examples. The noise issue is such an argument, but since others have pointed out you can achieve the same effect with cheap earplugs, I'm still not convinced.

@DanRomik Well, if that would not be true we would not have vacations, recreational activities or short breaks at work. Of course /everything has its limit/. I am not talking about unlimited vacations and watching movies all day instead of working. I talk about the greatness of items which for one price provide both features - noise cancellation at work and the very same + listening to music at home using the very same headphones.
Also, the effect is NOT similar AT ALL as to what can be achieved with non-noise-cancelling-earphone plugs. I bought BOSE QuietComfort 3 headphones a month ago and>

@DanRomik > Wow, it makes such a difference. No they do not block speech or such (except for what you can achieve with usual headphones), but they do block (very well) ventilation, computer fans, car traffic, all sorts of infra-sounds. So if you sit in a room with traffic outside your window, have computer fans in your vicinity (at summer a noisy cooling fan or AC) etc then they're worth their weight gold.
I can only relate to my own expercience of course but before I tried out noise-cancellation I /never/ thought it was so good. Once I tried, it took me two weeks before I had ones of my own.

@DanRomik But as I wrote, everyone has got different sensory sensitivity, and all I can recommend for this particular case to go try some /good/ (yes, there is a reason why the BOSE QuietComfort are considered one of the best at this point) noise cancellation headphones.
Also as I wrote, I do not see a problem with a device which can be useful /both/ at work and at home at the same time. We have free cell phones for work and are allowed to use them for personal use as well. Also since it is flat-rate anyway it doesn't matter what calls we make - work related at work, and personal at home.

Also I should add that I am not talking about using them primarily for playing music so loud that all external noise is overshadowed. I am talking about just turning on the headphone's noise-cancellation with no music or anything else for everyday use. It just produced silence for your ears and it is amazing.

Think of it this way:
Suppose you were to ask for noise insulation / dampening for the lab / group office. That might cost $1,000, or $5,000 (I have no idea how much). Would you have any ethical doubts about asking for that? Well, you might, but only for one reason:
Is reducing the ambient noise level for my research activity important enough for the university / the human race to invest in?
If the answer is "yes", then noise cancelling earphones seem ethically appropriate. The fact that you can also use them to enjoy research-unrelated activities is no more than cause for carefully scrutinizing your request to make sure it's legit.

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

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


text:
How will a bad grade from a somewhat unrelated course look on applications?
I'm taking a second year genetics course as a math major (I was interested in bioinformatics, and I need genetics for that). I'm doing poorly in the course so far (I'm passing, but not with great marks). I was wondering how a bad grad will look on my application to math grad schools.
My current cgpa is about 3.8 so I'm wondering if I should just cancel this course (honestly, bioinformatics isn't even interesting to me anymore) and take a CAN on my transcript than a bad grade that will kill my cgpa. How would that look?
Any and all help is appreciated!


text:
Is it acceptable that a teacher assistant encourage students to read his authored materials too?
During my leisure time, I used to prepare some pamphlets in the topic of courses I always wanted to teach. Each, full of examples and solved problems which I designed and solved myself, not photocopying from books and papers; that are so helpful to the engineering students.
If one day, I have the chance to teach in a TA class, is it ethical to ask the students to read my prepared materials too? Or the teaching assistant should only solve the problems of the reference book which is told by the professor of the course?

Your role as a teaching assistant is to further the educational goals of the course (as determined by the instructor and/or the department).
If encouraging your students to read these materials furthers the educational goals of the course, then you should do so. If not, then you shouldn't.
Since the instructor and/or the department determines what the educational goals of the class are, you should check with them first, and use your extra material only with their approval. (Besides for the issue of making sure your material is consistent with the goals of the course, it also makes sense for them to be aware of what is going on.)

The above answer is good but I would like to add one thing. If you are a TA in one section of a larger class make sure that you are being fair. Your students should not be receiving significantly more work than students in other sections, especially when one curve is applied to all sections. That being said, optional material is also helpful (although not as much as required meterial).

This also works the other way round: If your extra material is excellent, then those in the other sections should not been withheld it.


text:
How can I access specific parts of a solutions manual that is not locally available?
I am currently facing a challenge in accessing specific problems from the solutions manual of a textbook that is crucial for my studies. The manual in question is not available in any library near me, but I have identified that it is available at the Oklahoma State University Library as per the listings on worldcat.org.
Specifically, I only need the solutions for the problems of chapter 2 (problems 2.1 to 2.20) from the manual. Since I only require a small portion of the manual, I am seeking guidance on how I might be able to obtain access to these sections. I am looking for legal and ethical ways, possibly through library loan systems, academic sharing, or other legitimate means.
Does anyone have advice or resources that could guide me on how to proceed with obtaining access to these specific parts of the solutions manual?
Name of book: Solutions manual to accompany 'Flight stability and automatic control' by Robert Nelson

Ask your (academic) librarian. They are able to arrange inter-library loans.
You should also contact the library having the resource directly.
For a small fee they may reproduce digitally the required sections and email it to you (when copying up to a certain % of the book no copyrights are violated, your librarian will assist you).

It is highly unlikely that you would be able to get the solution manual (either full or part) using the methods you mentioned. The solution manuals are normally part of learning resources that are, in most of the cases, only given to instructors or professors, who are using the book for the course. And they are not allowed to share the manual with students. You can try your luck by either emailing the professor, who is using the book or contacting the OSU library. I am kinda certain that you might not get positive response from either source. You should try your luck at online student forums. I also urge you to post your related questions to other relevant SE forums (Drone and Aircraft SE should be the most suitable in your case).

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


text:
What happens if two reviewers have incompatible recommendations for a paper?
I submitted a paper to an IOP journal (classical and quantum gravity) two or three months back and two reviewers were assigned. One of them was ok with the paper and recommended it for publication but the other posed some questions. After some moderate revisions considering their comments the second reviewer said their key concern with the paper is unanswered and hence did not recommend it for publication.
However, the editor said that the reports are positive and asked for some minor revisions before further consideration. FYI, we did answer the referee’s key concern politely saying that they are incorrect. However, I cannot understand the editor’s meaning. Do they mean that the paper is accepted even when one of the referee’s has rejected it? What happens if two reviewers have incompatible recommendations for a paper?

The title sounds like two reviewers have contradicting requests. The question state, you replied to one reviewer's request and he is not satisfied.

@usr1234567 Originally I thought the same thing, but reading the question and allowing for the possibility of English not being a first language, I think it's a reasonable title if we interpret "recommendation" as "recommendation to the editor on whether to publish" and not "recommendation to the author for improvements on a manuscript", which is a standard way to use the word "recommendation" in a peer review context.

Keep in mind that a paper can be rejected even if all reviews are strongly positive and even if the handling editor recommends acceptance. (This has happened to me several times as an editor.)

The editor decides
As you yourself said, the reviewers only make recommendations; it is always the editor who makes the ultimate decision to accept or reject.  So it is entirely possible for a paper to be accepted even if some (or even all) of the reviews recommend rejection, or vice versa.
If the reviews make incompatible recommendations, then it is up to the editor to consider all of them and make a decision.  Necessarily the decision will disagree with at least one of the reviews.

I have heard that occasionally, in cases where there is a "split decision" among the reviewers, a journal will solicit another review to "break the tie".  I don't know how common this is, though.

@MichaelSeifert My impression is that it's become a lot less common as editors have found it difficult to find reviewers and journals have prioritized a faster turnaround time; they'd instead like editors to make a decision with what they have.

I +1'ed Nate Eldredge's answer, and will add that some journals might have a policy where if an editor decides to accept a paper with a reject review remaining, another editorial board member must be consulted (leading to a double decision). I don't know if there is such a policy for Classical and Quantum Gravity.
Note your paper is not accepted. The decision is 'minor revision'. Papers can be rejected after minor revisions. But your paper is not rejected either; there is still a chance it will be accepted.
You might also be interested in Why do editors sometimes accept a paper even if a reviewer recommends rejection?

Thanks for the answer. It seems that an editorial board member is also included as we have received a comment from he/she indicating that we did not satisfactorily answered the referee. However, we sent a new letter stating our answer explicitly. So based on your comment, now the editor and the member would decide for our paper; am I right?

@TheFyziker The editorial board member handling your paper is usually also the "editor" in this context. Journals have lots of editorial board members. It's possible a second editorial board member will be involved, but given that it's only at revision stage, it's highly unlikely they're involved already. It might happen later, if the decision turns into 'reject' and the current editor accepts anyway.

the editor said that the reports are positive and asked for some minor revisions before further consideration.

This is the only thing that really matters since (as others have said) the editor is the one who makes the decision. "Before further consideration" means that the paper is not accepted, but the editor will make a decision after seeing the revisions they want. So, make the revisions requested by the editor and write a response explaining the changes you made. You could explain why you disagree with Referee 2, but it sounds like the editor is not asking you to do this. There's a little bit of a strategic decision in whether or not to include that in your response, since you want to address the referee reports, but you don't want to come across as repetitive or combative if you have already convinced the editor of your position. I can't really say without more context, but if you have an advisor or trusted colleague you can always ask them for advice. Based on what the editor has said, it sounds like you have a good chance of the paper being accepted. Good luck.


text:
Can I apply to grant as PI while I am postdoc in UK university?
I will start working as a postdoc at a university in the UK. I want to apply for a grant as PI and I am afraid to discuss this with my supervisor. Can I apply without telling him? The grant application goes through a university committee. So he will know anyway, but there is a high chance he wants to be PI on this grant and as it is my idea, I want to be the PI. I did not start working yet, so I don't know how this usually works in UK universities.
What should I do?

@Roland Of course this is a red flag, but sometimes working with a professor that has red flags can still bring certain advantages.

I said I m afraid based on previous stories my colleaguestold me with different supervisors. I did not start yet with this supervisor.

It is possible to apply for/win grants as a Post-Doc in the UK, but it's rare. There are various independent fellowships which are intended for post-doc level applicants which are the more typical route to independence.
If you want to apply for this grant. First Make sure to evaluate if you even meet the criteria to apply as a PI. For example most EPSRC grants this requires:

Principal investigators should normally hold a permanent post but fixed-term employees may be eligible provided that the EPSRC can be satisfied that the host research organisation is prepared to give the individual all the support normal for a permanent employee and that there is no conflict of interest between the investigator’s obligations to the EPSRC and to any other organisation or employer.

(in practice this usually means at least holding an independent research fellowship - not being employed on someone else's grant).
Additionally, consider how realistic your chances of success are. Major grants are extremely competitive and have a very low success rate. One of the criteria for evaluating an application (again from the EPSRC) is:

a) Appropriateness of the track record of the applicant(s);

Whether the proposal demonstrates that the applicants have the
expertise and capabilities to deliver the project.
The applicant and wider team’s ability to deliver the project through
to the creation of impact.

(for example, experience successfully managing other grants).
Also do you have access to the necessary lab/software/resources to complete the project without the support of your PI?
I don't know your specific situation/qualifications, but in most cases you would have more success working with your PI to develop a grant application as a Co-PI. You can then learn from/take advantage of their experience/track record to increase the chances of success.

"in most cases you would have more success working with your PI to develop a grant application as a Co-PI." Can you explain why the success potential for a grant developed as Co-PI with the professor would be higher than that of an independent fellowship application on the same proposal idea?

@lighthousekeeper. 1) you can leverage the track record of the PI, 2) They evidently have experience writing successful grant applications, 3) They (presumably) have access to the necessary laboratory/administrative resources (and HoD support - which is a requirement to apply to most grants at UK universities).  An independent fellowship application would be the best way forward, but that is not what is being proposed by the OP.

For 1) and 3) The expectations towards the track record & available resources will probably be higher for a big grant than for an independent fellowship, so that one might neutralize itself, given that OP would only be Co-PI instead of PI in that case. In my experience, being able to collect money as PI weighs much more than Co-PI for later job applications.

2.) - well, yes and no. Experience definitely helps, but the bulk of the effort for a grant application is still to develop the actual ideas. To benefit from others' experiences, one could seek external feedback (for example from other collaborators). Possibly also from grant counseling offices in the university. Finally, HoD support is potentially a valid argument. That one should be checked early - with HoD support it's a non-issue, without, that alternative doesn't exist in the first place.

@lighthousekeeper, Yes that's true. But the OP is not proposing to apply for an independent fellowship (which is what they should do if they want to be a PI). They seem to be proposing writing an application to an open call (apparently their supervisor wants to be PI on). Permanent faculty are not eligible to apply to independent post-doctoral fellowships in the UK. The OP is highly unlikely to even be eligible to apply for this grant as PI - Instead work with their supervisor as Co-PI, which would be better than no grant at all and a negative relationship with their supervisor.

It's not actually clear to me what grant OP intends to apply for (and a clarification would help). It's possible that he intends to go for a fellowship and is afraid that the professor might want to take the idea and become PI for it for in an open call application instead.

Agree that a clarification of what type of grant this is would be helpful. But if the PI wanted to steal their idea and apply for an open call with it there is unfortunately very little they could do about it. It also probably wouldn't prevent a fellowship application being successful on the same topic though (the committee probably wouldn't be aware of/permitted to discuss the other application).

Its unlikely, but not impossible you will be able to apply for a grant as PI without the support of your institution, and they are unlikely to provide that without the support of the PI.
Most standard-type grants in the UK require you to have a permanent position at the host institution. Even in cases where this you argue an exception to this (see @atom44's answer), you will need the university to guarantee your employment for the period of the grant. Importantly, in the UK there is a cap on how much of a PI's salary a grant will pay. I can't remember off the top of my head, but i think it might be 40%. But its unusual for a grant to provide my than 20%. Someone has to agree to pay the rest.
Now, there is an alternative system to this: personal fellowships. Where as with a standard grant, thee grant is awarded to the university, with a fellowship its awarded to the individual. At least in my field there are two types of fellowship: postdoc level fellowships (such as the Henry Wellcome fellowship) and independent fellowships (e.g. the Wellcome Career Development fellowship, known until recently as the Sir Henry Dale fellowship).
With a postdoc fellowship, the grant is awarded to you, but to work under the close mentorship of someone else (i.e. your supervisor), so any application would need a letter of support from the proposed supervisor.
For an independent fellowship, you work independently (ie not with a supervisor). However, you still require support from the proposed host department. You will need not just permission from the head of department, but also the promise of real, concrete support both for the project itself, and your ongoing career development afterwards. My university promises a permanent faculty appointment to anyone completing an independent fellowship. Because of this the department has to make a business case to the university before supporting such an application. Its inconceivable all this could happen without your supervisor being aware.
Independent fellowships are highly prestigious, are generally longer than a standard grant (normally 5 years rather than 3) and come with about twice the level of funding support (around £1m-£2m). I don't know where you are in your career, but they are aimed at people with one or two postdoc positions already under their belt.

You are a postdoc. You have to be independent. In your next Zoom call, or per email, simply state to your professor that you are writing a proposal as a PI for that grant. If you want to have a softer tone, state that you are interested in writing a proposal for that grant, and see how it goes.
Your professor may be in competition with you for that grant, but so he is with other hundreds of persons in the whole country, you have to have no guilty feelings.
The only possible negative point is that if your intention is to bring the money from that grant to a different department.

This is solid advice in the case of a PI that one might call reasonable - one that supports the development ambitions of their mentees, at the expense of winning fewer grants in their own name. Unfortunately, unreasonable PIs exist.

@lighthousekeeper there are conflicts that cannot be avoided, having a unreasonable supervisor is almost sure to lead to a conflict. However, the more such a supervisor is treated like a reasonable supervisor, the sooner the conflict will take place, with less damage for both sides.
I repeat myself: there are conflicts that cannot be avoided, their outcome is loose-loose. However, it can be a big-loose - big-loose, or a small-loose - small-loose, depending on how and when the conflict starts. Since we are discussing a postdoc position here, it is better for the conflict to erupt at day1.

I don't know about other places, and it depends on the grant in question. But in the UK this is unlikely to be a successful strategy. There are a variety of independent fellowships which are designed for post-doc level candidates to gain independence. For major open grants, a post-doc would usually need to effectively be a permanent faculty member (or at least hold an independent fellowship and not be employed on someone else's grant). This advice runs the risk of negatively impacting the relationship with the PI with minimal prospect for success.

@EarlGrey The main drawback of the "early conflict" strategy that you propose is that the professor has the last word and, ultimately, might insist on his negative answer. An alternative strategy is to have the conflict as late as possible, at a point in time where one has already gained significant credits, so that the one negative experience (from the eyes of the professor) doesn't weigh as much.

Sadly this just does not make sense within the UK system... As stated with the answer above, a postdoc would not be eligible to apply to most UK funding streams as a PI (without some extraordinary support from his current institution: salary (as PI funding usually covers only about 20% of own salary), space, equipment). And also the advisor won't be eligible for the streams that are targetting postdocs as PIs (usually called "fellowships").

(contd) So there is no competition in this situation. Also note that writing a proposal is hard work. I would strongly advise against the attitude of this answer "This is what I'll do, see if you can stop me". In order to write a solid fellowship proposal on top of the full-time postdoc position working on whichever project covers the postdoc salary, I would suggest looking for any support one can get. As one can't work 2+ times the regular hours and stay productive for long.

@penelope thanks. Please downvote the answer and make your comments as an answer.


text:
How do I ask my professor to recommend me to a few specific industry positions?
I am working in the US for a professor as a contracted research staff, and my contract will soon end. The professor holds daily meetings with the bosses of several companies, over a project we collaborate on. These companies have several public job listings that I consider myself a good fit for. Unfortunately, the scope of my job doesn't allow me much interaction with the staff from these companies.
However, I can see on LinkedIn that at least 500 people are applying to each of these positions every week. I am worried that if I file my application the conventional way, then it will get lost in the sea of HR paperwork, or even not get past the automatic filter. These companies also have a preference for PhDs, which I do not have at the moment.
Is it appropriate for me to persuade the professor to speak to the bosses directly about these jobs on my behalf? Are there any potential downsides?

Maybe you could bring up these jobs with your professor, asking whether he/she thinks any of them would be suitable for you, without specifically suggesting any kind of action on his/her part. Or have you had so little personal contact and guidance that even doing only this seems seems a bit awkward? If so, then you might want to indicate this in your question.

It is appropriate for you to ask for a recommendation. However, the professor may not feel it is appropriate for him to ask them directly. But it is part of their responsibility to at least write you a letter of recommendation. And they may be willing to do more.
But the "way" to ask, is just to ask. Ask for a recommendation, preferably a letter and something more personal. It is up to them how to proceed after that.
I'd guess that even a letter would be pretty effective given the relationships.


text:
Can I request to see a reference about me?
From USA universities, Can I request to see a reference about me?
Do they offer the Right to Information and request the information provided in a referee report about me to release?
I can have this service from the UK.
I ask this because my current PI congratulate me on an interview for a postdoc position, next time he followed up and asked how did it go. Later I found he sent a negative referee report about me and not to hire me. (long story  short, they were my PI's colleagues - so, through the Right to Information I got told to request HR to have a copy of all the referee reports)
Still PI doesn't know if I know about his backstabbing, however, I want to make sure this from another place in the USA to confirmed if that was a personal attack or if it was due to I applied to his colleague's group.
If this is genuine backstabbing, what actions I can take through universities / academic level, without going to courts.
I had/have to put this PI as a referee for someplace where they know which lab I am coming from.
PI is famous in the university for this kind of games he plays, however, he has top political power as he has billions of grants, and staff/students afraid to talk in public.
Edit:
To answer few of your Qs /comments:
To @Jon Custer : "how do you know the report was "negative" vs "not positive enough given the other applicants"?"
I am specialized in using a few lab techniques. PI has written in the report, I do not! (Funny enough PI is the one who doesn't know these two techniques - I got trained by a postdoc and a tech at different institutes and attended a workshop).
However, the rest of the world believes PI is an expert in this very field and specialized in this specific technique, as he published dozens of articles. The Truth is, He does not know the technique, all come from a technician and a postdoc (both postdoc and tech left the lab, I have a referral from the tech, that I got trained from the tech)
To: user151413; "Reference letters are an assessment, which can be negative. (Otherwise, what's the point of an assessment?) "
This would be true if it was an honest assessment. The problem here is deliberate lying, and giving false information in the assessment.

Why is this tagged "UK"?

What is your question? There's more than one in the post.  In any case, it is not clear whether you can sue about that, unless he stated provably wrong things.  Reference letters are an assessment, which can be negative.  (Otherwise, what's the point of an assessment?)

In the US you are typically asked if you will waive your right to see the reference letter.  Did you waive this right or not?

If it's generally possible in UK, you could apply for another job in UK (that you don't care about) and ask to see the reference letters.

So, how do you know the report was "negative" vs "not positive enough given the other applicants"? What outcome are you looking for here? A reversal of the hiring decision seems out of the question. If you want to write off any further assistance from the PI, keep pursuing this...

@Kimball that’s only in the context of student applications where the student waived their FERPA rights. For proper job applications I believe in the states such as CA where a right exists to view one’s (redacted) letters this is due to a general legal right of an employee to know what information their employer has on record about them. As such, this right is considered too fundamental to be subject to this kind of waiver, even if agreed to “voluntarily”. (Basically it’s assumed that any waiver of this sort agreed to by the employee will be agreed under a kind of coercion and hence void.)

UK has very strong libel laws, probably far stronger than the US. So, even just threatening a court case is a real menace. That being said, it's probably not a good idea to do anything than deselect the referee in the future. Very few people, if at all, are going to write a reference for someone who takes their referee to court (or creates other kind of trouble for them). To be honest, your case is why it is unwise to write a reference for someone unless it will be positive.

Referring to @Kimball's comment, it is my impression that, in the U.S., even if students "waive" their right to see a letter of recommendation, that waiver could not be legally enforced... so a demand to see it (freedom of information, maybe?) could not be legally resisted. But that waiver is perceived as a show of good faith or intention... though it could also be played as bait-and-switch, I suppose.

@paulgarrett Has that ever been tested in court?

@CaptainEmacs, I don't know whether that has been tested in court or not... But as a long-time grad admissions person, I've received a certain amount of quasi-legal advice from university administration, ... leading me to avoid overtly negative remarks in letters. Only positive things, and the limits of the positive-ness hopefully convey the message, without being sue-able. Still, "grievances" are potentially the intra-university version of often-frivolous-lawsuits: consume enormous amounts of time, if not money. And academics value their time... :)

@paulgarrett your impression is incorrect. FERPA has an explicit provision allowing the waivers, see page 11 of this document.

@DanRomik, ah! Thanks for the informative document! Better than hear-say. :)

@DanRomik My impression was that a candidate (if hired?) may still have legal recourse to view their letters but that it's not as easy if they've signed a waiver.  Most of the letters I write for jobs nowadays are on mathjobs.org, and that site explicitly says: Reference letters submitted are strictly confidential at this site. Applicants can't view them under any circumstances.

@Kimball I think your impression is incorrect, mainly because a waiver like the one you describe simply doesn’t exist in the context of job applicants. Candidates generally do not have a right to view their letters, except that in California and perhaps some other states, candidates who were hired have a right to see a redacted version of the letter. A waiver would make no difference to this state of affairs. Disclaimer: IANAL and am only partially confident that this information is accurate.

@DanRomik I guess I misremembered the situation for job vs student applications then: the pre-mathjobs era is quite hazy now for me.

"I can have this service from the UK." That is an optimistic assumption. There are many legal ways to refuse to supply information, and most large organizations know what they are. For example if a reference identifies the person who wrote it, you can not get access to it unless that person agrees. (And an anonymous reference is not going to be very useful to anyone!)

The comunity knows that your PI does not know about said techinque, and your PI knows that as well. So, instead of not mentioning it, he decided to go "honest" and tell "the comunity" you do not know technique, because he does not know the technique. eh.
One question: was this technique a requirement of the position? if yes, you did well at asking reference from the technician.
Anyhow, since you mention that "they" expect your PI to be a reference, you may think about having other refs and giving your PI as (obvious but) optional reference, something like 3rd ref when they ask for 2 refs.

@EarlGrey Thanks. The technician is not comfortable with this. However, tech has issued a certificate to me, that she trained me. The place is full of marketing and drama - since PI has a profoundly made-up reputation for this specific technique. It's a long, dark story. Postdoc who developed this technique has erased from history!   Money Talks.

If you have a friend who can receive mail at an address that looks reasonably like a place you might work, you can add that address to your list.  If there's a toxic letter, your friend will know.    (But someone really backstabbing you will pick up the phone.)

You are making strong accusations here.  The assessment could be negative and honest.  In your assessment this person does not know a particular technique but this is an opinion on par with the opinion that you yourself do not know it.  It’s all right to feel frustrated, but suggesting deliberate lying on a reference letter (which by definition is an opinion) is something one must do only with overwhelming first hand evidence.

As a general rule, institutions are very reluctant to give access to letters of reference to anyone and candidates in particular. That's because they know that if they regularly shared these letters with the people being written about, letter writers would stop giving honest assessments.
As a consequence, regardless of matters of law or regulation, you should expect that universities will not give you the letter. You may have a legal way to obtain such a letter, but you will likely have to sue the university to obtain it. Whether that's worth your time or money is a case you need to evaluate for yourself -- taking into account that knowing what is in the letter does not actually change anything. It's not like the university will offer you the position you were seeking just because you know what was in the letter.

Or maybe a FOIA request?

@AzorAhai-him- Wouldn't FOIA only apply if the university in question was run by the government?

Excellent answer @Wolfgang Bangerth .Yes, I agree. In both the way, there is no advantage for me. Alternatively, I can drop the PI from the referee list. The problem is community knows where I am coming from and they expect him to be a referee

And a point about obtaining the letter by suing: they are not obligated to write a reference, so if word gets out that you sued an institution for it, then likely no one else would ever want to write you a reference.

@nick Yes, but it could be one legal way

@nick012000 Would state universities fit that criteria? I think they're typically considered to be government agencies for purposes of the 1st Amendment.

Most states have Freedom of Information Acts themselves. State universities regularly have to reply to these sorts of things, including personnel data. At my previous university, we had a case where someone whose tenure was denied sued to get information about his tenure case. But you have to fight for this information, and at the end of the day, having the information does not actually change anything about decisions that were made.

See here for some interesting discussion about FOIA and post-docs. Short summary: FOIA does generally apply to public universities (not just Government-owned ones), but there are limits on what sort of documents it covers (which will vary by jurisdiction), and there is probably not much precedent for this.

Here is a link to some information about the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 or FERPA for the rules and regulations in the US. In general, you have the right to see any and all records. However, there are two critical caveats with regards to LoR:

you can only access your recommendation letters after you've gotten your admission letter of acceptance and chosen to enroll in a college. If you were rejected from or chose not to go to a certain school, then you won't be able to get your hands on those letters.

Once you add a college to your Common Application, you'll see a tab show up to invite your recommender(s). Before you send those invites, you'll be prompted to read about your waiver of access and select a response.

So letters of recommendations only have to be shared once you join a specific institution and you will be asked in advance of your application if you want to waive this right. This means, in cases of rejection you have no recourse to see the letters. My guess is that this was put in place to protect the writers of the LoR. It is a really challenging situation for you to be in, since the LoR from your current advisor is surely important in landing a new position.

Thank you Mario. Useful info :)

Is FERPA releveant for postdocs?

@AzorAhai-him-, that's a really good question and I honestly do not know.

In the pdf @Buffy linked below it is clear that different parties have (successfully) sued employers to provide LoRs. But clearly this is a matter of legal challenges and not regulation. So short of litigation (maybe due to suspected libel) there does not seem to be a regulatory way to get your hands on you LoR.

Postdocs are not students, and FERPA doesn’t apply.

This is not true if the student waives their rights, which they often would and should.

You are right. That is explained in the link I posted. I will clarify in the post as well.

Common Apps are definitely not relevant for postdocs...

The other answers address the legal and regulatory aspects of the question.  You should also consider the cultural aspects:  Many American academics expect that applicants will choose not to read their reference letters.  If you violate those expectations, they will not trust you.

Thank you. Very good advice. Also, I agree with this.

In the US, the answer is almost certainly no, you should not ask to see your reference letters.
Even the most positive letters contain candid descriptions that letter writers do not want to share. If you seek out those letters, you will strain your relationships with the writers, and you are less likely to get detailed letters in the future.
Right now, you want a letter to see whether you're:

Trapped by an abusive PI who is writing false letters to stop you from getting a job, or
Not as good as you think you are (at least in the eyes of your PI).

I understand that this is an important question, but you don't need the letter to answer it.
If your PI is trapping you - and it happens! - you may notice that: (1) You have good luck with applications that benefit your PI, like grants, but terrible luck with applications that help you leave, like jobs; (2) Your job applications are successful up to the point where references are requested, then fail; (3) Other colleagues are startled by your lack of success on the job market.
If this is the case, your relationship with your PI is done (though you'll likely need to stay quiet about it, lest they sabotage you further). Start looking ASAP for a mentor who will actually support you - either a colleague who can write your letters of reference, or a new boss/PI.
If your PI doesn't think you're very skilled, you will find that (1) they don't put you forward for anything, even grants and awards that would benefit the lab; (2) Few of your colleagues praise you; and (3) If you ask your PI, they'll bluntly tell you that you need to improve.
This leaves you in a tough spot. As above, you may find that your relationship with your PI is completely broken and you need to find a new mentor ASAP. You'll also need to do some deep reflection, preferably with the help of your most supportive colleagues, on what changes you could make in order to succeed. This may involve improving your skills, communicating your achievements better, switching to a research project that better matches your talents, or leaving research for a more suitable career (and a more supportive boss).
None of these options are easy; the good news is that, in the long run, all of them will leave you better off than you are now.

Thank you, Kelly. I understand, my case falls into 1. st category, I am Trapped by an abusive PI. I applied for grants, with him, my application process mostly to the second round. after the referee report, it ruined. I received a copy of his back stabbed referee report from UK university (he doesn't know this). I can ask others to write referee, the problem is for some places I have to put this PI. Very unfortunate.

@Dendrobium Yeah, I'm sorry to hear that. I'm glad you have other people willing to be referees for you. You might be able to get away without letters from the PI in more applications if one of the other referees is willing to explain what's happening... Overall, it looks like you're likely to have options, but it's still an unfair situation, and it's bad for all of academia that PIs have so much power over other people's careers with so little oversight to make them use it fairly. - Kelly

Thank you very much for your kindness. It's my bad luck. This PI has ruined a few people's careers. One of the postdoc's life has completely erased from academia and taken his project. In the end Money talks. Uni driven by grants, So PI is a top political head. Only I have to believe now is the power of the faith, nature! I have not done anything wrong. Thank you.

These problems are unfortunately common. If it's useful, the best outcomes I've seen from similar situations occur when the student/postdoc gets out quickly - either going to another faculty member who supports them and has enough political clout to protect them from the original advisor, or to a non-academic position where typically reference letters are not needed and the advisor has no power at all. The worst outcomes I've seen occur when the student/postdoc stays for years, hoping to win approval from an advisor who slowly destroys their prospects and self-esteem.

Thank you @Bizzard , Yes I totally agree with you. I did the same. If I realized this, I'd have left the place in my first year. Every time thought, I'd be able to win the person working 24/7.

In the US it would almost certainly be improper for information about you to be released to a third party. But who can say what sort of conversations go on between people who know each other and speak informally?
But the privacy laws here are pretty strong, so a formal request from third parties to see information would be denied. Even the fact that you had applied is almost certainly protected.

Here is a statement from one US university (pdf) on the legal issues around letters of recommendation

Thank you for letting me know this.


text:
Interviewing for an academic position after abusive department chair in previous academic position
In my faculty job, I was bullied for a long time by a chair of the department (at a US state university on the West Coast). This included:

Giving me bad schedules and classrooms
His secretary telling students to avoid my classes
Denying me operational information
Excluding me from department committees
Falsifying university documents
Stealing my course materials and giving it to his supporters
Filing bogus charges against me that I never saw in writing

I understand it's hard to judge who was in the wrong, but I really had neither motive nor means to fight with the department chair. Worse, he eventually got many of the other department members on his side.
After being bullied and harassed and my working environment sabotaged  for very long time I resigned. Now I am looking for a teaching position at a different university in the USA. I know the number one rule in an interview is “Do not say anything bad about your former employer”. But, under the circumstances, I'm not sure how to answer the question “Why did you leave the position where you achieved a high rank?” What would be a a good way to answer this question?

I suggest that you also take a look at the questions [workplace.se]; they have a lot of good advice when it comes to interviews. For instance, with a quick search I could find https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/4056 and https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/106519 .

I think some cultural context would help here - in what part of the world are you applying for jobs?  My experience in the US is that "why are you leaving" is a question that is not usually asked.  On the flip side, letters of recommendation are also important here, and it is pretty common for recommenders to address reasons why the applicant is on the market; coming from a more "neutral" third party, it can be more credible.

I would be a little more specific, but approach the answer from the standpoint that the environment made it difficult to achieve success.

I request that this question is reopened. This question is extremely important to me and seems like some people do have some knowledge on this issue  that I would like to hear.  I have clarified some of the issues that were raised about my question. I added information based on the comments asking for more information. I clarified some issues that I felt were misunderstood. I had no weapons to be jerk and to attack the chair, or to deny him information (information flows from the top), or to steal his classes, or to exclude him from a committee or to steal his course materials.

Yeah, I think your edits made it much more academic-oriented. Voting to reopen; I also modified your post a bit to make it more readable; feel free to edit if I messed anything up.

You can honestly say that the former position was "a bad fit" personally and professionally and that you seek a "more compatible" environment. I've been in enough strange situations that I suspect people are aware that they exist. There are enough similar questions here to indicate that academia isn't utopia.
You needn't speak ill of the former head. But if the "environment has become less conducive to personal and professional growth" it is likely a fair assessment.
Also, just having been promoted is an excellent time to "look for other, more challenging, opportunities."

The danger is that "bad fit" is also just what somebody would say as a euphemism for "I pissed everyone off and left."

There is no good reply that addresses the truth in this situation. One needs to lie in a way that eliminates doubt of the problem existing again.

@ASimpleAlgorithm, I disagree that you need to lie. You just don't need to get into things that aren't relevant to your new position. Leaving some things unsaid isn't the same as telling untruths. You don't need to say you were bullied - nor is it productive to do so.

@Buffy Whether a strategic omissions of facts reaches the level of a lie or not is a semantic argument. The point is if the explanation conveys any of the important facts-the person quit impulsively (spitefully?) over drama with the administration--this will be very bad. People will always wonder if there's another side to the story and view it as a risk. But I would go further; a non-explanation ("I needed a change") may also be viewed suspiciously. The best answer is an alternative explanation that eliminates such doubts.

@ASimpleAlgorithm, and if you lie and are caught in it, what then? Unethical behavior is still that. You aren't likely to be rewarded. Over time, the story can come out fully and if you have merely "finessed" it a bit, there is no issue. If you have lied, you can be sanctioned.

@Buffy You mean like if you tell them you quit because of your spouse, and your spouse turns on you or something and tells them the truth? I'd say you have bigger problems to worry about. As for ethics, certainly a fun topic for people who aren't unemployed. But if my little white lie is unethical then so is your lie of omission, for the same reason: you have denied the new job the facts they needed to make their decision. For all we know the OP could well be a major drama queen and toxic employee. The facts imply this possibility. Both approaches try to hide that and get them the job.

@ASimpleAlgorithm, this is getting ridiculous. If you call it a lie of omission, do you think that full and complete disclosure of your past is ethically required here? I don't. Some things are nobody's business but your own. But you still owe truthfulness.

@Buffy I'd describe it as repetitive. Your question would seem to be covered in my previous statement. A lie of omission is unethical if it has the same effect as a lie, e.g. to manipulate someone into giving you a job which they would have done otherwise. No need for false dichotomies. You can decide if your answer is doing that or not.

“Looking for further or different opportunities” is one
“A change in personal circumstances” is another...
Often, in a given situation, there are multiple strands and actions are completed based on the cumulative effect.

I don't think these are good ways to answer that question. First of all, they are a lie, and secondly they raise more questions instead of providing answers. I would be very suspicious of such vague answers. The answer probably depends on the culture or person assessing the candidate (voting to close), but personally I would be perfectly happy with an honest answer, even if it breaks the "number one rule" (No idea who made that rule, but I disagree).

And of the linked answers from the workplace, one is “it was obvious I would not reach my full potential” so that meets your criteria then??

I am the OP. First, everyone thanks for your response. Unfortunately “Looking for further or different opportunities”
or “It was obvious I would not reach my full potential” is hard to explain since I reached a full professor rank just before the chair got unhinged. But I could not take the bullying that lasted very long time. And he created a whole gang to do the dirty job.

@louic I am not sure how to ask for this question to be taken off hold. I am asking you because your name is up there. I am not sure how I can contact you for that directly so I am asking here. How do I ask to make this question active again? I tried to address some of the issues people raised.

@user2712329 Once you edited your question the moderators will look at it and if it has enough votes (within 5 days) to re-open it will be re-opened. This is also how questions get closed: it needs quite a few close votes before it gets closed.

Last year was a particularly stressful period for my family, so despite a successful career in blah… blah…  and an optimal rapport with colleagues, [if they weren't at all involved in the mobbing] it was just the right time for me to look further afield and begin a new chapter in my life.

The stressful period you suffered also affected your family, so that is telling the truth and explains why a change was necessary.

He might have read the paper on mobbing by Heinz Leymann because he used almost all the attacks on the list. So yes, I was victim of mobbing the way Heinz Leymann defined it.


text:
IELTS Listening Complaint due to coughing
I took the IELTS today and during the listening section and at the end during the last passage a student started constantly coughing. This made us lose track and miss the last part.
The center was playing the cd on a small portable cd player. When we went to complain the management of the center was shady and gave us 4 different explanations on what would happen if we decided to file written complaint each one nastier than before.
The last explanation they gave is that if IELTS investigates this and finds you are at fault then they will cancel this test and not give you a retest or refund. Hence we will lose out $300 and not get a test score.
I am not sure if this is true and was wondering if anyone can verify this.
(I am adding this last line because this question got put on hold for some reason of it being too general. I think that's invalid and this will prove very resourceful to everyone who takes this exam. So I am stating the country where this occurs making it general)
Please see this applies to all IELTS exam taken in USA where it's not standardized. It may apply to other countries as well where the exam is not standardized yet.

More likely they will make the test centre replace the test at their own expense...

So I tried getting this resolved but was not successful. The center is responsible for the actions that need to be taken and IELTS (British Council I believe) will not participate in the process. The center decided that my inquiry was not valid and released my results. This obviously makes no sense to me. Also, I was told that it was my fault that I chose a center which did not have headphones so I have to bear the consequences according to IELTS. I hope this helps someone in the future pick a better center with headphones or a decent speaker system for listening.


text:
Does a research competition with monetary prizes count as commerical use?
There are some datasets (bioinformatics, agriculture, weather, etc.) that state that they can only be used for non-commercial purposes. This would mean a corporation cannot take that dataset and use it in some way to make money. However, the phrase "for non-commercial use only" seems to be vague when it comes to monetary prizes (in the thousands of US dollars) from research competitions.
Can datasets that have this "for non-commercial use only" requirement be used in academic research that could possibly win money at a competition?

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this is not a legal advice.
In general, this depends on at least the following factors:

particular text of the formal license under which the dataset is provided
the laws of the country where the parties (licensor and licensee) reside
definitions that are used to determine whether the activity is considered to be commercial or non-commercial if the actual license text is unclear about it
status of the organization where the research is conducted

However, usually, the commercial purpose has the connotation of direct income generated from the goods or services produced with the help of the licensed content. In the case of the research work that happen to win a certain competition, I would argue that would not be considered a direct income. Thus, should constitute non-commercial use.
From the Creative Commons study on non-commercial use, the following definition of the commercial use is very common:

… in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.

I would argue that no academic research has the primary goal of monetary compensation. Winning in the competition for an academic researcher usually is "collateral damage".

To reiterate,

The definition of commercial and non-commercial use is license-specific; therefore, without the text of the license, it is impossible to determine whether a certain way of using the licensed content is legal or not.

If in doubt, consult a lawyer or use the legal services that most educational institutions provide.

The use for academic research that might/did win a competition is very likely to be within the non-commercial use clause of the license.

I would not be so sure about your "primary goal" distinction. Wikipedia does not accept material from non-commercial-use licenses, for instance, because the Wikimedia Foundation sells T-shirts, CD copies of Wikipedia etc. even though that is a small part of what they do. Maybe there is a distinction based on knowledge timing (i.e. if you use the NC dataset before knowing you will enter a competition you are off the hook) but it looks shaky at best (how would you prove that?).