text:
Why is college tuition high, but academic salaries low?
Where is the money going to?
How can it be that interested students pay so much, but many academic salaries are so low (excluding the obvious full professor in a field where the industry pays for getting research results, like IT).

I can't say much as to why academic salaries are not high; however, tuition is higher than it has been due to easy access to student loans.  This drives the market in such a way that easy access to money increases prices.  This is true anytime the government subsidizes a sector of the economy.

Most educational institutions publish an annual financial report which broadly shows what they spent their money on.  At my institution in 2012, faculty salaries and benefits were 20% of total expenses.

@BenCrowell For curiosity, what do you mean by nearly zero?  In The Netherlands I paid ~150€/month (2003–2007), in Germany 500€/semester, and in Sweden 200 SEK (31$/23€) per year, which later was reduced to 0.

@BenCrowell According to California Community Colleges System wiki page, Effective Summer 2012, tuition will be raised to $46 per unit is not nearly zero to me.

For US state universities, tuition is decided by the state legislature, and I got the impression (possibly inaccurate) that they try to use university tuition to balance their budget. I.e. as a way of getting cash easily. As pointed out elsewhere, the statement "college tuition is high" is certainly not true worldwide, but is probably true of the US, certainly of private universities and increasingly of state universities.

Note that in many parts of the world, tuition is not high.

Economy. The value of everything is set by markets (either completely free, completely regulated or anywhere in between), and it changes from one place to another. It does even (often) change from one person to another in the same place depending on their negotiation skills. The money goes to many places, the budget probably takes several pages (and it's not the same for all institutions).

For US state universities, tuition is decided by the state legislature — This varies wildly by state.  In Illinois, tuition rates are set directly by the Board of Trustees, under some restrictions imposed by the state legislature.

@scaaahu $46 * 30 credits per year = $1,380 per year in tuition. It is certainly not zero but it is much less than the $10,000 I paid per year way back when (adjust that for inflation and the difference is more extreme) for my undergraduate studies.

@Ben, it is my impression that full time positions at community colleges don't exist anymore (outside of those grandfathered into the system) is that not true? I thought all new CC profs were adjuncts.

Administrative bloat.

Supply and demand. The value of something is what people are willing to pay for it.

Why is college tuition so high?

Because students will pay it anyway. If you headed the committee to decide how much tuition to charge, what would you base your decision on? You would probably want to charge as high as possible, since you're trying to bring in money for your school. And you would find (as many current committees do) that you can go pretty high and still have millions of students crawl over each other for the privilege of giving you piles of money.
Why would universities lower tuition? Top schools already dismiss 20 applicants for every one they accept, despite the insane tuition cost. Clearly, either education is an inelastic service, or there is a ridiculous shortage - either way, HYP could probably charge 10 times what they do now and still have no trouble finding students. I would say that the main reason they don't is a combination of concern for their reputation and a fear of being sued.
You may ask why the students are willing to pay so much; but that's an involved matter which is outside of the scope of this question.

Why are academic salaries so low?

Because professors will take the job anyway. If you headed the committee to decide how much salary to pay, what would you base your decision on? You would pay as little as possible.
In many areas, money is the prime motivator. So, at least the top companies will pay top dollar for the best employees, because the best employees have a string of job offers lined up and you have to give them something extra to take up your offer over all the other. Unfortunately, it so happens that in academia, money is not a good motivator:

Most eminent professors are old and content and they couldn't care less if their professorship made them $75k or $85k - they'll still want to work at that one school that they like for the reputation and the work environment (like colleagues and quality of graduate students). The ones that do care about money probably have a side business that brings in huge sums of money which makes their salary look like peanuts in any case.
Small time professors are either terrified of being fired (if not tenured) or can't get over the conflict between their ego and their lack of recognition, so they will readily take a pay hit to work at a more desirable institution if it means they can increase their own prestige.
Post-docs and other grunts will take pennies to work for a slightly more famous institution, because they think the association is vital to getting a faculty job after their post-doc. I'm sure many of them would pay (if they can afford it) to work like crazy for a guy who is famous enough.
Grad students are... Well... Grad students. The typical PhD candidate, when told that his job is essentially slavery, smiles and acts like it's a hilarious joke (even though he acknowledges that it's true). Many grad students already do pay to work like crazy, and not even for famous people.

How do you convince a thrice Nobel prize winner to be professor at your institution and not Next Door U? Pay him an extra grand every month? He's got three Nobel prizes, he doesn't care. And since he doesn't care, you might as well pay him a pittance - and as a nice bonus, you can tell all the other wannabes "Look, even he gets paid so little! Be content with your salary!".
If you ask why professors don't care, the answer is easy: Most people who care about money realize by the time they leave college that becoming a professor is not an optimal strategy for making money. To be a "greedy" professor, one must essentially wake up on their 30th birthday, and suddenly decide that even though all their life they haven't cared about money at all, from now on, money will be their chief concern. People who are old enough to have earned a PhD rarely have their worldviews change overnight so drastically.

Where is the money going?

Short answer: Admin staff, marketing, sports. Things such as cleaning staff and building maintenance are also factors, but crucially they are less dependent on the school budget. Whereas those three mentioned areas will benefit the most from budget increases (but perversely, academic salaries will be harmed the most by budget decreases).
For details: Depends on the university, and may be determined by consulting the annual financial report of the university.

Outside of the US, it is quite hard for professors to get a side activity.

Is there no money going to teaching and science infrastructure?  Am I naïve, is your last answer somewhat cynical, or is the situation more complex than I understand?

@gerrit It's not cynical, it's my objective impression. It depends on how you define "teaching and science infrastructure", but I think with science professors at least, what actually happens is that the professor brings in a large amount of grant money on his own, and the university not only doesn't pay them, but also takes a large cut (50-80%) of the grant money on top of it. In some places, the contract literally says that researchers get no salary and they should arrange grants to cover their own salary.

@BlueTrin In my experience it is very common for professor to do contract work or serve in the executive committee of a company even outside the US. A lot of the professors that don't do this only don't do it because they don't want the extra work, or they are content with their income, not because they are not allowed or don't have the opportunity.

@Superbest I'm aware that part of grant money goes to "overhead", but doesn't the same overhead — along with tuition fees — also pay for buildings, libraries, student labs (chemical labs, computer rooms), and... teaching?

You haven't mention that being a professor is a job desired by a larger group of people than there are positions for. As such outside of the rockstars candidates for the job have only so much ability to demand high pay. The employer could always ask someone else.

@Superbest: maybe I have missed my vocation, I always wanted to study, learn more and then possibly do research but I always thought that professors in France are not paid enough, this is why I went to the private sector.

@dmckee Because that's actually irrelevant beyond the supply/demand angle. There are also many more people who would like to be CEO than there are companies, but CEOs make far more than professors (see also NBA players, movie stars, etc). The question is, how do the elite job seekers decide which job offer is better? CEOs pick whichever one pays most. Professors pick whichever one is "coolest", and money is very rarely a factor in their definition of cool. The selective pressures under which the respective job markets evolve are distinct.

Hm, how about to have money to pay lawyers in case of a lawsuit? Is that something schools do?

@Paxinum I think schools tend to run with a lot of money "in reserve", which is typically invested in stocks and bonds to generate long term income for the university. I imagine emergencies and "acts of god" (consider also earthquake, meteor hitting campus, etc.) would be, at the worst, covered by liquidating some of the investment.

What does HYP stand for?

@FaheemMitha Harvard, Yale, Princeton which are considered top-tier schools in the financial sector.

As a side note: while I agree with this answer in general, it's actually the case that some of the very top US schools (including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, most of the rest of the Ivy League, MIT, Stanford, and some others) are expanding their financial aid programs to the level that a majority of students are paying significantly less than they would at a state school, and a large portion of students are paying nothing. Tuition is a tiny part of the yearly revenue of such wealthy schools.

There are a few false-assumptions that must be clarified, I feel, to answer this question properly.
Why are academic salaries low?
Well, in the US, if you compare them to most citizens of the country they simply are not. Naturally if you compare them only to Hollywood Stars they are paid a pittance, but let's get clear on the facts by the numbers:
In the US the lowest ranking full-time faculty professors receive salaries that are in the top 70% of all wage earners in the US. A full professor pulls in a salary that is in the 86% to 97% percentile of all wage earners over the age of 25 in the US. It also does not hurt that "professor" is consistently found to have some of the highest job satisfaction ratings across all jobs in the country, which certainly makes the job all the more desirable.
This has led to there being more people who want to be a Professor than there are positions available both nationally and internationally.
Why is college tuition high?
Here's the thing, and it isn't always easy to remember this: college education is a durable, long-term investment. And for many - though not all degrees from all institutions - it is still an incredibly lucrative one.
Indeed, college is perhaps the single most amazing investment pathway available to many Americans; it is one of very, very few that does not require you already possess wealth to take advantage of it.
As one nice survey points out rather thoroughly, even a bachelor's degree, on average, cuts your relative risk of unemployment in half (8% to 4%), raises the median earnings over 40 years of work to 65% higher than those who only have a high-school diploma, and many other pleasant benefits. In the worst of economic downturns a person has never, to date, been better off (at least statistically) to not have a college degree.
Further, only 1% of college students take out more than $75,000 in student loans. Now if you are one of those (and one of my friends racked up over $200k)...I'm very sorry, that is one hell of a debt service. But no one suggests that's necessarily financially wise, or at least everyone knows it will be unpleasant.
Fancy Words: Price Discrimination
Most Universities in the US publish reports on this, but for most places I've considered the percentage stated is that 70% of students receive financial aid, and for 40% of students this aid covers all costs to attend (and often extra which is given back to the student to assist in general living expenses). This includes federal student loans, which are provided by the government at artificially low guaranteed rates - and service on the debt is deferable if you are unable to obtain gainful employment.
Bottom line here: this is price discrimination, where some people pay more than others. But just as with the sticker price on a car lot here, most people do not pay as much as the official tuition posted. Endowment Universities, which often have the highest posted tuitions in the whole world (think Harvard, Yale, MIT, etc) regularly cover 80% or more of costs to attend for selected applicants who do not come from a wealthy family.
Some Universities are just still crazy expensive though, but that's a different subject!
College Isn't Just For Academics
It's probably just a minor artifact of wording, but let's be clear: most people who go through college, even through graduate school, do not become employed as academics. Academics are the minority of the population, even for the graduate population. Therefore there are many, many more market factors at play in between the price of tuition and the salary of a full-time academic.
So Where Does The Money Go?
Um...well, everything else, basically. A standard metric of business is 20-30% of a budget is salaries/labor, and the rest is...all the other stuff! Buildings, campuses, food, insurance, chemicals, equipment, computers, various and sundry apparatuses for science and art folks. Then add in advertising/marketing, travel and reimbursable expenses, college libraries, IT infrastructure, maintenance, custodial, utilities, "community involvement"...and we still haven't mentioned the other costs of "research" activities not otherwise included. Then there's the extra-curricular, like sports, clubs, and other supported campus organizations, "student life" and entertainment, "campus development" like building yet more buildings and parking lots to allow expanded enrollment, etc etc etc...
For most public institutions the actual charged cost of tuition to students is less than a quarter of the income required to balance a yearly budget. I must admit to ignorance about private institutions, largely because I have never been involved with them and because their budgets aren't usually made public.

I asked a similar question, and one of the comments was this chart: http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/pa/key/images/chart3.jpg which is specific to U-Mich. I think it adds something to the last part of your answer.

While discussing the survey, you appear to be conflating correlation and causation. I'm not sure if it has been adequately demonstrated that a college degree will increase your quality of life in the ways you have cited.

Just as a comment on your last sentence: the vast majority of public universities are nonprofit organizations and as such are required to release public financial reports.  In the cases I tried, a Google search for "[Institution] financial report" takes me right to it.  I know this is not the same as a detailed budget but it does show how income and spending are distributed across broad categories.

"A full professor pulls in a salary that is in the 86% to 97% percentile of all wage earners over the age of 25 in the US." The statistics in this sentence is misleading. Very few people become professor at age 25. You need to compare the salaries of professors with the average earner at the average age for professors, or better, compare the salaries of professor vs average wage earner at each age range separately.

"A full professor pulls in a salary that is in the 86% to 97% percentile of all wage earners over the age of 25 in the US." And what's your point? 86% to 97% percentile of all wage earners don't have a PhD degree. You should compare a professor's salary with a person in industry also with a PhD degree.

I believe the answer is a combination of a few things.

Easy student loans (as mentioned by nagniemerg in a comment)
More demand from employers for higher ed degrees (because of the large, underutilized labor pool)
Increasing use of adjuncts, which are paid very little (see related question)

So, it's really a combination of more customers being able to afford the product, limited competition due to high barriers of entry, along with teaching labor being cheap because it is abundant.

An increasing fraction of college budgets is being spent on things other than instruction.  Administration is a big part, including management and special programs like various tutor/counseling centers, compliance officers, legal, IT, etc.  Also soaking up money are sports programs, construction costs, scholarships (to raise prestige), advertising, etc.

In theory, the sports programs are supposed to bring in money.  Theories are quite nice, aren't they?

Sports programs use reverse Hollywood accounting to appear to turn a profit despite huge losses every year.

@Jeff - Not all sports do this equally. At a larger school, the basketball team may be a moneymaker, but I wouldn't expect the swim team, the lacrosse team, the baseball team, the ice hockey team, or the polo team to be in the black.

@JR Nice point.  I was thinking mostly about football and basketball, it's true.

Even football and basketball do not pay for themselves.  The sole exception is for top-20 schools, in good years.

The difficulty with assessing the cost of sports, as has been alluded, is that the accounting is opaque, but more importantly there is not agreement over what costs count as "sports". For example, at the several schools I have been at in the U.S., students pay an "athletics fee", which is not tuition. Is this income of the sports program (helping them support themselves) or is it some form of assistance from the academic side of the university? That's just one of many similar questions that come up when trying to find the extent to which sports are self sufficient.

Focusing just on "why is tuition so high", remember that not all schools are the same.
It is true that elite private schools have so many candidates that, if they are willing to just admit anyone qualified who can pay, they can set tuition rates very high and still attract students.
The situation is very different for non-elite public schools in the U.S., e.g. the "regional universities" and "directional schools".  These schools are controlled by states and have a primary mission to educate students from that state. These institutions do need to worry about raising tuition, because their student body is not able to absorb price increases so easily.
Since the 1970s-1980s, there has been a significant reduction in state funding for higher education in the U.S. This is true even for elite public universities; here is a quote from the University of Michigan:

However in the 1960s, state funding made up 80 percent of the U-M’s general fund budget – the budget that pays for the university’s core academic programs. In the coming year, the state appropriation will be around 16 percent of the general fund budget.

The first link above shows that quite a few states are on track, if the current pattern of funding cuts were to continue, to have no funding for public education by 2030-2040.
Non-elite public school are usually not in a position to obtain large amounts of grant funding, compared to elite public schools.  Other sources of income are also difficult.
This does not mean that schools must raise tuition - they could (and do) try to cut costs elsewhere. But at least one factor in rising tuition has been this reduction in state funds.  And the state legislators, who must budget for the entire state, are perfectly aware that the schools can raise tuition, which is sometimes mentioned to the universities as a partial justification for the budget cuts.

Having asked around, it seems that many/typical "top-30 state universities" have only about 11 percent of their budget derived from state funds currently.

Indeed. Besides state funding, federal research grant funding is also much more tight now than (I am told) it was in the 1960s and 1970s - and more schools are competing for it, rather than just research-intensive institutions.

And some top 30 institutions are in the low single figures in terms of percentage of state support.

One reason tuition is so high is so that the institution can charge a variable rate. Many people (in absolute terms, though not as a percentage) are able and willing to pay full tuition, and lower tuition loses those dollars. At the same time, many institutions advertise how large their financial aid awards are, which is essentially providing a discount. Variable pricing strategies of this form are quite common. It's not all that different from a lot of fashion companies: set a seemingly outrageous price because the smart shopper won't pay retail.


text:
Should I mention not completing a Phd in a cover letter?
I am possibly quitting my PhD. I am 2 years into my PhD and now I am writing a cover letter for an opening at a company. My question is, do I mention in the cover letter why I am quitting ? In my CV I just mention what I've done for the past two years and write that the PhD is not complete.
I feel like I need to mention it, because it feels like an elephant in the room. Also to avoid confusion I think I need to mention it. (e.g. They can think I tend to continue working on the PhD while I want to work there).

In some places saying "I want to work with you so much,  that I will quit my PhD to do so." is a plus. And in all places you should put the emphasis on what you have learned NOT why you don't want to pursue it further.

@Piotr Migdal Ok, thx for the tip !

Yes. They are going to see it in your CV anyway and if you say nothing, it just looks like you are trying to hide something and they are going to assume the worst. I would tell them the reasons why I quit (e.g. what to do something applied, ...).

I would say the best place for it is in an interview. The cover letter and resume are meant to get you to that point, they are not there to create doubt about your candidacy. Once you have the interview you can clear out any confusion, but you know they are at least somewhat interested in you because you have the interview.

You don't put your reason for leaving on your resume, this is instead an issue to be addressed in a cover letter and/or the interview itself. Your resume is a positive document, describing your strengths and qualifications and is designed for the sole purpose of landing an interview.
Instead, the appropriate place to explain your current situation and reasons for applying is in the cover letter. Here you summarize your key qualification and why you are applying for the job. Mentioning your ambitions to develop a career taking precedent over your PhD program should explain your resume plenty.

Why not just list it as "Additional Graduate Courses Completed" ....
Then put a list of the courses you completed.
Save the reasoning for the interview.  There are many understandable reasons why people don't complete a Ph.D. {money, time, family, stress, other opportunities, etc. }

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Would several withdrawals (W) affect my chances at graduate school admission
I am an undergraduate math major and I have already had to drop two classes (one due to my mother being sick and other to do with an attendance policy). This semester I'm having trouble with my health and concentrating and debating on dropping two more classes. My GPA is a good 3.9 but if I stay with these classes I am risking a lower GPA (as I am only an upper freshman with 26 credits). I am getting A's in my two other classes. My questions are:
1. How bad are 4 W grades on a transcript when applying for a graduate program in mathematics?
2. Does having documentation saying I dropped due to depression/PTSD help if they can be "attached" to the transcript?
3. If I was able to do well in my GRE would that help soften the blow of a W grade?
Thanks. I appreciate any answers. I have only two days to drop with a letter grade W.
P.S. I am at City University of New York if that makes a difference and plan on going to grad school there too. I realize that my question is similar to How do some Ws on transcripts affect PhD admissions in mathematics? but it does not address GRE scores playing a role and whether documentation helps?

I had a number of W's. No one's ever asked about them ever: mathematics grad school admission at the same institution, job interviews, social interactions, ever.

@DanielR.Collins Thanks for the reply. Can you tell me around how many Ws you had and where you applied? BTW it's completely ok if you don't feel like answering that question. I realize it could be difficult online. Nonetheless thanks.

I had about 4, maybe -- I tended to register for about 7 classes each semester and drop my least-favorite. This was at a state university.

FWIW, I disagree that this question is a duplicate of the other one, which asked about four W's in the freshman year. This asks about four Ws, three of which are due to "illness." Unless you make the case that "illness" is as "localized" as "freshman."

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


text:
Explaining academic probation as an undergrad on PhD application, after doing well in masters
There is another answer sort of regarding this topic Academic dismissal from PhD program. What next? . but my situation is different.
I am currently completing applications for PhD programs in Economics and Statistics.  I have a Masters degree in Economics from which I just graduated.
I absolutely love these two fields and want to continue with a career in research.  When I was an undergrad though I had a lot of trouble and was put on academic probation.  It was 3 years ago, and I feel that I have matured a lot since (I did very well in masters program GPA: 3.77), but I do not know how to explain it on my applications.
Some schools specifically ask for you to do so.  Others do not.  The later are the most challenging since I do not know whether or not to even mention it in other materials (such as the Statement of Purpose).
I can say that I managed to turn it around for two reasons

I developed an incredible passion for econometrics that kept me motivated to perform.
I learned how to work with others more productively.  I developed specific areas in which I was very strong, like statistical programming, and because I was willing to help others with their work (mostly students but a few faculty too), I would receive help from them as well in areas I was weak.

It is a shame that I have this on my record, because I feel I would make a great fit for some of these programs, and believe I have a lot to offer.  Any advice on how to approach this issue would be appreciated.  Thank you

I think you know the answer to this: it's what you just told us. If I read that on an application, I'd nod and keep going, my concerns fully assuaged. (I've read similar, and still recommended admission of the applicants in question.)
If, however, I saw a bunch of lousy grades and a probation notation on an undergraduate transcript with no explanation of what happened and what's different now, that would be a huge red flag for me even considering the better graduate-school record. I would wonder whether the applicant would crash and burn again, and what else the applicant might be hiding from us.
Face it head-on, the way you just did here. I can't guarantee it'll be fine, but I think it's by far the best of your available alternatives. People aren't perfect and they grow over time; we know that, and a lot of us are not averse to second chances. If you learned from what went wrong and put it behind you, that's what we need to know.

Faculty are people too: they know that stuff happens, and they know that someone who has fallen once will not necessarily fall twice. What we look for in applications is evidence that they are motivated now. You may not know this, but a sizable fraction of successful applicants had a bad year on their transcript. If it was their last year, that's typically a killer; if it was the first or second year and they've demonstrated since then that they have overcome these difficulties, we typically don't care much about the bad year.

I'd look more at your last performance (master's) than what came before. And if you did OK in the later, I'd turn a blind eye (at least mostly) to previous performance.
Don't worry too much. just go ahead and complete the paperwork. But keep in mind that nothing is guaranteed, keep other options open. Just in case.


text:
Back to academia for physics after M. Sc. In mathematics and 4 years working
I need your advice. Have a Msc in Math from a decent uni, that I got around 4 years ago. I am working in London at the moment but I really can't stand it any longer. What I want is to go back to uni for a second master in physics and hopefully go on to get a phd. I can go anywhere in europe, but a place that would welcome me even without recommendation letters and being a bit older than the average student would be better. Any good uni to suggest? Alternatives?
Really hope to read some suggestions. You can be specific.

First of all, I would say that you need to be sure on which are your academia aims in the mid-long term. If you really want to aim for a PhD and you already have a Msc, it might not be very useful for you to aim for a second one (unless, of course you really, REALLY want to). Groups nowadays are pretty interdisciplinary and having multiple background in a lab is not only allowed, but welcomed.
That said, coming back to academia, even after a long period, should not be a problem. Nowadays most grants are milestone-base (that is, x years after finishing the degree, the PhD...) so even as an older PhD student you shouldn't have any problem. At the end, all that matters is that you can convince a PI that you can bring some expertise to the lab, and, if you are eligible for grants the better. The recommendation letter part... that might be complicated. Even if it is not directly from your last employer, you might need something... maybe from your advisor during the master thesis?
If you are looking specifically for suggestions, and you are OK with moving around Europe, at this point I would suggest to search for opportunities in Switzerland. For all intents and purposes it works as a European-associated country, it has pretty high scientific standards and also offers quite good conditions for PhD students. This last part, specially I can tell having done my PhD in Spain where investment in science is not a priority.
This, of course, depends on your fields and topics of interest, but I would give some thought to the EPFL and the ETH, the two federal universities in the country. They are very welcoming to foreign students and offer quite good opportunities. As it is out of my field, I don't know about good groups focusing on the field of physics, but I'm quite sure that with a bit of search you might find some interesting labs.
hope this helps!

Hi, thanks for the answer. my master thesis advisor is completely unreachable.

I like what you wrote but I thought those universities were amazingly selective and I am afraid I would not convince any PI that I can really contribute without references

That might depend on the PI, but it does not help not having them, that's for sure. I guess you can try to compensate that with a better than average face-to-face. That will require preparation and really being up to date with the topics of the lab you want to apply (this I mean in a much broader way, not only for the places I suggested). If you really pick the interest of a PI, there are always ways to go around the references. But it won't be an easy task.

That's why I would feel more comfortable with a master first. My doubt is whether or not my luck of references would keep me out of a masters too

I see... well... that.. you really cannot predict. But I understand, then, your aim with the master. It could definitively ease the transition.

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


text:
Is it acceptable to criticise papers when writing a related work section
When writing a paper it is important to discuss related work. I am working on a problem where two research fields meet. When I did a literature review I noticed that related papers often omit important information or write important information ambiguously. I can understand that this is a problem where two research field meet and that there are two sides of the problem. I believe that in most of these papers relevant information is only given for research field "A" but not "B". Nevertheless methods from research field "B" are used for which the information is not (clearly)  given and thus I would never be able to reproduce the results. Therefore when writing my related literature section I was wondering if it is acceptable if I mention these problems for the papers I discuss ?
To be clear, this is not about confidential information, so the authors always choose to do it this way, or are not aware of what they are doing.

Think about relevance to your results
Is the particular criticism relevant to the point of your paper ?
For example "The method described in paper X works only in dry conditions, so for researching dolphin behavior it's not useful and we used a different approach described in chapter 4" is a relevant criticism and should be included.
"Paper X is a very poor and ambiguous description of the method using obsolete terminology, I had to read it five times and refer to a Klingon-English dictionary before understanding how it works" is not relevant, as most likely none of your conclusions would be based on such a sentence.    It would be relevant only if your paper is a meta-study on the readability of scientific articles, or if your paper is about historical changes in commonly used terminology in your subfield, where the faults of other papers is the topic of your research.

It is more strategic (for your career) to say what they did and then talk about how other work expanded on that, rather than focus on what they didn't or failed to do. You never know when someone from that field will end up reviewing your work.
For example, you can say "Decades of work from B has implicated the involvement of X in Y. Research from A further suggests that the influence of X on Y is mediated by Z. However, many questions about the underlying mechanisms remain unresolved."
That way, you hint that although the work from B is extensive, it is not conclusive.

Yes. This is a great way of pointing out the "research gap" that you are addressing.


text:
How to deal with premature student questions during a lecture which will be covered in a subsequent slide?
I teach a group of bright students who will interrupt the material presentation with questions that will be answered in the next slide or sentence.  I appreciate that they are thinking ahead but I have times when I just need to get the information out there and then discuss it when everyone has had time to process.
What advice can you give me? What are best practices for this?

Are these questions coming from all of the students in the class or just one or two? I've known students who would consistently ask those questions more to show the instructor how bright they are than because they are interested in the answer. For the others in the class who also know the answer and know its coming up in the next slide, those guys get annoying really quick.

Coming from the students perspective, sometimes we ask because we're not sure what direction you're headed and don't want to wait until the question is no longer relevant.

From the perspective of another student. I have lots of questions that I want to ask my professor but I wait till the end of class and I think you should encourage your students to do the same. Sometimes, some students are really excited about something and they wanna know the answer now but if you explain to them that most of their questions will be answered by the end then they will understand and if not, then you can just ask them to follow up at the end. It saves you time and other students who are really aren't interested.

As a suggestion, maybe tell students to write down questions so they won't forget, then wait until the end of class to ask. This both solves your problem and helps them learn the material as writing is known to increase retention ability. EDIT: You may also want to create appropriate intervals for questions throughout the class.

I don't think there are ever times when you "just need to get the information out there". What I think you mean is that there is information there that they or other students may still be missing and that you don't want to skip. Well, you can just say that. Jumping depth-first through the material in reply to questions would quickly produce chaos. I'm sure they understand that, too. So it's perfectly fine to say "hold that thought, I'm coming to that in a minute".

Similar to agweber, I occasionally did this because what was said really didn't make sense due to missing information - and it should have been presented in a different order (This usually would happen in a physics class).  I'd bring it up right away because it always looked like they made a mistake, and there was no hint that they'd return to it.

@MirroredFate Some students see that as a sign that you don't care about the question, especially when they feel that the material of the question should be addressed before half the class has left the classroom.

Another option that I saw once and I thought was, frankly, pretty great:
In my Introduction to Logic class my professor taught from Powerpoint slides, and the slide was divided into two sections, the main section on the left, and a small column on the right. The column on the right was titled "Questions You Probably Have" and was exactly that. Underneath each question in bold it either said "Next slide!" or "Ask me!"  And so, inevitably, people would ask the "Ask Me!" questions and he would click the "Ask me!" link and it would jump to a tangential slide and he would go into the details.
And if someone asked him something not on the slide, he would always say, "Great question!", give the questioner a bonus point on the next exam (even though he did this no one abused it, I'm sure he had a plan if they had, but it was another amazing thing he did), And as he answered it he would scribble a few notes. Before the next class, he would show us the new slide he'd created (or the new text in the next slide) for that question and ask us if it made sense now.
Basically, as a shortcut method it covered all three of the core issues this sort of thing entails:

"Here's what's coming up next."
"Yes, yes, you are very clever for thinking of that."
Getting a coherent lesson together that encourages feedback.

Also, it was kind of meta and spooky when the slides really would predict questions I'd have, when really it was just the material presented itself the same to hundreds of other people before me.

Darn it! No more LaTeX?

@SimonKuang You could do it just as well in LaTeX.

I think it is good to have students feel free to ask questions. I often get similar question in lectures and just answer by either moving to the next slide and continue the lecture with a "good question, I was just getting to that" or "good question, I will get to that in a moment". The result of that is hopefully that students get more and more comfortable with you covering material and with that security questions may actually decrease over time. yes, it is frustrating some times but it means the students are concentrating on your lecture and that is really what you want so don't change.
One can of course ask oneself what is causing the questions. Is it that the material could be presented in a better way (order). use the comments to reflect on the way you present the material and try to see if you can "defuse" such questions by some re-organization.
One practical matter is to make sure your present the core points first before discussing how you arrive there. Then the route will be more clear and the wait for the culmination avoided. I am of course not certain this is valid in your case but you can consider approaching the train of thought in a different way than "normal".
With time (running the lectures a couple of times) you probably get a good picture of what are repeating questions and you can actually use them in your lecture by saying "you may now wonder why [something] and I will get back to that in a moment" (or what may be appropriate. Do not be afraid to experiment!

I have recently been taught that "good question" should not be stated.  Is the next question bad if this one is good but the next one doesn't get a "good question"?  If my question isn't as good, should I avoid asking it?  I'm not sure about my question - what if the teacher tells me "bad question"; maybe I shoudln't ask.

@atk: You could take the approach of one professor I once had, who would immediately say "very good point" whenever any question was asked. Unfortunately, we caught on pretty fast that that's what he was doing, because there was a significant language barrier, so half the time, after complimenting the question, he would have to ask the student to repeat and/or rephrase it. Awkward!

@ruakh: reminds me of a math lecturer who would answer any yes-or-no question with "In some sense, yes", and then proceed to definitively show why the answer was "no" (without ever saying so)

When I get such questions from my students, I always answer the same way: "I am so glad you asked that!"
I think it's a mistake to view such questions as a negative phenomenon that should be avoided and prevented. For one thing, the question shows that the student is paying attention and drawing the proper conclusions. But consider the benefit to all the other students, those who might not have formulated the question yet: the question serves as proof that what you're teaching is useful.
Consider two alternatives (using an example from computer programming):

Teacher: And that's how you let a user input a number.
Student: What if you want to take many numbers from the user? Do you have to copy and paste the same code over and over?
Answer A: Please save your questions until after I show you loops.
Answer B: I'm so glad you asked that! Avoiding copy and pasting code is an important habit for computer programmers. So let's talk about loops...

The student's question served as a perfect setup for the next lesson, and in a way that convinces other students that the lesson is practical and necessary. It's like teaching with the Socratic method ("why is this useful? ... because it..."), except that you have an accomplice in the audience instead of having to talk to yourself.

Haha I hope you vary "I'm so glad you asked that!". That could be kinda repetitive. Maybe swap in "Excellent question" or "Interesting idea" every once in a while.

@MirroredFate: if it happens multiple times in a lesson I have my own script for ramping it up, along the lines of "Another perfect question," "This class is the greatest, you keep setting me up," etc. (I have an "enthusiasm is contagious" approach)

@MirroredFate Retrieving a pseudo-random element from an array is not covered until later in the semester. ;)

@BrianDHall "...but I am so glad you brought it up!"

You stated the question very well: you want to lower the number of 'easy questions' (the ones that are natural at this point), but not discourage them to ask questions altogether. Apart from the usual 'we will get there in a moment' response I see two ways of doing it.
If you think it is seriously needed you could have a conversation with them about it. You say they are bright students so they probably will see the value in restraining themselves a bit. You could possibly formulate some sort of policy:

It is always OK to ask a question immediately if there is something that you did not understood.
If you have a question of curiosity (like 'but mam, if that is true what does it imply for X?') then you could wait a bit.

If you do that and pause regularly enough (may be not once per lecture but 10 to 15 minutes) so they can ask their questions, then they will not be frustrated yet allow you to deliver the course without too many interruptions.

Discouraging students from thinking about the implications of what you're teaching seems dangerous to me.

I find that when I interrupt people, it's often because I know that if I wait until there's a lull, I'll have forgotten my question.
For people without faulty memory, it's still a good habit not to blurt out a question the moment it pops into your head. I find that most of my questions are answered if I just hold on to them for a minute or two.
In a formal classroom setting, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask students to hold their questions until you've finished talking (or, if you can remember, when you prompt for questions). For those, like me, who can't hold on to a thought for more than five seconds, there is pencil and paper...

How about giving a summarized, quick answer and then saying "I'll have more details soon"
Personally, if someone asks me a question and there's a "summary version" I like to give that at least give that summary info.
I think it's worth experimenting with. I wish I had an example. Well here's a the basic idea:

Student: "Is there a difference between how we see stars and planets
  in the sky?"
Professor: "Yep, one of these celestial objects twinkles. Reflect on
  that , and I'll give the full monty after I finish this."

I totally realize it can be annoying/vexing to be a little derailed, but if we want to accommodate the curious students, we may be best served by giving them a snap-shot/summary/challenging-yet-telling answer without feeling derailed. The fact is that a snap-answer of "I'll get to that soon" is a little useless. Well at least to me
Good luck, no doubt instructing is an art!

From my experience, most questions are due to the need to feel clever.. less are due to the need to understand more. In both cases, instructor has to appreciate the question. Whether or not you will immediately answer, is a different issue from having to making the student feel appreciated.
Psychology is an important part of learning. Hence, it is an essential part of teaching is to make students feel good. Your immediate response must be positive:

Good question
I like it when you think ahead
That is the right question; congrats
etc

Then, it depends on your judgement if you want to answer immediately, or simply say:

your answer is coming up in a moment
stay tuned
etc

alternatively, some people defer questions to the end of session. That has more negatives than positives. I prefer to keep them engaged and encourage them to challenge my ideas.

I would try to find out whether it's due to:

a structural problem in the lecture,
students trying to demonstrate to each other that they are clever, or
the students' eagerness to work with the material.

If it's the first, the questions will focus on the basics to understand it and it's important to address them. Perhaps restructure the lecture to address them first. I'd check which questions were asked when and whether I could improve the thread of the presentation.
If it's the second or the third, it might help to ask the students to write down those questions that are not immediately relevant for understanding what is said, but more for application and borderline cases or whatever. You can do a question "break" after each unit -- indicated by a special slide that also summaries the previous material. It will take some work to enforce the rule change, but the questions break might allow the smarter students to play with the material and the slower ones time to process what was said. And once students trust you that you do this they might refrain from interrupting. A good "table of contents" or advance organizer in the beginning of the lecture might also help.
One last thing, when it comes to questions, there's rarely a need to pick the students immediately. Just nodding that you have seen the question and continuing until you come to a break might also work. (If you acted differently beforehand, it might be necessary to explicitly explain the change to the class.) After a couple of "Thanks, you already answered the question." the interruptions could reduce.

I agree with all the other answers, but I would make one more very practical suggestion: Consider putting more material on your slides! If you have 50 slides and students are always asking about material on the next slide, then putting it onto 25 slides will remove half the instances of this.
Of course, this can be taken too far, but it is worth considering.

Careful! Most people make their slides WAY too crowded.

Alternatively, make sure that your slides are available beforehand so that the keen students can read them beforehand and will know what's coming up so won't need to ask about it.

Alternatively, make sure that your slides are available beforehand ... so that they think they don't have to come to class?

@JeffE if they feel they don't have to come to class: either they're wrong, and they'll pay for it; or they're right…


text:
Textbook publisher offers to pay me for a comparative review of textbooks
I'm currently teaching a fairly large introductory class,
with about 500 students per semester (spread across multiple sections).
Recently, I received an e-mail from McGraw-Hill Education
offering me a few hundred USD to complete a comparative review
of our current textbook (also McGraw-Hill)
and another McGraw-Hill textbook.
I am not sure what to make of this.
On the one hand,
it definitely sounds nice to me
to spend an hour or two to look through a new textbook,
and write a comparative review,
and be somewhat well compensated for my time.
On the other hand,
it feels like they are trying to "bribe" me
to adopt another textbook,
which may perhaps be more profitable for them
than our current recommended textbook.
Should I be wary about taking the money and accepting this offer?
Is there something unethical about this?
Also, would my university be upset about such an arrangement?
I suspect this would happen at most once a year,
if it indeed happens in the future.

All you've said is that they're offering you money to read and review the book. You haven't said that they've offered you money to use the book in your teaching and then read the review. It sounds more like they're trying to incentivise you to read the book, in the hope that you'll review it favourably and adopt it in your own teaching. To me, that's far from bribing you to adopt the book.

Just from an IT perspective: did this email include someone at McGraw-Hill you can contact to ensure it's not a phishing attempt?

@tonysdg Good question. I did a quick Google search and it seems that the person who sent me the e-mail has a LinkedIn account that looks real. If she gets back to me, I will try to verify that she indeed works there, before I spend the time to review the textbooks in detail.

I see nothing fundamentally unethical about this. It would become unethical if the request included a requirement that you adopt a particular book, or that you write something that pleases them. But by itself, requesting a review and paying you for it does not seem wrong to me -- they may simply be interested to hear from people in the trenches how these two books compare.


text:
How does time off for a serious illness affect funding and duration of PhD?
I am a PhD student from India studying in the UK and I have been diagnosed with Hepatitis B during my recent visit to India. The sad part is that it is a recurrence of the disease as I contracted it before my PhD and had to delay my PhD for a few months in the beginning.
Now that I have been diagnosed with it again, I'm afraid of telling my supervisor and sponsors about it as I feel they might cancel the funding as I have such a recurrent problem.
I say this because my project is funded by a German company who are a stickler for time and want me to finish my work on time as there have been enough delays.
I also took 2 months off in the summer to work on a separate research project outside of my PhD to build experience. It was not taken nicely by the company but I went anyway as I had a very good first year viva and report. I took it with the thought that I would make up the time by working extra once I get back and my supervisor supported me in this regard. Plus, UK PhD students are allowed 6-8 weeks off during their PhD for holidays and I haven't taken any time off since except to visit India for a conference, which has led to my predicament.
I feel completely lost and I do not know what to do.
What I exactly want to know is, If its normal for PhD students to take time off for illnesses? Can sponsors withdraw funding in that event? How does it affect the time of the PhD?

IMHO the 2 months off paragraph does not add anything to the quesiton.

Ok, I thought explaining my situation completely might be helpful. Should i remove it?

I have explained what my questions are. Sorry, but this is my first forum post.

Great, the question is much clearer now!

@ff524 As the OP has a sponsor through a UK institute, I think there must be some regulations that governs his relation with the sponsor which makes it more towards the UK system.

@seteropere Got it. Before the edit I wasn't sure if this was more of a "How do I tell my advisor" or "How do I keep this from ruining my research progress" type of question, which would not be UK-specific.

Here in Sweden, the time you are sick doesn't count towards your limit, and they definitely cannot fire you for being sick. I would imagine the situation in the UK would be similar, so you should probably ask at your institution for the legal details. This you can surely do in a completely confidential way, if you want. Also, I think your advisor should be your best ally here.

@davidmh do you have any suggestions on who to contact before I talk to my supervisor? I'm quite scared to ask him as I feel I've pushed him quite a lot already. Thanks!

@ArunPrasad Make sure to get all necessary documents that testify about your sickness, therapy and possible hospitalization in India. Also, since it is a serious disease, perhaps it is mandatory to take some time off (for therapy) before you can return to work.

Are you still currently in India or back at Uni? I would seriously suggest going into the Dean of Students and asking them in there. They should be a confidential service too. If they are anything like the Dean of Students at the UEA, they should be very helpful about what to do, and find anything out for you.

@Thebonebed I'm currently in India recovering. So, I have no option to go in to the dean. I do have the blood tests and documentation but I'm just wondering whether this would affect my funding adversely?

@Davidmh - Why do you say "they definitely cannot fire you for being sick"?  Under UK law, companies are normally allowed to fire employees if the company needs to hire someone to fill in for the sick, absent employee.  Study is different, but since the money is put up with a company that wants deliverables on time, maybe not that different in this case.

I'm at Simon Fraser University in Canada, but I've recently been dealing with this issue as I'm involved with our grad student association, so I wanted to respond to your question. If you don't change your registration status in any way, your semesters will almost certainly count against you in every way imaginable -- everyone thinks you're making progress and there is nothing to say otherwise. You should look into your university's 'on leave' policy, as that will be the formal mechanism that allows other allowances to take place. Here, leave for medical reasons will require going through your supervisor (and in turn, a faculty committee), but is essentially always granted, so I hope that works the same where you are.
Unfortunately, funding entities likely have their own, probably very specific, rules, so it's unlikely any general advice would cover them.
Ultimately, I highly recommend taking formal leave (i.e. changing your registration status), because various negative effects will likely accrue otherwise.

I'm at a UK university. In my institution, which almost certainly doesn't have the same regulations as all, there are two distinct issues.
First, the university regulations around PhD candidature. Here, you can suspend your studies which "stops the clock" on your PhD with absolutely no come-back (formally). There is a maximum length of time for this (from memory, a total of 18 months) after which it becomes a "fitness to study" matter. But initially I would always recommend that a student suspends until they are well enough to continue.
Second, the issues around the funding for your PhD. There are (at least) two possibilities here, and you'll need to carefully read your contract/offer letter to see which applies to you. In the first case, the company is paying the university in general, or your supervisor in particular, for the research. In this case it is their responsibility to get the work done on time, not yours. The university and its staff has to work within its own regulations regarding sick leave. I would be astonished if those regulations could force you to work whilst seriously ill. [I would not be at all astonished if some within the university would try to make you work when ill, outwith the regulations]
In the second case, you are (possibly partially) directly funded by the company. In that case the contract may have clauses about "funding subject to suitable progress". However, as commenters have mentioned, that again has to be judged within UK employment law. Here it is more complex, but I would expect that sick leave regulations would again apply as normal.
Bottom line: I would recommend to tell your supervisor and graduate school as soon as possible, to suspend your studies until able to work again, and to contact your union / student union / student support people if there is any trouble about this.

Yes, my contract does have the statement,  "Please note that stipend payments are subject to satisfactory attendance and academic progression and may be stopped at any time if a student is deemed not to be meeting these requirements." Does this mean that funding can be cut short due to lack of attendance due to illness? I feel so lost! Thank you for your time.

I would have thought not, provided you tell them about the illness. Non-attendance or participation without telling them is risky. I'd definitely get the union involved if possible.

I don't want it to be blown out of proportion. I'll just tell my supervisor and take it from there. Thank you so much.

You may be interest to see university of Manchester's sick leave policy for PhD students.
I suspect the main points will be similar for other UK institutions, although details may vary.
Relevant points are:

You may suspend you studies due to sickness for a maximum of 12 months throughout your studies.
For industry funded PhDs payment of stipend will depend on regulations of funder, so you may not get paid sick leave.
You must get a medical certificate to certify you are ill.

Personally I would just tell you supervisor that you are ill and explain the situation to them.
However, if you are not comfortable telling them immediately other people you could contact are your student union welfare rep/graduate school rep or most places also have a student advice centre or similar. These should be able to tell you/find out the specific regulations for you institution and assist you if your supervisor is awkward.

Well, I am currently at home and recovering. I have a medical certificate, but I'm scared to send it in as I'm worried they would kick me off the program. I feel I'm getting depressed and it is crippling my recovery as well. I do not care about paid sick leave. I am worried about whether they will cut the funding altogether. They are a big company and I have only shown good progress so far, so logically, I suppose they would be spending more money and effort on another student. However, I'm extremely scared as I feel quite lost.

Also, my funding letter states "Please note that stipend payments are subject to satisfactory attendance and academic progression and may be stopped at any time if a student is deemed not to be meeting these requirements." Does this mean that funding can be cut short due to lack of attendance due to illness?

Normally if you are genuinely ill it is not a major issue, it is not slow progress. The progression is about poorly performing students.

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


text:
Should I list campaign consulting on my CV? (the campaign I consulted for was Republican)
I am going on the job market this fall and I am updating my CV before I send it out to search committees.
One area of my work and experience has me somewhat worried. I am a postdoc statistician, I am interested in policy, and currently advise a US congressional campaign on using their data. This work is primarily predicative modeling, descriptive statistics, and geographic information systems modeling.
Now my questions are two-fold:

Is it worth listing this experience on my CV?
Should I omit the fact that it is for the Republican party?

My concern is that a search committee member might view my consulting work as a statement on my personal ideology.

What sort of department are you applying for? an applied stats program or Poli Sci program would likely like your experience.

My concern is that a search committee member might view my consulting work as a statement on my personal ideology Is it not? I don't know this field at all but I, for one, wouldn't work for a politician I disagreed with. Is it typical in your field to do that?

If the experience is related to your academic work then yes, you should list it. Ideally, the party you worked for shouldn't matter, though our politics in the US is very polarized. So, while I likely disagree with your policy stances, should that affect how I view you professionally?
No, it should not, and many would fight against the tendency to view you negatively, but not all. And while many might not consider it disqualifying, some might consider it a negative factor. Of course this is all true if you had worked for a different party as well.
There is no need to specify which party you worked for, though it may be obvious from any letters of recommendation. Be honest if asked, of course.
On the other hand, if you are viewed as very political then polarization would be a bigger factor.

Two additional thoughts came to mind a bit late.
First, if you are volunteering, rather than a paid consultant, there would be no need to mention it as it is more part of your private, than professional, life.
But in general, it is almost always an error to hide anything from your past. People don't normally react well when the learn the truth.

After reading this question, I was planning to leave an answer, but this one covers everything I would have said.  +1.


text:
Effect of a guest semester in graduate school admissions in Mathematics?
I go to an Asian undergraduate school. It is probably the third best place to do undergraduate mathematics in my country. Which means it is basically unknown to graduate admissions committees in top 6 schools in the US. Still, alumni of my school have gone to Chicago, Michigan, Maryland, UCLA, Northwestern etc. There is another school in my country. This is very well known abroad and their alumni have gone in the best of graduate programs. There is an exchange program between this and my school. I can do a semester or two in this school in my 4th year (Mine is 5 year integrated BS-MS course.)
However I am unsure how graduate schools - especially top 6 - would view this.
I have some evidence that this won't have a drastic effect on my application.
The other school also has a MSc program in Math. Every year few people get top grades in that. But no one of them get good PhD positions. Apparently only BSc graduates get amazing offers.
If I take the most advanced graduate courses in two semesters in that school will I be comparable to their BSc graduates who go to top programs and how would faculty there view this ?

It's surely not going to harm your application in any way, and it will probably help a bit (even if it doesn't help ypur admission, it will help you as a mathematician). So I say go for it.

I can't think of any reason why this would be negative; moreover it can help you develop as a scientist significantly.

First of all, UChicago is a top-6 school, with a great grad program.
The other places you've mentioned are also good places for doing graduate studies, with many graduates getting NSF postdoc grants and getting into good places.
Second, some Chinese schools are known in the West (definitely Tsinghua and Peking, I personally also know some faculty in Fudan and Sichuan). You need to understand that someone from a lesser known school would always be in a disadvantage compared to say graduates of good US universities, as I would not necessarily know the letter-writers and how to evaluate them accordingly (being top of class is nice, but I need to know about the class). This is relevant even for people from the best schools in China, as not all the faculty of even the schools I have mentioned are widely known in the west.
Considering the fact that there are ~100 places in the top-6 grad programs per year, and you are competing with the best graduates of US universities, Canadian universities and some European, Israeli and Indian universities, you see that it is EXTREMELY HARD to get into those programs, even for really good students, and a lot of this rides on your letters of recommendation and pure luck.
I would say that your best strategy would be to transfer to the better school as soon as possible (and obviously don't do the 5 year program, maybe only the first 3 years for BSc and then move to the better school for the MSc), as this will raise your chances, as you will be able to write the name of the better school on your CV later with the MSc degree. Moreover, doing grad courses (and hopefully some research) there will get you recommendations from professors at the better school, so most likely they are better known.
Anyhow, especially with your remark about the master graduates, I suspect the graduate program is not very good/not perceived like one in the West, so it is best to move to other places even for the masters as soon as possible.
If you want even more chances, pull out your cheque book and go to Princeton (I personally believe that you will get better mathematical education for BSc in Tsinghua, but it will be hard to deny a good letter from a Princeton professor, simply the way it is).
I don't think that continuing asking this question with epsilon-changes any week will help you or be productive.
A lot of good mathematicians got their education from not top-6 schools.
There are many upsides for going to top-6 schools, but also some downsides.
Again, if you are not happy where you are, you should move ASAP, and definitely not stay there for 5 years, as this will lead to depression and for you being counter-productive.
Good luck.


text:
What are the disadvantages of a Top-up undergraduate degree
Can I use a top-up degree to apply for a Master's program?
I enrolled in a Top-up degree program after graduating with a Third class degree in Bachelor of Science in Physics. I am wondering if I can apply for a Master's degree program with a transcript of the Top-up degree and the Bachelor of Science degree.

What is a top-up degree programm: https://www.ukstudyonline.com/what-is-a-top-up-degree/ (hopefully all the informations contained there are true).
It looks like it is a very specific program to very specific situations in the UK. How many open positions descriptions are asking for a HND degree? for a full b degree?

Can you explain to non-native English speakers what is a top-up degree? Is it a specifically American concept?

@Miguel - it is not an American thing. Looks UK specific?

No. It does not. It results in disorientation because a particular University outside of the Russian Federation accepts the 120ECTS credits units earned in the TopUp degree for a Master's degree program.
Do I understand that acceptance of the TopUp degree is University specific?

I think you will find most western universities do not understand the meaning of different Russian degrees.

If you want to find out if your degree will help you reach your goal, the best (but still imperfect) source of information is other people who got that degree.

Universities have some freedom in defining (and waiving) admission criteria.
I am sure that you will get a better guidance by contacting the admission office of the universities you are interested, rather than asking strangers on the internet :) .
Said this, you can always do this survey yourself and afterwards write here the answer to your own question, so you will help all the people that may have the same problem and they may find the solution here.

I am wondering why a University in Russia is not considering my application for a Master's program because I accomplished the top-up degree in six semesters.

@PoppaDynasty only that university can answer you.

This does not answer the question, does it?


text:
What to do if a professor with whom I have worked with for a long time is unable to provide a letter of recommendation for medical reasons?
I have been working with a professor for almost 2 years of my undergraduate degree and shared a nice bond with them. The work done under this professor is the soul of my Statement of Purpose and how it led to work in this field. However, due personal medical reasons, the professor will not be able to give me the letter of recommendation. The problem is I have mentioned the project under the professor as an ongoing research project (I will be submitting it for publication soon) in my CV. Like not getting letter of recommendation from this professor will hurt my applications for grad school? Should I modify the Statement of Purpose in this case?

I fear that people will wonder why you didn't get a letter from that professor... and "for personal reasons they will not be able to give a letter" will not be a satisfying explanation. At the same time, your project is a big part of your accomplishments... Leads me to attempt a re-frame of your question... isn't it possible to overcome the obstacles and have that professor write you a letter?

You need to explain a bit more about the "personal reasons" that "make it impossible" etc. As it is, the answer is "it depends...". Is it a conflict? Is the professor incapacitated? What???

@Buffy Due to some medical reasons the professor will not be able to give the LOR?

If your other letter-writers know that this professor cannot write a letter for you because of a medical condition, ask them to mention this fact in their letters.

Get letters from others. You can't change what is. However, you can also give this professor's name somewhere, suggest that they probably support you and give permission to contact them if desired. You might also mention that they have a medical condition. Since their field aligns with your plans you could say in your SoP that you have worked with them extensively.
You could also, perhaps mention the issue to another professor or the department chair. If another professor mentions the medical issue it might help. But giving permission is probably required on your part so that it doesn't seem like you are hiding something and to conform with some rules covering admissions committees.

Thanks a lot for your suggestions! One more doubt: should I mention this in my Statement of Purpose? Or should I mention it in my CV as "References" with the Email ID and details of the professor? @Buffy

You can mention the project(s) in the CV with the supervisor's information, but the permission to contact should be elsewhere.


text:
Why do reviewers need to be selected again for a revised paper?
I submitted a paper to a marketing journal and the reviewers recommended a major revision and a minor revision. I had to shorten the text and get professional help for proofreading. I addressed the every single comment of reviewers.
Now, it is in the “Awaiting Reviewers Selection” mode once again. Does anybody explain why the journal editor needs to select new reviewers at this step of review process?

It seems you've asked some new questions in this post. On this website (actually, this family of websites), it is generally preferred that you put new questions into a new post, since we prefer to have only one question per post. To briefly answer your questions here, if one or more of the previous reviewers requested major revisions, this typically results in the reviewers begin sent your revised manuscript. You can also thoroughly read the answer of Wrzlprmft below, where they have addressed some of your other questions.

"...he/she will possibly have new suggestions/comments. Isn't that unfair?"  It is not a contest where you try to get something past them.  It is a cooperation to make the paper better.

Also note that we probably cannot answer your new questions. Both answers provide a selection of possible explanitions but we have no idea what is plausible in your case and thus cannot tell you what is actually happening.

If you submit a revised paper to a journal, usually a few things happen before it is sent to the reviewers:

The paper is checked for trivial problems such as broken links or missing figures.
The editor at least superficially checks whether you addressed the reviewers’ comments appropriately. For example if you did not address a comment the editor considers to be major, the paper may be returned to you immediately without review.
The editor decides whether all reviewers from the previous round are required to review the manuscript again. For example, if the editor thinks that you addressed all remarks of one reviewer appropriately, sending the manuscript to this reviewer again may be considered a waste of everybody’s time.
In some situations, the editor may refrain from reüsing a reviewer from the previous round for other reasons, e.g., because this reviewer is known to be unavailable.
In some situations, the editor may select additional reviewers, e.g., if in light of the first two reviews, the editor wanted a third opinion anyway, but wanted to give you the opportunity to reviese your manuscript before this.

Depending on the editiorial management system, some or all of these points may be comprised in Awaiting Reviewers Selection. Or with other words: It may as well mean Awaiting Editor’s Assessment.
Another possibility is that the manuscript was already sent to the existing reviewers but one of them declined to review very quickly and now the editor has to select a new reviewer.

I think that two explanations are possible:

(At least on of) the reviewers did not agree to review the paper again. This can happen, as a reviewer you are not obligated to review a revision.
The status on the webpage does not reflect the actual status the paper is in. E.g., the actual status might be 'paper lying on the editor's desk, collecting dust'.

+1 for the first - there are some journals I review for where you can opt out of this on your first review. And then even if you don't, there's no promise the revision won't come at a really bad time for you.

Another possibility is their system requires someone to push it through at this point, too, and any "new paper" automatically gets that status.

The "Awaiting reviewer selection" is likely an automatc status for articles that have been passed to the acting editor (It very much sounds like you are in ScholarOne Manuscripts, S1M). The editor now has to evaluate your revisions and make a decision whether to accept, reject or pass the article on for a second review. The label you see is therefore slightly misleading but means it is back for evaluation in S1M.

Thank you Peter. I have received a message from the editor stating that my paper was accepted.


text:
Why would an author use a different symbol for the same meaning?
People often use a different symbol to denote the same meaning.
For example, an author used symbol a for a data sequence. However, the same author, in another article, uses the symbol x to denote the same data sequence in the same context.
Why doesn’t he use symbol a for the data sequence in the second article? Is it just to make the manuscript look different compared to their previous one? Note that there is enough degree-of-freedom to use the same set (or sub-set) of previous symbols in next manuscript.
Nevertheless, it becomes more complicated for the readers when they use Greek symbols together with superscript and subscript. I agree that people have their own choice to use the symbols in their manuscript, however, why would the same group of authors use a different symbol for the same meaning in another manuscript?

Are those papers mere copies of each other, or why would you think they might do it to make the manuscript look different?

I can't speak about the specific case you have in mind since I'm not a mind-reader, but there are legitimate reasons to change a symbol.

Maybe you want to avoid clash with notation used for something else in your second article.
Maybe that "something else" was introduced in an earlier revision and then eliminated, but then you decide to stick with the new notation.
Different symbols are standard, or natural, for different objects. You can write x(f), where x a function and f is a variable, but people don't, and for a good reason. Most of the time, you give it some thought when you introduce a new symbol, and try to pick the 'best' letter (and the best position for a subscript/superscript).
Sometimes, you realize only after writing an article that a different symbol would be more natural for a certain quantity. Possibly because it's related to something else in a different field, or because you find out that another author used the same symbol for this object in an earlier paper and several colleagues are already used to it. Or because two objects that you use in your paper are related, so it would be better to call them A and Ã rather than A and B.
Sometimes, you write papers targeting different journals/communities, and they have different standards, so you use different letters for the benefit of your readers. For instance, I may use Ax = b if I am writing about a least-squares problem in a numerical linear-algebra journal, or wX = y if I am writing in a statistics/machine-learning one.
Sometimes, it's a referee who tells you that you should really change your notation, and you comply. This might happen on the second paper but not on the first.

wX=y makes me really sad. Do you guys in stats/ML ever thought of converting to proper linear algebra notation?

Another reason: sometimes you just forget what symbol you used in the previous paper.


text:
Professor ranking system
It is commonly accepted that professorship is the final rank of promotion in universities. I would like to study the possibility for promoting professors further. Is there any grading or ranking system for professors in universities?

Would you please specify the location? Different countries have different systems.

At my university, we now have Senior Professors and Distinguished Professors.

Yes, there are some universities in the U.S. that have ways of promoting professors beyond the rank of "Professor". As you know, the U.S. system has a somewhat standard progression of Assistant Professor to Associate Professor to Professor.
Some universities add a fourth rank to this, often by the name Distinguished Professor. This rank is meant to apply to particularly special professors who continue to be highly productive and exceed job norms even after being promoted to Professor.
The other rank above Professor in the U.S. is related to named positions, often called named chairs. These are individual faculty positions that are funded by donations to the university (actually, funded by the interest). It takes a lot of money to create a named chair position, so they are relatively few in number. These positions are typically given permanently to one person, and then a new recipient is chosen when that person leaves the position. They are usually considered the most prestigious faculty positions in the U.S.  You can tell someone has one of these because the position usually has a name attached to it, e.g. Susan Q might be the "Joan Smith professor of chemistry". For example, see the list of named positions in science at Penn State.

In addition to the Distinguished/University/Institute professor positions and named chairs previously mentioned, some universities subdivide the individual ranks into steps.  For example, at Berkeley the rank of Professor is subdivided into steps 1-9.5, and above that you have "above scale" professors.
http://ofew.berkeley.edu/academic-ladder

They can negotiate more income, a nicer office, more resources, less teaching, etc. However, the room for negotiation differs from country to country.
Sometimes moving on to dean or chancelor position is considered a promotion, but I would consider it a form of punishment. It just means you have to spent a lot more time on management, so less time (if any) is left for doing interesting stuff. On the other hand, promotion in other sectors often also involve such a switch towards more management tasks, so calling it a promotion is probably justified.


text:
First meeting with my PhD supervisor
In my country, the graduate school and department assign you to a supervisor based on your research and specialization. After admission, you are expected to formally meet your supervisor.
I never met my supervisor before. How should I prepare for this meeting?

Duplicate. See [ http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/51687/what-is-the-time-and-topic-etiquette-for-a-first-meeting-with-a-professor-to-dis ] and many more if you search using the term "first meeting" [ http://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=first+meeting ].

I am not sure about the duplicate, because we are lacking information as PhD programs vary strongly in nature between countries and fields. Does this happen within a graduate school? Do you already have a contract (if you need one in your setting)? How did this preson become your supervisor if you never met him? Voting to close as unclear for now.

Thanks. It does happen In some countries. In mine you are assigned to a supervisor based on your research and specialization. It is the responsibility of graduate school and the department to do so. After admission, you are expected to formally meet your supervisor. Hope am clear now

My first meeting with both my PhD and MS supervisor were fairly informal. Talk about research, talk about moving to the new area, ect. Generally set up stuff. They also showed me my new office. You don't really need to prepare unless you don't know much about what your new supervisor does. Relax, there will be plenty of time to stress in graduate school: now is not the time.


text:
Uncited general claims followed by cited specific claims – is this an accepted writing style?
I’m currently reviewing a paper and thought it may be good to consult more people on this issue. I’m wondering where exactly should we include citations in article main text (in a science/psychology paper).
The paper starts with two paragraphs of intro with zero references in them with quite general claims. The logic behind it should be that later text will validate the claims. The same trick is used for literature-review paragraphs, where the first sentences make general claims/generalizations and the remaining paragraph seeks to validate them.
This system seems to me to be inconvenient for the reader as the remaining data given is more specific than the claims, and it needs work to see whether they actually cite enough studies to justify the earlier generalizations. Sometimes it seems they don’t but the style itself makes it difficult to immediately perceive.
I am used to the style that citations should be introduced whenever you introduce information (especially general claims). I am wondering if anyone can confirm that the other way works and is common also in practice, where the general claims are followed by more specific validation.
It seems appropriate for me that the sentences could really be left uncited if they are common knowledge and for introductory purposes. But not if they make claims to be built upon. The authors do think that these are claims, they just present the summary before the facts.
For example (made up of course, and to be read by someone who doesn’t know tea):

Tea leaves are generally green. They look green to most people and animals. For example they have been found to be green in sunlight (Authors 2012), and particularly the leaves of carnelia sinensis has been found to be very green (Other Authors 2011). [A few more specific cases …]

I’m sure academia is full of different styles of writing. I’d be happy to hear of different ways to approach presentation. Any style guides proposing this that you could point me to?

For better or for worse, I see this pattern frequently in Computer Science. It does not really seem to be perceived as a big issue to anybody, as long as the authors then do not go ahead and build upon the general and uncited claim rather than the specific cited one.

Ok, thanks for the info, it's good to know that it is common enough elsewhere. Sounds sensible enough too.

This is a good question. In my experience, I have usually preferred saying things like: "Johnson (2000) found that x<5 by reticulating the spline and Smith and Jones (2013) found that x>2 by polarizing the ion matrix according to McWhooferton's (1980) pattern. From this, it is evident that x is somewhere between 2 an 5, exclusive. In this paper, I will show why we can be 90% confident that x is within 0.2 of 3.7." That is, one starts with the individual claims and then builds them up to show why the broad claim is true.

Certainly general statements that are common knowledge do not require citation.  Particularly if the general claims just help to provide a framework for thinking about things (context), are reasonable, and are not truly needed for the paper.
However, different people have different opinions about what is common knowledge, or is reasonable, or is important (say in putting the work in context), and part of your job as a reviewer is to point out where you think citations should be added or assertions should be questioned.  The authors always have the option to disagree, but at least if you make a suggestion, they should think more carefully about the validity and evidence for such an assertion.  (cf. my answer https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/66329/19607)
In your example, you might ask for evidence that they "appear green to most people and animals," or just point out (politely) that that's a stupid statment.
As another example, here's something I wouldn't expect a reference for:

The only known techniques to attack Problem A are Method X and Method Y.  Method X was pioneered in [cite 1] and Method Y was recently applied in [cite 2].

It's hard to give a reference for the first assertion, and maybe the reviewer will be aware of a Method Z and can point it out.  Or maybe there is a Method Z but it got neglected by the authors and the referees.  Or maybe the referee's not sure.  This is why some people might prefer to be more modest and say "The only techniques we are aware of..." but people write in both ways, and as a referee I wouldn't say anything unless I actually thought the authors were neglecting something.

In your example, I think what the author means is "the only techniques known to me are X and Y," not "the only techniques known to humankind are X and Y." I would expect a proof or citation if the author does mean the latter. I see many authors put a cliché like "as far as the author is aware" or simply add something like "it appears that" to avoid this, which sounds to me better than making too strong a claim if taken literally.

@YuichiroFujiwara I meant the author strongly believes no other methods (that have had at least partial success) are known by the scientific community (where you can take "known" to mean published and/or publicly announced).  While I often try to qualify sentences like this to say "to my knowledge," I sometimes don't even though I of course can't prove someone hasn't published a result I'm not aware of.


text:
Should I contact the Editor again?
I have submitted my mathematical paper to a journal in November 2018. After that, it has the status "Awaiting Referee Selection" during 4 months. I contacted the Editor-in-Chief for his support, luckily, he is very nice. The result is that the status of the paper has been "under review" in March 2019 and he said that:

I hope to receive the reports of the referees by mid-April.

However, today (April 24, 2019) I still has not received the first decision.
Should I contact the Editor-in-Chief again or not?
Thank you for your comments.

Are you asking "How to contact the editor" or "Should you contact the editor"?

@Solar Mike Should I contact the Editor-in-Chief again or not.

No.
Mid-april was last week, and his response implied that he couldn't be sure to receive the reports (who could be sure of how long reviewers take?). I suggest you wait at least one week, ideally two before contacting him.

Thank you very much for your comment. I completely agree with you and I will wait 2 weeks before contacting him.