text:
When is it okay to publish when doing enterprise?
I completed my PhD last year and now work in industry. Nevertheless I've continued to work privately on my MSc and PhD thesis' work and lately I've been getting stellar results on the work I did for my MSc thesis. (My thesis work is unrelated to my current employment.) The results have undeniable commercial potential which I hope to explore; yet perhaps because I've spent so much time in academia, I have the urge to publish. I'm keenly aware that publishing has the risk of ceding my competitive advantage to potential competitors, yet I know of a couple of academics who both publish state of the art research in the area of their growing businesses. Therefore I suspect that under some circumstances it is possible to be involved in enterprise and publish, although I'm not sure what those circumstances are.
I'd appreciate your thoughts on this issue. When is it okay to publish when doing enterprise?
Edit: my question is not about whether it is okay to publish if outside academia. Rather, it's about when its okay to publish research that is being seriously considered for a (future) commercial product.

A great question! However, the answer may vary with respect to field, type of discovery, its patentability, how much publishing is beneficial to the society (and your position) vs how much the sole publication can help your direct competitors, etc. Also, bear in mind that publishing is a mean of claiming one's authorship and (if it's stellar) bringing others' eyes to it. BTW: some people outside of academia do publish. If it is unrelated to your work, then there should be no conflict of interests (unless you want to pursue it later, which is also a tricky question).

I apologize. I realize my question was a ambiguous. Please refer to the edit. Thanks.

If you signed a "non-disclosure agreement" as a condition of employment, then be careful that your employer will not interpret your publication as being in violation of that. You say that your research is unrelated, but it might be dangerous to assume that your employer will agree.

The work that I do has got absolutely nothing to do with my MSc or PhD research. Its something I do privately after work at home.

@Olumide don't apologize! You rise a very important issue. But without further info (e.g. field, type of discovery, patentability, why you think that your competitors don't know it already, if it makes a standalone application or needs to be incorporated into a larger products, etc). So it's not up to us to edit it. And just write sth like "it is a face recognition algorithm that is significantly better than other commercially available solutions".

@PiotrMigdal actually the innovation is comparable to face tracking. However it can stand alone as an application or be integrated into other products. And the results I've been getting are superior to everything else that's been published or on the market.

On second thoughts, the fact that I'm not willing to be specific about the nature of the invention here on SE, where it matters least, suggests that I should not publish it. Publishing is a risk, and I'm not sure I'm ready to take it unless I'm sure it won't give potential competitors an insight into my competitive advantage.

The results have undeniable commercial potential
You don't mention which industry you work in, but within the industries I'm familiar with, companies own everything that comes out of their employees' brains.  By default, your ideas, techniques, code, and results are almost certainly the property of your employer—even if you developed them at home on your own time using your own personal equipment— and they may not be inclined to let you exploit them commercially.  Read your employment contract very carefully.

Thanks. I am aware that many companies do this. But this is not the crux of my question. I'm asking more generally, assuming that one is not in any employment self-employed, under what circumstances it okay to publish research that is being considered for a future commercial product? I'm asking because I've seen a couple of academics publish such research without creating hurting their businesses.


text:
Can co-authoring a paper as a new grad harm my reputation/career?
To be specific, I just graduated with a Bachelor's degree, and my final project supervisor has asked me to co-author a paper with him about the subject of the project I did with his supervision.
I'd love to join the research community, and I guess this would a be good starting point, but there are two issues I'm concerned about:

The first is related to the subject itself: (a) I'm not convinced of the quality of the suggested solution. (b) The project tries to solve two different problems.
The second issue is that I'm not interested in the field of the project. My interest is in a different field. Though, both are related to computer science.

So, would participating in this paper do any harm to my reputation or my chances of getting into a good graduate program in the field I'm interested in?
Update:
Thank you so much for the kind answers. Almost all of you agree that the second issue is harmless, but there are different opinions regarding the first one.
So I said that my supervisor knows better, and I decided to go on and started planning the outline of the paper with his help. When I got to the writing part, I noticed that the main body doesn't relate to or even mention the main problem that we've specified. This is when I decided to decline the offer. It just doesn't feel right.

In terms of the perception of the academic community, I will bow to the experience and knowledge of the answers below. However, consider the cost to yourself: If you compromise to work on an uninteresting project about which you have technical reservations, will you have the fortitude to do what you love later or will others set your career path for you?

I somewhat disagree with the previous answers. I think it is largely improbable that publishing a paper would harm your career, but it could if, for example, it is really poor and someone happens to read it.
Eykanal in a comment to Dave Clarke said that "no one would consider holding you accountable for the content of the paper"; I recall that there is a important trend to insist that all authors of a paper should be accountable for its content.
The fact that you do not want to pursue in the direction of the paper is completely harmless, though. There is really no problem working in different areas, the only thing to be careful about is not to spread oneself efforts too much, but this does not apply here.
So the main issue is (a); here I would say that it can be difficult to judge the quality of a result, especially for an undergraduate, and I would advise to trust your advisor. So it is really, really unlikely that co-authoring this paper could do any kind of harm to your career; in fact it could do more harm to decline this opportunity, since your advisor would probably not understand and you will probably need his or her recommendation.
At the end, I do not disagree that much with other answerers; but I would be less general in my statements.

In fields like mine (theoretical computer science) that don't recognize a distinguished first author, all authors are responsible for the paper's content; that's what being an author means.

In short, unless there are ethical concerns, which is unlikely to be the case in computer science, then I'd say no. If you get some paper published as a Bachelor student, this demonstrates your ability to do research, which is what people in charge of admissions are interested in. If the paper gets accepted at a good venue, then this is even better.
At the current stage of your career, your main concern should be getting into a good graduate program. After you write more papers, better ones on the topic you choose, no one will even worry about that first paper.

To continue in this vein, you're just an undergrad, so the only effect of this paper on your reputation will be that you are able to work; no one would consider holding you accountable for the content of the paper.

"No one would consider holding you accountable for the content of the paper." I most certainly would and do hold all authors accountable for the content of their papers.

Yes, participating in a research paper could harm your reputation/career.
But it's very unlikely, as long as you take basic precautions:

Avoid quack journals, crank journals, and the like
Avoid ethical breaches (plagiarism, fraudulent data)
Avoid co-authoring with known cranks

As to your specific issue: "I'm not convinced of the quality of the suggested solution." - if it does indeed solve the problem, then publishing is fine. If it may not, then you need to work things through with your co-author until you agree on whether or not it does solve the problem.

Unless the paper to be published is plagiarized from a different source, I can't think of a case where a publication (in any field, even if its not related to your future field of research) would affect your career negatively in any way. Sure, if the quality/stature of the venue where this is published is not too high, few would take this paper seriously, but even then, it would be better than no publications at all (seeing that you are just completing a Bachelor's degree - my advice would have been completely different had you been a grad student, where the expectations are a lot higher).

Short answer, it is very unlikely that it will hurt you.
If you submit a paper to a conference, you get to see the reviews that will tell you what needs to be improved or not. If in the end it was accepted while being a low quality paper, it is the conference committee's problem not yours.
In researchers' profiles, you can write down: "Selected publications" instead of putting the whole list. Most of the time people will just appreciate that you've written a paper, and even more so if it is at a reputable conference. No one has the time to read the paper unless he/she is actually interested in the topic. There's no sort of "Hall of Shame" for publications.
You will learn, that's for sure. It is very unlikely that it will hurt you.

Minimum conditions for ensuring this - or any other - paper doesn't hurt your career:

The research findings must be sound. don't get tempted into writing, or being listed as a co-author for, papers presenting research when you're "not convinced about the quality" of the research findings; or 'fluffy' papers which don't really present much at all; or mere rehashes of other results etc.
The paper must be relatively well-written - both in terms of language and in terms of structure and narrative flow. Now, I say 'relatively' because this is often hard to get right with the pressure of time and page limits; and with English not being the native language of most researches. So, readers will be somewhat tolerant about this point - but if you write something that is just very hard to follow, or in very poor English, that doesn't reflect well on you.
Unfortunately, attention must be paid to the venue of publication. I must first qualify that... obviously some publications are more highly-regarded w.r.t. their filtering process and the typical quality of articles they carry, and some less so. The thing is, I believe one should not assume that if a paper is published in a 'weaker' journal, that necessarily means it's bad - and if someone is evaluating your qualifications as an academic they should bother to skim the paper itself and make up their own mind. That doesn't always/often happen, so people may well judge your work by looking at where you've published. Of course, this is not something binary ("good" journals and "bad" journals, or conferences) -  but having mostly obscure venues in your list of publications does reflect poorly on you, and in some fields I guess there are venues you should actively avoid even at the price of no publication.
Having said all that - for your first publication, as long as it's not a disreputable venue, it doesn't matter much. Most people "start out small".

The last point, about venues, is also a sort of a safety guarantee for you: If you submit a paper to a conference or journal with a good peer-review process, and you're accepted, then it's highly likely that your paper is actually pretty good, and even more likely that it will reflect favorably on you (the converse is not necessarily true of course; lots of good papers get rejected).

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Courses beyond the second year
Would it be a poor decision to take additional courses (one each in the 5th and 6th semesters) in physics? Should I try to limit myself to taking only courses that are strictly necessary, or is there value in enrolling if it is related to my research?

If your advisor has no objections to you doing so, and you believe the courses will be beneficial to your development, you should do so. Note that the courses need not be directly relevant to your current work—they may be somewhat outside the scope of your research, but might represent an area you'd like to explore in the future. However, don't take courses you don't want to just to pad your transcript: it really won't matter much to future employers (except a few non-academic employers who might care what your graduate GPA is!).

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


text:
Scholarships for Ph.D
I am currently doing my M.Tech in Computer Science and Engineering in India and I want to do a Ph.D. in the US. Are any scholarships available for Ph.D. in the US that take care of all the expenses there (similar to DAAD scholarships offered for pursuing secondary education in Germany)? If there are other similar scholarships for other countries please inform me.

Related: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/251/what-are-the-options-for-fellowships-for-international-grad-students-in-usa

There are at least 2 such scholarships, which are specifically aimed at international students:

Fulbright Scholarships for International Students (applications have
to be done more than a year before, and its extremely competitive - though now I find applications for 2013-14 have been suspended)
Aga Khan Foundation International Scholarship Programme, which has the following selection criteria:

Excellent academic records,
Genuine financial need,
Admission to a reputable institution of higher learning and
Thoughtful and coherent educational and career plans.
Candidates are also evaluated on their extra-curricular interests and achievements, potential to achieve their goals and likelihood to succeed in a foreign academic environment. Applicants are expected to have some years of work experience in their field of interest

Normally, if you're doing a PhD in the United States—at least in the sciences and engineering—you shouldn't have to worry about having a scholarship. The department or advisor should be responsible for paying your tuition as well as a stipend for your living expenses. So there aren't a lot of "scholarships" in the same sense as for undergraduate study. However, while there are fellowships which provide "portable" funds for graduate study, these tend to have stringent citizenship requirements, and I can't ever recall seeing one for which Indian students were eligible.
Your best bet is probably just to apply to the graduate programs in which you're interested, and see if they have funds to support your graduate work.

Contact potential advisors, if you are really worth it for them they will provide fund for you (when accepted).
The same when apply to universities: most universities give graduate students scholarship ( with the acceptance letter) in form of Teaching Assistant (TA) or Research Assistant (RA).
Some of them don't offer funding with the acceptance letter but the bottom line is: if you are good you will get scholarship (either from Gradstudies Office or from department, from supervisor..etc) while you pursue your degree.


text:
Conflict of Interest from previous employment as a graduate student
I am currently working in industry with a pharmaceutical company on a one year contract (front-line sales role). Following this contract, I was hoping to complete my masters of Science in population and public health. If I am no longer affiliated with the company by the time I begin courses, and will not finish a masters thesis for 2 years (where the research is not related to my previous employment), is this a conflict of interest, and how is this managed?

While there may be strong local issues with respect to conflict of interest, I believe that there are enough "general" issues that this shouldn't be closed as "too localized."

You should check your contract for any details in terms of disclosure of products / process etc.
It may be that it could be limited to 6 months, 1 year or perpetual : you need to know...
If necessary ask HR and find out : may be worth just having several questions of which conflict of interest is only one...
The conditions for front-line sales are probably different to a lab-tech with detailed tech knowledge...

If your previous employment is in no way related to your current research, and you are not in a position to favor your previous employer (through research purchases, etc.), then there is no conflict of interest.
The only potential pitfall could be if your tuition were paid for by your previous employer, but even then potential conflicts could be mitigated.

don't big pharma companies pay for research... and the results...


text:
Can I write a systematic review by myself?
I am a nascent academic in a medical field. I want to start publishing early, even before my master's. I see people like me do a lot of systematic reviews, though they collaborate with one or two people with them.
I want to make systematic reviews alone and get published in an open-source journal.
Is it possible? Please also recommend where I can find people to make reviews with other than my workplace.

Going through the process of writing a systematic review is a good discipline for crystallizing your understanding; it may well not result in a paper but you can present your work at a talk, webpage, colloquium, discussion etc. and get valuable feedback/criticism. So do it anyway, just don't get hung up on whether it will result in an accepted paper, and don't sink too much time and hope into it until you get some indications.

There is no reason why you cannot write a review on your own, but there are at least three possible problems:

Many journals accept reviews on invitation only (but if you can find a journal that is willing to publish your review that is great).
Writing a review takes a lot more time than you think, especially if you are starting in the field and are not familiar with the literature.
You may need (or at least greatly benefit from) the experience of someone who has already published multiple papers or reviews: both to check and improve the article and to help choosing a journal to submit to.

But there is absolutely no reason not to try if you feel confident enough. Don't underestimate the time it takes though.
To answer your second question: your co-authors are usually your colleagues or people you have worked with. I doubt you will find "people to write reviews with" elsewhere.

Beyond that, double extraction makes a review more robust - and you need a second person for that. So the chances of getting published somewhere worthwhile (eg not a predatory journal) would be much lower as a single author.

Note that it is often possible to inquire to an editor if they'd be willing to invite a review.


text:
Raw score for GRE?
I am currently completing my application for MIT, and they demand the raw scores for the GRE general and subject tests. However, on my ETS account, I only see my percentile and my scaled score. How can I see my raw score? Is there a different way than looking it up in a conversion table?

ETS doesn't release "raw" scores—I believe what the application is asking for means to provide them with the scaled score (and percentile). (You're never told how many questions you've gotten right or wrong.) If you need to provide a true "raw" score, then you'd have to use a conversion table.


text:
Resources for writing a good master's proposal?
I would like to write and submit a master's thesis proposal next year and do not know where to start.
Does there exist a template or a step-by-step guide to help me get started?
For instance:

Script how

Introduction
Objectives

2.1 Motivation

Methodologies

3.1 References

Research
Results
Conclusion

I am new to the world of research and am a little lost. Can anybody shed some light on this?
I Already have one subject that would like of write, it would be about
computer network - bandwidth oriented monitoring

The best way to write a compelling SOP is to have a compelling purpose. Focus on that, and the statement will wrote itself. What do you tell people when they ask what your research interests are? When they ask you why you’re pursuing the degree?

If you're planning to write your master's proposal in English, then you're going to need to work on improve your writing skills significantly. I could barely understand what you've written!

Sorry, My official language is portugues, I am terrible with o english, I am using more at community for to practice  (with help of google translate)


text:
Stressed about Research Project
So, I am a first year master student in one of the best universities in my area and I have the possibility of doing a research project in the next semester. I am torn between choosing a topic that is more related to my supervisor's research (and would get much more impact if published; publishing is also likely to happen) and another one that is more related to what I want to do in my master thesis (but would get much lower impact if published). I wouldn't mind doing the first one (I also find it quite interesting and would do both if I could) but if I want to have a chance of getting a position at this university, would it be more likely if I chose the one related to my master thesis?

Get a position? PhD? Faculty?

Both... But I was thinking long-term, i.e., tenure-track.

The topic of a one-semester research project really has little bearing on your future career. You might as well explore something interesting to you, since you’re learning about your field at this stage. It won’t have much impact on future prospects, because you’ll be evaluated for positions based on your research potential at the time of your application. You’ll also be expected to diversify beyond your PhD topic.

Thank you for your answer! I am aware that this will not define my career to a great extent but I was still unsure if one of them could make my way into a position at this institution more likely... I am also afraid of doing the one related to my thesis as it involves an approach which has never been attempted before.


text:
What is the equivalent of European "seminar" in US universities?
At my Czech university where I study computer science (but I believe math and physics are organized the same way here), most courses have both lectures (professor presenting the topic to a large class) and "seminars" (TA giving exercises and homework to a smaller class).
I believe courses at US universities have different structure and that the term "seminar" has different meaning. But there has to be something like our "seminars", right? What is it called? How does it look like?

Could you please add your specific country and field? During my studies (mathematics & economics in Germany), a Seminar was something very different: each student prepared and presented an advanced topic assigned by the professor. The professor attended the session to help and participated in the discussion. No TAs, no exercises, no homework (except for preparing the topic beforehand).

@StephanKolassa Edited. We don't actually use the term "seminar", we call it "cvičení" (something like "exercise class"), but I think "seminar" is also sometimes used here.

In my experience in the UK, 'seminar' refers to a lecture, or more typically a regularly held lecture, where an external researcher presents their research to faculty and graduate students. In any case, it is apparently rather confusing to use the term 'European seminar' as there isn't a unique such notion.

I am from the same country as you, from almost the same field (faculty of math. and phys.) and I must confirm what others say, a seminar is a series of presentations from students or external guests. The "cvičení" are usually translated as "practicals". Even oficially, see http://is.cuni.cz/studium/ciselniky/index.php?KEY=Az1&&id_ciselnik=301&menu=cis_v_data_kf&order_reset=1

This is often called a "recitation section".

Down-voter care to comment?

Not the downvoter, but living in/around Chicago my whole life I have never heard this term.  We used "labs" (sci/tech-type classes) and "discussion" (literature-type classes) as mentioned in BrianDHall's answer

@Izkata, OK, but that doesn't make the link wrong. They were called recitation sections by many of my profs, and my link substantiates that.

I have rarely heard the term "recitation section", and I had no idea what it meant until now.  "Labs" were roughly the only sort of equivalent in my university, although that's not exactly the same thing the OP is talking about.  People would also occasionally form "study groups" in the library.  That being said, "recitation section" may be the only direct equivalent, though it's not a universal practice.

I've heard "recitation section" used at multiple universities in the Midwest and Northwest of the US.

I've heard and read "recitation" (no 'section', that sounds weird to my British ear..) from US universities online (e.g. MIT's OCW)

FWIW, in Princeton it is called a precept. As far as I know Princeton is unique in this choice of nomenclature.

I've never heard the term "recitation section". We only called them "sections". I did my Ph.D. at Harvard and taught many such sections.

Generally these are referred to as "labs" or "discussion" sections, as opposed to the "lecture" session.
Giving an example from computer science, it is not uncommon for there to be a lecture session where the instructor (such as the professor) talks about the material, takes questions, etc. Then there is often a lab session, often held in a computer lab, where students can work on hands-on assignments, homework, and course projects. These can be staffed by the instructor/professor or by student teaching assistants, or held as an open lab where the room is reserved but no one conducts the session - students come and go and work as they please.
In fields of communication, philosophy, and history, it is common that this lab session is replaced by a discussion session. The lecture is often of a mass variety, where the professor gives the talk to hundreds of students at a time. During the discussion session the professor or a student teaching assistant holds discussions, readings, gives out assignments, and various other similar tasks.
In physics and biology, again there is often a lecture or mass lecture held by the professor, then sometimes both lab and discussion sessions may be held. Again the staffing and locations vary, but the general theme is the same.
I have personally experienced these in a number of institutions in the US in the fields of biology, chemistry, physics, philosophy, history, communications, art, computer science, and psychology...so it certainly seems to be a very common pattern.
These non-lecture sections are almost always of a less-populated variety as well. If the class only has 20-30 students total, then the lab sections are of the same size. If the class is over 30, I have usually experienced lab and discussion sessions to be smaller, with as little as 12-20 students maximum - but this usually varies by room and lab availability and subject, and thus will vary by University, department, and subject.

In my experience this kind of activities are often mixed to regular lectures, too, i.e. having some classes when discussions are held by students, and having some classes that are more regular lectures.

In the Uk at least there are often tutorials which sound similar to what you describe. They consist of a small group of approx. 4-5 students with one tutor (generally a professor/lecturer/post-doc). The aim is to do exercises and go through problems the students are having with the course. Also you are often set homework for the tutorials.
I don't know how common this system is in other parts of the world.

Actually, even in the UK, tutorials are distinct from seminars.

@LightnessRacesinOrbit I agree but I wouldn't describe what the OP describes as a seminar either

Reading the question again, I'd tend to agree with that. It does look more like a tutorial. So.. never mind. :)

What would be the difference in the UK between seminar and tutorial? I'm at the Univ. of Bristol and what OP describes as seminars are called seminars here...

At the institutions I've attended and taught at, these have been called "section" (I've never heard "recitation section"), "tutorial", "discussion section", "TA session"/"TA section", "lab", "small group", and "studio".
Of these "discussion section" was the most common and, at my BA and PhD institutions, the official title for it.

As a variation on Bill Barth's answer, at my last institution, the local jargon was simply to refer to these class meetings as section.

I can't solve this homework problem, I'll ask my TA about it in section.

It may have been short for recitation section but I don't believe I ever heard the longer form.

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава

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


text:
How to buy plane tickets for job interviews?
I am currently on the academic job market, and scheduling on-campus interviews with institutions that might want to hire me.
Suppose I am invited to an on-campus interview at the University of X, and must travel there by air.  They handle travel on a reimbursement basis: I buy the plane ticket, and then they reimburse me.
However, the interview is a few weeks away.  Since the job market sometimes moves fast, there is a chance that by the time of the scheduled interview, I may have already accepted another offer (say from the University of Y).  Of course I should then decline the interview at X, but I would have already bought the plane ticket.
How should I plan for this contingency?

I could buy a refundable ticket to X.  However, these are normally several times the price of a non-refundable ticket, and if I do end up traveling to X, they might balk at reimbursing me for such an expensive fare.
I could buy a non-refundable ticket to X.  If I end up not going there, I could ask X to reimburse me for the cost of the ticket (or at least the "change fee" charged by the airline to let me use the ticket's value for a future flight).  However, I suspect they will be reluctant to reimburse me for a trip I'm not making, and might refuse to do so altogether, in which case I am out-of-pocket.
I could wait until the last minute to buy a non-refundable ticket for X.  But it may still be expensive for them (or may exceed their limits), and the most convenient flights may be sold out.
I could contact University of X and ask them for guidance.  I'm a bit hesitant to do this, as I am afraid that if I bring up the possibility that I might accept another position, they might think I am not seriously interested in theirs.

Is there a standard way to handle this situation?
This is in the United States, if it matters.

I am writing to disagree with Charles Morisset's answer. (I signed up just now, and am unable to comment.) At least, I would consider part of his answer to be poor advice for applying to TT jobs in mathematics.
In particular, I believe you should always accept invitations to interview if you think they're in your best interest -- i.e., if you would be happy to take a job there, and if you are not absolutely confident you won't get better offers.
Suppose that I had scheduled an interview at A, and I get an interview offer from B. I prefer A to B, but I also really like B. Then I would definitely accept the interview offer at B, even if you might get an offer from A in the meantime.
I say this as someone who was on our hiring committee this year. It is a difficult and stressful process for us, but surely it is much more difficult and stressful for candidates. We understand that candidates want to get the best job possible and expect that they will look out for their own best interests. We expect honesty, but hesitating to accept an interview offer at a school you like, under almost any circumstances, seems unwise to me.
What if you accept an offer from A before your interview at B, and the plane ticket is bought? I would contact B, tell them you had accepted another offer, offer thanks and apologies, and offer either to come and give your lecture, or to simply cancel the trip. Most hiring committees, I think, would be gracious and kind, would ask you not to come, and would refund your plane ticket. Perhaps they would like to meet you anyway, and give you the option of giving your talk. In the unlikely event that they are rude, this will give you reason to be grateful that you will be working elsewhere.

I think there's two major problems with your comment.  First, there's no way to put off the invitation or "explain the situation" without hurting your chances of getting an offer.  Second, I think the vast majority of professors would be thrilled to have a day that was booked suddenly free to get work done.  Interviewing is done so that you can hire people, not because people enjoy it on its own.

If you've bought the ticket for an interview that you honestly intended to go for, and you get an offer in the meantime, it doesn't necessarily mean that you should decline the interview.

You might be pleasantly surprised by the place and realize that it's more in contention than you think.
You might make useful contacts that will help you later on in your career even if you don't go there.
you might get an offer from this place, and having two offers improves your negotiating position tremendously.

I'm thinking of the case that I have accepted an offer from Y before the interview at X.  It can't be appropriate to attend the interview at X if I have already accepted another offer.  (In principle, X could ask me to visit anyway just to give a talk, but they would probably rather use the time to interview another candidate.)

I'm assuming you're applying for tenure track jobs here.  The value of a tenure track job is enough more than the cost of a plane ticket, that I really don't think it's worth doing anything that could compromise your odds at University X.  If it's a matter of buying a ticket today or in a couple days, then you can easily drag your feet on buying the ticket without them even knowing.  But otherwise, just buy the plane ticket and deal with the tricky situation if it comes about.

It is always best to ask. You can use another pretext as a reason for your “hesitation”. Say, for example (in short):

I wonder what the restrictions are on travel reimbursement. I could buy a ticket X right now but I am not fully sure about the exact timing of the flight (due to family arrangements not yet settled). However the price might increase if I wait.

If you do not want to ask you have no possibility other than 1 or 3. Depends on how you evaluate your chances of finding a job before the interview. Probably 3 is worse than 1: if you have a cool new job you will not mind so much losing a plane ticket. I do not think universities would accept option 2.

While the cost of buying the plane ticket is expensive, I would look at it as an "opportunity cost." If you wait until the last minute, and don't get a job offer and don't get reimbursement, then you have the worst of all worlds: no job offer, and a very expensive plane ticket to pay for!
It is therefore much better to ask the schools for guidance. However, if the issue is a financial one, you could mention to the school that you might need a travel advance in order to help pay for your ticket. Normally they can work out some sort of arrangement if it is a problem for the candidate to pay for her own ticket.
You are correct, however, in thinking that the school would not appreciate having to ask what happens if you need to cancel because of accepting another job. If you do that, you can save yourself buying the plane ticket, because you're probably not getting a job at that school anyway!

I'm a bit confused by this answer.  How I can ask the school for guidance without invoking the specter of another job?  If I ask "What if I need to cancel", I assume the subtext would be obvious.  Also, I'm not sure the financial part makes sense because (like most people) I would just float the ticket on my credit card until I get reimbursed.

If you're a postdoc or a grad student, having to wait one to two months for the reimbursement means carrying a bunch of extra interest. In the short run, that can be a big deal for some people. But I would imagine many schools can buy the tickets for candidates under circumstances like these.

Accept the X interview (if the place is of interest) and buy the ticket now (not letting price go up) and with a normal non-refundable class.  In all likelihood, you won't be off the market (at least won't have accepted a  Y offer yet).  It is in your interest to generate more than one offer at same time to drive a competition for your services.
If you do get a Y offer so early and are not able to delay a decision, you can try to get the X trip moved up (after all they know you will be off the market so there is pressure).  Or you may be able to get it reimbursed--for instance by turning it over to X uni ticket office or by having Y pick it up (as they are trying to make you decide now).  But it really is to your advantage to collect X and Y competing offers...so I would just stall Y after they make the offer).  Worst comes to worst, if you have to pay for a few hundred bucks ticket, it's no big deal if the Y offer is very attractive.

You should go ahead and book your non-refundable ticket now. If you get a job offer from your preferred school prior to this interview, ask them when they need their decision by. If they say a date prior to this interview ask if you can extend the date until after this interview. They will almost always agree to this if they truly believe you are the best position for the candidate.
You should do this for two reasons. (1) Who knows, while at this school you may fall in love with it! But (2) if you don't, and you get an offer from them, you can use it to bargain with the other school. Note you should do this tactfully.
In the end, if worse comes to worse, you have a job and can afford to sacrifice several hundred dollars on a plane ticket. I'd worry about this scenario only afterwards.
Also, sometimes if you tell a school "I've gotten a great offer from another university, but I really like your program. Is there any way for me to move up my interview so I can have your decision before I have to get back to the other university?" They will agree. You should only do this if it is conceivable you could accept their position.

I am not sure why you can't just tell them you have already accepted an offer, and leave it to them to cancel the interview. If they cancel the interview on the ticket that they agreed to reimburse you for, then they have to reimburse you. This shouldn't make them mad because they have the choice of interviewing you or cancelling, so they are no worse off than any other scenario in which you accept the first job offer. It is assumed you will have job offers, so its a risk on their part in participating in the process. Additionally, you could ask about this scenario from a different phone number or anonymous email to get what information you can about the university. Disclaimer: I am not a professor.

"They have to reimburse you": That would be logical, but university travel reimbursement policies are rarely logical :)  Standard reimbursement procedures require you to submit receipts and sign a form saying you actually took the trip and incurred the expenses.  Some places even require you to submit your boarding pass.

@NateEldredge, so you are saying that they can cancel interviews whenever they want and leave poor graduate students to pay for tickets they can't use? That doesn't sound legal.

@NateEldredge, if that is the policy then they accept the possibility of interviews that are "dead on arrival".

I agree it doesn't seem right.  I don't know whether it is legal.  I'm not sure I'm willing to rule out the possibility that it could happen...

The university and hiring committee is already committed to paying for your flight out (plus room and board).  As such, I think it would be reasonable to offer to pay for half the cost of the ticket IF you accepted an offer at another university.
I would not ask beforehand about anything, but this gives them the opportunity to not be so out on the money and can pay for someone else's ticket out there -- what's $200 out of a $400 ticket compared to hiring the right somebody?


text:
Work in an area or work on problems?
I have a question about two possible career paths, for which I was unable to come up a better title. Let me explain what I mean:
Path 1, Working in an area: By this I mean, making a career by adding to the knowledge of a field of study. This may include sorting out open questions in that field or identifying new issues or pushing the boundaries of existing knowledge. This typically involves having a larger perspective and understanding of the field and its relevance to the world.
Path 2, Working on problems: By this I mean making a career by solving a series of specific challenging problems not necessarily belonging to a common field of study. Here one only attempts to understand enough about the problem at hand to solve the problem, but does not show an interest in developing the area as such.
Working in an area requires one to have a broader vision, scholarship and commitment to the development of the area. Working on problems does not involve commitment, but requires one to repeated invest oneself in learning about a new area. By working in an area one can encounter a degree of monotony. By working on problems, one can potentially find new challenges at every juncture.
So my question is: career wise, what is a better option? Specifically, which of these kind of academics are more valued by the community? What, if any, are pitfalls of these paths?
Meta question: is path 2 a path at all or do all academics eventually settle into path 1 after spending some time on path 2?
Edit: I guess the key difference between the two paths is that path 1 leads one to become an "expert" with extensive knowledge in a particular area. Path 2 exposes one to a variety of problem situations and makes one a better problem solver, though it may not make one an expert in any field. For the purpose of this question, you may take the area to be a well studied field such as, say integer programming, which has some long-standing open problems, but is not necessarily so young that it allows for a variety of research opportunities.

You haven't said anything about the area itself. That might affect the answer.

Without knowing anything about the specific area, I'd say that you've set up a false dichotomy. I don't know if anyone ever consciously does one or the other exclusively. Sometimes you work bottom up (i.e path 2 -> path 1), and sometimes you work top down (path 1 -> path 2). Both these "paths" should be dimensions of your research.

I am reading the paths 1 and 2 as follows
Path 1 : The culmination of working on one problem (either success or failure) leads to another which leads to yet another and it goes on and on.
Path 2 : Number of problems on a field that are not related to each other and are stand alone; do not depend on or influence the other.
As @Suresh has already pointed out the answer might heavily depend on the field. But trying to answer in general, it is better to follow the Path 1, as it is mentioned in the question itself, it is focussed on a long term goal and elevated vision. Academia always long for broader vision and greater commitments. An employer would love to hire some one who has a concrete long term goal and enthusiasm.
While Path 2 is not a way that does not involve commitment, it is more focussed on short term goals and narrowed vision, such as getting a degree, finishing a project etc. This also involve commitment, but not on a large scale.
Thus brings up the question, "Why we want to learn or explore?" Irrespective of the field, this seems to be the essence of the question.

it is more focussed on short term goals and narrowed vision -- I didn't mean it to be that way; I meant path 2 as a path where one looks for challenging problems regardless of area, without feeling obligated to develop any particular area. Should I edit for clarity?

Ok, I will try to edit my answer too.

A classic interview question (paraphrased) comes to mind:

What do you think is the most important problem in your area?
What have you done to solve this problem?

Perhaps, these questions might be worth thinking about when choosing a career path.
Although this might look more like a comment than an answer, what I mean is you need to think about your question from several perspectives: what do you think is essential for your field and how you can contribute there, and what are your personal talents or virtues, such as working on technical problems in depth, or administrative skills in managing resources for problem solving in a broad sense, or something else. These are your assets. List them and do analysis on how would they be better applied, what combination of them would yield bigger impact or bigger rewards, depending on what you favor.

This is not a direct response to the question and is a better comment. Try to edit it appropriately. (As long as you earn sufficient reputation, you don't have the privilege to comment everywhere.)

Areas are not well-defined, they change over time and even if a dean know when the boarder between some fields, Nature does not (as they are mostly communities emerging from common scientific interests).
Moreover, confining oneself to a given area may end up into working in a exhausted subfield that people no longer care about (and missing new opportunities).
However, when it comes to your visibility and prestige, other researchers will care only about your skills and achievements in a given field. But again, there is also a question of how much the disciplines overlap, both in terms of communities and methodology.
So here there is a trade-off between being recognized (and prepared) well in one field vs less but in more.
When it comes "is it better to focus on solving particular problems or learning general stuff", the question is a bit different from your career-related one. Opinions may vary (and it may be a matter of one's personal philosophy), but for research_ output (not e.g. teaching skills) the first one is the only the one that counts. And if someone is skilled and committed, the later comes anyway (and the converse is not true).
(Anyway, it's the reason why during PhD it is (arguably) advisable to focus on solving problems (and learning stuff needed to solve them), not on spending hours on general courses.)


text:
As a PhD-Advisor: How do I discourage a student from continuing?
I know it is slightly controversial, but I am supervising a student who started with the right attitude, but is now less and less engaged with the research. We are at a point where there's no end in sight, and the student still wants to finish within unmanageable time limits.
The context is peculiar (but I would like to keep it detached from the generality of the question): he's a part-time student, he's paying his own fees (as opposed to a PhD funded by a project), and he's after the PhD "title" more than the research that he has to put in for the title itself.
All these factors make it more difficult to dissuade him from his PhD choice: the endless excuses of putting more work when there will be time (he's a part time student); and the fact that I am proactively chasing him to arrange meetings are all things that are taking their toll.
My (general) question is therefore: how do I dissuade a PhD student from wasting his time and money, when it's clear that she is not PhD-material?

If only my advisor had given up on me...I completed my PhD in 6 years. I was a part-time student, had a young family, was working full time, settling in a new country... the list goes on. Talk to him; not make a decision for him.

If there is a time limit, wait until the limit expires. If no limit, why not let him continue? How do you know he will never finish?

@JaveerBaker: I talk to him all the time, and I am telling him that he should not waste his time and money, to no avail...

@scaaahu: because not all students are PhD material, as my own advisor told me once...

ignore him; admit new students to work on what you want until he get motivated again and comes to your office.

As a supervisor, it's none of your business. Instead of trying to dissuade somebody from reaching their goal, you should support them. It's often a person that motivates people (like an inspiring lecturer). If you do not want to work with the student, you could suggest to switch the supervisor.

Do you want to dissuade the student from continuing because

You think the student is not capable because of a lack of ability,
You think the student might be capable, but just isn't engaging in the work,
You don't see the student is worth investing your time in,
You think the student is wasting his/her money?

If (1), then a frank discussion might be the best way. I have seen other PhD supervisors directly let their PhD students know that they think a research career is not for them.
If (2), you ought to move from dissuasion to a frank discussion in which you try and figure out the reason for the downturn in engagement. Is all well at home? Is it just the usual mid (?) thesis malaise? Has the student lost the big picture and therefore the drive to do the research? Why did the student start the research in the first place? Has the situation changed - e.g. has the life goals been redefined/changed?
If (3) and/or (4), if the student is  paying for themselves, then it's their money they are potentially wasting so I wouldn't concern yourself on how other people spend their money. However, the money is presumably paying your salary in part so your obligations to the student remain in that regard. In return however, you can set reasonable expectations on your student. If you make it clear that you expect your student to achieve reasonable goal A by reasonable deadline Z, and the student doesn't, then that opens up another opportunity for a frank discussion along the lines of the need for effective prioritisation of research work and for-money work.
EDIT: To bring this answer into line with the edited question, I would set out an agreed plan of work - and behaviour (esp. showing up to meetings) -  with deadlines for the next 2/6/12 months. You might want to work with your Head of Department/School on this to ensure that your requirements are reasonable. It appears that you have already said to the student that in your opinion the student isn't PhD material. In setting out your agreed workplan, you are giving - formally - the opportunity for the student to show that he or she is capable of working to an agreed standard. If, as you say, the student isn't capable, then the student will fail and you can reasonably excuse yourself as his PhD supervisor.
I am suggesting this cautious approach, as I am sure your Faculty will want to know why things went this way, and that you offered the best opportunity for your student (or fee-paying client) to succeed, before you ceased to be his supervisor.

in the 1) scenario, I had endless conversations with the individual, but it's not acceptable for me that I have to call him to meet.

In the 2) scenario, the student is well off, and just wants the title, so I know his motivation exactly

in the 3) and 4) I am slightly worried by what you say: even if they're wasting their money, they're also wasting my time, so setting hard, checkable deadlines might be the only solution

@ElCid: I've edited my answer to make it more in line with the edited question.

I think this is a great answer: it's very important to set out a plan that allows the student to succeed or fail on their own effort, rather than taking away their agency by you making a decision for them.

Upvoted. I believe that providing clear criteria to evaluate success (or failure) will help immensely. Stop calling the student to meetings - just keep a record that if he does not fulfill his end of the agreement (meeting; research output, etc.) then you cannot fulfill yours (supervision).

I wouldn't concern yourself on how other people spend their money. — But he's not just waiting his own money; he's also wasting his advisor's time and attention.  In that case, the best approach is to tell the student, respectfully but directly, that you are no longer willing to be his advisor.

There is a lot of context missing from this question, so I'll provide some leading questions.
First, is the student working independently, or are you/ your group counting on their results for some other project? If it's the latter, then you should have a conversation setting out clear and realistic time frames for the work that needs to be done.
If the student is basically operating independently, then how you respond depends on what their goals are. Maybe the student just wants a Ph. D for their own personal satisfaction, and isn't worried about how long it takes. Maybe they want an academic job afterwards, in which case your concerns are valid. You should first aim to understand the student's goals, and then you can suggest whether the way things are going are reasonable to achieve those goals.
If the student didn't have their own funding, there is the additional question of whether it is worth spending your resources to support them, but this doesn't apply here - your student is an adult and can decide if the costs in time and money are worth it for themselves.
Summary: ask your student what they want, and then advise accordingly.

The student is self-funded, and part-time. His motivation is to have a PhD as quickly as possible to apply to a better job with the "dr" title. But the question is more general than this specific context: how does an advisor opt out a student when they're clearly not PhD-material?

@ElCid: Both the parties involved are adults in a consensual relationship.  No one's forcing either of you to stay in the relationship. You say you've had several conversations with the student and let him know that he is not PhD material.  At this point you've done your duty.  It's the student's prerogative, as an adult, to do whatever the hell he wants with his money, including paying for a degree that he may not be suited for.  It's your prerogative to opt out of the relationship by informing him that you are no longer willing to be his advisor.

@debray: I like this suggestion, it might be even considered as an answer to my original question

@debray the relationship may well be consensual, but it is also contractual. The student has provided consideration (his fees) and for that consideration, expects by contract to receive the services of his supervisor. I'd advise against not fulfilling your end of the contract arbitrarily without taking the advice of your line manager. IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE that the student has not met their side of the bargain (e.g. reasonable effort/engagement/progress), but you want to be sure of this before just dropping the student. See also my edited answer.

@Nicholas: I agree that the student's fees entitle him to help and guidance from an advisor; I disagree that that advisor must necessarily be ElCid.  Unless ElCid's employment contract explicitly mentions mentoring this particular student, it seems to me that the problem of finding him (the student) an advisor is not ElCid's (maybe the Dept Head or Director of Graduate Studies?).

In the event that the O.P. wanted to follow debray's advice, but was worried about the contractual issues brought up by Nicholas, one might also consider helping the student find another advisor if he insists on keeping on. Maybe someone else in the department might be willing to take him, despite the less-than-glowing reviews from the O.P. It would be a nice gesture from the O.P., before saying sayonara.


text:
Bullying at a previous affiliation, but now moved on. What to do?
This question is a personal one. I feel like going in circles inside my mind, so I might as well formulate it here for my peace of mind. Apologies if it is not in the right format, or if it does create discussion rather than precise answers.
Academia is rife with bullying, and there is little doubt about that. I have been to counseling to deal with the effects of the lowest self esteem that I found myself in, during my previous job. I couldn't be promoted, I was actively avoided by the colleagues in my research group and my (many) requests for collaboration shunted. Counselling helped a lot, and it made me stronger and more resilient. I found a better job, including the promotion I was after, and now I am well respected and have a group that I can call 'home'.
I was recently called on a duty by a former colleague (nothing fancy, just reviewing some papers for them), and I was tempted to spill all the beans, an aggressive reply and Close the door to the past. I slept on it, and the morning after I accepted the duty. Now I finally realised that the grand scheme of things was for this same colleague to boot everybody else, and become head of the group there, with only lower ranking colleagues around.
So people, what to do... a bloody (well, relatively speaking) revenge that lasts a second but cleanses my soul, or a forgive&forget attitude, swearing not to become the same despicable bully myself?

I'm not sure I understand. It sounds like a former colleague at this toxic department (the same department where you work now?) asked you to review their paper, and you graciously agreed, but now you have reflected on past events and formed an even more negative impression of this person? And the question is whether you should become a "despicable bully" (what would that entail?) vs. doing what you promised or withdrawing gracefully?

Thanks. I have moved on and very happy and enthusiastic about my new department. I also want to be an adult and not a crying baby, so I accepted the duty. When doing so, all memories resurfaced and got me a new clarity about their real intentions. I think I will follow the suggestion of @Erwan and not do the task that I was requested

Regardless of what labels are applied to the situation, it sounds like you left to get away from these people. Continuing to engage with them seems like it will undermine that plan and keep you involved (at least mentally) in a situation that's not doing you any good. I think I'd suggest at least contemplating the idea of cutting the cord.
There's no need to choose between taking revenge or forgiving and forgetting. The better option is to just accept that you no longer work with them, and that they're no longer a part of your life, and get back to living for youself. Trying to decide between revenge and forgiveness is (a) just your brain trying to keep you psychologically involved in a situation that ought to no longer concern you, and (b) a waste of valuable time in your new life.
TL;DR: In the kindest possible way, try not to let your brain get in the way of your new happiness, and move on.
p.s. To be specific, if they ask you to do any further reviews, a polite 'sorry, I don't have time right now' is more than enough.

Agreed. I would even suggest that OP can probably still change their mind about the recent reviews they accepted.

for what it matters: this is a very good answer and on paper that's exactly what I should do. The feelings of injustice (one of my "buttons") trigger me when they resurface, so that's where my question stems from

If you try to take revenge, you are focusing on them. It is no longer about them: it is about you, your new home, your new success.
Do the duty as best and professionally as you can, and show the world what a professional academic looks like.

thanks. Living through these situations is difficult to describe, so a "let me fix it" approach, albeit appreciated, does not always work even though I tried many times what you propose.

then you misunderstood my suggestion. I read your question that you already agreed to do that one thing, and you were wondering if you would "use" that to do revenge or not. Since you already agreed to do that one thing, my suggestion was to do that as best as you can without revenge, and then not interact with that group ever again.

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


text:
Effective ways of organising one's time during a sabbatical
I am about to take a sabbatical period of 6 months. I have planned it with a series of short visits to oversea colleagues (my department does not provide a lot of financial support), but most of my time will be spent in my home country.
The plan is:

to work/submit 4 major journal publications, and
to write a proposal for a local funding agency

This means that I will be mostly on my own, tinkering and pondering and less of a morning routine to go to work.
That scares me: having built a routine throughout all these years in academia, then suddenly spending a lot of time at home, or at the library, risk to become monotonous and ineffective.
What are effective ways of organising one's time during a sabbatical?

Can you be more precise? Perhaps elaborate on your fears.

Do you have a place where you can work without distraction from your regular colleagues?

@BrianBorchers: as said, either home or library, but both seem reclusive

And I thought sabatticals were done in order to take a break from work, not for work! ;)

I work remotely as an academic editor and writer, and have done so for 5 years. The transition from full-time employment to part-time remote work was interesting. I tended to work all the time without leaving much room for self care. What we do in our jobs, we tend to do when our boundaries are relaxed.
I often have large blocks of free time. My productivity suffers (I have personal writing and creative projects) when I don't organize myself well. After years of fine tuning, I have a system that works well for me.
I discovered and addressed three issues:

I am effective for only about 5 hours a day. Anything more and the quality and efficiency of my work suffers; moreover, my physical and mental well-being declines. Accordingly, I work 2.5 hours (with a 5 min break) then take a large chunk of time to play; then I work 2.5 more hours (with a 5 minute break). I find that during play time, I often have creative insights.
Unless I schedule in fitness, fun, and socializing I am likely to waste my time with unhealthy (Netflix) activity. In your case, you might spend your whole time writing 4 articles! That is quite a hefty commitment and your sabbatical time likely should include time for pondering life's meaning and reading the stack of books that is piling up.
Get up when the sun rises and go to bed soon after it sets. I've done all combinations of working all night, playing all night and everything in between. I feel the best when I follow the sun. When I was in Orkney the nights were 4.5 hours long and it was enough sleep for me though I usually sleep 7-8 hours a night. I don't understand it, but there it is.

Although there are many options the productivity tool I found most effective is bullet journaling. It is simple and quick and there's no software involved (although you could buy some if you want to). I create a daily plan bar https://bulletjournal.com/blogs/bulletjournalist/daily-plan-bar
and I also have a weekly plan
https://bulletjournal.com/blogs/bulletjournalist/top-5-bujo-ideas-in-2016
And I never beat myself up for varying from the plan if something more enjoyable arises.
Have a great 6 months.

Good points, except on sleep hygiene. People are to a large extent hard-wired to be 'larks' or 'owls'. Trying to change that deliberately likely leads to bad sleep quality.

these are great points, and most likely to resonate with anyone who's now required to working remotely a few days a week. These points might come handy, and I am looking forward to the challenge of reverting back to the original weekly schedule, once the sabbatical period is over


text:
Contents of the discussion section
In an academic paper, we sometimes have a "Results and Discussion" section.
It is not uncommon to add the explanation and discussion of the results together with the results section.
What are the pros and cons of both practices from an academic point of view? How do I weigh them for each paper?

List the results without explaining their significance, which is then explained in the discussion section.
List the results with their explanation as they are being listed, and eliminate the discussion section.

I find the second approach more appropriate to understand the results, since the reader wouldn't need to be going back and forth the sections, but then again, that is just my feeling.

Hi Leon, I edited your question to remove the subjective aspect of it “Which practice do you think is better”… I think it fits our Q&A format better that way. Do not hesitate to edit further if you think I lost some of your original meaning.

I must say that I would have a hard time listing the pros of the first approach (separate results and discussion sections), because I don't like it and it doesn't fit my style of writing. My advice would be: if you can, write in the style that you like best, because that's how your writing will be most natural/readable/convincing.
However, the choice is not Manichaean as you make it sound. There exist a continuum between those two, because it mainly depends on what you call “results” and “discussion”. When I write for a journal that requires a strict “results then discussion” format, what I usually do is that I put most of my text in the results part, and leave some general overall discussion for the discussion part. Typically, it would given something like:

Results

First result. Discuss its implications.
Second result. How it confirms result #1. Consistent with previous observations [ref].
Third result. Again, some discussion of it.

Discussion
Altogether, what is the insight given by these results. It changes our view of this phenomenon somewhat. It is in line with work by X et al., but highlights some contradictions of Y’s model.

That's a bit “cheating”, but I've never been asked to reörganize any paper written in that way.

My post doc advisor has submitted a number of papers with the "Discussion" section renamed "Speculation". While the editor/reviewers have always required the section be renamed "Discussion", her approach rubbed off on me. By treating the Discussion section as if everything is speculation, it becomes clear what goes into the Discussion and what goes inot the results.


text:
How many PhD students does a typical STEM professor graduate during their entire career?
The discussion on this infogram made me wonder about the number of PhD students that a full research professor successfully graduates in their entire career.  By professor, I mean a full professor, not an associate or exclusively teaching professor or other positions referred to as professor depending on field and location.  Of course, the answer is not a single number, but rather a probability density function that is a function of field, place, time, university, and probably other factors.  To narrow the scope, I formulate the question as:
For selected fields and countries, what are recent figures on the mean and standard deviation (alternatively median and median absolute deviation, in case the distribution is non-Gaussian) for the number of PhD students successfully graduated per professor throughout their entire career?

(I think the mean should be equal to the ratio of professors/PhD students at any instant in time, but I'm not sure)

In the US, I would bet heavily that the median is 0. There are lots of institutions with no PhD programs at all.

@NateEldredge But I would expect the professor in an institution (or even a department) without PhD students to be a teaching professor who teaches undergrads, not a research professor.

@trutheality such distinctions are not so easily made. In many institutions I have seen in the US a research professor is someone who does not teach anything. There are a very small number of those positions in the US. On the other hand what you call teaching professors still do conduct research. Gerrit, how would you count a student advised by a someone while they were an associate professor?

Why exclude associate and assistant professors ? at least in the US, these are "real professors" too :)

@trutheality:The US makes no such distinction as far as titles: a senior faculty member at Harvard and one at Harvey Mudd both get the simple title "Professor".  For the US, a better measure would probably be for the denominator to include all tenured faculty at PhD-granting institutions, and for the numerator to count all students graduates over the professor's career (including those advised as an assistant or associate professor).

I am guessing that someone could come at a reasonable guess using the data in the Taulbee Survey.

@Suresh I exclude those in an attempt to get a more equal field between academics called professor in different countries.

@BSteinhurst I'm not sure.  Can an associate professor be the primary supervisor of a PhD student (I think they can't in Sweden, only secondary).

@gerrit my advisor was an associate when I started working with him. It can happen. Where I was a student the issue was whether the adviser has tenure which usually happens at the same time as promotion to associate prof in the US. Exceptions apply.

@gerrit I graduated my first PhD student when I was still an assistant professor. Tenure status is simply irrelevant for PhD supervision in the US.  (So getting stats about PhDs only from full profs in the US is going to be impossible.)

I once heard (during a program review) that the "desired" number of students graduated is 1/year/faculty in CS. But I think 0.5 students/year might be a more reasonable number.

So, the OP is asking if there are some statistics in some cases.  (We can get plenty of opinions, anecdotes, and objections to the question.)  So, if there are some statistics in some particular case, put it in an answer and say what the assumptions are.

How many grad students do you think a prof can supervise at once? In my PhD program, nobody had more than 5. I can't imagine a program anywhere that it could be 100. Let's say 10 as an order of magnitude. Now if that prof is active for 32 years, and each student takes 4 years, that means 80 students, right? So your actual answer is probably "between 40 and 160" if 10 was ok. But if 5 was ok, then as few as 20 - 5*8 and then halve it because not all profs are full force all the time.

@KateGregory: over here (Germany) while the professor is needed for granting the degree, PhD thesis does not need to have supervision.  A hermit could write their thesis, and then knock at a professor's door and ask the professor whether they accept that thesis. The professor could then read the thesis, check Hermit's experiments and judge the scientific content and start the PhD-granting procedure (committee, reviewers, defense etc). In practice, supervision is often done by scientific staff ranging from habilitated scientists (have the qualification to be prof)) to postdocs.

It depends on the size and staffing needs of their lab. For example, theoretical computer science and mathematics professors may need no lab support at all.  Thus, they are under no pressure to take grad students or post-docs and can choose just the ones that they want.
However, if you are doing work on stem cells, you may need a great deal of lab support. You would want a team of doctoral students and a couple of post-docs at any one time. In order to maintain continuity, you would want to accept at least one doctoral student each year. So if you had a 20 year career, you would have at least 20 students (or 20 - 7 = 13 given that it takes students 7 years to graduate and you don't want to leave students hanging at the end).
You'll need to narrow down what you mean by a "STEM" field in order to get a more precise answer.


text:
Is the status of postdocs perceived differently in western Europe vs. North-America?
In a footnote at this answer by on leaving a postdoc early, user Luke Mathieson writes:

A postdoc in the US has lower status that it does in Europe/Australia/New Zealand/...,

I'm aware that postdocs in the USA typically have lower pay than in (say) Sweden or The Netherlands (I did not look into other countries).  I don't know if pay is quite proportional to status.  In the way postdocs are perceived by others—undergraduates, graduate students, pre-tenure academics, tenured professors—is there a difference in postdoc status in different parts of the world?
I realise this question is somewhat subjective, so I'm looking for either testimonies based on people who have worked as or with postdocs in both western Europe and North America, or in-depth articles exploring this issue.

Might be a bit broad: from the little I've seen, postdocs have varying status in different departments in the same university, from skivvy to putative professor.

@EnergyNumbers Good point.  I've adapted the question to make it focus on western Europe / North America.  Might still be quite broad though...  I'll let the community decide over the fate of this question ;-)

The big difference is that most places in Europe don't have a tradition of assistant professorship, or, more generally, tenure-track faculty. Here's an example of the "typical" career progression of an academic in Austria (durations can vary by a lot, I just give examples here for illustration purposes):

Phd Student (4 to 5 years finished with Doctorate)
Postdoc (6 to 10+ years finished with habilitation / venia docendi)
"Privatdozent" (undefined length, non-tenured position, somewhat comparable with a non-tenured associate professor)
Full Professor / Chaired Professor (tenured position).

Note that there is no assistant professorship, and (2) that no tenured position before Full Professor exists.
Clearly, in this system there are postdocs with many years of experience in their field. They often have developed their own small group, work very loosely with a faculty mentor or completely independently, have their own funding and supervise PhD students that are "quasi" theirs (postdocs are not formally allowed to supervise PhD students before habilitation, but it is common practice that the mentor of the postoc formally supervises the postdoc's staff without involving her/himself much in the actual process). These postdocs are often considered assistant professors, even going so far as to call themselves assistant professor on their web pages and business cards despite not actually being professors de jure.
The general takeaway is that being a postdoc in Europe may have higher status than in the US, but it is not true for every postdoc. As postdoc status can last a very long time in Europe, one needs to look very closely at the person himself to see how senior she/he actually is.

I have a slight difficulty with understanding the Austrian career progression outline in your answer: where do you place the extraordinary professors (ao. Profs)? Thanks in advance.