text:
I feel lost with my master thesis
When I sit and start writing my master thesis, I write the first couple lines, then I don't know what to write and get stuck.
I feel like I'm not creative enough for writing.
The questions are. How to get around this blockage? How to organize the ideas? How to stay focused? Is this think typical?

Hi, welcome to the site.  Do you think you can rephrase this to be a more specific question?  As you wrote it, I don't see how we can provide a helpful answer.  If not, talking to your adviser would be a good start.

What is your question? Or do you just.want to talk?

Yes, fairly typical.

Writer's block. Very common. Look for something else to do (go to the library looking for further references, check your experiments, clean up your programs, print out and proofread your current writing, go for an extended walk, ...). Obsessing about it won't do any good, just much harm.

Does this question help?

What you are dealing with is called writer's block. The short advice is to just write, don't care at all about the quality, do not allow yourself to delete what you wrote and try again.

I have to assume that you have done the required research and are now just at the writing stage.
This could be a lot of things. But one piece of advice is to not try to write it from the first word to the last. Work from an outline. Fill in the outline in such a way that it seems like a blurry picture becoming clearer and clearer.
In other words, if you have some idea about methodology, work on that section for a bit. If there is something about the conclusion that comes to you, write that down. Go through whatever notes you have made and add ideas to appropriate sections as you go.
Another technique is to use index cards effectively. Carry them around with you and add new cards or modify old ones as ideas come to you throughout the day. Index cards can be better than a notebook, since they can easily be rearranged and even discarded. As you mine the notes you have, write index cards for the ideas there. Rearrange as necessary.
Ultimately a deck of index cards could, in some sense, represent the entire work.
This isn't the only possible way to attack it, but a piecemeal approach might be able to help you avoid some forms of writer's block, such as being overwhelmed whenever you sit down.
Of course, this method will require heavy editing for continuity as you get closer to the end.

There is a more extreme method that was once mentioned to me by an English professor in an intensive writing course. He had a lot of contacts who were writers of various kinds. He mentioned one person whose method was to "make one page of progress" every day. The person would work until the current manuscript, including revisions, was one page longer than the day before. This results in a short story every three weeks or a novel every year. But, I suspect that it takes a certain sort of personality, somewhat obsessive, to manage that. And one page of progress is not the same as one page of writing. And it was creative writing he was speaking of, not scientific writing.

The index card method sounds very interesting, I want to try it some time! Can you give any advice on how elaborate they should be?

@JonasSchwarz, start with only a sentence or two on a card. Don't try to fill it. You can use different colored cards for different kinds of ideas. See this, though it was written for a different purpose: https://cseducators.stackexchange.com/a/1168/1293

Try to do the easiest parts first.  Not the most important parts.  Not the beginning.  Just anything easy.
This gives you traction and starts to build up some form of a document.  Once you see that, you move on to the next easiest part.
It is AMAZING how well this process works to deal with writers avoidance.
I just had a work PPT that was scaring and depressing me (mental voice telling me over and over "you are shit").  But I made a computer file and saved it (just a save as of another file).  Then I cleared all the slides except title and one content slide.  Then I edited over the title slide and the content slide became an outline.  Then I added my personal bio/intro.
All pathetically easy and in the context of things, low content/value.  But I started to see a document emerge.  Then I added (using cut and paste) slides with very simple titles for each think I might talk about, maybe 12 of them.  Just blank slides with a very short title on top.  Then I picked the easiest of those slides to fill in.  Then I was on my way and before you know it, I had a 30 page PPT, which I even had to be strategic about only covering select parts and using an appendix during an hour talk.
You can use the same process to overcome that inner voice saying "I am shit".

Save and name a Word file. Yes, just this basic step.
Make the title page.  Yes, just this basic step.  But now it is recognizable as the start of a document on your topic.
Using the page break feature, make sections for the different parts of your document (acknowlegement, TOC, TOF, TOT, abstract, intro, Chapter A, chapter B, chapter C, Conclusion, Endnotes).  You don't even need to write any of the content. Just make a page that has "Table of Contents" as words at the top of the page (not even inserting the TOC yet).  OK!  Now you have a verifiable skeleton of your document.  [Don't worry too much about if the topics are ABC or ABCD or 123.  Just slap a very simplistic 5 year old's breakdown of the topic as sections.  There's more than a 50% chance that that stays as the high level structure...but even if not, it is easy to rearrange content in the future once you have something down.]
IF you have any papers (school papers or journal articles) that cover the content you will do, than cut and paste those in.  AS IS.  Yes, you may need to do some pruning, synthesizing, reformatting later.  But for now, if the content of Chapter A roughly corresponds to your paper in Journal of A, than dump it in.  [Use your judgment here, as if the stuff is way afar, than it's just spinach you have to prune later.  But if it is on the topic, copy it.  (You will use citations and comments to cover yourself for re-use of text.  Don't let the plagiarism pedants stop you.)]
Now write the easiest section.  Which is.  The acknowledgments.  Just type that stuff in.  Boom.  You have actually written a section now.  Yeah, it's a gimme.  Yeah, no content on your topic.  But so what.  This is about traction.
Now the abstract.  Everyone will tell you to write that at the end...but this is about TRACTION.  You can go back and edit it EASY.  But that's a simple set of 1-3 short paragraphs.  You can just jot something down.  And it will get you thinking about the topic.  OK.  Now boom, you actually wrote something about your topic.  Go, YOU!!!!
Continue to pick away at it in this fashion.  Always going for easiest first.  Once you have a skeleton with random pieces of meat hanging off of it, you are going...the cadaver will come to life.
If you need to take a break, then go back and do a little editing, wordsmithing of previous parts. But try to keep that light and don't get too diverted.  The main thing is to get chunks of gory meat on the paper.  Don't worry if not perfect.  Just get slabs of stuff on the paper.
Somewhere around 20-50% of the meat down, you'll have traction and know that you are going to create a complete carcass.  And then you will.
And then pretty it up with embalming fluid and rouge and Sunday clothes.
Give it a kiss...and move on to other conquests.

You can do this.  Try my process.
P.s.  This works even if you haven't done "all the research".  Really as long as you've had some heavy immersion/work in the topic such that you can write a lot of the content, it can actually help you break "RESEARCHER'S BLOCK" to write the paper.  I have written good science papers, where I knew that I still had to do some data analysis or run another set of bench experiments or do a graph...but wasn't in the mood.  The act of writing the entire paper (EVEN INCLUDING dependent conclusions of yet to be done experiments/analysis) got me motivated to do the last pieces of research.  And yes, sometimes I even had to modify my "conclusion".

Thanks, very useful!

(+1) for "Try to do the easiest parts first. [...] This gives you traction and starts to build up some form of a document." This reminds me of Dave Ramsey's strategy for getting out of debt: "pay off debts in order from smallest to largest, gaining momentum as each balance is paid off". It's also how I attacked the grading of difficult-to-grade tests --- start with the best students in the class, as easiest to grade, because they made very few mistakes that I'd have to decide how to deal with.

Write any bit in any order and, very importantly, don't worry about how good it is. Writing and editing are different tasks and require different approaches. Switching between them interferes with doing either of them. You can do the organisation later. Sure, it's nice to be able to organise as you go, but a blank page can intrude so much on your thinking that the panic gets in the way.
To get past the initial bit, you might also want to talk instead of write. What I mean by this is to find someone who is willing to listen and simply describe to them what you are doing, why you are doing it, what you found out and why that's interesting. If possible, get them to ask 'why' type questions when they don't understand something. Then write down what you said - one of the advantages of a lockdown is that such talking is probably recordable. If you don't have anyone, then imagine someone and record your explanation to your imaginary colleague.
Once you have something written, start organising it (not a full edit). For each paragraph, write a few words next to it to describe the main idea. Then look at all those main ideas and put them in the right order by reordering your paragraphs. Work out what ideas are missing, add in a few words for that main idea (in the right place). Expand any into paragraphs that you can, but don't worry if you just leave it as the idea place holder.
There are also resources available, this is a very common problem. Maybe your university has some online recommendations (look for a study skills site). But other universities will also have recommendations.
Another option is to find an extended article on a topic that is like yours. Then simply copy the structure. Obviously you don't want to be plagiarising or using their phrasing, but if they have three paragraphs describing the lab setup, then that gives you guidance on the sort of things you need to put in your description of the lab setup.

There are some really good suggestions already, but you could also consider getting help in real life. Most universities (in Germany at least, but I'd think the same applies to other countries as well) offer courses to address this problem or have a person one might contact.
From my experience the people providing these services are really competent, but your mileage may vary depending on your institution.


text:
When Criticism gets personal?
I would like to know when critics start to be personal? There are lots of these "Don't take it too much personally" stories, but what is the other side? Of course, constructive criticism is an inevitable part of the academic world, but how to easily recognize that someone starts to push too hard... Where is this breaking point?
Example: A discussion after the research's presentation, when a committee (audience) is doing the assessment of work.
Thank you!

What sort of criticism are we talking about?  You published an academic book and then someone published a scathing review of it?  That's one thing.  OR: You are a student, and another student criticizes how you wear your hair?  That is something else.

The "breaking point" often comes from regularity of criticism, even if it is valid and non-personal
I don't think the issue here is a matter of criticism being "too hard" or "too soft".  The line determining when criticism "becomes personal" is about the target of the criticism, not the intensity of the criticism on that target.  If the criticism is focused on the content of your work, or even if it makes a comparison of the quality of your work relative to the expectation at your year level/cohort, then that is a valid pedagogical observation.  Such criticism aims to give critical feedback on the content of student work and an assessment of where its quality stands relative to cohort expectations.  On the other hand, if the criticism strays into territory where it is directed at the inherent qualities of the person presenting (e.g., their presumed intelligence, etc.) then that is when it becomes personal.  This is true even if the latter kind of criticism is less harsh in intensity than the former kind of criticism.
One of the things about being a student, and being instructed by experts in the field, is that your entire education program consists of being given correction and critical feedback to gradually improve your work (and this is as true for PhD students as for early undergraduates).  By necessity, much of that feedback focuses on the areas where improvement is required.  The regularity of this criticism, and the fact that it lasts for years, can lead some students to feel beaten down even if the criticism itself is perfectly valid and non-personal from a pedagogical standpoint.  In such cases, students need to balance out the regular criticism of their work by taking breaks and reminding themselves of how much they have improved in the years of their education.  Ideally, supervisors and teachers will recognise this dymanic and also try to temper their regular criticisms of work with periods where they focus on positives, take stock of progress, or just offer students breaks in work where they needn't worry about improvement.
One of the great things that the Stoic philosophers teach us is that we need to stop always looking ahead to what we haven't got yet, and take the time to enjoy the things we have already achieved (I highly recommend reading Epictetus on this point; he will make your life better).  For students (particularly those in the late stages of their tertiary education), this means that you should take time to remind yourself how much more you know that when you started your education, how much more profient you are, etc.  It is normal to feel deficient when you compare yourself to professional scholars who are experts in the field, and to feel beaten down by the drum-beat of constant critique of your work (particularly if you stay in tertiary education for many years).  Use this criticism to push yourself forward, but make sure you take the time to remind yourself how far you have already come.  In my own supervision of students (whether it is undergraduates in courses or PhD students doing research) it is common that most of the feedback I give them is about deficiencies in their work that they need to improve.  However, I also try to improve student morale by reminding them of how far they have come since they started their education.  You need to balance those two things to make sure you don't reach your "breaking point".

Great comment! thx

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it acceptable to ask my professor for help for another class during her office hours?
I am in two classes (1 and 2), and my 1 professor never answers emails or holds office hours now that we're online. There is also no TA. Oh well, there's nothing I can do except include this information in my review at the end of the class.
I happen to know that my 2 professor has taught 1 sections in the recent past, and she attends her office hours without fail. If I give precedence to any student hoping to learn 2 during my professor's office hours, then is it acceptable to attend with the intention of getting help for my 1 class?

I did that once as a final year student but I was lucky...

Keep in mind that one possible outcome is that your professor 2 raises this issue with your professor 1 directly, or complains to the department chair. (I'm not saying that you should avoid this.)

It is always acceptable to ask.  Just don't expect an answer other than "no".

@JeffE: Depending on the system. There are people who get angry by asked (normal) questions.

@user111388 Yes, there are selfish and immature people everywhere. Their anger doesn't mean asking them questions is unacceptable.

@JeffE: I agree. But one should be also prepared for their anger and possible actions to acceptable questions.

This might depend on local custom, but I don't think there is any reason that you shouldn't ask for help. You may be sent to the other professor or just told that the one you ask hasn't the time for you. But asking is fine.
Of course it is also appropriate to say why you ask the one and not the other. But having a relationship with a professor makes it easier to discuss things with than with someone more distant.
The professor will set boundaries if necessary. You don't need to be overly concerned with whether you are interfering with other students.

I don't see any reason why a student couldn't ask, but I think it would be surprising if the answer was "Why don't you to talk to your instructor."

I have no objection to students asking me questions about material from other courses, or even general mathematical questions, in my office hours, subject to the understanding that the students from my class have priority. I believe most of my colleagues do the same.

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


text:
Can I copy text from a scientific paper onto my website without directly referencing?
I am writing a text for a website where I'm going to sell nootropics.
I was wondering if it is illegal/fraudulent to copy the text directly from the scientific papers onto my website without directly referencing the papers? (I will reference the papers at the end of the text).

How would it be fraud?

I would say it is a copyright violation (depending on your jurisdiction, of course) to copy a text without indicating that you copied it and from where.

@DrEval Changing "Some small studies have found a positive effect, but not a statistically significant one" to 'major scientist says "studies have found a positive effect" about our product' might conceivably be fraud.

If you're doing something that's legitimate, why would you not put in citations? Putting in citations to a webpage is trivial. All you need to do is add something like 1 for the text you're supporting by the citation and then have an ordered, or unordered, list at the end of the page with the numbered reference information. OTOH, if you're quoting a larger portion, it's normal to have something inline to indicate the source.

This isn't an academia question, it is a legal question about copyrights.

It's a website. Just link the papers from the claims! (and use your own words, not somebody else's)

You must quote copied text and cite it where it is quoted.
Citations at the end are vague and can be misleadingly general.  Specifically, it can give the impression that the cited works support all of the text on the page as a whole.  Specific citations are honest in that they clearly delimit what is being cited from the rest of the content of the page.

This is a statement that is true beyond just the present specific question.

In the scientific community, doing such a thing is frowned upon.  In short, one can do it, but the negatives clearly outweigh the positives.
If you're appealing to the scientific community with evidence, scientists like to vet the supporting evidence by reading the citations.  If your appealing to non-scientists, your evidence can quickly get mistaken for opinion if not presented as supporting evidence.
Journalists sometimes hide their sources with the hackney phrase, "an anonymous source says".  Even in journalistic circles, this is poor practice as it basically advertises that you can't find a person who's willing to say it with a proper citation.  That, or you made up the statement and the fake source.
If you are concerned that the citation will break up the flow of the writing, then work the citation into the writing.

In 1996, Prof. John Doe at the University of Elbonia found that flatworms dance to the tune of a polka best.

The effort you spent writing this question exceeds the effort you would spend citing your source.
So just cite it more clearly and don't bother to worry about whether you can avoid it or not. There's no downside to citation. If you're worried about the space this would take up, then link to the bottom of your text instead of citing in some long form.

It is both unethical and illegal to copy text if you don't acknowledge the source. If the amount of text is substantial, copying usually is illegal even you do acknowledge the source.
If your operation is small, and you don't care about your reputation, you may be able to fly under the radar and not get caught. But first ask yourself the Dirty Harry question.

Up voted for the Dirty Harry reference but you really should explain a cultural reference like that.

[As suggested in a comment, I am adding a note that the following response is based on standards in the United States as far as I understand them. My experience is as an academic who has had to understand these issues in the course of my work. Much of this may be common throughout the world, but please confirm for the relevant jurisdictions.]
The question asks if it is legal "to copy the text" (emphasis mine). By that, I assume the questioner wants to copy the full (or nearly full) text of the original article.
No, you can't do this, even if you cite the source. Unless the source explicitly puts the article into the public domain (most journals do not do so).
You can quote (if you cite) parts of the article under Fair Use, but you cannot quote it substantially. Journals usually make money by charging a subscription or per-article access fees. To preserve this revenue stream, they do not want their articles to be available on the internet. In fact, even the original authors are usually barred from publishing their own articles on their web sites (depending on the journal and practices of the particular branch of academia), though they can share those articles with individuals if requested.
In the questioner's case, the content is probably from a clinical or biological journal. It's not likely these articles would be in the public domain (Math and Physics are more lenient), and since this would be using the text for commercial gain, you are in a poor spot. Large publishers would likely be pretty aggressive in enforcing copyright in such cases.
I can understand how coming from outside academia it is tempting to think that science is a free-for-all of information to benefit the public domain. There are indeed efforts to move in this direction. But in reality, academia is a pretty big business, and journals are often (not always) commercial ventures. A notable counterexample to all of this is PLOS. If your article happens to come from this journal, you might be in luck.

Please add a note for which jurisdiction(s) your legal information applies (not all of them even know the concept of "fair use").

And even in those that do, there is often a considerably higher standard for commercial use.

You can eather use Edwin Buck format or put the name of author and publication year in parantesies at the and of the sentence. or you can put a number at the end of the sentence that coinsides with the number on your reference list. in this way people can look where you are taking the sentence from and check it. as sessej said only references is vary vaigue and I just might want to check where a particular sentence or idea come from.

I find it particularly amusing that there's an "Edwin Buck" format.  I would have called it a no-style reference (or unstyled if you really like English).  Mentally juxtaposing my "no-style" name with your "Edwin Buck" name manages to tickle my funny bone in my favorite kind of gently self-deprecating way.  Thanks for the good laugh, and I hope you got a smile from it too! :)

Yes, when I look at it afterfact, it is funny. I was planning to write Edwin Buck's reccomendation. Thanks for pointing it out.

When you quote something exactly, turn it into a quotation and include a citation next to the quote.  You're using words somebody else went to the effort to create, and you need to give the credit to them.  A references list at the end is not specific enough to give the specific credit where it is due for the quotes you're including.
As someone who has written scientific papers, I would think it very unethical, fraudulent, and disingenuous to find text that I had written copy-pasted onto a website without a note that is was a direct quote and an attribution back to my paper.  And as others have pointed out, it's illegal.


text:
Are you required to report audited courses when applying for graduate school?
I recently noticed that a few of the courses I am required to take for my undergraduate program are also offered by an online university, and that they allow you to audit said courses relatively cheaply. Would it be a good idea to study ahead using these courses, or is such a thing considered unethical as it would give me an advantage when I take the course at my own institution? Am I generally required to report the audited courses when I later apply for graduate school (which would presumably look 'bad')?
Specifically I am in Canada if the rules vary by region.

Why do you think work and effort is bad?

@SolarMike Would I be considering this at all if I thought that?

Because you say “would it be a good idea to study ahead...” your very words...

@SolarMike You are omitting "... using these courses"; I am asking about auditing online courses ahead of taking them at my own institution...

My question was based on the way you phrased your question ... if you had asked it differently you may have given a different impression...

As long as you do your work by yourself, everything else is fair game. You may study ahead, consult publicly available materials (of course, unless prohibited by the instructor), pray that the FSM would enlighten you, or travel to an alternative universe where you already know all the stuff...

Don't worry about it.
I don't believe I've ever heard of a school requiring that audited courses must be reported when applying for admission. Essentially, if you're not getting some sort of official recognition for having taken the course (credit or placement in some form), then you don't have to report it.
As far as "getting an (unfair) advantage" from it, you could get a similar advantage by getting the textbooks for your courses over the summer and reading them ahead of time. Nobody would expect you to report that or call it unethical, so why would it be any different just because you audited an online course?


text:
PhD expectations of commitment
I was discussing the possibility of entering a PhD program from a professor who I had during my masters degree.
We discussed the level of commitment he expected and he stated he expects PhD students to be committed to PhD completion above all else, regardless of subject interest or circumstances on the part of the student. Basically he wanted someone who would 100% be his yes-man.
While I made clear I had a strong interest in the subject(and my prior performance in these areas is reasonably good) I couldn't say without actually entering the program what the result would be. Communicating anything else felt dishonest, basically I had a strong belief but I couldn't make a promise.
Is this position standard for PhD advisors? Basically, is it reasonable to assume someone will be 100% committed to something without experience working on the problem?

A "yes-man" is one who fails to question another person by providing honest opinions and feedback and instead agrees with everything they do or say. I don't think that's what you meant.

The problem really compounds when you realize, if you work those dedicated hours, you're getting paid damn near minimum wage.  What he's really saying to you is, he expects you not to allow ANY necessity to trump your willingness to do cheap labor for him for easily 5+ years.  A large part of this could well be grunt work you learn little from in the latter years as well (e.g. follow up papers on a topic you already understand well because he has a grant to study it ad nauseum).

Now that I'm a senior PhD student within a year of graduating (in engineering), I hold my Professor's feet to the fire in terms of him contracting me for 20h/week legally.  Students should not have to self-sacrifice and actively exclude other funding sources (that are professionally productive) like internships, scientific consultancies, etc. largely to promote a Professor's agenda.

"expects PhD students to be committed to PhD completion above all else" suggests that the professor wants the student to be fully committed to the student's success but "basically he wanted someone who would 100% be his yes-man" suggests that the professor doesn't really care about the student at all but simply wants them for something like lab work. The premise of your question seems confused.

@JohnColeman "regardless of subject interest or circumstances on the part of the student" certainly doesn't sound like it's in the student's interest to me. "Yes-man" might not be quite the right term, but (assuming OP's characerisation is correct) it certainly doesn't sound like the advisor has much care for the student's interests.

@ChrisH I interpreted "regardless of subject interest or circumstances on the part of the student" as likely part of OP's negative gloss on the professor's statements. Of course, neither of us were there (at least, I wasn't), so we can only guess.

No, he made clear he wants his students to be happy with what ever he tells them to do as his perspective is it's an opportunity to work under him for minimum wage for 5 years regardless of if you personally like what your working on.

-1 for posting what appears on the surface to be a questioned asked in good faith, but in reality (based on your many comments to the answers) is just a rant and you want the answer to be the one you have already decided.

It's clear that you don't want to work with this advisor.  So don't.

My personal assessment is that the professor is correct. A good PhD student in my opinion is someone who is committed fully to the completion of the thesis, and spends 100% of working hours (and let's face it, even much beyond that) on it. There is no way around it, if one wishes to be a good academic.
Also:
"expects PhD students to be committed to PhD completion above all else, regardless of subject interest or circumstances on the part of the student. Basically he wanted someone who would 100% be his yes-man."
My impression is that the premise of the sentence does not imply anything about being a yes man. It simply means full dedication.
Following clarifications, the Professor did insinuate the candidate he/she should be a yes-man. This is a warning sign, and is unrelated to the question of dedication needed to complete a PhD thesis.

I think the core issue is, you never know until you do it and predicting a certain outcome a priori is at best wishful thinking or an expected lie. But to be clear he made the statement that essentially you should be happy doing what ever he tells you to do. That is the definition of yes-man.

I don't think it is like that at all. A dedicated person pursuing a PhD knows certainly well that he/she is going to make it work no matter what, and although they are naturally afraid things would not go well, they never doubt their own dedication to make any effort to make it work.

Given the retention rates of PhD students I beg to differ(I read on Quora it was 50% in the US).

Indeed, if he insinuates that you should be a yes man then this is a completely different matter, and something you should address in your question. As of now it is written in way that does not imply that.

"Given the retention rates of PhD students I beg to differ" --- That is seemingly almost a proof of my point: Almost all successful PhD students are those with utter dedication. The others drop out.

My point was I'm sure most people thought they were perfect for a PhD and found it later on it wasn't going to work for them so they quit. I'm intellectually honest enough in saying I don't know for sure but there is certainly evidence supporting a certain outcome. This wasn't considered a sufficient level of dedication I guess, but to me it seems unreasonable to expect anything else short of a lie.

Again, I don't believe that is the general case. I believe that many candidates come truly fully-committed. They do not lie. You may claim that they later find out they are not truly committed, while you are honest/smart enough to acknowledge it already now. I would answer that the chance that someone who already at the beginning provides potential limitations on his/her dedication is of higher risk (say, 40%) to drop out, than those who utter full dedication (say, 15% drop out rate).

I would argue you can't be committed to something without doing it before. It's like saying you're dedicated to winning a tournament you have never competed in.

Certainly you can commit to many things you haven't done before. It's like somebody proposes to marry you, and your answer is "I can't commit fully, 'cause I haven't done it before".

@FourierFlux, "50% in the US" citation needed. And don't believe everything you read there (or here).

Well, if you look at the divorce rate apparently most people can't commit to staying married either. But more fundamentally nobody would suggest marrying someone without first a substantial accumulation of experience with the person.

@buffy https://cgsnet.org/sites/default/files/phd_completion_attrition_baseline_program_data.pdf This is old data but still.

The same is with getting a new job: essentially you're saying in your job interview that you are not sure you can commit! Again, my assessment is that the professor is correct: he/she assumes that if a candidate starts with uncertain dedication, then the risk of dropping out is higher then a standard PhD candidate. I think this assumption is rational and justified. You may be part of the minority who cannot commit in advance, but actually is a great student. The chances for that are low by rational thinking hence the professor is right.

Few people would ever sign a contract to stay locked with a company for a certain number of years, particularly without working with them before. Short of doing that, everything is talk which is essentially meaningless. I know of no one who has stayed an extended amount of time at a company they don't like when other opportunity presents itself and this is ultimately implicitly understood by everyone.

Your argument started with the claim that one cannot commit to something they haven't done already. I provided easy counter examples. Moreover, you haven't refuted my simple argument explaining why the professor is correct: the chances that someone who is not even willing to commit at the beginning of their PhD is going to drop out is higher than those who can fully commit but then fail somehow to hold their promise. Hence, the professor is rational.

Downvoted.  While I agree that it doesn't mean the same as "yes man" the phrase "regardless of subject interest or circumstances on the part of the student" raises a serious red flag for me. That's not a description of "commitment" or "full dedication"; that's a description of indentured servitude.  It's completely unreasonable to expect any student to continue giving 100% to a PhD if they are injured or one of their parents dies, or to expect a student to continue working on a particular PhD project if they lack interest in that project.

When I take on a PhD student, I am investing $10,000s of MY resources, as well as 100s of hours (or 1000s somethimes) of MY time into that indevidual. Not only that, but they probably have a studentship or scholarship of some sort that specifies at least what the general topic of their research will be.
What do I expect in return for this?

I expect the student give 100% of their professional effort to this - doing a PhD is not a part time persuit. I expect at least 7 hours a day, 5 days a week. And the acknowledgement that occassionally it is impossbile to avoid having to do more than this. I would not ask for committement "above all else", such as family commitements, or the students own health, for example. I also believe that students should have a life outside of the lab - hobbies etc.
I expect students to come with the attitude that they are here to get a PhD. Obviously its impossible to say with 100% certainty that they will complete. I want them to believe that this is what they want to the full extent it is ever possible for a person to know such a thing. They are not here to "try it out" or "see how it goes", they fully believe they want to do a PhD. Remember if I give a studentship to you, I am therefore not giving it to someone else. Now it might turn out that is doesn't work out. That this is not the best thing for them. Obviously if they came in good faith and this turns out to be the case we will explore together what is in their best interests.
I expect a student to study the general area we have agreed they will study. Sometimes an area will not prove to be fruitful, and any change will be agreed between us. Within the topic, I'd like students to have as much freedom as possible to follow what they think are fruitful/intersting directions. I expect them to serious consider my advice on the matter, but I don't expect them to just do what I say, when I say it. That said, experiments, and even computation time, costs money, and I hold the purse strings. Every $ spent on your project is a $ that can't be spent on someone elses project, so I may put my foot down and say "no, I don't believe that is a good use of resources".

I'm pretty sure that you'll find that all STEM supervisors have similar ideas about 1 and 2 - there might be variations on how much time they expect. Run a mile from someone who wants to prioritise your PhD above your family - And some might be more dissappointed than others if it doesn't turn out well. But while the details may difer, the general idea will be the same.
Three will be more variable from supervisor to supervisor, and its here that you will want to find a supervisor that fits best with how you see things. Generally the more expensive research in a field is, the less freedom you'll have.

Would someone not come in good faith, generally? I mean again, in engineering at least the graduates aren't desperate for jobs and it's generally an economic loss to continue on a PhD instead of entering industry. In certain pure science areas I understand that the PhD may be the only way to get employment in a field related to their degree which gives advisors a lot more leverage which doesn't exist in areas with better economic prosperity,

By good faith, I mean they believe a PhD is what they want. They don't come to the PhD thinking "oh, i'll give it a year and see how I feel". That said, I've never come across that attitude. People generally come in the door full of excitment and a belief they are going to change the world. I always assume that if people say they are comitteed, then they are. I don't think I've ever been wrong so far.

In terms of ecconomic prospects - yes, in my field you geneally need a PhD for anything other than the most junior positions. So, if you want to stay in the field, you need a PhD. However, people who don't stay in the field make a lot more than those who do, and on average a PhD in my field is ecconmoically costly over the long term.

Personally, I never do anything thinking it will be my only option. When I did my undergrad I had multiple backup plans, when I did my MS I had multiple backup plans and if I do a PhD I will certainly have multiple backup plans. I would never commit to a job if it requires a contract. This attitude is IMO championed by people who have a vested interest in a particular path, as a PhD advisor I certainly understand if you invest time/money you want to get something out of it but from a students perspective they are investing time/money also, arguably more than you are depending on the field.

Depends what you mean by "back up plans". If you mean you are aware of the other options available to you, which one you would pick and exactly how you would go about the transition - thats probably a good thing. Completing because you feel trapped or feel you have no option is unlikely to lead to a good outcome for anyone. On the otherhand, if you mean you maintain other active irons in other active fires, this might start to ring alarm bells for me. If you would never commit to a job that requires a contract, you'll find the job market in my country very difficult.

"7 hours per day, 5 days per week" - is this 35h/wk the amount students are contracted for, or does your institution (like most) then contract students for only 20 hours/week to avoid regulations?  If you truly contract and pay for what you expect, you are a diamond in the academic rough.  Otherwise, those "$10,000+ of MY RESOURCES" get diluted over the course of 5+ years for a student, effectively paying them near minimum wage.

It doesn't work like that here. I don't pay students, students all on one sort of scholarship/studentship or another, mostly from the government funding agency. There is no contract between me and the student. Students aren't employees, and they recieve a grant stipend, not a wage. I have no say over its size, I wouldn't be allowed to make it more, even if I had the money to do so. The money I am talking about are research funds. Experiments in my field cost thousands of dollars. Plus PhDs are a maximum of 4 years here - not finished after 4 years? You fail.

"I would never commit to a job if it requires a contract" - I'd be interested to hear what your (multiple backup) plans are for finding a job once you enter the real world, on the basis that you will reject any that come with a contract.

It depends on the field. In math, 7 hours per day would be ridiculous. I don't think even Fields Medalists spend 7 hours a day on math.

@Notagradstudent interesting comment.  How many hours per week to do think they spend?

I think the actual issue here, based on your various comments, is that you don't employ the conventional language of commitment the way that everyone else does.  That is leading to a miscommunication because you aren't actually speaking colloquial English (I'm assuming the language you and the professor are using is English), but are using your own, idiosyncratic and highly literal personal language.
If you were to enter into pursuing a PhD with a level of commitment equal to that which a person of serious mind and average morality brings to their marriage, that would be a level of commitment that would satisfy the professor's requirement...and then some.  You can, if you choose, be a pedant about it and argue that divorce rates show that people aren't really and truly 100% committed when they enter into their marriages...but that's not how other people discuss the topic, and if you insist on bringing that pedantic outlook to the discussion it's inevitable that you will be misunderstood.
The best way to resolve the problem may be to tell the professor that you believe you will be committed to the PhD program, but that you have a literalist outlook on the entire concept of "100% commitment" that makes you feel like you're lying if you use that expression.  Since you say you're in an engineering field, the professor has probably encountered your personality type before and should be able to decode what you actually mean, once you give him this context.

I strongly suspect that this answer is highly relevant...

Possibly, I'm quite honest and literal. Anyway unless something changes I think I will seriously consider a PhD with my current advisor, his position is: submit some grants, if you get something try it and if it doesn't work leave. Which is way more reasonable to me than the other guy who says getting a PhD needs to be the fundamental goal beyond all else(which isn't how I operate).

As often happens in these situations, I'd suspect that a substantial part of the tension is misunderstanding about the meanings of the "expectations". (That there'd be misunderstandings is not surprising, considering that the prof and the student are in very different places in their experiences and their lives, and almost surely attach significantly different connotations to words...)
On one hand, _of_course_ it makes no sense to agree to, as they say, "a pig in a poke", that is, something unknown. Perhaps to gamble, etc., but...
The slightly different remark/question I make to my prospective students is more about "trust", than "compliance". I do try, and do try to explain to students, that the projects I suggest to them are not only potentially fruitful, but tailored if possible to my observations of their tastes and talents.
(In math, in the U.S., at an R1), if I were somehow required to fully justify to a skeptical student the sense/competence of my recommendations to them, I think we'd get nowhere. Certainly in contemporary number theory and automorphic forms and such, there's a huge backstory to be assimilated, and a huge technical "library" to appreciate, before most things are truly intelligible. I cannot impart this to a novice in a conversation.
So, although I do appreciate the genuine intellectual appropriateness of a wish to have things explained (rather than accepting things "on faith"), the situation of "getting a PhD in six years or less" seems to require a significant element of trust...
As in many other human situations.
EDIT: in response to comment... in math, in the U.S., there is in general no immediate research benefit to "having Ph.D. students", or postdocs. That is, there is scant "grunt work" to be done. So taking on PhD students or postdocs is giving something... which, in the style of authorship of math in the U.S., will not result in any authorship at all.
So, when/if I take on a student, I have no anticipation of any substantial administrative reward or return. It's because I like helping people learn how to do (to my perception) fairly amazing, cool things. If a student disagrees with me about what is amazing or cool, that's fine, but obvs I can't be an effective advisor.
Also, sometimes... and to my mind these are some of the best times (in math), I may have some vague intuition that some line of inquiry would be good. Sure, a student does not have to believe me. But, on the other hand, they should not have me as their advisor if they don't trust my "intuition" based on decades of experience...

Sure. In our interaction he said he expects his students to be happy studying what ever he tells them to and ultimately you should be happy about having the privilege of doing a PhD regardless of anything else. From my perspective this shows substantial disrespect to the student who is investing their time to work under the professor instead of entering into industry. I'm in an engineering field and our graduates aren't so desperate for work(yet) that we're willing to be slaves for the sake of academic approval.

@FourierFlux From your comments I feel like you've come with an agenda rather than an open mind. It seems like you want someone to tell you not to work with this person or validate they are a jerk or something. If you don't want to work with them, don't work with them. I think it's perfectly reasonable for an advisor to only want to take on students who are really confident they want to do a PhD and for them to counsel people who aren't fully committed that it's probably not the right path for them.

It's a bit funny really, my MS advisor in a different area told me to try doing a PhD before industry and if I don't like it leave. He wants to write up grant proposals and see if anything sticks. Unfortunately his field isn't quite what I want to work on but there is certainly a dramatic difference in perspective.

Ah, yes, it is my impression that sometimes people in "engineering" fields are far more venal than others... I have no advice in that situation.

Although you do have to be careful as a student. I have had grad student friends tell me that they wouldn't dare tell their adviser that they were even considering a non-academic career, because if they did then their adviser wouldn't support them. I've also heard stories of advisers refusing to grant their student a PhD in their last year after being informed that the student didn't want to continue in academia. Not all mathematicians are reasonable.

@BryanKrause  Louder for the kids in the back: If you don't want to work with them, don't work with them.

This:

he expects PhD students to be committed to PhD completion above all else, regardless of subject interest or circumstances on the part of the student.

is not the same as:

he wanted someone who would 100% be his yes-man.

Commitment and obedience are different things. Also, there's the question of whether what you finish your Ph.D. with exactly the initial formulation of the intended research direction. In many disciplines, you many end up doing something that's merely somewhat related, because you didn't manage to obtain results where you originally expected, or your interests shifted etc. - that still doesn't mean you're not committed to completing the Ph.D.

Irrespective of the above - achieving a Ph.D. is often as much about tenacity as much, or more, than it is about talent or interest. So some sort of "motivation bar" is legitimate (even if not "commitment above all else").

It's a bit like the old legends where someone says "Only the pure of heart can enter the castle".
You either think "Yes, I'm pure of heart, I'm going to enter the castle", or you think "Oooh, sounds dangerous: I think I'll give it a miss."
If your professor exaggerates the commitment required, and you still say "yes, I'll do it!", then he knows he'll have a committed candidate. If you think "Ooh, commitment: that's a bit much", then the place remains open to someone else.
Metrics are everything in education these days, and the number of PhD candidates that complete is one metric that can be used to judge the college.
You can make a commitment to the attempt: you can't promise to pass.

The third option is people say what ever they need to say to enter and then quit afterwards if they don't like it. Quitting PhD positions actually looks pretty common based upon some investigating I have done so this commitment standard seems to only impact the people who believe in honesty. I have recently discussed this issue with a number of other students and the consensus is everyone lies.

If you go into it looking for ways out, then you'll probably use them.

I have a way out for everything I do.


text:
How can I decline the request to help a fellow student cheat?
I have been helping a fellow student through a class I'm taking this semester - sending him homeworks, helping prepare him for tests, etc. The other day we had our final, which was online, and he asked me if he could pay me to send him the solutions after I turned in my test. (The program immediately gives you the answers when you finish.)
Somehow at the university I go to this is complete commonplace; people are consistently cheating on every test, every assignment, it's totally normal for me to be asked by a classmate I don't even know to help them cheat. Maybe it's something about me that broadcasts to people they aren't at risk of me snitching. I have recently decided I no longer wanted to participate in this, but I have had trouble telling people politely that I won't be helping them.
I have no desire to bring this up to any administration, because it's not a big enough deal to me, but it is a big enough deal that I don't want to be included. I also don't have any desire to moralize to these people, because first of all what do they care, and second of all what do I know. But I do need some help navigating this extreme culture of cheating. Thanks.
Edit: It is clear from the responses that I missed some important context. I have no problem with saying no to people I don't know and don't like, but I am coming from a position of formerly participating in this cheating. Thus it will be easy to misinterpret as self-righteous. "No, and leave me alone" is insufficient because it leaves my acquaintances wondering what changed. Not that I overly care whether they understand my decision, but I don't want them thinking I basically cheat when I need a grade and judge others for doing the same.

Ok, this switcharound is harder to achieve. Do not use a judgemental tone, just do not agree to do it. If asked why you stopped cheating yourself, you can argue that you want to test how well you are able to hold your own, without external help.

@jeremy909 In light of your edit, I'd ask -- do you want to maintain a relationship with these people? Maybe, for whatever reason, you do. But if you want to break a bad habit, then it is sometimes a good idea to stop associating with people who indulge in that habit. Depending on your circumstances, you might consider extricating yourself from this relationship -- doing your best to be polite, but not worrying too much about what they think of you. Just a thought.

@academic I do intend to maintain a relationship with (many, not all) of these people. I am not worried that I will have any trouble kicking this habit.

Though it fits so the site IMO, but it's the Interpersonal skills SE that focuses more on this kind of questions (i.e. "How to explain to my friends that I won't help them anymore in something shady?"). If you don't get a really good answer here, you may look around there too.

Regarding the edit, if there's more nuance to the situation than folks're picking up on, you may have to spell it out.  For example, at the end of your edit note, you briefly allude to not wanting your classmates to think that you cheat when convenient for you -- so would it be fair to say that you want to find a way to decline to help them cheat while being clear that you're against cheating rather than rejecting them, personally?  Or, more generally, what goals do you have besides simply declining?

You don't get to have your cake and eat it too when you tell someone to FO.

The goal is to not seem holier than thou, which without a degree in How to Win Friends and Influence People (off-topic at IPS), you don't.

"we had our final, which was online ... The program immediately gives you the answers when you finish ... people are consistently cheating on every test, every assignment"
Honestly with this assessment setup, it sounds like cheating is actively encouraged.

give us his name please. you can also write to your national authority for academic oversight, it's very rare that someone should ask that kind of thing, i don't think many of us know what words are necessary to deal with a question like "can I copy you?" No seems obvious but clearly we need a thesis for it.

@com.prehensible: The questioner should absolutely NOT give us his name.

@com.prehensible you're naive to think that cheating isn't endemic in some jurisdictions, at least the college actually exists and has actual classes in this case!

@com.prehensible - nice work. You got two people so far.

If you say no to this person, will they just ask someone else to do the same thing?

It would be nice to know where (a) the institution is, and (b) where you come from, because social attitudes to cheating vary greatly between cultures, just like (for example) social attitudes to fiddling your expenses or bribing officials.

I think you can tell them the truth: that the cheating is starting to freak you out; you don't like your current reputation; getting paid for answers is the next step towards being a scumbag with a test-answer internet site; and it feels weird to help someone with a class then have them say "your help wasn't good enough -- help me cheat". You may not even have to fake getting more and more agitated as you say it, which reinforces the freaked out part.
I've often dealt with an honest student talked into sending a friend a copy of their homework "just to look at". Next thing I'm calling 4 people into my office for cheating. After, the original author would ask for advice on avoiding that peer pressure again. I'd tell them to narrate recent events: they already had one heart attack being called in for cheating, and don't need another.

‘‘No’’ is a complete sentence.

This reads more like a comment than an answer. This questioner has a problem with saying no politely and you say "just say no"? Something is missing here, I think.

Because it is the correct answer - gets a +1 from me! There are so many questions on here like, "how do I tell someone I don't want to wibble?", and the answer is simply to say, "Hey Joe, I don't want to wibble".

This discussion has gotten a number of flags, so I am moving it to chat. Please take any further discussion of whether this is an acceptable answer to the chat (note also that the question has been edited since this answer was written). I'll leave these two as representative of the two sides.

It's great that you do not want to do that. You can make a polite "No, unfortunately, I cannot do that." without any further justification, if the simple "No." is too hard for you.
Some people believe there is an unwritten rule that if you help them once, you help them again, and if you continue doing so, you will help them no matter what. There is no such rule, written or unwritten. There is a reason why requests are requests. You are in a position to decline them.
If you do not like to argue, then just leave it at that. Don't give reasons, do not give justifications, just say that you cannot help. Of course, one could justify the decision in that one does not like to cheat etc., but as you say, you do not want to moralise, you do not want to be told that it's all fine, you do not wish to have anything to do with that. Therefore: no justification, just, "Sorry, no."
Most likely, it will not go down completely smoothly if cheating is an accepted part of the culture, but keep in mind, these people are using you, one-sidedly. You do not owe them anything. You are already nice enough to help with revising. Take it in stride. Continue being helpful as long as it is honest and otherwise, do your thing. Uprightness is a long-term attitude, you have to ride out the occasional unpleasantry when it emerges.

I agree that offering justification invites argumentation.  However, if your school has an honor code or a published academic conduct document, one could cite that.  "The honor code says I can't do that, so no."

I'd go  for "Sorry, no, I won't do that." - IMHO it avoids the tiny little opening to discussion that cannot leaves...

@cbeleitesunhappywithSX Yes, that's a tad stronger. OP's mileage may vary.

@BobBrown I do not think this is a good idea. OP makes clear that he wants to leave the common practice which consists of ignoring the honour code (assuming one exists). If they suddenly invoke the code, when ignoring the code is already entrenched in the culture, this will ostracise them unnecessarily. Declining in a non-confrontational low-key way is, in my understanding, closer to what OP is looking for.

@CaptainEmacs  I understand but disagree.  OP doesn't want to cheat (or enable cheating) because OP doesn't want to cheat.  However, if there is an honor code, I think it's useful and important to point it out.

@BobBrown Perhaps I am too European, but a honour code, like law, is only an effective argument if people respect it generally or at least pretend to. Otherwise it will exacerbate OP's position rather than strengthen it. There is no point to appeal to a generally disrespected rule.

@BobBrown: maybe I am also too European, but the idea that someone's justification of not cheating is a honor code leaves a bad feeling in my stomach. You should cheat or cheat not in this exam because of your consience, honor etc telling so, not because of some code.

@user111388 Excellent point, indeed. This is why pointing to "the code" or "the law" to make someone do or not do things is so problematic.

The point of a short answer such as "No" is to avoid any opening for debate. However, in this case, it doesn't quite work. The issue is that you have helped in the past, so the argument of "but you've done it before" is implicitly left open. To solve this, simply acknowledge that this is a change from your past in as few words as possible. For example:

No, I don't do that any more, sorry.

This accomplishes the same goal as a simple "No" would in most other situations.

This implies that they have helped students cheat in the past, which doesn't appear to be the case (and could be incriminating in some revenge plot by whomever they were helping study). Helping with homework and prepare for tests is at least arguably studying (even if the course instruction says otherwise or great detail is provided), while directly preparing the answers and passing them to another student to pass an exam without their necessarily having understood the subject steps beyond that ethical debate and is clearly cheating.

The program immediately gives you the answers when you finish.

Inform the administration about this loophole without mentioning your past involvement or your friends' involvement. If they close down this loophole, you can no longer help your friends cheat the exam.

Furthermore, if they show the answers to everybody ending the exam, they are actually publishing the answers. Telling everybody a secret and not expect it to be leaked is at best wishful thinking.

The assumption here is that the administration doesn't want this to happen. It's hard to believe all this cheating is happening with nobody knowing. Perhaps they want to inflate scores for some reason.

You can still give your answers just like some did with paper tests in school (however giving out correct answers is a particular stupid thing to do)

I understand that this may not be a big deal to you, but it is indeed a big deal for your university. Please read your code of conduct, you may be required to inform the relevant authorities when something like this happens. If you do not have a code of conduct, look for an academic integrity officer, or confide in a professor whom you trust.
These students are cheating themselves out of a learning experience and making your degrees look bad. When the cheaters get out into the Real World (tm) they will not have the skills they need, and this will look bad on the university, and thus make your degree look cheap as well.
Yes, it is easy to cheat, especially during the Covid-19 times. But in academia we trust each other, we don't police. But when someone is caught cheating, then the full force of power should be used to make it clear that this behavior is completely unacceptable.

Would you mind explaining what an academic integry officer is? Is this an actual job position or function of a uni's employee?

Also, while you might be right (depending on the specific sotuation and locale) that this ould be a good idea, ot does not answer the question and is probably better as a comment.

All of this is true if there is a culture of honesty only occasionally broken by cheaters. However, the culture seems to be defaulting to cheating, so all these appeals are starting from a near-impossible premise. OP needs an individual, personalised solution for their own benefit; and OP does not need to be convinced, they have already taken the decision to be honest, so this response does not help them.

@user111388 An academic integrity officer is a neutral person appointed at a university as a go-between between students, professors, researchers, or staff who observe academic misconduct and don't know what to do. This person knows the university rules and can help in many problematic situations. Some universities have RIOs, research integrity officers, some larger departments like UCSD: https://academicintegrity.ucsd.edu/

Up voted this answer, because it is the only answer that addresses the far more important topic of the culture of cheating than OP's comparatively minor interpersonal issues which arise from it. @Captain Emacs, if someone asked a question like "Fellow classmates are sexually harassing other students and are asking me to join, how can I say no and still have them like me?" would you be saying "OP needs a personalized solution for their own benefit"? Probably not, because sometimes you need to address the bigger issue.

@Perry To put things in perspective: I have had several situations in my own life where I stood strictly by my principles. This was unpleasant. However, nobody advised me and I didn't ask for advice, so it was my decision, with all consequences. If OP asks for advice, I do not think it is fair to ask them to uphold general principles to possibly their significant detriment. Once they feel they are ready for that, they will do it without asking for advice.

@Perry Plus, sexual harassment is a crime, not just an academic offence, so the comparison is is not really on the same level. I should add that I deeply detest and detested cheating, from both sides of the lectern.

As other people have suggested, you could simply say "Sorry, no" or just "No."
An alternative, in case the thought of doing this makes you nervous, is to simply not answer. Not now, not ever. Block him on your phone and on social media, and configure your email software to delete emails from him immediately (so that you'll never see them).
In ordinary circumstances this would be quite rude, but your classmate is attempting to exploit your good will. You have no obligation to him whatsoever, and you are free to decide that engaging with him is not worth even a minimal effort.

Hm. In principle ignoring could be fine, but you might see them in your classes, later business life etc again. I think it's quite rude and the student will not neccessarily understand your point and therefore be not in the best mood against you (when you might need something later or when talking about you).

@user111388 I agree, OP already seems nervous about the situation and chances are, this will lead to much more awkwardness than just outright refusing. Also, this could be interpreted as a weakness to exploit by the cheating student who could then apply more pressure in an attempt to make OP yield. Some people have a shark mindset and can smell blood from a mile away. The best thing here is probably for the OP to work on assertiveness.

I agree that "Sorry, no" is the best answer if OP can muster it.

@user111388 Personally, if I ran into a cheater later in classes or business life, I would make a pointed effort to avoid them. I agree that my advice is bad in the case that OP wants to preserve a relationship with this person, or does not anticipate being able to avoid them.

@academic: Sure, you would like to avoid them -- but this may not be possible. Most people prefer an honest "no"  to being ghosted. And remember that there might be more to this person than being a cheater -- many "cheaters" I knew in my student and instructor life cheated in one subject where they knew they never want to use it again in their lifes (or where there were stupid questions: one examinator asked for the anectotes he told to punish students who were (rightfully) absent in class) and were honest in the rest. This would not be a reason for me to try to avoid them.

If you feel that you need to say more than just the "No" that has already been suggested, then I would recommend just telling them the truth. Tell them that you know you cheated in the past, but you've realized that what you were doing is wrong and you've decided to no longer participate in it, either in receiving or providing dishonest assistance. And, of course, stick to that.
If your friends don't accept that explanation, that's their problem, not yours. Maybe you'll have a positive impact on them and they'll reconsider their own cheating going forward. Or maybe they'll just wonder what your problem is and continue with their cheating. Maybe some mix of those. Either way, once you've decided you're no longer going to participate in it and have told them that, how they react is their problem, not yours.
You can only decide your own actions, not the reactions to them from others.

I think the concern in this question stems from not wanting to appear to be the bad guy, even though what you are doing -- not participating in cheating -- is a good thing and you shouldn't feel bad about it. You have a relationship and you want to preserve the friendly aspect of it while still saying no.
I totally understand this desire, but it can get you in a lot of trouble. Once you decide to do something, some people are not going to like it, and there's a risk they will not like you because of it. That's a risk a mature person has to be willing to take once they've made a decision about something. Make your choice and accept the consequences. Politely say no, and resolve up-front that you will be OK if your relationship with your associate ends. You're not going to be rude. You're just saying no.
If your associate goes away mad, believe me, you've lost nothing. One less manipulative person in your life is actually a favor to you. Good luck!

"No, and leave me alone" is insufficient because it leaves my acquaintances wondering what changed.
I don't think you should leave them wondering. I think you should tell them that you have learned that a serious investigation has been instigated by the school, and you are terrified that you will all be caught and probably expelled. This will have an immediate chilling effect on the rampant cheating, and will position you to preach against cheating in the future.
Do you question the morality of lying to your friends? Well, (1) you don't have a moral leg to stand on, and (2) they are not really your friends.
If you didn't have the moral stamina to resist cheating, then you don't have the moral authority to feel squeamish about lying. It's too late now to say you won't do either one.
And, friends are people you know and respect, who want to help you make your life better. Friends are not people who invite you to risk expulsion with a shredded reputation, while simultaneously diluting your grades and eroding the reputation of your school.
I am coming from a position of formerly participating in this cheating.
Peer pressure has led you to your current situation, but you don't really owe those peers anything. However, for your own comfort and peace of mind, you should (as you have intuited) not present them with a complete surprise. The lie takes care of that.

Downvoted.  Let's read the question again: "I"m uncomfortable continuing to be dishonest, but I'm also uncomfortable confronting people; what do I do?"  Your response "Lie to them" totally misses the point of the question.  Accusing OP of weakness is also unnecessarily insulting.  Even you think it's true, saying so is no helpful.

@JeffE: OP did not say that he was uncomfortable continuing to be dishonest. OP said he was uncomfortable continuing to abet and assist cheating.

You say potato, I say potato.

Ethics aside, inform them directly of how this may negatively affect you and them.
You do not wish to send them the answers to your test because it may be traced back to you, causing you both to fail the course. No excuse of theirs will sway you.

Back to ethics, if there is rampant cheating, simply informing the school brass of it and dusting your hands is probably not sufficient and likely lead to the failure of legitimate students.
If rampant cheating goes on, courses often evolve cryptic examinations which are only solvable via dubiously-ethical methods, such as

testing advanced topics not covered in the course (everyone appears to understand them because they are wrote copying well done on a great course, Professor)
must have a copy of last year's test (see above bullet point)
textbook has wrong answers which the professor treats as canon, and no amount of arguing will sway them

The existence of such a system, while it at first seems tragic (and is), is really another learning opportunity provided by Universities.

people cheat, some cheat until they lose, and often they lose very hard
sometimes a system can only be defeated by discussing the subject amongst your entire undergraduate class
some courses teach nothing, but provide a wide swathe of peers to learn from

Consider working with a neutral member of the college to review the problems you've noticed once the semester is over, such as pieces of technology revealing the exam answers. Ideally this will also help retroactively correct the grades of students who did poorly in subjects because they were not part of team cheat (it has been discovered by review that course X had an unfair exam which covered subjects beyond the provided material..).
Justice is desperately important, but it comes in many flavors.

If you want to prevent bullying and keep your reputation, you could just lie and say you're struggling or really dumb and so you're not the best to cheat off of. Otherwise if it's something like just getting a sheet of answers just say you don't have it yet yourself. You could also be honest and say you've worked hard on it so find his own. But I think in your situation lying could be best.

I wonder if you could express surprise at being asked. And then shake your head laughingly, letting him know that no reasonable person in his right mind would have the nerve to even approach you with a request for all, or any, of the answers when you've been working hard to pass that test legitimately and help him learn the material and pass the test legitimately, too. Maybe then you could shake off the question with something like, "I thought you were serious for a second there and we were going to have a problem."

They have the nerve because the OP has previously helped them cheat. OP also doesn't want to moralize or be self-righteous. Remember the old TV Ads about how you could pass a joint without taking a hit? They're looking for  something like that, but for cheating.

Yes, I see what you mean. I was trying to come up with a way to use humor, to sort of brush off the request, but I think I failed. Looking back, I can see that my idea here comes across as self-righteous, not humorous, and self-righteousness was something clearly mentioned as wanting to be avoided.


text:
As a PhD student, which conferences should I attend?
I am a PhD student around midway to the end of the program and I often find myself doubting about which conferences I should attend.
I find many conferences that have to do in some way with my field of specialization that seem interesting. Most of them are just overlapping with my thesis, which is not clear where it will end, and some talks might even require background which I do not possess (despite understanding the general view of things).
Should I attend as many conferences as I can in the attempt to grasp the big picture and explore what is being studied or should I stick to my research project (and maybe introduce myself to other topics from the basics) and avoid attending conferences in which I am not directly involved?

The pragmatic answer is that you should figure out who are the people you want to work with after you finish your Ph.D., and then attend the conferences that those people attend. More generally, don't base you decision on what your thesis is but on which research directions you want to pursue in the future.

Attend whichever ones are in the nicest locations...

This is impossible to answer without knowing your field of study, because there is so much variation among academic conferences.
If your budget is limited, and everything else being equal, you should attend the biggest conferences available. Large conferences give you the best chances of meeting new people with shared interests. They also have more talks, and give you a better selection to match your interests.
This does not mean that you should forego attending small conferences. In my experience, more important than the number of attendees or the degree of subject specialization, is the culture of the conference. Some small conferences have a clubbish feel to them, more like a group of friends seeing each other once a year, with no space for newcomers who are not already connected. Other small conferences are wonderful, inviting, and you get to know everybody without much effort, resulting in long lasting connections. To know which is which, you have to ask around. If you can't find that information easily, attend the big conference.

This will depend on which country you are in, customs in your field or university/institute/lab and your travel budget. In general, though:
There are three different reasons why you would attend a conference:

To learn new science (either in the field you are in now or in the field you want to be in later). Here you may even attend without presenting.
To present your work and get feedback on it from experts on the topic or field via a poster or a talk.
To network/make new contacts (I think best way is still to also do this in conjunction with 2, but it could be without if you pick a small conference and interact with speakers and presenters at their posters and during the coffee breaks etc.)

Talk to your supervisor, though, about what they think is most beneficial to you. And all of this will matter much more if you want to continue in science/academia than if you want to do something else after your PhD.
That being said, I do think that #2 should be part of anyone's PhD training as one of the goals is to develop into an independent thinking scientist who can discuss their findings with others.


text:
Is there benefit to publishing the abstract of an English article in multiple languages?
I noted from a previous paper I worked on, that when it was published an abstract was included in Spanish as well as English (https://bjssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bjs.11422 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31976560). The article itself was in English.
I have had another article accepted with a different journal and publisher. I asked the editorial team if they would like abstract translations and they stated that they don't really publish abstract translations alongside the English abstract. I had the impression they had perhaps not thought of it before.

Is there benefit, such as for the article to be found in foreign language search results and potentially reach more readers, to providing translations of the abstract (even if the paper itself is in English)? I have lots of co-workers who are fluent in several languages and could provide abstracts in different languages fairly easily and for free.
If a publishing journal does not do this, is there benefit to putting up translated abstracts on ResearchGate or some other website with a link to the online version of the published article at the journal website?

EDIT 04/05/2020: I recently submitted a different article to different medical journal (a BMJ subsidiary journal) and they had a specific section in the submission process which was for uploading of foreign language abstracts. So I think it is something forward-thinking journals are starting to do but not all journals are doing it yet.

If there was benefit then all would do it... Also, who would “rate” the translation - or are you expecting all reviewers to be working in two or more languages? It is often difficult to find a reviewer as it is.

@SolarMike Someone paid by the journal?

@FedericoPoloni do journals pay reviewers? If not, why would they pay anyone else?

I had assumed the abstract wouldn't need to be rated/peer reviewed, it would just be a translation. Perhaps this is rarely done at the moment due to convention. The key question is, when people search for words which might let them find your paper in another language, e.g. on Google or some other online search, will your paper be found by that person if you have an abstract translation in their language? If you list your abstract on your ResearchGate in 10 languages with links to the published English version, will more people be directed to your paper? Or does it simply not work like that?

I am Spanish, so I think I can argue why it would make sense to publish abstracts in two languages, in some fields, based on the Spanish context.
Most people in Spain are not fluent in English, and many have a lot of trouble understanding even the basics. This is more true when you consider older people, some of whom studied French as a second language, rather than English, which is currently the overwhelming choice.
Most people actively carrying out STEM research (I will leave out humanities since I don't know much about the situation there) will be able to read and write technical documents in English, however some papers are intended to be used also by people who are not actively engaged in research. Obvious cases are most engineers and those medics who do mostly only clinical work. Even many clinical research studies carried out in Spain are published in Spanish, because 1) many medics who can benefit from the information would not be able/willing to read it in English, 2) the authors are not able/willing to write in English, or a combination thereof. The paper you link is in a field of medicine, so it does not surprise me at all that the abstract is also in Spanish.
That said, I do not believe that in my particular field, physics, where the overwhelming majority of people interested in reading a research article are themselves actively engaged in research (and therefore routinely exposed to technical English), we would benefit from bilingual abstracts.
So, in summary, it makes sense in some fields but not in others.

I would like to add another reason to have an abstract in another language. In some fields, the subject of the research is not in a country where English is the main language. So it is very useful for the people of that country to at least be able to read the abstract.
For example, a research on health issues in Brazil published by researchers from another country. I have seen more and more of these example in countries such as Spanish-speaking, Africa with French, or south-east Asia with the local languages.

In my experience, most journals that publish bilingual abstracts do that for historical reasons: the journal of the Sikinian (invented country) mathematical society used to publish articles in Sikinian, then in Sikinian or English, then Sikinian was slowly phased out but bilingual abstracts remained. I don't think abstract translations have a significant impact today, at least in the sciences; they are just a vestigial thing.
It might be different in humanities; as far as I understand in some fields of classical studies people write in their own language, and everyone is supposed to being able to read articles (and listen to talks) in 3-4 different languages.


text:
Is it normal in a preclinical medical science PhD to be applying for funding for salary as you go?
I am a second year PhD student in Australia in the field of preclinical medicine.
It has always been the norm for my PhD that I myself apply for grants/stipends for my salary so that I can afford to live whilst doing the PhD. Last year I had two scholarships which just about covered the cost of living for me and my family. This year it looks like I've lost half of that, possibly coronavirus-related, which means I am likely to be losing about $20K AUD a year on my outgoing cost of living, but I will still have the other grant money coming in. I could also work part time but that would be detrimental to the PhD.
My supervisor has always been very supportive in me applying for grants and he is extremely forthcoming with money for any consumables, expenses or project costs at all, but never directly for salary. For salary I am expected to just apply for grants as I go and as and when they come up. Sometimes I get them, sometimes I don't. I have one from a funding body which is potentially for the whole of my PhD but not 100% secure after year 2 and not enough on its own.
I was also instrumental in writing and winning a $100K AUD grant for my supervisor which was a project (not salary) grant, as stipulated by the funding body. My supervisor is great in many ways but I do feel that he is getting a lot out of me being his PhD student.

Is it normal to be applying for the money you need to live off 'on the fly' like this as you go through your PhD?

If I end up with a deficit because I could not get funding for a certain period of my PhD, is it legitimate to ask my supervisor to pay me some salary funding out of his funds for the project, which seem to be fairly extensive. He does not have to pay his own salary because he is on a permanent contract with the university who pay it directly.

These questions (both "if it's normal here" and "what are funding options") have a lot of specifics that only people in your institution would know; ask your supervisor or some other respected/experianced colleagues.

So the is it normal is really referring to whether it is "normal" across the world and in other institutions for a PhD student to be in such an uncertain position. I have been told that in many places, there is a stipend attached to the PhD programme and I would like to get some opinions about this. It feels unusual that the PhD could fall through at the drop of a hat because funding is being gathered moment to moment. The second part is not asking specifics of what funding is available to me but rather whether others feel that it is appropriate to ask my supervisor to fill a new funding gap.

As a physics PhD student in the UK, this situation sounds very abnormal. I have never heard of someone having to constantly apply for grants to support themself. Were you aware of the situation when you accepted this PhD place?

I was aware of the situation, but I managed to obtain two scholarships for a fair amount of salary initially, the subject was 100% what I was looking for and I had (and still do have) a good relationship with my supervisor. He was (fairly) honest that I'd be looking for grants where I could get them and he's perhaps a bit gung ho and is the sort of guy who just says we'll find something don't worry. The achievements of the PhD are coming in pretty well. There's more I could say but I guess the point is that it wouldn't be rude if I went to him and said look can you cover me for the deficit!

So I asked my supervisor and he did not find it out of place at all. He was very supportive about ways to fill the new shortfall including finding some funds from his own department rather than the external funds I have had until now. I suspect his attitude had been, well this guy is fully funded off scholarships so why would I fund him myself! Now there's an issue he's looking into it. I guess we'll see where this ends up.

@croc7415 - Your edit provides an answer to the question.  It is fine to answer your own questions, so I'd suggest you remove the edit and put it up as an answer directly.

I am now coming to the end of my PhD so I know a little more about this. It turns out that it is considered abnormal to do a PhD without funding secured (i.e. applying for funding as you go and hoping for the best). My PhD was a success and I managed to win enough prize money and funding to more-or-less break even on the cost of outgoings. My advice based on my experience (embarking on a PhD without the full cost of outgoings covered for the whole project, and without any funding coming from my supervisor) is that it can be done, as long as you accept the pros and cons of this approach. Ultimately the risk is that you don't win enough funding to keep afloat, so you should be prepared for what you will do if that happens. You should also publish everything as you go, because at least if the PhD falls through due to lack of funds you will have your publications and these have value. You also have to appreciate the dynamic between you and your supervisor will be different if they are effectively getting your labour for free (i.e. they or their lab are not paying you). If you want to be free to do what you want and run your project however you want, this model will swing in your favour but you have to be careful you don't get exploited. So it depends on your circumstances and what you want. Personally, I'd do it like this again, because I was a freer agent than most PhD students. However, it was significantly more stressful feeling like the PhD might fall through at any moment.


text:
Should I submit a paper to a venue that is unlikely to accept it?
Here's the situation I am in:

I have written a paper. I need to decide whether to submit it to GREAT [insert conference/journal name here] or to GOOD [ditto]. I would prefer to have a GREAT publication, rather than a GOOD publication. However, GREAT is a long shot, while GOOD is very likely to accept my paper.
Should I try submitting to GREAT or just submit to GOOD?
I'm thinking that I may as well try to get into GREAT. If it gets rejected, I can still submit to GOOD. So what's the harm?

Is there anything wrong with this thinking? That is, are there costs (other than time and effort) to being rejected from GREAT? In particular, does it look bad (in the eyes of reviewers/editors/PC members) to have a paper rejected?
For context, I am in computer science. I'm submitting to conferences and the accept/reject notification date for GREAT is before the submission deadline for GOOD. Thus there would be no delay in publication if it gets rejected by GREAT versus directly submitting to GOOD.
I think the probability that GREAT accepts my paper is around 15%. What is an appropriate threshold for trying to get in?

I wonder how have you guessed the 15%. Also, there's a big difference between the conference case and the journal case. The role of time is very important for conferences, less for journal papers.

15% is a wild guess. I just don't want someone misinterpreting my question and thinking I have a one-in-a-million chance of getting in.

Not an answer, but you might be interested to have a look at this paper, modelling the decision-making process for journals based on acceptance probability & time spent: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115451

To make a proper decision you need to consider downside risk, which you've only stated as "chance of rejection" - but what is the cost of that? If you just make any revisions suggested and send it along to the next conference, what's the downside for you? What's your time-horizon? If you are applying to enter a new program or seeking a new job or going up for tenure, then your downsides are completely different than if you are a new faculty member with 5+ years to maximize your research portfolio.

"the probability that GREAT accepts my paper is around 15%". It probably is not. Great conferences have a 10-15% acceptance rate and most of the papers they receive are very good to great. So, the chance of a semi-good paper to make it are less than their acceptance rate.

Do CS conferences have a mechanism to avoid having reviewers spend time on papers that are obviously not a good fit? If the answer is yes, I think it is ok to submit to the great conference.

Without knowing all of the details, it's hard for random Internet strangers to make the call. You should only go for the GREAT conference if you meet all of the following criteria:

You've actually got a chance of making it in
You can resubmit to a GOOD conference if it's rejected
Someone else isn't likely to publish a similar result before you have a chance to resubmit
You don't need a publication on your CV right now

Even if the GREAT conference rejects it, you might get some valuable feedback that can help you make it even better. Personally, I'd take a shot at the GREAT conference if the chance was 15%, but the top conferences in my field get called crap shots anyway.
EDIT:
To expand my answer based upon changes in the question: There is nothing wrong with submitting to a conference if you think your paper stands a non-negligible chance of getting in. No one's going to black-list you for aiming high.
The only issue I can imagine is that a reviewer is working for both the GREAT and the GOOD conference and you don't update your paper to reflect any changes they suggest in their first review.

If all your papers are accepted by the first journal you sent them to, then you are aiming too low.
If having this paper published right away is important (for example, you are coming up for tenure or promotion soon), go ahead and aim low.  On the other hand, if you have more time to spare, aim higher.  Occasionally you may get into the higher-rated journal.  That will be good for your career in the long term.

Why don't you send a pre-submission inquiry to the GREAT journal and see whether they seem interested in your paper. If they show a reasonable level of interest, you can submit and keep your fingers crossed. If they feel that your paper is not novel enough or not suitable for their target audience, they will say so. In that case, you will be able to save some time and submit to GOOD directly.
I had a similar experience recently. I had submitted my paper to a top-tier journal. Luckily for me, the editor was very prompt, and said that my paper was not suitable for their target audience. She, in fact, directed me to a couple of other journals whose target audience would benefit more from my paper. I was lucky that I did not lose more than a couple of weeks in the whole process, but had I sent a pre-submission inquiry, it would probably have been quicker.

This may be possible for journals but I do not think is possible for conferences.

Of course it's possible for conferences.  It's perfectly reasonable to send an email to the program committee chair, well before the submission deadline, asking whether a paper is in scope for submission.

Do you have a great paper or a good one? In the latter case, it's waste of everybody's time to send it to the great conference. If the paper is (in your opinion) great then it might be worth a try, even with an acceptance rate of 15%, depends how the rest of your publication record looks.

Not true at all. The journal can always do a pre-check and reject the paper for not meeting their impact and quality expectancy. Even then, if the reviewer feels the article is "not good enough" for the journal, he can send a mail to the communicating editor and raise these concerns without digging deep into the paper. OTOH, the author can gain a lot, and if you don't start aiming "higher than you used to aim", you never move up.

I think my paper is great, but obviously I'm biased.

@yo' I am not sure what your criticism is about. Of course, the conference/journal can reject it outright, I never claimed anything else. What part exactly of my statement do you disagree with? (I do not mind criticism, but I'd like to know what it is that you criticise).

I claim it is not a "waste of time of everybody" to aim slightly higher. It is simply a part of the process.

@user48235 Well, that's the point that needs self-calibration. I pretty much know how good my papers are from a lot of experience. I can predict with some confidence how influential a paper will be or where it has a serious chance of acceptance. And no, I do not believe all my papers are great, though it'd nice to be. So, that's what you need to find out for yours.

@yo' Well, I speak as an editor in several journals and committee member for conferences. It's the "aiming slightly higher" that creates a lot of extra work for everybody involved, because people tend to overestimate (rather than underestimate) their papers in the first place

@CaptainEmacs, it doesn't make sense to aim low and work your way up (won't get another chance, essentially).

@vonbrand That's the opposite of my idea. You should aim as high as you believe the paper realistically warrants. However, unless it is a top venue (where people tend to have realistic expectations), my experience is that people consistently (and often significantly) overestimate the quality of their work. This creates a lot of work for the reviewers, especially conscientious ones. I ended up many times fixing issues in papers that looked as if a PhD student submitted them without the supervisor having had a look at it. It's not really fair to have the reviewer do the job of the supervisor.

... The comments here look only from the perspective of the submitter - but there is the other side, too. Someone has to read these papers; it is a waste of their time if the paper is not great, but submitted to such a conference. And there is such a huge difference between ok, or even good papers and great ones. And note: if you get high-quality reviews and get rejected, the high-quality outlet reviewer did a job from which the high-quality venue/outlet is not even going to ultimately profit. To some extent this is part of the game, but wilfully abusing it is disrespectful.

You should aim as high as you believe the paper realistically warrants — I strongly disagree.  You should always aim slightly higher than you believe the paper realistically warrants, because (a) you might get lucky, and (b) you might be wrong.

@JeffE Ok, I'll flow with "slightly higher". However, my experience as editor and PC member is that people, with very few exceptions, consistently overestimate their papers by quite a lot. So, on the whole, I stand by my advice being appropriate for the majority of submitters. The "publication explosion" and a not insignificant degradation of originality in publications is due to this overconfidence. Suggestions for "quota limits for publications" pop up regularly, and while I am strongly opposed to it, they are caused by inflation of quantity vs. quality ratio, fuelled by overconfidence.

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