text:
What does this professor mean by saying "I do not have time to respond"
I am an undergraduate in CS and engineering.  Approximately a week ago, I sent an email to a professor whose research really interests me.  I sent him couple of my questions and confusions rooted from reading his recent papers, but I did not get any response.  Consequently, I sent a short followup email to him indicating that email was sent a week ago, but he sent a short reply saying that "Sorry, I do not have time to respond."
Does it mean that he wants me to go away and never bother him again?  Does he not like me (we had some previous but positive communications) or not want to be bothered by undergraduates?  Should I perhaps send a followup email a month later?

Is he at your institution or some other institution?

@Dawn He is at my institution.

Possible duplicate of How should I phrase an important question that I need to ask a professor?

Was the professor in question the first / corresponding author of the papers that you're interested in, or were they published by his grad students with him listed as the PI? This can be an important distinction.

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is about the meaning of an ordinary English sentence, under the false premise that professors somehow use ordinary English sentences in a different way to everybody else.

Keep in mind a very simple rule: Professors are human beings
Many of the questions on this site seem to assume from the outset that faculty are strange, mysterious and mercurial creatures, whose motives are entirely opaque and whose every word must be subjected to an intense amount of kremlinology.
"Sorry, I do not have time to respond." means that he doesn't have time to respond.
There could be many reasons for this. He might be particularly busy at the moment - lots of conferences take place in the summer, and many academics also use it to catch up on work not done during the academic year. If he is, as you say, approaching emeritus status he may be occupied with wrapping up things he's intending to walk away from. He might be dealing with other things in his life.
You should take that message at face value, and try not to impute any sort of hidden motive onto it - you simply don't know enough to know. Try following up in a month or two with a simple question as to whether or not his schedule has freed up and he might have some time. If the answer is still no, let it go.

I would like to add another very simple rule, which relates to this situation and would help anyone, anywhere, including myself.
Try not to overthink things.

+1. academia.se seems to get a lot of "please read this person's mind for me" questions :). I'd just like to add that kremlinology is particularly unnecessary for someone at the same institution, who you can find at a coffee break, after a lecture, in a corridor, etc., where you can usually work out how busy/stressed they are before venturing a request. If he never takes a coffee break, disappears the second the lecture ends, and swoops down corridors at 20km/h, that's a good indication that yes, he really is too busy to attend to your questions at the moment.

Awesome answer! +1 for the very apt kremlinology metaphor. I'm half-tempted to set up a kremlinology (or maybe "professorology"?) question tag...

Just to play devil's advocate, it's possible that the level of busy-ness experienced by the average professor may in fact be strange and mysterious to most people.

"Many of the questions on this site seem to assume from the outset that faculty are strange, mysterious and mercurial creatures, whose motives are entirely opaque and whose every word must be subjected to an intense amount of kremlinology." As a person born in a family with several professors, ranging from highschool to university, I tend to think that the previous statement is true. YMMV :P

Do you have any evidential data to support your primary assertion?

+1 to @Strawberry's comment.  As a professor, and knowing just what we are like, I find the bold text particularly unsupported.

@TOOGAM This will come as a surprise to my physician

I really wanted to build network with him too, but I guess it is too late at this point.

Or it might be too early. This will certainly vary by university culture, but e.g. in my place, starting to network based upon research topics as an undergrad (assuming you mean something like pre-Bachelor) would be extremely early. Most students at that stage have just started to learn about the operational basics of their subject area.
There can of course be valuable ideas for actual research topics, but it can be hard for undergrad students to already correctly assess how interesting something is research-wise. For instance, even at the very beginning of my (CS) PhD, the ideas that I thought might be interesting were either way too technical (looking back, I now realize most were still mostly about coding something tricky rather than about any conceptual problem) or too superficial (because I didn't realize the sheer amount of existing work and the depth of analysis provided in existing solutions).
I quickly learned to get a feeling for what could be interesting in research, and always tried to convey this also to my students in seminars or BSc/MSc theses. Again, I do not know whether or not you already have a sufficient overview of what is going on in research, but your professor's response might be a sign that from your questions to them, it becomes apparent you do not.
Conclusion: Try to get in touch with someone else (less busy) working on related topics (e.g. a TA offering a related seminar or so) and/or take part in related seminars and lectures. If you see your perspective widen indeed, contact the professor again at a later point when you also have "more to offer" than just requests for clarification out of what could be just a passing interest.

or phd students of that professor

@FábioDias: Yes, that's what I meant by referring to TAs. Sorry, the organisational structure is different in my place.

In addition to Fomite's answer I want to provide the interpretation that brevity is a sign of your good relationship with this professor.
You are mentioning that you already communicated with him with a positive outcome. Therefore he probably feels that he already "knows you" in a way. He is comfortable enough to dispense with formalities and is assuming that you are, too. He trusts you to understand that it is not meant as a sign of disrespect because he did answer you before, after all.
Imagine you have had a friend for ten years and went together through thick and thin. You call him one day and he tells you: "Sorry man, can't speak right now." and hangs up. You probably would not immediately assume that he is ending the friendship but that he is actually busy with something very important and because of your close relationship is comfortable enough to not provide you with a few minutes of excuses before hanging up.

To me, this is an example of the kremlinology @Fomite is talking about in his answer. Without more information, you are reading way too much into a one-time answer.

@fileunderwater My interpretation is based on the assumption that most professors like their jobs and in general also like to teach. This was my experience. Therefore it is improbable that they have any bad feelings towards students and therefore I agree with  Fomite's answer. Additionaly most people in a working environment stick to social norms and at least a little bit of formality, unless they know each other and feel comfortable to be direct.

It is important to note that your questions to your professor did not relate to their role as your lecturer. They were therefore not responding to you as their student on a matter that relates to your studies, but as to somebody without qualification asking them about their research.
As mentioned in another answer, it appears doubtful from your question that you really have the expertise required to understand these research papers. If this is so, your professor will know that (and can presumably tell from the questions you asked them) and will want to avoid engaging with you in a discussion about these papers.

I disagree with your second thought.  I asked the questions to other professors (and got their insightful replies) and also asked for their feedbacks.  They thought my questions are to the point and precise.

@MathWanderer Okay, but that was not clear from your post.

I suppose it means "[he does] not have time to respond" to your email. Why he does not have time is anyone's guess.
I don't think he wants you "to go away and never bother him again". I can speculate on the reason and say that, has an undergraduate, maybe you are on the lower third of his priority queue and not worth the investment (of his time) at this stage of your studies.

I sent him couple of my questions and confusions rooted from reading his recent papers, but I did not get any response

How long was this email and how detailed were the questions? It is easy as a student to write a long email, and perhaps the professor did not have time to read and respond to the email.
It could be that a better way to achieve what you want -- discuss with the professor about research -- could simply be to email them with a short email and say that you are interested in their research, and ask if they would they have time to have a 30 minute - 1 hour conversation at some point. Then if you make an appointment, you can ask your questions.
(I realize this is way too late to be helpful for the OP, but maybe someone else will read this question in the same situation.)

Sometimes Professors tend to have so much to handle but that doesn't necessarily justify the Professor's act of failing to respond to your emails. My advice would be that you try to frame the email in a precise and direct to the point way and probably book an appointment and see him one on one. In short, insist and eventually your efforts will bear fruits I believe. All the best.

"[I]nsist and eventually your efforts will bear fruits I believe." Why do you believe that? If I'm asked for something by somebody who I'm under no obligation to help and I tell them no, then repeated requests for help from that person will irritate me and make me much less likely to say yes in the future.

Isn't "I don't have time to respond" an oxymoron?
I have read in an answer that professors are also human beings. Exactly, and decent human beings don't leave others so anxious and lost with a response to the point that they have to go ask in a public forum. Also, talking about human beings, the professor would never give this answer to a peer or someone ranked higher than him.
I don't find that response appropriate or excusable. It would have taken literally 30 seconds to add to that response what the next step is. For example "I will get back to you in 2 months", "I am sorry but currently I am not accepting more students", or "meet me in my office in 2 weeks".
So, no one really knows what your professor means, but if I had to bet, I would bet he is not interested in you at the moment but he does not want to appear impolite or inconsiderate, so he thinks this is a better answer than answering honestly. And this is like in relationships. Please, don't insist and beg, or he will smell your desperation and will either feel annoyed/stalked or get you and exploit you. If he is interested he'll get back to you. In the meantime, look for someone else who can spend 10 seconds writing a proper answer.
Regarding being busy and what "I don't have time" means, I recommend you read this article, because it's answered there: http://scottberkun.com/2010/the-cult-of-busy/
I will quote directly here, for those busy people who don't have time but are reading Academia StackExchange anyway :)

The phrase “I don’t have time for” should never be said. We all get the same amount of time every day. If you can’t do something it’s not about the quantity of time. It’s really about how important the task is to you. I’m sure if you were having a heart attack, you’d magically find time to go to the hospital. That time would come from something else you’d planned to do, but now seems less important. This is how time works all the time. What people really mean when they say “I don’t have time” is this thing is not important enough to earn my time. It’s a polite way to tell people they’re not worth your time.

"Isn't 'I don't have time to respond' an oxymoron?" - only if you take things too literally. Obviously, the professor means that he doesn't have time to provide answers for the OP's questions. "It would have taken literally 30 seconds to add to that response what the next step is." - and then, we may be looking at an Academia SE question asking "What does he mean by 'I will get back to you in 2 months'?" "look for someone else who can spend 10 seconds writing a proper answer." - the OP is looking for answers to their questions, which will presumably require more than 10 seconds to write.

"and then, we may be looking at an Academia SE question asking "What does he mean by 'I will get back to you in 2 months'?" - I think you have said it all about what you think about the student. No further comments.

My downvote, however, is not for the above points, but based on the conclusion of this article with the nonsensical quotation. Basically, that text claims that a statement starting with "I don't have ..." should never be said. Whether it's time, money, or any other resource, "I don't have ..." can always be maliciously reinterpreted to "You are not worth my ...". But with the latter statement, you lose information, because "You are not worth my ..." does not specify any more whether other things are prioritized, or whether I cannot use the resource in question for you due to other reasons.

The blog post you quote continues: "I choose not to say Yes to everything... I always want to have some margin of my time in reserve, time I’m free to spend in any way I choose, including doing almost nothing at all.". So what does Scott Berkun say when he chooses not to say Yes to something? "I do have time for this, but I refuse to do it", perhaps?

The only point of my answer (and the article) is that it's much better to be honest and clear and not leave people in an uncertain state just to pretend to be polite. The message is clear and matches what Scott Berkun says: "you/your questions are not worth my time".

@Pablo: "I think you have said it all about what you think about the student." - you appear to imply I think lowly of the OP for asking what could have an obvious answer. Also, you imply the OP's professor is not a "decent human being" and deem their response "[in]appropriate and [in]excusable". And finally, you back your statements with an article that insinuates "[People who have no time for something] are either trying to do too much, or they aren’t doing what they’re doing very well." In other words, getting asked questions is their fault, or they are incompetent (or maybe both?). ...

... I do not know where all that negativity in your assumptions comes from, but it is what makes me strongly disagree with your answer.

@O.R. Mapper My only aim is to give some clarity to the student and I honestly believe that's what the professor means. More often than not that has been my experience about "busy" people. The "busiest" people I know are addicted to chatting, Facebook, sites like this one, or they simply join every meeting or event they can. However, the highest achievers (and really busiest people) I know always answer fast, properly, and find time for others. Scott Berkun's experience is the same. I am happy this is not your experience and I hope you devote more time to your students than to this site.

I agree with your point that it would have been helpful had the professor added an extra clarifying sentence to explain whether or not this "not having time" is temporary or permanent. But I can't upvote because a) this isn't an answer to the question, and b) it is overly negative. You infer from six words, quite evidently written in a hurry, that this professor is not a decent human being. Show some imagination.

It is a crystal clear answer to the question - In my opinion, "I don't have time to answer" is a polite way to say "you are not worth my time", and I even posted a link from a famous writer. If that meaning sounds positive or negative, and that's what you use to argue/reason/vote, that's totally up to you - the same with the inferences you made.

My PhD advisor cautioned against clarifying I don't have time for with until date X.  When he was busy writing a proposal, he told many people for two months, I don't have time until date X.  Needless to say, at date X, he received an unprecedented stream of requests for his time (including from me).


text:
How to deal with class partner who always wants to answer professor's question?
I have just started master's in math. There is a class with a very "powerful" (great researcher) professor and I'm taking it. However, there is a classmate of mine who, every time the professor asks a question, she answers it. I find this a little bit anoyying because sometimes I want also to participate in class because sometimes I also have an idea and also because it seems that in academia there is a big component on "reputation" and I'm afraid that if I don't talk in class, I'm not going to get a letter of recomendation of that professor (and I make a big effort in class!). At the same time, I don't want to start a war about who answers questions more quickly.
As in masters program, teachers don't grade exams, the only way to get a good reputation, letter of recommendation and so on, is by participating in class.
How can I deal with that situation? What is the best strategy to get noticed in class with such an anoyying student?

You say they don't grade their own papers, but does the professor hold office hours?

Yes. But he prefers to be asked questions about the class by email.

Why not ask the professor questions outside of class?  You can try to expand your knowledge, and ask the professor for clarifications.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
How to write an email to a professor to inquire about a visiting researcher position?
I am currently a postdoc and plan to apply for a postdoctoral fellowship as the funding to be a visiting researcher in other institutes. However, to be eligible for applying the fellowship, I would need an invitation letter from the department or institute. I have written about 30 emails from 2 months ago but haven't received any reply. I know that generally postdoc researchers are not so prominent or influential in the academic world so that many professors would not easily accept such requests. And I also understand that it would be more difficult if I do not know the professors personally through conferences or other social networks. But there should be at least a reply of refuse due to any kinds of reasons.
I wonder if there is any serious problem with my email. I would be very appreciated if anyone could kindly find any problems in it.

Dear Prof. XYZ,
I am writing to inquire about the opportunity of serving as a visiting researcher in your lab next year (Jan, 2020−Dec, 2020). The funding will be totally covered by the XYZ.
I am currently a postdoctoral fellow focusing on research associated with human health risk assessment of environmental contaminants at XYZ. My major is nanotoxicology and environmental risk assessment; my minor is physiologically-based pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling. I have enormous interests in your research after reading your articles regarding toxicities of TiO2 NPs.
I have written a research proposal regarding pharmacokinetic and human health risk assessment of food-grade TiO2 NPs as attached in this email. It would be my great honor and appreciation if you could find time to read this proposal at your convenience and I hope my background in mathematical modeling and experimentation could help me to have a valuable contribution
  I have attached my CV and representative research to this email to provide more information about myself and my academic records. I have also provided the document of the fellowship for visiting researchers as the reference. There will be no expenses required during my visiting except for an invitation letter after your valuable permission to allow me to be a visiting researcher in your research team.
If you require additional information, I would be pleased to provide it at any time. I am eagerly waiting for your kind reply and greatly appreciate your attention and valuable time to read this email.
Yours respectfully,
XYZ, Ph.

Does this answer your question? How should I phrase an important question that I need to ask a professor?

I think your email is fine! I'll speak from my experience doing several research internships (I haven't completed my PhD, therefore no postdoc). It obviously depends a lot on your field (ie, your field might be different than mine), but even though I had previous experience and publications, I sent about 100 emails before I got my first phone interview.
If you have the time to change your email, I might soften the tone a little. You do come off as very eager. For example, I might change the following to:

"It would be my great honor and appreciation if you could find time to read this proposal at your convenience and I hope my background in mathematical modeling and experimentation could help me to have a valuable contribution."

To something more like:

"My background in mathematical modeling and experimentation makes me a strong candidate to successfully [work in your lab/collaborate/publish papers/etc].

I suggest this because:

saying it would be a "great honor and appreciation" could be interpreted as brown-nosing/sucking up. In America, people are not usually this humble, nor do we usually speak this honorifically about others (but this could depend on your field/where you are applying).
In America, it is very acceptable to state why you are a strong candidate. Saying things like "I hope I will be successful at..." or "I believe I can..." can make potential bosses feel like you're not sure if you will be successful. Instead, I'd recommend saying "I can..." or "I will..." or "I am..."

Overall, “cold emails” are very rarely successful.  It’s a gamble to invest resources in a stranger, especially on someone who will stay for just one year.
Still, I suggest you start by cutting this “valuable”, “appreciation” and “honourable” non-sense; this kind of bait never works.
I do not know your field of work, but in mine it is usually the PI who “imposes” - or at least has some say in - the project on the student/postdoc.  Unless your scholarship comes with a bench fee, i.e. unless there is part of your scholarship to pay for consumables, I can easily imagine that a PI is not so keen to invest time, space and running costs on a postdoc working on an independent project.
Again, I do not know your field but I would suggest you write an email first to make contact and indicate your interest in the work and that you could apply for a scholarship to work in this lab if a project suitable to both of you could be found.  I would use your current project only after initial contact has been made and would present this project only if the PI asks for some sort of draft of a project idea.
I personally get a lot of emails from students who are “self-funded” in one form or another.  This is of course good but compatibility with my research program comes first.  I rarely have time to reply to more than 10% of these emails, usually the ones who do not write obviously pro forma letters, and never to people who feel honoured should I read their proposal: frankly I have no interest in making you feel honoured.  If you have sent this letter 30 times with no feedback, it is probable that very few find it sufficiently specific to their research program to warrant attention.
There is also the question of timing of your emails.   In many fields there are “hiring cycles”, meaning that postdocs start and end more or less when grants start and end.  In some fields this coincides with the start of a term or an academic year, and starting asynchronously with these cycles is suboptimal, although in your specific case this doesn’t seem so bad.
Finally, your scholarship is for quite a short period.  By the time you are comfortable with the lab and its procedures, you will be 1/3 to 1/2 done so what realistically can you achieve in the remaining time that will be beneficial to the PI? Moreover, you will quickly take the expertise away elsewhere.  Of course this situation would be different of you were known already by the PI.

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


text:
What do professors really want in a PhD student in Europe?
Background:
I have done my masters in computer science/artificial intelligence. I want to do my PhD related to data science, applied machine learning. I do not have degree from world's top ranked universities nor I have top quality research publications. I have had some domestic issues since my completion of degree education so I have not been able to fully focus on my career.
Nevertheless, I am very much willing to learn and upgrade myself is to meet the research labs requirement. With curious mind and life-long learning attitude, I have been doing various online courses (after my work hours)and have worked on different tutorial projects related to data science and machine learning i.e. from text mining, image processing, process mining, genomic data science to blockchain development.
More background
Since, I want to become a really good researcher and for that Phd is the first step. After my masters, (more than 2 years) I had time to reflect and I take notes about what I am going to do during my PhD. I am going to be a dedicated Phd student where I can work hard, learn, collaborate and produce good quality research publications and build a strong research profile. I am very much willing to learn whatever it takes to complete my Phd project.
With my qualifications and the skills, I have been applying for PhD positions whose qualification and skills are very much in match with mine. I apply only after I feel confident that I shall be able to handle such project. However, after applying for more than a year, I have not even got reply from most. I have been interviewed 3 times and I have been told that they have found better candidate for the position. One Prof. wrote that he liked my profile and wants to interview but after interview he told me he got better candidate for the position. After one week, I noticed same phd position being advertised again :(. I was interviewed again lately by the same professor, but rejected again. No clue what they really want from a PhD candidate.
My Question(s)
I am really confused about what professor look in a phd candidate? If its the skills and qualification or is it the certain level of interest and passion to go for research degree. I believe, I have both.
What should I do now? Keep looking for PhD positions? Or improve myself (in I do not know what way).
I have been keeping up with my interest for research career even through the tough times. I have applied to more than 50 positions. The only prof. who found my profile interesting rejected me twice in interview. I do not want to give up but do you think I should give up and rather look for other career.
Thank you for your attention and precious time.
Your feedback is highly appreciated.

Do you have an opportunity to discuss this with the professor who rejected you twice? Ask what it is that he/she saw as lacking and ask what you might do to make up any shortcomings. It is risky, I know, but it might be possible. Don't complain about the rejection. Just try to come across as someone who truly wants to improve but doesn't see the correct path.

I was thinking to email him and ask about suggestions in general (with no complains) but was not sure about my step.

No clue what they really want from a PhD candidate. — This seems like a natural question to ask, directly, during any job interview: "What are you really looking for? How will you choose from the applicants you interview?"

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

@JeffE, during interview they did describe the responsibilities and description of the main tasks. I told them clearly I am very much capable and familiar of those tasks and I have previous experience too. I was quite optimistic about the interview. However, they always come up with same thing that they found better candidates.

It happens:  some fields are simply very competitive. If a PhD is really what you want: don't be discouraged and keep trying. But also ask yourself the question: why do I want the PhD?

during interview they did describe the responsibilities and description of the main tasks — Sure, but that's clearly answering a different (and far less informative) question. "There must be several applicants with the required skills and interests. How will you choose which one to admit?"  In short: "What do you really want?"

It sounds like a very competitive field. It happens that there are many capable candidates.

Every advisor is different and each wants something different in students they advise. At one extreme is a person with a well established, ongoing, probably funded, large scale project who needs students to do a lot of the research work, leading, one hopes to a lot of papers and doctorates for the students. Their needs are very specific. If you have the skills they need and they judge that you will probably work hard enough (pretty hard) you may find a place in their lab. Unfortunately, the advisor is also likely well known and prominent and so the competition to join the lab can be fierce. If you get in, the work will also be very intense. However, if you can handle it, you will probably wind up at the end with a good, if very intense career for yourself.
At the other extreme is someone like myself who only ever had a few students and only one or two at a time. I didn't need help on the kinds of research I was doing, other than from colleagues elsewhere, so all I really required in a student was interests similar to mine and the drive to complete the degree with only my advice on their plan and progress. I wanted people with similar interests so that I would be able to give them good advice and so that it wouldn't be impossible for me to judge their progress and completion.
Anything in between these two extremes is possible. My own doctoral advisor was more like myself than the hard-driven lab master, but he was full of ideas and ran a weekly seminar attended by a few students and also a few other faculty members. He was admired by students and faculty, though he was a bit aloof and very professional. If a student could get over the fear of meeting him, he probably had a problem or two for you to work on and if it went nowhere was able to help you change direction. This seems to me to be the ideal.
I had an earlier advisor who wasn't nearly as helpful. Part of that was that he was untenured and so spent most of his time on his own research and publications and wasn't able (or skilled enough) to give me much help and direction.
My advice would be to avoid advisors who are too busy to really advise, either because they have that extremely high powered lab or because they are too new to academia to know what and how to properly guide a student.  Of course, if the high powered option appeals to you, then the superstar prof with the giga-lab may be what you want and need.
If you arrive for graduate study without already having an advisor, possible in some places but not others, I suggest that you look and ask around for suggestions about who does a good job with students in your field and who does things that interest you. Choosing a compatible advisor may be the most important thing you do as a beginning grad student.

I should note, I guess, that in some fields you don't really have an option. If you require the Large Hadron Collider for your work, then giga is probably your only option.

Thank you very much for detailed reply. Regarding two extremes you mentioned,  I believe i can survive in both. 1. Being hardworking and eager to improve myself with total dedication. 2. Being curious and self learning with little bit of guidance to make sure I'm going in right direction. As you said I should look for less busy advisor, my question is how do I know if someone is really less busy since I am not resident of US or EU or Australia. All I have is access to their profiles on websites. All I do is find professors who are having open positions and have similar research interests.

@Buffy I guess it is one of those very rare instances where you did not respond to the comment made by OP :)

The honest truth is that in fashionable fields, such as machine learning, there are thousands of students every year that are motivated and well qualified and that want to do a Ph.D. One issue that a professor has is: how to recognise those students among the even larger cohort of all Ph.D. applicants? Good results from very good universities tend to be a very safe marker. Since you don't have that, you are already up against it, and have to hope for a supervisor who is willing to take risks.
With that in mind, you have to amass as much hard evidence for your claims about your own qualification and ambition as you can. Taking courses and learning in your spare time is an excellent first step, but you could, for example, also try to set yourself a concrete goal of implementing a complete project, do it, and put it on some open repository, where the professors you are applying to can see it. In other words, think of yourself like an arts students who is building a portfolio, anything that will prove that you are as qualified and hard working as you say you are.
At the end of the day, once the professor interviews you, they also have to feel that you are a good personal match, i.e. they have to want to work with you and have you around for several years. This comes down to personal chemistry, and thus there is no recipe, and it is certainly possible to overdo attempts to impress the professor. I have seen applicants, for example, that were so keen to show how keen they were, that I could not finish a sentence without being interrupted by the student trying to complete it (almost never in the way I was going to complete it). Apart from being annoying, I could not see how I would ever teach such a student anything if they think that they already know everything I might have to say.


text:
I start an Assistant Professor position in August (in USA). Is it better to hire a Phd in August or January?
I start an Assistant Professor position in August at a USA university (ranked between 30th and 70th). I am already advertising the two PhD positions I got in the startup, and for one of the two I already have a list of good candidates, in particular I like a lot a specific candidate. Which one do you think the best move is? Asking the candidate to start in August with me (beginning of fall) or in January (beginning of spring)? Which are the pros or cons? I spoke with the graduate school coordinator and he said both options are possible, I have to choose. And also the candidate said he has no particular preference, he finishes the Master in June and he might do a short internship until December (or take a break and visit family) if he will have to start  with me in January.
Note:
I will hire the second PhD in August 2018, cause it comes from different funds, available only in August of each year, and the deadline for those is past.

Does a lot of students start in January? I started a Master in Sept. and a PhD in January. Both are nice, but the cohort effect of starting with other students (diff. labs) is nice, especially if your lab is small.

Mmm I do not know, I should call the University for that. My other fear is that I might lose him cause he might find another position in another school if I let him hang until January

I think the only difference is that if your student will start in January you would have more time to acclimatize yourself with the new environment and suchlikes. New environment sometimes is challenging experience in the beginning till u adjust and imagine to have a PhD student on top of that!

My other fear is that I might lose him cause he might find another position in another school if I let him hang until January — Sounds like you have multiple concerns, one of which you elaborated on in a comment. To make your question more complete, you should update your question to clarify all of your concerns related to when an optimal time to bring students on board would be.

If you are in a place where there is a continuous stream of good students, then Nicole Ruggiano's answer below is good.  Otherwise, if there is a good candidate, then you might want to grab him/her first.

Often, your first semester in a faculty position flies by...especially if you are teaching (which you do not mention). You often meet with HR and administrators, learn where everything is on campus, and settle into your new home/hometown (I've started as a new faculty member at two different universities in my career). Consider that you might not have a lot of time to supervise and manage people during your first semester, which will waste your start-up funds. Waiting to hire the candidate in January will give you time to set up your program of research and have a full list of work for the candidate to work on when they start. Just a thought. Congrats on the job!

In certain circumstances, it could be quite helpful to do things this way.  On the other hand, in some situations it can be a lifesaver to have a second pair of hands, for example to get certain equipment set up in working order quickly.  Also, note that you have a strong candidate who wants to start in September, so that is a good reason for a September start.  Perhaps you could move in June or July so you can hit the ground running when the semester starts.

Very true. My research does not involve equipment and I have grad students (sometimes new ones), rather than full PhDs, so my experience might be very different.

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


text:
Assistant professor position in USA (9 months). Is it badly seen to spend the summer to work at distance in my home country?
I will start soon an Assistant professor position in USA in Engineering. During the first 2 years the summer is paid. From the third I hope to get funded with grants. Is it badly seen if I spend the summer to work at distance in my home country?
EDIT: I will have 2 PhD students in the start-up, mine will be a computing lab so 99% percent of things and supervising can be done remotely.

Will you be running a lab and supervising graduate students?

Are you in lab-based field where you would normally be expected to setup a lab (and be training graduate students) over the summer?  Or, perhaps a more theoretically oriented field where you could work on your own?

You will probably get the best answer by consulting with someone in your future department.

You should read the university's policy on outside employment.  However, you should also consider local culture.  Naturally your university would prefer that you do things which benefit them.

A lot of this will depend on your department's culture regarding 9-month appointments. There are at least two different aspects of this I can think of:

How are 9-month appointments actually viewed? In some places I've been, 9-month positions, especially if the pay is spread over 12 months, are functionally just "75% Hard Money" positions, and there's a pretty clear expectation that you're working in the summer, etc. rather than "an unfunded summer is a summer off". If the summer ends up having a lot of committee meetings, etc. that could be a problem.
How are long absences viewed? There are some departments, especially those with lots of field work, being gone all summer would be quite typical. There are others where it would be extremely conspicuous, and probably be the source of some concerns about collegiality come evaluation time.

It is not unusual for faculty to spend several weeks or even months elsewhere during the summer.  Here in the U.S.A, I know several professors from Europe who travel to their home countries to meet with collaborators back home.  So long as you are genuinely working, this should be fine.  How you choose to spend your research time is generally at your own discretion, so an arrangement like the one you propose should not be a problem.


text:
Am I breaking any law by digitalizing a curve from a plot on a scientific Journal if I cite the source and I mention the tool I used?
Am I breaking any law or etiquette/guideline by:

digitalizing a curve from a plot published on a scientific Journal
using the data (the curve) on a paper I am submitting to another journal. I to compare the curve to my curve in my plot, I make sure I cite it and I say the tool I used to extract the data.

EDIT: I am speaking about using a digitizer (like a program that given a published figure with a curve and the coordinate axis it gets you the data).
It is a general question, since many journals are international, publisher might be  from UK, author from USA and I (the one trying to digitize the data) could be from New Zealand.

Which law? Country is important.

Duplicate of https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/11359/can-you-copyright-data

Tried to be helpful as I had found a useful tool to digitize data and gave an answer with a link, but obviously being helpful is frowned upon here as the answer has been deleted. Good luck finding out for yourselves.

At least in the USA this is explicitly OK, so long as by 'digitize' you mean 'find a mathematical expression of the nature of the curve'. As long as you do not use the original image, you can even reproduce the curve from the that information. Data, as in observations about the natural world, cannot be copyrighted.
If you are 'digitizing' in the sense of creating a digital image, most journals will request you obtain permission to reproduce the image you found in the original article. "Creative and expressive' mediums, such as data visualization, are fully copyrightable.
You also might consider reaching out to the authors anyway, to get their own data used to produce the curve. Reviewers and readers will prefer this, as it ensures the description of the curve is accurate. Almost any author should be amenable to this.

The first two are generally only done when the authors are unavailable in a timely manner to share the data regarding the curve.

Decades ago I wanted to extract data points from an old paper. The authors, if they were still alive, were on the other side of the Iron Curtain. In the days before email, it was just much easier to pull the data points off with a digitizer (yes, computer with fancy high resolution cursor device) and be done with it. Never did get a reply to my mailed request.

I have a similar experience with a paper form the 70s: the authors replied and promised data, but then never got back. I pulled data from the graph using a technique I documented in the paper. Years later one of the authors from the original paper cited my paper, with a note that the original data had been lost and she believed my paper was the 'best available approximation' or some such.

Now that is just cool, and should make you feel good!

This isn't quite correct see https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/11359/can-you-copyright-data

This is correct in the USA, per your link and my own understanding. While data is not copy-writable, illustrations and visualizations of data clearly meets the "expressive and creative" bar.  Most journals at least claim they will enforce this, and so most publishers ask for authors to get permission to republish graphs.  It may be different in different jurisdictions.  I've amended my reply to reflect this.


text:
Why doesn't academia incorporate spaced repetition in higher education?
There are many publications explaining advantages of spaced repetition. I found a summary of some of them here.
While a lot of studies show many advantages of spaced repetition, it is not formally applied to higher education. Why is that?
UPDATE 1: In order to clarify my question, I added a quote form this publication:

Furthermore, even after acknowledging the benefits of spacing, changing teaching practices proved to be enormously difficult. Delaney et al (2010) wrote: “Anecdotally, high school teachers and college professors seem to teach in a linear fashion without repetition and give three or four noncumulative exams.” (p. 130). Focusing on the math domain, where one might expect a very easy-to-review-and-to-space strategy, Rohrer (2009) points out that mathematics textbooks usually present topics in a non-spaced, non-mixed fashion. Even much earlier, Vash (1989) had written: “Education policy setters know perfectly well that [spaced practice] works better [than massed practice]. They don’t care. It isn’t tidy. It doesn’t let teachers teach a unit and dust off their hands quickly with a nice sense of ‘Well, that’s done.’” (p. 1547).
Rohrer, D. (2009). The effects of spacing and mixing practice
  problems. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40, 4-17
Vash, C. L. (1989). “The spacing effect: A case study in the failure
  to apply the results of psychological research”. American
  Psychologist, 44, 1547 (a comment on Dempster’s article?)

By the way, I am not trying to defend this publication or the quote. I just want to figure out if people believe this is true. If yes, why policy makers do not formally incorporate spaced repetition in education systems.
UPDATE 2: I really appreciate your interest in answering my question. I think there are still some unclear points that I want to mention here:
Please read the article in my question. Then you'll see the difference between "active recall" in spaced repetition and being exposed to concepts by reading books or attending lectures in our education system. Here are a couple of quotes:

active recall is a far superior method of learning than simply
  passively being exposed to information. ... There are many studies to
  the effect that active recall is best. Here’s one recent study,
  “Retrieval Practice Produces More Learning than Elaborative Studying
  with Concept Mapping”, Karpicke 2011 (covered in Science Daily and the
  NYT) ... “Forget What You Know About Good Study Habits”. New York
  Times.

While "spiral learning" is basically the foundation of spacing, in addition spacing heavily relies on active recall. Furthermore, spacing takes advantage of chunking in designing flash cards.
Moreover, there are well-defined spacing algorithms, designed by famous psychologists like Dr. Leitner, that significantly improve the efficiency of learning. Please look at studies by Professor David Shanks and Dr. Rosalind Potts.
Finally, in response to those who think spacing only improves memorizing, please read about the results of Professor Bjork's many years of experiments, specifically "Kornell, N., Castel, A. D., Eich, T. S., & Bjork, R. A. (2010). “Spacing as the friend of both memory and induction in younger and older adults”. Psychology and Aging, 25, 498-503."
Now, do you believe schools should leave students on their own to discover efficient ways of learning, or do you believe it's better to incorporate these well-studied methodologies into the education system? As a student, I pay my school to provide me with motivation, pathways, and efficient ways of learning, rather than merely providing me with a competitive environment to prove myself for a better job in the future.
Let me clarify this: I love education, research, and even just being at school. However, I believe in considering all improvements that technology has provided for us in different aspects of our lives, and I believe our education system is too old. I believe we can apply well-studied theories of learning, knowledge, neuroscience, and psychology to our education system, through the use of technology, and really improve our education system. I am trying my best to play my small role in this regard. My main purpose of asking this question in this forum is to brainstorm with you to collaboratively and learn how to improve our education system.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat at this link. To continue the discussion, please go there, as further comments that are part of the discussion are subject to deletion. (I can't move new comments to chat.)

This is a question and answer site, not a forum for brainstorming improvements to the education system. Given your edits to this post, I'm afraid you may have the wrong idea of what this site is about. (See the [help/dont-ask] for details.)

Also, asking "Please read the article in my question. " indicates that your question is not self-contained, which shouldn't be the case on SE.

In tertiary education, it is the responsibility of the students to pick appropriate learning methods. It is simply not the task of a university to incorporate spaced repetition or any other learning technique, because revising and repetition is something that students have to do on their own. Bluntly put, if students "exhibit [an] illusion", that's something students must fix, not the university.
What could be done at universities is inform students about techniques such as spaced repetition (and I am not convinced this isn't already happening one way or another).
As you say, some universities pay attention to assessments of education quality. Certainly, such assessments are not looked at for their own good, but because some other decisions are based upon them. For instance, funding for a university might be influenced by results from an assessment, but if the respective funder does not take into account retention of learning, there is no motivation to try and influence this aspect. Likewise, some kinds of assessments may be paid attention to by marketing and PR departments of a university, while they are of little to no interest to the actual teaching staff.
Then, if an aspect is not covered by any assessment the institution considers relevant, the decision will be made based upon what the teaching staff considers most beneficial (usually in an uncontrolled process, by each teaching staff member individually). And this can well mean to give students some more responsibility in order to help them evolve into autonomous professionals.
Now, if you ask why external assessments do not take into account retention a lot, that is quite a different question, and its answer has to do with a mixture of ignorance and convenience:

Ignorance because the people who set goals for such assessments know little about the individual subject areas, and also design the assessments in a subject-agnostic way, as the (possibly unrealistic?) expectation is to also make very different subjects comparable. Depending on the assessment, it may also be a design goal to make the assessment results comprehensible without knowing anything about the subject.
Convenience because "We do not know." or "We will see in X years." are too impractical answers, even though they might be accurate. The assessments are probably designed with the idea that once the assessment is over, there is a final and definitive result about the current state/quality of the university. This in turn favours a disregard of aspects that need to be measured over prolonged periods of time, such as retention long after an exam.

"it is the responsibility of the students to pick appropriate learning methods" I disagree.  How are students supposed to do that when the scientific understanding of learning is changing so quickly?

@AnonymousPhysicist: First, I am not advocating keeping stidents in the dark about the scientific understanding of learning. There may well be occasional information events on such topics, it is just their application that students are responsible for, once they know how to. Second, "appropriate learning methods" does not mean a maximum of efficiency based upon the  latest scientific findings. It means learning sufficiently well to keep up with the requirements of one's studies, which are preferrably modeled in such a way so as to be comparable in terms of learning demands to the students' ...

... future life as professionals in the subject. A considerable focus of university education lies not so much on acquiring a maximum absolute amount of knowledge, but on getting trained to work and expand one's skills in the general subject area (and possibly beyond) autonomously. This mirrors the students' future work when they will have to familiarize themselves with new approaches and topics, and no-one will be around to inform them about the latest scientific understanding of how learning works. Lastly, formalized learning methods work well on average, but a given individual might ...

... well find a method that works better for them. University students are expected to be both capable and diligent enough to get the information on learning that they need and to find out what works best for them.

In higher education, if there is information to be memorized, students are generally expected to do that themselves, in their own time and their own way. This is unlike primary education, for example, where teachers may use class time to help students memorize things.
So spaced repetition "is not formally applied to higher education" because generally, in higher education students are responsible for learning the concepts presented in class on their own, outside of class. I'm not aware of any technique for memorization that is "formally applied to higher education."
Most universities do offer students some advice on how to study more effectively, and this advice often includes information on spaced repetition (though it may not use that exact terminology.)  See e.g. this UW page or this NYU page.

Would you please give me examples of primary education systems in which spaced repetition is formally applied?

@user2521204 I said that class time is devoted to memorization in primary education, but not tertiary. I didn't say that spaced repetition is used in primary education (though it may be.)

As Professor Bjork and other scientists have discovered through their experiments, "they often exhibit the illusion that massed study is more effective than spaced study, even when the reverse is true (Dunlosky & Nelson, 1994; Kornell & Bjork, 2008a; Simon & Bjork, 2001; Zechmeister & Shaughnessy, 1980)". This shows that the advantages of spacing are not intuitive for students, making it unlikely to be widely used. However, scientists have discovered necessity of this technique for retention of learning. I think this shows the importance of formalizing it.

@user2521204 tell the students then, not the professors

@PyRulez: we expect students to apply these study techniques independently, outside class time, and repetition of material in lectures would almost certainly be an inefficient use of time.  But instructors have a lot of influence over students’ study habits — both directly, by giving explicit advice, and indirectly, through (e.g.) the design and structure of homework assignments.  So we (lecturers) certainly should also be aware of relevant work on these sort of techniques.

Please have a look at the discussion attached to the question - I feel your answer essentially mirrors what I said at first; I then added some more speculative reasoning to it. While I think you deserve the credit for the factual direct answer, would you like to edit in (or allow me to edit in) the possible explanations I suggested in my comments?

It's part of the spiral math curriculum used in our primary schools in Lexington, MA. Most parents I know wish it would go away; another example of education theory that fails on contact with reality.

@O.R.Mapper I agree with those comments, I suggest you post them as a separate answer (which the OP has indicated he/she would accept as the "accepted answer".)

I agree with this categorization of higher education as an ideal and an historical fact. However, it does seem to overlook the sea-change of "active learning", "flipped classrooms", and other (faddish?) strategies that do explicitly bring repetition and practice into the classroom.

@Daniel For all I hear about those on the Internet and newsletters from my school's Center for Learning (or whatever it's called), I don't actually see them used in my engineering school. Maybe your institution is different :)

Spaced  repetition is indirectly present in higher ed. We have all heard the humorous phrase that an ms is "more of the same" and a PhD is "pile higher and deeper". This implies that there is indeed some repetition from undergrad to grad school.
However, it's not enough to just memorize the content. Students are expected to go "deeper" in their expertise and to critically apply this knowledge through extending through conducting research.
At each level of education familiar themes are explored again at a more sophisticated level. By default old simpler concepts are reviewed before adding the next layer of knowledge. This reviewing of familiar material is an opportunity for spaced repetition and perhaps an example of constructivism

Thank you for your response. Please look at my updated question. I tried to clarify it.

Normally teaching strategies are left to the discretion of the individual teacher in higher ed. As such I doubt there would ever be institutional support for this. However individual support is possible.

I believe in your answer. However, I don't understand why. When majority of colleges pay a lot of attention to assessment, leveraging standard tests and compete with each other to improve test scores, why don't they invest in retention of learning? Students get so stressful before exams and exams are getting more and more difficult, but when you take the same exam from the same students a few months later, you observe very poor results. If students are going to forget, based on the forgetting curve, why should they be so stressful for the exams?

@user2521204, it is not at all clear to me that your premise that "a majority of colleges pay a lot of attention to assessment, leveraging test scores, and compete with each other to improve test scores..." in the U.S., for example.

@paul garrett, Thank you for your attention. However, you have not used my quote directly. I said "leveraging standard tests." Just look at the revenue of companies who provide educational testing services. For entering graduate school, I had to pay a lot for those tests and classes and I was so anxious about the exams. In GRE, you have to take the test for 4 hours and you are not allowed to eat anything other than water. After a couple of months, I got into a reputable graduate school, but I started to ask students different GRE questions, and almost no one could answer. ...

... I was wondering if we are going to forget most of the stuff, based on the forgetting curve, why are we spending a lot of time and effort for learning them, and more importantly, why do we make students feel stressed to learn things that they are not going to use in the future. If we really need to use them, why not spacing them, in order to prevent forgetting?

@user2521204, I'm sorry, I did read carefully what you wrote, and disagree with the premise. It is true that ETS wants to sell products, etc., but that does not at all mean that I, as faculty on grad admissions committee, value those numbers, nor am "leveraging" them. Multiple choice tests are pretty idiotic, and as far as I can see those things have essentially nothing to do with education in the first place. The inappropriateness of multiple-choice tests is "not about" higher education, but about a certain commodification of it...

@paul garrett, if you think graduate schools do not value those numbers, then who promotes them other than graduate schools?

@user2521204, they would not exist in the first place without ETS ("Educational Testing Service", in New Jersey), and would not continue to exist without the promotion by them. These exams are a bad pseudo-solution to "a problem" (which is not actually a "problem" at all, but is the main issue). I read personal statements, letters of recommendation, ...

@paul garrett, sorry for my misunderstanding, and thank you for your clarification.

@user2521204 Insofar as graduate schools do look at the GRE - at least the generic one - I think they are looking for skills/potential rather than thinking that an ability to succeed on this particular test is crucial. E.g. looking for ability to reason logically rather than caring specifically about whether students can solve this particular kind of logic puzzle. (Whether the tests measure that is another question.)

Why doesn't academia incorporate spaced repetition in higher
  education?

Because

the majority of educators have not given much thought to how the brain works in learning, or about best practices in teaching;
few educational institutions have much in the way of quality control or improvement mechanisms in place; and
few educators take the initiative on their own to observe each other's classes or discuss teaching practices with colleagues.

I once worked in a small, private-pay school in Latin America that taught English as a second language, in one-hour long classes, of 3 to 12 students per class.  The school was part of a franchise.  The director and the teachers were highly motivated to use teaching methods that work, because the school's continued existence, and thus the teachers' continued employment, were on the line.  We were given articles about best practices in language teaching, and encouraged to read and discuss them; and observation of each other's classes, and feedback from colleagues, were built into the job.
These pedagogical improvement practices were effective, on a short time scale.  I have not seen them in use in any other educational institutions I, or members of my family, have been involved in.  What I've seen, for the most part, is a lot of hamsters happily spinning on their own exercise wheels.

Whether students in tertiary education continue in academia or move out of it, if they want a successful career then (self)-education will continue for the rest of their working lives.
Working in the engineering industry, I am now using theoretical concepts on a daily basis that were too "recent and cutting-edge" to even be formally taught at university level when I graduated - indeed, some of them had not even been discovered.
Since educational theorists seem to invent a revolutionary new version of "educational best practice" every few years, it seems to me that the best chance for life-long students is to figure out something that works for them personally, rather than blindly following the path of the latest pedagogical fashion. After all, the most basic "learning experience" is discovering how to think for yourself.
Outside of the classroom there is usually no time for ideas like "spaced repetition". Either you get your head around new information faster than your competitors (whether they are inside and outside of your own workplace), or you watch their career progress overtake your own.

I somehow dislike the last paragraph. It may seem to work, but then that's not because someone was "getting their head around new information fast" instead of a proper technique, it's that they happened to stumble upon a technique that happens to work for them (and possibly for others). It's like saying "There is no time for looking at a map, we need to keep driving to reach our destination early." Of course, one might arrive at the intended destination like this.

I would echo @O.R.Mapper's comment... and reiterate: over several decades, even though I have a better memory than some, I've found that I need frequent "refreshing" of recollection of many, many technical points. For that matter, it seems now, as always, that I need to hear a very-new thing perhaps five times before it really gets inside my head. And then review-and-refresh subsequently.

These are exactly the reasons that it seems SRS should be a good tool to teach in schools, and why SRS is so popular outside academia.  Once a student has been introduced to SRS, and realizes how easy it actually is to move large collections of facts into long-term memory with nothing but a smartphone and a 10-minute daily habit, that's a skill that he or she can choose to take with them into any industry.  SRS is also a highly measurable and goal-directed way to achieve learning targets, which makes it very appealling from a practical (or "S-M-A-R-T", if you like) standpoint.

There's a guy named btilly (https://stackoverflow.com/users/585411/btilly) who used SR to teach linear algebra and it went very well.
He wrote a short post about it (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=818367) and a longer one too (http://bentilly.blogspot.co.il/2009/09/teaching-linear-algebra.html).
A guy named wsprague wrote this in reply (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=819181):

The question of why is there so much crappy education is interesting.
  I think part of the answer is that society is well-served by the
  failings of the educational system in that widespread educational
  crappiness helps support the class system. I think it would be fairly
  straightforward to turn 90% of the population into well educated upper
  middle class types, using techniques like btilly describes...
... But if we did that, who would drink Coors and drive forklift for
  Walmart and not complain about it?
So I think that a huge function of the educational system is to
  educate a large part of the population badly. I think that the teacher
  training system serves this is as well, by selecting for mediocre
  teachers and then making them more mediocre via training.
  Additionally, in the schools themselves a lot of effort is made to
  classify young people into dumb and smart categories, usually unfairly
  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect), and this
  classification stamps them for the rest of their lives and creates a
  population of hopeless lower class workers.
If there are SOME good teachers in the system like btilly, then SOME
  kids go on to get out of their class, which is perfect in that (1) we
  need to claim that it is possible to pull yourself up by your
  bootstraps, and (2) we need to recruit SOME kids to grow up to fill
  management positions, but not too many that they all can't find
  careers. Historically, underemployed educated people are the people
  who become union leaders.
The beauty of it is that the people who fail think it is their fault!
(Sorry to rant about the educational / class system in general, rather
  than the topic of how to teach advanced math, but I couldn't stop
  myself.)
Call me paranoid, but there you go.

In support of other answers (and a comment above by bmargulies): One argument is that using class time for repetition takes away time from thinking about new, and likely harder, skills. Apparently it's common for "spiral" approaches like this to generate resistance from parents. For example:

Some parents, like Ms. Demond, questioned the efficacy of the spiral
  structure and sequence of the Everyday Math curriculum:
"But I know, in her grades, we did have, like, more time, for
  everything, as far as addition, subtraction. We might have two weeks,
  or... I just know we spent more time than a week... Then they cram
  different things each day. Because each different day they might come
  home with something different. We had a set time to learn how to tell
  time, and… what’s the other stuff? ... We might have spent two weeks
  on that. Two weeks spending on something, that’s different. Other than
  just a week. Because, you’re not gonna learn how to do the rows and
  maybe money, in just a week, and then move on down to something else.
  They’re not gonna learn it. Can’t learn like that." (SCS, 2nd grade)

Schnee, Emily, and Enakshi Bose. "Parents Don't Do Nothing: Reconceptualizing Parental Null Actions as Agency." School Community Journal 20.2 (2010): 91. (Link)


text:
Can the decision to admit a PhD student be made by a single professor?
Many professors say on their websites not to email them because they cannot make admission decisions alone, but rather it is the decision of a whole committee. However, my undergraduate advisor said there is nothing stopping a single professor from admitting a student if they see fit. Is this true? And if so, how often does it happen?

That is very much a local political issue. I can very well imagine some of our heavyweights around here to be able to convince the committee either way singlehandedly. But part of the reason they are heavyweights able to do this is that they won't abuse their positions this way, they'll have enough evidence to convince of their choice.

Bottom line: if a particular professor is one of those who have posted the "whole committee" line, don't write to that one.

This varies greatly between departments.  In some cases (particularly European universities, I believe), Ph.D. students are admitted by individual professors.  There may be some basic requirements set by the department or university, but other than that it's up to the professor's judgment.
In other cases, decisions are 100% made by a committee.  For example, that's the case in my department.  Any professor can talk with the committee members and make a case for a particular candidate, but it would be unseemly to do this too often, and the committee can simply ignore these discussions if they choose to.  (In practice, they are willing to be convinced if someone makes a compelling case for why the student would be great, but they won't admit someone just because a potential advisor is in favor.)

Many professors say on their websites not to email them because they cannot alone do not make the admission decisions, but rather it is the decision of a whole committee.

That's true in my case.  I can't evaluate most applications in isolation (unless someone is mediocre or obviously amazing, I won't know how they compare with the other applicants this year), and I'm not interested in lobbying the committee except in unusual cases where I have important information not available to them.  (If they know everything I do, then I don't want to offend them by suggesting that I don't think they are capable of doing a good job.)

However, my undergraduate advisor said there is nothing stopping a single professor from admitting a student if they see fit. Is this true? And if so how often does it happen?

So the answer is that this is completely true in some departments, completely false in others, and may of course be in between in some cases.  How often it happens depends on the circumstances (what you are applying for and where).  If you are applying to U.S. math grad schools, for example, essentially all the decisions will be made by committees.  If you are applying for something else, then you'll have to look into that particular case.  But if you are seeing lots of statements on web pages saying that decisions are made by committee, that tells you something.

I've seen an applicant that was working with us take several years to get admitted to a PhD program while building a relationship with a prof. that would be willing to stand up and vouch for them in the committee meeting. I wasn't in the meeting itself, but I got second-hand reports about how the discussion about this student went (in generic terms so as not to breach the committee's confidentiality).

The information here about Anonymous Mathematician's department matches what happens in my department.

This depends all too much on individual departmental factors. Some faculty are extremely consensus driven and students are accepted and denied based on that group consensus.
At other places, faculty are given "slots" which they can fill based on their own needs and which other faculty will not interfere with.
And finally, at some places, there are "big people" on the faculty who drive the agenda - including who gets accepted and who doesn't.
You need to talk to faculty or graduate students at that particular location in order to figure out how they operate.

The answer is that it depends on the institution and the professor's influence within the institution.


text:
Applying for a PhD group who has asked for my research interests
So I am applying to a research group in Quantum Optics  and Quantum
Information. The professor has asked for my research interests and why I would like to join his group. My research interests are in the same field that he is researching but is not exactly to the point. For example, someone might be researching on the shape and size of the apple but I'm interested in the color and taste. We are still researching in the same field and I am also interested in doing my phd in the project he's working on.
How do I express my research interests in this situation? Also, when someone asks "why are you interested in joining my research group", what are the usual points or aspects you talk about?

There is no wrong answer here.  Just answer the question honestly.

If my research agenda or interests are deviating from the project which I am interested in doing my phd in does it mean that im not fit for the position.

^ Nope. It depends on how broad the horizons of your prospective supervisor are!

When someone asks, why are you interested in joining my research group, what are the usual points or aspects you talk about?

You have to read up on what the PI and the postdoc(s) and the students are doing and read some publications.  Then when you are asked that question, you can say what you found interesting or exciting about what is being done in that group.

Depends on the person who you are talking to. In a research group which is not exceedingly interdisciplinary/varied, it might deviate from what your professor is looking for and thus it might be a downside for the person who is evaluating the applications. If the group is searching for variety, it might be beneficial to state the different fields in which you are interested.
In a more practical way, look to the research group itself (and, as @aparente001 just mentioned, their publications): if it is way too large and its publications are wide-ranged in topic, it might not be a disadvantage and it can definitely turn the balance in your favor. Nevertheless take a good look into their research fields! If they are concentrated in a single topic, it might be good to introduce the difference in scope after you are used to how does that particular research group work.
Anyhow, never be too specific: the field you are speaking of has a lot of interesting research opportunities and you can end up researching a field you had no idea you were interested in.


text:
Do admissions care about one's minor?
If I am a biology major from a lower tier liberal arts school, and I wanted to make myself more attractive for future applications( ie: grad school, job listings), should I bother obtaining a minor in a related field?
In this case the minor I was attempting was chemistry, but my last semester of undergraduate school is one I want to be "lightish", so I can study for GRE's or hopefully line up internships.
Ideally, I would hope people see my chemistry minor as me having more laboratory experience than other biology majors, since while obtaining the minor I took mostly chemistry courses with their corresponding laboratories. And that laboratory experience maybe could land me in a laboratory internship of some kind. Or look attractive for potential graduate assistance-ships.

If you were to have a minor in, for instance, mathematics, that would be looked upon very favourably in certain institutions since mathematical biology is a growing field. It requires the kind cross-disciplinary knowledge that isn't so common as far as I'm aware. So to answer your question, yes, but it doesn't have to be as related as you might think.

Minors, just for the official name, is quite often a waste of time. Usually your transcript, grades, and personal statement will provide much more information about your abilities and expertise in this field than a minor would. Time is often better spent pursuing research projects, advanced coursework, or other academic extra curricular activities. See my answer to http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/15679/trouble-picking-a-major

Sure.  How much depends on the field and the department; some places have fairly strict requirements for what you have to have learned in undergrad, and if a minor can hit some of those things, then that works.
However, in such cases, it tends to be less about the official minor and more about the coursework.  For example, if you're applying to grad school in a mathey field, getting good grades in linear algebra, differential equations, and real analysis will probably be a big help whether there's a math minor on your transcript or not.

This is also true with side projects and work experience in other subjects. For example, if you were a Physics major, but did programming project on the side, this would help you case if you apply to a program (or job) also looking for those skills.

And I'd like to add that said project, assuming it was reasonably challenging, would usually be looked upon at least as highly [probably more] as a minor in CS.

The minor you described would certainly bolster a student's preparation for grad school in your field.
On the other hand, I can see that you are feeling stretched and are not sure getting those last credits needed for the minor are really worth it.
Let me reassure you that the strong showing in your almost-minor field will be clear from your transcript, and you can also include a sentence or two about your complementary studies of chemistry, somewhere in your transcript.
Knowing how to take good care of yourself, and how to pace yourself, are very important skills, both for yourself, and to show admissions committees and prospective employers.

Yea I do feel very stretched, I mean I have two research projects to finish, as well as full time courses and a side project my professor is overestimating my skills at doing. But I feel that if I could do this, then my last semester would be proof to any potential interviewer that I can handle heavy loads.

authors: 睡了丧尸妹子壮士断腕_发情女丧尸按键飞龙在天


text:
Spending on AI vs theoretical physics in academia
I hope this question may fit this site:
My friends and I were having an argument based loosely on these two opposing views. One side claims that there is too much spending and financial backing by governments on research in non-applied areas. By "non-applied" I mean that given that we answer the question originally proposed there is no practical real-world application forthcoming from it. The example used most often was high-energy physics and the standard model.
The opposing view claims that the funding (by governments, but subtract defence costs for instance) for theoretical research is already comparatively low, taken against research in engineering or applied sciences.
Question:
How can we compare these claims? The closest source I found online is from the OECD:
https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ONRD_COST
These charts however do not break expenditure on natural sciences into subfields.
Also, please share opinions backed by some stats, please!

Theoretical physics departments were some of the first in the 20th century to work on neural networks, many parts of the math of machine learning are borrowed from mathematical methods developed in physics. Fundamental research and its necessity can hardly be measured financially vs. applied sciences. That most of the nobel prizes go to US universities although the funding system is probably the most capitalistic/competitive shows the fundamental importance of fundamental research. High-energy/particle physics is not representative for theo. physics, as the outcome ever was low and will be...

From a libertarian/neoliberal point of view, a case could be made that governments should only fund basic research. After all, applied research is an investment that will pay off (or not, with a certain risk), so there's a market for it; and government funding will only crowd our private investment. By contrast, there is no market for fundamental research, because the risks are too high or the valorization might even be impossible (philosophy and history don't yield self-driving cars); thus, to the extent that society still values this kind of knowledge, it needs the government to step in.

I should note that the two views you sketch are not contradicting. The total amount of funding available to theoretical research is indeed lower than for applied research (at least here in Europe), but there are still people arguing that it should be more lopsided (i.e., there is still too much money going into research without clear applications).

(part of this reasoning is also that most theoretical research is inherently cheap - a mathematician needs much less money to produce top-level research than some applied fields, which may need to pay for equipment, technicians, lab managers, programmers, and an army of grad students to get anywhere)

@xLeitix I'd be interested in where you get the data that funding available for applied research is higher than available for theoretical research. Can you share please?

@Mariah I'm definitely too lazy to dig out and aggregate this information from H2020 materials in my lunch break. Besides, we would only get into arguments about what exactly constitutes funding and what is already paid research-for-hire. Still, I have been doing research in a very applied field for a decade, and in the discussions in my university there has never been a real doubt that the total pool of money for applied fields is considerably higher than for theory. The discussion has always been how much higher it should be.

@xLeitix no worries! If you find the time to share something, raw data is great as well, please do:)

@Mariah To help you out a little, the "official" UNESCO report seems to have the following numbers (http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single-view/news/what_is_the_optimal_balance_between_basic_and_applied_resear/): "On average, the 35 members of the Organisation of Economic Cooperation for Development (OECD) devote 22% of their research budgets to basic research (2013). France contributes 24%, the USA just under 17% and Japan and Israel about 13%."

In a way, the question is fundamentally flawed.  Many US Universities only accept money from the govt if the research is classed as fundamental.  E.g., with DOD funding, it is specifically reviewed to ensure we are not doing applied research--a company we subcontract from may do applied research, but not the university.  This is because we are not in the business of developing weapons for the government.  Consider the discovery of how atoms work, leading to laser development vs. laser development itself.  RE: funding amounts, the common joke is that "NSF" stands for "Not Sufficiently Funded."

History is generally on the side of pure government subsidized research.  There are some ideas or projects so far removed from possible commercialisation or such risky for private enterprise that it only makes sense for governments to fund these.
The most obvious example is electricity.

“Why, sir, there is every probability that you will soon be able to
  tax it.”

The quote is attributed to Michael Faraday in reply to William Gladstone, then British Chancellor of the Exchequer (minister of finance), when asked of the practical value of electricity in 1850.  The quote is disputed but still relevant to illustrate the general point that some of the most fruitful ideas originated in research of no apparent utility.
Another example would be X-rays and a more recent example would be the laser, "a solution in search of a problem" according to its inventor T. Maiman (who at the time was working for a private firm).
On a more abstract level, Robert Wilson, appearing in front of a panel to lobby in favour of a new accelerator at Fermilab, declared

In that sense, this new knowledge has all to do with honor and country but it has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to help make it worth defending.

Overall, the investments in basic sciences have funded generations of graduate students who have gone on to be productive (and tax paying) members of society.  Giving a bit of $$ to pure research keeps researchers (often time university faculty) busy outside of class times, enriches courses and trains or exposes future professionals to cutting edge technology and concepts.  Even with an extremely low probability of success (intolerable to private enterprise), a single breakthrough will pay for itself many many times over.

Fundamental research is the food web of science. The individual units of knowledge may be isolated, but they may coalesce into new landscapes of knowledge. Let's take an example: Archimedes had an early understanding of integration. This knowledge was not taking off then - only when a larger collection of scientists began to understand the landscape of calculus (Cavalieri, Fermat, Galilei, Kepler, Newton) the idea could take off with formidable success. In other words it's investment in fundamental research on a wider scale that opens up new fields.

“Why, sir, there is every probability that you will soon be able to tax it.” - Doesn't that loosely translate to "There will be practical applications soon" (... so you can tax them)?


text:
Should I mention in an email to a professor that they are referred by another one?
I emails professor A about a chance to study with him, and he answers that he's on leave next academic year so not accepting new students, and I might want to check professor B. Should I mention to B that A refers her to me?
More specifically, I think that A is best suited for me. Should I be honest in saying that I have email A first? I think being honest upfront will set a better expectation from him, thus saving time for both.
Below is my intended draft:

Dear Prof. B,
To introduce myself, my name is X, from country Z. I'm writing this letter to ask you if you are planning to accept new students this year. I have asked prof A about studying with him, but he has kindly refer you to me since he's on leave next year.
From reading your profile, I can see that our interests align in many aspects. My interests can be divided into two main categories, which mirror yours:

The cognitivism in Daoism and Buddhism's epistemology
The physicalism in Daoism and Buddhism's metaphysics/cosmology

In case you are interested, here is a proposal I crafted for your reference.
Do you think the program could be a good fit for me? Would there be an opportunity for me to work with you as a grad student?
Best wishes and regards,

Both A and B are in the same school in Canada.

Sure, why not? Personal contacts are always a good thing! Do you know the first prof well? Maybe he can also tell the second prof about you and your achievements?

no, actually not. Just replace B with A in the draft email, and you get my email to A

What is this proposal you talk about? A published paper? Maxbe you could write a sentence what it is about so that the reader is interested in opening it.

The proposal is about my observations and topics that I would like to study. I don't have a published paper unfortunately, but I have a blog in my language about these topics, and many people compliment the perspectives it provides. I'm not sure if that's good enough? You can read it if you want

The letter is fine, but I'd actually suggest that you replace this:

I have asked prof A about studying with him, but he has kindly refer you to me since he's on leave next year.

with something like the following:

Prof A has referred me to you as being a good fit for my research interests.

There is no real need for the rest of it, and might be inferred without saying it directly.
But, your original is fine, also. Good luck.

Although it's already in your suggested formulation, it might be good to emphasize that the correct wording is "referred me to you", not the OP's "refer[red] you  to me".

@AndreasBlass, good catch. The alternative is "Recommended you to me".

Great imrpovement. Perfection is not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.

in case B doesn't reply to me, can I ask A to remind B to take a look at my email?

You should, perhaps, ask A for advice.

Chances are, the referee has told/will tell anyway. Just be upfront about it.

How likely is this? I suppose these stuffs are trivial so they don't need to announce to the other that "Hey, I just refer this guy to you"?

@Ooker I expect this type of casual conversation is unlikely at the moment, as many people are working from home. If everyone were in the office as normal, this is the type of thing someone would certainly mention to another if they passed each other in the corridor.

I don't think you need to disclose the referral, which 'be upfront' seems to imply. However, it certainly wouldn't hurt and may even help, so it'd be silly not to mention it.


text:
As a non-researcher, how to tell new knowledge that the speaker might not know?
A talk was closely relevant to a problem which had no breakthrough for a long time, but the speaker didn't seem to know a recently new method which is proved be able to solve it yet. What should I do?
I was not a researcher, relative young comparing to the large amount of attendees, and this was the first time I attend an international conference all by myself. Whether the audience interacted with me or not, they could always notice me as I was the smallest person sitting in the front row (for note taking, the rest of rows didn't have table) in between old, big/tall Western professors. Not to mention my broken English.
I had asked the speaker if he knew any new method to solve the problem or not, and he said no. I think he and the audience did have an interest to hear it (I could even mention some leading names working on it), and I know that most of them didn't really care what I mention above at all, but still with that much pressure I didn't have enough confidence to say. Since the new method comes from a completely different field, it might take a couple minutes to explain it. The longer I talked the more embarrassed and tongue-tied I was. In the end I thanked him and asked no more question.
I know that everyone has their first time, but what is your advice in this exact situation? What would you do to feel relief yourself? The impact of the newfound knowledge is big, and yet I'm a non-researcher. That pressure is not an easy thing for an inexperienced person to handle.

In this case, chatting with the speaker one-on-one after the talk may have worked better for you.

Some suggestions: 1. Work on improving your English (which is quite good anyway) - if you improve it, one reason for your lack of confidence will be eliminated. 2. Work on getting rid of your unhelpful (and incorrect as far as I can tell) "I am not a researcher" mindset. If you are attending a conference about research then you are a researcher and the speaker and other attendees want to hear what you have to say and benefit from the knowledge you bring to the event, even if you're not a "tall Western professor". 3. As @MadJack said, talk to the speaker in private at the end of the talk.

If the conference has ended and you missed the opportunity to talk with the speaker after the talk, you could still send him an e-mail. You could write out information about this important new method, or you could just give a brief indication of the topic along with pointers to the relevant publications.

@DanRomik what defines a researcher?

@Ooker a researcher is "a person who carries out academic or scientific research" according to the New Oxford American Dictionary.

You don't have to be a researcher to have ideas about research.  You don't have to be a researcher to ask people questions about their research.  You don't have to be a researcher to give other people feedback on their research. Stop worrying about whether you're a researcher or not; it just doesn't matter.

@JeffE I know. It's just that an outsider (including a researcher on a different field) will be likely to ask basic questions, which in some cases are not very time-effective for the speaker and the audience. Do you have any suggestion to know when a question is basic knowledge that I can (and should) read more, and when it's worth to ask? Or understanding the talk, even adequately, simply guarantees that I have basic knowledge?

It's perfectly fine to use the question period to alert the speaker to other related work.  As with any question, try to keep it brief: one or two sentences.  I agree that a "couple minutes" is too long.  Here are some sample phrasings.

There is a recent paper by Jones and Smith on reticulated splines, in which they propose a method to solve the trolley problem.  Would this help to resolve the issue you mentioned in your talk?
Are you aware of the recent paper by Jones and Smith which gives a solution to the trolley problem?  This seems like it might helpful in answering your question of whether splines can be reticulated.
You mentioned that you need a solution to the trolley problem.  There is a recent paper by Jones and Smith which solves this problem using the method of reticulated splines.  Does that seem likely to be workable in this case?

It is a good idea to mention the names of the authors - partly to give them credit, and partly so that the speaker or other audience members can look up the work later.
Try to resist the urge to explain the related work in detail; the question period is not the time for that.  If there are significant aspects of the paper that are very relevant (special techniques, limitations, etc), you can mention them briefly (again, one or two sentences).  Otherwise, you can certainly approach the speaker after the talk is over, during a coffee break, etc, for further discussion.

This is all true (and I upvoted it).  I did want to add: you don't have to ask a question in "open court" if you don't want to.  If you feel anxious asking the question and/or you feel like the question could likely lead to significantly deflating the speaker, it might be better to bring it up privately soon after the talk.

I've always know how questions should be asked, but didn't realize it could be so true