text:
How to deal with a professor who grades assignments and exams incorrectly
I currently have a (graduate) professor who clearly does not understand the material she teaches at the level required by the course. This normally would not be a problem - I'm fine with educating myself via textbook - but unfortunately her inaccurate knowledge also extends to grading. I have no problem with studying hard for a difficult class, but I can't possibly know how to predict the exact incorrect ideas that the professor has and incorporate them into my work.
My first response was to very, verrrrry diplomatically approach the professor and talk to her about the questions - but she immediately became angry. I then talked to my advisor, who said that this isn't the first time she's heard of problems with this teacher. My advisor said that her only idea is for me to go to the head of the department, but I'd really prefer not to do this for two reasons:

Relatively small department; it's likely that this professor has
a good relationship with the department head, and I would look bad
It seems like a "nuclear option" and I would prefer to avoid it
(if possible)

This is my last semester of graduate coursework in molecular biology, and I have never had a problem like this before. I feel like my only option is to drop the course - without it, I would still have all my coursework requirements fulfilled - but I don't want to have a W on my transcript.
I have been unable to come up with a satisfactory way to resolve the problem.
Possibly helpful additional information

I have talked to other students in the class; all (of the six I have talked to about the issue) have experienced similar problems in grading
I have confirmation from other teachers that my answers are correct, but they don't want to confront a colleague (and I can't fault them for this)
I don't dislike the teacher; she seems like a relatively OK person. I just wish she understood the content better
The teacher can't possibly have a grudge against me, since I had never met her before the class
I'm  very interested in what this class covers, which is why I took it despite not needing to
I have taught some of this material at the undergraduate and graduate level; I understand it's difficult stuff. It's more the teacher's attitude towards grading that is the problem.

Are the "incorrect ideas" not delivered in lectures or reading assigned in addition to the text?

@BobBrown the textbook is correct, but every lecture is riddled with errors.

So, if I now understand the problem, you know what incorrect ideas are being presented, but not which ones will be reflected in the grading.  I think I should wait for someone with more experience in academia than I to answer this question, but at the moment, I'm in favor of the nuclear option, with an incorrectly graded paper in your hand.

"I currently have a (graduate) professor who clearly does not understand the material she teaches at the level required by the course. This normally would not be a problem - I'm fine with educating myself via textbook " then why are you wasting time and money in graduate school?

@emory: Often people want a credential that shows they know the material.

@emory: Because for one thing, it's pretty darned hard to get a job in academia or research without a PhD union card.

@emory: (1) Getting guidance on what literature to read, (2) interacting with experts when you have questions, (3) achieving certifications needed for many jobs (academic and otherwise), (4) getting started with a research/publishing career, (5) developing a network of colleagues to help with that research, etc.?

@DanielR.Collins All of those are good reasons to go to graduate school, but I question whether they are happening for the OP.  When I was a graduate student, I always thought my professors were experts in their field.  It would have been a big problem for me if I thought they were not.

@emory: Just because someone is an expert in their field doesn't mean that he is an expert at whatever he is teaching. I, for one, was once asked to do problem sessions in a topic I had no clue about, and learned as I went. I didn't pretend to know more than I actually did, though.

Which subject is this OP? Some branch of Maths or something else?

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

This is not nearly the "nuclear option".  Going to the department chair is about three levels below that.

How is it possible that you taught some of this material at the graduate level before and are now taking a graduate course on it?

This is not uncommon in the biological sciences, especially in small departments.

I have been in this very same situation. I confronted the lecturer, complaining my answers were correct, yet my grade did not reflect that - she quickly became angry, threatened that I would not be allowed to pass the exam if I continue to behave this way(pointing out her errors). But I was confident in my work, so I was planning to use the "nuclear option" the next day. However, she had corrected my grade by then. Your teacher is clearly not doing her job well - you have every right to nuke her. If she's going to be angry at criticism, she should not be in academia at all.

Could you clarify your reasoning on these actions? You're afraid that going to the department chair would make you look bad, but that badmouthing this professor by gossiping to her coworkers won't. I don't understand this logic.

I wonder how this turned out? Would love a quick update-edit to the question.

Not a definitive answer, since I’m a postdoc with comparatively limited experience of such conflict situations, but I do have a few suggestions.  They aim to:

maximise the chance of getting better grading without ruffling too many feathers;
give you solid documentation if you do end up escalating the complaint;
minimise the embarrassment in case it turns out that you’re misunderstanding something and your lecturer’s grading is defensible after all.

If you confront the teacher again, do so by email rather than in person.  This has several advantages.  Firstly, it allows you to look over what you’ve written and make sure you’re phrasing everything as tactfully as possible.  Secondly, it gives her time to (hopefully) get over any initial anger/embarrassment and give a considered response.  Confronted on a sensitive topic in person, it’s easy to get flustered and defensive, and entrenched in a position it’s difficult to climb down from later.  Finally, if she doesn’t respond constructively, you have the exchange in writing, so are on firmer ground for escalating the issue to the department head.
If possible, phrase the question/request so that your desired outcome is also palatable for her.  If you argue that she’s fundamentally misunderstanding the course material, she’s pretty unlikely to accept that — admitting that one’s wrong about something is already difficult, admitting one’s incompetent is a whole lot harder again. Instead, you could say that (e.g.) you have learned some of the material previously, and so know it with a different viewpoint from hers (and maybe give a couple of examples here, ideally with sources in well-established literature) and you would like to check that this angle will also be acceptable for work on the course.  I’m not saying you should say exactly that — but look for something that allows her to concede that your understanding is correct, without having to admit (to you or herself) that hers is wrong; and down the line this makes it easier for her to improve her understanding of the subject, rather than remaining antagonistic towards your suggestions.  On the other hand, if she does defend her current approach, this gives her a chance to lay out her case more clearly and carefully.
If you do this and she still doesn’t engage constructively, you’re now on very solid ground to escalate the complaint.  You have a written record of your good-faith effort to sort this out tactfully.  You have specific examples where she has doubled down on her misunderstanding of the material.  (I’d suggest double-checking these with your advisor or another faculty member to be absolutely sure you’re right about them.)  Even if the head of department supports this teacher in general, it will be comparatively difficult for them to dismiss the complaint or paint you as a troublemaker.

Thank you. I think this is the best option that I have available to me.

My recommendation would be to withdraw from the course. I'd almost go so far as to say you have a prime opportunity to do so in this case: it's not a required course, and you know you can learn it on your own, and you have other things that take priority with your time. Granted how defensive she got (and noncommittal your advisor was), the overall trajectory seems to be some combination of (a) getting into an ongoing and escalating dispute with her, (b) contending with department interactions over an extended period, (c) triggering end-of-course grade disputes, etc. This threatens to be a huge sink in your time and emotional energy, so I would recommend simply sidestepping the whole issue as the best option.
Now: The one thing that makes me hesitate with this advice is that I don't have very deep experience with what a effect a "W" has on a PhD transcript. Personally, I have a whole bunch of W's on my undergraduate transcript (albeit none in my major), and they have never been an issue or mentioned in any context: not on applying to graduate school, getting industry employment, or getting a full-time lecturer position.
Edit: Thanks to @vadim123 for the comment: "Nobody cares what you have on your PhD transcript. They care about (1) what you've published, (2) what's in your thesis, and as a distant third (3) your GPA. Oh, and (0) what your letters of recommendation say about you." Sounds about right.

I'm not certain, but my sense is that a W would require explanation. And that is not something you want to need to give. Whereas a less-good-pass is likely a non-issue and won't even register as anything but 'fine'.

Good point. I think this question is more about "what should I do", and if OP do not like the nuclear option (where most serious argument would escalate anyway), the other clear way is the W.

Nobody cares what you have on your PhD transcript.  They care about (1) what you've published, (2) what's in your thesis, and as a distant third (3) your GPA.  Oh, and (0) what your letters of recommendation say about you.

Find out the final-grade appeals process in your department/at your university. (Where I am the procedure is department-level, but that may or may not be the case where you are.) Keep every assignment your professor has graded; separately, write up where and how the grading is incorrect.
Follow the procedure to the letter. Be apologetic and accommodating (as you have here) rather than angry. Explain that you did try to raise this with the professor directly, and the result was not positive.
This deflects the situation into being about your grade, which is impersonal, rather than a personal dispute between you and the professor, which you (probably quite correctly, graduate departments being as clannish as they are) wish to avoid.

Realistically, how much do the actual grades matter in your program? In many programs they do not matter as long as you pass. The main purpose of graduate courses is for you to learn so you can do better research, and it seems you have achieved that goal.
If this is the case, a reasonable option would be just to ignore it (you are about to finish your graduate coursework anyway) and just focus on the most important part - research.

Really?  In the two graduate programs I know about, grades are A, B, and C-U-later.

@BobBrown So A and B pass. Does it really matter if you get an A or a B as long as you pass?

Well, it mattered to me.

@BobBrown nothing wrong with that. But I think it is important to point out to OP that in the grand scheme of things, grades are a minor part of the PhD.

Grades are not so unimportant.  If you ever go into industry or seek a teaching position or even research position at a lesser institution, they may ask for your grad school GPA.  And it can very well matter.

@Chan-HoSuh I don't doubt this happens but, if it actually matters beyond 'good enough', then the recipients are fooling themselves. GPAs from different schools are radically incommensurable. (Mine didn't even produce GPAs for graduate students.) Those which only count A/B as passes, for example - well, guess what? Almost all students get at least a B in all their courses. Somewhere else, the story will be different. Which doesn't mean it doesn't matter - if people count it, it can matter. But some places just want to see you did OK. The rest is irrelevant.

Those aware of grad school grading schemes are likely to view B grades very suspiciously, especially if you didn't produce a very strong research output.

If you are at a proper University and have mediocre grades that is much better than A passes from a diploma mill . Look at the MIT in the USA and compare it to the MIT in New Zealand .This is the Manakau Institute of Technology .The lecturers at MIT   NZ would not get into the MIT   USA     as freshmen.

especially if you didn't produce a very strong research output — So don't do that then.

If the grading is incorrect then there will be people who pass or fail incorrectly.

Basically, I agree with @PLL. I wouldn't tell to the professor directly that she is wrong. It may be hard for her to realize that she is wrong if you directly tell her that. Also, I agree with you in a part of preferring of not going to the head of the department. She is a professor and it is a little bit sensitive topic.
Still, I think she should know that she teaches wrong because students have an issue with a wrong teaching, and she has an issue even though she doesn't know that (or she knows but she doesn't want to change?).
I would send her a mail. You may write that you are confused because you thought that some other thing is correct and now you don't know anymore which approach to take. Also you can ask her for a help. Of course you don't need a help but she should think more about the problem and at the same time she shouldn't feel that she is under attack because she may start to act "too defensive". You can be stubborn in your reply (e.g. "I really thought differently/ I would like to know which part of my approach is wrong so I don't make any mistake/ What should I change", etc.).

Beyond your department, your university most likely has an ombudsperson who can help you navigate this issue. They may be an essential resource, since they are helpfully outside of your small department, and should (hopefully) be knowledgeable and well-versed in the areas you need: grade disputes, university policy/procedure, academic politics, etc. Reasons why it might be good to get this person involved:

You don't know what is going on in the professor's life.  We don't have enough information to form a conclusion about the cause of the situation, but it's worth entertaining a number of explanations for conspicuous behavior, and the ombudsperson might be able to help.
I've also once heard through the grapevine of a department head complicit in assigning a gravely unqualified teacher to a course, and it would almost certainly be unwise to try and force that issue by yourself.

Is it a plausible scenario, given the information we have, that the professor has mental problems? No it isn’t. Ungrounded speculations like this does not belong in an answer imo.

The advice to get a third party involved (ombudsman or similar) is the saving grace here, and by quick glance not covered by the other answers.

@winther My main goal was giving examples of why the student might want to approach an ombudsperson without getting exhaustive. That said, your comment did make me realize I could invert the order of the answer, and make this relationship clearer. Cheers.

In short: approach the professor with a detailed, full and rigorous explanation on why your solution is correct. Deal with it professionally, and base your claims on hard facts alone, not your personal opinions.
Longer answer: I am not completely convinced by your story. That is, I do believe that there might be an ambiguous marking criteria going on in your course, but I don't see how you drew the categorical conclusion that "the teacher doesn't understand what she is teaching". That's only your opinion. The fact your advisor said something about the professor also doesn't establish much. He/she might have said something without thinking much about it.
So I believe you should simply deal professionally with the matter: stick to facts, find out precisely where the marking is incorrect and send an email/contact your teacher. This seems like a quite simple story. You say that "the teacher got angry" when approached. I'm also not convinced this is the full story. People do not generally simply get angry when approached. You need to figure out the precise conversation that led to her getting angry, if indeed.

I've had a total of three teachers over the years with grading issues.  Facts didn't matter to any of them.

Again, I am not convinced. What does it mean "facts didn't matter to them"? Obviously, some facts did matter to them. So your explanation is almost surely incomplete. Are you claiming that because of their ego they decided not to admit their mistake? Or perhaps because they are afraid of the consequences of admitting a mistake? Or are you claiming that they are sociopaths who arbitrarily give grades, and then they become opaque to students' complaints? Or what exactly are you saying?

I mean that proving your case didn't matter to them.  They're the teacher, they're right, you're wrong.

Again, your explanation is lacking. I believe that this is the impression you got, but don't take what you think is true for granted.

In one case it was totally clear-cut:  The professor insisted there was only one way to do something, I had studied a system that did it differently.  This same professor was unable to answer a very simple question in class, also despite the confused student asking three times.  Another student finally piped up with a correct, one-word answer.

Your story doesn't prove that facts didn't matter to the professor. It proves only that the professor was possibly unaware that there is another approach to the problem, and made a mistake by claiming there's only one approach.

I presented the counterexample to him, he still marked me wrong.

Most universities have some sort of grading appeal process, so you can use that if necessary.
However, if you are wanting to do something a bit more diplomatic, the only suggestion I have is to try and get her to recognise that she is incorrect. Fin the most egregious error in her marking, preferably one that you can point to material that shows she is incorrect. Then you can do something like 'I really don't understand why this ... is wrong and would like to go through it with you'. Teachers usually have office hours exactly for this, explaining what the student did wrong. During that discussion, you can say things like 'how does that reconcile with ...' and get the supporting material out. Or, 'the textbook says ..., but I am having trouble integrating that with ... (whatever she said)'. If you make it about you trying to understand, as she tries to explain it, she may well realise that what she's saying doesn't make sense. Avoid saying 'you are wrong' and make it much more like 'but I can't see how that fits with ...'

This way having a personal tutor assigned by the department (or collage) to each student is very important.
Go to your personal tutor, and explain that you are finding it hard to understand why your answers are being marked as they are.   Ask your tutor to explain to you what you do not understand….
Make it all about your lack of understanding, including your lack of understanding of the books.

Maybe it's important, but in many academic cultures it simply isn't the standard.  What do you propose if the OP doesn't have a personal tutor?

It is worth knowing that what is taught in coursework or printed in course texts, can be many years behind research frontiers.
If the coursework is in the professor's field of specialisation, there is a very good chance that her knowledge is years ahead of the text.
Google Scholar is your friend.

The OP states that I have confirmation from other teachers that my answers are correct.

@scaaahu other teachers might be in a fight.

@Nemo Other students have similar problems and the OP himself taught some of the materials at undergrad and graduate levels. Everybody is wrong and only the teacher in question is right?

@scaaahu not necessarily, but often in such cases there are at least two groups (of professors, students etc.) on different sides. It's well possible that the persons the OP talks with are just those close to him, who logically belong to the "party" other than the allegedly problematic teacher's.

@Nemo I have no interest to engage in a debate about whether the teacher is right. We are supposed to help the OP to resolve the problem (he does not want to withdraw the class). This answer assumes that the OP is at fault (the teacher is right about her lecture and grading). That's why I had the comment. End of discussion here.

Figuring out whether the OP might be wrong, should also help the OP to solve the problem.

@Dilworth But the question isn't, "Am I correct in thinking my teacher's grading is wrong?". We haven't been asked to analyse samples of the teacher's grading or anything along those lines. The question is, "How to deal with a professor who grades assignments and exams incorrectly?". If we start questioning the OP's axiom (that the grading is incorrect) then the answers become less useful to future readers of the question.

@JBentley, I'm not questioning the OP's belief in his/her axiom. I'm explaining the student the obvious: that he/she might be wrong, and that's why they need to stick to facts and not opinions on what the teacher understands. This way they can solve optimally the problem.

authors: Иван Пономарев


text:
Will dismissal from one graduate school affect me applying to another?
I was dismissed from my Masters program due to bad grades. I also have a mention in my records that say that I might have used last years homework. I did not copy and they had no proof that I copied per se. I couldn't care less about my grades at the time and I deeply regret doing what I did. Is there hope for me in applying to grad schools in the future?
Additionally, I am an international student. Can someone tell me if all this will affect my getting a VISA?

Unfortunately, your transcripts are likely going to be required at time of application to any other program, and you can assume that you will be asked about your poor grades during the application process. That said, you're not the first person to have made bad decisions in the past, so I would definitely still apply.
One thing I would strongly advise not doing is attempting to hide the fact you have poor grades by simply not sending the transcript, and pretending it didn't happen. Doing so will almost guarantee career-threatening problems later on when someone finds out what you did (and it won't be hard, there will be a gap of a few years you won't be able to explain, and all the officials at the other university still know that you were there).
I have no idea about the visa.

It shouldn't affect the visa process itself, but will obviously affect the chances of getting an offer letter which would allow for the visa application.

Is there hope for me in applying to grad schools in the future?

Yes, but you will need a convincing argument for why graduate school will go better next time than it did the first time you tried it.  It's easy to say "I didn't care about grades and didn't work very hard, but I'll work harder this time," while actually working harder is much more difficult, so vague excuses may be discounted.
You could get lucky and find a school that is happy to give you another chance (perhaps a less prestigious department, which sees potential in you beyond what's typical for their students).  You might also be able to give a more concrete excuse for your past grades (for example, if there were external factors in your life that troubled you last time but won't apply this time).  Otherwise, the best way to demonstrate that things have changed is probably to succeed at something else.  Finding a job and doing well at it can show that you are now more mature and responsible than when you were a student, and successfully taking a few classes part-time can also look good.
So I'd suggest following a two-part strategy.  Try applying again with the best explanations/excuses you can offer, and see whether it works.  If it doesn't, then you should start thinking about longer-term methods to demonstrate that you've changed.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Submitting a subset of my work to ArXiv
I've been thinking of publishing a subset of my work in fluid dynamics to arXiv. I realize the following about arXiv:

ArXiv isn't a journal
I would need to be endorsed to submit an article on arXiv

The reasons I would like to submit a subset of my work to arXiv are:

It would only be a subset of my work thereby NOT negating my chances of publishing work in a regular journal.
I would like to disseminate information to the society as soon as possible.

Does anyone have any thoughts or comments about this? Is there something that I'd need to feel uneasy about?
I realize that there has been another question regarding submission of work to arXiv and I read it here.

"Does anyone have any thoughts or comments about this?" is awfully open-ended.  It might help to ask something a bit more concrete.

Most journals allow publishing a manuscript that already appeared verbatim on arXiv, so you shouldn't worry about publishing only a subset of your work.

Opinions on when to submit things to arXiv vary both between and within fields.  See

To Post or Not to Post: Publishing to the arXiv Before Acceptance
How to use arXiv?

for lots of opinions.  You should talk to your advisor/colleagues who can give you a better sense of how people in your field think about this.

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


text:
Research statement for professional versus research master's programs
Are research statements evaluated differently for professional and research master's programs? If so, how do they differ?
Further, I have read that admissions to research programs are more competitive than for professional programs. So can I take admission into professional degree first, and then transition to a research degree in order to increase my odds of admission?
I am an international applicant applying for computer science programs in the US. I do not wish to go for a PhD directly, so I am looking to do a master's first.
P.S. Sorry for asking two questions. But they seem to be fairly related to me.

...and a professional masters degree is... what, exactly?

@Nicholas The one without a thesis requirement.

Does a professional Master's thesis have any research component at all? Is it comprised only of taught post-graduate level papers? If this is the case, the concept of a research statement for a professional master's  seems out of place.

Does "professional masters" mean "taught masters"?

@Nicholas I am not sure whether it does or does not include any research component at all.

Since I am an international applicant, I have little knowledge about the various masters programs.

You don't mention what field you're in or what country you want to apply to, but let me answer for computer science in the US.

Is the evaluation of research statement done differently for professional masters and research masters? If so, what are these differences.

Professional masters programs won't ask for a research statement at all.
There are two types of computer science masters degrees in the US. One is the research masters, which requires a thesis in addition to advanced coursework.  The other is the professional masters, which is entirely based on coursework, with no research component.  Research masters students generally work with faculty advisors on a research project and may even be funded by teaching or research assistantships that include a tuition waiver.  Professional masters students pay full tuition (or get their employers to pay for them), and take classes and nothing else.

can I take admission into professional degree first and then make a transition to research degree in order to increase my odds of admission?

In my experience, absolutely not!
Professional masters degrees are considered to be terminal degrees.  Because they lack a research component, they are not considered pathways to a research degree.

I am an international applicant applying to US. So I do not with to go for PhD directly.

Why not?  At least in my department, a strong majority of PhD students are international, and most of them apply as undergraduates.  And I don't think my department is special in that regard.

Well actually I need to support my family. So I cannot spare 4 years of PhD right away. Anyway, thanks for the answer. Just one more thing. Will need recommendation letters for professional masters too?

@spunkpike: In general you will need recommendation letters for admission to any sort of higher education program in the US.

@aeismail Are these to be written with the same approach for both? I realize this is not a discussion forum but I would really appreciate any help..


text:
German postdoc salaries (TV-L E14)
What does "TV-L (E14, 100% position)" mean in terms of gross and net pay? What lifestyle does this buy you in Berlin?
This is in the context of a postdoc at a research institute.

Have you seen this similar question: What is a “TV-L 13” position?. It looks like the answer should still be helpful.

That other page tells me that there is a civil servant payscale, but all of the links are to pages in German, which don't translate well using google

Again not a direct answer, but one of the best ways to find out would be to contact the university and ask.

This would be straightforward advice to someone mulling an offer, but is less useful to those in earlier stages of the application process.

I don't think so. It is a reasonable question to ask even before applying. If you contact the right office, you could probably ask and get a general answer without identifying yourself.

Some time ago I answered a similar question about TV-L E13 positions, where I tried to explain how to navigate the civil servant payscale linked in the previously mentioned answer. Mutatis mutandis, the information should be applicable to E14 positions as well.

You are right that TV-L is a civil servant payscale. Postdocs commonly are placed in the E-13 or E-14 scale, where the latter is higher (but usually comes with more responsibilities). The gross pay starts at just under 3579.34 EUR per month for Berlin. Very recently the pay scales have been renegotiated, so I believe it might have gone up a bit. This amount is the first step in the scale, depending on your experience you might start at a higher step.
The net amount depends on your specific circumstances, for example if you are married and if you are a member of a church. For single persons that are not registered with a church the net amount is around 2100 EUR a month. This includes health insurance. You should be able to live decently in Berlin for this money.
The details can be found on the Öffentlicher Dienst website  (in German, but you would want the table at the bottom).

Two additions: E14 is usually applied when you have responsibility for people, meaning you are a group leader but not yet a professor (supervising a PhD student although your professor is the official supervisor does not count here). Besides health insurance also unemployment insurance is included and contributions to a pension fund is made.

(This is maybe more suited to be a comment than an answer, but I don't have enough reputation to leave comments.)
About the phrase "100% position" in your question: This means that once you have followed the instructions in other answers and comments to identify the amount of money which corresponds to E14 on the TV-L payscale, then your gross pay is 100% of the amount labelled Brutto, and your net pay is 100% of the amount labelled Netto.
The reason this is explicitly stated is because other types of positions, such as 50% position or 65% position, also exist. I don't believe this is ever the case for postdocs, but it's the norm for PhD students. For example, a PhD student might have a "TV-L (El3, 50% position)", meaning that after one identifies the amount in the TV-L table corresponding to E13, the gross pay is only 50% of that amount.
A tip for reading these German payscale tables: the levels E1 to E15 are related to what sort of job it is and how qualified you are. PhDs and postdocs are at the E13 and E14 levels. For each of these levels, there are sub-levels 1 to 5 or 6, relating to how long you have occupied a position at this level. Over the years, you progress automatically up these levels 1 to 5 or 6


text:
How to stop feeling guilty about unfinished work?
My biggest challenge as a PhD student is best summarized by the following from PHD Comics:
"Piled Higher and Deeper" by Jorge Cham
www.phdcomics.com

A consequence of working in research is that the end is never in sight - unlike other jobs, there is always more work for you to do.
I am pretty good at making sure to take care of myself, because I know it's important. I can force myself to go for a run, get something to eat, participate in a regular activity that's not related to academia. But I can't turn off the voice in my head that keeps nagging me about the work that's waiting for me back at the office.
This is especially true when there are deadlines and people relying on me to meet them. On top of my research, I have mentees I should be spending more time with, students we won't be able to hire if I don't get my grant-writing act together, collaborators who keep asking when I'm going to write up that work we did together last summer. If I don't do this, nobody else will; it's not like a normal workplace, where your boss can reassign an important task if you are too overloaded to handle it.
So, my question is:

How do you avoid feeling guilty about all the unfinished (and unfinishable) work in academia?

I am looking for specific, practical techniques based on research and/or personal experience, not suggestions that you just thought of but have never tried.
One technique I've tried with limited success is to make a daily to-do list that is limited to three items, and tell myself that I'm not allowed to feel guilty about not doing things that aren't on the list. It works when I'm not terribly busy... but most of the time it doesn't.
Related questions:
How to avoid thinking about research in your free time is related, but I'm not trying to avoid thinking about research in my free time. I'm just trying to avoid feeling guilty about research in my free time.
Also related is How should I deal with discouragement as a graduate student? but those answers seem to address how to convince yourself that your efforts are worthwhile. I (usually) realize that my efforts are worthwhile, I don't know how to convince myself that I'm putting in "enough" effort (whatever that means).

"A consequence of working in research is that the end is never in sight - unlike other jobs, there is always more work for you to do. " -> As Christina said, your view is very idealized. There is not much of a difference regarding the "State of Done" between project based work and academia. A lot of people do week- or even year-long project work; nothing special about your job in that regard ;) My knowledge of human nature says you are about 25 years old right? This is the age I observed many people seeing themselves in a very special situation (me too) that really isn't. Time will tell you:)

I'm just speaking from personal experience - in other jobs I had I never felt like the work was endless.

@rocinante There is nothing much to be done about your feelings - I really don't think that's true, either

I'm not sure if this question can really be answered here; the source of guilt can be very straightforward or very deep-rooted and varies greatly from person to person, and dealing with those feelings can range from simple self-reassurance all the way to identifying underlying causes through possible therapy. You're touching on potentially deep psychological behaviors. Personally, I suggest taking the "little-kid-asking-why" self-examination approach: Why do you feel guilty? Why? Why? Once you get deep enough and hit a wall coming up with answers, you know you've gotten to the good stuff!

@JasonC I think I got some pretty good answers :)

@ff524 By the way, that isn't necessarily proof that Santa doesn't exist. He might just have a sick sense of humor.

Unlike other jobs? Maybe you need to reconsider this. Most jobs are never-ending, and many are even completely unrewarding. Imagine retail. You will never "finish" retail. There aren't even nice sub-tasks to finish...

@romkyns I'm just extrapolating from my own experience, non-research jobs I've had felt very different to me. I think Suresh nicely explains what I'm trying to say in his answer.

@JasonC: but Santa is defined as knowing whether you've been bad or good; able to give gifts; and inclined to give gifts to those who have been good. So "The Problem of Pain" applies in full. If the thing that gives gifts has a sick sense of humour then by definition it is not Santa giving the gifts :-)

@SteveJessop A reasonable assertion. However, the ISO Santa Specification leaves the details of "gifts" up to the implementation, and therefore does not explicitly prohibit the gift of suffering/pain.

Another resource could be Neil Fiore's book, "The Now Habit: A Strategic Program for Overcoming Procrastination and Enjoying Guilt-Free Play". OP doesn't mention procrastination as an issue, but OP may be able to relate to the 'guilt-free play' side of the book. In fact he does speak some of phd student, iirc.

@eflat I own the book, never got around to reading it ;)

Ha! There you go then.

While I'm here, another stray thought -- the concept of acceptance. One of the things that struck me during one of my forays into GTD, was that having lists of projects and next actions was kinda depressing because one is never truly done. It made sense but one sense of anxiety was replace with another for me. I had to accept that I'm always going to be working on things and have things to do, continuously and always and forever.

Be satisfied and happy with what you are currently doing. For me, this is a direct relief.

Sorry to bring up the old thread, but do you think you feel guilty because your unfinished researches or other academia works?

tl;dr: Keep forgiving yourself and keep working.
I am having the same problem, and only recently it got better.
I have it only for open-ended work (scientific projects, other personal projects - everything which is of type "I should have it done" and the same time it is not closed; even worse when others are waiting for results). It seems to be very different from "normal" work (when someone gives me a particular task) and work with an expiry date.
The wisest (and most successful) piece of advice I found is this one (from Smart Guy Productivity Pitfalls - Book of Hook, which has more good points and is definitely worth reading):

6. Do not overpromise to make up for poor productivity.  There's a tendency when we're falling behind to try to overcompensate with future promises.  "When I'm done, it'll be AWESOME" or "I know I'm late, but I'm positive I'll be done by Monday".  By doing those things we just build more debt we can't pay off, and that will eventually lead to a catastrophic melt down when the super final absolutely last deadline date shows up.  Just get shit done, don't talk about how you're going to get shit done.

Also, somewhat related is forgiving yourself for being not productive enough (constantly feeling guilty does not help; not only for me, but it seems it does not work for most of people):

The key finding was that students who'd forgiven themselves for their initial bout of procrastination subsequently showed less negative affect in the intermediate period between exams and were less likely to procrastinate before the second round of exams. Crucially, self-forgiveness wasn't related to performance in the first set of exams but it did predict better performance in the second set.

And from a bit different angle, from Elizabeth Gibert's TED talk on genius
(it's about treating inspiration, but it is similar for everything - no matter how good you are, you won't do everything; so why should you be bothered by missing a few things?):

And [Tom Waits]'s speeding along, and all of a sudden he hears this little fragment of melody, that comes into his head as inspiration often comes, elusive and tantalizing, and he wants it, you know, it's gorgeous, and he longs for it, but he has no way to get it. He doesn't have a piece of paper, he doesn't have a pencil, he doesn't have a tape recorder.
So he starts to feel all of that old anxiety start to rise in him like, "I'm going to lose this thing, and then I'm going to be haunted by this song forever. I'm not good enough, and I can't do it." And instead of panicking, he just stopped. He just stopped that whole mental process and he did something completely novel. He just looked up at the sky, and he said, "Excuse me, can you not see that I'm driving?" (Laughter) "Do I look like I can write down a song right now? If you really want to exist, come back at a more opportune moment when I can take care of you. Otherwise, go bother somebody else today. Go bother Leonard Cohen."

And from my personal stuff (I mean things that I found helpful):

using to-do list only for task (i.e. things I know I can do in a few hour max), not projects (it's depressing to have "finish this paper" on the same list for long months, cf. relevant PhD Comics strip),
underpromise and overdeliver to oneself; i.e. committing to do each day less task than expected (this way, with the same results, it's "wow, I did things from the list plus 2 extra" instead of "I only made almost half of the first point out of 7"; extrapolating one's maximal efficiency does not work...).

Thanks for an answer that isn't about time  management, I think I had enough of those :)

@rocinante The guilt is not for working too hard, it's despite working hard enough (by all objective and subjective measures). It's not rational, but people often feel things that are not rational.

There were several very helpful answers, I am accepting this one because it gives a helpful answer and suggests some really interesting further reading/viewing.

Saw this answer referenced in another question, and joined the community just to say how powerful I found "Keep forgiving yourself and keep working."  Thank you.

"wow, I did things from the list plus 2 extra" instead of "I only made almost half of the first point out of 7";
I think what also may be important is put the right priorities and split the big tasks to smaller subtasks. Also, there are a lot of suggestions to try to commit to the process, not the end result for the big tasks. Instead of "write thesis", which cannot be done in a day easily, you can create a task "write one page of thesis", which can, and do it every day untill it's good enough.

Of course, that should be applied smartly too, keeping the end goal in sight, otherwise you can get stuck for 20 years writing the same thesis day by day because it's never "good enough". ;)

There are two threads in answers here that I'd like to respond to:

Research is just like any other job. The tools needed to manage guilt are no different.

Yes. and no.
The nitty-gritty of work - deadlines, working in groups, answering to a 'boss' - are the same. That is indeed true. What's different about research work that I think ff524 is alluding to is the "freedom trap". Because research work involves more freedom and more unstructured effort, and there's a direct correlation between output and success (not effort and success of course), the anxiety is not external ("my boss needs this done", or "I can't let my team down") but extremely internal ("I am an inferior researcher if I'm not working all the time" or "someone else is getting ahead in their career while I'm slacking off").
And this is incessant. Every minute spent not working is tied up in internal accusations. And it's exhausting. And that's what we'd like to be free of.
Do I have an answer ? Not really. It's a slow process of realizing that

feeling guilty about work is a meta-worry that doesn't lead anywhere constructive (this realization only works in flashes :))
all the other people racing ahead will also need to rest at some point.
a guilt-free mind is clear and prepared for research (whether it's leisure time or not: as ff524 says, this is not necessarily about partitioning work and free time so much as not feeling guilty when not thinking about work. Indeed, one of the pleasures of being a researcher is that I can think about my work whenever I like, even when day dreaming on a bus to work (ahem).

In that respect, Piotr Migdal's answer about

forgiving yourself and working

is spot on. Guilt is rarely a constructive force, and it can lead you to make bad decisions to compensate. Blowing off that paper deadline ? it's ok. Dropping a fascinating research project because you're overcommitted ? that's ok too. Not spending enough time with students ? Hard to wave off, but it's ok.
But forgiving yourself only works if you trust yourself,
and again the Tom Waits analogy is brilliant. You have to trust that blowing off one paper deadline won't make you a lazy git who doesn't write any papers. That missing one student meeting doesn't make you an abusive advisor. That ignoring a collaboration doesn't make you a toxic personality. That if you can learn to trust in your own research instincts and drive that you'll be able to pick up and go full steam ahead, but this time with less guilt than before.
This is not a time-management answer, and you didn't want one ! So all that I can say is that reducing guilt is a slow process (I haven't figured it out yet), and you have to keep reminding yourself to forgive and trust.

+1 Thanks for expressing my question so much better than I could

To answer your specific question:

How do you avoid feeling guilty about all the unfinished (and unfinishable) work in academia?

You try to come to the understanding that there is always more work to be done, and that this is the way it is, not just in academia, but also in almost every other walk of professional life.
Disentangle the feelings of guilt and anxiety. There is work that you should have done/be doing (e.g. to test an idea fully, rather than assume the result; meeting deadlines) and there is work you could have done/or be doing (e.g. new ideas/extensions).
Concentrate on completing all the work that you know must be done. Set yourself practical goals and list them, marking them off when achieved.
Set out time for the other tasks you know need to be completed. e.g. 2 hours a week for meeting student A, 1 hour for student B, 2 hours for grant writing. Stick to those arrangements. Now add in time for "fun" work stuff - perhaps not directly related to your main goals, but perhaps which interest you at the moment.
Keeping a track of how much time you are spending on different types of task, and seeing how you are progressing in each activity, will allow you to fine-tune your time-management.
Having time set aside for each activity type - and sticking to your timetable - allows you to feel less anxious about the work you should be doing, because you know that you've boxed off time in your schedule to set to work on them. It gives you the confidence to say, okay, I'm not doing mission-critical stuff right now, but it's the time of the week for reading/meeting people/setting up webpage and I know that I'll be back on that task when I've the time allocated for it.

Is this what you do (set aside time for each activity)? It sounds like the kind of thing that is nice in theory, but my actual work is much too messy and unpredictable for.

@ff524: I think my suggestion goes a little further than your daily list. As you say, your list works to get you through day-by-day, However, you are looking for a longer-term solution, some structure that helps you avoid anxiety when some activities perforce have to be missed.
And yes, this is how I run my professional time. I have "default" activities - Research/Teaching/Reading/Lunch with which I block out most of my days. Activities come up randomly, and they are assigned time, overwriting one of the above, based on urgency or workload on the other activities.

@ff524: Lunch is important.

I think I have too much going on for this to work for me - when I'm not too busy and can fit in all the "have-to-dos" the list works for me. When I am too busy to fit it all in, the list (or schedule, or whatever) goes out the window and the guilt starts. I think I'm looking more for mental tricks than better time management and prioritization.

"Disentangle the feelings of guilt and anxiety." - This is about the first thing I did as a grad student

I am currently a sort-of-senior-ish postdoc, and hence in the somewhat awkward career phase where basically everything that does not have a clear other responsible seems to end up in my inbox. The process I use to not get overwhelmed with the sheer amount of wacky tasks that end up in my inbox is rather similar to what Nicolas does. It works for me (most of the time), it may work for you as well.
Basically, every few days, I take an hour to sit down with my calendar and my TODO list and plan. For each task taking more than say 15 mins to execute, I reserve a slot on my calendar. I try to arrange so that each task meets its deadline, and keep some free space for incoming urgent things and some lump time for short administrative tasks not worth mentioning explicitly. When I see that there simply is no way to plan everything so that all tasks meet their deadline, I make compromises, i.e., drop or delay tasks, and (and this is the difficult part) do not feel guilty at all about that. It works for me, because I know from my calendar that there simply was no time to, say, write the paper for this medium-level conference and at the same time write this super-important grant application. The difference here is the certainty from your planning that everything simply could not be done at the same time. There is no point in feeling guilty about something that you ultimately know you could not change.
However, if that happens all the time, you have a different problem. Then your problem is not that you should not feel guilty about not getting your work done, but that you should not bite off more than you can chew (== commit to more than what you can deliver). You say in a comment that your second-biggest challenge as a PhD student is that you are over-committed. It seems like your "second-biggest" challenge causes the "biggest" challenge - you commit to things you cannot do, and hence feel guilty. The fix for that is, again, to plan, and not commit to things you know you cannot do in the first place.

I would also like to stress that pretty much nothing in your situation is particular to academia. In most jobs, it is an illusion that, if you cannot do all your tasks, somebody else will swoop in and have you covered.

Just extrapolating from my own experience. In other places I've worked, the "boss" spreads the work around so it's manageable, or else you're advised to find a new job because your boss has unreasonable expectations. Doesn't work when I'm the boss of me :(

@ff524 Depends on your job / level. Most jobs outside of academia that people with a PhD would do do not work like that, I suppose. EDIT: see for instance the high burn-out rates.

Stop saying "I have too much going on, and nothing will work."
Stop self-defeating is the probably the first step. Of course we have "too much going on," that's what we say when we lose control. Do realize that "too busy" can be a cause, but most of the time, "too busy" is more of a symptom.
Realizing that no one can drink up a whole river
Be it work, research, and teaching, they all work like a giant wheel or river that keep moving. No one can take the whole activity and "finish" it. Once I have realized that I am just moving things along from less to more refined shapes. It's noble to be a more responsible researcher/teacher, but the mindset has to be correctly set before burning one self out.
Use an urgency and importance matrix
Whenever I got a task I mentally assigned it into a quadrant of the the urgency vs. importance matrix. Then when I plan my weeks, I make sure to distribute 2/3 of available time to all the high impact activities. For the rest 1/3, I use it to deal with urgent and low-impact items or emerging items.
Avoid paper-based To-Do list
To-do list can be a confusing way to manage time because the whole process is high maintenance (keeping a list, some sub-lists, and constant correction and update) and frustrating (the list keeps growing, and yes, crossing out tasks feels great, but then you have a messy list.)
I just use EverNote to document my projects and tasks. When they are done, I move the whole index thread to "Archive." Index cards are a also a better alternative to a to-do list. When I am in a meeting or walking around, I put all strayed thoughts onto an inexpensive composition book.
As a side note, capturing strayed thoughts has a side effect on me as well. Most of the time, I kept mentally regurgitating works that I need to do and the long chain of tasks really bothered me. Once I spilled them out onto a piece of paper, then I stopped thinking about them for a while. When I have access to a computer, I change the thoughts into EverNote note page. This simple step empties up my mind to do some other more useful thinking.
Say no, say it a lot!
What about the urgent and low-impact? I just say  no. This includes, but not limited to: grant proposal invitation sent to me when the grant is due in 5 days, meetings that really do not need me to be there (but I always attend the monthly staff meeting and faculty research meeting, just to be collegial), etc.
I used to suck at saying no, now I have a lot of elaborated ways to put it. And what's my elaborated way? Just say, "Thanks for the invitation/thinking of me. I am sorry that I can't help this round." And leave it like that.
One great trick for those who cannot say no is: you do not have to answer right there and right at that moment. Tell the people that you'll give it a good thought, and then say no afterwards.
Block your time in your calendar way ahead
Don't start filling in the calendar passively. Reserve your own time many weeks ahead. I fill them up with protected writing time slots. I write the best in the morning and love to do coding in the afternoon so I sprinkle all these little 30-, 60- or 90-minute slots across my calendar.
And I agree with @Nicholas' answer that this is a very useful technique. And this is not something that "sounds like the kind of thing that is nice in theory." I use this and Nicholas probably does too, and it really works. The harder you guard your time slots, the better it works.
No more, just three tasks a day
Leo Babauta's Zen to Done is an inspiring read and I'd recommend to people who think they have no time. I have adopted the idea of doing three Most Important Tasks per day. There are days that I barely got one done, there are days that I finished three by 1:00 pm and then spent the rest reading or learning new stuff.
Become a time freak
I time my tasks with a kitchen timer. I don't strictly follow pomodoro technique but I adopted the spirit of it. The way I operate is that I dedicated a chunk of time to a project, move it forward as much as I can, and when time's up, I consider my job for that project on that day is done. I do not binge work, because binge working is very prone to errors.
One very interesting side story. A colleague was chit chatting in my office and sudden the timer went off! The colleague jokingly asked me if her time is up. I explained to her my system. And oddly... since then whenever she visits me, she would add this question "Can I have __ minutes of your time?" before talking to me. Now everyone does that to me; and I do the same to everyone else.
Time to time, chaos and mess happen to us because we have developed an image of being easy going and flexible, two major magnets for chaotic and messy people. In fact, we don't have to. A good dose of rigidity gets you off a lot of ad hoc committees, "emergency" meetings, etc.
Identify what manifests the guilt
This is very important because the source of the guilt dictates how you resolve it. For me, the major source is fearing that I have upset the collaborators. I once dropped the ball on a secondary analysis and delayed it for half a year. Then this job gradually became low-impact/low-urgency. I decided instead of feeling awkward, I just went up to her after a meeting and apologize for not being able to finish the project. In fact, she didn't care as much as I expected; I felt a lot better having told her my thought.
Another fear is that people may think I am incompetent or chaotic. And for that, I have come to be very comfortable with myself. I resolved this issue simply for two facts: i) I am probably the person who cares the most what I look like in other people's mind. And ii) All other people are also busily caring how they look like in others' mind.
Practicing being mindful has many positive impacts on how I deal with these negative emotions. Now whenever I feel bad/good, I emotionally zoom out and look at the big picture, trace the connections, and examine the dynamics. I feel having this little slight detachment with emotion allows me to better tackle (either to avoid or to exploit) these emotions. Don't just feel guilty, ask why, why, why, why, and why. Yes, ask five times. Usually for me, three to four associations usually get me to the root cause, just like how they can get Toyota to their problems' cause.
Closing remark
I guess none of what I said is new. When it comes to time management there isn't really a silver bullet. From my experience, so far I have boiled down to only one truth: All time management techniques work if you use it regularly and seriously.

When it comes to time management there isn't really a silver bullet - I honestly wasn't expecting this to be a "time  management" question

@ff524, nope, it's not. I just shoved a time-management answer to your question on dealing with guilt because of competing interests and lack of productivity. I guess your to-do list example had made me changed how I answered this question. Instead of lamenting how we deal with guilt, I'd rather suggest a more proactive approach to minimize guilt. Anyhow, I wish at least some of the answer will help you. Best of luck.

@rocinante People immersed in their work don't have time to pontificate feeling guilt about not working hard enough. - I really don't think that's true

@ff524, for some people this can be true. For instance, a psychological state of mind known as in the flow can fend out intruding thoughts, though it may not sustain for a very long time, but having this trait time to time can perhaps secure some productivity. I do agree that guilt may still sneak up and hit when we're off working, in the shower, or in all other times.

@Penguin_Knight  I really agree with your "mindfulness". Whenever I feel overwhelmed with guilt, or anxiety or stress or some other negative emotion, then I take the time out to start writing what I am feeling and why. It helps me process my feelings and I am usually able to gain some perspective. I have never done this for positive emotions like you suggested. I'm gonna try it. Thanks.

@rocinante at the moment of immersion, maybe not. But certainly around it. And pontificate is a harsh term to use for a question that I personally would love to have an answer to, even after many years of being in this 'business'.

How do you avoid feeling guilty about all the unfinished (and unfinishable) work in academia?

First of all, recognize the difference between unfinished and unfinishable. Yes, you can always do more, but your duty is to do what you promised. This means that learning what your own capacities are and only committing to what you know you can do* will eliminate much future guilt. The guilt comes mainly from the unfinished work that you promised to do, not from not doing other work beyond that. (If you actually feel guilty about not doing things you never committed to, I think you need to reevaluate your worldview. You can feel regret about those things, but there should be no guilt.)
Secondly, the "to-do list." It feels great when a to-do list is cleared, but, the guilt only increases when you fail to clear it. It's really just another form of the failure to fulfil a commitment, but privately. So there are a couple of variations on the to-do list that eliminate that problem.

The "to-mostly-do list" this is a large list of small specific things you plan to do in a bit more than the next day, the point is to make it hard to actually clear the list in a day, but easy to progress through it. That way, since you know the list is more than a day's worth of work, you are more psychologically satisfied with your progress and less dissatisfied with the unfinished items. Also seeing at the end of one day some of the things you'll need to do the next day can help increase productivity the next day.
The timetable: break up your day into small periods of time for each task. You're promising yourself to "work on X for an hour" rather than to "finish X," and you can be satisfied even if you ran into problems and didn't finish X.

Thirdly, I think you're not taking free time seriously enough. It really takes a shift in attitude to think of your free time as time in which you're not supposed to work as opposed to time in which you're allowing yourself not to work. I don't know if anyone can tell you how to make that shift, though.
Of course, all of this breaks when there's a close external deadline (grant/paper submission). Then you just work, eat, sleep, and work until you're done (but no time to feel guilty there).

*Actually, it's more complicated than "only committing to do what you know you can do." Sometimes it pays off to take a risk and promise something that you aren't 100% sure about, but when you take a risk you need to know that it's a risk and be prepared to fail.

I know I'm overcommitted, that is my second-biggest challenge as a PhD student :(

What I found to work best for me is separating work from leisure time. I work in the office and I don't work at home (except for emails). If I have to work during the weekend or even until the morning for some deadline, I do that in the office (it's important that wherever you are this is possible, don't try to force your way in).
When I go to home I don't feel guilty because I don't have my computer (even if I have my files synchronized, just in case), and because I have learnt that if I don't rest properly (at some point, for some time) then I'm not productive and more time gets wasted, so it's better to simply forget about work and doing anything else (or nothing at all).
Everything else is done with two basic principles:

prioritization of tasks. If some people depend on me for some task, I give a high priority to it. If something is unclear, it gets a low priority (it will get clear through time, probably), etc. Closest deadlines get higher priority, etc. It's similar to the important-urgent matrix, but you probably have some subconscious algorithm to assign priority to those things, basically try to imagine what would make you feel more anxious and do it first. Depending on your sources of anxiousness this method will work better or worse for your career, but it will reduce your anxiousness (if we don't consider how career progression would interfere with that).
Don't bite (much) more than you can chew. Sometimes people feel work is just too much because it is too much. This really depends on how much you want to push your limits (of workaholism), but doing so for too long (or any amount of time) is usually a bad idea, unless you are willing to fully sacrifice everything for your work, reaching your top productivity for some time and then suiciding as a disposable researcher. Consider that if you stay healthy and focused you will probably be more productive, and you will be able to provide more value and do more work on each of your hours. So your health and leisure time is not interfering with your work, it's enabling it.

If all of the above fails, there is a last thing you can try. Finish PhD asap (before it kills you), get subordinates (e.g. PhD students) and focus on reading and forwarding mails so that they do all the work. You can do that from anywhere with your mobile phone, like a boss.

+1, though I feel you are in for a nasty surprise once you reach professor level.

@xLeitix at this pace, I don't think I'll ever get to that level, unless life-extension technologies make some serious progress. Anyway, this depends a lot on the person and the institution, in some places all professors are tenured and some people relax a lot when they get tenured. It also depends on "[management and] delegation skills", which are not as easy as I may have implied (in a somewhat ludic tone) in my last paragraph, but I wanted to give hope as a last resource and hope takes its purest form on a carrot on a stick, doesn't it?

I don't want to separate work from the rest of my life, I get the best ideas during "leisure" time

@ff524 I send a mail to myself when that happens, usually from my phone because the computer is off, because I'm not working. However that means your brain is working in the background, you should try to disconnect from work and focus on the people that are with you (or the person), the movie, the game or whatever. The fact that you get good ideas during "leisure" time means that when you are working you are too tired or stressed to have those ideas and you get them when your brain can "breathe", in short, you are doing it wrong, sorry. Get some rest, you will get better ideas during work.

I don't believe that getting good ideas during leisure time means you're "doing it wrong". Ideas come when they come and don't necessarily respect your work/leisure schedule regardless of your rest/stress levels (at least in my experience). When an idea comes during leisure time I choose whether to play with it immediately or just write down enough that I'll remember it next time I sit down to work. I think what helps me not feel (too) guilty is allowing myself "leisure time" where there's no obligation to get any work done, not forbidding myself to think about work during that time.

@Liana is not about any forbidding, that's very, very wrong {ref}. That's exactly the point of separating (e.g. by context home/office) personal life and work, providing your mind a context so that the corresponding thoughts flow naturally (exactly the opposite to forbidding, which is fighting the natural flow). You are not going to enjoy spare time and you are not going to be productive at work if you are too busy on fighting your own brain and your own thoughts.

To grow your research trajectory, you need to prune your least-favorite projects.
In research, you're never, ever going to be able to finish everything (no matter how many holidays you work). You need to figure out how to cut out some of your projects, so that the best ones have enough time, energy, and resources to grow.
In practice, this means re-framing your unfinished projects as successful prioritization decisions.

You started a project, then thought of a better idea. You choose to leave the first project unfinished so you can dedicate your time to the more exciting idea.
You started a project, then found that it was unexpectedly hard. You choose to leave it unfinished, freeing up time for multiple easier projects.

If you make these decisions consciously and deliberately, you can spend more time on exciting projects - and less time on projects that you're only doing out of guilt.

Disclaimer: I don't have psychology background, I have only read the first two answers and skimmed the rest and comments, and I have no affiliation to any product.
I think, psychologically, the only way to stop your guilt is to actually see that you have worked productively. If you have satisfaction on your work, usually when you have a remarkable result, then you can take a rest for weeks feeling guilt-free. Of course, this is not always a case, so you have to find other remarkable points that you can rely on everyday. Ask yourself, what is the last time you feel guilt-free on your unfinished work?
You mention about workplace, so how do employees not feel guilty about their unfinished work, even when they don't ask their boss? They just simply stop working at 5. Can make sure that your work always start at 9 and stop at 5 everyday? If you can stick to a plan, you don't fell guilty anymore.
But leisure time is when new ideas come, and having a flexible time plan is a gift. This noon I studied a book and felt tired and sleepy after two hours. Though I had only worked for two hours today, I know that feeling tired = giving 100% concentration. I rewarded myself a snack, a nap, and an hour of distracting on Academia writing this answer. I know that relaxing = producing, so I'm happy for being in progress.
Once I have an urge to answer yours, I know that if I don't write it to the point of feeling satisfactory, no one will (literally!). So presuming that I will overspend time for unwanted activities today or this week, how can I compensate that tomorrow or next week? To really do that, you need to track and analyze your working time. I find Manic Time (for Windows) and Smarter Time (for Android) are both good apps for this. The latter uses wifi signal to track your room-level location and can improve it suggestion by learning your habit (though not always accurate).
Last word, you will always find yourself feeling guilty. That feeling is normal, don't feel guilty for feeling guilty. The point is to adjusting your plan, and let it be.

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


text:
Can a graduate student friend of mine help me get into a different grad program at the same school?
I have a friend who'll be attending a graduate program in Physics, at a school I would be interested in for when I am applying to grad schools. However, I'm a CS major, so I'd be applying for that.
My question is what can he do that would help at all in making my admission more likely? I know the research he'll be doing is interdisciplinary (Physics and CS) so he'll have some interaction with CS. As a first-year grad student, he won't have much weight, but I'm still curious.

It is highly unlikely that they would have any ability to directly influence your admission to any graduate program. It is plausible that they could help you indirectly, however.  They could be helpful for the following:

Scouting Professors/Labs: Finding out more about the interests and goals of the professors and labs that you would want to work with. This would help you tailor your application so that certain professors might be more likely to advocate for you, if they see a good fit for you in their lab.
Gathering Comparisons: Talking to recent grad students admitted to the program and seeing if they wouldn't mind sharing their application packets, so you could see what a successful candidate looks like (and what factors seem to be valued).
Informal Reference: If a professor who is reviewing your application packet has worked with your friend, they might ask them for some details about you. This is highly unlikely in your case, due to them being a new student and in a different department. I provided this kind of background once when my lab was evaluating an acquaintance of mine from my undergraduate program. It is fairly uncommon and would not sway the decision greatly.

Some of these things would have been more effective if they were performed earlier (e.g, gathering comparison CV's), since it gives you more time to beef up any weak spots that you have or to build on your strengths.

There are a couple of places where your friend may be able to help you. First, some programs have admission committees that include a few graduate students from their own program. Depending on the culture in the program, the student involvement may range from administrative/paperwork assistance to direct evaluation of the applicants. Unfortunately this opportunity is usually not provided to a first year student (or a student outside the department, for that matter). Moreover, if your application is not strong already it's hard for your friend to argue for your case in front of the faculty even if he/she really wants to promote your application.
A second possibility is the interview. During the interview/recruitment weekend, student involvement is quite common. You may be assigned a student host who will walk you around and make sure that you make it to your interviews. During social events (such as dinners, poster sessions, etc) you also have a chance to talk with students in the program. Usually after the recruitment the program will solicit opinions/comments from the students. Thus given the already positive relation between you and your friend, he/she will likely give you favorable reviews after the recruitment, making an admission offer more likely. Unfortunately, this scenario will only help you if you can make it to the interview stage in the first place. But if you've already reached the interview stage, the program most likely will give you an offer anyway, providing that you don't do anything stupid during the interview. So overall the effect of having a friend in the program is minimal in this regard.
To sum up: it's better to work on your GPA, research experience, GRE, etc., rather than wasting time trying to find "shortcuts" like this.

Given that the OP is in CS and the friend is in the physics department, it's even more unlikely that the friend will be on the OP's admission committee.

@ff524 Yes that's exactly right. I added this point to my answer.

Having your friend try to get on the admissions committee and push your application is unethical, unless he discloses his relationship with you.  If he does disclose it, his "help" probably won't have a positive effect.

@DavidKetcheson you are right it's not ethical but I didn't say it was going to have a positive effect anyway. Also, you do realize that the whole idea of networking is based on the same idea right?

Depending on the school, one common question that is often asked is how likely is this student to accept our offer, particularly with fellowships.  This is generally more an issue for the more middle of the road schools, especially ones in backwater locations.  If this is the case, then anything you mention that indicates you have ties to the area can be helpful, because it signals more than just a passing interest in the school.  In this context, your friend's presence there may be able to strengthen your application by helping you form a coherent argument as to why you want to attend that particular school.
For example, suppose you visited your friend at the school once for whatever reason.  If that is true, mentioning that you have been to the school and liked something about the campus or whatever is helpful.  If you have spent time at the school or the area for one reason or another and actually liked it, it is worth briefly including, because it helps to communicate your serious intent to relocate your life to that school.


text:
What can I do if my paper doesn't fit any arXiv category?
I have a paper (A) that has been submitted to a journal, but is as yet unreviewed, and another paper (B) that cites A.
(The citation is necessary because A includes details of the preparation of a dataset that is used in B. The preparation is not central to B, but it is relevant.)
I am about to submit B to another journal for review. I think it would be useful to have a preprint of A available (and cited in B) in case the reviewers of B want to see it. Posting a pre-print of A on ArXiv seems to be the ideal solution.
BUT, the paper does not fit any of the subject categories on ArXiv. It is in teh area of renewable energy engineering, while ArXiv is largely confined to Physics, Maths, Computer Science.
Should I submit the paper using a subject category that is only incidentally relevant (Physics and Society for instance, or Systems and Control), or is there an alternative pre-print archive with a borader range of categories?

See the question Preprint services other than arXiv (for other fields) for alternatives.

The archive engrXiv is dedicated to engineering. Wikipedia has a list of preprint servers where you might find other possibilities, but the engrXiv is the only one dedicated to engineering, as far as I can see.
There are other solutions to publish preprints as well: your institutional repository or generic archives such as figshare or Zenodo. Both accept articles and will provide a DOI.

You don't need an Arxive paper.  The world got along fine with this sort of issue well before the development of Arxive.
For example:
paper A on apparatus:  submitted to J. New Apparat.; emphasis on apparatus design, perhaps a little results but not main emphasis.
paper B on chemical:  submitted to J. Wierd Chem.; emphasis on chemical info, cites previous work as "submitted".
[Or many other reasons for paper A and B having some relation, benefiting from citing each other, but also from separation.  For instance if they are separate chemical findings but in a similar area by same researchers.]
As long as the findings are non controversial, you should be fine.  If there is a question of controversy, accuracy (e.g. if you are claiming some really novel method that people many doubt) than sure they may want to see a preprint or even insist on combining the papers.  But you can deal with that by just sending a copy of your submission to Journal A.  And I wouldn't even do it pre-emptively.  Just when/if challenged.

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


text:
How do you cite an internal report?
In the field of numerical modeling, Researchers often times find conference papers or journal articles which cites an internal report as the core of the paper. The main authors may have access to the internal report but what about the others? How does one cite an internal report in doing further research based on the main article?
As an example, This paper and this paper cite both of the papers below -

M. Saeedvafa and R. J. Asaro, “Transformation Induced Plasticity,” (LAUR-95-482, Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1995)
Saeedvafa, M, “A Constitutive Model for Shape Memory Alloys”, Internal MSC Report, (January 2002).

Do you have a non-paywalled example?

Look at the 2nd paper.

When you cite any source, you should give enough that the reader can, at least in principle, read that source for themselves.  This information is especially important when you cite something as a source for further information, as it is in your example paper.

This paper presents the framework of such a complete phenomenological model outlined by Sayeedvafa (2002) that provides a description of a wide range of the observed behavior, which are both tractable from analytical as well as computational viewpoint.

For example, citations of technical reports (like your first example) should uniquely identify both the institution and the report, so that the reader knows who and how to ask for a copy.  In particular, if the report is available on the web at a stable location, the citation should include a stable URL.
If a source is likely to be inaccessible to most readers (like your second example), you should also cite an accessible secondary source that describes the relevant content in detail.  (If you really want to be helpful, the primary source citation should include a pointer like "Cited in [xxx].")  Otherwise, you're just asking for the reader's blind trust that the source has the missing details you claim, or proves the result that you claim, or is as important as you claim, or even exists at all.

Citing a paper serves two roles. One is as a reference - a place for the reader to go and check the details. @JeffE's excellent answer deals with this case. For the completeness of the answer, let me discuss the other case.
The other role of citation is acknowledgment, that is, acknowledging that somebody else did that piece of work, rather than the authors. That should be the only reason for you to cite a paper which is not publicly available (for instance, because it is not yet ready, etc.) Some time you can find a citation that says "Author A., Private Communication", which usally means you had a bunch of emails from Mr. Author, and the result/claim/lemma is actually based on what he told you or the draft of his paper that he sent only to you, etc., and you fully acknowledge him for that contribution.
Personally, I never liked citation to Private communication, but they do exists.

"Citing a paper serves two roles." Citing serves a whole bunch of other purposes, too, but that is for another question.


text:
What are refereed and non-refereed journals?
What does it mean by publication in refereed and non-refereed journals? Are these terms applicable to conference papers too? Is there any relationship with peer-review?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refereed_journal

That Wikipedia link does not provide the answer directly.

Refereeing is the same as scholarly peer review. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refereed_journal#Scholarly_peer_review).

In your original question, "referred journal" is a Freudian slip, perhaps on your part.
Refereed journals/conferences are the ones where the published papers have been peer-reviewed.


text:
Is it unethical for professional societies to offer conference discounts to members?
There is a recurring pattern I see in conferences organized by several professional associations. Two different conference fees are offered, X for members and Y for non-members, with Y>X. Often, the annual membership fee for said professional associations is less than Y-X, so becoming member is cheaper than paying the non-member fee. For example, for different reasons today I have stumbled upon the pages of this, this and this conference.
I can only see two possible reasons for this practice, both ethically dubious:

to force people to become members, increasing artificially the dimension of the professional association.
to "move" funds from the conference treasure to the association treasure, leaving them available for a larger number of activities.

Often conference fees are paid by research funds, while membership fees are paid personally by the researchers, so this practice also has unpleasant side-effects on their personal finances.
Questions:

Am I overlooking more plausible justifications for this practice? Do you agree with my analysis?
How ethical do you find this practice?
Should I raise the issue with the professional societies I am a member* of?

*: You can probably guess the reason why I am a member. :(

To be clear, are you asking about the practice of member discounts in general, or the specific case where the member discount exceeds the membership dues?

Some of this seems to be a matter of perspective.  For example, your #1 could be restated as "Let's provide an incentive for people to become members, in hopes that this will inspire them to become active participants in the association's work, and ultimately benefit the professional community!"

@NateEldredge When I asked the question, my mind was on the case in which the member discount exceeds the dues, but of course the question could be generalized.

@NateEldredge When there are no conferences around, how many of those associations offer discounts for first-time members, "in hopes that this will inspire them to become active participants in the association's work"?

Lots of them.  For instance, the American Mathematical Society (of which I am a member) offers a 50% discount in dues for those who have been members less than 5 years.  Students, who are probably the largest pool of new members, pay dues which are even lower.

@NateEldredge Kudos to the AMS, but in my experience this is not common. SIAM doesn't do this, for instance. Reduced student rates are a different issue, in my view; it seems a general practice to have reduced rates for early-career participants, since they are expected to have less money to spend. I haven't asked "why are there student and non-student rates", but "why are there member and non-member rates"; in fact, typically you see all four options.

Let's provide an incentive for people to become members...inspire them to become active participants...and ultimately benefit the professional community! — But why should a professional society require me to pay to participate in activities that benefit my research community?  To be clear: I understand the psychology; it's the ethics I'm less clear about.

@FedericoPoloni: another example is Sigma Xi: most inductees are students and they have reduced rates. They also used to have special rates for PostDocs/recent graduates and unemployed researchers (it is possible they still do but just is not advertised widely).

@WillieWong Maybe I did not explain myself. IMHO, having reduced conference rates for students is normal, and reduced rates for (non-student) members so low that applying for membership is cheaper is odd and possibly unethical. Nate Eldredge's argument is "it's to incentive people to join and contribute to the community". My rebuttal is "Then why does almost no society have other similar discounts, apart from conferences?". NE correctly provided a counterexample (AMS) of one who does. I do not see any offer like that on Sigma Xi, only student discounts, which are a different matter.

What ethical principle is being violated here?  Why is it bad to create financial incentives to be part of a group?

@FedericoPoloni SIAM also offers discounted rates to members  within 5 years of the Ph.D.  It's pretty unusual to join such a society long after getting a Ph.D., so I think it amounts to the same thing as what the AMS does.

@DavidKetcheson What is being violated here IMO: if you agree with my tentative analysis, then the societies are using conferences as a way to get more funds in their treasures, taking them out of the conference treasures or raising the fees, and banking on the interest of researchers in conferences. The fees would be lower overall if the society wouldn't step in with this move. What you call a "discount" could also be called a "penalty for non-members", with the societies profitting from it. [cont]

In addition, reserachers are encouraged to join even if they are not interested in the initiatives of the society. Whenever the society tries to pull its weight and declares "we are an influent society with 20.000 members", it would be unethical from them not to add "but, actually, 10.000 of them subscribed just to get a conference discount and couldn't care less about our other activities".

Typically the organizations that do this are professional societies. And, as you mentioned, they have many more activities than just running the conference, so having membership fees separate from conference attendance fees allow them greater flexibility to manage their accounts.
Some places allow membership fees to be paid out of institute funds (this depends on the country and the situation, of course). However, many countries also make such professional expenses tax-deductible (after a certain threshold). Obviously it doesn't recoup the full cost of the membership, but it's better than nothing.
However, one additional point to consider is that most such conferences require that at least one of the authors of a presentation to be a member of the society. (Sometimes, this requirement falls on the presenter herself.)

In an organization I was involved in, we dropped the membership fee entirely (it was low, and you didn't get much for it) and just had a conference fee. If you attended the conference, you were a member for the year.

@JeremyMiles: This is what organizations such as MRS, but it is definitely a rarity among larger professional organizations.

So you are essentially confirming my second explanation?

at least one of the authors of a presentation to be a member of the society — What??  To repeat my earlier comment: How is this in any way justifiable?

@JeffE: As a control measure, actually—the APS and ACS already have roughly 10,000 talks per year at each of their annual meetings.

@JeffE: "How is this in any way justifiable?" If we are talking about the "Annual Meeting of Professional Society X", why would we expect to have non-members giving presentations? The point of such conferences is to be meetings (in the naive, non-academic sense) of the members of the society.  Why would non-members expect to be able to present at all?  The expectation is that the vast majority of attendees will be members.

@OswaldVeblen Because the charge of any professional society is to advance the profession, not the society. (I gave given talks at the annual joint meetings of the AMS and MAA. I am not a member of either society, and nobody asked.)

I find this practice 100% ethical.  I don't see any argument to the contrary in your question.
Nobody is forcing you to do anything.  You don't have to attend any conferences.  But conferences cost money, so if you attend then you do have to pay something.  Even then, you don't have to become a member.  The non-member registration fee is generally not so high as to be prohibitive.
This is no less ethical than your local supermarket distributing coupons.  You don't have to shop there and you don't have to use the coupons even if you do.  In fact, in the US many supermarket chains offer memberships that give you discounts -- that's not unethical!
As for your second bullet point, in my professional society I know that conferences actually lose money and are subsidized by other sources of society income (mainly journals).  I don't know if that is typical.

It does not strike me as surprising that conferences lose money, in view of my analysis. Let's say that a conference is held each year, the member conference fee is X, the membership fee is Y, and the non-member conference fee is X+Y+Z, with X,Y,Z>0. For the organizing society not to lose money, the live costs should be lower than X+Y. But if you just look at the conference balance sheet, the revenue is X, and this may be lower than what is needed to cover the costs. So it looks like the society "graciously" supports a conference that is losing money. I see it as just an accounting trick.

The non-member registration fee is generally not so high as to be prohibitive. — [citation needed]

@JeffE "prohibitive" is subjective, so no citation will suffice.

You don't have to attend any conferences. — True.  You also don't have to get tenure.

Whoa!  So now I'm being forced to join a university just so I can get tenure?  Geez, these people are really evil.

I think that the question is written from the perspective that the conference is somehow an independent entity from the sponsoring organization. But that feels somewhat ahistorical to me. To have a concrete example, consider a society I am a member of: the Association for Symbolic Logic, founded in 1936. According to their web site,

The Association for Symbolic Logic is an international organization supporting research and critical studies in logic. Its primary function is to provide an effective forum for the presentation, publication, and critical discussion of scholarly work in this area of inquiry.

Of course there are societies much older, and much younger, but presumably each was founded by a group of individuals who agreed that a common organization would help their goals in some way.
The conferences organized by these societies are "meetings" in the genuine (non-academic) sense: they are an arranged time and location for members of the society to gather and confer, like a family reunion. The conferences are arranged by committees from the society, rather than by independent organizers, and the general expectation (and reality) is that the majority of attendees are members of the society.
These conferences are not like a car show where the goal is to draw in a large group of otherwise unknown people.  The conferences are usually open to the public (with registration), but the general public is not the main audience - the members are.
This is where the bullet points in the question go astray, in my opinion: they assume that the main goal of the conference is to attract non-members to attend, when in reality the conferences were created to advance the purposes of the society and provide the society members an opportunity to confer and present their work. If an insufficient number of researchers thought that was worth the membership fee, the society and its conferences would disappear.

I think that the question is written from the perspective that the conference is somehow an independent entity from the sponsoring organization. — Speaking as the chair of the steering committee of a conference that is about to vote on whether to abandon professional society sponsorship, that perspective seems eminently sane.

Such is the difference between different fields, and different conferences. For many societies, it would be bizarre that the meeting of the society would somehow vote to drop its affiliation with the society and become "independent". On the other hand, there are also many "independent" conferences that are not affiliated with any society, and which don't have any "member/nonmember" distinction in their fees. Perhaps some conferences like yours grow to transcend the organization that founded them.

The organization didn't found my conference. A small set of volunteers from the research community founded the conference, and then approached the socuety about sponsorship, since at the time that was essentially the only way to publish proceedings. As far as I know, the same is true for every society-sponsored conference in computer science.

These conferences are not like a car show where the goal is to draw in a large group of otherwise unknown people — Again, I find this characterization extremely bizarre. Surely every research area has notable researchers who, for whatever reason, are not society members, along with oodles of utterly mediocre researchers who are. Unless you're talking about one of the Academies, any schmuck off the street can join an academic professional society by paying dues.