text:
Do postdocs still take courses?
I just saw an ad for a new Statistics course that will be offered this fall semester and it states:

For postdoctoral, graduate, and advanced undergraduate students ...

I am surprised and a little bit shocked from seeing "postdoctoral" in the ad as a potential attendee of that course. Is it usual to have postdocs take courses?

I have seen courses that were advanced enough, so both postdocs and faculty attended them.

But shouldn't senior PhD students let alone postdocs have the skill of learning  anything on their own as they are at the forefront of their specialized topic?

I know of a postdoc in computer science who goes to courses in premodern languages...for fun. So that's definitely a valid reason.

Also, I've met a professor at a short summer school. He was already doing research way before I was born!

@TheHiary we mostly can learn anything on our own. That doesn't mean that it's the best way. Especially for things that are not in our specialised topic.
By analogy, I help out on courses in software development for scientists, where we have everybody from undergrads to professors. Statistics are less "new", perhaps, but are a tool in just the same way.

Just to note it, the course advertisement explicitly mentioning postdocs is a little weird.

I'm guessing postdocs would not take the course for credit.  In a few cases, when I taught advanced graduate courses, one or two faculty members also attended.

@TheHiary yes. It should definitely be the fastest way at that level. But maybe the social stimulation of attending a course will do good for other purposes : it can give you inspiration, connections, future people to collaborate with, maybe mew friends even et.c.

This isn't a true answer, but Andrew Wiles famously generated a class specifically for another researcher who was assisting him with a portion of his proof of Fermat's last theorem. The primary target audience was one specific PhD holder.

@Nat It's uncommon but I wouldn't see it as weird particularly for highly specialist courses.  The only thing I would expect for the advert to lead with postgrads, before explicitly stating that postdocs are also welcome.  I've been to one or two short courses on that basis and found them very useful when slightly changing fields - a course often provides a better overview than  any book

@ChrisH It's weird not because it's uncommon for a postdoc (or a professor) to sit-in-on/take a course, but rather because postdocs aren't students so course ads aren't for them.  If a postdoc/professor wants to take a class, they usually just talk to the instructor about the form of participation that they wish to have (e.g., sit in on the class or even do the homework/exams).  It's a pretty different process because, while students need credit and things need to be done by-the-book for regulatory reasons, postdocs/professors have a lot more flexibility since they just want to learn.

@Nat yes, but academics and postdocs tend to be copied in on announcements of new or unusual course (round here at least), partly because people are copied in on too much, and partly because their students may need a little encouragement to sign up for optional courses

I run short courses and have post-docs (and professors and PhD students and...) as participants regularly. For example, you may need a methodology you haven't used before to deal with some aspect of your research question. You don't stop learning just because you've finished your PhD. Conference workshops, short courses and other training opportunities are full of postdocs. It's unlikely a postdoc would attend a course 'for credit', but auditing a course where you work is an easy way to find out new ways of doing research.

Learning never stops. In your PhD you should have gotten a good overview of the relevant methods in your field, and gotten an in depth knowledge of the methods relevant to your thesis. That leaves a lot of methods you have "heard of", but not quite know. The more you know, the more you know you don't know. So it is perfectly normal that a postdoc starts a new project where (s)he needs to apply such a method. If a course is offered on that topic, then that is great. In fact, as a postdoc you know the people who can offer such courses, and you can just ask them if they can offer such a course next semester. I offer such methods courses and I get such requests quite often. If the request is halfway reasonable, then I'll try to fit it in.
This does not end with postdocs. Faculty often want to follow such courses as well. It does not happen that often for two reasons. First, the courses are typically offered in a period when the faculty also has to teach, so they just don't have time. Second, some feel uncomfortable showing they don't know something in front of collegues and/or in front of students. Others feel uncomfortable when teaching in front of colleagues. If the atmosphere in the department is good, then that is not a big problem. If there are tensions, and there often are, then that could inhibit faculty to attend. For those two reasons faculty tend to more often attend courses from outside facutly offered in a compact format (a couple of days intensive course on ...) outside the teaching period.

For me the most important thing in courses is not the methods I have "heard of" but hearing of other methods. I can learn the former myself but the latter? Only if I come by those by accident...

@Džuris We love happy accidents. And overhearing the chit-chatter of a society of bright people.

It is odd to have it advertised but sure, I've had Profs attend courses I've given (many) and as a former Asst Prof in  Mathematics, I attended some Grad level Econ courses which I thought quite interesting. Postdocs don't take exams and don't pay fees, so the course shouldn't be geared to them.
It's a different experience of course--I made friends with all the senior people in my courses and the prof whose course I attended, and they're all possible collaborators, something you're always on the lookout for when in academia.

It is a little odd as post docs are not generally formally enrolled in a program that leads to a degree and hence do not typically need credits. That said, post doc training can involve work outside the lab/classroom. For example, NIH funded post docs need to complete training on Responsible Conduct for Research (RCR). Some key excerpts from that guidance include:

Instruction should include face-to-face discussions by course participants and faculty; i.e., on-line instruction may be a component of instruction in responsible conduct of research but is not sufficient to meet the NIH requirement for such instruction, except in special or unusual circumstances.

Most RCR plans include a component on

data acquisition and laboratory tools; management, sharing and ownership

The RCR training also has a core component on reproducability.
It is possible that a stats class could be tailored to provide training to satisfy the NIH RCR requirements (or maybe requirements by the NSF or some other large funder). For administrative purposes, post docs (and faculty and others) may be forced to enroll in these courses as non-degree seeking students.

In my experience, in mathematics, in the U.S., on the best occasions some very good senior mathematicians would give seminars/courses on their latest thinking... which (all the more since it was before TeX or the internet) offered a more-than-two-years vision into the future.
... which reminds me, that most traditional ideas of "courses" are, mistakenly, about gate-keeping, not about transmitting useful ideas into the future. And, then, sadly, there's a lot of PR about how, well, if you've got your PhD, you have nothing more to learn from "old people". Hilarious...
Yes, I guess, in some fields, things are very transient, so whatever was "true" last year is no longer so by this year? This is certainly not true in mathematics, though, yes, popularity is transient, obviously.
Anecdotally: in 1978-79, as a Gibbs Instructor at Yale, I was fortunate enough to hear both lectures from I. Piatetski-Shapiro and from A. Borel. Maybe I should have tried to get that on my transcript?!? :)

Short answer: yes.
Longer answer: people change, and fields change. At my institute, technical computing courses are regularly run, and attract postdocs. E.g. someone who did their PhD using Stata or Excel and now want to learn a package like R, or is starting to use High Performance Computing facilities and need to learn Unix. Your example is for a statistics course. The postdocs in attendance may not be from a heavily statistical background, having statistics issues in their current projects and need a wider knowledge of statistical theory to help with their research. At the start of my postdoc, I attended many courses as I completely changed fields for my postdoc, going from mathematical modelling to biomedical statistics, and needing basic knowledge of genomics. A PhD in applied mathematics doesn't make me immediately able to learn genetics independently, as I knew virtually nothing about the field going into the postdoc, I was hired for my numerical skills.


text:
One of my professors made a rape joke. What should I do?
I'm at a community college in the US.
Early on in the semester, one of my professors made a rape joke. I was too stunned, tired, and sick (I have a moderate physical health condition) to get involved at the time. Now we are in finals. I have spoken to other students and at least one person interpreted it the same way.
What should we do? What should I have done immediately?

As of recently, my own U.S. university (R1, for whatever that might matter) has chosen to interpret Title IX as obliging anyone who hears any such talk (which is easily interpretable as in violation... even if unintentional...) to report it to the Title IX office, rather than take any individual action of any sort. It is possible to view this as an unreasonable stance, based on a CYA (=cover-your-ass) institutional attitude, ... but, to violate policy-dictated procedures then has indeed allowed the institution to C its A, and they can ... [cont'd]

... [cont'd] either wash their hands of it or actually blame the people who didn't follow procedures. So it is smart to do a quick study of the specifics of your Uni's policies in these matters. That is, it's not only the "law" that is Title IX, it's your uni's policy implementations of what is implied, etc.

Federal rules do require "responsible employees" (especially including administrators and faculty) to report title IX issues.  I don't believe that this puts any burden on students though.

@BrianBorchers, in my Uni, I think that the Uni policy does attempt to make a requirement of students. I may be wrong... Plus, the real problem is that there's no genuine indication of either "enforcement" or "follow-up". It's all "principle"... in vague terms, with no indication of who's responsible for implementing, enforcing, etc. Strikes me as almost entirely CYA.

For that matter, if somebody grabs your wallet, are you obliged to have a conversation with them before calling the cops? I think that is the issue... which, yes, includes the unfortunate idea/fact that for a long time it was "ok" for people of class A to steal from people of class B... with "steal" as metaphor.

Speak with the professor, and give them the benefit of the doubt. Ask for an appointment, and bring another student if you feel uncomfortable doing it one-on-one. Most professors (hopefully) would not intentionally make such jokes -- give them the benefit of the doubt, allow them to explain themselves or apologize, and go from there. Following Hanlon's razor, my guess is that they were trying to make an inoffensive (or at least less-offensive) comment and botched it.
If this doesn't go well, you can escalate. The department chair, a trusted professor, or your university's Title IX office (in the US) are good starting places. In general, they will be looking for a pattern of behavior.
Edit: I'm surprised how much controversy this has generated. If this were a more serious offense (like fondling or extorting favors), then I would advise going directly to administration. But in this case, I think it is altogether appropriate to raise your concern directly with the professor. If he acknowledges the mistake and gives an apology, then the issue is resolved and no further action is needed. (Since this apparently happened months ago and has not been repeated, some might even consider the issue to already be resolved).

This is a good approach in many situations. I actually forgot about the talking-in-person answer, because I can be somewhat conflict avoidant. :) If it is an innocent mistake and OP feels comfortable doing this, this approach is likely to resolve the matter most quickly and satisfactorily for all.

By this point in my life, I'd disagree. This does sound like a "fair" approach, as though there were a misunderstanding, which will be cleared up once it's brought to the offender's attention. However, in my observation, in practice, it plays out this way almost 0% of the time, due to the vagaries of human nature. So it's a sucker's game to play it that way... Sorry. Negligence can be a crime. Ignorance (with power) can be a crime. That kind of thing.

@paulgarrett -- thanks for your comment. I would agree if there were an actual crime or other very serious offense (groping, propositioning, that kind of thing). But for an off-color joke in a public setting? I would give the benefit of the doubt, at least until the prof has a chance to respond.

I would not bring this up with the professor. This puts the student in a potentially vulnerable position of being further ridicularized by the professor---which I dont doubt would happen if they make such "jokes" in the first place. Explain the situation to an ombudsperson or directly with the professor's supervisor so that they will bring this issue up with the professor, and give them a chance to respond to someone at their professional level.

@FBolst -- thanks for your comment. Since you propose a totally different approach, you may want to post that as a new answer. FWIW, I disagree - this is a serious accusation over what could be a misunderstanding or one-off lapse in judgment. I suspect that simply asking about it will lead to an explanation and apology. I did suggest that the student could bring an additional student to the meeting to be a witness and prevent further 'ridicularizing' (whatever the latter term may mean).

I'm sorry this happened. Here are the immediate responses I would suggest:

Focus on your finals right now. They are your most important duty to yourself as a student.
After finals are over, evaluate this in context. (And wait to act until your grade is submitted--nothing you've talked about has connected this to your grade. You could refer back to this SE post if, at some point, someone says you're only bringing this up because you're mad about your grade.) Now that you've had a whole semester, you know the following:

One other student interpreted the statement that way. (Did others think there was a plausible other meaning, or did it just not occur to them?)
This was a big enough thing that it made you feel uncomfortable in the class and it is still bothering you now.
Has the professor done anything else similar since then?

My answer is along the same lines as cag51's, but with more cases.
If this "joke" was part of a larger pattern, then it is very appropriate to address it, possibly with a Title IX Coordinator (if you're in the U.S.) or ombudsperson or other student advocate.
If this was more of a one-off, think about how to address it. A general conflict-resolution principle is to address a problem directly to the person who caused the problem, unless you feel unsafe doing so.

You could shrug it off. If confrontation is going to be painful for you, and/or you judge it is not worthwhile, you could decide not to pursue anything. (If you're asking about this months later, then it seems like this answer is not the right one for you. Further, if the problem were more serious or pervasive, it might be ethically harder to justify this option.)
You could email the professor with your concern, stated factually much like you have above:

[Thank you for your class this semester.] I remain troubled by something that occurred in class early this semester. On [date], you made a joke about rape [in the context of...]. I was too stunned and tired [and sick, if you want to disclose this] to immediately bring this up. Luckily, this did not match the tenor of the rest of your class, but I hope that in future classes you will pick your examples more carefully.

If you want to hit it home, you could also say, "I felt ... when I heard this." or "More than one in every ten U.S. college students experiences 'rape or sexual assault through physical force, violence, or incapacitation' and it is not respectful, especially to survivors of this, to joke about it." But hopefully the professor should understand why you are objecting to a rape joke even without the explicit reasoning.
An email is nice because it is an official record. If the professor ever harrasses someone, even years after you graduate, this record may still be found in the system. If the professor has any sort of reprisal for your bringing this up, the email will also be a helpful record for that.
At the same time, an email is not generally public. It is there if needed if escalation is necessary, but otherwise this doesn't need to involve anyone else.

If you do not feel comfortable directly approaching the professor, figure out if there is a way to make sure the message is delivered.

Is the other student willing to email the professor?
If you discuss the case with someone in charge of the department (e.g. the Director of Undergraduate Studies (DUS) or chair or student advisor), hypothetically/without naming the professor, could they send a message to the faculty reminding them to be considerate of the examples and jokes they bring up?
When discussing with any third parties, you may want to start asking as a hypothetical or without naming names. You could even explicitly say, "I am not sure that I want this to turn into any official investigation. How can I approach this without you being mandated to report it?"

All that said, you could also whole-heartedly report it. An isolated incident of this nature will not get anyone fired, though it might force the professor to go though some meetings and paperwork. If you get the sense this professor would not listen to you, this might be the way to go.
If you or your friend tries an email and that is dismissed, you can then escalate it to reporting to a Title IX coordinator, student advocate, DUS/department chair, dean, etc.

The best case scenario, in my mind, is that the professor said something that they did not fully think through, but they did not intend to make anyone feel unwelcome or trigger anyone's PTSD or anything else. If such a professor got an email that a student was still bothered by it months later, they would actually be grateful you were addressing them directly, realize what a stupid thing it was to do, and assure you that they takes this seriously and will avoid that in the future. I strongly hope that this is, actually, your situation, and that by addressing the matter once, directly, you can make a difference for the professor's future students.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Editor has requested major revisions to manuscript. Should I give up?
Three months ago, I submitted a manuscript to one of the most respected journals in my field. Today, I received comments from reviewers stating that my paper is not worth publishing in the journal. However, the editor decided to give it a major revision instead of outright rejection. Should I proceed to address all the questions posed by reviewers or should I just withdraw the paper and submit it elsewhere to save time?
EDIT:
Right now it seems impossible for me to pull off some of the outrageous suggestions from reviewers. They asked me to prove my theory by applying more expensive method that unfortunately cannot be afforded by my supervisor as her grant has already ran out and we lack of funding now. Another reviewer also ridiculed my experimental method and claimed that my method had lots of flaws.

Which journal is it?

Biology field journal

Major revision is pretty common, especially in respected journals. No reason to give up.

However the reviewers are very harsh when commenting about experimental protocols that I conducted. I have submitted my papers elsewhere previously and I have never encountered very harsh reviewers like I did in the current journal

No way to tell not knowing the paper and the reviews, but absolutely do take the reviews into consideration and revise the paper accordingly. If you should withdraw is another matter, but my default is to submit the revision to the journal whenever possible.

address the comments, and send it again!

How on earth is it "outrageous" to ask you to provide evidence for your theory? Providing evidence is the cornerstone of science. If the only way to provide good evidence is to use an expensive method then tough luck. Ridicule is, of course, unacceptable but is your method flawed or not? If it's flawed, you have a problem. If it's not flawed, you need to explain to the reviewer why you're right and they're wrong. The editor appears to be at least somewhat on your side.

I agree with comments and answers here. Take the reviews, quote them and produce a sentence-by-sentence response either completely dismantling the comment in question (seldom and very, very careful!), or biting in the bullet and adjusting the paper accordingly. Be prepared to track changes in the paper text. I would be very surprised, if you'd need to perform new experiments. But more / further / different statistical evaluation is definitely possible. tl;dr: It's doable, bite your way through.

Major revisions are quite common to get in journals in many fields. You will need to learn to handle the reviews and their feedback if you want to find a place in science.

@alex If you find harsh criticism something you cannot handle, academia maybe not the best career for you. Unfortunately, it is a constant stress source in this kind of work.

In my opinion ridiculous  comments are possible . It is probably field dependent. There are existing referees asking for whatever techniques can be used to characterise a new material for instance.  But usually is very simple to deal with such ridiculous requests.

If your run out of money, there is not much you can do. I would carefully suggest that you care about funding first and postpone publishing - otherwise you might risk finding yourself on the street.

Based on the description, I would advise you to sleep on it, suck it up, respond to the reviewers, revise the paper, and submit your revision to the journal.
Yes, reviewers can be absolutely, disgustingly, and unnecessarily rude and mean. Read their review, filter their non-technical rants, keep whatever helpful criticism you can extract from their comments, and address them nicely and respectfully. It may actually be that the techniques you used were adequate but you failed to point out why and how it would be unnecessary to use more expensive methods. Always assume that they are right. If they are mistaken, respectfully point out in your response why you are right and edit the original manuscript to make the issue clearer to future readers.
For instance, if the reviewer wrote:

The methods used in the paper are abysmal. The authors use an outdated
  and archaic method, which is also very uncertain, to measure the mass
  of the frogs, which is by weighting them on a scale. The atomic mass
  interferometer, which uses gravitational waves and is able to
  precisely infer mass with an uncertainty of one atomic mass unit per kilogram,
  is the state of the art in weighting.

You can write as a response:

The reviewer is absolutely correct that atomic mass interferometry
  (AMI) is the state of the art in weighting. However, we opted to use
  analytical scales to measure the mass of the frogs because the mass
  variations that we expected to measure are of at least 1 g, a quantity
  signficantly higher than the uncertainty of even the most rudimentary
  analytical scales. We do, however, agree, that the quantum mechanical
  analysis of the molecular buildup in neural entangled channels in
  during frog electrophoresis, which is suggested as an interesting
  prospective investigation, will benefit from the low uncertainty
  provided by AMI.
In order to make it clear that the methods used in our study were
  adequate, we have modified the original manuscript to include the
  following sentence in the second paragraph of page 5:
While there are more precise methods to infer mass, such as atomic
  mass interferometry, analytical scales offer accuracies that are
  compatible with the 1 g mass variations that were found in this study
  (see Table 3, for instance).

Do reviewers that make those kinds of comments tend to accept papers after these kinds of revisions?

Reviewers don't accept papers, editors do. However, I once had one reviewer who wrote a five-page review destroying the paper and claiming that I did not understand the foundations of my field. The paper was initially rejected, we appealed to the editor, wrote a detailed, sentence by sentence response to the reviewer, who apologized and recommended acceptance. This was just the most egregious case. I've had several reviewers who wrote gory reviews and ultimately recommended acceptance after a good, thorough and sincere rebuttal.

(Yeah, 'accept' is short for 'recommend to accept', that wasn't the point of my question.) Okay thanks, that's useful to know!

Additionally, no one should submit a paper until they are very confident that they can defend the paper from even the most unfair and unnerving reviewer. You should have a strong confidence that the methodology and results are very sound, even if the paper turns out not to be sufficiently transparent. If you are confident, then writing a rebuttal should be reasonably straightforward (after a good sleep during which you smash a reviewer-dressed punchbag).

Yeah, but my concern isn't about being able to write a good rebuttal... rather it's about whether reviewers who go out of their ways to come up with nonsensical excuses to reject have any inclination to accept the papers at all.

@Mehrdad I understand! My last comment was more a comment to my answer than a response to your comment. I have a colleague who had a paper with four review rounds, in which the reviewer insisted that he should do an experiment that is impossible with existing technology. The reviewer ultimately refused to recommend acceptance, even after a very extensive review of existing techniques demonstrating that the suggestion would be impossible to conduct. He ultimately wrote a private note to the editor claiming that the reviewer's request was unreasonable and the paper was published.

Your example was presumably intended to be extreme and satirical, but still, reviewers often make statements that I consider ridiculous, so it's not THAT far out. I would certainly update to reflect the criticism, but I wouldn't explicitly refer to the extreme idea of using AMI: that's both unnecessary and too specific. Rather, I'd address the legitimate question of whether the scales I used were sufficiently accurate for the claimed measurements. Like, "The scales are rated to be accurate to within 0.2 grams, more than sufficient for the requirements of this experiment, etc"

It's almost as if some reviewers care more about how the authors defend their paper than the raw content of the original pa-.... Ooooohhhhhh.

I concur with the answer FBoist gave, but wanted to add an emphasis on the fact that in your case, the editor decided to give you a chance to revise instead of rejecting outright. I think this is a sign that the editor sees the potential value in your research work, but wants you to address the legitimate concerns the reviewers raised explicitly, both in your manuscript and the response.
In my own experience, I have had a manuscript which came back with a very long list of suggestions, many of which seemed impossible at the time. In my estimation, the amount of work suggested would have made a good PhD thesis! Through several rounds of review, the paper was modified to address those which we were able to address, make more explicit the limitations of our method, and define some things as out of scope or belonging to future work.
I think the fact that the editor invited you to resubmit means that he believes your work is of enough importance and volume to be published in the journal, but wants to make sure you are able to adequately address the concerns raised by the reviewers.

Given the difference between reviewer comments and editor decision, it would be worth talking to the editor to clarify what's required before you put in a lot of work that may not be necessary.
For example, in response to this:

They asked me to prove my theory by applying more expensive method that unfortunately cannot be afforded by my supervisor as her grant has already ran out and we lack of funding now.

You could query the editor, e.g.:

Reviewer 2 has requested that we use $METHOD to confirm this theory, but due to funding limitations this is not currently feasible. Would it be acceptable if we acknowledge this issue in the 'Limitations' section and include it as a recommended avenue for future work?

(I tend to phrase my "Possible Further Work" sections in a way that suggests it would be really nice if somebody investigates these issues, but without promising that it's going to be me ;-)

If using the technique is critical to proving or disproving the author's theory, then I am sorry, but "not enough funding" is not going to cut it. I can't claim the experimental finding of gravitational waves if I don't have a few billions lying around to construct an adequate experimental set-up. The only way around it is under the condition that the more expensive method is not really critical, in which case the authors should clarify to the reviewers.

@FBolst Depends very much on context. Not all publications require experimental proof. Poincare and Einstein published theoretical work about the existence of gravity waves a century before LIGO produced experimental evidence to support that theory! I don't think the OP gives enough information to gauge whether the expensive method genuinely is necessary for this paper, or just a "nice to have", but apparently the editor thinks it might be salvageable.

You're right. I should've written "claim" instead of theory in the first sentence of my comment.

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


text:
How to handle the particular situation when mind goes blank during a presentation?
Does anyone experience a situation of blank mind during their presentation?
I had a presentation in last month in USA. My presentation was going very well, probably due to enough practice, but during the presentation my mind suddenly went blank at a point. The situation became so worse that I could not even complete my sentence. The sentence was actually:

The reason could be due to the  fact that stronger events have higher increasing rates.

The word "higher" didn't come to my mind and suddenly my mind went blank. So I just repeated 2-3 times "stronger events have.... have... stronger events have..." and finally stopped saying. Though few other words like "rapid, more or larger" were coming to my mind to complete the sentence, but the appropriate word "higher" or any similar word did not come. Moreover, I was telling this sentence from my mind completely, so I could not take help from my slides also. Finally I changed my sentence in a different way:

The reason could be due to the  fact that the rate of stronger events increases more rapidly compare to weaker events.

It again surprised me that I could not even able to remind the word "higher" until I heard the same word in my next presenter's talk. This is not the first time, but not often.
So I am wondering does it happen due to some particular lacks in me  that I need to develop? e.g., I am not a native English speaker. I am also wondering the proper way to handle similar situations when you don't find a suitable word to complete your sentence just because mind goes blank?

I think this happens constantly to everyone, and they handle it the same way: find an alternate word or phrasing.

Take a deep breath, say that the word escapes you, pause, re-group and continue. All of us have had it happen so your audience will be sympathetic... Don't forget what seems like a huge pause to you is perhaps only a few seconds to your audience - they can think you are giving them time to assimilate the information...

Honestly I get horrible presentation anxiety. It's so bad that I have to be very careful to not puke or pass out beforehand. I have a HR monitor and my last talk at a major conference had my heart rate at 170 for 10 minutes. I get around this by practicing my talk A LOT. I remember every single word I say, and I regurgitate it by rote. It takes time, it's not the expert way to do it, but it works. Otherwise I get mind blanks just like you.

You may be experiencing what is called "mind blanks".
Before I answer, remember that every individual is unique and many factors could be the cause of the mind blanks you are experiencing.

It may be fatigue, let's say you may have been doing your presentation for already half an hour, and it is natural, if you aren't too passionate about your subject, to get tired or have your brain pull the plug for a brief moment, as random thoughts run through your head.
To remedy this, I personally try to get a coffee/espresso half an hour before doing a presentation. Caffeine can help connections between those gray cells.
You may get distracted, sometimes when looking through the room, you may notice something about one of the people that sets you off and it completely shatters your concentration, and trying to get back to your topic can be challenging.
Whenever that happens, try going a step or two backwards, ask yourself "what did I say before I lose track of my speech?", it's okay to start over from a previous sentence and it will also reduce your stuttering or "uhhh"-ing.
Lack of self confidence may also be a factor of disruption in your speeches. Thoughts rushing through your head may interrupt your speech and before you know it you focus on that one point, making you feel like your short-term memory completely failed registering what you were just saying.
Fear and feeling exposed can completely freeze some people.
Make sure to remain structured in your presentations, if you happen to use your slides to help yourself, remember that slide unicity is crucial, one slide should contain one and only one message. It'll be better for your audience and for yourself. Audience often forgets anything you had said 30s earlier if you deliver a poor presentation.

All that being said, my personal experience has taught me this :
One thing/trick I noticed that is crucial to a "perfectly" fluid presentation, is to be completely passionate about your subject. Whenever I knew my topic by heart, and was wholeheartedly implied in it, I would actually have a hard time to remain concise and synthetic, simply because I knew so much about the subject that I wanted to explain every single aspect and each of these aspects would also pull another string of 10 micro-subjects.
Unfortunately, in corporate environments, you don't always choose your topic and it can be hard feeling implied and dedicated in it.
If it happens again, try to relax, take it slow, I suggest to not put pressure on yourself as it will only make things worse. Another crippling event that happens along these mind blanks is caring about what people think, so be aware of that as well.
Now to handle this situation towards your audience, do not hesitate to apologize or even ask somebody in the room what you were saying just before, that way you might even be able to add a touch of humor behind this and be like "just making sure everyone's still with me". This is a common joke amongst teachers.

Here are some brainstorming thoughts.  I'm partially inspired by my experience as a musician, sometimes needing to perform from memory, and sometimes experiencing unpredictable physiological reactions to the adrenaline of performance nerves; by my experience coping with anxiety about a hearing impairment; and by my experience helping my son with Tourette Syndrome find ways of coping with unpredictable neurological symptoms.

For each slide, write down the full text and store it below the slide.  Don't display these notes even to yourself during the presentation, unless you draw a blank, in which case you can bring up the notes in order to rescue the sentence.  Then you can turn off the notes again.
Maybe you'll never need to use the notes.  But knowing they are there can bring peace of mind and reduce anxiety.
Let's suppose there's a technical failure with the slide notes.  What else can you do?
a) Say some transition words to help you jump to the next point, such as

Etc.
I'm suddenly blanking but hopefully you've figured out what I was getting at.
I will come back to this slide later.

b) Just leave a little hole, ignore it and keep going.
c) Ask the air, "Sorry, I just went blank.  What did I just say?" Someone will repeat the beginning of your sentence for you, and this may pop you back into the thought.  Even if you haven't actually forgotten what you just said, it can still be helpful to hear the first part of your sentence, coming from someone else's voice.
d) Enlist the help of a friend, colleague, session organizer, or friendly volunteer ahead of time.  If you're in a blank, you can look to this friendly face for a prompt.
e) If you experience a blank again, or if you are suffering with anxiety about blanks, it may be a good idea to inform your audience, at the beginning, that it might happen.  This gets easier with practice, and once you're comfortable with disclosure, it's quite helpful in lowering anxiety.
As a preventive measure, design your presentations to be more interactive and less of a monologue.  This can help you get out of yourself (less stuck inside yourself), which can be helpful as a means of prevention.
As you are preparing to give your presentation, after you've put together all your slides, diagram your talk, and then during your practice talks, try to develop an awareness of where you are in the outline as you're going along.  It can be helpful to have a clear idea of where you're about to go and how this fits into the whole.
Try mapping your talk to a fairy tale. This is a variant of Idea 4, actually.
Learn how to take a deep breath and relax your body when you experience sudden stress.  Part of this learning process is to discover what body parts tense up when you're nervous.

Remember that adrenaline isn't all bad.  Adrenaline can make the talk feel exciting and fresh.

A good way to take a few seconds of break during a presentation, giving you an opportunity to clear your mind and focus on what you were going to say next, is to drink a little bit of water. Most conference venues prepare water bottles for the speakers, but it is also useful to bring your own just in case there is none where you give your talk. It is very common for speakers to do so, so the audience won't even care about it.

So I am wondering does it happen due to some particular lacks in me?

No, it's not you; I know lots of people who've had the experience of suddenly going blank for a few seconds in a talk. If there's also a language barrier, that probably doesn't help....but overall it's a common experience for presenters. As you give more talks, these moments should get rarer.

I am also wondering the proper way to handle similar situations?

In the moment: your brain needs a reset. You can pause and take a breath, maybe drink a sip of water. I will sometimes pause, then repeat my last phrase to gain another few seconds to think.
As an audience member, I don't mind when a speaker does this...actually I barely notice.
Ahead of time: Practice your talk until you are comfortable with it (sounds like you already do this).

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


text:
Forgot to give a copy of consent form to participants throughout qualifier project and dissertation data collection. What are my next steps?
I'm a 4th year doctoral candidate who recently finished data collection for my dissertation. However, I have some bad news that wasn't pointed out to me until I trained a prospective research assistant. This research assistant noted that the consent form stated the participant would keep a copy for their records. I never gave them copies throughout the semester at all, nor did I do so for my qualifier project. They did sign the consent form the lab kept though.
This was something that my university requires me to include. That's not mentioning that how I was trained at the start of my Ph.D program didn't even have me debrief participants at the end of my qualifier project, let alone give them a copy of the consent form.
What are my options now? I've considered emailing those who participated by bcc'ing them to ask if they'd like a copy of the consent form or not, just so I can say I remedied it.
I just want to avoid the potential worst case scenario of losing all of the data I worked so hard to obtain this semester.

Does your institution require you to do the CITI training?  I thought that was considered pretty in depth (if you are US-based).  Have you contacted the IRB office to ask for advice?

Talk to your advisor immediately, in writing by email, and keep a copy of the email, to show that you were proactive about this.
I would not expect this to be a major issue (it's certainly not on par with running an experiment without ethics review board approval), but you should get this cleared up as soon as possible. One possible next step would be to ask the ethics review board for guidance, but again, you should discuss this with your advisor.
Good luck!

Likely both OP and their advisor have a duty to report this to the IRB, but it's reasonable to do so together.

If this is in the United States, you should consult your IRB immediately.
They will probably say it does not matter, but it depends on your experimental design.  If you attached something to your subjects and the consent form says how to remove it, you have a big problem.  Otherwise, probably not.

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


text:
Ph.D program let me transfer a course where I got a B-. Could the graduate school audit it out?
My graduate program let me transfer a course where I got a B- during my Master's even though the policy is "B or higher." Should I bring this up before the final graduation audit by the Graduate School (not the department)?
The department told me I'm fine but I really want to make sure there's nothing potentially around the corner that could mess up my progress.

Academic administrators are not infallible.
It's only a short email to someone who's job it is to answer those sorts of questions. And then you'll sleep better knowing you're OK.

Alrighty. The graduate office said they're reaching out to the Registrar's office and the Psychology department respectively.

If the department said you are fine, then you are fine. It might depend on the meaning of "B or higher", which it could mean as "some kind of B or higher". If it would bring your GPA below B, however, you might go talk to the grad school. There is no harm it asking them in any case.
Sometimes decisions made can overrule such policies. If someone thought you were fine and so accepted the course, then it should be considered as accepted. Relax.
Your other questions here seem to indicate a lack of confidence, either in yourself or those around you. Maybe you should think about that, also. The school doesn't benefit by laying "traps" for graduate students.

The B- was worth a 2.7 in my previous graduate program. It may be the case that it's some form of a B or better for sure. I was told that transfer courses would not affect my current program's GPA though. I'll also reflect on your last part. My first Ph.D advisor was someone who laid "traps" and it's likely my PTSD from that experience (not hyperbole either since I'm clinically diagnosed) is talking when I make these posts.

Azor's answer is very strong, but I've noodled over this question for awhile and for better or worse would like to offer a frame challenge.
While local conditions can vary, it is the responsibility of the faculty in your department to monitor your progress towards graduation and advise you correctly regarding graduation requirements. The student has a responsibility to read and understand documentation they've been presented on these topics by the Department.
If you have been in a PhD program for 4 years, you should have periodically received written or at least electronic documents from the department that indicate the dept's assessment of your progress towards graduation. These are all you should invest your energy into understanding, along with whatever formal requirements document the dept provides.
In my experience, students graduate who have passed exams, written a thesis which is approved by a committee, and have documentation that the dept believes they are on-track through their degree. This is all other formal requirements notwithstanding. If you've already received a job offer predicated on your graduating at a time you anticipated based on communications from the dept, it's even more likely that minor mismatches with the "paper" rules will be waived. It benefits exactly nobody to hold someone around to nitpick something like masters course transfer credits when their next opportunity is already available.
To conclude: It's not your responsibility to do the dept's job of tracking your progress for them. Make sure you have all documentation that effectively says: "This person's on track to graduate if they do X, Y, and Z." Let any audits run, you are only hurting yourself by preemptively admitting that you do not believe you fulfill requirements. Look out for yourself, not the university: You fulfill requirements if a reasonable person would think they do based on communications you have received. In the improbable event someone tries to nitpick you at the end over a transfer credit, try to get your department on-side with your docs. If necessary, escalate through to a dean and an ombuds with your documentation as evidence. Somebody will crack, these types of minor issues aren't worth anyone's time to enforce.

I see what you mean. You also likely saw my update but the course with the B- was officially dropped. They did clear the other matters with me at least. I'm going to stop asking at this point.


text:
Clinical Psychology Ph.D program to be cut soon. What could happen now?
At this point, I understand I have posted on this website a fair amount. This time, my post will take a step back from discussing my other difficulties to something that will be sadly relevant in the near future. Long story short, I am a fourth year Ph.D student in Experimental Psychology who was admitted back in Fall 2020 with a Master's (also Experimental Psychology). The university specifically wanted more students in each of its Psychology Ph.D programs (clinical, experimental, I/O, and school) pre COVID. 9 months ago, there were rumors that funding cuts for graduate students would eventually hit 0. Recently, after I overheard a meeting where faculty thought me and the other students were out of earshot (and no, I did not go out of my way to eavesdrop), its finally here.
It turns out that the reason this happened as fast as it did was twofold. The first reason was that the clinical program did not take any students in the recent two years. This year it was a faculty made decision due to uncertainty regarding funding in the coming years. Two years ago, students who were accepted also did not enroll on purpose because there was no first year funding.
The second was that my university was awarded $60k in grant money that was meant to go towards the graduate students. However, that money was somehow lost entirely by the university (not my department).
Here is why I am making this post now. I am slated to graduate this academic year and this news will become public come November 30th. However, what are the possible consequences of this action before I defend sometime in early 2024 (expected since I am 1/4 through my data collection at the moment and have 20 research assistants I am about to train and recruit)? One of my external committee members is a clinical faculty and is a full professor (all of my other ones are full professors too). Some in my department (Experimental) already left due to the first year funding cuts. What else could happen that may affect my progress in a capricious manner?
In case anyone is wondering where, all I will say is that it is a university in the mid Michigan area that had a lot of great faculty. All four of the Ph.D programs were the reason it went from an R3 to an R2 in the first place.

That is very open ended question. What are we supposed to answer? A list of all the bad things that could happen? That would be a very very long list, and most of these possible disasters will not happen.

Do the funding cuts affect you (near to graduating), or just people who were hoping to start courses?

@toby544 It looks like the funding cuts are fling to affect everyone in the clinical program, which includes those who were going to start courses.

@MaartenBuis I know it is. However, I'm looking at realistic stuff like professors leaving (and when that could happen).

A halfway decent university will try to do their best to allow students who are now enrolled to be able to finish. But a decline in quality is inevitable when a program is in the process of shutting down. Good professors may leave, and who wants to invest time and effort in a program that is about to close down? So finish a.s.a.p. and get out of that department.

I think this question is not answerable without knowing your long-term goals.

I suspect that you will be fine since you are about to finish. Talk to your advisor to gain assurance that your funding will continue this academic year. The faculty has a vested professional interest in making sure that people already committed to the degree can have a safe and happy completion.
Even if money is cut it will most affect incoming students who will find no open slots. It might also affect RA funding, especially if those aren't also doctoral students, so you might have to scramble a bit. Try to develop a proactive plan to deal with fewer RAs.
Your advisor can probably give you the best information, but, again, the faculty will have an incentive to assure that advanced students finish. The university as a whole does also. Dumping students isn't a good public relations move.
You also have, perhaps, an opportunity to do something with someone on your external committee in the worst case.
I also hope you are looking for the next job at this point. If not, then it is time to start.


text:
Dress code for examiner in UK PhD viva
I was asked to be an external examiner in a math PhD viva at a UK university. I have never been to a UK defense and cannot find specific regulations/dress code guidelines on the University website.
What is the norm for what you wear in such events as an examiner? Is it usually formal or casual? My overwhelming preference is to wear casual unless that would offend someone. Would that offend someone?

Please do not write answers in the comments. Existing comments have been moved to chat. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. We can only move to chat once, so future comment-answers will be removed.

Can you ask the persons who invite you to this event ?

@Job_September_2020 I could, but then the next person who has the same question can't just Google it and has to ask their host

UK vivas are not generally ceremonial in nature (the ceremony is left for graduation). As such, most people will dress more or less "normally". Especially in mathematics, I would expect most examiners to be dressed in a relatively casual manner.
In essence, treat the viva as an important meeting with fellow academics. I wouldn't recommend wearing shorts and flip-flops but, unless the maths department you are visiting is unusual in this regard, business-formal clothing would probably not be expected.

Depending on circumstances and travel plans, you may be taken out for dinner somewhere after the viva - so a good guideline is to dress as you would for a modestly smart restaurant!

Yeah in my experience examiners would wear whatever they normally wear when teaching, meeting students, etc. (It may depend where you are in the world, but most restaurants have no dress code beyond "no shirt, no shoes, no service".)

Yep, my go to for a viva is dark coloured jeans, a smartish button down shirt and either a fine knit wool sweater or a blazer/sports/tweed jacket and nice trainers.

@avid How can smart be an adjective of a restaurant :)

@ArchismanPanigrahi why can't smart be an adjective relating to a restaurant. The definition includes décor and decorum as would be seen in a restaurant as well as clothing.

@ArchismanPanigrahi https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/smart see etymology 2 bullet 4

@ArchismanPanigrahi More specifically (https://www.oed.com/dictionary/smart_adj?tab=meaning_and_use#246505510) "II.13.b. Of a building, vehicle, etc.: neat and pleasing in appearance; clean, bright, well presented or maintained." This is a use that is (I think!) reasonably common in British English but maybe not everywhere.

I did not know this meaning of the word "smart". Thank you for teaching me.

For almost all UK universities, Louwe's answer is  correct. The only exception I am aware of is Oxford¹, where the candidate and internal examiner are expected to wear academic dress (smart clothes and gown). This does not apply to the external examiner, who will often dress as they would for a viva elsewhere in the UK, but if you happen to be examining at Oxford you may wish to be aware of this idiosyncrasy and dress a little more smartly.

¹Cambridge is not like Oxford in this regard

Can verify, last examiner I saw around in Cambridge maths was wearing a hoodie.

My view is that you don't want to make the candidate uncomfortable because they are either dressed too smartly or too casually.  So I tend to be smart-ish, e.g. a suit but perhaps not wearing a tie if they are scruffy.  I prefer not to be smartly dressed if I can help it, but it seems disrespectful to the candidate to turn up scruffy if they are smartly dressed, so I make a bit of an effort.  Note this is a "special" day for the candidate, even if it isn't for you.
(but otherwise I agree with @Louwe, +1)


text:
For academic tenure applications, is the number of first-author publications or the number of total publications more important?
I'm an academic in the fields of biomaterials and biochemistry, willing to apply for academic tenure positions.
Unfortunately, I don't have a high number of publications, but they are either first-author publications in (good or average) journals or equal first-author publications.
I have coworkers who published 30 or more papers, but the number of first-author publications that they have is lower than mine.
What are my chances of landing a position in a "decent" university? Do employers really care much about the first-authorship these days?

"Willing to apply"? If you don't want to, don't. There are plenty of candidates "eager to apply". Altogether, somehow the tone of your question seems to indicate that you are significantly clueless about the whole business. Do you have an advisor/mentor/senior who can explain to you how things work?

I can understand that academic applications go through an academic committee and there are many aspects to discuss in these applications. All I'm trying to ask is, say that I and one of my coworkers, who graduated from the same school and department and who got postdoc in the same institute, apply for the same position, but he/she has 30 papers where, say, only 4 of them are first-author publications, on the other hand I have 8, but all are first-author publications. Do committees really look at the quality of the publications, or is what stands out is a huge list of publications?

This is going to be closed as too broad, opinion based, and based on individual preferences.  The best way to find a useful answer is to read the CVs of faculty who were recently hired at departments that you would like to work for.

Actually, your record is what it is. So a theoretical answer is of little use to you now, unless you have time to change things.
I'd recommend that you apply for positions that you find interesting, and make your application as positive as you can. There is, in most fields, an advantage in collaborative work, especially for a junior faculty member.
In general, people look for a variety of things that indicate a successful future. It isn't just a game of counting papers. Good papers are better than mediocre ones. Lead authorship is better than simple acknowledgement. More is better than less. But a well rounded picture is best.
But in your applications, aim for a wider rather than narrower range of reputation of the universities. You won't know until you put yourself into the mix. But show that you are still active and have ideas for future research. It isn't just the past that is important, but people's judgement about your future. Use letters of recommendation to push that idea.

This will depend on disciplines, but normally people want to see that you can yourself write, but also that you can collaborate, and that you know what it's like to write a strong paper / publish in the top venue. How many papers it takes to communicate this varies by discipline and person.  Note also that in some disciplines having a single male author anywhere on an author list, means that paper won't contribute to a woman's chances of getting tenure. I wouldn't be surprised if similar effects held for minorities' names vs whatever the locally dominant demographic was. https://scholar.harvard.edu/sarsons/publications/note-gender-differences-recognition-group-work

Actually, this follow up clarifies that article  https://scholar.harvard.edu/sarsons/publications/note-gender-differences-recognition-group-work


text:
Balancing Between Theory and Application in Early Career
This is something I have been thinking about for some time. What I study is pretty much on the edge between applied and pure math. Specifically, I am interested in stochastic dynamics including SPDEs. Thus I have been investing a lot of time into stochastic analysis, really enjoy the subject, and am looking into some new ideas in my "spare time". I say my spare time because right now I am really productive on the more applied side where I am looking at stochastic dynamics in developmental biology and numerical methods for stochastic systems (I have a few publications I will be able to push out before advancement).
There is some trade-off here. My adviser strongly thinks I should drop all other activities because I am already building a solid foundation in the applied math / systems biology direction, and going 100% in it would make me have a higher chance of being a top candidate in the field come graduation. However, I kind of think that incorporating more "theoretical" stochastic analysis into my studies/research will lead to stronger results further down the line, but in the short term will inevitably be a hindrance. If I am thrown in the same pool as other applied mathematicians (who tend to publish more than pure math) and judged in the same manner for productivity, it seems that the extra time it takes for pure math results would most likely be detrimental to my chances of getting a post-doc.
I assume I am not the only person in academia who has faced this kind of decision. Is this something to come back to as a post-doc, or tackle now? How did you handle it? How did your colleagues handle it? How did it turn out? Do you think you made the right decision?
I do want to emphasize that right now I am doing quite well, and I think that matters a lot in this decision. However, since I will have a good amount of publications pre-advancement (based off of my own ideas), have fellowships, and will have a masters in both math and bio: does it make sense to take the time to diversify my personal portfolio? [Currently I am thinking of doing like 75% applied 25% pure, trying to spend less time optimizing code and using the down time as theory time.]

(Sorry; though I'm a mathematician, I have no professional familiarity with stochastic anything.)
"Even in mathematics," most postdocs are given because a particular faculty member wants to work with you or is at least interested in hearing what you are working on.  Can you identify mathematicians who are working on both the pure and applied sides of SPDE?  For them, your aspirations at breadth will be viewed as a positive.  If there are no tenure track faculty members doing this, then trying to do this as a PhD student looks, from a purely strategic perspective, rather risky.
In my experience -- though, beware, my mathematics is as pure as the driven snow -- graduate school is too early to "show breadth" in an advantageous way.  Up until relatively recently, the most common number of pure papers a strong graduating pure math PhD student had was zero.  (This was my situation, and I graduated from a top-three department.) Instead they had a letter from their advisor talking about how important their thesis work was (going to be).  Things have changed a bit, but even now in pure math one great theorem is worth ten very good theorems.  My feeling is that, except for a targeted audience as above, the applied math faculty is going to judge you for the applied math you've done, and the pure math faculty is going to judge you for the pure math you've done.  These accomplishments will not be added together: rather, you need to be sufficiently impressive on either scale separately.  If you're doing 25% pure math, then unless you have an amazing project it will be hard to compete with those who are doing 100% pure math.
I have to say though that I have some misgivings in answering your question from a strategic viewpoint.  I would really like to say that PhD students in math should study what interests them the most, and not worry about "selling themselves" until later in their career.  Unfortunately in the current job market I think it is fair to warn you that you may be taking a hit for this -- but nevertheless it may well be what you want to do.  Doing what you want to do is a powerful, wonderful thing and should not be underestimated.
Finally, I wonder if you can escape the "all other things being equal" aspect of your question.  There really is not a "fixed amount of productivity" possessed by every math PhD student: on the contrary, I have observed an almost limitless fungibility there.  Maybe you could stay in your PhD program for an extra year.  You would think that only weaker students do this...but you'd be wrong -- I've observed a positive correlation between both age of a newly minted PhD student and total time in school with the quality of their work.  Maybe you could spend a semester or a year working with a faculty member who is more focused on the pure side of what you want to do: that could work out very positively.  Maybe you could just vow to yourself to do the same amount of applied math you were doing before, do pure math on top and watch less TV.  Or whatever.  It's your life, and who the heck am I to tell you not to chase your dreams?  Just chase them with your eyes open.  (Hmm...)
Good luck!

That's exactly what I needed to know. I guess a good way to go forward is to think of pure math / theory as fun, but is not likely to matter much in hiring decisions. I think learning the pure math parts, but only focus on applied papers/results unless something really clicks, at least until postdocs time. When I hit postdocs I will use the built-up knowledge to diversify. Thanks!

If you are able to publish in both pure and applied math and keep a leg in both worlds, I would say that can give you a very real advantage later when you are looking for a faculty position. E.g., you may be perceived as an applied guy since that's where 80% of your papers are, but the pure math people would much prefer hiring an applied guy that they can see themselves having fun talking to than one they can't, so if a department is hiring in applied math in a certain year, a candidate who can appeal to both groups can get more faculty to coalesce in support of them. I have seen specific cases where that kind of breadth has made a difference in hiring decisions.
With that said, obviously there is a trade-off and an opportunity cost, and the time you will be spending developing the theory side will be time when you might have written an additional paper supporting your "main" line of research. In my opinion, each math researcher needs to consider for themselves how much diversity is optimal for them. Personally, I'm someone who favors more breadth and diversity (in my case, not in the sense of doing both pure and applied work but doing work in several areas of pure math), and have been able to build a good career doing that. But it's not something I'd recommend to everyone to try to do.
Putting aside career concerns and the fact that there are only 24 hours in a day, in a utopian sense I think the best mathematicians (and the ones I personally respect the most) are the ones who have as broad of a background as possible, since such people are often able to draw surprising connections between unrelated areas that other, more narrow, people can't. Mathematics has a surprising unity to it, and it's often amazing how an idea in one area can inform developments in another seemingly completely unrelated area. But, as you yourself clearly recognize, it would be unwise to consider only such utopian, philosophical aspects of the question without considering the realities of the academic world and the limited time window one gets in which to launch one's math career. As Pete Clark said in his excellent answer - good luck!


text:
When do I tell my advisor that I'm leaving the PhD?
I am doing a funded PhD in humanities and don't really enjoy what I am doing (the topic and area). I applied for another PhD and got admitted. The problem is that I need to apply for visa and wait a few months to see if I'll be granted visa.
I don't want to leave my current position before I know I have the visa (don't want to lose everything and don't want to be forced to go back to my home country as I'm on student visa here).
The question is when and how should I tell my advisor that I'm leaving?

This is a personal issue that depends almost entirely on your relationship with them. For some the answer is "sure, and soon", and for others, "not a chance". You need to make the judgement yourself. But, don't burn bridges needlessly.

What do you want to achieve?

I've had this experience as a supervisor.  The first I head about it was the student emailing me from the new university.  This was not a nice way to be informed that I had wasted considerable time and effort on training and getting funding for them.  All they had to do was to tell me that they wanted to move and I would have been happy to write a reference etc. to help them.  Good supervisors supervise for the benefit of the student, not their own.  The purpose is to train a potential peer researcher.

I've had experience with similar issues and in my opinion, honesty is the best policy assuming that your advisor is a reasonable, non-vindictive person. If the issue is just the topic and the area, and not your advisor personally, then they probably want what's best for you and could actually help you out in working out the details (perhaps offering you an interim position so that you don't lose everything, or agreeing on you acting as a visiting scholar in your institution while your admission to the other place is finalized etc.). If your advisor is not on your side, then I would get out regardless, even risking going back to your home country. There's no point in suffering through a PhD you hate.

Assuming your current employer is reasonable and telling them that you're leaving before your alternate position is 100% secure is a classic workplace mistake.  Right up there with getting involved in a land war in Asia, and going up against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

As an advisor I would want to know if my students are facing such severe issues that they’re considering dropping out. I would try to help figure things out with them and if the best thing is for them to switch programs then that’s fine.

Absolutely, perhaps it's just a balance? OP has already gone through the steps of applying (perhaps even interviewing) to another program. I feel that it might backfire to express what might normally be understood as 'uncertainty' in the form of 'I've been accepted to another program' (not sure if that sentence makes sense). Completely agree though @Spark, ideally this individual would have started voicing concerns to the supervisor before even considering applying elsewhere.

Sure, communicating over difficulties makes sense.  But communicating acceptance to another program and intent to leave is not at all a good idea, until the other program is a sure thing.

TLDR IMO (and based on classic answers of the Workplace Stack Exchange): Never inform your current employer of your intent to leave until your new employment is 100% secure.
Adding to @Spark's excellent answer, I would make a few recommendations based on my conversations with other graduate students in similar situations.

Make sure that your place in the new program is absolutely secure before making any announcement or changes in your current employment. This is common advice on the WorkPlace Stack Exchange as there are innumerable stories of "offer received at new Employer B, informed current Employer A, Employer B now rescinded offer, what do?". This would include accepting the new admission, ensuring that your immigration documents are completed, etc (dot the i's and cross the t's). It would be to your immense disadvantage to make any proclamation at your current program only to no longer have the new opportunity.

Do everything possible to leave on a positive note. For example, in my department the assignment of teaching assistants is often planned one year in advance. It is very important for departmental scheduling to know how many eligible graduate students are available in the coming semester(s). If you have any departmental commitments (or research commitments) that you will be leaving, I would recommend creating a plan as to how you will leave these commitments on a positive note. This may be difficult/impossible if your announcement will be sudden. However, at the very least, make sure you inform all relevant commitment managers and not just your supervisor (if applicable).

@Spark's answer. Honesty and speed are the best possible answers once you have sorted 1 and 2. You should both inform the new university that you intend to come as soon as possible and complete all necessary paperwork steps. Once all of that is sorted, inform your advisor and department as soon as possible afterwards.

This is more for your personal reflection, but see the related questions on this site around other people who have changed PhD programs:

What are the ways to transfer from my current PhD program to another one?
Hiring a PhD student who left another PhD position
Changing University in First year of Phd
Changing PhD programs: should I submit a recommendation letter from my old advisor if it's not purely positive?
And many more (all questions related to the search "changing phd programs")

The reason I say this is because it is very normal to question the 'fit' of a PhD program. You likely have entirely valid reasons for wanting to change, and lots of successful people change PhD programs. However, you do not want to find yourself in the same situation two years into the new program. Many people who complete a PhD change their topic of study as a career matures. Ask yourself: is there anything I can do to avoid ending up in this situation in my new program? The PhD is not the be-all-end-all of research. It is but one step in the career.
Hope that helps!


text:
Found an error in one of the questions that appeared on screen for my dissertation study. Could this be an issue for my dissertation defense?
Fourth year student in Experimental Psychology who recently completed the minimum number of participants needed for data collection (although my advisor wants me to get more). I'm posting here since I recently found an error where I thought an answer had three responses (rather than the usual four responses compared to other questions. However, it turns out there were four answers all along). After I programmed it in E-Prime (software), I noticed that the three answers will show but the fourth slot (which I programmed as a blank) will duplicate one of the other answers.
My advisor told me this wouldn't be an issue for defending my dissertation at all after I brought it up to him. However, I'm concerned about my committee potentially holding me up some more based on me noticing this error recently and possibly collecting more data if they think I need to run a second study at all.
I'm worried about this primarily because my university just announced they're cutting their Clinical Psychology Ph.D program and one of my externals is a clinical faculty member.
Edit: I've realized after posting this that it may be too individualized for this website.

You are far far overthinking this. A minor error in a question does not threaten your dissertation.

The advisor is most likely giving the best advice. They have the necessary judgement to know how it will work out.
But it sounds to me more like an issue with software than anything. Questions with three rather than four answers can certainly be valid, but the software may not deal with that correctly. It might affect your results unless you are careful with the analysis but that can be handled.
Trust your advisor. If necessary they will advocate for you if questions arise.

I edited my answer a bit but the original question had four answers. I mistakingly thought there were three the whole time. The duplication glitch was unexpected regardless but I definitely made an error regardless.


text:
What could happen if my university loses its R2 status?
This post is a bit of a follow up to my prior post on the Clinical Psychology Ph.D program losing funding and (eventually) getting cut sometime in the future. From what I'm reading about public or private jobs, status as an R1 or R2 actually matters. If my university loses the R2 status (and goes down to R3), how could this affect my employment options? I'm posting about this now since my department (Psychology) was cited as the reason my university became an R2 institution in the first place due to its wide array of programs (Experimental, Clinical, I/O, and School respectively) that are slowly going to be hit.
My Master's in Experimental Psychology was sadly from a university that was not an R2 at all and fell into the "Master's programs" (R4?) despite it being a well known university in North Carolina with a good reputation and getting 80% of those who were interested in Ph.Ds their foot in the door of Ph.D programs in the first place (hence why I went there). Sadly, I can't expect to do much with it there if I left now. I also didn't learn until after the fact that many of my former advisor's graduates who did not go on or did not finish at all used their degrees. What happened to 3/5 (me included): Yoga instructor (adjunct in PSY for a bit too), broker, and pharmacy technician (who was recently hired as a full-time lecturer since my former MA program saw she didn't use her degree at all). I went on and the other one went on at an R1 and was a senior level UX designer.
What options do I have if my university is no longer an R2? My options weren't good in the first place but now it's even worse.

The difference between R2 and R3 status is about the amount of federally funded research rather than the number of PhD graduates per year.  If your institution were to drop below the cutoff of 20 PhD's awarded per year, then it could be demoted to the Master's University classification.

@BrianBorchers I learned that recently after speaking to someone who's a chair at an R1 and dug up stats on my university for me. From what he told me, it's never going to be in danger of even going to Master's since the combination of STEM programs (by themselves) will hit that 20 Ph.D mark.

Probably nothing happens. Note that in the Carnegie ranking system, the R1, R2, etc. rankings are about scale, not quality. R1 universities put the most resources into research, R2 somewhat less, etc.
See:https://www.tuitionrewards.com/newsroom/articles/489/understanding-the-r1-r2-r3-research-classification-at-universities-an-in-depth-analysis, for example, which makes this explicit.
Your degree won't be degraded by a change. It is what it is. If the university spends less on research it doesn't mean that the research that goes on there is bad, just that it is probably harder to do.

That link is super useful. Thank you!

Generally speaking, it is reputation that matters, and status as an R2 is a proxy for that.
In the United States, decisions about classification are made by an organization called the American Council on Education, which in my opinion is not especially well known. If they change their mind about how to classify your university, then in the short term it is doubtful that many people outside the university will notice or care.

Yup. Unless your career goal is an academic position at a large, research-heavy institution, the R1, R2, R3, etc status will have little effect on you.

Given this and your previous questions, you seem to be very worried about the changing status of your university. The extent of your worries seem at least unproductive. All the time you wasted asking questions about things you cannot change could instead have been used to write a better thesis. It is too late to change university, so it's status is what it is. Focus on the future, not on choices you made in the past.


text:
Why are non-funded Master's degrees and their recipients frowned upon even though this is true for the majority of them?
I'm a fourth year Ph.D student who (fingers crossed) is slated to graduate this summer with their Ph.D in Experimental Psychology. Prior to this program, I did my Master's in Experimental Psychology at an institution that Carnegie Classifications lists as an M1. My Master's was accepted in full for this Ph.D program.
There is something I've wondered though. Why are non funded MA/MS degrees frowned upon? Same also goes those who received them too.
I ask this since, although I got a Research Assistantship for 10 hours both years I was in my Master's program, tuition wasn't waived at all (although I got a stipend to live). The program overall (I got in-state tuition my second year) set me back (roughly) $25k total and have $52k in student loan debt (including interest). I am kicking myself for it a bit since I passed on a fully funded offer for a general Psychology degree that was this (admittedly weird) mix of clinical and experimental courses (the Psychology department at this school in Louisiana had a separate Experimental and Clinical program at one point, but it merged. I'm guessing this was due to budget restrictions perhaps?). 90% of students for that fully funded program who were interested in Ph.D programs got offers of admission to Ph.D programs (that data was published years after I finished my Master's), whereas that number was 80% for the program I chose (in addition to actually being specialized).
I feel stupid for my decision in a lot of ways, but I do admit that program was the only one that let me do a thesis on what I wanted to do (neurodivergent traits) and didn't let me compromise or "meet halfway" on what I wanted to do research wise for a Ph.D program (and this helped me get admitted to where I am doing my Ph.D now). I would change things if I could go back in time, but it got me to where I needed to be at the same time. So, why is this still frowned upon? I've also seen some folks take it a step further and frown upon folks who are just unfunded entirely in general, which I find kind of unfair. Another example is that the students in the standalone MS program (also Experimental Psychology) where I am doing my Ph.D are totally unfunded in this case. Definitely curious why this is the case for sure.

Who frowns on them other than those who need to pay?

What country are we talking about?

@MaartenBuis US in this case.

I don't think anyone seriously frowns upon non-funded master's degrees - at least in general/in the real world. Many master's degrees are not funded. In fact, I would say that in most fields, funded master's are the exception. On top of that, no one will ever ask if you paid for your degree. But you can always count on students to fixate and form judgements on weird and arbitrary things. Most people outgrow that eventually.
That being said, obviously you are encountering this opinion. As for why, I can only speculate. My best guess is that funded programs (at any level) are generally more competitive and perhaps there is an idea that an unfunded master's program will take "anyone with a pulse and a checkbook". I've seen this before, and it can leave a bad taste in the mouth of funded/PhD students and professors who might have to deal with less than stellar unfunded students. This same thinking can occur at the department level - universities are ultimately businesses and students = tuition dollars. So departments might, against their will, be forced to offer more, larger classes and advise more students. And, like I already said, there is an argument that unfunded master's programs may be less selective (keep in mind that this is incredibly institution dependant) and so admit weaker/less motivated students who might be a hassle to deal with.
It could also be tied to the (again possibly imaginary) stigma against unfunded PhDs. Often paying goes hand-in-hand with questionable online degrees. This is still an unfair generalization though. There are plenty of doctoral level degrees that are not traditionally funded yet are high quality and otherwise legit.
Then there is the age-old elitism common in academia. Some people will find any small factor to put others down - not getting a funded position is low hanging fruit for those inclined to turn their nose up at others. Plus, I'm sure we've all encountered that one professor who hates teaching undergrad classes because it is "beneath" him/her. We could conceivably extend that attitude to unfunded master's students as well.
I want to be clear that the reasons I gave are not really "legit" or all that justifiable. I'm just offering possibilities based on what I have personally experienced. I would not worry about it.
And really, if you are happy with where you are, then why spend time worrying about what others might think? I sounds like you had good reasons to choose the program you did. Funded or not, it seems to have worked out for you.


text:
Author affiliation for co-authors not currently affiliated with an academic institute
Similar questions have been asked here a number of times. I am raising it again to stress some specific issues that the previous threads have not resolved in my opinion.
The question is simply, what should the stated affiliation of a co-author who is employed in the industry be, considering that research was undertaken as an unpaid side-project in a field unrelated to that of their place of employment at the time (i.e. no conflict of interests).
Possible solutions are:

No affiliation.

I am concerned that this will stand out, given that all other authors have affiliations.

Previous academic affiliation.

Some users (in previous answers) seem to think that adding a previous academic institute as the affiliation for such an author is ethically wrong.
Moreover, I am concerned about crediting an institute that did not support the work, when this co-author's contribution was not supported by any institute.

Affiliation of otherwise unknown non-profit research organisation, specifically created for the purpose of providing an affiliation.

This would be ideal, as there is no misattribution or blank affiliation field; however, I am concerned that this will also look anomalous in the list of affiliations.

"Independent Researcher" is all you need for most purposes.

Independent Researcher is the same as the first option, so it has the same issue. I realise that it may be the solution but wanted to see how viable the other options are first.

I had a similiar issue. I would say list the author with the old affiliation if the paper was submitted before the employment change. After the change should probably be listed as independent researcher.

It depends on your co-authors' personal preferences.
1.) Industry affiliation: They could ask their employers in industry whether they may name the company as their affiliation. They are, after all, employed there, and it is likely that the employment at least partly facilitated the research. I see two additional benefits to this option: (1) The employer may be happy to see their company's name in a scientifc publication, which may increase their reputation; this would indirectly benefit your co-authors' position within the company. (2) Prominent world university rankings give bonus points to "university-industry collaborations", which is generally deemed to be highly valuable for fostering innovation (e.g. see this document from the Times Higher Education, some further evidence here, or this OECD report).
2.) No affiliation: Thousands of scholars have published under the affiliation "Independent Researcher" or "Independent Scholar" in the past years (see the evidence here); I deem this to be an honest approach, but it seems to be your least preferred option.
3.) An existing research institute: Your co-authors could ask nearby research institutes whether they would "lend" their affiliation to them. I do know of colleagues who have done so. From my observation, the benefit of this approach is that your co-authors can gain a bit of a foothold into academia through informal networking; for the publication benefits the research institute, and one cannot rule out that the institute will grant something in exchange (such as guest lectures).
I do not see any benefits in creating a new organization simply for the purpose of providing an affiliation. Unless you want to repeatedly collaborate together; then it may make sense to establish a 'name' and credible reputation for your newly established organization because this might enhance your chance to obtain research fundings and grants independently of other affiliations in the future. But this does not seem to be your plan.

Your #3 feels dishonest to me.

There is nothing neccessarily dishonest about #3.  Mrs Marsupial has an honorary appointment at my institution which has benefited from her collaboration with me on a variety of research projects (for free).  If the collaborator has direct industrial experience, then this sort of research link is a good way of helping to make academic research relevant to society.  It depends on the field of research, but I'd say that was a good thing both for industry and academia.

Listing a former affiliation as if it is current is not right. Listing an employer as an affiliation may run afoul of their rules. Permission may be required. And if they didn't support the research it is good for disambiguation purposes but no other.
Listing yourself as an Independent Researcher is correct in almost all cases, though your employer should probably be consulted as there may be contract obligations.
No affiliation is fine if the journal (or whatever) permits it, but for people with common names is less than ideal. But don't worry that it stands out. People rarely care much about it unless they want to contact you.
If you have an established personal "business" perhaps for tax purposes to manage income from publishing books and such, as I do, then you could list that. It is accurate and honest. But it might need to be public enough to enable people to use it to find you. And, creating a bespoke organization for this purpose, especially as a one-off, doesn't really help for any of the usual purposes.
But affiliation in general is used for several things. The most important is probably to indicate support from an organization, though disambiguation of names is also quite important. And a previous affiliation treated as if it were current could be interpreted as dishonest. And if someone tries to contact you through a previous affiliation and is told that you are in no way affiliated with them then you could suffer a bit.
However, specifying "Formerly a student at Universal University of the Universe" is fine, since you are clear about the intent.

And a warning. Some employers require you to get permission to publish most everything. Some will forbid publication if it affects their core business in any way. Know what is in your contract.

I agree that a good part of the problem is prejudice that people have with the term "independent researcher", but unfortunately that is the name of the game (in my field at least). I am going with this option but already got some raised eyebrows from other co-authors. I will definitely also check that this co-author has no contractual issues. I'm not sure if it makes it simpler that they were not employed at the present company when the work was conducted?

There are some examples where the author(s) do not belong to an affiliation. Such a paper is entitled The RNA World at Thirty: A Look Back with its Author. In this paper, the author simply omits the affiliation and just states her email.

There are many different ways of writing "independent researcher", see e.g. this answer (or another answer to the present question). Judging from the linked papers, and also having seen this occasionally, I would say that this is not uncommon. Therefore, I doubt it will stand out in any way.
#2 is most likely not ok (as discussed by others), and #3 seems like an effort to hide something ("research institute" that nobody has ever heard of? sounds fishy). Just go with #1.


text:
Is the the peer-review process different for special issues?
When I submitted my manuscript for a special issue of IEEE journal 3 months ago, the status of my article was:

[Administrator]:  [name of publication manager]
Under review

Yesterday it changed to:

[Administrator]:  [name of publication manager]
Awaiting Recommendation

I am afraid that my article may be desk-rejected because

[Administrator]:  [name of publication manager]

hasn't changed to

[Administrator]:  [name of associate editor or editor-in-chief]

Question: Is there any difference in the peer-review process of general submission and submission to a special issue?

What does ADM stand for?

What do AE and EiC stand for?

@henning AE = associate editor, EiC = editor-in-chief.

@Allure ADM=Admin

What about "publication manager" - is that a staff member of IEEE?

@Allure yes admin is same as publication manager or assistant publication manager

Yes, there's a difference in the peer-review process for general submissions and special issue submissions. That's because very often, the special issue involves a guest editor who's not otherwise a member of the editorial board.
In your case I suspect the journal administrator is acting on behalf of the guest editor. That is, the journal did not register an account for the guest editor. The guest editor is still making the decisions, but the journal administrator is inputting those for the guest editor, which is why it appears as though the journal administrator is "awaiting recommendation".
It's unlikely your paper's being desk-rejected. It's been three months. If you do indeed get a desk rejection, that's a black mark against the journal.

Write to a relevant editor and ask for clarifications. Probably there is an editor that is managing the special issue that you can contact - that would be my first choice. Otherwise write to the topic editor and as last resort to the main journal editor. You find their names and emails in the journal website usually.
And to reply to the question: no there is no real difference in the peer-review process between normal and special issues.


text:
Should I ask a highly involved PhD committee member to be a co-advisor?
I just started my second year of grad school (this spring) in a quantitative field. I have already chosen an advisor.
My advisor is a full professor and extremely busy, but has a ton of resources. I knew this going in, and I chose their lab for a variety of reasons (I have no regrets). One of my committee members is an assistant professor, and they meet with me for an hour every week to help me with projects. I've even started various additional projects with this committee member.
Question:  Should I ask the committee member to be an official co-advisor?
I feel bad that the committee member is essentially putting in more time than my official advisor, but not getting much "credit" for it. I know assistant professors need to mentor a certain number of grad students to get tenure, and I want all the time this assistant professor spends mentoring me to actually "count" towards their own career goals.
However, I don't want to make my official advisor upset, or insult them, by asking for this other person to be a co-advisor. (Note: the reason I didn't just ask both of them to be co-advisors at the very beginning of grad school is that the committee member was working within my main advisor's lab, and wasn't even an assistant professor yet.)

No you should not ask them to be a co-adviser. You personally have nothing to gain but do have something to lose (upsetting your current adviser or other unforeseen issues which I can already think a quite a few more).
Every university/department handles these things differently (advisers, committee membership, tenure, etc...). I would venture that as a second year you probably don't have enough experience to know what is or isn't appropriate for your situation. But, your committee member does (or should). Thus I would say that the responsibility falls on him to initiate this if his work does indeed warrant the title, co-adviser.
If your committee member decides that they would like the "credit" of being a co-adviser and asks that you do this, then you can approach your current adviser as a neutral party and mention to him/her that you have been working closely with "Dr. Committee Member" and he has request that he be considered a co-adviser.
On a more personal note...I had a surprisingly similar situation during my Ph.D. I joined a well-known, well-funded lab, with a high profile adviser who was very busy. So I largely worked with a less senior individual who was an aspiring advisor/PI. How it resolved itself was in my 2nd year, they both decided between themselves that he should be appointed as my co-adviser. They then both approached me with their decision and asked if I would be ok with it. Naturally I said yes, everyone was happy, and it was a complete non-issue.

The question may be 'should I change advisors' rather than 'should I have a co-advisor'. Whether the original adviser takes offense or not, 'distribution of effort' may apply. With a second adviser on board, the PI you wanted more attention from will have less incentive to do so, moreso if he/she takes offense.
Look for examples within your department. If it's common, maybe go ahead. If not, consider the potential consequences carefully. If doesn't sound like anything will be lost by simply continuing to have conversations with that individual.