text:
Why do research faculty pursue administrative positions, such as dean, provost, president, etc. ? Do such positions spell the end of one's research?
At a recent seminar talk, I was amazed to note that one of the two coauthors (not the presenter) was the president of a large and well-known university, since I had always assumed that taking on such a position would necessarily mean the end of a research career.

Are there m/any examples of people that continue to do substantial amounts of research when in a senior administrative position, such as dean, provost, president, etc.?
Do research faculty often become deans, presidents, etc.? Why do faculty usually do this? (I understand that there might be a pay increase, but does it usually indicate that they no longer want to do research as intensely?)

It seems silly, but I think some people are attracted to the prestige of these jobs.

Where I sit, we have a faculty member as Director, and a manager that does the actual administrative work.

Running administrative errands is big part of any senior researcher. People who figure out how to do effectively, can handle bigger roles, too. People who cannot, generally not successful in any field that requires bigger budgets/labs, even if they are good at the science part.

I have a former undergrad colleague of mine that has gone on to do outreach and promotion of science after his PhD. He gets to meet with important people, such as government heads and ministers (or secretaries of State, I think they're called in the US). I always say that one idea he manages to get into a politician's head does more for science than all my papers combined.

Money, power, the usual.  Ironically most of my mentors in grad school ended up rather quickly accending to lofty heights, both are vice presidents at a very prestigious U.  Both were more interested in that type of work than actual research, and with research funding being so tight, it makes sense.

Do research faculty often become deans, presidents, etc.? — As opposed to whom?  I'd be surprised if less than 95% of deans, provosts, chancellors, presidents, etc. were previously tenured faculty.

I am surprised no one mentioned salaries... Some of these will get very high salaries

In these positions, one gets to influence the direction of the whole university, rather than the direction of the research of 1 to n individuals. At such magnitude, one can effect more change.
Often people get disgruntled with the way things are run at the level they are currently working. The only way to fix things is to move to more managerial positions. Don't like the way the Masters program is run? Become Coordinator of the Masters Programme. Don't like the way the faculty is being run? Become Dean.

Then you get there and discover your hands are tied in various ways. :)

@JimConant: And not in a good way.

In answer to the first half of your titular question, "Why do research faculty pursue administrative positions, such as dean, provost, president, etc. ?"
This was the subject of a study several decades ago:

Robert A Snyder, Ann Howard, Tove Helland Hammer, Mid-career change in academia: The decision to become an administrator, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Volume 13, Issue 2, October 1978, Pages 229-241, ISSN 0001-8791, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(78)90048-9.

To quote this study on the main reason professors chose to switch or not to switch to an administrative track:

A predominant finding in this study was that the attraction of an administrative career for a professor was most attributable to its promise of increased power and authority. In contrast, the professorial career had greater appeal because of its relative autonomy and freedom from organizational demands.

Please read the paper for methodology, limitations, etc.

I can imagine that one reason a researcher might want to take on an administrative role is it allows them to become more of an advocate for scholarly research.  Instead of doing research themselves, they can empower other researchers by ensuring adequate funding, facilities, equipment, and resources are available to perform research.
Can they convince governments/donors to continue giving funds to the institution in the face of budget cuts?  I think these sorts of considerations would be something a researcher would have an interest in the outcome of.
Whether or not academics make for good administrators is another issue, and would depend on one's individual background.

Any professor with a large research group has effectively made the transition to administration already.  The realities of managing more than a few people working for you on research projects means that a large chunk of one's time is already consumed by writing reports, pursuing funding, managing personnel, etc.  The actual amount of time hands-on with research vs. directing and enabling research to be carried out by others typically rapidly decreases as the size of the group rises.  From this perspective, the transition to higher-level administrative positions like center or department head, and from there to wider-scope positions like dean or provost may not be as large as it appears.

Related (in a way): Why do academics write peer reviews? At some point in a researcher's career, it comes down to giving back to the community, and part of what the community requires is not only exciting new research, but also the day-to-day administrativia. Bluntly said: someone needs to wash the dishes.
And while there may be non-academic managerial people (chancellors etc.) to do the day-to-day administration, it should really be academics that set policy for an academic environment. So I'd argue that many academics that move into an administrative position do so out of a sense of duty to academia as a whole.
(Of course, there are also the power-hungry types, or those who like the way an administrative position gets them into the limelight and the press more often.)
Finally, at least in Germany, it is common for professors who take on administrative responsibilities to have their teaching load reduced, so the bite doesn't fully come out of research, but at least to a degree out of teaching. Usually, you will make sure to get relieved of giving the less interesting introductory lectures but keep the more advanced ones, so your pipeline of potential grad and Ph.D. students doesn't dry up.

Giving back to the community: Exactly, and I suppose that is also why those positions are sometimes "passed around". At some universities, every few years, another professor gets to be dean of their respective general field of research at their university; it's their turn at "giving back to the community" and the effort is somewhat evenly spread among the (more experienced) professors across longer amounts of time.

It's also the case that you can get positions without "pursuing" them - at least in my institution, most such positions are mandated to be re-elected at fixed times from the relevant faculty; everyone knows everyone else, and even if noone is actively pursuing the position, one way or another it must end with one of them being elected to that job. So you get some horse-trading regarding other duties (e.g. teaching) and someone gets given the title.

Some do, some don't. Naturally, administration is different kind of work from that of the scholar. There are only so many hours in the day. But administrators have to come from somewhere, don't they?


text:
Should the Advisors and PIs always be a coauthor?
I am collaborating with another person on a paper and I was wondering if we are suppose to write our advisor's name in our papers merely because they funded us and looked over the paper?

An even more direct duplicate of When should a supervisor be an author?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How does one define a non-biased, citation-worthy study?
On Skeptics Stack Exchange I recently asked a question where I specifically asked for a study backed by a university, and someone edited it, changing it to the phrase "peer reviewed study." If I say "peer reviewed study" does that describe a study that is accurate, reliable, unbiased, etc? Is there any better description for the type of study I'm looking for?

Incidentally, one objection to "a study backed by a university" is that it's not an accurate description of how universities work.  Universities don't back or endorse studies, even if those studies were carried out by their employees.  (In fact, sometimes different faculty members at the same university publish conflicting studies.)  News reports often give the wrong impression about this, by saying "a Harvard University study" as if Harvard were the primary actor here, but in fact the researchers are responsible for the study, while Harvard as an organization has no official opinion about it.

...and depending on the precise field, a substantial amount of research may be done by non-university institutions

To quickly illuminate that last comment - in yesterday's Nature, 530(7590), there are 16 research articles. One has an entirely non-university author list (all are at MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology). Eight others have one or more non-university coauthors, who come from places ranging from research institutes to observatories, including at least two private companies. It's a diverse world of research out there!

One could even argue that papers whose authors are in a research lab have a slightly higher probability of being accurate than those from a university, since it is less likely that a crucial part of the work has been conducted by a hasty student that is in a hurry to finish his/her thesis.

@FedericoPoloni: my non-university institute has lots of students that are in much hurry to finish their thesis before money stops...

This is related: How much trust are you supposed to give a peer-reviewed article? (Sorry for the self-promotion.)

Determining whether a study is accurate, reliable, unbiased, etc. can actually be quite difficult, particularly for tricky and difficult to measure phenomena.  This is what scientists argue about amongst themselves, and the consensus that emerges is best interpreted as the current best understanding of a subject.
Peer-reviewed publications are a good starting point, because the peer-review process strives to ensure that they are in fact accurate, reliable, unbiased, etc.  The publications are written and reviewed by humans, however, who are not very good at those things, and as such some bad articles get published and some good ones don't.  Likewise, there are many different levels of quality in peer-reviewed journals.  Still, for all its flaws, peer review is a lot better than not-peer-reviewed at filtering out things are are inaccurate, unreliable, badly biased, etc, and thus "peer-reviewed publication" is typically a good heuristic for "probably worth considering as a reasonable source of information."
That is not, however, the end of the story on whether an article is a good source of information.  A good next step is to see what other scientists say who reference the article in their own publications.  One article does not an established fact make; many in agreement do.

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


text:
How should I cite a publication where the author(s) are anonymous (but the organization is not)?
I'd like to cite the following articles from "Scientific Data" (a journal from the Nature Publishing Group), but no authors are mentioned (as far as I can tell):

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2015.4
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2014.10

However, it's likely that it was written by one (or more) of Nature's editors.  If, for example, I am using the BibTeX formatting system, how should I describe the author of the article?  For example:
1. author={Nature}
2. author={Nature Publishing Group}
3. author={anonymous}
4. author={}

Or should I leave it blank (option 4)?

It probably depends on the citation style you have to use.
The Modern Language Association style (MLA) states

An Editorial & Letter to the Editor
Cite as you would any article in a periodical, but include the designators "Editorial" or "Letter" to identify the type of work it is.
"Of Mines and Men." Editorial. Wall Street Journal east. ed. 24 Oct. 2003: A14. Print.

But the American Psychological Association style (APA) just substitutes the title for the author. See APA blog.

“No Author”: For Sure
In some cases, there truly is no way to pin down who the author is. We treat this as “no author.” In reference citations, we handle this by moving the content’s title into the author position (with no quotation marks around it). This most commonly occurs for wiki entries, dictionary entries, and unattributed website content. In the in-text citation, the title (put inside double quotation marks) likewise takes the place of the author’s name.

Given that they are editorials, I personally would actually choose a fifth option, and cite the author as "Editorial," thereby giving maximum clarity about the nature of the article.
Nature apparently disagrees with me, however, as in the first of your linked articles, the first citation is to another such editorial, as:

Code share. Nature 514, 536–536 (2014).

The standard way for citing these is to use the organization's name as the author. You have to be careful and include it in one of the following ways:
author = {{Nature Publishing Group}}
organization = {Nature Publishing Group}

The reason for double braces in author field is that without them, you can get N.P. Group or Group, N.P. in your article, which are both wrong. Also note that not all BibTeX styles and not all reference types support organization.


text:
Questions about research assistant posts
Warning: The following are stupid questions. (Read in Kiefer Sutherland's voice)
Question 1 Is it weird or stupid to apply for a research assistant post at some university or research institute, and not a company in industry, with the purpose to gain research experience to boost profile for graduate studies, and why/why not?

I think it could be weird or stupid for the same reason why you shouldn't mention potential graduate study plans during job interviews.
Then again, my understanding of research assistant posts is that they wouldn't be for long term employment as is the case in industry, say, "research" analyst jobs in industry. Rather research assistant posts are usually on temporary contract. So, yeah, I am just doing this with the intention to apply for a PhD because I'm apparently not yet good enough to get into a PhD program.
Based on what I've read online, this is the baby version of a postdoc, so postdoc is to faculty applications as research assistant is to PhD applications.

Question 2 Who are the usual applicants of research assistant posts?

I can't think of any applicants for research assistant posts besides people exactly in my situation: wants to go to grad school, is waiting in some process of grad school applications (for the application period to start, for the results of application to come out or, for those already accepted, for the semester to start) or wants to boost profile for grad school. Please enlighten for other cases.

Question 3 What's the difference between a research assistant post and an internship in industry?

I think I recall seeing some research assistant posts that pay as much as a full time job in industry, so I'm guessing research assistant posts are not necessarily simply academic versions of internships in industry. I think things like this are academic versions of internships in industry. But my understanding is that they are both short-term. I guess a research assistant post would be analogous to a temporary contract job in industry.

Question 4 To confirm, if research assistant posts are indeed on temporary contract or short-term, is there indeed a risk for someone to quit their regular full time industry job hoping that a research assistant post will boost their grad school application profile?
Background:

Since I graduated master's in 2015-6, I started work as a maths teacher at a branch of a company that is something like Kumon. I guess I haven't done research there.
I'm waiting for results for PhD/MPhil applications for 2018-9. I already got rejected for one (well technically I'm not on the list of applicants who got initially offered admission, so I guess I could still be accepted if others on the list back out), and I think I'll be rejected for others.
ETA: Not sure if this counts but I actually got accepted for an interview a few days after the deadline (early December 2017) for one university but the PhD position given to me by the professor said something like "experienced in XX" which I don't have. I'm still waiting to hear back from the university.
For 2019-20 applications, I am thinking to boost my profile by, among others, working as a research assistant, either full time or part time. In the former case, I'll have to quit my job. In the latter case, I think I can downgrade to part time.

The following are related questions:
How can I improve my research experience for PhD application?
How to boost academic profile for Master's application
How to gain research experience after master program?
If I cannot get sufficient recommendation letters, what can I do?

Note that, in the US, most research assistants are current PhD students and the way you usually get a research assistant job is by becoming a PhD student.

@Thomas #1 research assistant posts where I live are advertised online and in newspapers. if it's only phd students, they could email universities or just post on website i think. #2 the posts happen to not require applicants to be phd students #3 for the us or anywhere else, aren't most of the phd students already busy with their own research assistantship which pays for their tuition? Thank you anyway for your comment.

Make sure you wouldn't be doing grunt work; the ideal would be to be a co-author but this seems unlikely.  Find out as much as you can about the project and the supervisor.  Talk to other people at your level in the hierarchy who work there or used to work there.  Bottom line, are you interested in the research question, and would you be making a meaningful contribution?  In other words, don't take it just to add sheen to your CV.  (My personal opinion.)

@aparente001 I don't really expect to be co-author. Anyway, thank you. I will of course not say that I am doing it just for CV. All posts seem to be interesting anyway. But no one wants to be a research assistant for the rest of their life: research assistant posts are inherently stepping stones to grad school right, i.e. the opposite of the case here ? In said case you don't mention your grad school plans, but for research assistant posts, you.........should mention?

@JackBauer - I wouldn't necessarily mention it during the hiring process.  First you have to listen and pick up on subtleties and research the supervisor and group before you decide that.  // Not all research assistant positions are stepping stones to grad school. // Watch out, sometimes a job is posted to satisfy institutional requirements even though there is someone all set to step into the job. // Also I must emphasize: are you interested in the research question, and would you be making a meaningful contribution?

Was about to comment this but aparente beat me to it, want to make sure it's emphasized though: "Watch out, sometimes a job is posted to satisfy institutional requirements even though there is someone all set to step into the job" - job postings especially in academia can be quite unreliable. Don't think you are getting a good picture of the actual job opportunities available from these sources.

@JackBauer - I reread your question more carefully.  I'm glad to see that you are thinking ahead to develop a contingency plan in case you don't get any acceptance letters this time around.  Watch out, you may be getting discouraged prematurely, after one rejection letter. // I'm concerned your idea of quitting your current job on a long shot, although I appreciate the thought process that produced this idea. // Let's back up a step.  If we assume for the moment that your remaining applications come up empty, then the underlying question, that you've been starting to think about already, is...

...  "How can I strengthen myself as an admissions candidate?"  Now that, if it hasn't been asked yet, might be a good question for this site.  (You might want to get some guidance on how to ask that, on Meta first.) // Do you have a local mentor who could look over the applications you've submitted so far, to identify any specific weaknesses you may have? // I'll suppose for the moment that a weakness you've already identified is a lack of research experience.  Well, it is possible to get involved with research, without pay, while still holding onto your "day job."  The nice thing about ...

... this approach is that you are freer to pick and choose the project and the person you work with.  Also, you're not limited to working with someone local.  If you are interested in looking for a project, as an unpaid intern, if you will, then in my opinion the first thing to do is read a lot of papers to find an area of inquiry, and a person, that you find intriguing.  Actually, try to identify several, since the first person you contact might not respond favorably and might not respond at all.  Is there anything about your current set of students that you would like to understand better...

.. or use as guinea pigs to try a particular teaching technique or intervention with?  Look through the literature, this can help you get ideas.

@aparente001 Thank you so much! What do you mean by "Is there anything about your current set of students that you "would like to understand better or use as guinea pigs to try a particular teaching technique or intervention with?" Currently, my intention is to apply to PhD programs in pure mathematics, not mathematics education.

@JackBauer I would guess there are more hired RA positions in the psychology/education/math education world than there are in pure math... but I am not a mathematician and can only imagine such a hired math RA-ship for a programming-heavy research question or applied math project. I hope that you get additional answers from those in the math world! (It may help to specify that you're interested in such an RAship in math, not math ed, since you mention both.)

@cactus_pardner I'm looking for any RA position: maths ed, applied maths, pure maths, stats, bio, psych, chem, underwater basket weaving. Hang on, is that important actually? If I were asked my plans for graduate school, it might not be a good idea to disclose I want to go into a field that's not what the RA post is all about? I mean, I'm obviously not applying to posts that say "Strong Java coder" or "Experience in molecular biology required"

@JackBauer Different disciplines have very different research methods, and method-specific experience is going to be what's most helpful on an application. Certain kinds of psych studies will have similar methods to math ed; math ed research is not likely to use similar methods as pure math. In STEM fields, there are sometimes Research Experience for Undergrads (REU) programs; you may want to look up the content of a math REU to see the kinds of research experience designed to better prepare students for a PhD

Q1: Is it weird or stupid to apply for a research assistant post at some university or research institute, and not a company in industry, with the purpose to gain research experience to boost profile for graduate studies, and why/why not?

Not at all. In my field (biology), this is quite common, the only reason not to do it is that you think you can get admitted without it and are trying to save time. However usually the experience is also very valuable in learning what research is like and whether you even want to do it, or whether you like the field. In other STEM disciplines it also seems to be very common. I've heard of it happening in social sciences (psychology, sociology, history) as well, but I'm not sure how things are exactly there. Usually it's up to the PI if they want an assistant or not. There is a lot of variation there. Some PIs love it, some have zero interest. But there's no easy way to tell, and asking rarely hurts.
You should absolutely mention future grad school plans, firstly because many PIs strongly prefer people who are planning to go to grad school (they're seen as more motivated, there is less commitment as opposed to an indefinite employment contract, and hiring assistants in this way is seen as part of a professor's responsibility to future generations). I am not sure if the same can be said for people who seek similar posts in industry - most of my personal acquaintances have worked in university or national institute labs, not in companies. However, honestly it would be naive in this day and age for a company to expect 22 year old BS grads taking a lab tech position and be fully committed "lifers" - and if they really want you to not run off to grad school after a year, they should put it in the contract.
I'd say it's very different from a baby version of a postdoc. Postdocs are often expected to independently come up with hypotheses, design experiments, locate and order equipment/materials as needed, write grants and submit manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals. Rarely they may also teach and mentor others. As an assistant you will most likely be part of a postdoc's project - duties may range from mechanically doing some simple technique over and over (like running gels or feeding mice) to semi-independently doing a small part of the postdoc's project under constant supervision (but ideally you would always be expected to demonstrate good understanding of the science in discussions, even if you are doing pretty monotonous experiments). You may be expected to help write small parts of the paper, such as methods sections for experiments you did. Should you end up with a PI who encourages independence, you might design experiments or even provide feedback on equipment purchases, and if you are really lucky and hardworking you may even have the opportunity to submit a first author paper. But that would be exceeding everyone's expectations; needless to say, it will look very good on your application.

Q2: Who are the usual applicants of research assistant posts?

I can't say for sure since I've never been in a position to hire such people. But based on experience and what I heard, the vast majority are either undergraduate students or recent grads planning to apply to a PhD program. Sometimes there are premeds but academics look down on them. There are occasionally people who don't necessarily have future plans, and are just curious about science, or maybe they want to do something related like patent law and decided to get a taste of what it's like in the trenches. I've never heard of anyone doing it just to pay bills, those people will usually have very long term positions (which may sometimes be called "technician", "scientist" or "assistant" etc).

Q3: What's the difference between a research assistant post and an internship in industry?

Interns are usually expected to be short-term (3-6 mo) and part-time (<20 h/wk). The internship will often be coordinated with the university, and may be required to complete the degree, and result in a grade or certificate. These days governments try to crack down on unpaid work, but in practice there may be an (arguably unethical) expectation that interns work for free. Assistants should be longer term (>1 yr) and paid (and thus officially employed and eligible for benefits - interns sometimes "just come"). But the terms aren't too reliable - the goal of the posting is usually marketing first, accuracy second.
The linked post is for an MS student, those can often become involved in their PI's side-ventures depending on how things go. Usually it wouldn't apply to assistants both because their contribution is smaller, they are less independent, and they will soon begin a PhD program where they will be too busy to follow up. It can happen, though, if the professor really likes the assistant and the assistant isn't totally committed to going to grad school right away.

Q4: To confirm, if research assistant posts are indeed on temporary contract or short-term, is there indeed a risk for someone to quit their regular full time industry job hoping that a research assistant post will boost their grad school application profile?

Anyone can quit a job any time. Nobody can make you show up. That's one of the few aces employees have in their deck against employers. However, grad applications give a lot of weight to recommendations. The experience you have won't be as well regarded if there isn't an accompanying letter from your boss praising you to the high heavens and saying in detail what a great job you did and what a golden grad student you would make. Obviously if the boss is pissed off at you for quitting out of nowhere, obtaining the letter might be an issue. However, if you worked with your boss on this, discussed your plans ahead of time, did whatever you could and the boss was still unreasonable the admission committee might take that into consideration. Sometimes there are people who did a stint in a lab and did good work but for some reason their supervisor really didn't like them so when they submit the letters and none of them are from this place they worked at. Then you have to sweat a little explaining all of this in a positive way while writing your SoP and other materials, bragging about how great your experience was but at the same time stepping around the fact that clearly you got your boss so mad you couldn't even get a letter from them.

Q1, Q2 and Q3: Thank you, Superbest! Q4: Thanks for the insight. That's very reassuring. (: My boss here is supposedly submitting a recommendation letter 4 months late (the university - see ETA if you want - is accepting a non-academic based on my ADHD, after about 2.5 months of post-deadline correspondence). Hopefully, it has a lot of weight, haha.

Hello Superbest, what would you say about the relevance of the post applied to and the field I want to go to? How close should they be? For example, if the post is research assistant in molecular biology or Java, but I am thinking of going to graduate school in pure maths, maths ed or applied maths, then what would that mean? You wrote "decided to get a taste of what it's like in the trenches", and my interpretation is that such disparity is not very relevant.

@JackBauer Unfortunately there is no simple answer, it all depends on the PI and admission committee's personal philosophies. The only safe answer is that if you want to get a PhD in X discipline, being a research assistant in X discipline and even the same field will surely not hurt. But you don't always have to be. Best I could suggest is look at what other people have done: Do people in math often benefit from biology or Java experience? Do people with biology or Java experience often go into math? Why/why not? What do math professors say when you ask them whether your experience is useful?

You're mostly on track with your questions, and I wish you luck as you wait for your results and consider your career path. These answers are all in the U.S. context.
Q1: I like your analogy that (externally advertised) research assistant role : PhD student :: postdoc : faculty member. Several friends did research assistance for professors after undergrad and it (seems to have) helped them with their graduate applications. (I'm not sure how much they needed help. It also shows their commitment and gives them a chance to work with a professor whose work they're interested in, putting that prof in a good position to write a recommendation and/or to be a supervisor in graduate school.) Other friends did this while considering whether to get an advanced degree, and then they decided to go in a different direction, or they used experience working as a lab research assistant to go to a related professional school. (The friends I'm thinking of offhand have done this in history, economics, psychology, and chemistry. I am not sure whether the title was exactly "research assistant.")
I agree with other posters that you should look carefully at the content of the job to know whether it will be useful and to make sure you are interested in it. Then again, even fairly limited roles give you exposure to the research. For instance, many research assistant jobs may involve you administering surveys or scheduling lab time or transforming a stack of subjects' completed forms into a usable dataset. All of these give you valuable insight into the research process, but they are not glamorous and hopefully are not the full extent of your job. (If you find these wholly "grunt work" positions, then your suggestion of doing this part-time may be a good one.)
The most interesting and substantive parts of research assistance (writing in-depth literature reviews, designing research hypotheses, etc.) are the ones that lead to authorship. I would not be surprised if these were saved for students. I would not expect co-authorship from a position like this unless you build a very good relationship with the professor, make key intellectual contributions as new projects develop, and explicitly ask about authorship while a new project develops. But being good at a routine job such as accurately coding interview transcripts could convince the professor to give you more responsibility over time.
Q2: The most typical applicant would probably be recent graduates of that same institution. They're already local, may know the professors, and are more likely than the general public to be searching the university's job listings.
Q3: Internships in industry tend to have more structure to them, often with an explicit emphasis on training and perhaps trying to recruit the person to work there full time. Do not expect that your social/emotional/learning needs will be considered as a hired research assistant; you will have to be assertive to get what you need. The contractor mindset seems like a good one to expect.
Q4: Switching to be a research assistant is a risk, but if the industry job is not aligned well with the PhD program that you desire, then it will not move you toward that doctoral program. It sounds like in your current job you have taken initiative and learned new skills (per your linked question)--both essential for being a researcher. However, unless the topic of your dissertation will be about math education for students similar to the ones you're teaching now, I do not think that further experience in that post will help your PhD application.
If you do not get into a funded program this season, I might suggest two things:

Ask your recommenders or previous professors how competitive they think your application is, and think carefully about your fit with both the programs you're interested in and the jobs the programs would qualify you for. If you are still extremely interested in this path, then
Selectively look for research assistant positions.

For each school you applied to, see if those departments are posting any positions you're qualified for.
If not, politely reach out to professors whose work you're most interested in: say that you're extremely interested in their work, such that you applied to the program, and that you're interested in gaining research experience, and do they anticipate that they might be hiring anyone to assist with research, as you did not find any current postings on the [relevant university job board]? (Email subject should foreshadow, e.g. "Expecting any MA-level researcher openings?") These emails are a long shot, but one of them may pay off.
You can apply for such positions at schools near where you are now, even if they are not of the same tier that you are applying to: working with a professor at a non-doctoral institution could still get you good experience and a good recommendation.

This is a good answer except that a RA is typically reserved for graduate students who have already been admitted for study. I’m not sure what the correct term should be, but it’s not RA, at least at most US schools.

@aeismail I believe this is a case where the nomenclature is not logical. (And it may follow because current undergraduates who are working as research assistants might be given similar tasks.) On the following list the Harvard Psychology Department compiled, many full-time jobs requiring just bachelor's degrees are called "Research Assistant". One is called "Research Study Assistant," which seems like a better name but does not seem to be in widespread use. https://undergrad.psychology.fas.harvard.edu/post-graduate-research-jobs

Thank you so much for your answer, listening, reading my previous questions and advice, cactus_pardner! I am considering to apply for a math education degree for 2018-9 (local applicant deadline for a taught master's is still in July 2018) if I get rejected for my other applications or 2019-20 (for PhD in math education; I may still or may not anymore apply for PhD in math/probability), if I still get rejected. So, I might not quit. I will not accept your answer yet in case other users might still answer.


text:
Boost grad apps profile without getting a second master's: Subject GRE? Self-study? Soft skills?
In general, how does one boost PhD admission profile?
In my context, same question but besides getting a master's in pure math. (See here and here)
Here's what I got so far:

Employment not specifically in research for soft skills boost (I have specific career goals in case I am not good enough for academia)
Employment specifically in academic research (I've seen job posts that look for research assistants) for research experience here I think?
Employment as a research analyst in finance
Tests e.g. GRE Subject
Self-study

What else?

work for a professor for a research project like here I think?
Or pay a professor to supervise my own research projects like here I think?

My context:

I have a master's in applied math and want to get a PhD in pure math.
I'm applying to universities that don't require GRE, GRE Subject and IELTS/TOEFL for fluent English speakers.
My bachelor's grades are bad and my non-pure math master's grades are bad.
I've had a lot of research projects in master's (mostly by group) and cannot get very strong letters of recommendation from main research project (sort of a thesis, also by group) supervisors.
I am applying for 2018-9 admissions.

What about the GRE Subject?

I was suggested by one of my professors to study for GRE Subject, but I think that was in the context of his applying to master's having had only a bachelor's.

On one hand:

The GRE Subject may make up for low grades or the fact that I haven't had complex analysis, number theory, graph theory and abstract algebra. Is that right?

On the other hand:

The GRE Subject doesn't seem to show ability for research. Am I wrong?
It just seems to be able to show that you know complex analysis, abstract algebra and other things that, while are expected of math PhD applicants, are hopefully expected to be able to be learned by math/applied math master's holders, that you take exams well, know precalculus or calculus tricks or pathologicals (cf. pathologicals in real analysis are important!) and haven't forgotten very basic facts that you haven't encountered in higher math.
Even if I were to study the basics of complex analysis, abstract algebra, number theory and graph theory I'm not sure that that translates to a much higher GRE score. Does it? Or can it help graduate applications in some other way?
I mean come on, if it's just for the GRE Subject Test, of course I'm just gonna use Schaum's Outlines or a GRE Subject book instead of actually learning from a textbook. I would rather learn from a textbook, but I don't see how the learning beyond the basics is helpful for graduate applications (cf. graduate school).

P.S. Sucks if I don't stand a better chance for boosting admissions through self-study. Sigh. Can't believe there's a dichotomy between doing what is helpful for graduate school and what is helpful for graduate applications, but then again professors aren't the only stakeholders.

If you have not had the mentioned courses despite having a master's degree, then you need to somehow convince the admission committee that you know the material anyway. Those are completely essential basic courses for graduate school in pure math. And while the GRE might not show that you have research potential in itself, it is a prerequisite for being able to do research to actually know the basics.

Yep, I can see you have exactly the attitude admissions committees are looking for in someone switching from applied to pure math.

I'm a current Math PhD student. As Pete says, complex analysis, algebra are very important if you wish to get into graduate school, and, frankly, if you want to feel you belong once you're there. For instance, I went straight from BA with otherwise strong background but essentially no complex analysis— and I have definitely felt that hole many times over the last three semesters. (But: on the third bullet point, the Math GRE is 50% calculus and 25% DEs, or something absurd like this; algebra, number theory, and complex analysis, you'd be lucky to get four extra problems between them.)

I have a master's in applied math and want to get a PhD in pure math. I'm applying to universities that don't require GRE, GRE Subject and IELTS/TOEFL for fluent English speakers.

From the context of the rest of your question, it seems clear that you are mostly applying to pure math PhD programs in the US.  But in that case: more than half of these programs require or strongly recommend the GRE math subject exam.  So I don't understand why you would restrict yourself in this way.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to plan your graduate education and future career around not wanting to take a certain exam.

My bachelor's grades are bad and my non-pure math master's grades are bad.

Well that's bad, sorry to say.  Having higher grades in pure math in your master's program will help a bit, but grades are much more meaningful and competitive for undergraduate students than for graduate students.  (For that matter, what constitutes an unsatisfactory grade is much different for graduate students.  In my math graduate program, a student needs to maintain a 3.0 GPA in order to be in good academic standing.)

I've had a lot of research projects in master's (mostly by group)

Group research projects will not be weighted highly by most pure math PhD programs.

and cannot get very strong letters of recommendation from main research project (sort of a thesis, also by group) supervisors.

And that's also bad, sorry to say.

On the one hand, the GRE Subject may make up for low grades or the fact that I haven't had complex analysis, number theory, graph theory and abstract algebra.

Number theory and graph theory are completely optional classes in most American programs.  Complex analysis and abstract algebra are not.  Not having these courses, especially as a master's student, and wanting to get a PhD in pure math is once again bad, I'm sorry to say.  Complex analysis and algebra are courses that most PhD students would take (or place out of) in their first year in the program.  If you haven't had undergraduate courses in these, you would be starting behind most students with bachelor's degrees.  That you haven't taken these courses as a master's student is yet more concerning: it seems to undermine your stated interest in a pure math PhD program.
The keys to a strong application for pure math PhD programs are:

Good GRE scores.
Good grades received in courses which the committee will recognize as either good preparation for graduate courses or the equivalent versions of basic graduate courses.
Strong recommendation letters.

So I'm sorry to say that your application sounds like it will not be strong on any of these fronts.

How does one boost PhD admission profile...

You boost your PhD admission profile by improving on 1. through 3.

Anything else?

Nothing that is as important as what I've said above.

Is it possible to work for a professor for a research project?

Yes, but in pure math PhD admissions, research projects are not weighted very strongly at all, as has been discussed thoroughly on this site.  Especially, the very few students who can do serious pure math research before they begin a PhD program will (with very large probability) be exceptionally strong on the metrics 1. through 3. above anyway.

Or pay a professor to supervise my own research projects?

Wait, what?  Definitely don't do that.

But on the other hand, the GRE Subject doesn't seem to show ability for research...

Admission to a PhD program is not a debating contest that can be won if you find the right argument.  Overall you seem to be asking how to spin a poor application into a good one.  Well, you can't...or certainly, you can't if that's what admissions faculty realize you're trying to do.  If you want to convince us that the metrics we're using our faulty, here's how to do it: get a PhD in math, get a job at a university with a math PhD program, join the graduate admissions committee, and argue that applications should be weighted differently or that certain metrics should not be used at all.

Even if I were to study the basics* of complex analysis, abstract algebra, number theory and graph theory I'm not sure that that translates to a much higher GRE score. Does it?

I thought you hadn't even taken the GRE Subject exam, so I'm confused when you talk about a "higher GRE score."  Certainly I would advise you to take the GRE Subject Exam now (or ASAP; I think it is too late for the 2017-2017 admissions season) and see how you do.  It is certainly possible to get a good score without this coursework.  Whether it helps to increase your GRE scores is a kind of irrelevant question to my mind...it helps your application a lot to take these courses anyway, and it helps you to take these courses and know this material (some of it more than others, as mentioned above).

*I mean come on, of course I'm just gonna use Schaum's Outlines or a GRE Subject book instead of actually learning from a textbook,

(Probably not the point, but: although students treat "Schaum's Outlines" as being the mathematical equivalent of Cliff's Notes, many old-timers know that you could do worse than trying to learn a subject from these books.  Gian-Carlo Rota famously wrote on this subject, praising several of the books in the series.  When I taught linear algebra a few years ago and spoke to one of my older colleagues, he lent me his copy of the corresponding Schaum's Outline: it was very nicely done in many respects.)
Why "of course"?!?  At this point you've halfway convinced me that you don't actually want to be a pure math PhD student.  You seem to have one or more unstated assumptions that are strongly undermining your stated assumptions.  I can't tell exactly what they are, but I suggest some introspection on this point on your part.

"Research projects [...] discussed thoroughly on this site"... really? I couldn't find this in some quick searches, but those searches did find three threads suggesting the opposite. (Anecdotally, when I was applying for school my professors told me the same three things you did, but also had research experiences as a fourth component. So I was curious and did the search.)

@Eric: I have trouble comprehensively searching this site as well, but I promise that it has come up before.  You can find a lot of other instances by looking through my own answers (and of course you should look carefully at other answers / corroborating information on those questions).  With regard to the instances you cite: only one of them is from someone I'm sure is a pure mathematician, and that person said that undergraduate research will definitely be considered, regardless of the field or relevance....

...If you read it carefully, I think you'll see that it's more in support of the value of doing the research itself than explaining how strongly the research will be weighted.  (That same person has expressed sentiments similarly to my own elsewhere.)  One of the other answers you cite is from someone who seems to admit they are not in math.   I'm not sure about the last answerer ("Dan C"), but e.g. he advises master's students to write "several papers."  This would be great advice for many academic fields, but it's quite unrealistic in most areas of pure math.

Nice answer! I wasn't reading this Stack Exchange group when you wrote it. +1 especially for Especially, the very few students who can do serious pure math research before they begin a PhD program will (with very large probability) be exceptionally strong on the metrics 1. through 3. above anyway.

Regarding "although students treat "Schaum's Outlines" as being the mathematical equivalent of Cliff's Notes, many old-timers know that you could do worse than trying to learn a subject from these books", I took and passed a Ph.D. qualifying exam in linear algebra (in August 1990), a subject I had not studied at all since Fall 1978, almost entirely by going through the relevant sections of the Schaum's linear algebra book. Also, although I knew complex analysis much better, I mostly just studied from the Schaum's complex variables book for that Ph.D. exam (nearly perfect score I think).

Thank you Pete L. Clark. Edited question. Does your answer change much? I mean, I might as well not reapply this year if I'm hindered solely by bad grades and performance during a degree I wasn't completely passionate while I was also not treated for ADHD despite good grades in the pure maths classes, self-study and soft skills developed during master's and the past year. You said 'The keys to a strong application for pure math PhD programs are'. What about master's/MPhil in pure maths?

Can you spend a year taking those particular classes for a grade outside of a degree? I did something similar at a well-respected school in the US and it helped my PhD application. It just helped to reassure the committee.

@Jack: Your question still asks about a PhD program.  However, it is much the same for master's programs, except that (for math in the US) it is very rare for PhD students not to be funded and it is somewhat common for master's students not to be funded.  The keys to a strong application are the same, but many programs will accept you as an unfunded master's student with a much less strong application.

@Dawn well i suppose there's always coursera. anyhoo i might find out next week if i might need to do so. Fingers crossed. Thanks!

Taking them in an academic department as a non-degree student might help with the credentialing/bad previous GPA. You will then have a grade from an accredited institute of higher learning. You can send that transcript with your other transcripts. You should be able to take these as a non-degree student if you pay tuition and have the prereqs.


text:
Where do other countries fall on the US-Europe continuum for PhDs?
My understanding is that for most US PhDs:

applicants are expected a bachelor's but not a master's
applicants are required a statement of purpose but not a research proposal
applicants apply to school before choosing doctoral adviser
first year or two is coursework followed by exams then finally dissertation

while for most European PhDs:

applicants are expected a master's (and has to be a research master's and not a taught master's?)
applicants are required a research proposal
applicants choose doctoral advisor before applying to school
almost no coursework

So:

What countries or states outside Europe and aside from the US are like the US?
Which are like Europe?
Which are in between Europe and the US?

For example, PhDs in Country A seem to be somewhere in the middle:

most PhDs require master's but...
...may waive the requirement if the applicant has bachelor's with honors (or bachelor's without honors but in an honors course or something like that)
some universities require research proposals (and choosing a doctoral advisor first) for PhDs in certain fields but only statement of purpose* in other fields in the same university
some universities require research proposals (and choosing a doctoral advisor first) for PhDs in certain fields but other universities require only statement of purpose* for the same field

*or something which in my opinion is closer to a statement of purpose than a research proposal

Can you clarify the purpose of your question? My initial impression is that the question is falling into the "shopping" category of being off-topic, and your question already answers the more generalized question of approximately, "how do degree requirements for PhD admissions vary across countries?" I would also add that although there is variation between countries, there is also definitely variation within countries across disciplines, so your question probably depends on the specific field of study.

@BryanKrause Curiosity and desire to not be or be seen as ignorant. I mean Japanese universities for example, are they more like the US? Like Europe? Are they varied like HK is? I mean, we can say that generally US PhDs don't require research proposals and that generally European PhDs require research proposals, but we can't say that generally HK PhD's don't require research proposals.

@BryanKrause I mean is it that the generalisation about universities in the US and the one about universities in Europe isn't so general? Also I think such line of inquiry may be beneficial to others so that it may prevent people without master's to call up for example Japanese universities for example only to find out that research proposal is needed and thus they are seen as ignorant.

Okay, I will leave it to others to determine topic relevance; I personally think it would be better if the question was more specific, i.e. referring to Japan and Hong Kong in particular, because you are unlikely to find someone who has a familiarity with systems worldwide who can answer generally, and if you do find someone with that expertise an exhaustive answer would take a whole book.

I like your question because it isn't just US/EU centric. But I must note that europeans had [has] a major influence in how "high" education is done all over the world.

@BryanKrause How about Community Wiki? Alternatively, is it weird if I ask this question for several countries (Canada, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Macau, Israel, etc)  ?

@Llopis Thanks! So you mean you would guess Japan is more like Europe than the US? If you're familiar with Japan, change to a different country please :P

No, I mean that they might follow somehow the same principles. How do they organize is much more culture dependent than anything, and it is almost impossible to guess it.

I think you underestimate the variability of PhD programs within EU. To give you an example, in the last few years we had a few requests from PhD students to do a joint PhD degree with a foreigner university, with double recognition. It turned out that setting up a double PhD degree, even within EU, is a bureaucratic nightmare because of the different requirements: in one country the PhD is 3-years long, in another 4; in a certain country there are certain coursework requirements, in another certain others; in one country the student is assessed yearly, in others in a different way, etc.

The impression of the US system seems overreaching in its assumptions.  The primary difference between the EU system and the US one is that in the US there are usually 2 years of coursework prior to starting research, whereas in the EU you go directly to research.  This means in the USA you have more preparation for the research, but the program takes longer.  Your other generalized statement about the USA do not hold across disciplines.

My experience has been that a master's degree is often expected (outside of the hard sciences) in the USA, and that most programs expect you to write an initial research proposal that is to be revised over the next two years.  Many programs expect you to connect with an advisor who is expected to be your research committee head, though this can change as you revise your research statement.

At ETH in Zurich it is usually the European version, but in Computer Science they added very recently what they call "Direct Doctorate", see here: https://www.inf.ethz.ch/doctorate/direct-doctorate-computer-science.html.

in the US there are usually 2 years of coursework prior to starting research — This is incredibly field-dependent.  In most strong American CS PhD programs, students are expected to start research from day one, even while they're still taking classes.  The "research proposal" only comes together after the student has some results.

@JenniferRaePierce You weren't tagged...

...tagged by @JeffE

In Canada it is standard to have a Master's before beginning a PhD. There are a small number of direct BSc/BA to PhD programmes but they remain the exception. Most universities will admit PhD students who do not have an advisor already lined up, but if you already have an advisor lined up you're more likely to get in.

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


text:
Math GRE Coverage
TL;DR My understanding is that the Math GRE is supposed to test knowledge that is expected of someone who wants to pursue a math masteral or math PhD. So shouldn't it test knowledge that is expected of someone whose bachelor's or master's degree is pure math, applied math, physics or statistics? It seems biased to pure math. Also why is numerical analysis in the Math GRE? How much of the Math GRE is the pure math stuff?

Those who pursue a postgraduate degree in pure or applied math usually have a bachelor's or master's in pure math, applied math, physics, engineering or statistics. Less common would be economics, chemistry or biology.
The Math GRE includes topics that not everyone from those backgrounds have taken up in their bachelor's or master's.
It would make sense that some people would have to study more in preparation for the math GRE (and their intended program). For example:

Those from less common backgrounds likely haven't had much calculus or linear algebra. They likely haven't had any linear algebra, ordinary differential equations, basic probability theory, basic discrete mathematics or introductory real analysis.
Those from engineering likely haven't had basic probability theory, basic discrete mathematics or introductory real analysis.

However, the Math GRE apparently:

includes pure math topics such as abstract algebra, graph theory, group theory, advanced discrete mathematics, topology and complex analysis and seems to do so at a greater extent than ordinary differential equations, basic probability theory, basic discrete mathematics, basic statistical theory and introductory real analysis.

Those from applied math, physics or statistics are expected to know ordinary differential equations, basic probability theory, basic discrete mathematics, basic statistical theory and introductory real analysis but are not expected to know abstract algebra, graph theory, group theory, advanced discrete mathematics, topology and complex analysis.
However, those from pure math are expected to know the latter topics.

includes numerical analysis, an applied math topic.

I would expect very few people who have a bachelor's or master's in pure math to have taken numerical analysis. Far fewer for and.
However, some of those from applied math, physics or statistics may be expected to know numerical analysis.
Questions:

Why doesn't the Math GRE test include more basic probability theory, introductory real analysis, basic discrete mathematics, basic statistical theory and ordinary differential equations than abstract algebra, graph theory, group theory, advanced discrete mathematics, topology and complex analysis?
Why in the first place does the Math GRE include pure math topics such as abstract algebra, graph theory, group theory, advanced discrete mathematics, topology and complex analysis that aren't expected of those with a bachelor's or master's in applied math, physics or statistics?
Why does the Math GRE include numerical analysis, an applied math topic, when very few of those with a bachelor's and master's in math would have taken it up?
In your best estimate, around how many questions out of 66 would one expect to cover topics other than calculus, linear algebra, basic probability theory, introductory real analysis, basic discrete mathematics, basic statistical theory and ordinary differential equations?

I don't really want to look at some of the past or practice exams out of fear of having the exam compromised for me if I were to try them out.

You appear to be projecting based on your personal background and biases. If a department requires the Math GRE, I would presume that they find the data moderately useful. Specifically for your first question - why should they include questions on those topics - they have little bearing on graduate level research abilities?

What does this mean? "I don't really want to look at some of the past or practice exams out of fear of having the exam compromised for me if I were to try them out." ETS has a practice exam available on its website and looking at it is certainly not cheating. If you want to take the real GRE, I would strongly recommend that you attempt it and then review your answers.

It seems biased to pure math - From the description, I would only categorize the "abstract algebra/number theory" as not something I would expect to study for some pursing applied math or probability/stats.  This is only one of 3 topics listed in the algebra category, which itself only comprises 25% of the exam.

@anonymous I believe that the OP wants to not look at the practice exam until he/she takes it, so as to have an accurate measure of his/her score.

Most of the math subject GRE is lower-level material: calculus, differential equations, linear algebra. There is little "pure math" on the exam, in the end; most of the exam is on background material that is useful in all areas of math, but is actually less useful in many areas of pure math than in many areas of applied math.  One challenge with the exam, for some students, is that in their last two years they may begin looking at pure math topics which will not be reflected on the exam.

The choice of topics for the Math GRE is, as far as I know, based on the knowledge that one should have in preparation for graduate study in mathematics. It is not based on what is or is not covered in particular undergraduate programs.

I think this question is opinion-based.  The only real answer to "why does the test cover this and not that" is "the test designers felt that would make the best product".  Certainly others may disagree, or would have done it differently if it were up to them, but as you know, discussing opinions is not the purpose of this site.

@user37208 My grades in basic discrete mathematics and basic statistical theory were low. I dread those kinds of questions but can accept them because they were in my bachelor's. Anyone with pure or applied math bachelor's or master's is expected to know those.

@JonCuster So how does anyone with a bachelor's and master's in applied math get into a PhD program in the US? I can learn all those courses in the PhD program anyway. i'm thinking, if they were so important, why aren't they covered more in the GRE? and if they aren't so important, why are they covered in the GRE at all?

@OswaldVeblen What do you mean by "last two years" ?

@AndreasBlass i'm thinking, if they were so important, why aren't they covered more in the GRE? and if they aren't so important, why are they covered in the GRE at all? Graph theory for example is likely going to be in 1 or 2 items on the test. Why 1 or 2? If it's so important for grad studies, how about 10? If it's not so important, how about 0?

@NateEldredge Did you VTC? How is this opinion based? I'm asking for the opinion of the ones who make the GRE and the ones who require or give credit to the GRE. The GRE is really expensive!

A lot of this can be explained by the notion that breadth of knowledge is a positive factor in preparation for grad school.  Indeed, not everyone will have taken all the subjects covered on the exam; but those who have will get a better score, thus signaling their better preparedness.

@JackBauer Presumably the number of questions on any particular topic reflects the test-designers' view of the importance of that topic for graduate study in mathematics. I would hope that this view is based on information from mathematicians who supervise such study. (I've never been involved in designing such tests, so I'm only describing how it could reasonably be done.) If the coverage of topics in the GRE exams deviated too wildly from what's actually appropriate for graduate study, then mathematics departments would stop using the GRE in their admissions process.

I don't see the point of objecting to the graph theory part of the GRE because lots of people haven't studied graph theory (Question 2) while recommending inclusion of topics like basic statistical theory (Question 1) which many people (including me) haven't studied. It seems that a very similar question (or rant) could be raised no matter what topics were on the GRE and no matter how they were weighted.

@djechlin In my university, engineers don't have basic probability theory as in with random variables, probability distributions, sample spaces, bayes theorem, etc. Maybe just basic probability. I would expect a math PhD-bound economics student to know or have studied calculus as much as someone with a bachelor's or master's in math. I wouldn't expect someone with a bachelor's or master's in eco to know epsilon-delta, mean value theorem, LHR, double integrals in polar coordinates, derivatives or integrals of trigonometric functions, integration by parts

@AndreasBlass basic statistical theory? as far as i know all math majors take up a statistics course which should include topics like hypothesis testing, properties of estimators, etc. anyway i was just assuming. the point is i think the GRE should include only topics expected of all math majors. if that means no stat, i would be glad. there's no argument for calculus, linear algebra and intro real analysis. Ordinary differential equations? I would expect but could be wrong. The point is only subjects like calculus, linear algebra and intro real analysis should be included.

@JackBauer - clearly no applied math graduates are admitted to grad school. Oh, wait, yes they are. Why? Because they take a wide range of courses, including ones valued by math programs.

@Jack Bauer: sorry - by "last two years" I meant the last two years of some kind of stereotypical four year undergrad math degree in the U.S.  The majority of the subject math GRE is calculus, differential equations, and basic linear algebra - which are rarely senior level courses in my opinion.  On the other hand, topics that students may see in their last year are covered much more lightly, based on lists like https://www.ets.org/gre/subject/about/content/mathematics

At the same time, I think there is a rumor, or urban legend, that the mathematics subject GRE is particularly difficult in order to make the scores have a wider distribution. If the rumor is correct, then the test is intentionally designed so that few people (at least few U.S. takers) will have perfect scores, even after having a bachelor's degree in math.  The figure in this answer: http://academia.stackexchange.com/a/13965/16122 shows that the median percentile for U.S. students admitted to Ohio State over some period of time was only 67.

@OswaldVeblen But why majority and not all? Everyone with a bachelor's or master's in math, applied math, statistics or physics is expected to know those 3. Why include anything not expected from everyone with a bachelor's or master's in math, applied math, statistics or physics?

1) Why doesn't the test include more basic and introductory topics? Well, if you're applying to do research in mathematics, one might expect you to have a good coverage of broad aspects of the field beforehand.
2 and 3) The majority of the material on that paper is first year engineering level maths, and first term for people studying mathematics. Other areas shouldn't take longer than a couple days to cover to the level required for that paper.
4) Look at a past paper. The fact that you have an idea as to what is on the paper does not 'compromise' it. 50% calculus, 25% algebra and 25% advanced topics.

When I was preparing to take the old computer science GRE subject test I tried not to look at complete sample tests to keep them for timed practice runs after study.

The GRE is essentially faulting its takers for not knowing graph theory or numerical analysis even if the faulting is worth 1 or 2 points. Seriously, what portion of those with bachelor's or master's in math know numerical analysis? Do you consider such expectation to be valid? If it's so important, why not include more items like those in the test? Why are Calculus and Linear Algebra so important? 2,3) What do you mean shouldn't take longer than a couple of days? If I'm going to study Group Theory for the first time, I'm going need to take at least a month which will be just 1question!

AFAIK, actual past exams of the GRE are not publicly available.  There are sample tests (by ETS and third parties) that are claimed to be representative of the contents of the actual tests, though.

Read the first couple chapters of a group theory textbook, do a couple exercises - couple days work. Its a trivial paper, you're over-thinking it.

Nobody expects you to get a perfect score on the subject GRE. That's not a personal judgement, just a fact. The body of graduate mathematics candidates is diverse in their backgrounds and areas of interest. True, most have undergraduate degrees, but their research interests range across all fields of mathematics. You will score well in the areas in which you are experienced, and you'll probably miss a few questions from the subjects with which you are less experienced. Thats okay; it's expected. The GRE does not discriminate against any area of mathematics.
Also, the vast majority of questions are from fields every math grad student really ought to know, like calculus, linear algebra, and basic analysis. If you have had little exposure to, say, graph theory, don't worry. There will be maybe one or two questions on it, if any.
It is not important that new graduate students be proficient in all of the more obscure topics covered on the GRE, just that they are proficient in some.

"The GRE does not discriminate against any area of mathematics." It does not appear to discriminate against any one or few areas. it appears to discriminate against all areas. It's discriminating against those from pure math by including numerical analysis and those from applied math by including graph theory. My question is why include those if the GRE already knows that some people will have no idea how to answer them? Why not include ONLY things expected of someone whose bachelor's or master's is pure math, applied math, physics or statistics?

How vast is vast majority?

Alex S, so the GRE knows that some people don't know graph theory so why include those 1 or 2 questions at all?

@djechlin sarcasm? well i heard there's group theory but is simple. so someone who knows group theory gets an easy +1. someone who doesn't know group theory gets automatic 0 (or -0.25 or +1). someone who studies group theory spends 1 month for POSSIBLY +1

@djechlin: I would say the GRE is primarily concerned with calculus, algebra and analysis.  I would disagree that grad schools are only concerned with those areas.  I think many people feel that the GRE isn't a very good measure of what grad school success really requires, and is used mainly because it's better than nothing and there are no other viable options.

@djechlin I'm the OP. You downvoted my question? Why? It's like this, if they were so important, why aren't they covered more in the GRE? and if they aren't so important, why are they covered in the GRE at all? Graph theory for example is likely going to be in 1 or 2 items on the test. Why 1 or 2? If it's so important for grad studies, how about 10? If it's not so important, how about 0?

@djechlin CS has basic probability theory? Topology? Complex analysis? Applied math has abstract algebra? Topology? Complex analysis? In some schools CS doesn't have epsilon-delta or mean value theorem in their calculus, I think.

@NateEldredge It's like this, if they were so important, why aren't they covered more in the GRE? and if they aren't so important, why are they covered in the GRE at all? Graph theory for example is likely going to be in 1 or 2 items on the test. Why 1 or 2? If it's so important for grad studies, how about 10? If it's not so important, how about 0?

@jackbauer the GRE has questions from numerical methods, graph theory, and other less-studied areas to ensure that those with high scores have had exposure to at least a few topics in advanced mathematics. Not necessarily all. After my Freshman year in college, I knew enough to pass the Calc and linear algebra portions of the GRE. But I was not ready for grad school. By having those extra questions, the GRE helps make sure that only prepared students do well.

@djechlin Do you disagree that grad students in math really ought to know undergraduate calculus, linear algebra, and basic analysis?

@AlexS okay but after freshman year you didn't know ordinary differential equations, basic probability theory, basic discrete mathematics, basic statistical theory and introductory real analysis, which, I believe, would be expected of someone with a bachelor's or master's in math. why numerical methods (or analysis?) and graph theory instead of those? graph theory seems very biased towards pure math. i doubt someone with a bachelor's in applied math knows graph theory. why graph theory instead of differential equations? probability?

To supplement other comments and answers: first, it is simply not the case that people with (typical...) engineering backgrounds or comp sci backgrounds or economics or ... know nearly enough mathematics to be ready to go to grad school in mathematics.
Also, it's not at all the case that the GRE subject test in math tests what it may claim to test, e.g., as in the question, "what is expected of someone wanting to pursue graduate work in math". It is, after all, simply a multiple-choice test, timed, and very superficial.
It's not that every undergrad in math in the U.S. is expected to know all the introductory-level stuff about complex analysis, Fourier analysis, graph theory, group theory, Galois theory, and so on, but, yes, some good swath of it. So then they'll get a pretty-good score on the subject-test GRE.
I am not so much a fan of the subject-test Math GRE, since in my experience (some decades involvement with grad math admissions) it is a highly flawed diagnostic, and full of curricular inertia besides.
For me, as admissions person, letters of recommendation and personal statement, on top of evidence of substantive coursework or self-study of advanced undergrad or beginning grad-level mathematics, is/are far more important than the subject-test GRE. A thin-coursework background + pretty-good subject-test GRE indicates to me mostly that the candidate is a good test-taker, or prepped specifically for the GRE, but not that they have a solid grounding in mathematics.


text:
Exemptions to taking IELTS/TOEFL/Regular GRE
IELTS/TOEFL
I haven't read up on IELTS/TOEFL, and I don't want to waste time on that if I don't have to. As far as I know, they are testing your fluency in English.
Generally:
Is a significant amount of north american/first world universities really that stubborn as to require their applicants to take IELTS/TOEFL without any substitutes to demonstrate fluency in English?
Well if you graduate bachelor's or master's from an English speaking country like Canada, the US or the UK, I'm guessing there wouldn't be need to take IELTS/TOEFL if you haven't already, but what about graduating bachelor's or master's from a country whose primary language isn't English?
My case:
I was born and raised in a first world Asian country but then later on moved to a third world country (where my parents were born and raised) where I got my bachelor's and master's.
It's sad but despite the above, I'm monolingual. I even got to a foreigners class for the (third world country) language classes in my university even though I wasn't a foreigner.
The school where I got my bachelor's and master's says its medium of instruction is English. My thesis in master's was written in English. All my papers and exams in bachelor's and master's were in English.
Given all that, do I still have to take IELTS/TOEFL?
Actually, doesn't a subject GRE or the regular GRE assume fluency in English? I'm planning to take the math GRE.

Regular GRE
Do a significant amount of north american or first world universities require applicants to take the regular GRE even if they are going to take the subject GRE?
I don't know about the rationale behind taking the regular GRE. It seems that you take such if your intended study doesn't have a subject GRE such as political science or economics?

I did my exams, did very well. Once I joined my school, I was told (by my colleagues) that these exams are required for admission purposes only. In other words, if you do really bad, your advisor can somehow override them if your application is very strong (i.e., multiple publications etc). Keep in mind that scoring high in ielt/toefl can help you in securing a TA position.

I regards to GRE, I took only the general as the subject one wasn't a requirement for most places I applied (it was "recommended"). Managed to get in a couple of places. If I wanted to stay in my current university, the general would have been waived. As mentioned before, if you do bad in the general, it can be overlooked provided you have a strong enough app.

@JohnWayne360 "If I wanted to stay in my current university, the general would have been waived" What is meant by this? "if you do bad in the general, it can be overlooked" But would anyone care about NOT taking the GRE if I somehow had a high grade in the subject GRE in Math? It's because of the verbal component I'm guessing?

@JackBauer "If I wanted to stay in my current university, the general would have been waived" - this means that if I attended grad school at the same university in which I got my bachelor's, I wouldn't have had to submit ANY GRE scores. They would have been waived. As for anyone caring whether or not you actually took the general GRE, the admissions dept. which is different from the math dept. will care. To them, it's a requirement that needs to be met. BUT, if you do well on the subject GRE, the graduate committee will overlook your poor performance on the general.

I don't know what you mean by "first world universities". The GRE is basically only used by universities in North America; are you suggesting that only North American universities are "first world universities"?

@ff524 Apologies. My impression was that many universities including outside north america required GRE. change to US if necessary

If I were you, I'd write a letter to the admissions' departments at universities you're interested in to figure out what they'll want you to do.
I'm in a similar situation (graduated middle school, high school, and college in a non-English speaking country, but grew up in the United States until age 13), and I've already sent emails explaining my situation to universities that interest me. So far I've received a range of answers from I have to do TOEFL to I need to show evidence of living in America to they trust me and I don't need to show anything.
In regards to GRE's it differs from each university and country. In mathematics, you only need to do the GRE's (both regular and math subject), if you're planning to apply to the United States. If you don't want to do the GRE's, check out universities in Canada or Europe which don't require them.

Thanks Noy Soffer :) You wrote "you only need to do the GRE's" How do you know I don't have to do the TOEFL? Why do I still have to do the regular GRE?

It's a requirement for everyone in the United States, even people who graduated in America have to do the regular GRE. In regards to the TOEFL, it differs for each university in situations like yours. Just contact the admissions department and explain your situation to see what they'll say about doing the TOEFL or if just transcripts stating you studied in English is enough.

Good luck with graduate school! :)

"I've received a range of answers from I have to do TOEFL to I need to show evidence of living in America to they trust me and I don't need to show anything" I had a laugh at how wide this range of replies was! I also wonder (tongue in cheek) if sending this single statement to those in the first two categories would be enough to tip them over to the last category.

The "language proficiency" is likely to be a requirement for a study visa to be granted. Even if University agrees to make an exemption, the Home Office (or similar immigration office) most likely will not.
So, you still need to pass an IELTS or TOEFL exam.

because of the immigration office(s) of the united states and not the university(ies)?

There may be other ways to prove English proficiency to get a visa. But many universities are not going to admit you if you haven't taken the IELTS or TOEFL, or if you don't get high enough scores to get a U.S. visa.  Because we want students who will actually be able to come.

Test exemption is a program-determined issue. You should explore the website for a program of interest to see if you are eligible for a test waiver. Many institutions do not require the TOEFL/IELT if your undergraduate program was in English. Check with each program!


text:
In fields that alphabetize authors, which author to contact
For papers in disciplines where the authors are alphabetized, how does one decide which author of a paper to contact for more information? Suppose for the sake of argument that one doesn't know any of the authors even by reputation, so it's impossible to decide that way.

Purely alphabetical author-list conventions and no designated contact author tends to show up in theoretical fields that usually have fairly short author lists.
As such, if you're going to contact the authors and don't know which to contact, why not put them all in the "To" line of your email?

Isn't putting them all in the address like a bit risky? If you put all authors, there's a chance that each individual author could expect others to reply to the mail, thereby increasing the time needed to receive a response.

@AndrejaKo My experience so far with this has been good --- there's often one author who's eager to contact or multiple authors who are all happy to talk with you (and each other).

Oh, that's great then!

I second what @jakebeal says; even if all (or none of) authors' emails are listed, one of the authors usually feels "responsible" for the paper and he'll most likely reply.

Actually, the point of @AndrejaKo happened for me and I use a separate email for each of the authors with the same content and slightly change the title, Dear ... .

@Hadi I strongly advise against that, because you're then essentially asking for duplicate responses, which is likely to annoy the folks you're talking with.

@jakebeal duplicate means ambiguous? e.g. you'd like to access the dataset used in the paper, I don't understand what dilemma could be happened?

To answer @AndrejaKo's worries, a simple fix is to put one author on the To: fields and the others on CC:, particularly if there's one that you think is most likely to be able to answer. This shifts the balance while also allowing them to move it between them and not inviting duplicate responses.

@Hadi Duplicate as in more than one person ending up doing the same thing for you (giving you access, answering a question, whatever), which is wasted time for one of those people.

Some journals allow the authors to nominate a corresponding author and it's usually determined by a little envelope icon next to their name in the paper or on the journal's webpage. If you don't have this information, you might want to check which of the authors is still in academia (as opposed to, say, a graduate student who moved on to industry) and whether you have current contact info. Among those, just pick randomly.

In my experience (in a field with alphabetical authors), "corresponding author" means "the author who corresponded with the journal", not "the author who corresponds with readers".

@JeffE if it is a purely internal matter between the journal and the authors, why would they specify it on the article? (In my field, to clarify, it is usually indicated as "to whom correspondence should be addressed").

why would they specify it on the article? — Pure bureaucratic inertia.  Publishers do not care about cultural norms within research sub-communities. It's easier for all journals to require a corresponding author than for only some.  The publisher may believe, claim, or even advertise that readers should correspond only with the corresponding author, but in my community, those publishers are simply incorrect.

@JeffE while this is true in my experience as well, I still think it can be a useful criterion (if one has no other).  The author that submits will  usually not be the then undegraduate that contributed something but by now has moved on, the expert in a different field that helped out with a specific part only, the author that has most difficulty to communicate in English (or the relevant language in the given case), the author that hardly ever reads their emails, etc.

I agree with what jakebeal said. That's what I usually do - I simply contact all the authors at the same time. In certain papers, it's sometimes obvious which part of the article was written by which author if you look at the other publications of the authors. In that case, you can probably decide more easily who to contact.


text:
Journal does not tell me why they rejected my paper, even on request
I submitted my paper to one of Springer’s journals seven months ago. One month ago I received a letter from the editor-in-chief:

Following a review of the manuscript by the editorial
  board, we have regretfully decided not to consider this work for
  publication. We thank you for your interest in our journal and...

I wrote the journal an e-mail and asked for the review mentioned in the letter, but received no answer. I also wrote to the editor himself (to his personal e-mail), and asked the fair question: “why the editorial board decided not to consider the work?”, but my question was ignored. I have been waiting for one month for the answer.
What can I do in this case? Note that I only want to know the reasons for the rejection.

I suspect your article did not make it to the reviewing process. This is usually the case for articles that are off-topic, incomplete, has no contribution..etc.

But why should it be suspected? Is it difficult for the Editor to write directly that the article is off-topic,  or incomplete, or has no contribution..etc.??

"Is it difficult for the Editor to write directly": To everyone they reject? Yes.

@AE: As a rule, the editors exactly know why they reject or desc reject a paper. Before making such decision, they actually spend "some time" looking at the paper at least. (note that in my case the time between submission and rejection was 6 months). To write "the paper is rejected (or desc rejected) because ..." may take 1-2 minutes at most. If they don't want to spend these 1-2 minutes on writing a very short reason for rejection, one can hardly beleive that they really spent that "some time" mentioned above.

I suspect they are concerned about the possibility of getting pulled into a long-drawn-out discussion of the merits of the paper. Because most people whose paper has been rejected are likely to argue that their paper should not have been rejected. See here: "You say: 'If you don't want to publish me, I want some feedback about why.'
Dating equivalent: 'If you don't think I'm attractive, please spend a few hours giving me a makeover.'" They're simply not paid to critique rejected papers. It isn't their job.

<They're simply not paid to critique rejected papers. It isn't their job.> @AE: Why then do most journals give reasons when they reject papers? I and my colleagues have been rejected (or desk rejected) many times, but never without at least a short explanation "WHY".

@X-ray, perhaps they were kindly going beyond the call of duty to do you a favour. If that's given you the impression that you have a right to such feedback then I think this latest incident has disproved that, don't you?

@AE: Imagine for a minute that no journal goes beyond the call of duty. They exactly do what they are paid for; All poor papers are rejected without giving reasons; Editors keep drawbacks of rejected papers as ultimate secrets. Such situation wouldn't be so promising for the development, don't you find?

"Following a review of the manuscript by the editorial board, we have regretfully decided not to consider this work for publication. We thank you for your interest in our journal and..."

This sounds like an editorial ("desk") reject more than anything else. Hence, there typically is no formal, written review that the editor could forward to you. It is just that the handling editor and/or the Editor-in-Chief have decided that the paper is either of low enough quality, or so clearly out of scope, that running it through the full-blown peer-review process would be a waste of reviewer time. While this is of course a harsh judgement for your submission, the editors are entirely allowed to do this - there is no formal "obligation" that any submission will have to be peer-reviewed before it can be rejected.

What can I do in this case? Note that the only thing I want is to know reasons for the rejection.

Realistically, not much. Of course it would be nice if the editors at least gave you some informal pointers why your submission was desk-rejected, e.g., "I am sorry but your submission is out of scope for this journal", but maybe if your request was combative enough, the editor decided that she/he rather did not want to get into an argument with you about this. Anyway, I doubt that there is an obligation on the editor's side to always fully justify each rejection. At the end of the day, acceptance of papers is always a discretionary decision by the Editor-in-Chief, and not something you can formally object to.

Writing to the personal email of the EiC was a no-no. It further adds to your image as a problem person and further reason why engaging with you would not be productive.   Suck it up and apply to another journal.

@RoboKaren: Well, "personal email" is a bit ambiguous.  My guess is that the OP means that he sent the email to an address affiliated with the EiC's university rather than with the journal.  It is fairly common for the journal's own website to list these editorial email addresses.  In fact, the way you submit to many journals (admittedly, not as many as a few years ago) is to pick an editor and send the manuscript to their "personal" (i.e., university) account.  I don't find this to be intrusive, and I do think that the OP deserves a (not necessarily very enlightening or substantive) response.

I disagree. I do a lot of admin work and prefer that all e-mail that goes to a particular role go to that e-mail address. If you're e-mailing both my admin-specific account as well as my 'personal' account, you're creating twice the logistical headache for me.

I do not think that it is a headache for the Editor to write in a few words the reason for rejection. Is it realy difficult to write, say, "your manuscript is badly-written", or "there are no new results", or "your paper is out of scope for this journal", or something like that? This can be done in a minute.  Otherwise, the journal has low ethical standards.

@X-ray I agree with you that they should have given you a short reason. But they have not. I don't think that this incident is enough to decide that they have "low ethical standards". I think you should let this issue go and move on.

There may be only two cases: 1) The journal sends all authors the same rejection letter without giving any reason of rejection (if they decided not to publish a paper). 2) The journal sends only a part of authors the same rejection letter without giving any reason of rejection. That is, they discriminate in matters "whom to answer, whom not". As to me, in both cases, it is a sign of "low ethical standards". Imagine in a minute that all journals practice the same behaviour towards to most authors. Would it be also the case "Let it go"?

The editors have a two stage screening process. Papers that they consider obviously unsuitable get a simple fixed letter. Papers that are close enough to be worth considering go into a review process, and get either an acceptance or a more specific rejection letter.

If the editors consider a paper obviously unsuitable, they usually send a fixed letter (indicating directly that the paper is unsuitable for the journal) in quite short time. In my case, the time between summission and rejection was 6 months. So, I guess that the paper was peer reviewed. But I have not received the above mentioned "more specific rejection letter".

Even if the OP's email was not combative, editors of journals are wary of entering into correspondance with authors of low-quality rejected papers. There are people who repeatedly submit nonsense to journals, then write to the editors complaining of unfair treatment, alleging conspiracies to suppress their work, etc. Some of them have a lot of time and any response whatsoever tends to lead to being made a 'target' for further letters. Although the OP might not be one of these cranks, it's reasonable for a journal to have a blanket policy of not providing justification for desk rejections,

Is it good to desk reject a low-quality paper after keeping it six months? Can decision on desk rejection require so much time?

@X-ray: You might want to add that information to the question – rejecting a paper without any reason or excuse after six months is definitely out of line. You might want to check first that you did not accidentally miss any communication.

@RoboKaren: The OP said that he wrote to the journal first and got no response.  In my view that is unprofessional.  After trying one venue and getting nothing in return, the OP is justified to try to contact the EiC at his/her professional address.  Maybe this does create more logistical troubles for the EiC.  Being the EiC of a journal is signing up for an awful lot of logistical troubles.  Not responding to someone who has not sent their email to your preferred place seems like an unreasonable reaction to me.  What if the journal wants to use the OP in the future as a referee?

@PeteL.Clark the OP doesn't say how long he waited. If he waited a month, then I could maybe understand, but something tells me that he wasn't that patient.

@RoboKaren: I waited a month, then placed my question here.

Ah, I stand corrected. Well, it seems like the journal isn't run very well, so I would cut your losses and move on.

It does not seem likely that you will get an answer from the journal. The next best thing would be to look among those you know, or those to whom you can get introductions, for people who have had papers published in the journal. Ideally, find at least one experienced professor who is a co-author of a student-written paper in the journal.
Someone who has published in a journal has some understanding of the criteria it applies, including topics and quality requirements. A professor co-author may have guided graduate students through the process of writing a paper the journal will accept.
Ask each of them for their opinion of your paper as a potential submission to the journal. If they all indicate the same or similar problems, that is almost certainly the reason for rejection.

Although 6 months is definitely too long, here is a possible timeline that may cause legit delays in the processing.

The paper is received by the editorial system, and it might get some time to get to the corresponding editor.
Maybe the journal offers the manuscripts to the editors, and it takes some time until and editor picks it up.
Sometimes the editor is not sure about what to do with the manuscript, so it sends it to some colleagues for an informal assessment, asking them whether they think the paper should be reviewed.
After getting mixed answers at the previous stage, the manuscript has to wait to the next editorial board meeting for the decision to be made.

I don't think this explains easily a six month delay, but it does show that desk rejections are not necessarily immediate.

This isn't an answer to this question. (The question has nothing to do with delay...)

@ff524: To be fair, the OP did mention a six-months delay in a recent comment. That is not to say that this really answers the question.